Milk

A long time ago, the screenwriter got as much play in advertising as the above the line talent. Take a look at the trailers for Network and you'll notice that it's credited as a Paddy Chayefsky film, not a Sydney Lumet film. That's not something you see these days, so when the advertisements for Milk made writer Dustin Lance Black's name so prominent, it made me expect something exceptionally well written. This isn't a guy with a lot of previous writing experience (his only big credit is the TV show Big Love), so clearly something must have been special about his writing here if producers felt using his name in the trailers would be worthwhile. So color me surprised to discover that Milk's single greatest failing is that it follows a very by-the-numbers screenplay that has almost no interest in any of its supporting characters. No amount of great acting can overcome what amounts to a been there, done that writing approach. What a shame.

For those who aren't familiar with him, Harvey Milk was an openly gay politician in San Francisco who fought to protect the rights of homosexuals in the late 70's, before he was gunned down by a fellow city supervisor. This is certainly an interesting story to be told, especially in light of the recent passing of Prop 8 in California. Yet the script does not do the man's plight justice. From the very get-go, I could tell the writer was not confident with his story. The whole movie is framed as Harvey recording his story on tape because he fears he might be assassinated. This tells us two things quickly: 1) Black is worried we won't connect with the film unless he states right off the bat that something tragic will happen, and 2) Black isn't sure of how to string together the events of Milk's life without some sort of narration. This framing device is made all the more irrelevant in retrospect because we never see any point where Harvey might feel like his death is imminent, nor do we see any reason for him to reiterate to anyone his life's story.

The acting is strong across the board (with one major exception), but if a character's name isn't Harvey Milk, apparently they don't warrant anything more than a surface examination. Each character seems to have one facet to them that separates them from other characters: Emile Hirsch plays the rebellious kid, James Franco is the supportive guy, and Josh Brolin is the opposition. Hirsch does surprisingly well considering how stock his character feels most of the time. Franco really has nothing to do here, but he does create a warm presence and plays well off of Penn. And Brolin deserved so much more examination than he got. His Dan White murdered two people, yet we really don't understand why. Perhaps the film subscribes to the Twinkies Defense? Brolin does a great job of making White seem uncertain of himself, like an animal cornered in his own den by trespassers. Yet it's not enough to make us see why he would do what he did. The one actor who feels totally out of place is Diego Luna. His character is tacked on, almost as if his existence in real life demanded he be shoehorned into the film. While the character isn't necessarily supposed to be liked, Luna does a horrible job of making us care about him in any way, grating on the nerves whenever he appears. When he does something very important late in the film, it feels completely pointless to the overall film, almost as if the film had to stop and deal with this other character for a few minutes. Luna's character is actually less likable than a man who murders two people - Black could not have intended that when he wrote the film.

Finally, there's Sean Penn. Clearly the best performance of the film, and probably award worthy. Penn really goes for it here, embracing Harvey in a way I feel a lot of other actors might have shied away from. Particularly interesting is the way he shapes Milk into both an immensely likable guy, but also one with an undeniable conniving undercurrent to him. The way he manipulates some people around him makes Milk a far more interesting character than he would have been if he was just a tragic hero. Penn is front and center for most of the run time, and he carries the film well.

Director Gus Van Sant is known for his more artsy films, often taking less of a narrative approach than an atmospheric one. Here he is back in mainstream territory, but with the occasional artistic flourishes. The way he would frame certain shots so that some characters were out of frame, or other shots where the camera is zoomed out to an almost unnatural level help to create a feeling of alienation that Milk and others certainly must have felt at times. But those flourishes aren't enough to mask the fact that the film hits all the beats you might expect from a biopic. While I've had some serious problems with Van Sant's atmospheric pictures, I would have preferred him to take some sort of risks with the narrative here so that I didn't feel like I've seen it all before.

Good performances and a timely story are not enough to overcome the poor writing here, and I can't really recommend Milk because of that. An interesting side note, we almost got a repeat of the Capote/Infamous showdown from a couple of years back. Bryan Singer was planning to have his next film be about Harvey Milk as well, but felt that it was futile since he was beaten to the punch. That's a shame, as I feel like there's so much more that could have been explored about this story. A film about the relationship between Milk and White could have made for a far more unique take on this story.

Slumdog Millionaire

A great film can do more than just tell a wonderful story: it can take you to another world, let you see life through a different set of eyes. Slumdog Millionaire may not have the most original story, but damn does it transport you. Shot on location in Mumbai, India, we are able to witness the harsh realities and stunning perseverance of a people and place we most likely would never otherwise visit. It's not always the most pretty experience, but it is an enveloping and enlightening one.

I fear that people are going to go to see this expecting one thing while getting another, and being put off because of it. The premise is that Jamal (Dev Patel), a young man who grew up in the slums with no real education, has found himself on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, within grasp of winning the top prize. When the show breaks for the night, he is snatched by the authorities and tortured, under the assumption that a guy like him could never possibly know all these answers. From there we learn that each question on the show has a connection to a major point in his life, told through extensive flashbacks. I fear people are going to be more interested in the present day game show aspect of the movie - which is the more immediately thrilling aspect of the film - and less so in the back story. That is a huge mistake. The game show is simply a way to frame Jamal's life story, which is the true heart of the film. Remember that a picture frame is vital to the painting, but no matter how great a frame it is, it's not the reason you look at the painting. And it is through Jamal's life that we begin to grasp what an awesome achievement this film really is.

The mere fact that a film like this exists and stands a good chance of major Oscar consideration come year's end is a miracle in itself. Director Danny Boyle, a filmmaker I've admired but never loved, shot much of the film undercover on location in the slums. As a result, what we see surrounding the story is almost a documentary of the real Mumbai. Those are real slums, real starving people - an honest-to-God living and breathing world in every frame. I think that this film works in a more powerful way than a documentary would simply because it uses the fictional story of Jamal as a way to give us an entry point to this world.

I mentioned before that the story itself is not especially inventive or original. The characters are fairly archetypal, but they all feel so fully lived in that you completely forgive the film that transgression. I honestly felt like I'd experienced Jamal's life by the end of the film. So many movies these days feel rushed, unexplored, not totally realized. Not here. Slumdog has this quality about it that makes you feel like you've been enveloped, and by the end you are completely satisfied. Not enough films get credit for taking an idea or a world and exploring it to the last detail. Charlie Kaufman is one of those few who get that concept, and while I would not compare Slumdog Millionaire to any of Kaufman's narratives, they both do share this idea of a world fully realized.

At times this film can get quite dark, which may come as a shock at first. It opens with our hero being brutally tortured. The majority of his life leading up to the game show is dreary and gritty. But at the same time, it is filled with moments of great hope and honesty, and those moments of triumph are made all the more powerful for having been rooted in such a murky world. Boyle aids these moments with some great visual flairs and musical cues. Perhaps the most inspiring moment comes during the credits, of all times, as the cast breaks out into a Bollywood style song and dance number. It's like the visual embodiment of the happiness Jamal feels by the film's end, also reflecting how you will likely feel as you leave this deeply affecting film.

Quantum of Solace

I've noticed a trend in the James Bond pictures, perhaps you have too. They seem to come in cycles, where the first in the cycle is hard edged, dark, and generally very well received. As they progress forward, however, it becomes more and more difficult to hold onto that edge, slowly slipping into a world of silliness. Inevitably they hit a low point (Moonraker, A View to a Kill, Die Another Day) and the franchise needs to be rebooted. Those inevitable reboots never last, unfortunately, and the cycle repeats itself. So following the most daring reboot in the franchise's history - Casino Royale - it is interesting to see if this new cycle of Bond can finally overcome the failings of past installments and actually continue with what made Royale so refreshing.

The short answer is no, Quantum of Solace does not live up to what was started two years ago. This feels much more like typical Bond fare, which may be a good thing, may be bad, depending on your opinion of the franchise. Gone is the character development of the last film, instead replaced by wall to wall action. I think what makes many of the earliest Bond films stand out to this day is that they didn't rely too heavily on action set pieces. Take Goldfinger, still considered the quintessential 007 outing. Bond spends half the movie hanging out with his enemy, just talking. Casino Royale followed in that tradition with the drawn out poker game at its center. It's fun to get to know your characters so that when the action does occur, it has more of a resonance, a sense of danger. It's surprising to see that director Marc Forster, a man known for films focused more on talking and characters than action, is so keen on moving the film along at a brisk, unrelenting pace. And while the action may be a bit much for my own taste, it's undenibale that some of these action scenes are the most kinetic of the franchise's history. If you like big action, you won't be let down here.

Solace picks up just where the last film left off, with the mysterious Mr. White being interrogated about the organization he works for. Bond seems interested in only one thing - revenge for his lost love Vesper. The theme of the film ends up being how Bond comes to reconcile his job with his emotions. At the start he has no problem shooting first and asking questions second, but by the film's end he seems to realize there is more to it than just revenge. Sure, he will always have that dark side to him, but it becomes tempered by his need to do the job right. In just one film, Daniel Craig has simply become James Bond. It took really no time at all to see his face and think "Bond." That's a testament to just how good he is at the part. He's not given a whole lot to do here, but just the way he carries himself makes you believe he is the suavest secret agent in the world. Indeed, it is Craig that makes pretty much everything in this film work. While the film feels a bit regressive, Craig's performance alone demands me to recommend this film. You get the real feeling that this is a character that is growing and changing on screen, not a rigidly defined guy we've see over and over for 40 plus years. That's a pretty amazing feat.

The rest of the performances are all only ok, with the exception of Judi Dench. She has become such an integral part of this franchise that it's almost impossible to imagine anyone else filling the role of M when she eventually does depart. She is surprisingly given a fair amount of screen time here, and her interaction with Bond is a highlight of the Danial Craig cycle so far. Her relationship with him is at times both antagonistic and motherly, and it works wonderfully. As villain Dominic Greene, Mathieu Amalric is sadly forgettable. I suspect that has more to do with his character's lack of definition than the actor's abilities. He simply feels like an even less formidable enemy for James than Le Chiffre did in the last film. The franchise is clearly setting up a SPECTRE-like evil organization, but is would be nice to get an actual antagonist and not just business men who present no real danger to our hero. Mr. White comes closest, but we simply know too little of him at this point. Much like my feelings on the last film, this film feels like one big setup for the sequel. While that was ok with Casino Royale because it was the beginning of something new, here it just feels like stalling.

Obviously, if you're a fan of 007, you'll see this film regardless of critical opinion. I'm the exact same way. And Quantum of Solace is honestly not a bad film. It has moments of genuine greatness, however few and far between they are. It's just that compared to Casino Royale this is a let down. Compared to the typical Bond picture? This probably holds up a bit better than average. If you like explosions, hot women, suave spies, and a plot you can't quite fully wrap your head around, you'll enjoy this. If you want a bit of that introspective quality that Craig's first outing had, you will be left wanting.

RIP Michael Crichton

1942-2008

Michael Crichton is the reason I write, the reason I read.

In the sixth grade my teacher had an expansive library in our classroom that had everything from children's books to classics to modern bestsellers. At the time I was getting burned out on reading, having grown too old to enjoy the books of my youth. Perusing the shelves of her library one day I came across Jurassic Park. Loving the movie, I decided I should read the book. My first grown-up book, it opened my eyes to the ability words have to transport us to another world. Not only did this book singlehandedly make me the avid reader I became over the years, but it made me want to explore the power of written words.

No matter what you thought of Crichton's writing style or unconventional beliefs, there is no denying the impact he had on pop culture. There's a reason he holds a record for being the only person to have simultaneously the number one book, movie, and TV show in the country. He was a man who knew how to transfix his audience through a combination of thoroughly researched information and exciting narrative. Reading one of his books you felt like you were really learning something while being entertained.

If you go through my reviews over the years, the film that pops up in references the most is Jurassic Park. While cinema was not very kind to many of his works, that was one that had undeniably been treated right. I loved it for the very simple fact that it was one of the most ingeniously simple ideas for a story I've seen during my lifetime. We take it for granted now, but looking back it makes sense that it became such a phenomenon. There were very few, if any Crichton novels that I didn't take something away from, he always made me look at the world in a slightly different way. His novels encouraged you to go out and explore and research things you never would have even thought about otherwise.

As you can see, I could go on and on about Crichton for ages. I am deeply saddened by his passing, which came as a sudden shock to me. I respect that he wanted to keep his declining health private, and I simply wish to thank him for his many literary and film contributions over the years that I've cherished. No other writer has affected me in quite the way he has, and I am forever grateful to him for that.

"I am certain that there is too much certainty in the world."
- Michael Crichton

Catching Up: Mini Reviews

So many movies, so little time to review them. I saw a number of movies over the last month and some of them took some real time to wrap my head around. While some may deserve more analysis, for now this will have to do - many more movies are quickly approaching on the horizon. The next two months are the most exciting for movies, and I look forward to sinking my teeth into the fall season's offerings. For now, though, reviews.


Happy-Go-Lucky

I recognize I'm in the minority on this one, but dear lord was this film a pain to sit through at times. Director Mike Leigh presents us with Poppy, one of the most grating characters of the year. Cheerful to the point of derangement, Poppy refuses to let anyone not be affected by her chipper attitude. There's no real plot to speak of, just a series of moments in her life and the characters she meets along the way. I was unable to believe that this character could or would exist in the world, or that anyone would do some of the things she does. The one truly shining element here is Eddie Marsan as her polar opposite driving instructor. Perhaps it says more about me than the film itself that I often preferred his volatile character to Poppy, but he was riveting. These are two people that should not have met, but because they have it rushes inevitably to a shocking and powerful confrontation that almost single-handedly redeemed this movie. As unimpressed as I was by this film, I would be happy to see Marsan get some recognition during the awards season.




Let the Right One In

If you've had your ear to the ground, you've probably heard rumblings about this one. Believe the hype - it's a masterpiece. It's unique visions like this that make me love watching movies. Classified as a horror film, I feel that is incorrect. It has a young girl who is a vampire, and there are certainly scenes of shocking violence, but at it's heart it is a beautiful love story between two kids trying to come to terms with who they are and what place they occupy in the world. I haven't been this affected by a movie in a long while, and can't recommend this highly enough. The nature of the characters make it hard to accept some of their actions, but at the same time you can't help but love the two kids in spite of those actions. The end especially had me literally cheer out loud for the characters. Trust me, you haven't seen a film quite like this before, this is one of the best you'll probably find all year.




Synecdoche, New York

I still haven't totally come to grips with the implications of this film after nearly a month of contemplation. Suffice it to say, Charlie Kaufman is one of our most original minds working today, and while this doesn't deliver quite on the level of his greatest work, it is still at times fascinating and moving. It follows a playwright named Caden (Philip Seymour Hoffman) as he tries to make the most important work of art ever conceived. Right off the bat you should not expect narrative sense from this film - think David Lynch lite. Time passes these characters by with almost no notice, physical space becomes undefinable, and real and imagined begin to merge into one. Caden attempts to recreate his life on a gigantic sound stage, but as he does it all begins to fold in on itself. He starts telling the story of how he's telling the story of how he's telling the story, etc. Hoffman is great, as are all the women in his life - Catherine Keener, Samantha Morton, Diane Weist and more. It seems to falter at the end when it becomes less clear what is happening anymore, and the film seems to lack a coherent ending - but then again, so does life. I would recommend Kaufman's own Adaptation over this as it hits on many of the same themes, but this is a solid film with moments of brilliance. I think had Kaufman found a director instead of directing it himself, it could have been a masterpiece.





Trick 'r Treat

Here's a film with a story. Filmed in 2007 and set for an October release last year, it suddenly disappeared from the schedule. Presumed to be released this October, it once again was MIA. One would assume this means bad things, but quite the opposite is true, in fact. Trick 'r Treat is one of the best Halloween films in many years. It tells a number of intertwining stories all set on Halloween, each evoking different aspects of the holiday. It is clever, fun, scary, and very darkly hilarious. And Sam, the central... not villain, but let's call him an antagonist - is one fascinating and creepy horror film character. Dylan Baker shines as a man with a dark secret, and Brian Cox evokes the image of John Carpenter in his storyline, perhaps the most frightening of the movie. This is a film to be seen with a big audience, and it demands to be seen as close to Halloween as possible. It has been screened a number of times recently in hopes of getting the word out, and I think it's working - I have heard absolutely no negative feedback from those who've seen it. Who knows when or if this film will ever get released, but if the opportunity to see it ever does come up, take it. This is a new Halloween cult classic waiting to be discovered.





W.

Oliver Stone can be so hit or miss. His two past "president" movies were both masterpieces, but many of his other films fall completely flat, like World Trade Center. His latest falls somewhere in between. The film puts up a great argument for the need to tell Bush's story on film, but the timing is still too soon. It feels as though so much more could have been explored had we had some hindsight. Still, what Stone does tackle is often fascinating, especially W's relationship with his father. Josh Brolin embodies the man eerily well, but the rest of the cast is hit or miss. James Cromwell doesn't particularly evoke Bush Sr, but he gives a well rounded performance regardless. Jeffrey Wright makes you feel sympathy for Colin Powell, who was clearly misled by those he trusted. But Thandie Newton gives a Razzie-worthy performance as Condoleezza Rice. It's like she's never seen Rice before in her life and just did some sort of bizarre caricature of a dimwitted yes man politician. It's absurd. I was surprised to find myself understanding our president in new ways because of this film. While Stone's film doesn't forgive him for his mistakes, it does put them into an interesting perspective.





Zach and Miri Make a Porno

Oh, Kevin Smith. I'm an unapologetic Smith fan, so my bias will be showing whenever I talk about him. I recognize he isn't a great director, and his dialogue can be on the verbose side, but I enjoy everything he's done. And while I also enjoyed this film, I felt it was on the lower tier of his work. The laughs are undeniably there, and the actors are almost uniformly perfectly cast, but the story itself feels off. In many ways it feels like Chasing Amy-lite. The relationship between Zack and Miri feels forced oftentimes, and the ending feels incredibly rushed. As just a comedy, it works well, but I kept hoping for it to rise above comedy and be something more. I have to give a special mention to Jason Mewes, who has really pulled himself together in recent years. He showed in Clerks II and especially here that he is a born performer, exuding more charm and charisma than anyone else in the film. He turns Lester the Molester (not a porn name, by the way) into a lovable guy, no easy feat. I can't help but kind of hope Smith would move onto something new and put films like this behind him. He's starting to run out of things to say in this genre, and I think he has such talent that if he ever did decide to do a drama (or even his long rumored horror film) it could be a revelation.