Movie Review: Animal Kingdom

Animal Kingdom ****
Directed By: David Michod.
Written By: David Michod.
Starring: James Frecheville (Joshua 'J' Cody), Ben Mendelsohn (Andrew 'Pope' Cody), Joel Edgerton (Barry Brown), Guy Pearce (Leckie), Luke Ford (Darren Cody), Jacki Weaver (Janine Cody), Sullivan Stapleton (Craig Cody), Laura Wheelwright (Nicky Henry), Dan Wyllie (Ezra White).

It’s hard to imagine a better debut film coming out this year than David Michod’s Animal Kingdom. The film is a well directed, well written extremely well acted crime drama about the most dysfunctional criminal family I have encountered in a movie in recent years. The film is set in an Australia where the difference between the cops and criminals is pretty much non existant. One unlucky teenager, essentially a good guy but with nowhere else to go, get sucked into this world and is in over his head before he even realizes what is happening.

The kid is Josh (played by newcomer James Frecheville). In the films opening scene, his mother ODs on heroin. With no where else to go, he calls his long lost grandma Janine (Jacki Weaver), who shows up at his door and takes him back to her place to take care of him. Given what happens next, Josh would have been better off fending for himself.

Josh meets his uncles Darren (Luke Ford), barely older than Josh himself and too laid back to really fight against the tide of his family, Craig (Sullivan Stapleton), more of an outgoing hardass and Pope (Ben Mendelsohn), who is the “mastermind” of the group, although I use the term loosely. He seems to be charge because everyone else is scared of him. Along with their friend Barry (Joel Edgerton), these four guys are bank robberts. The problem is the bank robbery division of the police are after them – Pope in particular – and have no qualms about breaking the law to get them. If they cannot arrest them, they’d just as soon gun them down on the street. Their unit is being broken up soon, and they have plans to let these criminals walk away free.

This is a movie that could play out like a typical crime drama – and in many ways it does – but it is also much more intelligent and thoughtful than most of what this genre offers us. For one thing, while the plot may seem familiar, I can honestly say that from one moment to the next, I was never quite sure of what was going to happen. A sense of foreboding and death hangs over the entire movie, just waiting for those moments when it gets too heavy and breaks.

For another, the film is much more well observed than most films in the genre. In Frencheville, Michod found a newcomer capabale of carrying his film. He is quiet and morose – like many teenagers – and this makes him difficult to read. At first, he likes his new family – and is honored that his uncles except him, and approve of his girlfriend Nicky (Laura Wheelwright, a real cutie with acting skills to match), and so he doesn’t question it when he gets more and more involved with what is happening around him. But with someone like Pope running things, it is only a matter of time before things blow up. Mendelsohn gives the best performance in the film, and one of the best so far this year, as Pope who is creepy, cruel, violent and pathetic in equal measures. You can never trust him, and there is something definitely off about him – even his mother suggests that “it may be time to start taking your medication again”. Pope talks a lot about loyalty, and his pathetic attempts at empathy towards the other family members, trying to get them to open up, all fail because they’re all scared of him. It is a truly chilling performance. And Jacki Weaver is perfect as the boys mother. At first, she just seems like a kindly grandma, but as the movie progresses we start to feel that there’s something not quite right about her either – her kisses to her sons, always on the lips, last just a little too long to be considered purely motherly, and when she reveals the depths of her coldness and loyalty, it truly is chilling. Ma Barker has nothing on this woman.

Michod shows great skills behind the camera – from the wonderful opening montage, to his brilliant use of music (did you ever think that the cheesy pop song “I’m All Out of Love” could chill you to the bone? I didn’t, but it does here), his use of slow motion, and his ever roaming camera are all put to great use here. This is a stylish movie, but not one where the style overtakes what is happening. Animal Kingdom is a debut film of such power and skill that I am amazed that Michod had never directed a feature before. He is one of the most promising filmmakers out there right now. I cannot wait to see what he does next.

Movie Review: Eat Pray Love

Eat, Pray, Love **
Directed By: Ryan Murphy.
Written By: Ryan Murphy & Jennifer Salt based on the book by Elizabeth Gilbert.
Starring: Julia Roberts (Liz Gilbert), Javier Bardem (Felipe), Richard Jenkins (Richard from Texas), James Franco (David Piccolo), Billy Crudup (Stephen), Viola Davis (Delia Shiraz), Hadi Subiyanto (Ketut Liyer), Mike O'Malley (Andy Shiraz), Welker White (Andrea Sherwood), Tuva Novotny (Sofi), Luca Argentero (Giovanni), Giuseppe Gandini (Luca Spaghetti).

Eat Pray Love is about a woman in her 40s who acts like a teenager. She is a successful writer whose job takes her to places around the world to write travel articles. She lives in a great house in New York, has a good looking husband who loves her, even if he is a flake, and has a great support system of friends. And yet, she is completely and totally unhappy and complains constantly about feeling “disconnected”. So what does she do? She decides to take a year off of work to travel the world and “find herself”. Watching the film I couldn’t help but think of all the people in the world who have real problems. Who are working two jobs to try to put food on the table and a roof over the heads of their children. Why the hell should I care about a spoiled rich woman who has a great life and still does nothing but complain. I understand why the book was such a bestseller among women - because it is essentially a fantasy for most people who dream of having the opportunities that this woman had.

Julia Roberts plays Liz Gilbert, who wrote this memoir of her own life. And while I have never been a huge fan of Roberts, I have to say that in “movie star” roles like this there are few actresses better right now. Roberts is charming and funny and she carries the movie well. Without Roberts at her most charming, I thin this movie could have been downright unwatchable. With her, it mostly agreeable if you don’t bother to think about it.

Gilbert leaves her latest boy toy (James Franco), and heads to Rome to four months where she spends most of her time eating and bonding with friends who seem to have nothing better to do with their days than to set around with her all day every day. After those four months of relaxation, she heads to India, and spends another few months learning to meditate with a Hindu guru. There she meets a fellow American (Richard Jenkins), also looking for inner peace. But he has real problems - his alcoholism ruined his marriage, robbed him of his children, and put everyone he loves in danger. Jenkins is great in his small role - had the whole movie been about his character and his quest for spiritual enlightenment, they really might have had something here. After she has learned the art of meditation, she heads to Bali and gets a gorgeous house rental, studies with medicine man, and meets and falls in love with an even more gorgeous, sensitive divorced man (Javier Bardem). And through this year of non stop personal indulgence, what does Gilbert do more than anything else? Complain.

There things to admire about this movie. Robert Richardson’s cinematography makes these three already gorgeous locations (four if you count New York, and since it is even more romanticized here than in any Woody Allen movie I have ever seen, I would) look impossibly beautiful. It is easy to get lost in the surface of the film, which is charming and fun and great to look at. If you turn your brain off and simply go with it - engaging with the movie as a mere fantasy, you may actually like it. And I suspect that women are going to like the movie a lot more than men. I’m sure that many women have wanted to chuck everything in their lives out and spend a year traveling the world. But most women don’t have that option.

Co-written and directed by Glee creator Ryan Murphy, Eat Pray Love is a movie that I certainly didn’t hate as much as perhaps I have made it sound. Roberts is charming, Jenkins is brilliant and Javier Bardem smoulders wonderfully as Roberts new man. It is a movie that is a pleasure to look at. But Murphy never really finds the right tone for the film - the tone that would make us forget that this is essentially a story about a spoiled brat of a middle aged woman who still wants to act like a teenage - believing the whole world revolves around her and we should all be interested in that struggle. It is possible to make a movie about a rich, successful woman dealing with her insecurities - the recent indie film Please Give is an example. But that movie felt honest and real. Eat Pray Love is anything but.

Movie Review: Get Low

Get Low *** ½
Directed By: Aaron Schneider.
Written By: Chris Provenzano and C. Gaby Mitchell.
Starring: Robert Duvall (Felix Bush), Sissy Spacek (Mattie Darrow), Bill Murray (Frank Quinn), Lucas Black (Buddy), Gerald McRaney (Rev. Gus Horton), Bill Cobbs (Rev. Charlie Jackson), Scott Cooper (Carl), Lori Beth Edgeman (Kathryn).

Robert Duvall is perhaps the only actor in the world who make a character like Felix Bush seem believable. Duvall is an actor capable of great realism in his performances - he gets under the skin of his characters, and grounds them is a reality that is all his own making. He has been best playing charcters from the South - Lonesome Dove, Tender Mercies and his very best performance in The Apostle for example - and Felix Bush is another of these strange, eccentric characters that he breathes life into.

Bush is a hermit in a small town in America in the first half of 20th Century America. He has lived in house in the middle of the woods for almost 40 years. The rumors about him have taken on a life of their own in the years he has been locked away up there. No one is quite sure anymore of what exactly he did, but they are all positive that it is bad, and that he is not welcome there. But Bush comes anyway, for the first time in years. Why? Because he wants to organize his own funeral. The catch? He wants to be there, and before he’s dead as well. He likes the young Buddy (Lucas Black), who works at the local funeral home because he doesn’t lie to him - not even about what he thinks he knows about him. Buddy works for Frank (Bill Murray) who is very short on money, so he is willing to do anything that Bush wants. And when Bush decides he wants to invite EVERYONE, the whole thing becomes a circus, which simply makes Frank happier. Further complicating things is the arrival in town of Mattie (Sissy Spacek), who was once a local who knew Felix quite well and may well know his secret.

The movie is built around the performances of the actors, as well as the secret that Bush keeps right up until the finale of the movie. If there is a flaw in the film its that the secret, when it is finally revealed, is a bit anticlimactic. But is there really any secret that would not be so? The problem often when a build a movie around a secret like this, that the result is almost always anticlimactic.

But luckily the performances in the movie are pretty much perfect. Duvall carries the movie - starting out as a seemingly crazy old hermit with a bushy beard, wild hair who rarely says anything and is more likely to shot you than talk to you. But as the movie progresses, Duvall reveals hidden layers of Bush’s character, revealing himself to a lot more intelligent and thoughtful then we first thought he was. He carries the movie because if we do not believe in his character, we don’t buy the movie - and Duvall does do a great job.

The supporting cast is also excellent. Bill Murray has transformed himself in the last decade or so into one of the best comedic character actors out there. With the exception of Lost in Translation and Broken Flowers, his best work in the past few years has been in support, and his work here is no exception. He is a likable, charming and funny, even though we never really trust him, and know that he isn’t really that nice of a character. Sissy Spacek brings a wounded integrity and sweetness to her role. She was hurt in the past and has spent years essentially hiding from it, not unlike Bush did, but now that she is back, she still doesn’t quite want to deal with it. Lucas Black continues his string of strong performances, but he is still looking for that breakout role. He is our conduit into this world, and he does a good job, but the fact remains he is the least interesting character here. In smaller roles two old pros, Dabney Coleman and Bill Cobb, give color to their brief roles.

Get Low is a movie that slowly draws you into its mysteries and its characters. I liked the movie because I never really knew what to expect next. Yes, this movie does feel scripted, but it also feels different. Yes, the ending doesn’t quite work, but everything right up until then works wonderfully Duvall. This is what happens when you have an intelligent screenplay and cast the right actors and just let them go. The film deserves a better resolution, not because the one that it has is a cheat - but because everything that leads up to it is too good to have this ending.

Movie Review: Charlie St. Cloud

Charlie St. Cloud **
Directed By: Burr Steers.
Written By: Craig Pearce & Lewis Colick based on the novel by Ben Sherwood.

Starring: Zac Efron (Charlie St. Cloud), Charlie Tahan (Sam St. Cloud), Amanda Crew (Tess Carroll), Augustus Prew (Alistair Wooley), Donal Logue (Tink Weatherbee), Kim Basinger (Claire St. Cloud), Ray Liotta (Florio Ferrente), Dave Franco (Sully), Matt Ward (Connors).

Zac Efron has a natural likability when he’s onscreen that cannot be taught – you either have it or you don’t. And unlike so much of young Hollywood, he seems to have his head on his shoulders, and is willing to do different types of roles. He easily could have spent the next few years doing bad teen romantic comedies and musicals, but he seems to really want to build his resume with different types of roles, by quality directors – see his work in Me and Orson Welles for Richard Linklater as an example. The fact that his new movie, Charlie St. Cloud, doesn’t really work really isn’t Efron’s fault – in fact he deserves credit for making what should have been a nearly unwatchably cheesy movie bearable. Efron is headed for more major movie stardom I think, but Charlie St. Cloud won’t do him many favors.

Efron plays the title character in this movie about a high school kid who seems to have everything going for him. He is getting good grades, and is so good at sailing that he has gotten a scholarship to Stanford (I didn’t even know they gave out sailing scholarships). It is the summer between high school and university, and he is just killing time before his life starts. And that’s when everything goes wrong. He wants to go to a party, but needs to drop his little brother, Sam (Charlie Tahan) at his friend’s place first, and on the way they get into an accident. Charlie is miraculously saved, but Sam isn’t. Charlie defers his scholarship, and we come back to him five years later. He never left his small town, and now works at the local cemetery. His only commitment is to meet Sam every night at sunset to practice Sam’s pitching. Yes Sam is dead, but Charlie made him a promise before he died, and he intends to keep it. Every night he talks to Sam as life passes him by.

This is when Charlie meets Tess (Amanda Crew) – or I should say re-meets her. They went to high school together, but didn’t really know each other. Now she is preparing to do an around the world, solo sailing race and is back in town to test out her boat. They two laugh and flirt and get a little more serious. But, of course, there is always Sam which could get in Charlie’s way.

There have been a lot of these somewhat tragic romance movies this year aimed at teenagers. There was Dear John with Channing Tatum as a soldier who falls for Amanda Seyfried, The Last Song with an unhappy Miley Cyrus falling for a rich kid and Remember Me, with Robert Pattinson falling for Emile de Ravin. None of them were very good – and neither is Charlie St. Cloud. At least it’s much better than Remember Me, with its sucker punch ending that it did not earn, and its horrible Robert Pattinson performance. In fact, Efron’s charm may make this one the best of the lot – although with this sort of competition, that’s not something to be very proud of.

To me, the movie never really takes off because the story is just so cheesy that you can never really take it seriously. The movie tries so hard to get you to like it, that I had a natural resistance to it – it never really won me over, in part, because I don’t think the movie ever really plays fair – and tries too hard to pull the wool over your eyes. Efron keeps it going, and it should be said that both Charlie Tahan and Amanda Crew, two actors I don’t recall ever seeing before, are likable enough in their roles that they don’t grate on your nerves. However, I couldn’t help but wonder what the point of casting talented actors like Kim Basinger, Ray Liotta and Donal Logue was, considering that the movie never really lets them do anything (and Liotta was a distraction, because he has the same impossibly blue eyes as Efron, making me wonder if it was going to turn out that he was Efron’s long lost father).

The movie was directed by Burr Steers, whose career started off well enough with the very funny, indie teen film Igby Goes Down. Steers apparently wanted money, so he has followed that up with last year’s 17 Again (also starring Efron) and now this. You can’t blame him too much, but it is always a little disappointing when a promising filmmaker goes that route – because it sometimes impossible to get them back (remember Boaz Yakin?),

Charlie St. Cloud is not an awful movie by any means, but watching it, I wondered what the point of it all was. The film never really finds it footing.

Movie Review: I Am Love

I Am Love ****
Directed by: Luca Guadagnino
Written By: Luca Guadagnino & Barbara Alberti & Ivan Cotroneo & Walter Fasano.
Starring: Tilda Swinton (Emma Recchi), Flavio Parenti (Edoardo Recchi Jr.), Edoardo Gabbriellini (Antonio Biscaglia), Alba Rohrwacher (Elisabetta Recchi), Pippo Delbono (Tancredi Recchi), Diane Fleri (Eva Ugolini), Maria Paiato (Ida Roselli), Marisa Berenson (Allegra Recchi), Waris Ahluwalia (Mr. Kubelkian), Gabriele Ferzetti (Edoardo Recchi Sr.), Martina Codecasa (Delfina), Mattia Zaccaro (Gianluca Recchi).

The ghosts of Italy’s past – both political and cinematic – haunt every frame of Luca Guadagnino’s luscious new film I Am Love. Watching it, I was reminded of the themes in both Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Conformist and Vittorio De Sica’s The Garden of Finzi Continis, where the reality of fascism breaks through to people in their opulent lifestyles. But in visual terms, the film owes more to the work of Luchino Visconti – particularly The Leopard – where the massive, beautiful surroundings threaten to overtake the characters, but somehow never does. Daringly though, I Am Love is not a period piece, but one set in the present day. While the film draws links to Italy’s fascist past, it is still grounded firmly in the present world of globalization.

Tilda Swinton gives a remarkable performance as Emma Recchi, the wife of a wealthy industrialist, Tancredi (Pippo Delbono), who has taken over the family business from his father (Gabriele Ferzetti). We first meet this family at a lavish birthday party for the father, who makes a great speech about his family’s legacy being written into Italian history. He started his factory as a young man, and has made the family exceedingly wealthy – but now it’s time to retire, and leave the company in the hands of Tancredi and his son, Edoardo (Flavio Parenti), who is now out of college and ready for the responsibility. The company is what has made the family great, and the grandfather makes a wonderful speech about morality and loyalty in business – ignoring the fact that during WWII, the company used cheap, Jewish slave labor to build itself up. A few months later, the grandfather is dead, and Tancredi is looking to sell the business – which doesn’t sit well with Edoardo who has bought his grandfather’s bull about morality and loyalty hook, line and sinker.

In the films first half, Guadagnino does a marvelous job at establishing all the players in the movie. It’s only in the films second half that Emma truly becomes the films protagonist. She was raised in Soviet era Russia, and married Tancredi who had travelled there is search of art and business (an early example of globalization). Coming to Italy, she hasn’t looked back since – becoming so Italian, she says she does not even remember her original first name, it having been supplanted by Emma when she moved. She mistook all the consumer freedom in Italy that she never experienced in the Soviet Union, for true freedom. But during the course of this movie, she will get a glimpse of what true freedom really means.

It all seems to start when she comes across a letter that her daughter Elisabetta (Alba Rohrwacher) sent to Edoardo. In it, she confesses to dumping her steady, respectable Italian boyfriend, because she has fallen in love with her older, female art teacher in London. Rather than being shocked or angered by Elisabetta’s effort at self actualization, it inspires Emma to set herself free. We have already seen her and Edoardo’s much poorer friend Antonio (Edoardo Gabbriellini), a chef, making eyes at each other but so far that is as far as things have gone. They go a step farther when Emma brings her mother in law (Maria Berenson) and her future daughter in law (Diane Fleri) to Antonio’s restaurant – under the guise of welcoming the daughter in law into the sisterhood of “Recchi wives”. But the lunch serves an entirely different purpose when Emma eats Antonio’s food – through a series of close-ups, Emma digs into the food with almost orgasmic delight, and from there she never looks back. It isn’t long before Antonio and Emma are having an affair.

It is also in the films second half that the themes in the movie truly start to take root. Emma is, in her own way, caught in a totalitarian regime herself. Her husband Tancredi seems nice, but he is never really there, and with his money, he truly does control her. Her son, Edoardo, is nicer, but more naïve and in two heartbreaking scenes near the end of the film, they both essentially say the same thing to her – that she no longer exists. It is also in this section where the reality of the business truly hits home, with the arrival of Mr. Kubelkian (Waris Ahluwalia), an Indian American businessman, who talks of globalization with phrases like “Commerce is democracy” and “War is a growth opportunity”. An old regime of fascism in Italy may have been toppled, but a new one – and this one global – is taking hold.

Swinton carries the film with her remarkable performance. I have no idea how she learned to speak Italian with a Russian accent, but she did, and she pulls it off remarkably well. But it is really in her quiet moments where she takes off – often not saying a word. The films devastating and brilliant climax is pulled off with her saying nothing, all because of the looks she exchanges with her family. She has lived under political fascism in the Soviet Union, economic fascism in her marriage, and she is finally breaking free to have true freedom – whatever it costs her, she no longer cares.

Movie Review: Winter's Bone

Winter’s Bone *** ½
Directed by: Debra Granik.
Written By: Debra Granik and Anne Rosellini based on the novel by Daniel Woodrell.
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence (Ree Dolly), John Hawkes (Teardrop), Kevin Breznahan (Little Arthur), Dale Dickey (Merab), Garret Dillahunt (Sheriff Baskin), Shelley Waggener (Sonya), Lauren Sweetser (Gail), Ashlee Thompson (Ashlee), William White (Blond Milton), Casey MacLaren (Megan), Isaiah Stone (Sonny), Valerie Richards (Connie), Beth Domann (Alice), Tate Taylor (Satterfield), Cody Brown (Floyd), Ronnie Hall (Thump Milton).

I get tired of movies that seem to be on autopilot. Most movies are in that from the beginning of the movie, we can often see precisely what is going to happen by the end of the movie. These can get boring, even if they are well made, which is why I prefer movies that are more grounded in their characters then their stories. Winter’s Bone is a movie like that – a film that draws its characters in realistic ways, and then expands the main characters world into a place we rarely see in the movies. The film takes place in the backwoods of Missouri, where everyone knows everyone, everyone seems to be related somehow, and that has a code of silence more unbreakable than the mafia’s. They take care of their own one way or another around here.

The characters in Winter’s Bone are not on autopilot. Lesser filmmakers probably would have turned the film into a thriller, and while there are some elements of thrillers here, this movie is not a thriller. It stars Jennifer Lawrence is a wonderful performance as Ree Dolly, a mature beyond her years 17 year old. She has to pretty much raise her two younger siblings by herself. Her father runs off for weeks at a time, and her mother has had a nervous breakdown, and now spends all her time drugged out and staring off into space. She doesn’t complain, but just gets it done. When the sheriff comes to her house and tells her that her dad is due in court next week, she tells him to piss off. But then he tells her that in order to get bail, he put up their house and their land. If he doesn’t show, they lose it all. She hasn’t seen her dad in months, but she needs that house to take care of her brother and sister. So she goes to see everyone she can think of who may know where he dad is. These are people who do not like to talk to anyone, and are not going to be worn down by some pissant kid, who they would just as soon kill as tell her anything.

Lawrence carries the movie throughout. She is in practically every scene, and she has an unwavering moral code. She is smart, but had to drop out of school at a young age, and doesn’t really understand the way the world outside her own works – as when she goes to talk to a military recruiter who explains how things really work. All she knows is her backwoods home, and the people who have been around her forever. To her, all of this is normal, and although she looks longingly at the kids who get to go to school, she knows she isn’t one of them. She doesn’t complain or cry, she just goes ahead and does what needs to be done.

One of the accomplishments of Winter’s Bone is how well the cast fits together. Aside for Lawrence, John Hawkes and Garrett Dillahunt, I didn’t recognize the actors in this movie at all. They have the kind of faces you don’t see much in movies – beaten down, sad as if they have seen too much in their lives, yet determined to go on seeing it. Lawrence, who is gorgeous, doesn’t allow her beauty to overpower her character, nor does she stick out like a sore thumb like many beautiful women do in movies like this. She has the same look in her eyes, just younger, more hopeful and optimistic. John Hawkes, so good in so many movies, looks just like everyone else in the movie. He is turning himself into a kind of Harry Dean Stanton, of whom it was once written that the lines on his face look like a roadmap to hell. Hawkes has that same look. These actors fit into their surroundings, and the rest of the cast brings themselves up to their level.

Written and directed by Debra Granik (who made the excellent Down to the Bone a few years ago, which kickstarted Vera Farmiga’s career), Winter’s Bone is intelligent and brilliantly well made. At times, the film lacks narrative drive – it spends perhaps a little too much time on all those faces, and not enough moving the plot forward, but that’s a minor flaw. Winter’s Bone is about people and places we rarely see in the movies – and I for one am glad that I saw these ones.

Movie Review: Solitary Man

Solitary Man ***
Directed by: Brian Koppelman & David Levien.
Written By: Brian Koppelman.
Starring: Michael Douglas (Ben Kalmen), Susan Sarandon (Nancy Kalmen), Danny DeVito (Jimmy Merino), Mary-Louise Parker (Jordan Karsch), Jenna Fischer (Susan Porter), Imogen Poots (Allyson Karsch), Jesse Eisenberg (Daniel Cheston), Richard Schiff (Steve Heller), Jake Richard Siciliano (Scotty), David Costabile (Gary Porter), Ben Shenkman (Pete Hartofilias), Olivia Thirlby (Cheston's Girlfriend).

There are some roles that seem like an actor just needs to play them. For Michael Douglas, the role of Ben Kalmen in Solitary Man is one of those roles. By now, Douglas has played so many high powered businessmen in expensive suits and slicked back hair, that he can do them in his sleep. I think he is often underrated as an actor, and his performances are often much better than they seem on the surface – he makes everything look so easy, that his skill is often overlooked. Douglas delivers one of his best performances in Solitary Man – a solid movie no doubt, but one that is also a little perfunctory. It needed an actor liked Douglas to make it worthwhile – and Douglas delivers.

When we first meet Kalmen, he is looking at the window of a doctor’s office. His doctor comes in, and Kalmen launches into a spiel about getting him set up in a new car – he is New York’s “Honest Car Dealer” after all, and talking about golf. But his doctor has some bad news for him. One of his tests showed an irregularity, and he’ll need to come for more work. Kalmen drops the act and goes silent. We flash forward 6 and a half years later, and although Kalmen is still putting on his charming act, no one is buying anymore. He lost his car dealerships in some sort of scandal and spent all is money keeping himself out of jail. He has gotten divorced from his wife (Susan Sarandon) and has spent the intervening years screwing anything that moves – preferably younger women, but in a pinch he’ll take anything. His current “girlfriend” is Jordan (Mary Louise Parker) who is dating because her dad is a big shot and can help get him back on track. But Jordan has an 18 year old daughter, Allyson (Imogen Poots), and you know how it is. Even Kalmen’s daughter Susan (Jenna Fischer), who has let him get away with everything is growing tired of him.

I have never seen Douglas look older, saggier than he does in Solitary Man. Yes, Kalmen puts on a good show, trying not to let anyone see how desperate, how broke he is really is, but people can see through him. Even when he goes back to his old University with Allyson to try and pull some strings and get her in, everyone looks at him a little differently. He wants to be make in University – and even takes a young student (Jessie Eisenberg) he meets there under his wing, but he’s pushing 60 now, and instead of being the cool, older guy, he’s just the creepy old man who the kids humor more than anything else. He just cannot admit to himself that he has failed, that he has aged and that he is much closer to end of the his life than the beginning.

Douglas is the reason to see Solitary Man. He is surrounded by a wonderful supporting cast, all doing some excellent work, but their roles seem slightly preprogrammed. They fit neatly into their designated slot as the wise old best friend, loving ex-wife, daughter who puts up with too much, young apprentice, young sexpot, etc. They do their job, which is to support Douglas, and do it well. But this is Douglas’ show, and he carries the movie throughout. Douglas is great when he is in his salesman mode, but he is even better in the films quieter moments – sometimes just sitting by himself which is the only time he really allows himself to let his guard down, and not try and impress everyone.

Somehow I think that when this role was offered to Douglas, he knew he had to do it. This is a smaller film after all – much smaller than we are used to seeing Douglas in. He has built a career since Wall Street as the kind of slick salesman, and has done a great job in a variety of roles. But most of the them, Douglas’ character seem so confident, so assured. Here he plays a guy who simply putting up that front to the world, where all around him things are crumbling. By the end of the movie, he may be ready to move on, to grow up and accept his life for what it is. For Ben Kalmen, that counts as a small miracle.

Movie Review: The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse ** ½
Directed by: David Slade.
Written By: Melissa Rosenberg based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer.
Starring: Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner (Jacob Black), Xavier Samuel (Riley), Bryce Dallas Howard (Victoria), Anna Kendrick (Jessica), Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale), Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen), Sarah Clarke (Renee), Peter Facinelli (Dr. Carlisle Cullen), Elizabeth Reaser (Esme Cullen), Kellan Lutz (Emmett Cullen), Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale), Billy Burke (Charlie Swan).

Perhaps after reading all four books, and now which three movies, this series has simply worn me down. Eclipse is far and away the best movie of the series so far. That isn’t to say that the movie is good – it really isn’t – but the things that bothered me in the first two movies – Robert Pattinson staring off into space, and never seeming to speak normally, Taylor Laughter’s wooden acting and a storyline that seems to take forever to get nowhere – didn’t really bother me very much this time. No doubt they are still there in the movie, but this time they didn’t distract me as much. Perhaps all the credit is due to David Slade – the third director this series has had so far – who managed to give the movie a darker look and feel than the other two movies, and also seemed to drain away much of the cheesiness and overdramatic speeches that killed the first two films. Don’t get me wrong, this still isn’t a very good movie despite what your teenage daughter tells you – but it isn’t half bad either.

By now the story behind this series is well known to anyone who could possibly care, so I’ll just offer a quick recap. Bella (Kristen Stewart) is a human girl who lives with her father (Billy Burke) in a small town in the Northwest. In the first movie, she met and fell in love with Edward (Robert Pattinson) – only to have him reveal that he is a vampire – but a good one, meaning he doesn’t kill humans. In the second film, New Moon, Edward decides to leave to try and protect Bella, and let her live a human life. She seeks comfort in her friend Jacob (Taylor Laughter), from the local Native tribe, only to have him reveal that he is a werewolf. But Edward cannot stay away, and when he comes back, she has a decision to make (undoubtedly you’ve seen girls walking around in Team Edward and Team Jacob shirts). That’s the first two films. In this one, Bella is with Edward, who has agreed to turn her into a vampire as well – angering Jacob, who vows to fight for her until the end. Also back is Victoria (now played by Bryce Dallas Howard), still pissed because Edward killed her mate in the first movie (see what I mean about the plot taking forever to go anywhere), and the Volturri – a kind of vampire royalty we met in the second movie, who is tracking a new coven on vampires who are wrecking havoc in Seattle. Much to their mutual dislike, Edward’s vampire coven and Jacob’s wolf pack have to band together to fight off these new vampires.

But the plot really is secondary in a movie like this. For all the vampires and werewolves in this series, there is remarkably little action. Afterall, the books were all told from Bella’s point of view, so when Edward is out hunting wild game, and Jacob is on the prowl, we’re stuck with Bella in her bedroom whining. This time, they promise a big showdown between the teamed up Cullens and werewolves, and the pack of newborn vampires, and at least the movie delivers on this promise – eventually. But mainly the movie is about Bella wanting Edward to turn her into a vampire and have sex with her – not necessarily in that order – and Jacob fruitlessly fighting to save Bella from making a mistake – at least as he views it.

I have documented my problems with the series in detail before, and they haven’t really changed. I have no idea what Bella sees in Edward – as he is essentially an ice cold, rock hard corpse who is always such a downer. He says he loves her, but we never really feel it. Perhaps it’s because Robert Pattinson’s performance seems so distant and restrained – and the fact that he can’t really act doesn’t help either. I never really understood why Jacob hung around either – Bella is essentially cruel to him and rubs his face in her “love” of Edward, but still wants him to be there whenever she needs him. Laughtner doesn’t add much except his body to the role of Jacob in the movies – he is an even worse actor than Pattinson really. Of the three main actors, only Kristen Stewart is really any good – she tries her best to make Bella into a real teenage girl struggling with her emotions, but sometimes you just want to slap her and tell her to quit whining so much.

But, I have to admit I actually kind of liked parts of Eclipse. Director David Slade, who made Hard Candy about a very different type of teenage girl, and 30 Days of Night, about a very different type of vampire, doesn’t seem all that interested in these three characters and their whining. It’s still there of course, but it’s more muted. He also seems to breathe some life into these characters as well – even giving them a few moments of lightheartedness and humor (my favorite is when Edward asks of Jacob “Does he own a shirt?” and pretty much every line that Billy Burke as Bella’s father utters). The visual look of the film is also much darker, and for the first time, the villains in the films actually seem deadly and dangerous. Slade’s direction is at its best when it’s not concentrating on the main love triangle, but on the threats to their safety.

I have to admit that I am not the target audience for the movie, just like I wasn’t the target audience for the books either. Teenage girls went wild for the books, and have made the movies huge hits. They love them beyond all reason. Good for them. For me however, the Twlight series has never really risen above the level of a curiosity piece. It’s getting better as it continues, but I still wonder what they hell these teenage girls see in these characters that make them go so crazy. But then, if I understood teenage girls, I would have spent my high school years single.

Movie Review: Leslie, My Name is Evil

Leslie, My Name is Evil *** ½
Directed by: Reginald Harkema.
Written By: Reginald Harkema.
Starring: Kristen Hager (Leslie), Gregory Smith (Perry), Ryan Robbins (Charlie), Kaniehtiio Horn (Katie), Don McKellar (Prosecuter), Peter Keleghan (Walter), Kristin Adams (Dorothy), Peter MacNeill (Judge), Tom Barnett (Defense Attorney), Travis Milne (Bobby), Anjelica Scannura (Sadie), Tracy Wright (Leslie's Mom).

The Manson Family murders shocked America in the summer of 1969, and have since entered history as one of the worst cases of mass murder in history. The fact that the killers were a bunch of drugged out hippies signaled the end of flower power, and the case has gone down as the dark side of the 1960s. In the years since, the fascination with Manson has never dwindled, and he is still looked at as one of the most evil people in history. Most of his followers who were convicted alongside him remain in jail after almost 40 years. Reginald Harkema’s Leslie, My Name is Evil focuses on one of those followers - Leslie Van Houten - who was convicted of murder in the same trial that convicted Manson. While she wasn’t along on the night of the Tate murders, she was on the following night, when the family killed the LiBianca’s.

Yet Leslie, My Name is Evil is far from a straight biopic. In fact, it’s not really a biopic at all, and ignores as many facts of the case as it sticks to. The film is a melodrama, a satire, a dark comedy and a film about moral relativism. It contrasts Leslie’s fall into sin with what happens to Perry - a member of Nixon’s “silent majority” who became a jury member at the Manson trial who falls in love with Van Houten. It also compares the Manson family murders with the My Lai massacre which happened at just about the same time. The film is a like a time capsule of the period. It plays like a Jean Luc Godard 1960s film that has been commissioned by Roger Corman.

When the movie opens, Leslie (Kristen Hager) is an innocent teenage girl, a homecoming princess and a cheerleader who is devastated by her parents divorce. When she gets pregnant, her mother “takes care of it”, which drives Leslie further away. She is looking for a “higher sense of purpose” - which she finds when she meets Katie (Kaniehitto Horn) who introduces her to Charlie (Ryan Robbins). Charlie sees through Leslie’s problems right away, knows she has father issues, and exploits it. When Katie comes home on the night of the Tate murders, and describes what happens, she wants to be involved as well. That night, she heads out to the LiBianca’s, and although she at first hesitates, she is soon stabbing with orgasmic glee.

While all this is happening, Perry (Gregory Smith) is in University studying chemistry and trying to remain a good Christian. She meets Dorothy (Kristin Adams), a gorgeous blonde who loves him but every time she tries to have sex with her she tells him “I love you, but I love Jesus more”. His father (Peter Keleghan), talks about the “gooks” and how it is Perry’s patriotic duty to go to Vietnam if his drafted.

The two stories merge when Leslie is put on trial alongside Charlie, Katie and Sadie (Anjelica Sannura), and Perry is put on the jury. Perry is immediately drawn to Leslie, wondering how this gorgeous girl fell so low.

No attempt at realism is made at all in the movie. Instead, writer/director Reginald Harkema films the movie as a melodrama, a satire, an acid trip and many other genres. The courtroom scenes in particular make it clear that there is no realism here. Where the gallery full of onlookers is supposed to, there is a giant American flag. The prosecutor (Don McKellar) seems completely clueless as to the time period, and the judge is offended by the foul language used by the witnesses.

Watching the film, I couldn’t help but think of the films of Jean Luc Godard - at least the ones he made in the 1960s before he entered his “Maoist” period. His films there were political statements about the time period, which pointed out the hypocrisy of the time period. Harkema does the same thing here, by pointing out the similarities between the Manson murders, committed by a bunch of long, haired hippie freaks, and the My Lai massacre, perpetuated by the clean shaved military boys. Harkema points out the absurdity of both sides with his matter of fact dialogue - brilliantly delivered by the cast with a straight face no matter how absurd it really sounded like. If the cast had winked at the camera, then the whole movie would become a meaningless comedy - but they get it. Yet, Leslie, My Name is Evil is not just a satire about the 1960s - it is relevant today in times of war again. Leslie, My Name is Evil is a wonderful satire - a daring innovative film that looks both backwards and forwards.

Helter Skelter: Two Movies

Helter Skelter (1976) ***
Directed by: Tom Gries
Written By: J.P. Miller based on the book by Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry.
Starring: George DiCenzo (Vincent Bugliosi), Steve Railsback (Charles Manson), Nancy Wolfe (Susan Atkins), Marilyn Burns (Linda Kasabian), Christina Hart (Patricia Krenwinkel), Cathey Paine (Leslie Van Houten), Alan Oppenheimer (Aaron Stovitz), Rudy Ramos (Danny DeCarlo), Bill Durkin (Tex Watson), Howard Caine (Everett Scoville), Jason Ronard (Paul Watkins), Skip Homeier (Judge Older).

Helter Skelter (2004) *** ½
Directed by: John Gray
Written By: John Gray based on the book by Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry.
Starring: Jeremy Davies (Charles Manson), Clea DuVall (Linda Kasabian), Marguerite Moreau (Susan 'Sadie' Atkins), Eric Dane (Charles "Tex" Watson), Allison Smith (Patricia 'Katie' Krenwinkle), Bruno Kirby (Vincent Bugliosi), Catherine Wadkins (Leslie Van Houten), Mary Lynn Rajskub (Lynette 'Squeaky' Fromme), Marek Probosz (Roman Polanski).

Despite my love of true crime books, up until a few weeks ago I had never read what is apparently the bestselling book of all time in the genre – Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry Helter Skelter, which was about Bugliosi who was the lead prosecutor in the Charles Manson case. I’m not sure why I had never read the book – perhaps the sheer length of the book was intimidating, or perhaps I didn’t think I’d be very interested in a book about a drug fueled cult who killed people. But when I did actually pick the book up a few weeks ago, I was enthralled by it. It truly is one of the best true crime book in history, and offered remarkable insight not only into the trial of Charles Manson, but the inner workings of his sick mind. When I was finished, I thought I’d check out the two TV movies based on the book – the first in 1976 and the second in 2004. While I thought that both films were good, they were also both incomplete, but surprisingly, to me at least, I found the more recent of the two to be the better movie – mainly because in Jeremy Davies performance as Manson you have one of the best portrayals of pure evil I have ever seen on film.

The 1976 version, directed by Tom Gries, sticks pretty much to the outline of the book – opening with the murders, moving on through the investigation, the arrest and how Bugliosi built the case against Manson and his co-defendants – Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten and the absent Charles “Tex” Watson (who would be tried separately). It doesn’t present the murders in any detail until Linda Kasabian takes the stand and describes them. Gries favors a almost Dragnet style “Just the Facts ma’am” approach to the film. At times though, I found that Gries was trying to cram too much into a single movie – especially since at times, he seemed to be rushing through things. For example, in the book Bugliosi spends a lot of time complaining about Manson’s lawyer, Everett Scoville, who objected to nearly everything and slowed the whole trial down considerably, driving everyone crazy. This eventually leads to one of the other defendant’s lawyers apologizing to Bugliosi as he admits that it was his idea to hire him in the first place. In the book, this is well played out, in the movie it rushes by so quickly that it barely registers – better to leave it out entirely, if you’re not going to deal with it full (especially since they rushed through the part where Manson held up the paper with the headline about how Nixon declared Manson guilty even before the trial was over). Gries in a rush to get everything in, does a disservice to what he leaves there, by not fully exploring it.

The bigger problem to me though in the original film is the performance by Steve Railsback as Manson. Railsback plays Manson as almost completely bonkers – smiling, laughing, singing and looking goofy the whole time staring off into space (seriously, I don’t think I ever once saw him blink in the course of the movie). It’s hard to believe this Manson as the same man who was able to brainwash his followers into committing murder for him. There is one great moment that Railsback has in the film – when he takes the stand and delivers Manson’s infamous speech about how he didn’t make these kids killers – society did. Society threw them out with the trash, where Manson was just there to pick them up when they needed it. It is a haunting moment, and Railsback is up to the task. Another haunting moment is his final scene, with Manson in jail singing which sticks in my mind days later. No, I don’t think Railsback did a great job in playing the Manson we have come to know through Bugliosi’s book, and his infamous interviews with Charlie Rose, Tom Snyder and Geraldo Riveria – but then again, Railsback didn’t have the luxury of seeing those interviews before he delivered his performance (they were all done in the 1980s). I’m not saying that Railsback is bad in the movie – he certainly gives a memorable performance – just that it doesn’t quite relate to what we know about Manson.

However, despite the flaws in the film, there is a lot more than works as a whole than that doesn’t work. Nancy Wolfe gives a chilling performance as Susan Atkins, who matter of factly describes the crimes to the grand jury, all the while laughing and smirking and yawning. And George DiCenzo is excellent as Bugliosi (although I could have done without him addressing the camera directly at the beginning and end of the movie) as he shows Bugliosi’s commitment to bringing Manson and his followers to justice. Marilyn Burns is quite good as Linda Kasabian, the woman who was along on both nights of murder who testified against Manson at trial. The film also does an excellent job of showing the mounting evidence against Manson, and how the case was built piece by piece – making us accept the seemingly bizarre motive of Helter Skelter itself – that a war was coming between the blacks and whites, and the blacks would win, but once they did, they wouldn’t know what to do, so they’d turn to Manson and his family, the only white people left, and turn control over to them. Manson was just “showing blackie how it’s done”. Watching the film, I liked how it provided a good overview of the case, despite by disappointment that it wasn’t more detailed.

In 2004, John Gray wrote and directed another made for TV movie based on the book, but he took a distinctly different approach to the material – the trail is not dramatized at all in the film, but rather the film concentrates on life in the family itself, the murders and the arrest, and touches on how Bugliosi (this time played by Bruno Kirby) put the pieces of the puzzle together. But while Bugliosi was the main character in the previous film, he takes backseat in this movie – he doesn’t even show up until the last third of the movie. Until then, it is Manson’s show – and the performance by Jeremy Davies as Manson is one of the best in recent memory.

Unlike Railsback, Davies does not play Manson as outwardly insane and crazy. While I had trouble buying Railsback as the master manipulator Manson, I had no problem at all believing Davies. He is much quieter than Railsback was, inviting you in closer to hear what he says. In his hands, Manson is not an insane man, but a more evil one. You believe that this man could convince people to kill for him. There is something about Davies eyes that invite you in, and even though you see the evil in them, it never goes over the top. He is charming in a offbeat kind of way, able to control his followers with little more than a look and better grasps the circular logic than Manson used to get what he wanted. It is a performance that towers over the movie, and makes it much more disturbing than the original film. When he draws out his sword, in the films first scene, to slice Gary Hinnman’s ear off, you know you are entering Charlie’s world – and it isn’t a pretty place.

But Davies doesn’t deliver the films only great performance. Clea Duvall has almost as much screen time as he does as Linda Kasabian, and the film is just as much about her journey as it is about Manson’s. She arrives in the family a lost young woman – one child in hand, another on the way, estranged from her husband and her family and looking for answers. The Family seemingly provides a place for her to go and be herself. Charlie is interesting – he seems like a nice guy musician, but gradually she starts to see the darker side of the family, but by then she is in too deep to get herself out. She goes along on the nights of the murder because she doesn’t know how to say no.

Just like in the original film, the key supporting player in the movie is Susan Atkins – here played wonderfully by Marguerite Moreau. She seems to have studied Nancy Wolfe’s work in the original film, and captures that same look of bewilderment and cold hearted malice in her laughing, giggling performance as Atkins, who felt no remorse over what she did. It is a chilling performance.

This film, unlike the other one, really tries to get inside the shared insanity of the Family itself – showing its progression into an unfeeling, unthinking killing force, and watching how each character changes throughout the film. The final scene of the film is the most haunting, as Bugliosi goes to visit Manson in jail before the trail. In this version, this is when Manson delivers his speech about how society cast out his Family members and he merely dusted them off and gave them a sense of belonging and love. While this was the highlight of the previous film, and Railsback’s performance, Davies outdoes himself here – creating one of the most memorable and chilling moments that I can remember seeing in a film.

The 2004 version is to me anyway, the better of the two films – it is better made, better acted and has what is most likely the best performance any actor will ever give as Manson. And yet, something is holding it back from being a great film. Like the earlier film, it feels that there is something missing from it – and I think I know what it is in both cases.

Other than Atkins, the rest of the killers in the Manson family remain little more than ciphers in both films. Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel are barely present in both films, and there is no attempt to really get to understand either one of them. They remain the laughing, unfeeling monsters in both films – but no attempt is made to explain them, or what led them to Manson in the first place. At least Gray tries with Krenwinkel in the 2004 version, giving us a haunting scene where Krenwinkel’s father visits her in jail and asks her what he did wrong to make her turn out this way. Krenwinkel seems to be on the verge of breaking, but it is at that moment that Atkins and Van Houten skip past the interview room singing, and Krenwinkel leaves her heartbroken father to join them.

As for Van Houten, apparently John Waters had something to do with her role in the new version being almost completely written out of the film. He has become friends with Van Houten during her years in jail, and believes she should be paroled. When he found out a new version of the book was being made, he called Gray and asked him to be mindful of what his film would do to the public perception of Van Houten. The result is a portrait of Van Houten that even her biggest supporters would deem kind – she isn’t given any time to actually talk in the film, and during the LiBianca killings, the only ones Van Houten was involved, she is portrayed as being hesitant and only stabbing Rosemary LiBianca after she was dead, and only at the urging at Watson and Krenwinkel who pretty much force her to stab her.

The bigger problem in both of the films is that Watson remains a completely under considered character. I can barely recall him appearing in the 1976 version (because that focused on the trail of Manson, and Watson was still in Texas awaiting extradition at the time), and in the newer version, although he is given more screen time (and played by Eric Dane, who would go onto play McSteamy on Gray’s Anatomy), but again it remains a mystery as to how he was manipulated into killing for Manson. In both films, that is what is really missing – how precisely Manson manipulated his followers into killing for him, and what went through their minds while they were killing. Perhaps these are unanswerable questions – Bugliosi’s book only touches on it, and neither Atkins or Watson’s books (which are more about their conversion to Christianity than Manson) offered believable explanations, and Van Houten doesn’t talk about it much, and from what I can tell, Krenwinkel doesn’t talk about it at all. But in both films, it feels like this absence makes the films incomplete.

Another glaring omission from both movies (the 1976 version more than the 2004 version, since it looked at the trial in more detail), is that neither ever puts the Manson version of events on screen. After the quartet was found guilty, during the sentencing stage of the trial Atkins, Krenwinkel, Van Houten and a host of other Family members went on the stand and claimed that it was the girls, including Kasabian, who came up with the idea for the Tate and LiBianca killings saying that they wanted to do it to get Bobby Beausouliel (who had been convicted of killing Gary Hinnman) out of jail by making it look like the real killer was still on the loose. No one believes this story, and most of the witnesses have since recanted and admitted they had it all up, but it remains relevant, because as far as I know, this is the version of events Manson still claims is the truth. Why they, or he, didn’t testify during the guilt phase of the trial about this remains a mystery – as does Manson’s claim that he was never allowed to mount a defense. His lawyer was allowed – he just didn’t do it, and if Manson wanted to take the stand to do more than just make a statement without the jury present, then no one – not even his own lawyer, could have stopped him.

Perhaps it can all be explained by something as simple as time constraints. The 1976 version originally aired over two nights, and has a running time of 3 hours. The director’s cut of the 2004 version, which is slightly longer than the TV version, is already at 2 hours and 15 minutes – and that doesn’t even include any of the trail. I think in order to do the book properly, without skimping on anything, it needs to be a proper, epic miniseries running closer to 8-10 hours, and not three. Given the lackluster response to the 2004 version (for reasons that I do not understand), I doubt that this will ever happen. And because of that, a single definitive version of Helter Skelter may never be seen.

In the absence of one complete version, we have to look to the two films we do have – which in a strange way complement each other. The 2004 version gives an excellent glimpse into the Manson family, and everything that lead up to the murders, right up until the start of the trial. The 1976 version gives an excellent view of how the case against Manson was built, and how the trail played out. Yes, there is some overlap in the movies, but strangely, given that they were adapted from the same book, there are many more differences – not in fact or interpretation, but one what the directors choose to focus on.

What remains obvious, through watching these two films and reading the book, is that Manson still has the power to fascinate, and terrify people even though he has been in jail for more than 40 years now. It’s not just me who is still drawn to the case – go online and you can buy all sorts of posters and artwork of Manson, and even an action figure! There are still movies being made about him, TV specials about him and websites devoted to him. Charles Manson has had a greater impact on society than any American criminal of the 20th Century. Even if neither of these movies gives a complete picture of his life and crimes, for now anyway, they will have to suffice.

TV Movie Review: You Don't Know Jack

You Don’t Know Jack ****
Directed by: Barry Levinson
Written By: Adam Mazer.
Starring: Al Pacino (Dr. Jack Kevorkian), Danny Huston (Geoffrey Fieger), Susan Sarandon (Janet Good), John Goodman (Neal Nicol), Brenda Vaccaro (Margo Janus), Eric Lange (John Skrzynski), James Urbaniak (Jack Lessenberry), Danielle McKee (Dorothy Lessenberry).

There are many actors of Al Pacino’s age and stature who have simply grown bored and unambitious with their choices – Robert DeNiro and Gene Hackman come to mind. But Pacino has not yet given up – he seems to still hunger for great roles, and working with great directors, and is willing to go outside the normal channels to find these projects for himself. Yes, in the last decade Pacino has made some bad choices, but he has also made some great ones, and for the second time this decade he has gone to HBO (the first being his brilliant performance as Roy Cohn in Mike Nichols Angels in America) to find a role worthy of his talent. As Dr. Jack Kevorkian in Barry Levinson’s new film You Don’t Know Jack, Pacino is given one of the best roles of his late period – and he doesn’t let the opportunity pass.

Everyone knows who Jack Kevorkian is. The infamous “Dr. Death” helped over 130 terminally ill patients commit suicide in the 1990s. He had his medical license revoked and went on trail numerous times – being acquitted at each of them until his final one – and became the face and voice of the assisted suicide movement. To some he was a godsend, helping their loved ones end their suffering, but to others he was little more than one of the prolific serial killers of all time. The new HBO film You Don’t Know Jack looks behind the headlines at the man who felt driven to do what he did.

Kevorkian is not the most charming, charismatic or cheerful spokesperson that the Right to Die movement could have had. What he was, was the only doctor willing to do what he believed in, which was to help people end their suffering. When he first starts with his “suicide machine”, he knows that they will probably come after him and try and put him in jail for it, and he doesn’t care. He had already retired from his career as a pathologist, he never married, he has no kids, and other than his sister Margo (Brenda Vaccaro), he has no family. He doesn’t even have that much money – what the hell are they going to take away from him, other than his freedom, and he doesn’t care about that. Most of his family died in the Armenian Genocide, and then when he came to America, he had to watch his mother die a slow, painful death. He didn’t just do it in spite of the fact he knew that they would come after him – he did it precisely because he knew they would. His downfall would be because of this hubris – when he pushed things too far, believing himself to be invincible, and eventually forcing the prosecutors, who had long since stopped trying to convict him of anything, to go after him with everything they had.

Pacino carries the movie with his amazing performance. He confronts Kevorkian, with all his contradictions, his ego and his humanity, and creates one of the most memorable characters of the year out of him. It is easy to watch the film and not like Kevorkian very much, but you have to admire his moxie and commitment – not many people would be willing to do what he did knowing the potential consequences. Near the end of the movie, when it becomes clear that Kevorkian is in way over his head in his final trial – where, for the first time, he actually injected the patient himself, instead of letting them control the suicide machine, and he decides to represent himself, you cannot help but feel sorry for the poor bastard. By then, everyone except Kevorkian knows that he is screwed, but he keeps right on trying anyway.

But Pacino is not the only good performance in the film. Danny Huston is excellent as his longtime lawyer, who takes all of his cases pro bono – not out of kindness, but because he knows it will be a great way to make a name for himself, and he does. And yet, even you even like Huston, who does come to genuinely care about Kevorkian, and becomes increasingly frustrated during that final trial when he is kept on the outside. Susan Sarandon is quite good as well as a Right to Die advocate who comes to befriend Kevorkian – but will later need his services. John Goodman gives the type of performance he always does – that is supplying great support for the leads – never flashy, but always wonderful. Best of all is Brenda Vaccaro, given perhaps the best role of her career as Marjo, Kevorkian’s sister, and she carries her part well. While everyone else in the film likes Kevorkian, or at least what he stands for and what he can do for their cause, she is the only one who genuinely loves him – and stands by him no matter what happens. The supporting players who play Kevorkian’s “patients” and their families all feel genuine.

The film was directed by Barry Levinson – Oscar winner for Rain Man, who in the past few years has struggled to make a decent theatrical movie – failing with titles like Envy, Man of the Year and What Just Happened? Here though, he does a great job of staying out of the way of the story, and simply letting it unfold around us. He does some wonderful things with the “videos” the patients make, but generally he stays in the background – which is how it should work with this type of TV movie.

I am sure that the people who are opposed to Kevorkian and his views will not be happy with the film. It is rather one sided in its view, and doesn’t give much time or space for the arguments against assisted suicide, while it spends a lot of time arguing for it. Since I agree with assisted suicide (it seems to be that I have no right to tell people who are in pain and want to end their lives with dignity that they can’t), it didn’t bother me very much. Besides, the film does not paint Kevorkian as a saint or angel of mercy. It looks at him, flaws and all, and asks you to judge what he did based on his actions. Reasonable people can disagree on an issue as complex and fraught with legal and moral issues as assisted suicide. Hopefully everyone can watch You Don’t Know Jack with an open mind.

Movie Review: The Last Song

The Last Song **
Directed by: Julie Anne Robinson
Written By: Jeff Van Wie & Nicholas Sparks based on the book by Sparks.
Starring: Miley Cyrus (Ronnie Miller), Liam Hemsworth (Will Blakelee), Greg Kinnear (Steve Miller), Bobby Coleman (Jonah Miller), Hallock Beals (Scott), Kelly Preston (Kim), Nick Lashaway (Marcus), Carly Chaikin (Blaze), Kate Vernon (Susan Blakelee), Melissa Ordway (Ashley), Nick Searcy (Tom Blakelee).

Miley Cyrus has become a huge star on her TV show Hannah Montana. Aimed at tween girls, the show, the movie and the albums have made her a millionaire at the tender age of 17. But I wonder how much fun it can be for Cyrus having to maintain a completely goody goody profile all the time. Hell, just last year she got in trouble for an apparently racy picture in Vanity Fair. She is a 17 year old girl, who has to act like the perfect role model for little girls everywhere. It’s got to get annoying. The Last Song is Cyrus’s first real role outside of Hannah Montana. It is a slightly more adult role for her – dealing with some issues that teenagers today have to face, but nothing too mature or adult. In short, the youngest members of her audience will be bored by the movie – but the older ones will probably like it quite a bit.

In the film, Cyrus stars as Ronnie, a troubled teenager from a broken home sent with her brother Jonah (Bobby Coleman) to spend the summer with her father Steve (Greg Kinnear) in Georgia instead of living with her mother (Kelly Preston) in New York. Ronnie has never gotten over the divorce, and hates her father for abandoning them. She is a wonderful pianist – she has even been accepted to Julliard – but says she is not going there or anywhere else now that high school is over. She doesn’t want to be with her father, but has little choice.

Since the film is based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks (A Walk to Remember, The Notebook, Dear John, Nights in Rodanthe) we know two things heading into the movie. 1) There will be a love story and 2) someone is going to die. This movie provides both of them. For the love story, Ronnie meets Will (Liam Hemsworth) a buff hunk who at first appears to be just another rich, spoiled jerk, but who surprises Ronnie with his sensitivity. The two fall in love quickly, although of course, his parents do not approve. She isn’t in their class, and her father is suspected of burning down the church. She simply is not good enough for Will. As for the second thing, I’ll leave that to you to discover if and when you watch the movie.

Cyrus isn’t the best actress in the world, but neither is she the worst. She is much better at playing the lighter scenes in this film – the ones where she is falling in love with Hemsworth – than she is at the heavy, dramatic stuff that comes near the end of the film. This shouldn’t be too surprising, since she has never really done anything heavy before. She is okay in those scenes, but nothing more. But she is solid enough that she carries the movie. For his part, Hemsworth strikes me as a kind of bland, generic good looking leading man who gets a few good roles than disappears. There nothing in his performance here that suggests that he is a movie star in the making. Kinnear is good as the dad, but the problem is that is all they really give him to do – play the dad.

The Last Song is not really a bad movie, but it certainly is not a good one either. Like the other movies based on Nicholas Sparks novels, it follows its rather predictable formula right down to the finale. Out of the four films based on his novels, only The Notebook is a truly good film – and that’s because the performances by Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams, James Garner and Gena Rowlands elevated the material to a level that it never should have been at. Since then, the movies have simply sat there on the screen, never truly involving me, but not really boring me either. At least The Last Song didn’t anger me the way Dear John earlier this year did – and that’s because the characters behave in a more realistic way.

At the end of the day, I find that there is not much to say about The Last Song. It will undoubtedly please the fans of Sparks – of which there is a legion – as well as the older fans of Miley Cyrus. But aside from that, is there any real reason to see the movie?

Movie Review: The Runaways

The Runaways *** ½
Directed by: Floria Sigismondi
Written By: Floria Sigismondi based on the book by Cherie Currie.
Starring: Kristen Stewart (Joan Jett), Dakota Fanning (Cherie Currie), Michael Shannon (Kim Fowley), Stella Maeve (Sandy West), Scout Taylor-Compton (Lita Ford), Alia Shawkat (Robin), Riley Keough (Marie Currie).

Like the band The Runaways, the movie of the same name is a wonderful guilty pleasure of a movie. The music The Runaways made in their brief career in the 1970s is not exactly brilliant, but there is some sort of perverse thrill in listening to these teenage girls sing about sex, drugs and rock n’ roll. Yes, they were exploited by their manager (Kim Fowley, here played brilliantly by Michael Shannon) and the lead singer Cherie Currie (embodied wonderfully by Dakota Fanning) was chewed up and spit out by the industry, but their music, and this movie, is still incredibly fun. That Joan Jett (a passionate Kristen Stewart) went on to have a real music career is more a testament to her passion, determination and talent and less to do with this band itself is the kind of inspiring aspect of the movie. Cherie and Joan were always a study in contrasts, which this movie underlines.

It’s the mid 1970s. Punk music is just coming to the forefront, and David Bowie is breaking all the rules with his glam rock. A teenage Joan Jett has little talent on the guitar, but she wants to rock. She meets Fowley at a club and tells him that she wants to form an all girls rock band. Fowley thinks this is a brilliant idea, and puts Joan in contact with some of the other teen girls he knows that play instruments. Their sound is raw and harsh, but he thinks they are missing something. When he sees Cherie Currie at the club a while later, he thinks he has found it – the blonde bombshell with sex appeal to be the lead singer. When he finds out she is only 16, he likes it even more (or in his words, “Jail fucking bait. Jack fucking pot”). After a few gigs they are signed to a major label and become celebrities. For Joan, it is all about the music. For Fowley, it is about making money and he knows what sells – sex – and Cherie has more appeal with her blonde hair and good looks than Joan with her hard ass attitude and leather jackets. Cherie is pushed to the front, and gets more attention than anyone else. Coming from a broken home, where her mother has just fled to Indonesia with her new husband, and her father is dying because of her alcoholism, Cherie eats the attention up for a while. But life on the road – with all the drugs, and all the sex takes its toll. It isn’t long before the band is flaming out.

As a movie, The Runaways doesn’t really break any new ground. It is your standard issue sex, drugs and rock n’roll biopic that we have seen before. The difference here is that the movie is a hell of a lot of fun. Recent movies in this genre – Ray and Walk the Line among them – take themselves a little too seriously, and are weighed down by Oscar expectations a little bit too much. The Runaways is a straight ahead, balls to the wall rock movie, and good God, is it fun to watch.

I have always loved Kristen Stewart as an actress, and look forward to that day (hopefully coming soon) where she is free from the burden of the Twilight series. Yes, the movies have made her a HUGE star, and she is the best part about them, but the movies take the edge off her personality, and make her act like a whiny, spoiled teenager with a starry eyed look of love on her face the whole time. They are not a challenge for her. In Joan Jett, she finds the type of role she excels at, and it’s no coincidence that it is the exact opposite kind of role as Bella Swan. Joan Jett wouldn’t just sit around pining for Edward, but what go out and get laid – man, woman it doesn’t matter – as her revenge. Stewart rips into the role with gusto and delivers a wonderful performance.

Dakota Fanning is Stewart’s equal as Cherie Currie, the slightly more innocent, more naïve teenager. Unlike Jett, she doesn’t appear to have much experience with sex or drugs when she joins The Runaways, but she certainly get her share during the course of this movie. Like last year’s dreadful Push, where Fanning was far and away the best part, her performance here struck me as a little girl playing dress-up as an adult – and that works for this movie. Fanning doesn’t have the sexuality to her that Stewart does, and seeing her prance around in next to nothing was not a sexual turn on for me, but almost rather sad – she doesn’t know what she is getting herself into until it’s too late. It’s still too early in Fanning’s career to tell if she will be able to leave the child star behind and find her way as an adult actress (when she has to play a real adult character, which will be coming soon, it will be dreadful if she still looks like a kid playing dress-up), but here she is wonderful. She growls her vocals wonderfully well, and is the emotional heart of the movie (not surprisingly, since the film is best on the real Currie’s memoirs).

The other key performance is the incomparable Michael Shannon, who in my mind just keeps proving there is nothing he cannot do. From his slightly deranged military man in World Trade Center, to his older brother with a vengeful side in the under seen Shotgun Stories, to his schizophrenic in Bug to his Oscar nominated work in Revolutionary Road, Shannon has already proved to be one of the best actors of his generation. Here, his Fowley is sexually ambigious and incredibly strange, as he talks about how “rock music is about balls. You want to be an artist, go cut off your ear and send it to your boyfriend”. Yes, he is exploiting these young girls, but he is so charming, you almost like him in spite of himself. He certainly is among the most memorable characters to come along this year so far.

The movie was written and directed by Floria Sigismondi, a music video director making her feature debut here. She nails the time period perfectly, and keeps the movie going at an almost breakneck speed – at least until the end, which is dragged out perhaps a little too far. Her passion for the project is clear in every frame of the movie. The Runaways is not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination – but it certainly is the most fun I had at the movies in a while.

Movie Review: Vincere

Vincere *** ½
Directed By: Marco Bellocchio.
Written By: Marco Bellocchio & Daniela Ceselli.
Starring: Giovanna Mezzogiorno (Ida Dalser), Filippo Timi (Benito Mussolini / Benito Albino), Fabrizio Costella (Benito Albino), Corrado Invernizzi (Dottor Cappelletti), Fausto Russo Alesi (Riccardo Paicher), Michela Cescon (Rachele Guidi), Pier Giorgio Bellocchio (Pietro Fedele), Paolo Pierobon (Giulio Bernardi), Bruno Cariello (Giudice), Francesca Picozza (Adelina), Simona Nobili (Madre Superiora), Giovanna Mori (Tedesca), Silvia Ferretti (Scarpette rosse), Corinne Castelli (Lacrime), Patrizia Bettini (Cantante).

When Vincere opens, Benito Mussolini (Filippo Timi) is a no name socialist provocateur in pre WWI Italy. In his opening scene, he tells a roomful of Union Men, and clergymen, that if God does not strike him dead in the next five minutes, then it is proof that God does not exist. After his speech, the meeting descends into chaos. This is when Mussolini first sees Ida Dalser (Giovanna Mezzogiorno). There is sexual chemistry between them even in the midst of all the arguing and fighting around them. It isn’t long before these two are falling in love, getting married and having a son, who they name after Benito himself. But then Mussolini goes off to war, becomes a hero, and then wants nothing to do with Dalser. He has married someone else, and denies ever marrying Dalser. Because he has become a powerful politician, he has the power to silence her - even enough influence to put her in a mental institution to shut her up.

Thus is the story of Marco Bellocchio’s new film Vincere (which means Victory). Bellocchio has been making incendiary political dramas since the 1960s, when his debut film Fists in the Pocket caused a stir. With Vincere, Bellocchio tells a little known story from Italy’s past. In the early scenes of the movie, Mussolini is portrayed as darkly handsome, and dangerously sexy. You can see why a fiery beauty like Mezzogiorno’s Dasler would fall for him as quickly as she does. The movies numerous sex scenes are extended and erotic, without ever becoming overly graphic. Once Mussolini comes back from the war, and refuses to acknowledge Dasler, we see him only through his numerous speeches in newsreel footage - paunchy and overly angry. The film also mixes in various political propaganda ads to show just how Italy was changing at the time.

Yet the movie remains Dasler’s story. To a certain extent, the movie reminded me of Clint Eastwood’s Changeling about a mother who is branded insane by the LA police force when they return her “son” to them, and she insists that it is the wrong boy. Yet Vincere never devolves into melodramatic nonsense, like Changeling often played as. Dalser is portrayed as obsessively stubborn. She is repeatedly told that if she will just stop insisting that she is Mussolini’s rightful wife, then she will be released from the hospital and be reunited with her son. But she just cannot do it. Against her better judgment, she loves Mussolini, and believes that he loves her as well. All these years of torment are just his way of testing her. While she is not insane when she enters the hospital, as the years drag on, she slowly becomes so.

And her poor son fairs no better on the outside. Abandoned by his father, and having his mother taken away from him, and given to a rich, arrogant man to be raised, Benito Jr. simply really has no chance at a normal life. Played late in the movie by Tippi again, we see him as the spitting image of his father, who does a mean impression of the President himself. But he cannot deal with all the pressure

The movie is carried by the great performance by Mezzogiorno (and to a lesser extent Tippi, who is great in the opening and closing scenes of the films, but not on screen at all during the long middle segments). Mezzogiorno never loses our sympathy, even if at times we become frustrated with her actions. Sure, what Mussolini did to her was heartless, cruel and wrong, but does she never stop to think about what her actions are doing to her son? Although we believe that she loves her son, we simply want her to give in and take the offer to get out. The amazing thing about the performance is that Mezzogiorno makes us understand her actions, even while we disagree with them. It is one of the best performances of the year.

Bellocchio is a master filmmaker, and Vincere is undoubtedly his best film in a number of years. It is a classically well made, and well structured story. His anger is palpable and comes across on screen remarkably well. Now well into his 60s, he shows no signs of slowing down. Vincere is one of his triumphs of his career.