|
The
Flower of Evil Premise: When Anne (Nathalie Baye), the mother of the Vasseur family, decides to run for political office, the shady and tragic history of her family is exposed and it threatens the stability of the family. What Works: There is an air of perversity hanging over this picture, but it never wallows in the filth or gazes voyeuristically on the situation. Instead, the film deals with consequences of the family's sordid history on their relationships. The performance by Suzanne Flon as Aunt Line is fascinating to watch. She plays a character whose outward appearance is a mask for the years of guilt that has been rotting away her insides. What Doesn't: The film is a little slow at times and some American audiences might be put off by the anti-American statements made by the characters early in the film. However, this sentiment adds to the flavor of the characters and seems to have been meant--at least in part--ironically. Bottom Line: The Flower of Evil is not an easy picture. Those looking for two hours of debauchery will not find it here but there is some very strong acting and has some very strong social and political insight. Directed by: Tony Bill Premise: A group of young American men join the
French air force during the early years of World War I. What Works: James Franco does well as cowboy turned
pilot Blaine Rawlings, using his charm to increase the presence of his thinly
drawn role. What Doesn’t: All other characters in the film
are shoved to the side. Although the film purports to be about the camaraderie
of men in the service, there is little to bind the men together or to the
audience. This is essentially a World War II film in the World War I setting.
The film does not acknowledge the horror or the moral ambiguity of World War I.
The film has nothing to say, no perspective on its subject, it just goes through
the motions of the war hero story. Some of the special effects in the flying
sequences are very poorly done and these sequences often feel more like a video
game than a motion picture. Bottom Line: Flyboys has more in common with
Aces: Iron
Eagle III than it does with Top
Gun or All
Quiet on the Western Front. Like other Franco vehicles, the film may
appeal to adolescent girls for its handsome male leads, but there is not much
here for the rest of us. The
Fog of War Premise: A documentary about the life and times of Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and one of the key figures in the Vietnam War. What Works: At 80, McNamara is
still very sharp and Morris uses his turn-the-camera-on-and-let-life- play-out
style for the interview. Unlike most subjects of Morris' documentaries, McNamara
doesn’t verbally hang himself in front of the camera and he is surprisingly
honest about both his successes and his mistakes and when that is combined with
archival footage, the result is a fascinating dissection of American foreign
policy. What Doesn’t: There are no interviews with anyone else, which might have given a broader point of view to the picture DVD extras: 24 Additional scenes, a featurette on McNamara’s life in politics, and television spots. Bottom Line: The Fog of War is worth your time and money. McNamara's lessons about foreign relations are as relevant to us today as they were in his time and the film makes attempts to link the past with the present. Note the difference in style between this and Fahrenheit 9/11. The Fog of War is much more stylized and has a cleaner and more polished look than Moore’s get-the-shot-any-which-way-you-can cinematography. That’s not to say one is better than the other; each serves its purpose. The films represent two key styles in contemporary documentary filmmaking. Directed by: Robert Kenner Premise: A documentary about the food and
agriculture industry, exploring how food production has changed from organic and
local sources to synthetic, corporate mass manufacturing and how that change has
impacted the quality of life in America. What Works: Food, Inc. is extremely
impressive filmmaking. This is a topic that can be divided into many, more
specific, subjects such as animal cruelty, corporatism, public health,
immigration, corruption, and regulation but Food, Inc. is smartly
assembled, incorporating these areas but never getting bogged down in them.
Instead, Food, Inc. collects these subjects and assembles them together
like parts of an engine, using each part in the right proportion, to further the
thesis of the film: that as food production has changed, it has also changed the
culture. The film does not shy away from its agenda to convince the audience to
make healthier choices and it is a better film for not trying to feign
impartiality. However, a rather ingenious and mature element of Food Inc.’s
argument is its resistance to the kinds of naïve anti-capitalist rhetoric that
often distorts the topic. Food, Inc. suggests that change is to be found
simultaneously outside from the consumer and inside from food producers who can
make and market organic food that can compete with unhealthy food. What Doesn’t: The only weakness of Food, Inc.
is in the suggestions in the finale; earlier on, the film exposes how the poor
are often trapped into buying unhealthy food but then it encourages viewers to
purchase the more expensive organic food. Bottom Line: Food, Inc. is a great activist documentary. The film is well made and smartly designed and manages to be frightening but also has a spark of optimism that makes it empowering. Directed by: Andy Tennant Premise: A penniless fortune hunter (Matthew
McConaughey) comes across a vital clue to an ancient treasure just as his
estranged wife (Kate Hudson) comes to him seeking a divorce. They rejoin and
team with a vacationing millionaire (Donald Sutherland) to discover the treasure
before a local crime lord finds it. What Works: The best elements of the film are the
fighting and flirting between Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey. These are
possibly to two most underachieving stars in Hollywood; they have talent but
waste more of it before 10 a.m. than most people waste all day. Their scenes
together do have a sense of charisma and comic timing that is amusing to watch. What Doesn’t: A lot of Fool’s Gold is
just bearable. The story gets bogged down in protracted exposition scenes that
make The Da
Vinci Code and National
Treasure seem straightforward and well researched by comparison. The
characters talk and talk and talk without any visual references and a lot of it
is meaningless chatter that just makes the film longer. A lot of the treasure
hunt is not based on clues or detective work but on luck or coincidence. The
story has a problem with suspense (it does not have any) and as the picture goes
on the tension actually goes down instead of up. This happens mainly because the
story does not put any pressure on the heroes to succeed and clues and
supporting characters randomly pop up in places for no particular reason. The
villains of the film are especially problematic. The crime boss and his goons
are unthreatening racial stereotypes who parade around with guns but are too
clownish to be credible antagonists to the heroes. Bottom Line: Fool’s Gold is lazy
filmmaking. The film has nothing to offer except for the banter between Hudson
and McConaughey, but they’re less like Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn
in The African
Queen and more like liposuctioned versions of Al and Peg Bundy from Married
with Children. Directed by: Christopher Guest Premise: Satire of the Hollywood awards culture. A
passing comment by on an online Hollywood gossip website begins an Oscar buzz on
the set of the film Home for Purim and drives the cast into distraction. What Works: For Your Consideration is
another effective satire by director Guest, the filmmaker behind Waiting
for Guffman and Best
in Show. The film makes fun of how award buzz is generated and how
fickle the industry can be. It is also able to add some side criticism of how
business interests may intrude on artistic interests, and further how award buzz
may actually hurt the production as it causes infighting among the talent and
prompts producers and studio executive to interfere and distort a low budget art
film, robbing it of the creativity that was making it a great picture in the
first place. Guest’s directing style allows for the actors to showcase their
improvisational talents, including Parker Posey, Harry Shearer, Catherine
O’Hara and Ricky Gervias. What Doesn’t: The only disappointment in For
Your Consideration is in the ending, which could have gone further and
sliced through the pomp and pretension of the actual awards ceremonies. DVD extras: Deleted scenes, outtakes, and Home
for Purim poster gallery. Bottom Line: For Your Consideration is a
smart film that pokes fun at the awards culture of the film industry. Underneath
the humor is actually a serious point about how chasing awards can actually be
detrimental to the filmmaking process. Directed by: Nicholas Stoller Premise: Peter (Jason Segel), a struggling
musician, breaks up with his girlfriend (Kristin Bell), a rising television
star, when she leaves him for a self obsessed pop singer (Russell Brand). Trying
to recover from the split, Peter takes a vacation to Hawaii only to find Sarah
and her new boyfriend vacationing at the same hotel. What Works: Forgetting Sarah Marshall is
another Judd Apatow produced sex comedy. Like The
40 Year Old Virgin, Superbad,
and Knocked Up
the film successfully mines the humor in contemporary romance, mixing explicit
sexual humor with a disarming sweetness. The film is pop culture savvy,
especially in sequences of Sarah Marshall’s police procedural television
series, which features a terrific cameo of William Baldwin doing a very funny
imitation of David Caruso on CSI:
Miami. After Peter discovers his
ex is vacationing next to him, he falls for a carefree hotel attendant (Mila
Kunis) and starts to reclaim his life. This portion of the film is very
rewarding as Peter’s journey of maturation and reconciliation links together
his love life with his professional and personal goals. The lead female roles
are better written than expected, much more so than similar stories, especially
Kunis, who is given both a lighthearted disposition and a very real, sensitive
side. One of the biggest joys of Forgetting Sarah Marshall is in the
supporting cast of characters. These roles could easily have been flat, vanilla
stereotypes but the script, written by star Jason Segel, is filled with colorful
characters who have some of the best lines in the film. What Doesn’t: The film’s biggest asset is also
its biggest liability; the supporting cast is much funnier and more interesting
than the lead characters. Peter in particular is extremely whiny throughout the
first half of the film and his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend are very
unsympathetic. Despite how well the story is done, especially in its final act,
the film sticks to formula to a fault and once all the lead characters are in
place, most audience members will be able to map out the rest of the film long
before it happens. The humor in the film is frequent but Forgetting Sarah
Marshall does not have any huge belly laughs. A lot of the humor is based on
one-liners rather than plot devices and while the dialogue is certainly sharp it
cannot substitute for more substantive humor. Bottom Line: Forgetting Sarah Marshall sits a rung or two below Wedding Crashers on the sex comedy ladder. It emulates a lot of the good qualities of that film but also amplifies its weaknesses. The reliance of cliché and the lack of compelling main characters weakens the film, but it is fun and fans of Apatow’s other projects will enjoy this one as well. The
Forgotten Premise: A mother (Julianne Moore) grieving the loss of her son is told by her psychiatrist (Gary Sinese) that all the memories of her son are made up. What Works: All of the actors do a decent job with what they have been given to work with. Some of the cinematography is interesting. What Doesn’t: The story is a mess. It has a compelling idea but that idea is not fleshed out dramatically. The conspiracy plot should be front and center but it has no structure. For this kind of story to work, the audience needs to be given clues. This makes the story go forward. Unfortunately, after Moore’s character realizes she might not be crazy the story grinds to a halt. The ending comes almost out of nowhere and feels very detached from the rest of the picture. Bottom Line: The Forgotten feels like a really bad episode of the X-Files. It may make a good rental or party movie but it has little value to the conspiracy or science fiction genres. Directed by: Darren Aronofsky Premise: Tom (Hugh Jackman), a cancer researcher,
struggles to find a cure for his wife’s (Rachel Weisz) condition. At the same
time she writes a fantasy story about a conquistador searching for the fountain
of youth to save his loved one. The film alternates between the story in the
real world and the story in the fantasy world. What Works: The film uses formalistic techniques,
creatively cross cutting between the narratives in ways that fill in the gaps
between the two stories and create greater understanding about each other. The
Fountain is able to be more than just a simple story and engages multiple
layers and themes including love, creativity, and mortality and connects them in
ways that are meaningful. The film is serious and thoughtful about its subject
matter, and does not tap into these deep themes just for the appearance of
sophistication. Rather, The Fountain goes for deeper, authentic
connections between the two stories and their themes. The film is deeply unified
and highly symbolic, much like the conclusion of 2001:
A Space Odyssey. The acting in the film is very good, particularly by
Rachael Weisz as Izzie. It is an understated performance that demands great and
subtle versatility and she maintains the character’s dignity and does not use
cancer as an easy way of achieving pathos appeal. What Doesn’t: The weakest element of the story is
its execution of Tom’s grief. His story makes great leaps; at one point he
possesses a Dr. Frankenstein-like obsession to defeat death but then he moves on
from it with little explanation or dramatic cause. The ending of the film spends
most of its time in the fantasy, which is effective and very beautiful but does
not display the kind of effective cross cutting The Fountain displays
early in the film. Bottom Line: The Fountain is a challenging
film, the kind of movie that will polarize its audience with some loving it and
other hating it with few in between. Those who found pleasure in What
Dreams May Come, The
Cell, and 2001: A Space Odyssey will enjoy the picture. For those
who understand it, The Fountain is a great, Romantic story in which love
and creativity trump death. Four
Brothers Premise: Four men reunite when their adoptive mother is killed in a mysterious shooting and they begin a violent investigation. What Works: Although the plot of Four Brothers is borrowed from the revenge films of the 1970s and 80s, such as Death Wish, the film is very much a western set in an urban environment. It has some very nice sequences between the four siblings (Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin, and Garrett Hedlund) as they deal with their grief and the film has some surprisingly tender moments of familial male intimacy that contrasts with scenes of brutal violence. What Doesn’t: Although the film starts out promising, it goes awry when it plays on too many clichés of the revenge genre. Rather than building on the dichotomy between these men dealing with the consequences of violence and then perpetuating it, Four Brothers lets an action film mentality take over that ignores the consequences of the character’s actions. It is also troublesome because, on the one hand, the virtue of the dead mother was that her charity had saved these men from a life of violence, but in their pursuit for vengeance they renounce the civility she has imbued in them and embrace the life of crime that she had supposedly saved them from. The film never addresses these problems. The villains of the film and the supporting cast are not given appropriate treatment. The chief villain (Chiwetel Ejiofor) comes off as a cartoonish exaggeration, and he does not match the tone of the rest of the picture. Bottom Line: Four Brothers works as an escapist action picture but if its story is held to scrutiny it has some real problems. John Singleton is a good director who has a real sense for portraying male relationship and does well in executing action sequences. Unfortunately this film is not his best moment. Directed by: Seth Gordon Premise: A hip, unmarried couple (Vince Vaughn and
Reese Witherspoon) travel to four family Christmas parties, one for each of
their parents. Along the way, the two discover unexpected facts about each other
that reveal tensions in their relationship. What Works: Four Christmases is a more
mature holiday film—at least for the first two thirds of the picture—in that
it does not dwell on the sentimental and cliché holiday themes and situations,
but rather deals with a contemporary problem faced by fractured and extended
families. And in that way, Four Christmases mostly succeeds. The story
builds nicely through the second act and each family encounter changes the
dynamics of the couple’s relationship, giving it an arc. Vince Vaughn largely
carries the film with his characteristically lucid humor. What Doesn’t: Reese Witherspoon does not fare so
well in the film. It’s not really her fault; the part is underwritten. She and
Vaughn, as well as most of the supporting cast, play entirely selfish and
self-absorbed fools. But Vaughn gets nearly all of the good lines and gags,
leaving Witherspoon with little to do. As the couple reaches a crisis point,
there is no tangible goal or experience to talk them down or transition them
through it and lead to a reconciliation. The jokes and family dynamics of each
Christmas party are largely recycled in each gathering so that by the third
Christmas, the film feels as though it is revisiting previous scenarios. Bottom Line: Four Christmases is not great
either as a comedy or as a Christmas film but fans of Vaughn or Witherspoon may
want to check it out. Directed by: Gregory Hoblit Premise: A criminal prosecutor on his way to the
top (Ryan Gosling) risks his career when takes on an apparent slam-dunk murder
case and finds that the defendant (Anthony Hopkins) has executed the perfect
crime. What Works: Fracture is a lot of fun. As a
mystery and an ethical tale the film covers its bases and provides a worthwhile
story and an engaging puzzle. What is most surprising about Fracture is
the level of humor in it, most of it given to Hopkins. Where many thrillers tend
to take themselves too seriously, Fracture is able to deliver welcome
laughs in dry and witty lines of dialogue delivered expertly by Hopkins, who
gives one of his better performances in recent years. Gosling is a good match
for Hopkins as he is able to give a sense of youth, intelligence, and cockiness
to the character while also making him very sympathetic. What Doesn’t: Nothing about the film is all that
memorable. The film is a well-done courtroom drama and has an effective mystery
but beyond that Fracture does not offer much in the way of substance.
There are hints of something deeper, especially in Willy’s relationship with
Nikki Gardner (Rosamund Pike), his mentor-to-be at a private law firm but the
romance between them is not handled particularly well and the strain on it does
not carry much weight. In the end the subplot falls out of frame and is left
incomplete. Bottom Line: Fracture is a solid thriller
with a good cast. While it is not likely to make any top ten lists at the end of
the year, it makes for a fun piece of entertainment. The
Frankenstein Legacy Collection Premise: A collection of Universal Studio’s Frankenstein films including Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein, The Ghost of Frankenstein, House of Frankenstein. What Works: The Frankenstein films are the best of the classic Universal Monsters. Among them the original and Bride stand out as extremely well made pictures. As a whole the films are consistently paced and feature unique characters that are simultaneously charged with perverse and sympathetic qualities. What Doesn’t: Some of the later sequels lack in originality and the monster begins to become a clown, although the character does not disintegrate as far or as fast as the aquatic monster in The Creature from the Black Lagoon or Freddy Krueger in the Nightmare on Elm Street series. This set is conspicuously missing Frankenstein Meet the Wolfman, although it is available in The Wolfman Legacy Collection. DVD extras: Commentary tracks on the original and Bride, featurettes, trailers, and Boo!, a short film. Some of the special features are tied into the release of Stephen Sommers disappointing film Van Helsing and it is somewhat annoying to have the extras cluttered by this intrusion. Bottom Line: The Frankenstein Legacy Collection is a very impressive DVD and a model for releasing classic horror films. The commentaries and special features do the films justice and it is nice to see them together in such a well produced package. Directed by: David Dobkin Premise: Fred (Vince Vaughn), the underachieving
brother of Santa Claus (Paul Giamatti), travels to the North Pole just before
Christmas to work for his estranged sibling. At the same time, an executive
(Kevin Spacey) who oversees the holidays threatens to shut Santa down if
Christmas runs into any problems. What Works: Fred Claus is a fun film for
children, who will likely be swept up by the Santa Claus mythology. The picture
is at its best in revising Santa, introducing the audience to his family,
including his domineering mother played by the underused Cathy Bates. The
relationship between Fred and Santa is an interesting one and the story
intelligently uses St. Nick’s status as a saint against him, allowing Fred to
bully and manipulate his younger brother. The relationship between Fred and
Santa is nicely paralleled by Fred’s relationship to Slam (Bobb'e J.
Thompson), a troubled pre-teen who Fred mentors. It’s nearly a little too
gooey, but the relationship humanizes Fred in ways that gives his reconciliation
with St. Nick some credibility. It is Kevin Spacey, however, who really gives
the best performance in the film. The script gives him the biggest range, most
of the best lines, and Spacey makes his character the kind of antagonist
audiences love to hate but then turns it around on the viewers in some very
interesting ways. What Doesn’t: Fred Claus takes a while to
get going, spending a lot of time on set up and once it finally gets to the
North Pole, the film does not take full advantage of its novel concept. The film
has its funny moments but the filmmakers behind Fred Claus, mostly
accustomed to making more mature fare like Wedding
Crashers, cannot seem to find their comic footing in a family film. Fred
Claus is never able to break through into full comedy mode, but rather
always holds back, waiting for permission to be naughty. The look of Santa’s
workshop is rich and wonderfully detailed, but it is also a retread of similar
images in other films like The
Santa Clause, Santa
Claus: The Movie, and The
Nightmare Before Christmas. In addition to the look, the film borrows a
lot of plot points and character relationships from these other Christmas
pictures and the result is a story that is very predictable. Bottom Line: Fred Claus is a fun, family
oriented film. It’s no Elf,
and the film does not take full advantage of its premise or the talent of its
actors, but as a feel-good, holiday oriented film, Fred Claus works a lot
better than Silent
Night, Deadly Night. Freddy
Vs. Jason Premise: Trapped in hell
and forgotten, Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) resurrects Jason (Ken Kirzinger)
to stir up fear in the town of Springwood and rejuvenate his powers. When Jason
won’t stop killing, the villains go toe-to-toe in a fight over who is allowed
to kill the teens of Springwood. What Works: Freddy vs. Jason delivers on its promise, respecting the mythologies
of both characters and using the best elements of both franchises to bridge
their stories together. Where Freddy’s
Dead managed to trip over every mistake of the franchise, Freddy
vs. Jason capitalizes on the strengths. Freddy
vs. Jason returns Freddy to the darkness of the original installments but
the film also includes the fun of Dream
Warriors but without the smugness that ruined later installments. There
are plenty of special effects but the violence stays grounded in the biological
and the blood and gore keep the film primal and somewhat scary. Director Ronny
Yu has a talent for staging action and the editing and cinematography of Freddy vs. Jason gives the film and its aging icons a much-needed
shot of adrenaline. What Doesn’t: Obviously
anyone who did not like the Nightmare on
Elm Street series or the Friday the
13th series will not like this film either. It plays more like an action
film than a horror film and it does get cartoonish in places. There is a sense
that these characters, who were once very frightening personifications of
contemporary evil, have become cartoon versions of themselves. DVD extras: Audio
commentaries, featurettes, trailers, storyboards, and a press conference
featuring Freddy and Jason. Bottom Line: Freddy vs. Jason follows in the tradition of Frankenstein
Meets the Wolfman and is successful as a hybrid of the horror and action
genres. While the film abandons any deeper meaning that Freddy and Jason might
have possessed in previous incarnations, it is a great deal of fun to watch. Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) Directed by: Rachel Talalay Premise: In the sixth entry in the Nightmare on Elm Street series, the last surviving teen of
Springwood (Shon Greenblatt) suffers amnesia and drifts into the city,
encountering a social worker (Lisa Zane) who has a connection to Springwood and
Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). What Works: Freddy’s
Dead is a bizarre, Twilight
Zone-inspired mishmash of crazy characters and it wins a couple of style
points for looking like no other Nightmare
film. What Doesn’t: Although it attempts to conclude
the series on a grand finale, Freddy’s
Dead falls short. The film takes all the wrong cues from the previous films
and is a compilation of every major mistake in the series. The picture moves
Freddy Krueger front and center, constantly making wisecracks and the film
reduces an intimidating villain into a colorful commentator who rarely presents
an actual threat to the teens of the film. The dream sequences become more and
more fantastic, removing Freddy from his conflict with the characters and
putting the teens in situations that are not immediate or threatening. Freddy is
lit with ugly, unforgiving lights that reveal the makeup as rubber appliances
and make the character look like the Halloween masks that he has inspired. The
film is strewn with pop culture references that are terribly dated and will
likely go over the heads of anyone who wasn’t a teenager in the early 1990s
and they only seem to be there to convince the audience that the filmmakers are
hip. As Freddy’s Dead moves towards
its climax, the picture incorporates a 3-D effect that is not very convincing
and takes the audience on a flashback of Freddy’s youth but it does not convey
anything interesting about his psychotic nature or change the way we have viewed
the character in the previous films. DVD extras: DVD-ROM features, optional 3-D or 2-D ending. Bottom Line: Freddy’s Dead is a big disappointment and sits at the very bottom of the Nightmare on Elm Street series. There is very little to redeem the film except for a few memorable cameos. Friday
Night Lights Premise: The true story of a high school football team in rural Texas and their road to the state championship. What Works: This is a very well crafted film. The cast of young actors does a very impressive job. Often times in these kinds of films it is fairly obvious that older actors are cast in the roles of seventeen year olds, but in this film the cast feel as though they really are in high school. The film captures the pressures put on this team by the community and how it affects not only their game but also their personal lives. The cinematography and editing are very well done, especially in the final game. Friday Night Lights could have been passed off as a documentary film, if not for the presence of Billy Bob Thornton, who proves once again that he is one of Hollywood’s best (and most underappreciated) acting talents. What Doesn’t: The film does follow a basic Horatio Alger storyline and could be regarded as clichéd. However, the film defies a lot of these clichés by working against the expectations of the audience throughout the picture. Bottom Line: Friday Night Lights may go down as one of the best sports films ever made. It captures the ferocity and violence of football, but also the personal heartache of the athletes and their families. Directed by: Marcus Nispel Premise: A reboot of the 1980s slasher series. A
group of college students spend time at a cabin not knowing that a killer is
stalking in the woods outside. What Works: This Friday the 13th
is best compared to Bryan Singer’s Superman
Returns or Peter Jackson’s King
Kong in that the picture is essentially a tribute by contemporary
filmmakers to the movies that have influenced them. And like those other films,
this is a tribute on steroids, with far more violence, gore, and nudity than
were present in any of the earlier pictures. The Friday the 13th
of 2009 composites elements from the first four films and fans of those pictures
will enjoy spotting the references to early Friday the 13th
entries as well as other genre films like Jaws,
The Silence of
the Lambs, and Psycho.
Derek Mears takes over the role of Jason Voorhees and his performance is among
the most successful portrayals of the killer. This film hits the right note with
Jason, returning him to the animalistic creature of the woods as he was
originally presented. What Doesn’t: The fatal flaw of Friday the 13th
is that the film is just not very scary. While the filmmakers have cobbled
together a cornucopia of Friday the 13th iconography, they
miss the style that made some of those early pictures, namely Friday
the 13th Part II and Friday
the 13th: The Final Chapter, so successful. There is no
atmosphere of dread in the film. The lighting is done all wrong and this film
features scenes of Jason Voorhees fully revealed and killing people in broad
daylight. The gore is intact but there is very little build up to that gore and
so the scenes that should make the audience jump don’t have much impact. Bottom Line: Like the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the remake of Friday the 13th reduces an effective horror story down to an average slasher picture. It’s not much of a tribute, nor does it take the franchise into new territory. Friday the
13th: From Crystal Lake to Manhattan Ultimate Edition Box Set Premise: Jason Voorhees slashes his way through his first eight movies and 83 people (only counting deaths attributed to Jason). What Works: High points of this series include parts one, two, four, six, and seven. Parts one, two, and four are very well crafted horror films and constitute the cream of the crop of slasher horror in the early 1980s with genuine suspense and some fun jumps. The later films explore some of the advanced makeup effects of their day and demonstrate the self-conscious, tongue in cheek humor that Scream later used. What Doesn’t: Low points of the series include parts three, five, and eight. These films are more predictable and do not show as much craft as the others. Their quality ranges between mediocre to—even worse—boring. Also, this set features only the R-rated cuts of the pictures which is a disappointment because many of the films, especially parts six, seven, and eight were heavily censored by the MPAA. This would have been an opportunity to release the original cuts of the films, but Paramount did not take that initiative. DVD extras: For fans of the series, this is the reason to purchase the set. Four of the films feature commentary tracks, although they are noticeably absent from parts one and two. The tracks on parts six and seven are most revealing and shed some light behind the making of the film. There is a bonus disc that includes trailers and featurettes on the making of the series. The quality of these extras is overall very good but the quantity of material is disappointing. So much more could have been done and the apparent lack of effort on Paramount’s behalf is disappointing. Bottom Line: Love these films or hate them, the Friday the 13th series is one of the most important franchises in Hollywood history. This boxed set will be good for Friday fans that have not already purchased the pictures but those who do own them may want to skip this set. Note: This set only contains parts one through eight. Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, Jason X, and Freddy Vs. Jason were released by New Line Cinema and have their own extras-packed DVD releases. From
the Earth to the Moon Premise: A miniseries dramatization of the Apollo space program that landed the first man on the moon. What Works: From the Earth to the Moon finds the human narrative among NASA’s administrators, technicians, the astronauts, and their families while balancing the scientific element of these stories. The tone of the episodes ranges from heavily dramatic to surprisingly light. Taken as a whole the series has a dramatic completeness that is very satisfying. What Doesn’t: The series plunks the viewer into the time period and for the most part it contextualizes the events, but some viewers who are completely unfamiliar with the politics of the time might find the series a little bewildering. DVD extras: The entire miniseries is included in a single set across three discs. A fourth disc contains featurettes, TV spots, a virtual tour of the solar system, 3-D models of ships, mission objectives, Kennedy’s “We choose to go to the moon” speech, a timeline of the space missions, a history of the moon and DVD-ROM features. Bottom Line: From the Earth to the Moon is a joy to watch. It is worth the time investment and proves that television can provide worthwhile entertainment when it is appropriately budgeted and the right talents are involved. Definitely recommended for fans of the film Apollo 13 and The Right Stuff. Directed by: Ron Howard Premise: A dramatization of the post-Watergate
interview between British talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen) and former
president Richard Nixon (Frank Langella). What Works: Frost/Nixon is a very impressive
piece of film that balances expository information with drama. The film is told
in a style that merges the documentary with dramatization by playing out the
events and then cutting to interviews of the supporting cast, speaking about the
events in character but from the near future. The script manages to impart all
the necessary historical information to make sense of what has happened and to
understand the significance of the interviews. At the same time the picture
carefully studies the two men through a pair of performances that are really
tremendous. Michael Sheen is great as David Frost as he conveys Frost’s
showbiz savvy but also gets beneath the character’s skin and reveals the
lonely man who realizes the superficiality of the glamour and wants to be taken
seriously. Frank Langella provides
one of the great cinematic performances of Richard Nixon, and his work stands up
with such great incarnations as Anthony Hopkins in Oliver Stone’s Nixon.
This film is narrower in its scope but Langella is able to dig deep into the
character and expose Nixon’s isolation and paranoia. The mergence of the
personal and the political and the relationship between those two things comes
together in a terrific climax. What Doesn’t: Those looking for a deeper
understanding of Nixon and his presidency will not find it here, since the
film’s scope is rather limited. There is enough information in Frost/Nixon
that those unfamiliar with the details of Watergate will be able to follow the
action of the story, but those familiar with the time period and the legal case
will get much more out of the film. Bottom Line: Frost/Nixon is one of the best films Ron Howard has made. It has less flash than some of his other work, but the film does have quite a bit of substance and performances that are really impressive. Directed by: Courtney Hunt Premise: A woman with severe financial problems
(Melissa Leo) begins transporting illegal immigrants over a Mohawk Indian
reservation that cuts across the United States and Canadian border. What Works: Frozen River is a small,
intimate picture on the scope and scale of a film like Tender
Mercies. It is also up to that level of quality; the film is extremely
well edited and shot. While it does not use a lot of wide, panoramic views of
the winter struck landscape, it does manage to use the setting to its advantage
both in the plot of the story and in creating a cold and oppressive tone. The
character work in Frozen River is really what sets it apart and elevates
it above other films. In lots of productions people like the lead character,
living in a trailer and working as a clerk at a convenience store, would be
relegated to a stereotyped white-trash portrayal or be set on an adventure that
ends with all of their dreams coming true. Frozen River has much more
respect for its characters and its audience and tells a story about people who
have been cornered financially, emotionally, and socially and how they make hard
choices in order to survive. One of the things the film does quite brilliantly
is to use the promise of a home as both a literal and a symbolic goal for main
character and her family. As the film pushes toward its climax it manages to get
quite touching and even mildly profound not through hysterics and sentimentality
but rather through quiet but intense scenes that are full of meaning to the
characters and to the story. What Doesn’t: There is a subplot to the story
about the main character’s older son (Charlie McDermott) engaging in credit
card fraud. This subplot is mostly dropped and is not used as effectively as it
could be. DVD extras: Commentary track. Bottom Line: Frozen River is a terrific film with some great performances. The film has not gotten very much attention as it deserves but it is a diamond in the rough that is worth viewing. Directed by: Judd Apatow Premise: A successful comic actor (Adam Sandler) is
diagnosed with a terminal illness. He hires a struggling standup comedian (Seth
Rogen) to be his assistant while he undergoes an experimental treatment and
tries to reconnect with his long lost girlfriend (Leslie Mann). What Works: The first thing to understand about Funny
People is that it is not a comedy, but a drama about comedic people. And
while there are laughs to be found, many of them are in reaction to the serious
dramatic scenarios that the characters find themselves in. Funny
People is a look into Hollywood and the downside of success, but it is also
about the life of the comedians. For the many comic characters in the film,
comedy is clearly a coping mechanism for other deep-seeded issues like strained
parental relationships, confidence and self image problems, or loneliness. The
film does a nice job connecting the work of the comedian to the performer’s
idiosyncrasies and exploring the consequences of dedicating one’s life to
entertaining others. Adam Sandler is well cast as a darker version of himself, a
sad clown who has starred in lousy movies that have made him rich but
unfulfilled. The story takes some admirable risks with the character, making him
a disagreeable--and in some cases awful--person. Redemption storylines often
start with a character like this and then force him or her to change by
emphasizing traditional values of family and friendship. This usually comes
across as disingenuous and predictable, but Funny
People is much smarter. This film takes the bold route of deliberately
walking the character into clichéd scenarios, like confessing deeply held
feelings to a long lost love or racing to find her at the airport, but then
pulling the rug out from under the audience, subverting our expectations, and in
the process revealing something much more complex and true about the characters
and their attempts at self-redemption. What Doesn’t: Like a lot of Judd Apatow’s
films, Funny People runs too long.
This film especially outstays its welcome with scenes that go on and on and
could have been shortened or cut out altogether, such as a Hollywood party
sequence which seems to exist only to provide celebrity cameo opportunities.
Fans of Adam Sandler’s usual obnoxious act will not find it here and those
expecting a sidesplitting comedy may be disappointed. Bottom Line: Funny People is not the kind of picture expected from the talents involved. That should not color the judgment of the film, which is quite good despite some significant flaws. |
|
|