Movie Review

(In theaters, January 2006) Given how Truman Capote himself was a character as much as he was a writer, it’s perhaps fitting that the best thing about this eponymous film would be Philip Seymour Hoffman’s title performance. The rest plays straight out of the low-budget independent biopic playbook, with long shots of empty plains and a finale that seemingly can’t stop dragging on. Students of In Cold Blood will probably find much to like here, but it all too often feels like a fiber-rich film (ie; it’s good for you) than a piece of entertainment. As a character study, it’s not bad, unless you’re not particularly tempted by character studies. Long and not particularly energetic, Capote makes one wish for a film about Truman Capote in manic party-mode. While there’s nothing egregiously at fault here, there also a definite limit to how much one can tolerate.

(In theaters, December 2005) Close the books on 2005 and put this film at the top of the class. Syriana is the kind of film we don’t get often enough: A densely-told geopolitical thriller whose understanding of the world actually seems to be relevant to ours. Resemblances with 2000’s Traffic are not accidental: Oscar-winning scribe Stephen Gaughan here takes on the additional mantle of direction, and the result is a film that places a surprising degree of trust in the viewers’ ability to follow the story. A meaty mix of power, money and weaponry, Syriana studies the web of middle-eastern oil dependency through five interconnected stories, zapping here and there around the globe to show how everything is linked. This isn’t for the easily distracted, the incontinent or the casual “show me a movie” crowd: the plot moves in short sharp vignettes, often beginning and ending in mid-action. The plot has the satisfying quality of a good novel; have a look at the fabulous screenplay (generously made available on-line) for a reading experience not unlike a crackling thriller. What’s more, the film is ably supported by a number of good performances, though it’s George Clooney’s bearded and paunchy “Bob” that leaves the biggest impression. There may not be all that much conventional action here, but it’s more than offset by the sizzling intensity of the film. On the other hand, much like Traffic, this is the kind of film that can’t really be re-watched again with the same impact.

(In theaters, December 2005) It dawned on me, halfway during this no-expenses-spared third version of the classic King Kong, that I didn’t really care about any possible variant of the basic premise and even less about one that gets excited about gorilla-on-blonde action. Oh, I’m not saying that I didn’t enjoy it: After all, there’s plenty of action, some spectacular special effects, a number of intriguing details and slick directorial skills. But the story is too familiar to be of interest, and further leadened by self-indulgence. For a film like this to last three hours is nonsense: There are no contiguous 60 seconds of this film that couldn’t have been trimmed to 40 or even 30 seconds. Despite a lovely historical recreation, the opening New York segment belongs in another film. Several of the action scenes never know when to quit. Worse; the undeterred excess of the film is symptomatic of what feels like a rushed finish to a blank-check project: This is particularly visible in comparing the impeccable CGI for Kong versus the amateur-hour rear-projection work during the ill-conceived stampede sequence. But most frustrating of all is the lack of focus in a film that goes here and there without even slowing down to ask itself fundamental questions such as “can a human be thrown around without having her neck broken” or even “how the heck can one be carried through frosty New York in an evening dress without spending her time bitching about the cold?” It’ll remain a wonder for the ages that a film costing more than two hundred million dollars can’t even bothered to take in account simple observations. The film isn’t bad (chances are that I’ll go through the Special Edition DVD weeks after its release), but it’s frustrating to see that much effort result in such imperfection.

(In theaters, December 2005) There is no doubt that this film exists for a specific reason –to show, through the example of Edward G. Murrow, that people of good faith can gang together to expose the truth. Great. Fabulous. Unfortunately, I had the feeling that Good Night, and Good Luck. preaches solely to the already-convinced: Yes, McCarthy was a bad, baaad man. And then what? As a period piece, this film approaches parody through black-and-white cinematography, typewriter clacks, smoke-filled scenes, casual discrimination and in-show advertisement. Director George Clooney (who also turns in a good performance, though not as much as David Straithairn) it playing a very specific type of cinematic game here, one that charms but doesn’t do much more. If it’s easy to admire the intent of the piece and mutter a heartfelt “right on” at some of the message, it still doesn’t feel urgent or all that compelling. It takes more than a message, even a message with which you agree, to make a film that deserves to be seen.

(On DVD, December 2005) I would have seen this film earlier had I thought it had potential to be good. Fortunately, it’s only slightly better than I expected: a lame collection of jokes about Star Trek strung together in colloquial French-Canadian may be fun for a five-minute sketch, but it starts grating at the sixth minute. Some moments aren’t too bad, but most of the film doesn’t even try for internal coherency. Some silliness is good, but most of it is grating. Worse are the film’s last-act foray in dramatic territory, which never really work. The actors at least try to have fun, and some of it comes through despite everything else. Fans of cheap B-series SF comedies may come to grudgingly appreciate the whole thing. The DVD comes with English subtitles that gamely try to translate the wordplay and allusions of the original dialogue.

(In theaters, December 2005) Once upon a time, I suppose that this film may have been special. But coming in on the heels of an excellent half-decade for fantasy films, it ends up looking like the latecomer who doesn’t know when the party has moved on. Through no fault of the source material, this first Narnia feels rehashed, dull, familiar and even a little pointless. Kids will flock to it, of course, especially given the you’re-so-special plot of the film (“Welcome, humans! Stick around and we’ll flock to your feet!”) Whatever religious subtext there is to the film is scarcely noticeable, but that doesn’t excuse the lack of originality. The special effects hold up, of course: Though everyone else will focus on the Lion, I was particularly taken by the beavers, surely the finest CGI beavers since Men With Brooms. Otherwise, well, the film sputters on fumes of better things. The faun is creepy, the final battle is obvious (Though I thought, for a while, that they would use effective air support) and the kids are sometimes annoying: No small surprise if I wanted to cheer for Tilda Swinton’s White Witch throughout the movie –at least there’s a character who knows what she’s doing. As for the rest, hey, if fantasy’s your thing, you won’t find any purer (read; ripped-off) material this year.

(In theaters, December 2005) It’s unbelievably hard to shake off sarcastic giggles when considering the concept of this film. Thanks to South Park, “pudding-eating gay cowboys” had already entered the lexicon as code for “dull independent films”: Seeing such a film with a real budget and actual Hollywood stars is enough to make anyone smile, as in “aren’t they being a bit too obvious about their pretended edginess?”. Then there’s the amusing thought that gays cowboys are two words which, placed in close proximity, can enrage the Religious Right in another bout of fake culture war. But all of the potential giggles and sarcastic snickers quickly die down once the film gets underway: despite my qualms about director Ang “I killed The Hulk” Lee’s brand of slow-moving period drama, Brokeback Mountain does eventually attain a narrative velocity that makes it hard to dismiss. Sure, the romance emerges almost out of nowhere and the tragic nature of the film is a touch too predictable, but most of the film is spent wondering what will happen next. If nothing else, Brokeback Mountain is far more interesting than, say, Aeon Flux or any cheap teensploitation film in terms of drama. This may sound like faint praise because there are indeed limits to my appreciation of the film: I’m not generally a fan of romantic tragedies, westerns, gay-issue or Ang Lee films. But even despite these serious handicaps (plus the giggle factor inherent in the premise), Brokeback Mountain held my attention and wasn’t as dull as I had thought. Not bad.

(On DVD, December 2005) A charming dramatic comedy from director Gurinder Chadha, (who would later go on to make small gems such as Bend It Like Beckham and Bride & Prejudice), this film studies the life of a few Indian-English women as they make a day trip to Blackpool Beach. The men aren’t far behind, but they’re more like personified problems than actual characters: The real strength of the movie comes as it studies vastly different generations of non-Caucasian women as they relate to England, their own Indian culture and each other. As a comedy, it’s low-octane and leadened by dramatic moments of variable impact. But as a pleasant melodrama, it’s hard to do better than Bhaji On The Beach: Despite a tepid start, it soon cruises along to its own rhythm, and if the schematic nature of the dramatic arc can be a tad too obvious (including a final dramatic moment that seems forced and calculatingly unforgivable), there’s a pleasant flow to the dialogue and relationships. Without too much fuss, this film tackles on weighty issues such as racism, sexism, conjugal violence, cultural incomprehension and the clash of generations. Intimate to a degree that will remind you of its TV drama roots, Bhaji On The Beach is nonetheless a quietly fascinating little film, well-worth tracking down if you were charmed by Bend It Like Beckham.

(In theaters, December 2005) The premise was iffy, the trailer was dull and the casting was unpromising. Small wonder Æon Flux only lives up to the most modest expectations. As SF, it’s pedestrian and wholly recycled from better films. As an action film, it sputters from one scene to another without much regard to plausibility or even excitement. It’s nearly perfect as a piece of cinematic dystopian-SF tofu, though: If all you’re asking is a B-grade film with kooky aesthetics (even though they clash unsuccessfully), this is pretty much it. Charlize Theron manages the neat trick of looking completely unattractive in tight black clothes. Meanwhile, the other actors seem to be befuddled by the wacky sets. A mishmash of dumb science (oh no; not another clones-have-memories subplot!), stupid mistakes (for the last time: a rifle can’t suddenly transform in a machine gun!) and outright indifference (a sister, you say?) cap off the rest of the experience. Aeon Flux doesn’t take a lot of time to reduce its audience to a seething mass of complete indifference: what follows is an almost unbearable wish to see the film end as soon as possible, as it predictably doesn’t. Expect to see it in the bargain bin in a matter of months.

(In theaters, November 2005) Unapologetically directed at kids, Zathura: A Space Adventure will likely bore adults for at least part of the first act. The kids actors are annoyingly good at portraying pre-teen infighting and result is just about as pleasant as being stuck with two real turbulent kids. Fortunately the plot soon blasts into orbit and the rest of the film becomes a lot more interesting. In fact, the film is likely to inspire a heavy bout of nostalgia for anyone who was a kid SF fan: While Zathura is, at best, fantasy with SF gadgets, there’s still a good part of wonder in contemplating, say, a house floating around a gas giant. And that’s not saying anything about meteor strikes, mad robots, stranded astronauts, carnivorous aliens and the other good stuff that unfolds. It’s possible to quibble about the deterministic structure of the plot, the on-the-nose sentimental moments or the weak conclusion, but it’s difficult to do so while entertaining a bit of childlike sense of wonder. Zathura is unlikely to be much more than a blip in the SF canon, but in some ways it exemplifies a lot of what initially attracts fans to the genre.

(Downloaded, November 2005) Non-nerds need not apply for this fan-made Star Trek / Babylon 5 crossover parody. The video is of the muddy digital variety, the acting is amateurish, the script is merely adequate. No matter, though: the film is freely available, has astonishing special effects and frankly deliver all that a fan could ask for, including a slam-bang finale that’s easily better than the latest canon Star Trek movie. A number of series in-jokes and regional gags may diminish the accessibility of the material for even hard-core Trek/Babylon fans (Star Wreck is the sixth instalment in this Finnish parody series), but no matter: Once the first act is over, it gets easier to understand and a whole lot more fun to enjoy. If you’ve got the bandwidth, download it as soon as you can!

(In theaters, November 2005) Writer/Director Shane Black took a long time in coming back to the big screen after hits such as Lethal Weapon, The Last Boyscout and The Long Kiss Goodnight, but the wait was worth it. With Kiss Kiss Bang Bang he manages to deliver a black comedy filled with snappy dialogue, off-beat characters, unusual situations and cleverly-used detail. That it pays homage to pulp detective fiction and is peppered with Hollywood in-jokes is just icing of the cake. Robert Downey Jr is a compelling protagonist (his sarcastic narration is good for a number of chuckles), Michelle Monaghan has a luminous turn as an almost-failed actress on the edge of bitterness and Val Kilmer exudes a comfortable confidence as a detective with plenty of trick up his… underpants. But the star of the picture is Shane Black; he first made his reputation with fantastic scripts, but his first directorial effort portends a number of even better films in his future. This isn’t a classic for the ages, but it’s a whole lot of fun. Fans of criminal fiction will find much to love in this unassuming low-budget effort… provided they don’t mind a bit of sarcasm and more twists than in a yellow paperback thriller.

(In theaters, November 2005) Most military fiction either glorifies the nobility of war or decries its murderous nature, but there’s a little-known third alternative, that of military service as a long stretch or boredom, loosely interrupted by terror, dashed expectations and boys being boys. More or less faithfully adapted from Anthony Swofford’s blisteringly honest autobiography, Jarhead follows the path of a Marine as he undergoes training and is then shipped off to Saudi Arabia just in time for Desert Storm. Director Sam Mendes gives a decent polish to this modern wartime story, but it’s what doesn’t happen that gives the film its unique edge: the protagonist’s testosterone overload is never quite satiated by the war, even though it is likely to end up being his life’s defining moment. Jake Gyllenhaal turns in a decent performance as “Swoff”, but it’s Jamie Foxx who steals the show as a professional soldier who does actually find satisfaction in being a warrior. (Hoo-Ha.) There’s plenty of political resonance between this and the American occupation of Iraq, but readers of the original volume will be disappointed by how Swofford’s explicit critique is here relegated to a minor character’s ranting. Visually, the film has a number of great moments —including a walk through a burning oil field. What doesn’t work so well is the suggestion that there’s a much better picture lurking under the surface, a movie with more daring and more energy. A movie closer to the book, one is tempted to say. Ultimately, Jarhead veers too closely to its subject matter: boredom.