Rental Reviews: Seabiscuit (2003)

Starring Jeff Bridges, Chris Cooper, Tobey Maguire
Also Starring Elizabeth Banks, Gary Stevens, William H. Macy
Screenplay by Gary Ross
Based on the Book by Laura Hillenband
Directed by Gary Ross

Seabiscuit tells the true story of an underdog horse who captured the imagination of America during the 1930s. Like Miracle, another recent sports drama based on true events, the reality of the story doesn’t save the film from the tropes of the sports movie form. Also like Miracle, the director found a remarkable way to shoot the action of the film, making it very immediate and very exciting to the viewer.

You could argue that the stories of the two films are very similar, with Seabiscuit standing in for the young and inexperienced American Olympic Hockey Team, and War Admiral taking the place of the Russian team. Both films use historical elements to establish that the American people are hungry for something to celebrate. In Miracle, it was the Cold War, the memory of Watergate, the hostage situation, the economic troubles. In Seabiscuit, it’s the Great Depression.

But whereas Miracle has only Herb Brooks, Seabiscuit has three main characters. Red Pollard (Maguire) is an over-sized jockey with a violent temper. Tom Smith (Cooper) is an eccentric old horse trainer that most people consider a kook. Charles Howard (Bridges) is a wealthy self-made businessman who recently suffered through the tragic death of his son. All three of these men are damaged in some way, and all three are brought together around Seabiscuit. The film isn’t really about a horse winning some races, it’s about these three men starting over together. The theme of the film is stated at the end in narration by Pollard: “You know, everybody thinks we found this broken down horse and fixed him, but we didn't. He fixed us. Every one of us. And I guess in a way we kinda fixed each other too.” That’s what this film has that Miracle doesn’t, and that’s why this film was nominated for Best Picture, and Miracle won’t be.

Anyway, Maguire, Cooper, and Bridges all turn in excellent performances. The film doesn’t do a great deal of exposition to show you the hardships these men are struggling with. Rather, you see it reflected in their behavior. The movie does start slowly, and the three characters are separately introduced, but those introductions are not really biographical in nature. We learn who these men are not by what’s happened to them in the past, but by how those events are reflected in their behavior today. It’s a deliberately unsentimental approach, but it requires very strong and very subtle performances. This film has the cast to pull that off.

If there is a drawback to the film, it is its formulaic plot. Immediately prior to the big race, there is a major setback that threatens everything that’s been achieved. The setback is, as the formula demands, overcome. Strangely, the film doesn’t end there. There is a drawn-out coda that slowly brings the film to a close. There is even a final race, for far lesser stakes. I imagine some audiences might grow tired of the film by this point, but it’s a very effective sequence, and it’s only through this section that the theme is truly fulfilled.

All in all, Seabiscuit is entirely deserving of its Best Picture nomination (and, if I may say so, more deserving of the Oscar than the winning film). It takes a simple and familiar story (even if you’ve never heard of Seabiscuit, as I hadn’t, the underdog story is familiar) and layers it with fine characters and compelling drama, all tied together by terrific performances from the lead actors.




Buy Seabiscuit Now!

Phillies Problems

KO the Phillies are only one game out of first place and four games over .500 but they just lost two out of three games to the worst team in the league (Montreal Expos) and could have a much better record. They need to improve themselves in some areas and they need to do it sooner rather than later. I just do not know how they are going to handle a pennant race and have not beat the Marlins all year (and most of last year). I will not go into every piddling thing that I find wrong with the team I will just mention two problem areas on the teams and where they can go to find help.

CENTER FIELD: This position was supposed to be Marlon Byrd's spot, but he has been hitting .212 and has become a liability in the lineup. He has recently been sent down to triple A to work on his mechanics with Charlie Manuel (Jim Thome's hitting guru) but from what I have heard there is a good chance that Byrd does not see the majors again this year. So what are the Phils going to do? I think that they should go out and find a replacement on some other team and trade for him, preferably one that can lead off. There are a few names out there but three really stand out. Carlos Beltran is name umber one, he is the best player in the league that no one has heard of. He can field, run, hit, throw and do them all well. He would look lovely in a Phillies uniform, the only problem is that the Phils were not interested (too high a price and they did not have what the Royals were looking for) and he has been traded tonight to the Astros in a three team deal. So on to number two: Kenny Lofton. He is still a pretty decent player and can field and lead off pretty well. Plus the Yankees really want to get rid of him, therein lies the problem. The Yankees want to get rid of him because he is a cancer, thus I do not want him, if you cannot play for Joe Torre there is no way in hell that he is going to want to play for Larry Bowa. That leaves option number three: Steve Finely of the Arizona Diamondbacks. He is old, I believe he is 39, but he is still getting the job done. He is in the top ten in home runs and RBIs and has a good batting average, he can also leadoff for you if that is needed. I have heard that there are some rumors swirling about him coming to Philly and I am intrigued. He should not cost much because of his age and the Diamondback are going to hold a fire sale which should bode well fro the league.

The other position of need is starting pitching. With the injuries to Wolf and Padilla (Wolf will be back on Sunday, but Padilla will be out for another month at least) and the general suckiness of Kevin Milwood the Phils are going to need another dependable arm and soon. Right now the Phils are throwing out there career minor leaguers and retreads form other teams. For fun watch today's game against the Red Sox when Pedro Martinez absolutely embarrasses Paul Abbot. There are a couple of options for the Phils here, they could take Ryan Madson from the bullpen and put him in the rotation where he belongs and where he will be next year anyway. I know, he got knocked around in Chicago earlier this month but his arm was not stretched out, it was his first start in the majors and Chicago is a bandbox. Or the Phils could go to the minors and call up stud pitcher Gavin Floyd. Earlier GM Ed Wade has been very reluctant to even discuss this option but after Padilla got shut down for another month he sounded more open to this idea. I am not sure how I feel about this, pitchers make the jump from double A to the majors all the time and succeed (Dontrelle Willis) but the Phils insist that the kid is not ready yet and they are handling him with kid gloves. The only other option out there is a trade and there are a few names out there that are interesting. These names include Randy Johnson, Freddy Garcia, Jamie Moyer and Livan Hernandez. Of those names Livan Hernandez is the most intriguing. He is still fairly young, he is an innings eater, and has big game experience winning a World Series with the '97 Marlins. Plus he pitches for the Expos who are always looking to get rid of players that make any money. Plus the Phils have a few prospects that they can afford to deal to get the missing piece of the puzzle that could hopefully push them over the edge and into the playoffs for the first time since 1993.

The only problem is that I have no faith in GM Ed Wade or Phillies ownership. They went $11 million over budget when Milwood rejoined the team and are wary to go out there and trade for another contract, they might go out and make some piddling trade and fall short again thus sustaining The Streak.

Coastline Update

Iheard on the radio today the the New Jersey State Legislature has voted that Ladies Nights are legal and thus an exception to any discrimination laws. So now we are safe from any FRIVILOUS lawsuits and can have drunken women at any bar we need. NICE NICE NICE!!

Rental Reviews: Red Dragon (2002)

Starring Edward Norton, Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel
Also Starring Emily Watson, Mary Louise Parker, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Anthony Heald
Screenplay by Ted Tally
Based on the Novel by Thomas Harris
Directed by Brett Ratner

My first question is “How the hell did Brett Ratner land this gig?” Prior to this film, he had directed nothing but music videos and dumb comedies. What on Earth convinced the producers that he would be a good choice? As it happens, he did a fine job with the film, bringing in a solid story, suitably creepy.

It must have been tough for him. He was working with Ted Tally, who wrote the screenplay for The Silence of the Lambs, and Dante Spinotti, who was Director of Photography on Manhunter, Michael Mann’s earlier adaptation of the novel “Red Dragon”. On paper, at least, he’s clearly the weakest link. Nevertheless, the film turned out quite nicely.

It’s no modern classic like The Silence of the Lambs is. Not even close. But it is far superior than Ridley Scott’s Hannibal. It’s almost as if this film was done with far less ambition than either of those. Whereas the ambition in “Lambs” created a masterpiece, and the ambition in Hannibal led to a train wreck, this film is merely successful on its own term. I think that’s exactly the approach this franchise needed to rescue it from the over-the-top Grand Guignol nightmare that was Hannibal.

I must say, though, that I think Edward Norton was miscast. While his performance was perfectly fine, he’s just too young-looking to convince me as a guy who had a successful career in the unspecified past and is now coming back out of retirement. Was Will Graham some prodigy, solving complex crimes at the age of eleven? Also, I had problems (as I often do) with Harvey Keitel, whose every utterance always seems forced. That works sometimes, but not here, for some reason. Watching Keitel wade through his dialogue like he’s crawling through molasses makes you yearn for Scott Glenn’s Jack Crawford.

People who have read the novel tell me that Ralph Fiennes was miscast as Francis Dolarhyde, but speaking as someone who has no knowledge of the novel, I disagree. I don’t care what Thomas Harris wrote in his book, I find Fiennes’s interpretation of Dolarhyde to be very effective at both eliciting sympathy from the audience and also instilling fear.

What I find ultimately unsatisfying about the film is the fact that the “hero”, Will Graham, basically fails to accomplish anything. By the time he finally tracked Dolarhyde down (which he managed to do by luck, rather than by using his much touted ability to get into the heads of serial killers), it was all over, except for a stupid and tacked on extra ending that served no purpose. Will Graham really doesn’t achieve very much at all in this film, and most of its running time is devoted to things that don’t, ultimately, make much difference. Nevertheless, it’s enjoyable, creepy, well-made, and well-acted, so I don’t want to complain too much.




Buy Red Dragon Now!

Has Jeff Been Re-Cast?

From the BBC America website:

S4, E6: 9½ Months

As Susan goes into labor, Steve swings into action and does his best to remain unruffled through the natural childbirth. Fortunately an old friend returns from the Greek islands for the big event. But there is something definitely different about him...

I don't know what this means. I'm concerned.

Theater Excursions: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Gary Oldman
Also Starring Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson
Screenplay by Steve Kloves
Based on the Novel by J.K. Rowling
Directed by Alfonso Cuarón

Harry Potter (Radcliffe) is back for his third year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and he’s in for his most dangerous adventure yet. For the first time in the history of the franchise, this film was not directed by Chris Columbus. This, coupled with the source material, makes for a considerably darker film than the firs two installments. I don’t know how much longer these films will be able to slip by with a PG rating.

If there’s a problem with the film, it is the plot. Other commentators have said that Rowling’s third book suffers from “midde-chapter” syndrome. I think that’s true, and these weaknesses were translated to the screen, but it’s not precise enough. The first two stories function as introductions to the world of Harry Potter and its mythology. The fourth book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (coming to theaters in late 2005), marks an essential turning point in the series. The third story functions mainly to introduce the character of Sirius Black (Oldman), the titular Prisoner of Azkaban, who will go on to play a significant role in the story.

The plot of the film involves Harry Potter’s relationship with Black, who has recently pulled off the unprecedented feat of escaping from Azkaban prison. How exactly he did this is not explained in the film, but it scarcely matters. Soon, Harry is told that Black was a follower of Voldemort’s who betrayed Harry’s parents, causing their deaths, and that he will undoubtedly seek to murder Harry in order to make way for Voldemort’s eventual return. Beyond these reference, Voldemort plays no direct or indirect part in the story.

What struck me about this film, apart from its obvious superiority to its predecessors in terms of direction, was how little time it spent on what have become the standard features of the Harry Potter series. There was no trip to Diagon Alley, very little Quidditch, not much in the way of lessons, and a sharply reduced role for practically every returning character other than Harry, Hermione (Watson), and Ron (Grint). Also, despite the fact that each Harry Potter novel has been longer than the last, this is the shortest film so far. I believe that Cuarón took advantage of the fact that the world of Hogwarts has been so well established. He made a very tight, fast-paced film. Weeks, if not months, pass by in a single shot, and much of Harry’s life at school is suggested rather than shown.

Despite this, Cuarón still manages to take the time to include a lovely throwaway scene of Harry and his friends simply goofing off. This film is at once the most real and the most magical of all of the films. Cuarón seems able to bring the two elements together seamlessly, so that Harry and his friends seem like perfectly ordinary 13-year-old kids who just happen to have magical powers. Also, mixed in among the ceaseless action sequences are moments of lightness, subtle developments of Harry’s emotional world (including his relationship with his parents), and the hinted beginnings of the long-suspected romantic tryst between Ron and Hermione.

A quick word about Michael Gambon: he took over the role of Headmaster Albus Dumbledore following the death of Richard Harris. Gambon’s portrayal is very different from Harris’s, but it’s till Dumbledore. He’s a little less sage, a lot more mischievous, but he’s still the same Dumbledore. It’s interesting to see how two actors can approach a character in such different ways, and yet both capture the essential elements that make the character who he is.

And speaking of casting, let me now go on record as being firmly against the idea of ever replacing the three young stars of this series. I don’t care how old they get. Let’s assume that the final film is released in late 2011, which seems a reasonable estimate. When that film is in front of the cameras, Radcliffe will be 21 years old playing an 18-year-old character. I don’t see any problem with that. Rupert Grint, the oldest of the three leads, would be 22 or 23, depending on the shooting schedule, also playing an 18-year-old. Again, this doesn’t seem like a terrible problem. It’s only in these middle ones where you’re going to have actors looking conspicuously old, but that’s something I can live with.

For Drew

Drew this is for you and your law school friends. Apparently there is a Supreme Court fantasy game out there. It can be found at lawpsided.com and it is free with a $500 prize going to the person who comes in first each "season", October to June. Points are accumulated based on the players ability to predict the outcome and the spread (how the justices voted, 5-4 for ex.). Choosing the correct outcome gets you 10 points and choosing the correct spread gets you 15. But if you get the correct outcome but the wrong spread you get 10 points minus the difference between you predicted spread and the actual. It sounds pretty lame to me, but I think that you law school people would get a huge kick out of it.

Also, I LOATHE Oliver, he is just a pale imitation of Jeff and generally not funny. He is just a walking Dr. Who advertisement, which makes me hate him more.

Seattle

Start work at Monday. Hoping Amgen stocks fall today for my stock options, as my prices are set on my start date.

Corporate housing is nice. Everything paid for for 2 months.

Spent $110 at wal-mart, the dream of all white trash.

Have about 30 people to call tomorrow looking for apartments.

The webcam stripper is still the only person I know in Seattle. And no, I will not find out her website for you. I'll be seeing her on Saturday.

No one in Seattle has air conditioning. It's about 85 degrees and I want to die. Hence, $16.75 of my $110 was spent on a fan.

Brant I have to figure out if I should do this Employee Stock Purchase Plan. I'm sure everyone out there is more financially savvy than I am right now.

about 95% of Mariners games are televised here. I thought ot myself, ahhh, it'll be nice to see some American league teams I didn't get to see in Wisconsin. I watched the Mariners lose 2-1 to the Brewers.

I hope Bobby Knight goes to Ohio State.

I hope to get a letter from the University of Wisconsin asking for money

I hope I get an email from dickhead advisor asking for anything.

I hope you all have a good day.

Rental Reviews: Traffic (2000)

Starring Michael Douglas, Benicio Del Toro, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Erika Christensen
Also Starring Dennis Quaid, Luis Guzman, Don Cheadle, Topher Grace
Screenplay by Stephen Gaghan
Based on the Miniseries “Traffik” written by Simon Moore
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

To start with, what the hell is Republican Senator Orrin Hatch doing in this movie? Now, to his credit, director Steven Soderbergh takes great pains to illustrate many different facets of the drug problem, but I can’t imagine anyone walking away from this movie without having formed the distinct impression that the so-called “War on Drugs” has been nothing but a monumental failure. I don’t know precisely what Sen. Hatch’s views are on the issue, or Soderbergh’s for that matter, but I doubt they would reach the same conclusion.

Traffic isn’t a movie so much as it is an anthology. It tells several stories, some of them related in various ways, but frequently the relations are merely superficial. These really are entirely separate stories. The real connection is that they all involve different facets of the drug problem. Unlike traditional movie anthologies, which are almost all terrible, by the way, the stories in this film are edited together, so it doesn’t feel like anthology. But that’s what it is.

Like any anthology, Traffic has a rather large cast, and a large part of the success of the film comes from the quality of that cast. Every role is played with an understated kind of believability. No one is angling for an Oscar nomination here, they are just doing their best to bring out the strengths in the script. Even when, in several scenes, the drama whips itself up to quite a level, the actors never push too far, and never let themselves get in the way of the story. When you have a cast full of actors and “stars” like these, that’s an impressive achievement.

Each story seems to underscore again and again the hopelessness of the situation. At the same time, the film leaves no doubt as to the dangers drugs pose to our society. The film is never so bold as to suggest a solution, but the idea of medical treatment for addiction is proposed by a “hero” and shot down by a “villain”. That’s about as close to an ideology as a film like this should get.

The most striking character is Robert Wakefield (Douglas), the recently-appointed drug czar. He is idealistic, honest, and driven in his desire to find a way to effectively combat the drug problem. In one particularly striking scene, he asks his assembled team of advisors, covering every aspect of problem except treatment, if anyone has any ideas. No one does. He repeats, making clear that he’s looking for informal, off-the-record, outside-the-box suggestions. No one says a word.

At the same time, he’s struggling with the drug problem in his own family. His own daughter, Caroline (Christensen), has been experimenting with drugs, including some pretty serious stuff. Just as he’s trying to get a handle on his new job, her problems plunge his entire family into free-fall. This one character, who is helpless to deal with his daughter’s demons, comes quickly to despair when asked to deal with the nation’s. In the film’s one and only scene that seems to play a little phony, he breaks down as he gives his first press conference as the new drug czar.

The most striking scene in the film comes when one of the top guys from one of the Mexican cartels is having a conversation with the police. He explains that arresting him, breaking up one cartel, won’t prevent any drugs from being smuggled into or sold in the United States. It just moves the sale from one cartel to another. When you factor in the endemic corruption involved, it’s easy to see why the supply end of the chain isn’t effective.

Incidentally, I find it a little odd that so much attention is paid to Mexican corruption, and none at all to corruption on the American side. I mean, I don’t know much about drug smuggling, but I’d be surprised if their weren’t a lot of people on our side getting paid to look the other way, you know what I mean?

Nevertheless, this isn’t a message movie, but it is a great place to start for a thought-provoking discussion of the drug problem. The various storylines are each very interesting on their own, and cover the gamut from production, to distribution, to consumption. This is such a rare film: it educates without being preachy, it’s thought-provoking without being ponderous, and it is every bit as entertaining as a movie should be.




Buy Traffic Now!

Top Three

All right everyone, this should be a quick and easy list. I want to know the top three members of the opposite (or same if that is your preference) sex that you would like to have "relations" with. Let's keep it to famous people so that there are no awkward moments. Also, if you feel that it is necessary give a little description of who the person is so nobody is asking "who?" in the comments section. And I understand that these types of lists vary from day to day, so just give me three names, in no particular order, without really thinking about it. This is open to everyone, guys and girls.
Here are my three:

Sarah Alexander: Susan from Coupling

Fergie: the white chick from the Black Eyed Peas

Morgan Webb: host of X Play on Tech TV

Rental Reviews: Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

Starring Adam Sandler, Emily Watson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzmán
Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

There is more than a superficial similarity between Barry Egan (Sandler) and previous Sandler characters such as Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, and Bobby Boucher from The Waterboy. All are outsiders, on some level incapable of successfully integrating with the rest of society. They are, in fact, socially dysfunctional. And they each have a worrisome propensity to lash out at the world with anger and violence.

When I think about Punch-Drunk Love, the film that I am most strongly reminded of is The Graduate. The endings of both films strike me very similarly. In neither case can I really feel good about the fact that the misfit outcast has won the love of a good woman. Both films make clear that the lovable misfit is, in some ways, genuinely disturbed, and yet never resolve this issue. Both films end with the characters having finally found love, but with no hint that they have grown to the point where they will be able to deal responsibly with the inevitable setbacks that lie ahead.

As the credits rolled on this film, I felt a little scared for Lena (Watson). There’s no telling how Barry might react if she ever, God forbid, suggests that he might want to stop wearing the same suit every day.

But like The Graduate, this film gives us a character who is hard to like and makes us like him. The film does a superb job in establishing his intense level of alienation. More than the other Sandler characters mentioned above, and more than Dustin Hoffin’s Benjamin Braddock, Barry has the capacity to convince us, from time to time, that he really is human. We can understand his emotional responses to the various situations he finds himself in (and it’s hard not to sympathize with a man afflicted with such overbearing sisters). But we can’t understand his behavioral responses to his emotional situation. Yes, I can see that Barry feels panicky and insecure when Lena asks him about embarrassing stories she’s heard about him, but I can’t see how that translates into tearing up the bathroom.

The only conclusion is that Barry Egan is not entirely well, and since the film also has us growing very fond of Lena, it makes the ending rather uncomfortable. We know Barry’s heart is in the right place, but it’s his head we can’t trust. Is the idea that love can heal the emotional damage Barry is carrying around? I don’t think so, because Barry doesn’t change in any meaningful way. His behaviors become slightly more normal as he learns to come out of his self-imposed social exile, but his root emotional problems are never addressed.

Roger Ebert suggests that Punch-Drunk Love is a response to, and a criticism of, Sandler’s earlier work. Perhaps it is, or perhaps it’s something even simpler than that. Perhaps it’s just an opportunity to take the Adam Sandler character and put him into a much better film. This is exactly what writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson has done, and the results are fascinating, if not entirely satisfying.

Because Punch-Drunk Love is so uncomfortable, I don’t think it gets enough credit for being a very funny film. The humor of the film comes from this discomfort. Much of the comedy comes from Barry’s attempts to connect his internal world with the world around him. Or when Barry is trying to be romantic with Lena, and misses badly. There is also a lot of flat out absurdist comedy in the film. Barry behaves absurdly, and says absurd things when the situation demands a more conventional response. But this humor often flies below people’s radar, and the film is so disquieting and uncomfortable that laughter somehow seems inappropriate. But this is a very funny film, and it strikes as the sort of film that would reward repeated viewings.




Buy Punch-Drunk Love - Superbit Special Edition Now!

Coupling

As I've mentioned before, I was very dubious about the new season of Coupling. First of all, the best character (Jeff) has left the show. Second of all, Susan is pregnant, which is rarely funny in a sitcom. After last week's season premiere, I was still concerned. It was good, but not great.

This week's episode was great. I can't even express how great it was. The writing on that show is simply incredible (which is good, since the creator/writer, Steven Moffat, is writing a two-part story for the first series of the new Doctor Who). A lot happened in this week's episode, and I'm very excited about the direction the show is taking.

Though my confidence in the show did waver a bit, it's back now. I can't wait until next week's episode!

Rental Reviews: The Quiet American (2002)

Starring Michael Caine, Brendan Fraser, Do Thi Hai Yen, Rade Serbedzija, Tzi Ma
Screenplay by Christopher Hampton and Robert Schenkkan
Based on the Novel by Graham Greene
Directed by Philip Noyce

We’ve all seen Vietnam movies, but you may never have seen a movie quite like The Quiet American. It is set in the early to mid-1950s, the period when France was still at war in “Indochina”. The film gives a fascinating perspective on the beginnings of American involvement in Vietnam.

Thomas Fowler (Caine) is a reporter for the London Times living in Saigon. He prides himself on his detachment. He doesn’t have an opinion, he simply reports what he sees. But he’s not particularly interested in reporting at all. He has fallen in love with Saigon, and he has fallen in love with Phuong (Hai Yen), his mistress.

Alden Pyle (Fraser) is a U.S. aid worker who has come to Saigon to assist the locals with their medical needs. When he meets Fowler, the two of them become instant friends, but that friendship is put to the test when he meets Phuong. Pyle is immediately smitten with this soft-spoken, mysterious young woman, and Phuong’s sister (Pham Thi Mai Hoi) sees in Pyle a chance to get out of Vietnam. This establishes the essential personal dynamic of the film. Fowler can’t marry Phuong because his wife back in London is Catholic and won’t give him a divorce, but he’s desperate to hold onto her. Pyle, pushed on by Phoung’s sister, is direct and open about his courtship of Phuong. And yet Pyle and Fowler remain cordial, and even friendly toward one another.

That’s only part of the story. The other part is entirely political. The French and South Vietnamese are fighting a war against the Communists in the North. It’s not going well, and there seems little doubt that France will sooner or later have to pull out. At the same time, there’s a new anti-Communist movement in South Vietnam, led by General Thé. [Fowler asks his assistant Hinh (Ma) “Who made him a general?” “He did.”] General Thé is ruthless, ambitious, and clearly doesn’t mind a few civilian casualties.

Each of these planks is, on its own, remarkable. The personal dynamic established between Fowler and Pyle, and their conflict over Phuong, is extraordinarily well done. Though I’m not a big Brendan Fraser fan, I must admit that in this film he is superb. I am a big Michael Caine fan, so I was not surprised to see such an excellent performance from him. The political story is developed more slowly alongside this personal story. At one key moment in the middle of the film, the political story suddenly and shockingly eclipses the personal story, and everything changes. Suddenly, Fowler finds himself getting involved directly in the conflict, something he never intended to do.

This film gives a fictionalized account of how America began getting involved in Vietnam. Most people associate the Vietnam War with Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy. But it began with CIA involvement under the Eisenhower Administration before the French even left. This film depicts that. What’s surprising, though, is that the film is based on a novel published in 1954. Graham Greene was in Vietnam at this time, and this film provides a fascinating account of that time and place. Yes, it is fiction, but like all the best fiction, there is more truth in this film than you’ll see on the evening news.

This film could be described as anti-American, because it depicts Americans providing weapons for General Thé, who is not altogether different in his methods from any other terrorist. He just happens to wear a uniform. But the fact remains that the CIA did support anti-Communist elements in Vietnam as far back as 1954, and innocent civilians died as a result. Is it anti-American to point this out to people, notwithstanding that it is true? I’m sure some people would think so.

The DVD includes a timeline of Vietnamese history, which is a fascinating resource for further study. One thing that I did not know before is that the United States supported Ho Chi Minh during World War II, and promised him an independent Vietnam in return for his help against the Japanese. I had no idea that America’s habit of creating its own enemies went back that far.




Buy The Quiet American Now!

Romania 4

Went to two castles, Pales and Bran (aka Dracula's castle). Fought with Irina somemore. Bought a lot of shit, but not absynthe. Here's some of the highlights of the great things Irina has said about me:

I throw away my money
I have a weak soul
I look like a child
I don't spend enough money
I am too thin skinned
If we are together in public alone, I should pay for everything, including gifts for her cousin I will never see
I hold my spoon wrong
I eat incorrectly because I eat my salad before my meal, not with it
I'm not modest

On better news, I got ripped off for the first time last night. After leaving a resturant with Irina, as her brother had things to do, some guy came and said we owed 60000 lei (about $2 for parking). The guy was shady from the beginning but Irina said to give him the money. I have gime 100000 lei (about $3 for the math dunces) and he just ran away. Irina then bitched and moaned about how she dumb she is to get fooled, but never once appologized to me. Needless to say, she won't be getting a Christmas card.

Rental Reviews: Thirteen (2003)

Starring Evan Rachel Wood, Nikki Reed, Holly Hunter
Screenplay by Catherine Hardwicke & Nikki Reed
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke

The most striking thing about this film is that it is loosely based on the life of Nikki Reed, who co-wrote and stars in the film. Regardless, however, of the veracity of the film, it still plays like an Afterschool Special. Fortunately, it is written, acted, and directed on a much higher level.

But the story remains somewhat on the trite side. The film gets off to a rocky start by opening with a scene from the middle of the story. I don't quite know what the purpose of this move was, but it gets in the way of the character introductions. Since this film, at its most basic level, is structured around a particular character arc, this may not have been a wise decision. The "proper" opening of the film introduces the character of Tracy (Wood), a bright, talented, and level-headed girl. She lives with her single mother, Melanie (Hunter), with whom she has a close, comfortable relationship.

But soon the pressures of teen life get to her. Desperate to fit in, she allows herself to be all too easily led astray by "the popular girl" Evie (Reed). At first, it is enough to travel in the same circle as Evie, but she soon realizes that in order to travel in that circle, she's going to have to compromise a great deal of who she is. What begins with petty theft and a change of wardrobe turns into a massive and wholesale change in personality. Tracy soon begins experimenting with drugs and sex, and her life quickly begins to crumble around her.

It's a very conventional story. Both because of the familiarity of the story and of the power in its portrayal here, the script wisely leaves the lesson implicit. There is no preachy moralizing about the importance of staying away from drugs, tongue-piercings, provocative underpants, and boys. In fact, the film shows how such "lessons" are received by their intended audience. But because it's so plain to see how Tracy's choices have jeopardized her life, the script wisely lets the story stand on its on. What makes the film so striking is how easy it was for such a quintessential "good girl" like Tracy to fall into the "bad girl" lifestyle. Also the fact that there is no clear dividing line between youthful rebellion and serious problem. It's normal for teenage girls to fumble around for their own sense of identity, to rebel from their parents, to explore their sexuality. But it can easily go too far, and that can have serious and long-term consequences. What makes this film so powerful is that you can't see the point where it crosses the line.

The film is called Thirteen, which is presumably meant to be the girls' age during the film. Unfortunately, neither one of the actresses looked remotely close to thirteen years old. In fact, to me, they both looked closer to twenty. They weren't, as it happened. They must have been both around 15 when it was shot. But there's a line at the end of the film where Tracy is threatened with failing the eighth grade, and this line was highly jarring to me. The power of the film's story doesn't depend on the girls being quite so young. While it is shocking (at least to me) to think of thirteen-year-old girls behaving in this way, the film would be no less effective if the girls were fifteen, or even seventeen. It's about social pressure leading a girl, against her better judgment, in a different direction. It's about how small errors of judgment can snowball on you, until you are quite simply no longer the same person you once were.

Roger Ebert, in his review of this film, asks "Who is this movie for?" It is rated R, and deservedly so. And yet it seems to tell a story that thirteen-year-olds should hear, and it tells it in a way that isn't condescending and phony like those after school specials. But to a certain type of person, this film would play like an advertisement for sex and drugs (just as the most ardent anti-war film does double-duty as a recruitment video). There's something deeply absurd about a film written by someone who couldn't get in the theater to see it. The only answer, then, is for parents to see it, and to see it again with their children. I'll tell you, if I ever have a daughter, I will remember this film. At three in the morning on sleepless nights, I will remember this film.




Buy Thirteen Now!

Larry David Saves Lives

A while ago someone was murdered in Los Angeles. This little bit of news should not really surprise anybody. But the outcome of it all is quite interesting. Anyway, a suspect was found, a witness identified the guy, and the man was arrested. Of course this man said that he was innocent. He even had Dodgers tickets for the day and time of the murder, but no one could say for a fact that they saw this guy there. So the guy sat in jail awaiting his trial still saying that he was innocent. His lawyer kept asking him if there was anyone that could verify that he was at that game. He could not remember anything, until it came to him that they were taping some kind of TV show at the park that day. He remembered that it starred some bald guy and a large black woman dressed like a prostitute. It turns out that this show was the hilarious show "Curb Your Enthusiasm." Well the man's lawyer got a hold of the producers of the show, got the raw footage of the unaired show (I think it is for next season) and watched it. It turns out that you can clearly see the man sitting behind Larry David in multiple scenes. The lawyer took this new evidence to the prosecutor and the judge and all charges were dropped. The man is now a free man but without the Larry David he would be on trial for a murder that he did not commit, quite a scary idea if you ask me. That is why that from now on wherever I go, I am going to have a camera crew with me to document my whereabouts so I always have a credible alibi. And to get any hot, young, teen girl on tape so I can "review" it later.

The CrewBlog St. Valentine's Day Deathpool Update

So, in case you haven't heard, former U.S. President Ronald Reagan is dead at the age of 93. That means Jason, Brant, and I each have seven points in the CrewBlog St. Valentine's Day Deathpool. Keith and Jenna didn't put Reagan on their lists, so as far as I know, they're still at zero.

It took almost four months for the first person to die. We really suck at this.

Hockey Cards

The next time that any of you guys are in the black hole that is the Echelon Mall mosey on over to BC Sports Collectibles (my favorite store in the mall) and pick up a box of 1992-1993 Pro Set Hockey cards. The box contains 20 packs of 31 cards each and costs only $5.99, it is that cheap because nobody gives a shit about hockey anymore. It was funny when I bought the thing the guy looked at the price twice because it was so damn cheap. But anyway the six bucks are well worth the enjoyment you will get out of this set. First you get all of your favorite teams like the Minnesota North Stars, the Quebec Nordiques, the Winnipeg Jets and everyone's favorite lovable losers the Hartford Whalers!!! You also get to see your favorite players like Zalery Zalapski, Chris Terreri(?), Bob Essenssa(?) and many more that will keep you happy. You will also see your favorite players in different uniforms like Mats Sundin as a Nordique, JR as a Blackhawk, Tony Amonte as a Ranger and Ron Francis as a Whaler. You also get some great rookie cards like, Eric Lindros, Keith Tkachuk, Bill Guerin and Dean Macammond. You also get to see 90% of the Flyers players with "traded to Quebec" on the bottom of their cards. Seriously the box is only six bucks and you get 620 cards it is a pretty good deal and you could easily make your money back on resell value, but just looking at the cards is enough fun to justify the cash.

Rental Reviews: Timeline (2003)

Starring Paul Walker, Frances O'’Connor, Gerard Butler
Also Starring Billy Connolly, Anna Friel, David Thewlis
Screenplay by Jeff Maguire and George Nolfi
Based on the Novel by Michael Crichton
Directed by Richad Donner

If you regularly follow my blog writings, you may remember that I only wanted to see this film because Anna Friel was in it. I'’m not disappointed. She was absolutely lovely, as always. The movie, of course, was irredeemable garbage, but I pretty much knew that going in.

It'’s a shame, though, because the premise is quite promising. A shipping firm attempts to construct a machine to instantaneously transport objects from point to point, in a scheme to put FedEx out of business. For reasons no one understands, however, everything they attempt to transmit ends up in the same place, France. And not just France, but France in 1357.

When the film opens, we know nothing of any of this. The head of the shipping firm, Doniger (Thewlis) is underwriting an archeological dig located in France led by Prof. Johnston (Connolly). When Johnston doesn’t return, his son (Walker) and several of his students are summoned to see Doniger, where they discover that Johnston has become trapped in 1357. So, they all go after him.

Everything that happens up to this point is adequate enough. At this point, I was beginning to think that this film’'s reputation was wholly undeserved. But, once the action moves back to 1357, everything goes way downhill. As happens far too often, a decent premise is employed exclusively for a mindless action romp. Characters are captured, threatened, killed, they escape, run away, shout things like "“Come on!"” and "“We'’re running out of time!"” and do very little else.

That wouldn'’t be so bad if the cast were capable of adding anything, but with the exception of the lovely Anna Friel, none of them is memorable in the slightest. Okay, I also have a soft-spot for Billy Connolly dating back to his “"Head of the Class"” days, but that'’s neither here nor there. Unfortunately, the cast is all completely forgettable. Even Frances O’'Connor, who was very good in Spielberg’'s A.I. Artificial Intelligence, is an utter non-entity.

Another serious problem is the plot. It’'s got holes you cold drive a Mack truck through. The best has to be when everyone is so adamant that the French guy come with them back in time so he can translate for them. Ok, I don'’t really expect the film to do anything so pretentious as attempting to resurrect a long dead language (in this case, Norman French). But the film could hardly have made the anachronism more obvious if they had tried. If you must ignore certain inconvenient facts when making an historical movie, do so, but don'’t draw attention to it by resting plot points on the weak links. There are other plot holes along the lines of what you invariably find with time travel movies, but I won’'t get into it.

Easily, the worst part of the film is that it is simply dull. The characters are so non-engaging that we really don'’t care which of them lives and dies. This robs the film of any emotional weight any of the events might have had. The result is that the entire film is irretrievably inconsequential.




Buy Timeline Now!

Ladies' Night

As most of you know ladies' night is a night when bars and clubs either have reduced drink prices or free admission for women so their establishments are not complete sausage fests. In my opinion this is a good thing. But according to the state of New Jersey it is also illegal. According to the state it discriminates against men, and gives an unfair "advantage" to women. Of course it is a crock of shit, even Governor McGreevy has said so, but what can he do. So I guess this means that some bars will be complete cock parties and everyone can thank one man.

This "man" was at everyone's favorite lame bar The Coastline in Cherry Hill and they had a ladies night, so instead of getting excited by the prospect of desperate women plied with cheap liquor this jackass decides that he is going to complain. Complain all the way to the court. This sad, pathetic, lonely rent-boy made a court case about some $5 cover charge or some cheap watered down rum and coke (hold the rum) and ruined all of the fun for the other heterosexual men out there. I saw an interview with this "guy" on the news and he was talking about how women are complaining about "equal rights" and how they should have to pay what everyone else does. Again, he is right, but c'mon jackass why do you have to bitch about something so trivial, especially when it involves women drinking, and maybe losing their inhibitions and possibly taking your stank ass home and getting busy? This is the biggest cockblock in history. He should have his testicles reposessed.

Romania 3

Who's the dipshit? You're the dipshit. I think I can provide plenty of evidence if you'd like.

Update: Irina and I pretty much hate each other, but since Edy works from 8-6 everyday, I'm stuck hanging out with her. It's funny to hear you say that you're stuck hanging out with a beautiful woman, but she really is an incredible bitch. It's amazing, she puts every American woman to shame in the bitchiness department. We all went to a disco in a small Romanian village on Saturday night and I thought I was going to die. It was something out of Indiana Jones. It was also interesting to be in a disco at 3am and see 10 year olds. Keith woudl love it.

On Friday we're leaving for a 16 hour trip. We'll see two beautiful castles, including Dracula's. Everything else here is for shit. My bathroom has a pulldown handle like they had in the 1930s. Also as of 30 minutes ago, I had no hot water. The food here is pretty good suprisingly. Edy's mother is a great cook.

Out.

Rental Reviews: 21 Grams (2003)

Starring Sean Penn, Benicio Del Toro, Naomi Watts
Written by Guillermo Arriaga
Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu

21 Grams requires the viewer to do a great deal of work. It’s one of those movies that tells its story through a disjointed chronology, but it’s the most extreme example of the technique I’ve ever seen. Interestingly, the film was shot chronologically, probably to assist the actors. This is an emotionally wrenching film, and chronological shooting would probably make it much easier for the actors to hit the appropriate levels.

Or rather, to hit what the appropriate levels would have been if the film had been edited chronologically. One of the problems in disjointed films like this is that it’s difficult to craft a dynamic emotional arc. In a film like Memento it doesn’t matter much, because the main character can’t build an emotional arc either. It also doesn’t matter because Memento tells a story that couldn’t possibly be told chronologically. The story of 21 Grams could be told chronologically, and I wish I could have seen it that way.

Of course, the editing does put the big emotional events in approximately the same place they would have been. In other words, the beginning of the story is shown at the beginning of the film, but there are a few scenes from later in the story shown first. And the big climax happens at the end of the film, but we’ve already seen a lot of what comes after it. All this is to be expected from a disjointed chronology film, but where it gets frustrating is in that it prevents you from getting a grip on the characters. You get different facts about each character, but you don’t know what order they go in.

Of course, you work it out as the film goes on, but while you’re working it out, you’re not involved in what’s happening. It has all the emotional impact of an archeological dig. These characters are living and dying, loving each other and killing each other, and all you can do is “study” them to try to make a coherent story out of the fragmented evidence you find. And it’s a terrible shame, because the story is tremendously powerful, I think, but by the time you work out what it is, you’ve missed it.

Perhaps it needs to be seen more than once. It wouldn’t be the first movie to demand repeat viewings. And I would like to see it a second time, because I suspect that it will be a completely different movie. But I must confess that the first viewing very much left me cold.

On the other hand, the performances of the three leads were all tremendous. Sean Penn and Benicio Del Toro have long been favorites of mine, but Naomi Watts was just as good. I’ve seen a little of her work before, most memorably in The Ring, but she’s on my radar now.



Buy 21 Grams Now!