Sunday, January 20, 2008

Cloverfield: Fly On The Wall




“The world's been here for millions of years. Man's been walking upright for a comparatively short time. Mentally we're still crawling.”
-- Professor Tom Nesbitt from The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms

“When Man entered the atomic age, he opened a door into a new world. What he eventually finds in that new world, nobody can predict.”
-- Dr. Harold Medford from Them!

“Yeah, people are gonna want to know... how it all went down.”
-- Hud Platt from Cloverfield

Cloverfield is very effective for what it is. The true pleasure of watching Cloverfield is akin to finding a message in a bottle. In this the case, the bottle is a video camcorder and the message is the content on the videotape. The film is the epitome of the YouTube Generation. The movie’s greatest irony is that watching a videotape on the big screen returns us to the pleasures of a shared communal experience. This is a movie that has to be seen in a crowded theater in order for it to be effective. I truly believe this movie will lose a lot on a small screen and especially watching it on a computer. I am not even sure if it will hold up on repeated viewings. Cloverfield is more an experience than an actual film. This is not a bad thing given the nature of the storytelling devices that director, Matt Reeves, and screenwriter, Drew Goddard, employ. By focusing on the human element aspect of the genre, we are thrown into the action when everything goes down. You want to know what it feels like to be that woman cradling her young children in the original Gojira or dazed and scared as the running crowds like in either version of War Of The Worlds; this movie puts you in the middle of that experience. Reeves accomplishes what John McTiernan claimed he wanted to do in Predator-- put you in the middle of action. Reeves does this with incredible ease. Speaking of War Of The Worlds, this movie does an excellent job of creating a level of panic just as Steven Spielberg did with his remake in 2005. I find the first half of that film to be as scary as they come. Spielberg’s version captured the fear very well, just as Frank Darabont did in The Mist last year.

What is Cloverfield? It is a monster movie for the post- 9/11 era. Cloverfield would not be as eerie or as effective without that context. The horrific day haunts the whole film. If I lived in New York City, I am not sure I could watch this film all the way. The movie has a couple of sequences that work all too well-- there are several money shots that work very well. The story is told from the point of view of a small group of friends.
As the movie opens, the display on the video screen tells us that this evidence was retrieved from the formation formally known as Central Park. I believe that statement itself is pretty chilling. Something awful must have happened in one of the most beautiful parts of New York City.

The beginning of the tape is background for the main characters in the movie. The tape goes back and forth between the present and recent past of the characters’ lives. This is important, so pay attention. The action really starts at a going away party for Rob Hawkins (Michael David-Stahl). He has gotten a job in Japan. His brother, Jason (Mike Vogel) and their friends are throwing him a surprise going away party. Their friend and constant talker, Hud Platt (T.J. Miller), has been given the task of videotaping everyone and everything at the party. This part of the movie is like an ADD version of Dawson’s Creek. I do not recognize most of the young actors in the movie and this works to the movie’s advantage. The movie puts us in the center of the party; this is the part where being a fly on the wall has very little in the way of perks. Rob has a fight with his girlfriend. She leaves the party with someone else. But just when you think the movie is drowning in a sea of its retarded narcissism, life as these partygoers knows it comes to a thunderous end. The monster could not have gotten here soon enough. The power goes out after a huge blasting shockwave of sound. The power comes back on and the television news comes back on. It seems that an oil tanker as capsized in the harbor near the Statue of Liberty. The partygoers rush up to the rooftop. We see a huge fireball explosion in the center of Manhattan. All bets are off!

At this point of the film, the chaos and confusion of 9/11 comes into full play. This movie plays on the fear of that day and does it quite well. As our band of partygoers exits onto the streets-- all hell has broken loose. People are running, buildings are collapsing, dust and debris are everywhere and yes, we see something big and monstrous making its way from though the city. We see everything from Hud’s point of view. Hud has a frat boy mentality and he has knack for saying some pretty stupid things, but he is the viewfinder. We are seeing everything through his eyes. People have no idea what they have seen. One of the pieces of debris is the Statue of Liberty’s head as it comes crashing down on the street. It is a true holy shit moment-- a nice wink to Planet of The Apes and Escape From New York. The goal should be to get out of the city, but Rob cannot do this. He has to go back into the city to save his girlfriend who is still in the heart of all this insanity. He wants to make things right. You would have to be insane to go back in that direction. The scene of the evacuations out of the city is intense. The scene of the crowds crossing the Brooklyn Bridge is one of the most chilling in the film. It plays on our fears very well.

The monster… no I am not going to even attempt to describe him. Maybe he is Lucifer at his worst. We have seen variations of him in many films. Let me put it this way, Ray Harryhausen will be very proud of what is wreaking havoc in New York City. The monster and his parasites work very well for several reasons. Sound is the most important aspect of the movie. The sound of things being destroyed, screams, noises in the dark, the monster’s roar and just about every noise create a successful thrill ride. Sound is key to this film and also the lack of any music score. There is no soundtrack to the film. I thought at first I would not like this, but it works to the film’s overall success. I am so used to Max Steiner or Akira Ifukube pulsating in the background-- I take it for granted. Cloverfield does not need any background music. It would have helped for the American remake of Godzilla directed by Roland Emmerich back in 1998. Cloverfield is a far superior experience to that heinous remake. The absence of music gives the movie the terror factor it is looking to achieve. The technique does owe a lot to 1999’s The Blair Witch Project with the hand held and shaky cam technique. If you get motion sickness, this may not be the movie for you. I like The Blair Witch Project and it was effective for its time. It is hard not to see the influence of the older film on this film. It is there in several scenes.

The last year has been a good year for the revival of the monster movie genre. The Mist and The Host are damn near classics in my book of this genre going back to its roots-- using the films as metaphors for fear and environmental concerns. Cloverfield is effective because of its geography. New York City gets a raw deal in this film, I Am Legend and The Day After Tomorrow. In each version of King Kong, Escape From New York, the first two Planet Of the Apes, Independence Day, Deep Impact, Meteor and countless others, New York City is ravaged and beaten. In the latter films, we were awed by what was happening. Whether it was James Franciscus and Linda Harrison wondering through the subway tunnels of post-apocalyptic New York in Beneath The Planet of The Apes or Bruce Cabot going after Fay Wray in the original King Kong, we were in awe of what was going on before us. After 9/11, it is no longer awe, but a new level of fear that unites us in the darkness. We are along for a very chilling ride in Cloverfield. It does remind us of that horrible day when we were all united in front of television screens. Cloverfield would not work as well without that context.

While I think Cloverfield is a great movie going experience, I am not sure how it will hold up on repeated viewings. I doubt the effect will work twice. The film is by no means perfect, but I think J.J. Abrams just wanted to scare the pants off us and get the internet kids back in the movie theaters. It is more of an experience than a film. I hope this not the future of filmmaking. There are no answers in the film as to why this is happening. We never find out where the monster came from or any of the who, what, where or why for that matter. I like the unknown aspects of the film-- the unanswered questions leave an interesting legacy. Logic does not enter the picture. How is anyone getting cell phone reception during all of this? How is Hud able to keep filming all of this? That camcorder must have one incredible battery in it. Hud does offer some of his theories for comic relief. There is one thing I do wish J.J. Abrams had not done. While the viral marketing of this film was very effective and went into overload, there was no need for it. All you needed was the trailer in front of Transformers. The film sold itself right then and there. It managed to take some of the thunder from that big summer blockbuster. He did not need to overhype this one. It is a shame because I would have loved to have walked into this film cold. The hype for this movie has been insane, but I do not think you needed it. Although having said that, Cloverfield does its job and does it very well-- it is quite the adrenaline rush.

The Bucket List: Missed Opportunities




“Relatively soon, I will die. Maybe in 20 years, maybe tomorrow, it doesn't matter. Once I am dead and everyone who knew me dies too, it will be as though I never existed. What difference has my life made to anyone. None that I can think of. None at all.”
-- Warren Schmidt from About Schmidt

The latest issue of The Atlantic Monthly features an article written by Megan McArdle concerning the arrival of America’s Silver Age. The article is about the beginning of the long heralded Baby Boomer Retirement Era. It is a very informative article that details exactly how this will affect the whole country. The Baby Boomer demographic is important for everyone. Hollywood has not lost sight of this age group with such films as The Boynton Beach Club and Wild Hogs. Rob Reiner’s The Bucket List is the newest entry in this category. The Bucket List is a chance to see two of the finest actors work together-- Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. I wish I could say that this pairing works and works well, but sadly the script keeps the film grounded in clichés. The screenplay has a vending machine quality to it. The material is beneath both of its lead actors. It is very painful to write that last line. It always pains me to see such great actors in such mediocre films.

The Bucket List is simply about two terminally ill men who decide to make the most out of their remaining time. Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson) is a successful, self-made businessman who has worked hard his whole life to create a successful hospital corporation. Cole is on top of the world when he is diagnosed with cancer. Carter Chambers (Morgan Freeman) has been an automobile mechanic for his entire life who has an encyclopedic knowledge of trivia. He is working in his garage and answering a series of trivia questions from a younger co-worker when he gets a phone call with the worst news in the world-- he has cancer. Edward Cole ends up sharing the same room as Carter much to Cole’s dismay. Cole’s hospital system is based on a simple creed of two beds per room. He “runs hospitals, not health spas. Two beds to a room, no exceptions.” He has to eat his own words. At first he cannot accept his fate. Neither one of them can, but reality sets in. Carter has been writing things on a list. He throws it out one night, but Cole finds it on the floor. It is a bucket list-- things to do in life before one kicks the bucket as it were. The second half of the film is all of the male bonding episodes we see in the trailer-- sky diving, auto racing and so on. This is a chance for these two men to become close friends. Each of them wants to do as much living before the inevitable end.

I really wished that this film had worked. Is it a horrible film? No, but sadly it is not as good as it could have been. It reminds me of the 1984 film, City Heat. At the time, this film was a big deal because of the two lead actors, Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood. Despite their presence, the film never worked as well as it should have. The same thing applies to The Bucket List. The idea of having Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman in the same film must have looked great on paper. The problem is that I expect a great deal from both these actors. The film has a made for television aspect that is hard to get away from at times. The film’s trailer gives away the whole film. Honestly, you do not have to be Sam Spade to figure out how this film is going to end. Watching it, I felt the film would have worked better if it were Jack Nicholson and his old friend, Warren Beatty. The two of them worked very well in the Mike Nichols film, The Fortune. That would have been an interesting pairing. I have always believed that Jack Nicholson would have been a better choice than Garry Shandling in the ill-fated Town and Country-- a disaster of a film that seemed more at home in the 1970’s than 2001. Still, Nicholson might have helped the film rise above its many shortcomings. Nicholson played this role much better in Alexander Payne’s About Schmidt. Never mind that the film was a water downed version of Louis Begley’s novel, Jack Nicholson did a very good job of bringing that character to life. On Morgan Freeman’s end, I think it would have worked much better with Clint Eastwood. They worked so well together in Million Dollar Baby. In a film like this, the two of them might have worked a lot better. While I think Jack Nicholson is fine as Edward Cole, I think there is something denigrating about Morgan Freeman’s character in the film. He is a truly great actor. He can do anything-- just watch him in Gone Baby Gone for a different type of role. The role of Carter Chambers seems very beneath him.

The main problem with the film is that I think the wrong Reiner directed the film. Look, I think Rob Reiner is an excellent director. This Is Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally, A Few Good Men, Stand By Me, Misery and The American President are very good films. Rob Reiner is a very good director, but I think he was not the right man for the job. His father is better suited for the material. I think Carl Reiner could have done wonders with this film. He might have thrown out Justin Zackham’s script and started from scratch. Granted he has not directed a film since That Old Feeling, I think he might have had a better idea how to handle the material and present it in a fresh way. The films he directed for Steve Martin such as The Jerk, The Man with Two Brains, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid and All of Me represented a comic genius at the height of his powers. Carl Reiner would be my first choice, but I think Mike Nichols or Bob Rafelson could have shaped this film into something more memorable. With the exception of Man Trouble, Bob Rafelson and Jack Nicholson have worked very well together. Rafelson got some awesome performances out of Jack Nicholson; especially in Five Easy Pieces and The King Of Marvin Gardens; Mike Nichols has also directed Jack Nicholson in many films. The Fortune, Heartburn, Carnal Knowledge and even Wolf display the strengths of their enduring working relationship. Rafelson and Nichols could have turned this into a film to remember. As it stands, The Bucket List is a series of missed opportunities and tired storytelling. Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman deserve better. The Baby Boomers deserve better. The Bucket List is spectacularly average, when it could have been so much more.

The Savages: Close To The Bone




“I wish I could just sleep until I was eighteen and skip all this crap-high school and everything-just skip it.”
-- Dwayne Hoover from Little Miss Sunshine

“We’re doing the right thing, Wendy. We’re taking better care of the old man than he ever did of us.”
-- Jon Savage from The Savages

The Savages is brutal, honest, funny and very painful to watch. Tamara Jenkins has crafted a film that hits so close to home for me that I was tempted to walk out at several junctures. This is not to say that she has made a bad film-- nothing could be further from the truth. The Savages is an unflinching look at what it means to grow old in America-- what it means when the children of aging parents have to step up and take responsibility.
Tamara Jenkins pulls no punches and refuses to sugarcoat her film. If Slums Of Beverly Hills was an honest coming of age story, then The Savages is an honest coming of maturity story. The film serves as a wonderful companion piece to Slums Of Beverly Hills. Jenkins has a natural flair for sibling relationships and their detached relationships to their parents; especially fathers.

It has been nine years since Slums Of Beverly Hills was released. It is a very long time to be gone from the film industry. Some directors can get away with it and others cannot. In this day and age of short attention spans, I would imagine it is not the wisest move to be absent too long. She made only one short film in 2004 called Choices: The Good, the Bad and The Ugly. Regardless, Jenkins has made a wickedly good film. It is not for everyone. Yet, in an era where more adult children are taking care of their older parents, it is a very necessary film. It would have been very easy to write Tamara Jenkins off, but she comes back and makes a very forceful second feature film-- in some ways, too forceful and to in your face. But as uneasy as the film is to watch, she brings her trademark humor into the picture whenever things get too dire. I Can Count On You and Little Miss Sunshine would be the two films that act as a bridge between her two films. The estranged sibling relationship of I Can Count On You and the dysfunctional familial dynamics of Little Miss Sunshine serve as an important cinematic bridge between her two films.

Jon and Wendy Savage are the estranged children of Lenny Savage. Lenny (Philip Bosco) lives with his girlfriend of twenty years in a retirement community in Arizona. When his girlfriend dies, Lenny has nowhere to go. Lenny Savage is in the early stages of dementia when his adult children come to get him. Wendy (Laura Linney) is an aspiring playwright who works as a temp in New York City. She is applying for grants in order to finish her play, “Wake Me When It’s Over.” Jon (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a college professor in Buffalo who is trying to finish his book about Bertolt Brecht. The children are both aspiring writers. They are trying to make their own way in the world and they have their own problems. They are not a close clan. They have been estranged from their father for a long time. The mother had abandoned them long ago. The absent mother is constant motif in Ms. Jenkins’ films. When they go down to retrieve Lenny, it opens up a can of worms. They must take time out of their own lives and do something neither one of them is prepared for-- take care of their ailing father. There is a very strong argument to be made that Bosco’s Lenny is an older version of Alan Arkin’s Murray Abromowitz from Slums Of Beverly Hills. Like Alan Arkin in that film and Little Miss Sunshine, veteran character Philip Bosco delivers a strong performance. But unlike Arkin, there is very little to laugh at with Lenny. Philip Bosco, like Rip Torn, has a towering presence on the screen. Each actor has found a film in the last several years that reminds us of their vitality in the medium. For Rip Torn, it was Forty Shades Of Blue in 2005. For Bosco, Lenny Savage is a truly remarkable and difficult role. He is by no means a likable character. He is suffering from dementia. His children are trying to find a retirement home to put him. The role could easily turn into unintended farce in another performer’s shoes, but Bosco plays it for real. There is a genuine fear in face. He does not know what is going on. There is an authenticity in his facial expressions and gestures that betrays nothing. In a year of brave performances, Lenny Savage stands out-- it the bravest performance of Bosco’s career.

As Jon and Wendy Savage, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney are nothing short of perfect. Jon Savage is nothing like Gust Avrakotos from Charlie Wilson’s War or Andy Hanson from Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead. How does he do it? Hoffman has played three totally different characters in one year. It is an astounding feat. He possesses an impressive range. Jon Savage does not want to be bothered by his father’s problem. He wants to help, but keep a distance. I also like how he is fixated on Brecht just as Steve Carell’s Frank Hoover was fixated on Marcel Proust. Jon is very much like his sister, Wendy. Laura Linney brings a lot to the role. Like Joan Allen, she brings a lot to each performance. Like Joan Allen, she does not get the respect and recognition she deserves. At times, it is hard to tell whether Hoffman or Linney are acting—acting comes to them naturally. Both are self-medicators and obsessive cereal eaters. Both of them have relationship issues. As much as they have tried to get away from their roots, they are very much their father’s children. While it is very tempting to compare the sibling relationship with the one in You Can Count On Me, I do not think it is the same. Laura Linney was the more responsible one in that film to Mark Ruffalo’s misfit. In The Savages, both siblings are in the purgatory between arrested development and adulthood. The whirlwind of individual psychodramas and creative pursuits must be put on hold. It is time to grow up and do the right thing. Lenny may not have been a good father, but maybe the children can do better and take care of him. Ironically, the film echoes some of the same adulthood themes of Lars And The Real Girl. In the end, The Savages is a film about growing up and making sacrifices.

Tamara Jenkins has made a very important movie for our times. The Savages is the perfect film as we enter the year where the Baby Boomers start to retire. It is the prefect blend of drama and comedy-- Jenkins gets the balance just right. Now I must come clean; I am a part-time caregiver for my father. He had a massive stroke ten years ago. Watching Lenny Savage was like looking in a large mirror of my life. Ms. Jenkins gets it very right as her film hits very close to home. There is a scene halfway through the film where Wendy takes Lenny on an airplane. It is a cringe inducing scene. The flight is a disaster as he has to go to the bathroom. I understood this scene all too well. As uncomfortable as the film may make us feel, I am grateful to watch a film that gets it right. Tamara Jenkins never plays her audience for fools. If The Savages is a film about reaching maturity and adulthood, then Ms. Jenkins has made the ultimate film on these themes.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

There Will Be Blood: Drilling For The Great American Film (Spoilers!!)



“I don't think there's one word that can describe a mans life.”
-- Charles Foster Kane from Citizen Kane

“'Course I'm respectable. I'm old. Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.”
-- Noah Cross from Chinatown

“Are you an angry man? Are you envious? Do you get envious? I have a competition in me; I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people. There are times when I, I look at people and I see nothing worth liking.”
-- Daniel Plainview from There Will Be Blood


After five years toiling away in the cinematic wilderness, Paul Thomas Anderson delivers a howling fury of an American epic, There Will Be Blood. He has loosely adapted Upton Sinclair’s Oil! with stunning and fascinating results. In between this film and Punch-Drunk Love, Anderson served as standby director on Robert Altman’s last film, A Prairie Home Companion. Robert Altman passed away after the film was completed and released, but Anderson was on hand in case anything had happened to Mr. Altman during the film’s production. Why? Very simple, Anderson is the clearest heir to Robert Altman’s masterful use of ensemble casts and multiple narratives. Such films as Nashville and Short Cuts are the epitome of this grand tradition that dates back to Grand Hotel. Paul Thomas Anderson showed this skill with Boogie Nights and then took it much further with Magnolia. He has used his own troupe of actors such as Julianne Moore, Luis Guzman, John C. Reilly, Philip Baker Hall and several others for his films. And while There Will Be Blood is a very different film in many ways from his previous efforts, something tells me he must have been deeply influenced by Edmund Goulding’s Grand Hotel just the same.

The previous films could not prepare me for the epic sprawl of There Will Be Blood.
The film centers on the rise of an oil man, played with gargantuan ferocity by Daniel Day-Lewis. Daniel Plainview is the actor’s most complex and compelling character to date. Bill the Butcher in Gangs Of A New York has nothing on Daniel Plainview. This new character is a welcome addition to his other great roles such as Gerry Conlon from In The Name Of Father, Bill The Butcher from Gangs Of New York, Danny Flynn from The Boxer, John Proctor from The Crucible, Hawkeye from The Last of The Mohicans, Newland Archer from The Age Of Innocence and Johnny from My Beautiful Laundrette. Daniel Plainview is the most riveting of all. Daniel Day-Lewis has the benefit of not flooding the screen with too many films. Daniel Day-Lewis is not an overexposed actor; and perhaps, his enigmatic presence pays off with each role. Lewis is on another level-- a much higher level. He is a flesh and blood creature who creates a role from scratch. Daniel Plainview is no exception. The success of the film rests entirely on his performance. This is not to say the other performances in the film are minor or inconsequential; nothing could be farther from the truth. Still, it is Daniel Day-Lewis’s Plainview that Anderson has decided to use as the film’s major character. Daniel Plainview is one of those larger than life characters in American film. He deserves to be in the same pantheon as Charles Foster Kane, Noah Cross, Michael Corleone, and Elmer Gantry. What makes the character so unique and compelling is that Lewis has an uncanny ability to channel John Huston throughout the film. I have never seen anything like it. His vocal pitches remind me of Huston’s Noah Cross from Chinatown. Surely that is no accident since the film has many similarities to Roman Polanski’s classic tale of greed, corruption, murder and water use in old Los Angeles. There is nothing generic about this awesome monster. And like Noah Cross, Plainview provides the film’s manic energy. Yes, Daniel Plainview is meant to be seen as a metaphor of predatory capitalism. Surely that is one of Anderson’s aims with the film, but to be honest that is a very simplistic take on the character and the film. Plainview enjoys the process and the competition of his business. The same could be said for the detailed and meticulous process in which Daniel Day-Lewis prepares for each role.

There is a beautiful lyrical component to Plainview’s words. His words go hand in hand with Jonny Greenwood’s thunderous score. Greenwood is the guitarist for Radiohead and his work here merits comparisons with some of Jerry Goldsmith’s and Ennio Morricone’s finest work. Morricone’s music served as character motifs in Sergio Leone’s Once Upon A Time In The West. Greenwood’s score echoes Jerry Goldsmith’s score from Planet of The Apes while overlooking the desolate central Californian landscape. Greenwood’s music in integral to the film-- the music is its own character; just as in Dario Marianelli’s score for Joe Wright’s Atonement. Greenwood’s hypnotic score is the perfect companion to Daniel’s gravity as he descends into derangement and detachment. To be fair, Daniel is already somewhat mad when we meet him in the beginning of the film.

Daniel Plainview is a turn of the century oil man in Central California. When we first meet him, he is making his bones as a silver prospector. He comes into the oil business through dishonesty and deceit. He is the ultimate snake oil salesman. He is a master of the primitive oil technologies available. His arrogance is his greatest and worst asset.
In the middle of the film he tells one of his closest associates, Fletcher Hamilton, played by the always wonderful Ciaran Hinds:
“There is a whole ocean of oil underneath our feet; no one can get at it but me.”
Daniel is very sure of himself. We never doubt that-- not even in the film’s first fifteen minutes where no dialogue is spoken. Anderson’s grasp of the medium’s visual power is astounding as we watch Plainview go from silver mining to oil drilling. His well at Coyote Hills has served him well. He travels from town to town with his son, H.W. Plainview, beautifully played by Dillon Freasier. Daniel has created a family business. He needs the little boy to sell his sales pitch to various towns. Remember this is a man who has been in holes and pits most of his life earning a living. He is not a people person. The relationship with H.W. shows a tender side of Daniel. There is a deep bond between father and “son” until a permanent physical injury (a result of an oil drilling accident impairs the son’s hearing. He is the very definition of self-made. Plainview gives his sales pitch in each town-- he is the only one who can successfully drill the oil and he can give the towns their prosperity. Plainview is creation of mythic proportions. The performance is the stuff of legend.

The town of Little Boston is where Daniel meets his match. He meets a worthy adversary in the form of Paul Dano’s Eli Sunday, a captivating preacher. Let me put it this way. As soon as the two meet, a slow building undercurrent of animosity oozes from Plainview. Eli is eager to have Plainview drill for oil to bring money for his congregation. He wants to make sure there will be a road to the church. He keeps insisting on it and Plainview grits his teeth in acknowledgement. Plainview cannot stand the guy. They play an interesting game throughout the film. Mind you the film stretches from 1897 to 1927 as the title cards inform us throughout the film. The introduction of Dano’s Eli Sunday gives us a wonderful contrast to Plainview. Plainview recognizes the charlatan traits that Eli displays in his evangelical tent revivals. Eli puts on a great show. In one scene, he gives a wild display as he casts out an old woman’s arthritis. Plainview refers to it as a “nice show.” Perhaps, Daniel’s degree of self hatred is that he recognizes the fraudulence and conceit of Eli’s persona. Anderson’s gives a blistering critique not only of capitalism, but also the hypocrisy of organized religion. The film is a damning indictment of religion in the tradition of Elmer Gantry and Wise Blood. Eli Sunday comes across as the long lost brother of Wise Blood’s Hazel Motes played by Brad Dourif. Both characters seem to be channeling Lancaster’s Elmer Gantry at times, but Dano seems to be doing a good job of following in Dourif’s footsteps. Eli is one tough customer; he haggles with Daniel over money throughout the film. One of the film’s signature scenes is when Plainview decides to be baptized by Eli in his church. It is the most hypocritical baptism since the iconic baptism sequence in The Godfather. There is different settling of scores going on within this baptism. There is not a large body count here, but there is a greater game going on between these two men. It is breathtaking to behold. Paul Dano holds his own against Daniel Day-Lewis. It is important to note that Paul Dano plays two characters in this film. Please pay attention to him in the film.

The triumph of Paul Thomas Anderson’s film is that there is so much to ponder after the film is done. After a string of films like Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia and Punch- Drunk Love, Mr. Anderson would seem the last person to adapt a period piece to the big screen, but he has done it while certainly working outside his comfort zone, with Daniel Plainview, he is working with a character he knows very well. Plainview possesses the smarts and world view of Philip Baker Hall’s Sydney in Hard Eight. He possesses some of the same attributes of Mark Wahlberg’s Dirk Diggler in Boogie Nights. There is a very strong argument to be made that Daniel Plainview does not know how to handle his great success and great wealth. He sleeps on the floor whenever we see him-- even in his beautiful mansion in the film’s final act. Ironically, he has some things in common with Adam Sandler’s Barry Egan in Punch-Drunk Love. Like Egan, Plainview is self-made and his inner rage can manifest itself with horrifying consequences. Remember the scene in Punch-Drunk Love where Egan destroys the restaurant restroom; it shows his internal anger. There are several instances of this fury in There Will Be Blood. Plainview is in constant competition with Standard Oil. He does not want to sell them his business at all. The Standard Oil representatives cross the line implying that the deal would be good for him and he can spend more time with his son. A big mistake, Plainview’s rage comes through. There is no deal. As we learn later, he is in constant competition. He cannot stand others to succeed. He is not fond of other people in general. He is the nihilist from the get go. He is the most nihilistic character in American cinema since Charlton Heston’s George Taylor in The Planet Of The Apes. The Egan analogy is appropriate. While he certainly can deal with people to further his business interests, he is an introvert at heart. People are only good to him as ways to achieve his ends in business. At least Barry Egan was willing to let others in; it was his great turning point in the film. Plainview develops an isolationist streak as he gets wealthier in the film. He wants to get away from these “people.” The isolationist theme is prevalent as it was in Citizen Kane, The Godfather Part II and The Aviator. Each film, including There Will Be Blood echoes a certain isolationist feeling present in American society at the time they were made-- the desire to retreat from outside conflicts and world affairs.

Robert Elswit continues his brilliant work as Mr. Anderson’s cinematographer. Central California has never looked so beautiful. Come to think of it, California has never looked as beautiful as it does in this film. The film was shot in Santa Clarita, and El Mirage Dry Lake, California as well as Albuquerque, New Mexico and Marfa, Texas. It is interesting to note that Giant and No Country For Old Men were filmed in Marfa as well. In a year of beautiful looking films such as The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, Lust, Caution and Atonement, There Will Be Blood raises the stakes considerably. The film continues a vivid visual legacy from such films as Giant, Heaven’s Gate, Days Of Heaven, and Citizen Kane. The daunting and barren early Twentieth Century landscape acts as its own character throughout the film. Beneath the land there is an endless treasure trove of black gold. When oil is found, it has an ominous tone and effect. Workers are hurt or killed. Some of the accidents have life altering effects on the major characters. This is a far cry from when James Dean’s Jett Rink found oil in Giant.

Paul Thomas Anderson has made the great American epic. It is his most ambitious film to date; it is the most ambitious film I have seen in many years. The film deserves to be in the great pantheon of American films such as Citizen Kane, Chinatown, The Godfather, The Godfather: Part II, Elmer Gantry, Days Of Heaven and Giant. It is a film we will be talking about for many decades to come. Because of the film’s rich cinematic heritage, it serves as a compliment to those the great films. Anderson has done his part and his film is a way of communicating with those great films and their filmmakers. There are so many ideas presented in the film, one could be forgiven to think of the film as a series of loosely strung together vignettes. Yet, those vignettes do add up in the end. Mr. Anderson has given us a film to ponder over for the rest of our days. There Will Be Blood is the classic film about greed, wealth, religion, success and madness. Like Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Thomas Anderson is becoming a living legend.

The Orphanage: Coming Home (Spoilers!!)




“Carol Anne - listen to me. Do NOT go into the light. Stop where you are. Turn away from it. Don't even look at it.”
-- Diane Freeling from Poltergeist

“Now please leave. I am not going back, and I am... I would not be any good to you if I did.”
-- Ellen Ripley from Aliens

In 2006, Laura Dern gave a brave performance in David Lynch’s Inland Empire. Regardless of what one thought of the film, Laura Dern’s character was a testament to her willingness to break new, unsettling ground for her old friend. She is the glue that holds Inland Empire together. As much as I admire Julie Christie, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Keri Russell and Tilda Swinton for the great work they did in 2007, it is Belen Rueda who gives the bravest and most gut wrenching performance of last year in Juan Antonio Bayona’s debut film, The Orphanage. It is a wonderful old fashioned ghost story which gets under your skin. It is a chilling Spanish horror story. It is what you do not see that is truly terrifying in Mr. Bayona’s film. As Laura, Belen Rueda is the perfect character for us to latch onto and experience her trials and tribulations. Laura is in almost every scene of the film and she makes her character true in every way. She is as original as they come. Bayona’s greatest triumph, besides having Guillermo Del Toro as a producer, is that he is able to tell a standard horror story and make it fresh and truly frightening. What can be said about Mr. Del Toro is that he knows a good thing when he sees it; he has no interest in putting his name on junk. I expect nothing less from the director of Pan’s Labyrinth, The Devil’s Backbone and Hellboy.

Laura is a fascinating protagonist-- a woman, who was an adopted orphan, who decides to buy the orphanage she was raised in and convert into a home for disabled children with her husband, Carlos (Fernando Coyo). Their plan is to restore the ex-orphanage and make it home for their son, Simon (Roger Princep). Simon is adopted and HIV positive, but he does not know these two details about himself. He has a very active imagination. He has imaginary friends. Why would she want to buy the very same orphanage she was raised in? This is never made clear, but Mr. Bayona and screenwriter, Sergio G. Sanchez supply enough food for thought throughout the film. In the beginning of the film, we see a young Laura playing a game with the other children outside the orphanage. After the game, she is adopted. What would possess her to come back here of all places? Is it a sense of nostalgia-- or is it a deeper sense of guilt? Guilt is one of the film’s strongest emotions? Guilt is a powerful undercurrent throughout the film. Is it guilt that made Laura adopt a child? Was it an obligation on her part to see to it that she return the favor and pay it forward? What else could be her driving motivation to adopt and to want to start a home for disabled children? Returning the home of her childhood is a very Ripley like gesture on her part. Is this any different than Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley returning to battle the monsters of her nightmares in Aliens?

Laura’s guilt manifests itself after the film’s central event. Laura and Carlos are throwing an open house party for children at their new home. Simon has already made new imaginary friends at the orphanage. The orphanage is located near the sea. There is a beach and a cave where mother and son go early on in the film. Simon starts to talk to someone in the cave, but Laura does not see anyone there. It would be easy to say he sees dead people like Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense, but this is not the same thing exactly. The Orphanage is a lot of things, but it is not a calling card for one trick pony storytelling. I liked The Sixth Sense, but this is a different story. At the party, the children wear masks. Laura has a nasty encounter with one of them. Somehow during this incident, Simon gets lost. His parents race down to the beach, to the cave, but he is nowhere to found. Simon is presumed dead, but Laura does not believe this at all. Laura is persistent in her search for her son. The second half of the film does play like a missing person’s investigation.

The house itself is an organic being. Like the best horror films and ghost stories, the structure itself is a pulsating and breathing organism. Bayona’s orphanage is not that different from the Bates Motel in Psycho; the horrible house in The Amityville Horror; the house in Burnt Offerings; the Overlook Hotel in The Shining and of course, the Freeling household in Poltergeist. Bayona gives us a complete symphony of dread with enough creaks, door slams and moans to keep us many nights for several lifetimes. Oscar Faura’s cinematography only heightens the mood while Fernando Velazquez’s haunting score does nothing to alleviate our fears. Speaking of Poltergeist, Laura invites a group of paranormal investigators to the house in a last act of desperation. Almost six months have gone by and there is no news about Simon. The investigators are led by Aurora, beautifully played by Geraldine Chaplin. There is someone poetic and perfectly fitting to have her play the part of a Medium. It is inspired casting. Aurora comes equipped with modern technology-- CCTV, Oscilloscopes and a vivid night vision display. There is a high tech séance and watching Aurora during this sequence is enthralling and frightening. She is witnessing the ghosts of the past-- incidents that happened at the orphanage long ago. How can Aurora help Laura find her son? Are the clues within the house and more importantly are there secrets within the house that could reveal his whereabouts? This part of the film owes a lot to Poltergeist and Alejandro Amenabar’s The Others.

With its high octane female cast, The Orphanage may be the horror film that Pedro Almodovar might have directed. Besides Belen Rueda and Geraldine Chaplin, there is also Mabel Rivera as a police psychologist and Montserrat Carulla as the old and enigmatic social worker, Benigna. This is an estrogen heavy horror story, but do not begin to mistake it for a pathetic Lifetime movie of the week. Bayona has given us an excellent cast of characters to follow in his film. Still, it is Rueda’s Linda who is the primary driving force of the film. Her determination and love for Simon is awe inspiring as she refuses to give up hope. One cannot mistake her love and the bravery she has as she turns the tables at the end of the film. She recreates the orphanage as it was in her childhood. She goes through a lot of work, but it is never too much if it means finding Simon. Her relentless pursuit reminds me of JoBeth Williams’ Diane Freeling in Poltergeist as she goes into the supernatural world to rescue her daughter, Carol Anne.
She also reminds me of Ripley going to rescue Newt from the Queen Mother Alien in Aliens. In some way she reminds me of Sally Farnham (Kim Darby) from the 1973 television film, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark-- a film that still gives me the creeps. Sally and her husband inherit her Father’s house, a creepy old Victorian mansion. They move in to renovate it. She unlocks her Father’s old study and removes bricks from a fireplace. After doing this, she starts to see small demon like creatures everywhere. Her husband thinks she is neurotic and that she is losing her mind. Laura does remind me in some ways of Sally, Diane Freeling and Ellen Ripley. Laura has a determination within her to find her son, no matter what the cost is to her. At the end of the day, the price will be very high, but under the watchful eye of Juan Antonio Bayona, it is a fresh take on a very old story. Thanks to a knock out performance by Belen Rueda, Laura is one of the bravest and boldest screen heroines in many years.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Charlie Wilson’s War: Good Times before the Blowback




“My constituents know they’re not electing a constipated monk.”
-- Charlie Wilson

"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. And the people who deserved the credit are the ones who made the sacrifice. And then we fucked up the endgame."
-- Charlie Wilson

Charlie Wilson’s War eradicated the sour taste in my mouth left by such dry polemics as Rendition and Lions For Lambs. Watching these films, the filmmakers’ heart is in the right place, but the execution was bland and off putting. I even found the films to be insulting at times. The real life story of Texas Congressman, Charlie Wilson, and his involvement in the largest CIA covert operation is anything but dry. Thanks to Mike Nichols’ effortless direction and Aaron Sorkin’s witty screenplay based on the late George Crile’s book of the same name, the film never goes off the rails into misguided pandering. Mike Nichols does this kind of film very well. Primary Colors was a decent adaptation of that favorite inside the beltway bestseller back in the mid- Nineties. Sadly, the film could not compete with the real life inside the beltway shenanigans at the time. Charlie Wilson’s War owes more to films like Primary Colors, Wag The Dog, Children Of The Revolution and this year’s The Hunting Party. It helps that Nichols has a strong comic background with films like The Fortune, Working Girl, Catch-22 and especially The Graduate. Aaron Sorkin has a great ear for politics as pop culture; he understands it very well. The West Wing was a testament to his special talent. His script for The American President displayed that he had keen sense of humor when it came to politics. His adaptation of Crile’s book is an excellent lesson in how to bring a book to the screen and not lose the core essence-- a slim and vibrant history lesson. Nichols and Sorkin understand that politics is really a comic mission despite the seriousness that surrounds it. The film is the flipside to this year’s The Kite Runner. Charlie Wilson’s War is the perfect film for the Wonkette and Huffington Post crowd.

Charlie Wilson’s War is fun. You heard that right, the film is fun. What an odd word to describe a film about the 1980 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the Texas Congressman who wants to save the people being destroyed by the Soviets. Charlie Wilson is a larger than life character played by Tom Hanks. This is Tom Hanks we have not seen in a very long time. This is the older version of Tom Hanks from the television show, Bosom Buddies and films like Bachelor Party, Volunteers and Dragnet-- the Tom Hanks before he became a two time best actor Oscar winner. Really, Tom Hanks plays Wilson as an older version Bachelor Party’s Rick Gassko and I mean this as a compliment because Charlie Wilson is the ultimate bachelor. He has the ultimate bachelor pad in Washington DC. Hanks’ Wilson seems to be a politician from another time. He has character, but he has a wild side to him. When we first meet Wilson, he is soaking in a hot tub with a Playboy centerfold and a Hollywood producer in a Las Vegas Hotel surrounded by alcohol and cocaine circa 1980. He is intrigued by the events on the television news. Dan Rather is reporting from Afghanistan and wearing a turban. Who could forget Rather in his Gunga Dan phase? Wilson wants to know what is going on. Charlie Wilson, a Democratic Congressman who represented Texas’ second congressional district, is an unlikely hero. Amidst all the women, drugs, and alcohol (a Scotch seems to be glued to his hand in the film), Soviet aggression becomes the rallying cry for Wilson. He is a shameless womanizer. His office is staffed by beautiful women who were named Charlie’s Angels. Amy Adams plays his assistant, Bonnie Bach. Sadly, Adams has a small role in the film and does not get to do as much as she did in Enchanted and Junebug. He was also a very keen political operator. He knew how to work with politician’s to get what he wanted for his district. Still, the Soviet Aggression in Afghanistan would become his major concern and cause. What can he do to bring down the Red Army? He is frustrated that United States is not doing anything to help.

One of the most important scenes in the film deals with Charlie Wilson’s visit to Pakistan. His tour of the region is where his true conversion takes place. Charlie Wilson travels to the refugee camp at Peshawar in the tribal regions of Pakistan that border Afghanistan. It is here we see the true devastation and impact of the Soviet invasion. This part of the film is not played for laughs. His conscience is born. Politics as usual will not be tolerated any longer. It is to Hanks’ credit that he can play the comic and serious sides so well at the flick of switch.

Joanne Herring is a wealthy, conservative Houston Socialite with whom Wilson finds common ground. She adores Jesus, and despises godless communism. Herring too has made it her life’s ambition to take up the cause of Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.
Herring is played by Julia Roberts, a blonde fireball. In many ways, her scenes with Hanks amount to something of a great pairing of Hollywood’s most popular actor and actress. They have great chemistry onscreen. Ever since Julia Roberts met Steven Soderbergh, her range and versatility has improved. She has matured into playing this type of supporting role. In another time, this part would have been played by a Rita Hayworth type. Pakistan’s military President, played by the always wonderful Om Puri, is one of her projects. It is a pleasure to see Roberts and Hanks act off one another. It is not quite Gable and Lombard, but it will have to do for 2007.

Arguably, as good as Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are in the film, they are upstaged by Philip Seymour Hoffman’s hard living misfit CIA operative, Gust Avrakotos. Like Josh Brolin and Christian Bale, Hoffman is having a terrific year. He has played three very different characters in three very different films this year. Along with Charlie Wilson’s War; the two films, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead and The Savages, demonstrate Hoffman’s evolving range. He steals the film from Roberts and Hanks just as Raul Julia stole Tequila Sunrise from Mel Gibson and Kurt Russell whenever he was onscreen. Gust is as disgruntled and frustrated as they come. He is not happy with the United States’ lack of involvement in Afghanistan; he finds a kindred spirit in Charlie Wilson. The two of them hatch a complex plan that involves Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt all working together in private. The whole idea of all these nations working together was unheard of and it is amazing that it ever worked. Wilson wants Gust to get the most sophisticated weapons for the Afghan Resistance to use against the Soviet helicopter gunships and other aircraft. In order to get these weapons, Wilson will have to go to the House subcommittee chairman, Doc Long, played by Ned Beatty. How are they going to get him to approve the millions of dollars required for such a risky endeavor?
An exotic belly dancer helps seal the deal.

Charlie Wilson’s War is a very good and entertaining film. I do not think it is a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination. A 96 minute film cannot completely capture the colorful and larger than life Charlie Wilson. However, I do feel that Mike Nichols and Aaron Sorkin have taken the right approach to the material-- a very tongue in cheek approach. There is a very serious message at the end of the film. By aiding the Afghan Resistance, did we plant the seeds for the coming of the Taliban after the Soviet defeat? Did we drop the ball by not aiding the country after the Soviets left? Charlie Wilson claims we messed up the endgame. Of course this kind of hindsight is very convenient in 2007, but one cannot help thinking these thoughts while watching the film. The doubts toward the end are evident. The Soviet Army had been beaten by the Afghan rebels and a power vacuum had been created. We did not help to pick up the pieces. Wilson pleads for money to build schools, but Congress is more concerned with aiding a newly liberated Eastern Europe. Even back then, Charlie Wilson knew the score.
Still, Charlie Wilson’s War shows us a hot time during the closing years of the Cold War.
I am thankful for the trip.

I Am Legend: Almost Mythic (Spoilers!!!)




“There's never a cop around when you need one.”
-- Robert Neville from The Omega Man

“God didn't do this. We did!”
-- Robert Neville from I Am Legend

Is it possible to like a performance in a film, but be disappointed with the finished product? That is the question I have been asking myself since exiting the latest cinematic version of Richard Matheson’s timeless I Am Legend. Will Smith does a wonderful job in his portrayal of Robert Neville. He does an excellent job of following in Vincent Price’s and Charlton Heston’s footsteps-- even improving on their performances. Vincent Price played Dr. Robert Morgan in The Last Man On Earth in 1964. Charlton Heston played Robert Neville in The Omega Man in 1971-- the opening scenes of Heston driving on the empty streets of Los Angeles remains one of my favorites. While not a faithful adaptation, I still enjoy this version as it demonstrates for a time that Charlton Heston was the everyman of post-apocalyptic cinema. His roles in The Omega Man, Soylent Green and the first two Planet Of The Apes films cemented this status for me. Will Smith is the film’s centerpiece and main reason the film works at all. His performance is being compared constantly to Tom Hanks character, Chuck Noland in Castaway. The scenes between Smith’s Neville and his loyal German Shepherd, Sam, are being compared to Hanks and his relationship to the ball, Wilson. It is an interesting analogy. To be honest, the relationship evokes memories of the relationship between Max Rockatansky and his dog in the first half of The Road Warrior. The relationship also brings to mind the relationship between Don Johnson’s Vic and the telepathic dog, Blood, in A Boy And His Dog-- granted there is no telepathy coming from Sam. Sam is played by Abbey, the greatest cinematic canine since Lassie. Actually, the first two acts of I Am Legend are very strong thanks to this relationship and a series of flashbacks that informs us of what went wrong.

Robert Neville seems to be the last man on earth. He is the lone human survivor of a horrible epidemic that has destroyed the human race. He is immune to the horrible apocalyptic disease. A cure for cancer is the root of this plague. An uncredited Emma Thompson plays the scientist who finds a cure for cancer which mutates into a plague in the film. Talk about the road to Hell being paved with the best intentions. When we meet Neville, he lives in the deserted New York City of 2012. He lives in a spacious Washington Square town house. He spends his day’s deer hunting, gathering fresh corn in Central Park, and hitting golf balls across the Hudson from deck of the aircraft carrier Intrepid. These are some of daylight activities before the Sun comes down. When daylight fades, it is time to seek shelter from them-- the plague infected zombies known as the “dark seekers.” The empty streets of New York City are the film’s greatest special effects. The first half of the film is truly haunting. Watching Neville and Sam make their way on their rounds is very chilling. New York city has never been this quiet; the film takes this scenario much farther than Cameron Crowe did with Vanilla Sky. The opening scene of Robert and Sam driving through the empty streets is a nice homage to the opening of The Omega Man. They encounter a herd of wild deer and they decide to hunt them. The idea of wild deer running through the streets of New York City is very effective. As Robert is about to shoot a deer, a lion comes out and kills the deer for its family. It is a nice touch; the world has returned the hunting to the animals. These parts of the film have a lot in common with Geoff Murphy’s 1985 New Zealand film, The Quiet Earth in which a man wakes up to find himself as the last living person on earth.

Through a series of flashbacks and dream sequences we learn about how things came to be. At night, Robert and Sam barricade themselves inside the town house from the zombies. While Robert sleeps, we learn about New York City’s final hours before the city is quarantined. We see what happens to Robert’s wife and child. We see the downfall and decay of human civilization through his eyes. Even after the fall of Man, Robert is diligent in finding a cure to the disease. He is determined to find a cure for the virus. He has a state of the art laboratory set up in his town house. He performs tests and experiments on rats and the zombies he is able to capture. His immunity is his greatest weapon and his greatest curse. Will Smith’s performance is amazing in this very flawed film. He sets a daily routine where he wakes up, works out, and performs daily errands like going to a video store. He goes down to the river to broadcast a message to see if there are any survivors. This routine is important to him. He takes every precaution not to become a zombie-- a clear distinction between him and them. Being the last man takes a toll on him. He sets up mannequins in the video store to have some semblance of human interaction. Robert Neville is going mad. I love this element of the film. As long as the film stays on this bleak vision of the future, it works very well. The film collapses in the third act.

If the relationship between Robert and Sam is the film’s greatest asset than the introduction of the zombies is the film’s weakest one. I miss the vampires from the original Richard Matheson story. I even miss the Albino mutants led by Anthony Zerbe’s Matthias in The Omega Man. Once we see the zombies, they are not very effective creatures or villains. I felt 28 Days Later and this year’s sequel, 28 Weeks Later did this sort of thing much better. They are not very scary. In fact, it is their noises the first night we hear them that is far more frightening. I really do not know what the filmmakers have against using the elements of the original story. Vampires are timeless like the story; this would have been better. This is the ultimate one man army against many story. To put it simply, the zombies or dark seekers drain the life from the film.

Will Smith’s performance can only carry the film so far. Will Smith has a knack for even making mediocre films like I, Robot and Hitch bearable. He made The Pursuit of Happyness a very watchable affair. He proved everyone wrong in Ali and he was triumphant in the film. The first half of the film is its strongest part. Director Francis Lawrence and screenwriters Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman miss the mark in the third act. Francis Lawrence also directed Constantine, another uneven film based on popular source material. The film never regains it momentum with the introduction of several elements that hinder the momentum of the first hour. The ending feels tacked on, almost like an afterthought. They were doing re-shoots on this film recently. Maybe test audiences are not such a good idea. Ridley Scott was attached to this film at one time with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Robert Neville role. I do wish that Ridley Scott had directed this film. It could have used a real director’s touch.

While I Am Legend is based on a Richard Matheson story, it sadly does not feel like one after a while. That honor goes to another film that was met with box office indifference during the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend. The film I am talking about is Frank Darabont’s adaptation of Stephen King’s novella, The Mist. Stephen King has stated how much of an influence Richard Matheson was on his writing. Matheson’s influence can be felt in a lot of places. His other works such as Duel, Stir Of Echoes, What Dreams May Come, The Incredible Shrinking Man and many others have been adapted for the big and small screen. Frank Darabont’s film is a stunning homage to his work, especially his Twilight Zone episodes. What we owe Richard Matheson is beyond evaluation. Francis Lawrence could learn a thing or two from Frank Darabont. Thanks to Will Smith, I Am Legend has something going for it.

Juno: A Very Happy Accident




“Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I talk. Everyone has a talent.”
-- Nick Naylor from Thank You For Smoking

“Nah... I mean, I'm already pregnant, so what other kind of shenanigans could I get into?”
-- Juno MacGuff from Juno

“No, I mean, like, for real. 'Cause you're, like, the coolest person I've ever met, and you don't even have to try, you know... “
-- Juno MacGuff from Juno

Nepotism can only get you so far. If you want to stay in the game, you better have some talent of your own to get past the famous last name that got you into the great game. Talent is in the Coppola and Kasdan genes. Jason Reitman has gotten the directing genes from his father, Ivan Reitman-- the director responsible for such iconic and subversive comedies as Meatballs, Stripes, Ghostbusters and Dave to name a few. Jason Reitman made an excellent debut with an adaptation of Christopher Buckley’s Thank You For Smoking in 2005 featuring a career defining performance by Aaron Eckhart. With Juno, he has taken Diablo Cody’s first screenplay and turned it into something memorable and magical. There is no sophomore slump with Reitman who has given wonderful life to Cody’s inventive and fresh screenplay. Diablo Cody’s own story is the stuff that movies are made of. This year has been a terrific year for first time screenplays being turned into excellent films. Sidney Lumet’s Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead written by Kelly Masterson is another excellent example.

Juno is a refreshing spin on the coming of age genre. If you think you have seen this same story twice this year, think again. Knocked Up and Waitress deal with unexpected pregnancies as well, but in their own ways. Both films add a lot to the comedy mix. Knocked Up is another comic trophy in the Judd Apatow’s growing canon. Waitress is an astounding and bittersweet debut from the late Adrienne Shelly. Shelly’s death is a major loss to all of us. Her debut as a director promised a great second career behind the camera. Juno is a different take on the material. The film is one of the best films I have seen on growing up in many years. Ellen Page is pure dynamite as Juno MacGuff. Page made quite an impression as Hayley Stark in the criminally under rated film Hard Candy. She was one of the few bright spots playing Kitty Pryde in X-Men: The Last Stand. As Juno MacGuff, she is second to none. Juno is a hip, rebellious sixteen year old. She does her own thing. Reitman always has her going against oncoming traffic while the walking through the high school halls or always walking into the track team runners in the neighborhood. Juno listens to rock and punk music from the Seventies. She is adorable, defiant and vulnerable all at the same time. What is amazing about Ellen Page is that we accept her unconditionally in the role. She was born to play this part. Cody’s witty and hip dialogue coming out of her mouth suggests a very robust career in front of her. Juno, like Waitress and Knocked Up before it, are the closest films we have to the great comedies of the Thirties and Forties; Juno is even more so than the others. Page’s Juno seems to be able to go back and forth with the best of them, whether it’s Michael Cera’s Paulie Bleeker or Jason Bateman’s Mark Loring. Ellen Page has the gift of rapid fire delivery. Juno could definitely give Rocket Science’s Ginny Ryerson and Election’s Tracy Flick a run for their money. The two of them would not know what hit them.

One day, either out of boredom or curiosity, Juno decides to have sex with her friend, Paulie Bleeker. The one time encounter leads to her pregnancy. Bleeker is on the high school track team. She likes him, but not enough. Juno has to take matters into her own hands. She is pregnant. After several trips to the local pharmacy and several home pregnancy tests confirm her worst fears, reality sets in. She enlists the aide of her best friend, Leah (Olivia Thirlby). Abortion is considered, but after a trip to a local clinic, this is not the way to go. She and Leah decide to look in the Penny Saver for possible parents to adopt her baby, but first she must tell her father and step mother played by veteran character actors, J. K. Simmons and Allison Janney. As Mac And Bren MacGuff, you could not ask for cooler and down to earth parents. And while Juno has a rough relationship with her step mother, you never doubt for a minute that Bren does love her like own daughter. The casting in the film is another reason this film works as well as it does. Both of these actors steal every scene they are in. They take the news very well. The scene where Juno delivers the big news is a great blend of comedy and drama. I am not sure all parents would react this way.

Juno finds an affluent couple who are interested in adopting the baby-- the Lorings played by Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner. Jason Bateman has been slowly finding film roles that are worthy of his talents from the inventive and clever television series Arrested Development. Mark Loring reminds me in some ways of an older version of Derek, the character Jason Bateman played on Silver Spoons so long ago. There is a great scene where Juno and Mark bond over rock music and slasher films. It is very pleasant to see characters debating who is better; Dario Argento or Herschell Gordon Lewis. But it is Jennifer Garner who shines d as Vanessa. Vanessa’s main ambition in life is to be a mother. Sadly she cannot have children, but she is determined to be the greatest mother ever. Jennifer Garner goes all out to give a truly remarkable and revealing performance. Juno feels a certain kinship with both of them.

Michael Cera is no stranger to this kind of find. He cemented his reputation as the kinder half of the duo in Superbad. Like Jason Bateman, a fellow cast member from Arrested Development, Cera fits in very nicely in this film. His scenes with Juno are tender and funny. Cera is not in the film as much as one would think, but when he is there, it is powerful stuff. Their relationship takes unexpected turns. That is one of the pleasures of Cody’s script, it takes many unexpected turns. Just when you think things are going one way, the film takes a different turn and for the better. As the pregnancy goes forward, Juno’s attitude and feelings evolve. Dare I say it, she is a role model. More importantly, it is her feelings for Bleeker that take center stage. Does she really love this boy? Does he love her? At its heart, the film is a beautiful love story. The path is never dull. Juno may be the coolest heroine to grace the silver screen in a very long time. Juno is going to be a very hard act for Ellen Page to top. Still, after this film, I will never bet against her.

Hype and buzz have a way of destroying one’s expectations. At this time of year, we hear so much about films that the critics are raving about. When we finally see them, we wonder what all the fuss was about. No Country For Old Men lived up to all its hype. Thanks to an excellent cast, talented director and clever first screenplay, Juno does indeed live up to all of the hype. Like Rocket Science and Lars And The Real Girl, the film has captured my imagination in ways I never thought possible. Juno is a modern masterpiece.

Add This

Bookmark and Share

RSS Feed

AddThis Feed Button