Lions for Lambs

September 27, 2008

Lions for Lambs (2007) **1/2

Directed by Robert Redford

The best thing Lions for Lambs has going for it is its running time of ninety minutes. There’s so much talking in the movie that another half an hour would have had me running to my medicine cabinet for some Excedrin Migraine. You’d think a movie directed by Robert Redford, who directed Ordinary People which is my favorite movie of all time, staring Redford, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep would be something worth watching. Actually, I barely included it on my list of films from 2007 that I wanted to see. Critics absolutely panned this film as terrible, and I even saw it appear on some worst of the year lists. I’m glad I watched the film, and the good news is that it’s certainly better than I thought it was going to be. That’s not saying much though since ultimately I can’t recommend it.

The screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan feels like a script for a bad episode of The West Wing. Carnahan tries to be Aaron Sorkin by presenting complicated political jargon, melodramatic climaxes and high speed back and forth dialogue. The only thing that’s not Sorkin-esque is the fact that characters aren’t talking to each other while walking briskly down hallways. Unfortunately, Carnahan doesn’t execute any of the three comparisons I just mentioned anywhere near as effectively as Sorkin.

The political arguments made by the six main characters have become completely cliché. Why stay in the war on terror? Because losing makes our country vulnerable to more terrorist attacks. Why have so many colossal mistakes been made in the management of the war in Iraq? Well, that’s not as important as what we do now and in the future. It’s questions and answers like these that had me feeling like an expert in the two wars we’re fighting. Well, truth be told, I’m no expert at all. It’s just that I’ve heard these arguments over and over again. Lions for Lambs simply uses megastars to articulate them.

The movie transitions between three conversations. The first takes place between powerful Republican Senator Jasper Irving, overacted by Tom Cruise, and a liberal television journalist named Janine Roth, played by Meryl Streep. At the beginning of the interview that transpires, Irving tells Janine that he trusts only her to write a story about the U.S. plan for a new offensive in Afghanistan which may change the entire direction of the war. Yet, almost immediately, we see that she’s quite left of center in her political beliefs and doesn’t buy into his hawkish ideologies. Later he says that he has no patience for the way the media demonizes the military. So tell me again why the Senator trusts only Janine with this story? Was Bill O’Reilly busy that day?

Cruise gives a bad performance as I’ve already mentioned. However, the real shocker lies in Meryl Streep’s monumentally terrible acting in Lions for Lambs. She’s playing the reporter with an odd mix of phoning it in and taking it too seriously that you’ve got to see to believe. She comes across with a bizarre combination of seeming carbed up for a marathon while ants are crawling all over her skin. She’s hyper and fidgety from beginning to end, playing the fact that her character is intimidated by the senator’s power way too obviously. No one can argue that these two have on screen presence like few other actors in movie history. Here’s hoping this film will be forgotten about all together for their sakes.

An uneven second story involves two soldiers who fall out a helicopter in Afghanistan and survive. Let me say that one more time—they fall out of a helicopter and survive! Good for them I suppose. How they survived a massive fall like that would most likely make for a better film than this one. Ernest (Michael Pena) has a compound fracture on his leg which leaves him immobile. His best friend from college Arian (Derek Luke) conveniently falls five feet away from Ernest which is amazing considering that Arian jumped at least twenty seconds after Ernest fell. Things aren’t looking up for these two because first of all, Ernest’s leg is stuck in the snow leaving him immobile as well, and second, Taliban forces are closing in. The entire film plays up the fear of being captured alive and tortured. Irritatingly, the film ends in a way that throws these fears right out the window.

Pena and Luke give fine performances. They also appear in a political science classroom giving a presentation unlike anything I’ve ever experienced in my college classes. The other students yell comments at them as if they were in a midnight showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. The cheesy ending rings completely false, and their somewhat selfish motives for enlisting in the first place do nothing to contrast the argument against apathy that’s presented in the third storyline.

This final conversation, also the film’s best, occurs between Robert Redford and Andrew Garfield. Redford plays Stephan Malley, a political science professor who has a gift for recognizing and nurturing the potential he sees in some of his students. Garfield plays Todd Hayes, a gifted but spoiled student who has been missing Redford’s class after beginning the semester with so much drive and ambition. This dialogue is meant to show the hypocrisy that some young people make by complaining about the world and then disengaging with the process of changing it for the better. While their conversation takes too many twists with Redford’s intentions remaining a partial mystery until its conclusion, both actors deliver appropriately subdued performances making every bit of their over the top dialogue ring as true as possible. Garfield is the star of a film released this year called Boy A. I look forward to checking that one out soon, more so now that I see this kid’s talent. Acting opposite Robert Redford in a film he directed must have been intimidating.

There’s too much ambition in a film with a screenplay by a guy that I’m not sure has the talent to pull it off. I’ve been watching quite a few movies about the present wars over the past couple months, and I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s extremely hard to make a good one at this time in our nation’s history. Every film seems to hold back in its praise or condemnation almost as if filmmakers don’t want to be seen as being on the wrong side of the unfolding debate. Maybe the War in Iraq will ultimately prove to be successful. Personally, I highly doubt it. Therefore, I wish a good film would emerge with the balls necessary to deliver a strong condemnation. Lions for Lambs is so timid in its exploration that it absolutely adds nothing at all. Ultimately, though, its success should be judged as a film first, and on that note, Lions for Lambs receives a solid C—it’s average at best.

Trainspotting

September 27, 2008

Trainspotting (1996) ****1/2

Directed by Danny Boyle

First of all, I’ve got to say that Trainspotting is one of the most unique and unforgettable films I’ve ever seen. I’m looking forward to watching many of the films in my J.M./Chazz Marathon precisely because they’re offbeat—such as Requiem for a Dream, The Science of Sleep and Paranoid Park. At this point, I’d find it hard to believe than any of those three films are more provocative than Trainspotting. Do any of those films have a scene like the one which involves a character defecating into an unbelievably disgusting toilet and afterwards reaching into the toilet only to get sucked in completely where he emerges underwater in a vast ocean? It took every bit of will power not to turn the film off during that scene. I’m glad I stuck with it, though, because sometimes despite its strangeness and other times because of its strangeness, Trainspotting ultimately proves itself to be powerful cinema.

Trainspotting has a great deal to say about illegal drugs, and yet, it’s not passing judgment either way. John Hodges’ screenplay, based on Irvine Welsh’s novel, doesn’t attempt to tell us how we should think. Instead, Boyle shows extreme images of both the immense pleasures and destructive potentialities that come from regular drug abuse, specifically heroin. I don’t know much about Irvine Welsh, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that his novel was autobiographical. Trainspotting’s plot plays like it was written by a one-time addict who was completely out of control of any aspect of his life. Therefore, there’s no stored energy left to pass judgments within the film itself concerning what’s going on. In order to break free of heroin’s stronghold, Renton (Ewan McGregor) is going to need to commit every fiber of his being into breaking free, and since he’s so addicted, odds are strongly stacked against him. That’s all he’s able to focus on which leaves no room for self-reflection. Heroin’s a dangerous foe, and Trainspotting makes that painfully clear.

On the other hand, Boyle doesn’t hesitate to portray the euphoria and total escape that drugs do provide for a period of time. Looking at the characters' feelings of bliss, I was thinking to myself that I never feel that good. In a strange sort of way, I was in awe of their experiences. This attraction is precisely what leads so many into experimenting with drugs. Yet, the glorification of the high itself can still be seen as a warning sign against shooting up. The pleasure these people experience is so intense that first of all, they naturally want to feel that way as often and for as long as possible, and second, feeling “normal” actually becomes painful in comparison.

I will admit that there’s a little bit of a double standard in Trainspotting. So much of the imagery and the visual style is quite trippy, and therefore, people who revisit this film may want to do so while they’re high to experience it in that way. While I don’t believe an anti-drug message is the only conclusion one can take away from this film, I will say that it’s exactly what I took away. As such, I’m a bit disappointed in the sad irony of this being known as a great film to watch while on drugs.

Still, Boyle’s obviously trying to show these messed up individuals from their own perspective and introspection, and because of this, it logically follows that the film ought to try and visually represent a heroin high as strongly as possible. In this regard, Boyle succeeds perfectly. Irony shows its teeth once again in the film’s best scene where Renton suffers through a nightmarish withdrawal process complete with terrifying hallucinations. A character who shows up in earlier scenes who doesn’t say a word (I think you’ll know what I mean if you see the movie) makes an unforgettable, Exorcist-like appearance during this horrific sequence. An earlier scene involving this character is heartbreaking, and yet it felt one hundred percent accurate. Another related character begs for a fix during what may seem like the worst time to desire one. Yet, it’s exactly what a heroin addict in that situation would desire. Notice who gets his fix first? Tragically authentic once again!

The final forty minutes of the film involves Renton, now clean and sober, living in London when his drug buddies show up in order to take advantage of his responsibility. Renton provides them with a place to live. With these enablers in his life, it’s not surprising that he falls off the wagon. Ultimately, he becomes involved in a drug sale which brings him to a deciding point in his life. Should he allow things to continue and follow the inevitable path to destruction that’s sure to follow? Or should he break free once again? There’s no happy ending to Trainspotting per say. Instead, the film leaves Renton’s fate up to the viewer to decide. This makes perfect sense considering that the visual portrait of drug abuse is much more important than plot in this movie.

Trainspotting reminds me of another twisted, controversial cult film called Kids. Both films dive headfirst into the worlds of characters that we wish didn’t exist at all. Both films show lives ruined forever because of the vices that are showcased. Kids examines unprotected sex in the same way Trainspotting showcases heroin. The better film by far is Trainspotting because it remains consistently effective in tone and style, which is quite the accomplishment considering how off beat its tone and style both are. Kids begins like a gritty documentary and ends with a narrative that’s all too neat and tidy. Trainspotting is messy and muddled presenting the world through the eyes of a character that has sabotaged his own relationship with reality. In every strange moment of Danny Boyle’s tour de force, there’s a genuineness that must be applauded. Whether one watches Trainspotting high or decides not to get high after watching Trainspotting, this film is a great achievement.

Tribute to Paul Newman

September 27, 2008

Tribute to Paul Newman

One of the greatest actors in film history died today after losing his battle with cancer. He was 83 years old. His marriage to Joanne Woodward is one of the great long-lasting Hollywood marriages. Their fiftieth wedding anniversary was celebrated this past January 29^th. His life off-screen was as admirable as his iconic onscreen performances. He became one of the great Hollywood philanthropists as well as an extremely successful businessman making millions off his salad dressings alone. My guess is that his handsome face on the labels of the bottles certainly didn’t hurt sales one bit. I just read that every penny he made from his over $100 million business went to charity. What a truly great human being!

And what a truly spectacular actor! He started out guest starring on many television shows in the 1950’s. In the late 1950’s, he transitioned into feature films such as Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and The Young Philadelphians. The 1960’s proved essential to Newman’s success and I’d argue that Newman’s success proved essential to the 1960’s as well considering that he’s one of the great icons from that decade. His films from the sixties included Exodus, The Hustler, Hud, Torn Curtain as well as his two most iconic roles in Cool Hand Luke and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The 1970’s also felt Newman’s powerhouse acting influence with such classics as The Sting and The Towering Inferno. The 1980’s saw his career continue to thrive beginning with his Oscar-nominated turn in Sydney Pollack’s Absence of Malice. Two other Newman films of note during the eighties were The Verdict and The Color of Money, the later of which finally brought him his Academy Award after six acting loses.

The Academy gave him two lifetime achievement awards—one in 1989 for his screen performances and the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian award in 1994. The next year, he would receive his eighth acting Oscar nomination for his work in Nobody’s Fool. He wasn’t finished with Oscar though. In 2003, he received his ninth and final acting Oscar nomination for his evil performance opposite Tom Hanks in Road to Perdition.

He also directed a film called Rachel, Rachel in 1968 starring his wife. Rachel, Rachel would eventually go on to receive an Oscar nomination for Best Picture and for Newman as well as its producer.

Paul Newman remains the king of onscreen coolness, and he’s an icon of class and dignity as well. His performances will live on as long as human beings are watching movies. It’s because of talents like Paul Newman that I love film as much as I do. Rest in peace!

In honor of Newman’s career, I will begin My Paul Newman Marathon. As of now, here are the films that I have decided to watch and review.

1. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
2. The Hustler (1961)
3. Hud (1963)
4. Torn Curtain (1966)
5. Cool Hand Luke (1967)
6. Rachel, Rachel (1968)
7. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
8. The Sting (1973)
9. The Verdict (1982)
10. The Color of Money (1986)

You can read my review of Absence of Malice here.

Note: Rachel, Rachel isn't available on Netflix at this time, so I've decided to replace it with Sweet Bird of Youth from 1962.

The Lookout

September 26, 2008

The Lookout (2007) ***1/2

Directed by Scott Frank

The sleeve that The Lookout came in when I opened my red Netflix envelope said that The Lookout is a smart film. I’m not exactly saying that it’s not smart, but different words enter into my head immediately when I think of this movie. It’s definitely interesting and entertaining; however, I think there are a few too many coincidences in its storyline to merit it being hailed as an exceptionally intelligent movie. In my opinion, The Lookout is important if for no other reason than the film world has an extremely talented first time director in Scott Frank. Previously, Frank wrote the screenplays for great films like Out of Sight, Get Shorty and Minority Report. He also wrote The Lookout’s screenplay. I’m not kidding when I say that he has the potential to become the next powerhouse director. This movie was impeccably well directed.

I wish I could say the same thing for some of the acting. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the most interesting, and I believe talented, young actors in Hollywood. He gave a brave and powerful performance in a disturbing movie called Mysterious Skin. Here, he plays Chris Pratt, a former high school athlete who was at fault in a car accident that left two of his friends dead, his ex-girlfriend with one leg and himself with brain damage that affects his sequential memory skills. As I watched the acting choices Levitt was making throughout, I began to conclude that he was playing Chris too predictably. Not once did his performance surprise me at all. Instead, it’s a decent, if not mannered, characterization. Perhaps Levitt ought to lower the intensity level on his facial expressions. It seemed like he was trying so damn hard to look so damn frustrated so damn often!

In one of the worst performances I’ve seen in a while, Matthew Goode plays Gary Spargo, a dangerous young man who knew Chris in high school and desires to exploit Chris’ job as a janitor in a bank in order to pull off a successful heist. Goode’s performance would have fit in perfectly as a villain in a bad fifties Western. You almost have to see for yourself the level in which Goode goes over the top to portray his character’s evil nature.

The best performance in The Lookout by far belongs to Jeff Daniels as Chris’ blind, eccentric roommate Lewis. Daniels seems like he's the only person not trying to win an Academy Award for his performance. He’s very funny in a film that’s heavy at times. When he’s put in danger by the end, I really came to root for his safety. Of course I expected the film’s main protagonist to live, but I wasn’t so sure about the goofy sidekick. Isn’t he the one that’s usually killed in movies like this?

Many seemingly unimportant details play a huge role in Chris’ survival towards the end. In order to beat the bad guys, Chris utilizes no less than twelve ideas offered earlier in the film. He writes his thoughts down on a pocket notepad in order to remember them later on. It’s very convenient that the exact things he writes down work in perfect sequence in order to save the day. Overall, I think this criticism is minor and even forgivable considering how well The Lookout entertains.

I’ll also forgive the stupid heist scene as well. Too bad I watched this after watching Filmspotting’s Classic Heist Marathon. Just about all of those films’ heists leave The Lookout’s in the dust. I mean, come on! Why in the world did they execute the robbery with the lights on in a building with a glass storefront in the middle of the night?

As a character study in memory loss, I think The Lookout is fine, though I bet Memento is even better. I plan on watching Memento as part of my J.M./Chazz Marathon, but from what I’ve heard, it’s fascinating because of how Guy Pierce’s character deals with his short term memory disorder. Chris’ disability felt authentic, but just barely. I couldn’t figure out how and when Chris has inappropriate outbursts or fits of anger. They seem to occur somewhat randomly in the film—well if not randomly, then inconsistently.

As an entertaining crime thriller, The Lookout totally works. Also, I’ll mention once again how spectacularly Frank directs this movie. Richard Roeper gushed over The Lookout, including it on his Best of 2007 list. I don’t believe it to be nearly as successful as he did, but I’m extremely glad I saw it nonetheless. Scott Frank—there’s a name that I believe more people will come to know as his career continues to progress.

Bananas

September 26, 2008

Bananas (1971) *****

Directed by Woody Allen

Before Monty Python hit the big screen, Woody Allen gave us Bananas—a hilariously anarchic political spoof that works in its dialogue free moments just as well as when Allen’s spitting out his ingenious one-liners. I have a feeling that Charlie Chaplin would have been proud of this film. Silent film-like comedy sequences in Bananas feel straight out of a film like Modern Times or The Gold Rush including a great one with a surprising unbilled appearance by then unknown Sylvester Stallone as a menacing punk in a subway car. Add in random parodies of moments from high brow foreign films like Bergman’s The Seventh Seal and Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin and you’ve got some great moments that movie buffs can geek out over. Even with less than a handful of movie parodies, Bananas still leaves spoof films like Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie in the dust. In the same vain as The Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup, Bananas is a no holds barred, irreverent exercise in sublime comedic anarchy.

The plot is bizarre, and it exists in a film that seems to delightfully wallow in its own bizarreness. The first half of the film showcases Fielding Mellish, a sarcastic, unpleasant schlub played by Allen himself. One dateless night, he receives a knock on the door from political activist Nancy, played by Louise Lasser who absolute knows how to deliver Allen’s mix of biting one-liners and sequences of stuttering improvisation. She’s hoping that he will sign a petition against the government of the fictional country of San Marcos which has just converted from democracy to dictatorship. By the end of their first conversation together, he’s coaxed her into giving him her phone number.

Their relationship grows stronger as Fielding falls madly in love with Nancy. As such, he’s shocked when Nancy breaks up with him. She tells him that he’s very immature and that he doesn’t believe in any worthwhile causes. She’s looking for someone who has the potential to be a leader in life.

So what does Fielding do? He decides to try and win her back by travelling to San Marcos and becoming involved in the rebellion movement dedicated to overthrowing the government. He’s clearly not a natural soldier—a fact which offers some of the film’s biggest laughs. Yet, ultimately he becomes the new president of San Marcos. He returns to the United States donned with the most ridiculous fake beard you’ll ever see. Nancy enters back into his life, and now that he’s proven himself, their relationship continues—that is until Howard Cosell enters their honeymoon suite with a microphone and a news camera. This final scene ranks among the best endings in film history. How did Allen ever think of it? It’s simply inspired!

My favorite scene, though, has to be the film’s opening scene on the steps outside the president’s mansion in San Marcos. The crowd looks more like those in attendance for a movie premier than citizens calling for the death of their president. One of the biggest laughs in Bananas occurs when the newscaster sends the story over to Howard Cosell. Before the camera switches, the newscaster stands there in awkward silence for something like forty seconds. There’s little I hate more than an awkward transition on a live news broadcast, so I was thrilled to see this element mocked so gloriously. By the way, if you don’t like this first scene, then you should definitely stop watching Bananas. It’s the perfect foreshadowing of the kind of comedy that inhabits the rest of the film. Personally, I couldn’t get enough of it.

Bananas really put Allen on the map as a great writer, director and actor. While watching this film, I tried to imagine that I had never heard of Woody Allen. I concluded that if this were the case, I would have become a HUGE Woody Allen fan after watching Bananas. I already enjoy the few movies of his that I’ve seen, and Bananas made me like the guy even more! This is the first film in my Woody Allen Greats Marathon, and after watching it, I can’t wait to watch more!

Woody Allen Marathon Favorite Line from Bananas- “I once stole a pornographic book that was printed in Braille. I used to rub the dirty parts.”

The Bourne Ultimatum

September 24, 2008

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) ****1/2

Directed by Paul Greengrass

The Blair Witch Project from 1999 really revolutionized the way handheld cameras are used in mainstream films. The Bourne Ultimatum, the third part in the Jason Bourne series, most likely had a budget at least twenty times that of Blair Witch. Yet, Greengrass chose to employ a handheld in order to ground the conspiracy and tension in a documentary-like tone. Without Blair Witch, we probably wouldn’t have films like Cloverfield and Diary of the Dead, both using handheld cinematography in ways that are organic and produce an amateur, home movie kind of feel. Unfortunately, one of the criticisms I’ve heard about Cloverfield, a film I haven’t seen, is that the handheld camera is so shaky that it comes off false at times. With a website like YouTube, teenagers today know how to shoot video without seeming like they have a serious case of the tremors.

Greengrass’ handheld cinematography in The Bourne Ultimatum is simply brilliant, never once buying into the mistaken cliché that handheld camerawork ought to come across as low quality. There are rapid edits, but none of them are intended to thrill in themselves. Instead, Greengrass rapidly switches the images and sequences on screen because he wants to offer us more information about what’s going on. Every single image in The Bourne Ultimatum has an idea. Sometimes, the camera would act almost like a person on a roof looking down on the streets. Another role the camera itself plays is that of a security camera on a ceiling corner. At times, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) must jump through the door to people’s apartments, and the camera here acts almost like a person living in that apartment watching the chase unfold. Never once did I feel dizzy or restless. I was reminded of the late Sidney Pollack’s great conspiracy thriller Three Days of the Condor except I believe The Bourne Ultimatum to be even more successful in bringing about a kind of paranoid tension. In my opinion, the choice to shoot handheld is greatly responsible for its achievement.

I saw The Bourne Identity a few years ago, and I remember enjoying it. However, that’s pretty much all I remember about it. As of now, I’ve yet to see The Bourne Supremacy, also directed by Greengrass, though I look forward to checking it out someday soon. Refreshingly, The Bourne Ultimatum works completely on its own. Yes, there are many obvious references to plot points from the first two films, which I’m sure die hard fans appreciate. As a relative Jason Bourne neophyte, these are explained quite satisfactorily to me as well.

The plot itself is admittedly convoluted, which makes sense considering that the source material comes from a grocery store novel. Jason Bourne’s recollection of his past eludes him. In this film, he’s on the hunt in order to find out who he was and why the government wants to see him dead. A London reporter named Simon Ross has written about Bourne’s connection to a government project called Operation Blackbriar. Things become more complicated for Bourne when Ross is assassinated by a sniper under the orders of CIA Deputy Director Noah Vosen, played wonderfully straight forward by the great David Strathairn. Vosen believes Bourne to be an imminent threat to national security which leads him to order Bourne to be killed.

Bourne connects with a government operative named Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles), who betrays her position in order to help Jason escape. This leads to a brilliant cat and mouse chase through apartments in Tangiers which I thought was absolutely enthralling entertainment. For Nicky’s own safety, Bourne must travel on his own back to New York in order to get the answers he seeks about his identity, a quest which eventually leads him to Dr. Albert Hirsch, played perfectly by Albert Finney. Meanwhile, government employee Pam Landy (Joan Allen) grows more and more suspicious of Noah Vosen’s motives, which clearly plays in Bourne’s favor.

Finney’s character is required to utter pretty silly dialogue about Bourne’s past, and yet, he makes every word completely believable. Few can portray sincerity better than Albert Finney, which is made all the more impressive here considering that he’s the ultimate villain of the film. Matt Damon shows once again that he’s an exceptionally talented actor. He’s perfectly cast as Jason Bourne. Sure, Damon is good looking enough to be voted People Magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive, and yet, his height and his masculinity provide him with the ability to blend in with a crowd, which he’s required to do more than once in this film. Damon never overacts—not once. Instead, he channels Bourne’s intensity while understandably appearing almost exhausted at times considering everything his character has to go through.

Greengrass, Damon and the talented supporting cast elevate The Bourne Ultimatum’s hokey source material into an absolutely first-rate conspiracy pic. There are maybe six or seven action sequences and every single one delivers top notch thrills. It’s not often that a third installment actually breathes new life into an established series—look at Shrek and Pirates of the Caribbean. No one involved in The Bourne Ultimatum gave anything less that one hundred percent to this film, and the result is a Hollywood popcorn film of the highest quality.

In the Valley of Elah

September 24, 2008

In the Valley of Elah (2007) ***1/2

Directed by Paul Haggis

Paul Haggis’ previous film Crash goes down in my book as one of the worst Academy Award Best Picture winners ever. It’s a preachy, saccharine, obvious morality sermon against racism. By the end of the movie, I felt that it was wrong to hate people because of their race or ethnicity. You know what, though? I felt that way before watching the movie, so personally, the film’s agenda added up to not much more than a complete waste of my time. Maybe Haggis converted some neo-Nazi skinhead in West Virginia. You’d pretty much have to have swastikas tattooed all over your butt to be someone who might need Crash’s heavy-handed fortune cookie wisdom. Thank goodness In the Valley of Elah is nowhere near as painfully manipulative as Crash. Unfortunately, though, Haggis’ screenplay is not void of eye rolling moments of blatant schmaltziness. The very worst image from In the Valley of Elah is unfortunately the one that I will probably remember clearly for a long time considering that it’s the movie’s final shot. It involves a flag waving in a way that liberal militants will cheer and conservative patriots will despise. Personally I was neither inspired nor offended by it. More than anything else, I was cynically saying to myself that something this stupid was bound to be included in a film by the same guy who wrote Crash.

Tommy Lee Jones, proving once again that he’s one of the greatest actors of his generation, plays Hank Deefield, a stoic, proud ex-soldier whose youngest son Mike, also a soldier, is reported AWOL soon after returning from his tour in Iraq. Hank’s emotionally numb wife Joan (Susan Sarandon) wants to travel with Hank to Mike’s military base, but Hank tells her to stay because nothing would be more embarrassing for Mike than to have his mother show up when he’s simply out having a good time. Clearly, Hank reveres masculinity, which in his mind means discipline, courage and toughness. Underneath Hank’s façade, though, exists obvious panic considering the fact that Hank and Joan have already lost one son, a soldier as well, in a friendly fire accident a few years back. Mike’s the only one they have left.

Hank visits Mike’s room on the base in New Mexico and steals his cell phone in order to start his own investigation into Mike’s disappearance. He gives the cell phone to a hacker who periodically sends Hank videos that he’s been able to recover. These video clips show Mike as a mentally disturbed, sadistic young man, showing clear signs of recklessness.

The police investigation begins very haphazardly considering the fact that the Army and the police are fighting over who has jurisdiction. The Army is portrayed as the sneaky saboteurs in this investigation almost as if they are trying to cover up Mike’s death. Fellow soldiers who served with Mike immediately come off untrustworthy and mean-spirited, which each character blames on the horrors seen in Iraq, referred more than once as a “shithole.”

Charlize Theron isn’t quite up to the task of playing the role of Detective Emily Sanders, a tough as nails cop who is officially put in charge of the investigation. From this point on, the film becomes a crime procedural which feels like it could have come from a better than average episode of Without a Trace on television. Actually, any actress from any Law and Order or CSI series would probably have been a better choice than Theron. She’s trying way too hard, obviously attempting to make Emily more interesting. What she should have realized was that this film ultimately isn’t about Emily at all—at least the best scenes aren’t. She should have given Jones the spotlight when they’re together. Instead, she seems dead set on stealing focus in all of her scenes.

Based extremely loosely on a true story, without a doubt In the Valley of Elah is interesting and enjoyable. Yet, nothing in this film stands out as excellent except for Jones’ spectacular performance. He deservedly received an Oscar nomination, and along with his brilliant work in No Country for Old Men, 2007 should go down as a great year for Tommy Lee Jones on screen. There are other great actors who are wasted playing in one or two scenes that don’t require any more than five or ten minutes on screen. Sarandon has one excellent scene when she finally breaks down over the phone. Her character barely exists in this film otherwise. Jonathan Tucker, a young actor I have a lot of respect for, plays Mike in flashback scenes. He’s on screen for maybe three minutes. What a waste of two great talents!

Obviously a strong liberal, Paul Haggis can’t help but pound his political and ethical views into our heads. In the Valley of Elah is CLEARLY anti-war in Iraq. Don’t believe me? Well, just consider the fact that Susan Sarandon agreed to be in this film. If that doesn’t convince you of this movie’s liberal agenda, then I give up. I am proud to call myself a liberal, and yet, I have all the respect in the world for our troops that serve. In the Valley of Elah simply doesn’t share this gratitude. The Army comes off corrupt and incompetent. I was personally offended by what I believe to be a hurtful message regarding the brave men and women who give everything for our country. Add in the despicable use of the American Flag in order to belabor a point which I mentioned above, and the result left a bad taste in my mouth.

Besides its blatant left-wing sermonizing, In the Valley of Elah works fine overall. It could have been subtler (I’m pretty sure all Haggis films could use a huge dose of understatement), but it also could have been worse. It could have been another Crash. Thank God it wasn’t another Crash! If Haggis doesn’t reign in his politicizing in his movies, then I might just become angry enough to consider being a conservative. That would be ironic for sure!

Burn After Reading

September 21, 2008

Burn After Reading (2008) ****1/2

Directed by Ethan Coen & Joel Coen

The Coen brothers, responsible for some of the best films of the last fifteen years including Fargo and No Country for Old Men, have been criticized as presenting characters with few redeeming qualities and putting them through hell on earth much to their twisted enjoyment. Burn After Reading plays right into this criticism, and like the other Coen brothers films that I’ve seen, I had no problem spending time with the monstrous individuals on screen. Perhaps they do enjoy mocking their own creations, but you know what? I enjoy it too! There’s so much to embrace in their dark films that unpleasant characters do nothing to lessen their films’ entertainment value. I’ll admit that I wouldn’t want to have a beer with many Coen brothers characters, especially the ones in Burn After Reading, but I’m happy to watch them do stuff on screen as they continue to dig their own figurative graves.

I’m glad that I went to the movie theater to watch Burn After Reading soon after finishing my Iconic Irreverent Comedies Marathon. Seeing these beloved films and for the most part appreciating their humor helped me to let down my guard and not be so uptight while viewing this film. I simply laughed when I thought something was funny, and I didn’t when something didn’t work. I’m happy to report that I was laughing almost non-stop from beginning to end. The comedy here is both extremely dark and utterly hilarious! Many of the films in my recent marathon, such as Animal House, Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Caddyshack, have a stream of consciousness feel to their comedy almost as if a bunch of people sat in a room and brainwashed lines and sequences they thought would make people laugh. Burn After Reading, on the other hand, clearly has a focused narrative in mind, and its humor is so smart that there’s no way that this script could have been rushed.

The film’s plot is so wonderfully convoluted that CIA operatives within the film itself can’t piece everything together with ease. Basically, this foray into madness begins with a Treasury Department employee named Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) losing his job as well as his level three security clearance. His wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is having an affair with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), and as such, she wants to divorce him. She’s told by her attorney to copy the files on his computer without him knowing so that she will be able to receive all the money owed to her after their divorce. She does so and gives the CD-Rom to her divorce lawyer whose elderly secretary loses it in the locker room of a Washington, DC gym called Hardbodies. At this gym, employees Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) and Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) decide to use the classified information on the CD-Rom in order to blackmail Osborne so Linda will have enough money to pay for four cosmetic plastic surgery procedures which her insurance refuses to cover.

Osborne chooses not to play ball which goads Chad and Linda into offering state secrets to the Russian Embassy in retaliation. Once the Russians express their disinterest, Chad decides to break into Oswald’s house to see if they can find any more information off his computer. Unfortunately, things monumentally spiral out of control when Harry enters Oswald’s house while Chad is still inside. After a shocking event, everyone in the film continues to act in spectacularly dumb ways until the monitoring reports given to the CIA no longer present new information.

It’s a lot of fun to watch these self-absorbed morons get what’s coming to them. Burn After Reading plays like a mix between a classic screwball comedy from the 1940’s and a violent conspiracy thriller. The result is sublime, laugh out loud entertainment. There are just enough shocking moments to keep the viewer guessing, and not once did this material feel stale. I can’t tell you how hard I laughed when I saw the machine George Clooney was building in his basement.

Unfortunately, the acting in Burn After Reading is completely hit or miss. While no one performance damages the film’s quality overall, it can’t be denied that some performances are clearly more effective than others. I’m glad I’m not a gambling man. If you had me bet who I thought would be the standout in a film that includes such top-notch talents as Frances McDormand, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton and John Malkovich along with often disappointing Brad Pitt, there’s no way in the world I would ever choose Pitt. Yet, he absolutely steals the show playing a high-strung, dim-witted gym aficionado perfectly. Every single attempt at humor that he throws out there totally works. He’s good enough for an Oscar nomination in my opinion.

Tilda Swinton, Richard Jenkins, J. K. Simmons and David Rasche all play their supporting roles on a pretty safe level, and yet, all four give brilliant tempered performances. You’d think the bigger the better with such broad comedy, but that’s clearly not the case when you see Malkovich, Clooney and especially McDormand go completely overboard into painfully mannered territory. Every single scene these three are in have them bugging their eyes and twitching like they just downed a case of Red Bull. While all three successfully provide laughs, as a whole none of their characters leave much of a lasting impression. That’s simply because each actors’ realization of his or her character is completely two-dimensional.

That’s ultimately okay though since the Coen brothers’ script is wonderfully layered and refreshingly quirky. Also, the film’s cinematography ranks among the Coens’ greatest achievements. I’m not sure that I will watch this movie over and over again considering the lack of affection I had for its characters. Still, I loved the experience of watching Burn After Reading with a movie theater crowd who obviously found it just as funny and subversive as I did. The woman sitting a few seats away sounded like she might choke to death because she was laughing so hard. While the Coens might not care if one of their movie characters dies because of them, I’m sure they wouldn’t wish the same on their appreciative audience. I say to the Coen brothers—keep making the films you do exactly how you want to make them! Ignore the naysayers!