Review: No Country for Old Men

If this was the best picture of 2007, then apparently it wasn't what I'd call a great year for films!

That's not to say that watching No Country for Old Men is a bad way to spend two hours - it's actually an entertaining and captivating film - just that it didn't qualify as "great" for me. I had heard a lot of comparisons between this Coen Brother offering and their earlier gem, Fargo, but I'd have to say that I wouldn't put this in the same category as 1996's North Dakota masterpiece. While Javier Bardem delivers a very affected performance here - enough so, in fact, to win over Oscar voters in the "Best Supporting Actor" race - and Tommy Lee Jones is appropriately wistful in his role as a Texas sheriff unsure of what to do in the face of an emerging drug trade in his neck of the woods, there was nothing to be found here to compare with Frances McDormand's much more endearing Marge Gunderson, or even the laughably flawed Jerry Lundegaard, as played by William H. Macy. Fargo had a lot of heart, despite the occasional gore; No Country for Old Men seems almost entirely lacking in heart.

On the other hand, the story is gripping, and there's an attention to quirky detail evident throughout that's reminiscent at times of Blue Velvet. Why is Bardem's psychopathic character behaving the way he is, as he cuts a path of mayhem through several Texas counties? Who knows, but he certainly does find interesting use after interesting use for his converted cattle-killing device. Similarly, Josh Brolin's almost-hero has a studied approach to every situation he finds himself in, except for the final one... which we sadly don't get to see!

And that's the other major complaint I have with this "Best Picture" winner. Without giving too much away, let me just say that very little closure is provided. So much setup is given to several of the key plot lines, and yet each of them ends with the dramatic equivalent of a whimper (rather than a bang). I'm sure that all of them were carefully thought out by Ethan and Joel Coen, but this particular viewer found the entire experience quite unsatisfying. I guess you could say that I was waiting for the wood chipper scene... and got nothing remotely rewarding. If nothing else, though, I'm more primed than ever to watch Fargo again!

If you like your movies stylish, and don't really care what happens to any of the characters, then No Country for Old Men will likely be just perfect for you; otherwise, you may find that the last half hour of the movie has left a sour taste in your mouth.

Rating: ***

Lost Season 4: Midseason Discussion

How about a Lost mid-season discussion thread? (you might want to stop reading now if you haven't seen the latest "Meet Kevin Johnson" episode)

What I really liked about last night's episode was that it provided closure to something that had previously been left wide open. It's the only episode that I recall where the flashback/flashfoward was the majority of the episode - not much jumping back and forth (which I'm still not sure if I liked or not)

So I thought we were still waiting to hear who the last of the "Oceanic Six" were. Did anyone else watch the trailer at the end?



"All of the Oceanic Six survivors have been revealed" ... so that means Kate, Jack, Hurley, Sayid, Sun and ... Aaron? I thought Aaron didn't count since he wasn't a passenger?

And what's with this "The Island won't let you die because you still have work to do"? If it kept Michael from killing himself, is The Island also responsible for Jack not killing himself on the bridge? Locke not killing himself when he was in the pit of death? Desmond from dying when he turned the key in the hatch? Were there any other suicide attempts? Thankfully The Island allowed for Charlie to die :)

And who killed off Karl and Rousseau? Was that Ben setting them up to be ambushed so that he could get Alex back (my suspicion) or have other others infiltrated the island?

Let's discuss...

Star Wars: The Clone Wars - can't Lucas just let go?

Reading through digg I came across this story about the return of Star Wars this summer.

Lucas offered a glimpse into the latest creation in his sci-fi universe at the theater-owners convention ShoWest on Thursday, showing a sequence from "Star Wars: The Clone Wars," a computer-animated movie due in theaters August 15. It will be followed by a TV series of the same name, to air on the Cartoon Network and TNT this fall.

I get it now - this movie really just a publicity teaser to get an early viewer base tied in to the TV series before it's debut.

"It's like 'Band of Brothers' in space, with Jedi," Lucas, 63, said. "You can tell lots of stories. They come up all the time."

And this quote makes me think Lucas has just gone nuts - Band of Brothers is one of the best TV series that I've ever watched - it received critical acclaim and won a handful of Emmys and other awards. Does he really think that riding out the previous success of the Star Wars franchise really puts this series/story in the same league as Band of Brothers?

Personally, I'd prefer to get my Star Wars fix with crappy youtube videos.

Indiana Jones Fun Facts

Courtesy of the folks at EW, a little something to tide you over till May.

Review: Shake Hands With the Devil

I bought this movie without having seen it for a few reasons. The first was that I have heard pieces of Romeo Delaire's story and heard this was a good film version of that story. The second is because I like Roy Dupis. I liked him in the made-for-cable spin off of "La Femme Nikita" titled "Nikita" - though we always called it "The Michael Show" after Dupis' character. That and the biography "Maurice Richard". I know it sounds like I'm going on and on about this guy, but he is central - essential - to this film.

This is a difficult film, but one everyone should watch. I knew I was going to write a review within the first 10 minutes and so I've been thinking about it over the course of a day. I realized that this film provoked the same sensations as Shindler's List, but somehow more personal, drawing the viewer into the story. The real life tale about a soldier doing his best with the resources he has. The general is depict has a model soldier - strong, stoic, resourceful. That is the acting genius, that I could recognize the public figure Delaire under the subtle facade projected by Dupis.

The film shows how the stunning beauty of Rwanda seizes Delaire, but the tragedy of the situation unfolds with the an informer, the death of U.N. troops, the widening massacre around them they are powerless to stop and finally to the floating bridge that breaks the general.

The film does a good job of telling the story without nationalism, pointless history or racism. There are no loud heroics, no charging into the fray - just quiet, stubborn defiance of a few and the suffering of many. The only parties that may be slighted in the telling are the diplomats - the U.S., French and of course the U.N. administration. I cannot say how accurate this tale is, but the movie aligns with my existing opinions in the matter so I tend to think it is an accurate portrayal. The general is shown with his faults and all the decisions are laid out before us.

I think everyone should watch this film. It will make you uncomfortable and it doesn't have a silver lining. But it should be watched, simply to recognize all those people that died.

Rating: ****

Review: Passion Fish

Passion fish, we're told in the film of the same name, need to be squeezed tightly between your fingers while you "think about somebody you want some lovin' from." One of the two women being schooled in that particular Cajun mythology replies, "I don't need it that bad!" and hands her little fish back, but her companion, permanently paralyzed from the waist down after being on the losing end of an auto-meets-body accident, quietly squeezes hers for all she's worth. That scene, understated, poignant and perfectly framed by the events that precede - and follow - it, epitomizes John Sayles' 1992 gem.

Passion Fish is a Litmus test for anyone who watches it, like so many of the movies of John Sayles. If you're hoping for gun battles, car chases, explosions, sitcom humour or characters whose every move you can predict within the first five minutes of meeting them, then you'd best keep looking. What Sayles delivers here is the story of two women, played impressively by Mary McDonnell (of Battlestar Galactica fame) and Alfre Woodard (from St. Elsewhere and many, many other movies and TV shows) who are both at turning points in their lives. (McDonnell earned an Academy Award nomination for her role here as May-Alice Culhane, while Sayles's original screenplay also grabbed an Oscar nomination.) The two of them are thrown together by circumstance, and theirs is an unlikely alliance right from the start... and indeed, right through the final scene of Passion Fish. After all, these are real people that Sayles is showing us for 2 hours, not cardboard cutouts.

At one point, while the two women and Louisiana tour guide Rennie (David Strathairn) are gliding through the Bayou in the dark of night, Woodard's fish-out-of-water character Chantelle, born and raised in Chicago, asks, "Now are we lost?" Rennie, who knows the waters of that part of the world better than he knows his own children, simply responds with, "No matter where you at, there you is." We're not hit over the head with the applicability of this message to the passengers of his boat, but it's also not lost on us. May-Alice is having to learn how to redefine her life within the bounds of a wheelchair, and her live-in nurse Chantelle has possibly lost everything - in the form of a secret so painful that she initially can't even bring herself to talk about it - thanks to some poor decisions made in her past. Each of them provides something that the other needs, whether it be nursing care or a steady income, but the real point of the movie seems to be that it's the friendship each can maybe offer the other that's really going to make the difference... if anything can. As May-Alice confides to another woman, "I almost feel like we could be friends... only there's so much garbage between us!"

One pair of scenes stands out for the beautiful symmetry that Sayles brings to them. The women head into town so that May-Alice can visit her physiotherapist for a session. On the drive there, May-Alice spots Rennie with his wife and kids, and is temporarily distracted by her own thoughts of longing toward the man who's captured her heart (and for whom she was so vigourously squeezing her passion fish earlier). Later, on the drive back home, it's Chantelle who's lost in reverie, recalling how she'd spent the "down time" in town with a local man named Sugar who's slowly won her over. She "don't need it that bad," indeed, because, unlike her employer, Chantelle is already getting "some lovin' from" who she needs. This is a beautifully-drawn parallel as only a master like Sayles could pull off without calling attention to itself.

The musical choices for the movie are as perfect as everything else about it, providing genuine Cajun flair to the proceedings at several points. That's just one of the trademarks of a John Sayles film, as his chameleon-like ability to take on the appearance of whatever setting he shoots in is once again on display. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear this movie was made by someone from Louisiana, just like Lone Star had to come from the mind of a south Texan, Limbo from a long-time Alaskan, and so on, down through his filmography. That's part of the package that you get when you watch a John Sayles production, and it's one of the reasons I keep coming back, again and again.

If you get nothing else out of Passion Fish - and that's a highly unlikely prospect, I'd say - at least you'll learn why a certain fictional soap opera actress "didn't ask for the anal probe." That scene alone is worth the price of admission!

While not quite at the same level as Lone Star, Passion Fish is nevertheless a nearly-flawless example of engaging and endearing film-making.

Rating: ****

Review: Spider-Man 3

I first reviewed Spider-Man 3 after seeing it at the theatre in May of last year. Last night, I finally got to see it on Blu-Ray in the comfort of my very own home, and I have to say, I enjoyed it even more!

There's so much to like about this movie that it still boggles my mind that some people didn't take to it at all. The effects are amazing, whether it be the sand formations that brought the Sandman to life, the creeping black goo that becomes Venom, or just the mid-air acrobatics of Spidey and Goblin, Jr in their various scenes! As I said to my wife, it's so incredibly well done that, very quickly you forget that they're special effects and just accept them as being real! Some of the scenes toward the end, with the giant version of Flint Marko towering over the crowd, or Venom being separated from his second host, were just jaw-dropping in their ability to bring concepts like that to life.

The dance scenes remain my least favourite, but that's hardly surprising for someone who hates musicals! Having said that, I actually bought the Peter-as-dancing-king moments this time around, since I knew it was coming and could therefore get past the jarring aspect of it more easily. That look on Gwen's face as she realizes that the whole night was about Peter's feelings for MJ, not her, and her reaction of going up to the stage to apologize to the other woman for her unwitting part in it, provided the sort of depth that you don't normally get out of comic book movies.

And let's face it: Spider-Man 3 is a comic book movie. Unlike Batman Begins, which is a great story that just happens to be about a bunch of comic book characters, each Spider-Man film only works if you accept the rules of that particular comic book universe. So having three supervillains, one of whom is Spidey's best friend, another of whom is his uncle's killer, and the last of whom is his workplace rival, despite taking place in a city of tens of millions of strangers, is accepted. (Just like having the main bad guy in the first movie be his best friend's dad, and in the second one a scientist who he'd just befriended, was just taken for granted.) Similarly, the notion of a character suffering a blow to his head that gives him selective amnesia, which conveniently only lasts just long enough to set up a new plotline before wearing off, would be laughable in the real world... but happens all the time in comic books (and certain TV shows).

For pure laughs of the intentional variety, it's hard to beat the moment when the crowd is imploring the hero to kiss the girl (Gwen Stacy) and there's the one young kid screaming, "Don't do it, Spidey!" followed by a look of pure revulsion when the Web-Slinger plants one on her! That's simply the way things work in the Marvel Universe, and you're just along for the ride!

Topher Grace was suitably slimy as Eddie Brock, Thomas Haden Church struck exactly the right note as Flint Marko, and of course Bryce Dallas Howard absolutely killed in her all-too-few appearances as Gwen. What you realize in the climax, though, is that the first three Spider-Man films were really about writer/director Sam Raimi's notion of the "holy trinity:" Peter, MJ and Harry. While I don't share his reverence for that dynamic, I give him full credit for embracing that approach and going for it! This trilogy, taken as a whole, tells a very compelling tale of love, friendship, perceived betrayal and eventual redemption. And anyone who doesn't buy Harry's change-of-heart toward the end of Spider-Man 3 had better not claim to be a big fan of the original Star Wars trilogy, what with mass murderer Darth Vader coming over to the light side just before dying. At least in Harry's case, he had a lot less on his conscience to be forgiven for!

And speaking of such things, I was much more moved this time around by the final exchange between Peter and Flint. Having seen Parker venture so far into the darkness, thanks to his contact with the symbiote, it was all the more telling of his strength of character when he said, "I forgive you." That was probably the single most heroic thing that he did in the entire movie!

As the credits rolled, my wife Vicki asked, "How could people not like that movie?" She took the words right out of my mouth.

Rating: *** 1/2

Review: Lady In The Water

M. Night Shyamalan's Lady in the Water probably isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's certainly in the running for that dubious honour. It wasn't just the laughably crappy plot, the amateurish camera work that often seemed to be out of focus or simply poorly-framed, or the pervasive feeling of "oh, look, here comes yet another colourful character who's completely unlike anyone you'd ever find on the face of the Earth" - although all of those criticisms are, if anything, too kind - but also the fact that this writer-director is responsible for one excellent movie (The Sixth Sense) and two very good ones (Unbreakable and Signs). Was Shyamalan on crack when he wrote, directed and produced this, or simply recovering from a serious head injury? What else can we conclude from the fact that, in addition to everything listed in that earlier sentence, he also cast himself in a key role... as the writer of "The Cookbook", a political novel that, we're told solemnly, will eventually change the course of human history (for the better, too! Whew! He's one fine writer, that guy!)

I get that this was supposed to be a modern fairy tale. It came with its own set of rules - fortuitously provided to lead Paul Giamatti thanks to the placement of someone within his apartment block who'd conveniently heard the tales as a child - and the patented M. Night twist-a-ramas, which in this case were that nobody was actually playing the role that they themselves thought they were. But oh my, this is a steaming pile of poo! In a better film, I might have been taken out of the story by the scene in which Giamatti swims down about thirty or forty feet into some sort of "Narf chamber" and spends several minutes underwater, exploring. Oh, but Shyamalan is so very clever and shows the man finding an upside-down shot glass with air trapped under it so that he can get a burst of oxygen - never mind that, up to that point, he seemed capable of holding his breath effortlessly for three or four minutes (try that sometime). But again, this was all just more coal to Newcastle by that point in the proceedings.

The Village, Shyamalan's previous offering, was quite a letdown from his original three features. It has to be said, though, that Lady in the Water accomplishes the near-impossible, by making The Village look like High Art by comparison! And the "everything happens for a reason" ending of Signs, which I quite enjoyed, is absolutely undercut and rendered ridiculous by this travesty, especially when the guy with the "one strong arm" comes back on-stage near the conclusion so that he could wield a pool skimmer against the evil grass-wolves (if only I were making this crap up!)

It's sad to see Bryce Dallas Howard wasted in something like this, but I guess everyone's entitled to one turkey!

Run, don't walk, away from Lady in the Water!

Rating: 1/2