Movie Review

(In theaters, April 2009) I remain severely conflicted about this film: While I admire its go-for-broke audacity, it carries along the unpleasant smell of moral decay. I’m a sucker for any kind of cinematic experimentation, especially in the action genre –but there was a clear moment in the film, as a stripper’s fake breasts start pouring silicone from a well-placed gunshot, that I realized that my moral integrity was being forever tainted by the excesses of this picture and everything it represents about the state of contemporary cinema. This film is about movement and thrills: its human characters are mere flesh puppets to abuse in the pursuit of ever-more nihilistic visual flashes. Sure, Ling Bai is a whirlwind dervish, and Jason Statham is just as solid as ever. But little is redeemable about this film, not when it sacrifices basic logic and decency in the pursuit of cheap laughs and gross-out moments. Most will agree that Crank 2 is fantasy cinema, and various elements such as a character running around with an artificial heart, fighting like Godzilla and throwing away disembodied heads will only underscore this. Yet there are moment in this film that can’t be unseen, and it may not be too late for a moment of stark moral reflexion: This film only enables the next and worse step that will push the boundary of moral disgust even further. Have I really written this review? Crap, I’m getting old.

(In theaters, April 2009) There’s nothing deep or subtle about this pure B-grade action-fest, and that’s quite all right: For all of its faults, plot-holes, impassive protagonist or by-the-numbers direction, 12 Rounds understands that it’s there to deliver some car-crushing, house-blowing, fist-fighting action. And that it does, thanks to a simple high concept that requires our square-jawed oxen protagonist (Wrestler John Cena, in a decent follow-up to his role in The Marine) to run all around New Orleans to stop a master criminal/terrorist from killing his girlfriend. It the kind of movie where a trip to Point A to B turns into a demolition derby with a firetruck. Renny Harlin’s direction is just enough above hum-drum to make us care, but this is the kind of film where the audience has to bring its half of the fun. It thankfully doesn’t take itself too seriously, and if the result may not linger too long in memory, it’s about as good as middle-grade action cinema can aspire to be. Not bad, all things considered.

(In theaters, March 2009) As someone who has read the original graphic novel about four times since the mid-nineties and owns the deluxe slip-case Absolute Watchmen edition, I’m really not the reviewer to go to for a cold appreciation of the film as a film. But as an adaptation of a dense and iconic source, it’s about as good as it can reasonably be: the thrill of the film becomes the variations where director Zack Snyder (who here directs his best film to date) plays a bit with the source. The opening credit sequence is a wonderful example of respectful deviation, and the squid-less ending actually works better than the book in reinforcing the whole “you must kill your gods” theme of the material. Not so good is that the implicit thematic rumblings of the source become dull explicit dialogue when they’re simply not left behind entirely. (I suspect that for all of the gore in the film, it’s a bit thematically bloodless, and never quite gets down to ordinary people) Meanwhile, the soundtrack choices are of the hits-you-on-the-nose variety. Characters are faithfully rendered, although some (namely, Silk Specter II and Ozymandias) shine less brightly than others. While the film is more than two-and-a-half hours long, its never feels dull –although the pacing of the film felt far less urgent than I would have preferred. On the other hand, there’s a lot of material to process here, especially for those who can’t quote the lines along with the character. I hope that the upcoming DVD extended edition (which I will faithfully buy) works a little bit better as a film rather than an adaptation. But you will have to ask others regarding that, because at the moment, I’m a happy fan.

(Downloaded, March 2009) They say that you can find anything on the Internet, and that’s usually a code phrase to describe the depravity of humanity. But it also includes the best along the worst, and so it’s thanks to the Internet that we can download and view the absolutely delightful animation film Sita Sings the Blues, an endearing mixture of Indian mythology irreverently remixed with American jazz songs from the 1920s. It doesn’t sound like much (and the first ten minutes are a bit too long), but when it gets cracking, it’s utterly charming. Deftly mixing four levels of narration with tons of hilarious sight gags, cleverly integrated music and lush visuals, Sita Sings the Blues exudes artistic merit and entertainment, stomping over most Hollywood features with ease. It’s a lot funnier than it has any right to be, and the animation is an eye-popping mixture of styles and approaches. It’s coquettishly feminist, intensely personal, multi-layered and toe-tapping infectious at once. A gem, purely and simply.

(In theaters, March 2009) I have no knowledge of the original book/films, so never mind me when I say that this often smells like a moldy old remnant from the Close Encounters of the Third Kind era. The problems start at the source, I guess: As Science Fiction, this “kid alien must fight the government return to their flying saucer” is so trite and basic it barely qualifies as SF. It seems radically out of context nowadays, and it’s the rare flashes of self-awareness from the script that make it all tolerable. Dwayne Johnson makes a capable protagonist, but there’s little that’s distinctive here, and that stands for the film as a whole: Not terrible, but hardly memorable, although some vocabulary choices, overall level of violence and a generally cynical world-view in which kids are taught to trust ex-cons against the government may push the limits of the genre’s kiddy-creds. The script is generally too dumb for adults, while pushing action a tad too far for the kids; who knows who’s left to watch? Despite some older-skewing gags here and there, the linear plotting is definitely for the kids. Among amusing gags to watch for is a cameo by Whitley Strieber. Otherwise, well, it’s a film headed straight for cultural amnesia.

(In theaters, March 2009) Although still not quite as consistently polished as the Pixar films, this latest Dreamworks effort is a definite step in the right direction. Starting as an homage to horror B-movies (Attack of the 50-ft Woman. Creature from the Black Lagoon. The Fly. The Blob; and Mothra), Monsters vs. Aliens quickly becomes a generally satisfying action film for kids, mixed with a few jokes for the grownups and a sly message of female empowerment. The uneven script mixes unsubtle moments with a number of sharper jokes, but it sometimes push farther in one direction than you’d expect: the portrait of the renamed heroine locked away as a strategic resource is unsettling, alas dropped at the first opportunity. The rest of the film is a carnival of strong action sequences and one-liners. It’s pretty spectacular in 3-D, but doesn’t rely on it as blatantly as many similar films. It’s a short film, and it seems to go by even faster. While a more solid script would have been a blessing, there isn’t much here that’s blatantly wrong. Best of all, it should have enough content to please both the kids and the adults.

(In theaters, March 2009) What a strange, strange film this is: A mixture of impressive scenes loosely connected by a tissue of stiff characterization, convenient coincidences, and lame textbook screen-writing. It starts as a middle-of-the-road supernatural thriller, but watch out –because the last twenty minutes are pure hard-core apocalyptic Science Fiction. (Fans will know what to expect when I mention Childhood’s End and The Forge of God.) In-between, there are two stunning and vicious disaster sequences, a couple of mildly enjoyable sequences and suburban fun with power tools and fast pickup trucks. Director Alex Proyas has a number of surprises in his bag, but it’s a shame that the whole of the film can’t cohere: Nicolas Cage doesn’t help with a bland performance, and the carnival of convenient plotting does nothing to lend the film any credibility. This being said, the high points are high indeed: the subway crash is a piece of high action cinema, but the plane crash alone is an anthology piece, pieced together to form a nightmarish single shot that lasts much, much longer than anyone would expect. See it for the high points, don’t have high expectations and you may be pleasantly surprised.

(Downloaded, March 2009) Best known as “the film that inspired Twelve Monkeys”, this film is often lauded as a small masterpiece of experimental sixties filmmaking, or hyped as better than the Hollywood rip-off. But those for whom “experimental” is synonymous with “uh-oh” may not be overly impressed: The central conceit of telling a story through narration over still black-and-white pictures is the kind of thing that works better in practice than in theory, and the film is about twice too long even at just 26 minutes. Fans of the Terry Gilliam film will notice that this has a rather more optimistic fillip into the future, but otherwise the story is broadly similar, with a narrative closure that can be seen coming from the very beginning. In SF terms, there isn’t much here to satisfy, with a basic time-travel plot that is barely justified or rationalized. The rest feels very French-Sixties-experimental, which may or may not be a selling point.

(In theaters, March 2009) High-intensity romantic films for adults aren’t that common, so it’s a bit of a treat to see writer/director Tony Gilroy turn from drama (Michael Clayton) to comedy with a smart romance set in the world of corporate espionage. He’s an ex-MI6 agent-runner; she’s an ex-CIA infiltrator; but together, they commit crime! The only problem is, can they stand each other long enough to get away from the prize? Do they really love each other, and how can they be sure of it? Clive Owen and Julia Roberts are wonderful in the lead roles, and if the result can occasionally turn in circles, it’s a clever film that does a nice job at asking the audience to keep up. The look at corporate espionage alone is a unique mixture of high stakes and ridiculous rivalry: the complexities of frozen pizzas have seldom been so amusing. The ending is bound to surprise and maybe even disappoint a few, but it’s one of those conclusions that make more and more sense the longer you think about it: the last shot ends up being a perfect conclusion to one of the film’s lingering questions.

(On DVD, March 2009) This low-budget, high-cheese short (45-minutes) film has quite a few things going for it: a new concept for straight-to-audience Internet fiction, a trio of capable leads, some clever writing and a delightfully oddball sense of humor. Superhero romantic musical comedy? Well, it’s no Repo but it’s not uninteresting. With Joss Whedon at the pen, it’s both geeky and funny, although the late turn into drama smacks more of gratuitous shock than a satisfying conclusion. The DVD has a number of extras over the Internet version, although it’s not as clear as it could have been in explaining the whole direct-Internet-distribution for people coming at the piece cold. On the other hand, it does feature a massively overproduced audio commentary in the form of a musical, plus another more regular commentary. A few more extras (including ten fan-made videos of uneven quality) round off the disc.

(In theaters, February 2009) I’m never too fond of the tragic dramatic arc, especially when it’s applied to characters who are somewhat sympathetic. And that may be the greatest achievement of Mickey Rourke in portraying the titular washed-up wrestler: Give us the impression that despite everything else, he’s still a winner. But don’t expect glam or triumph here, as we go from New Jersey strip clubs to New Jersey gyms and New Jersey small auditoriums. The Wrestler is trying to piece his life back together, but as all great tragic heroes, he’s got a few flaws that make it impossible for him to do so. The film ends in mid-flight, but the ultimate conclusion is clear. Harsh and gritty, at times too much so, The Wrestler isn’t a particularly good time at the movies, but it knows what it’s attempting to do, and it revolves around a fabulous performance. Compared to most of the Oscar-worthy class of 2008, it’s already not too bad.

(In theaters, February 2009) It’s Nazis-versus-Nazis in this film adapted from one of World War 2’s most intriguing footnotes: the culmination of various plans by Germans to assassinate Hitler and seize control of the government. Of course, the fact that the plot remains a footnote is the biggest problem facing the film: We know that it won’t succeed, and we can guess the fate that awaits the co-conspirators. But working within those limits, Valkyrie accomplishes a modest success: It creates enough suspense even through a tremendous amount of exposition, and seems to remain generally true to the historical facts even when they don’t suit the purposes of a conventional thriller. Tom Cruise himself is competent in the lead role, although the often-unrecognizable group of high-caliber actors that surround him often given more remarkable performances. It all adds up to an entertaining, respectable film, made with old-school polish. (There’s also a few strong links to be made between this film and other recent German depictions of WW2 from inside the Nazi regime, like Downfall and Black Book) Hollywood has a hard enough time with facts that any half-decent attempt to stick to them should be applauded.

(In theaters, February 2009) In the small universe of exploitation thrillers, there are few surer recipes than the old kidnapping plot. This one complicates the formula a bit by putting an A-list dramatic actor such as Liam Neeson in the protagonist’s role and making him an ex-CIA operative with serious skills. The rest is pure crunchy B-movie fun, with little deviation from the expected conclusion. It may not be deep, but it’s competent to such a point that it’s hard to believe that the same screenwriters responsible for this script also wrote the flaccid Transporter 3. Still, co-writer Luc Besson’s heavy touch may be lighter here, but it’s hardly unrecognizable: the French police forces are just as reliably corrupt as in his usual films, and he can’t resist goosing the premise with an over-the-top white-slaving excuse. The direction is unequal (the hand-to-hand combat is good, for instance, but the car chases are incoherent), but the whole film generally holds up better than most B-grade thrillers seen lately. Neeson gives the film some unexpected gravitas that goes much to make it look respectable. Hardly memorable, but generally irreproachable.

(In theaters, February 2009) For a feel-good movie about getting the money, the girl and the dream, this film will make you feel bad for quite a while. It’s hard to do otherwise, though, when picking characters out of the most unbelievably poor slums of Mumbai. The conceit that drives the tale (quiz-show questions alluding to the character’s life, as shown in flashbacks) is nothing short of clever, and the most interesting thing about the film may be how deftly it starts weaving through three time-lines, building a story out of snippets. As a look at contemporary India, it’s as depressing as it’s exhilarating, reflecting the real-life disparities to be found there at the moment. This being said, the payoff is long in coming, and the film’s self-assurance in building its premise isn’t always carried through in the lengthy over-explained segments that make up the bulk of the film’s content. Fortunately, the three set of lead actors are charming, and it all builds up to a great finale. In some ways, it’s old-fashioned film-making married to hip contemporary global awareness, and that’s got a lot going for it; no wonder the film did well on the Oscars nomination roll.