Because I Said So

1.5 Stars

Valentine’s Day is one of the many days of the year where the guy in the relationship gets the raw deal. Not only do we have to unload insane amounts of money on gifts for our significant others, but some of that money has to go to losing an hour and a half of your life to trite, glorified examples of so called romance. And this year is no different, as audiences are offered acting legend Diane Keaton wasting her talent alongside the likes of Lauren Graham (“Gilmore Girls”), Piper Parabo (“Coyote Ugly”) and Mandy Moore (“Saved”) in the clichéd romantic comedy “Because I Said So”, a movie which can coincidentally, given the day job of one of the stars, be described as “Gilmore Girls: The Movie!”

Keaton portrays Daphne, the overbearing, single mother to her married daughters Maggie (Graham) and Mae (Perabo) and the romantically challenged youngest daughter Milly (Moore). Daphne decides to take Milly’s personal matters into her own hands and posts a personal ad on an online dating service, and finds two potential candidates: Johnny (Gabriel Macht) who seems to genuinely like Milly, and Jason (Tom Everett Scott) who Daphne likes for Milly.

As I’ve already been cynically scathing, I’ll take a brief moment to highlight the positive aspects of the flick. It shatters the long held male archetypal characters and reverses it, with decent enough results. In a standard chick flick the hard edged musician with tattoos is supposed to be the jerk that the girl is with, and there’s the charming, mildly funny, successfully stable man who she’s supposed to end up with. They reverse the roles for us, showing us in the only moment of reality in the movie that the supposed “one” could be anyone; it’s not necessarily the classic prince charming.

Keaton has been proving to us for the past nearly 40 years that she has a phenomenal talent. Yet like most great actors, she’ll squander that talent every so often on meaningless drivel like this. This isn’t to say she’s particularly bad in the role; it’s just obviously beneath her. Though the collective talent of Graham, Perabo and Moore seem to march right instep with this kind of film, and I unfortunately expect to see more of the same from each actress.

Macht (“The Good Shepherd”) is one of those actors that I’ve always found myself wondering why he isn’t better known. He’s certainly got the talent, and paid his rom-com dues eight years ago with “Simply Irresistable”, so why hasn’t he moved on. He didn’t so much as phone in his performance, as it was almost just too easy for him to pull off.

The chick flick formula really needs to be refined. All the scripts feature striking similarities that it gets painful to watch. All four leading ladies have to do a song and dance to a Seventy’s pop staple. Someone spills an important food item all over themselves and the floor and it’s the funniest thing ever. And the standard ending of big revelation leading to big fight leading to big break up leading to tearful reunion is firmly in place, and clearly has no sign of going anywhere in the near future. And then there’s the “not-too-old for love” sub-plot they throw Keaton.

It really could have worked in the right hands, as far as the script is concerned. What “Field of Dreams” did for the father/son relationship, this one could have done for the mother/daughter relationship. Unfortunately it had the same air about it that “Gilmore Girls” does: insistent and annoying.

Smokin’ Aces

4 Stars

It’s almost Valentine’s Day and that means a slew of “chick flicks” will be released for girlfriends to drag their unsuspecting boyfriends to. But after you see a cheesy romantic flick, she owes you, and you can take her to “Smokin’ Aces”, the definition of a badass guy flick.

Buddy “Aces” Israel (Jeremy Piven) is a strung out Las Vegas showman and wannabe mobster. As he’s about squeal on the Mafioso who helped him with his frame, a $1 million bounty is put on his head, and oddly his heart. A huge cache of colorful characters decide to cash in, including bondsman Jack Dupree (Ben Affleck), crazy neo-Nazi brothers called The Tremors, and Georgia Sykes (Alicia Keys), posing as one of Israel’s many hired prostitutes. Meanwhile, FBI agents Carruthers and Messner (Ray Liotta and Ryan Reynolds) are charged with making sure Israel testifies as planned.

It’s violent, it’s bloody, it’s stylish and it’s sheer entertainment. Writer/director Joe Carnahan marks his return after a nearly five year absence since his debut with the fantastic “Narc”. He comes on with a visual style that seems like a restrained Tony Scott, which is good, as Scott tends to go overboard on a regular basis. Carnahan orchestrates a gritty, no holds barred crime action flick with plenty of laughs and plenty of heart. Not to mention one of the best twist endings in recent years. Unfortunately, he started to show his hand on the ending a bit too soon, leaving the audience to contemplate it before the major revelation at the end.

Piven (“Entourage”) as the conflicted, opportunistic and coked up Israel gives what could have been an Oscar worthy performance, but “Aces” just isn’t that kind of movie. Reynolds (“Van Wilder”) also gives a noteworthy performance as the cocky turned devastated FBI agent. His character runs the full range of emotions in this film, and Reynolds handles them all spot on. Even Affleck turned in a decent, yet brief, performance. I’m just curious as to how much longer Andy Garcia is going to keep doing an Al Pacino impression.

But beyond the stars, it’s the entire cast that makes this flick work. If even just one was off, it would have come down like a house of cards. But they all work together with Swiss watch-like efficiency that it can’t help but be just pure fun times.

Despite the good time I was having in the theatre, I couldn’t help but get the feeling I had seen this all before. He drew influence from the work of Quentin Tarantino, Tony Scott and Guy Ritchie. All had perfected that sort of big, ensemble, bombastic crime comedy/drama with “Reservoir Dogs”, “True Romance” and “Snatch” (respectively), and Carnahan took a page from each one of those films to craft his film. This doesn’t detract from the ability to enjoy his flick, or the fact that it is good in its own right, not by any stretch of the imagination. It just feels that in the 16 years since Tarantino came out with “Reservoir Dogs”, it would be high time for a reinvention of the genre.

The Queen

4.5 Stars

Slow in pace but beautifully realized, “The Queen” paints a portrait of one of the most devastating events in modern British history, and how it affected the two most important people in the country, Queen Elizabeth II and freshly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair.

On August 31, 1997, Princess Diana, ex-wife of Prince Charles, heir apparent to the throne, was killed in an auto accident in Paris. “The Queen” concerns itself with the events between Blair and the Queen in the week between Di’s death and her funeral a week later.

What director Stephen Frears (“High Fidelity”) has shown us is the look from the inside. In 1997, it was easy for the British public, and indeed the world to stand from the outside looking in, judging the Royal family’s handling of the death of Princess Diana. But what we don’t get while we’re our own high horse is what Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles and the rest of the family was actually going through. And this film shows a considerable amount personal grief over Di’s death, and personal conflict between their duty to the people, and their need to personally grieve.

Peter Morgan’s (“The Last King of Scotland”) screenplay is powerfully effective, if slow moving. But it shouldn’t be faulted for being slow moving. It’s more of a mournful, thoughtful piece about the people involved, than it is about plot development. It’s a plot we’re all familiar with, so it focuses all of its energy on telling the story, then developing it.

Helen Mirren (“Gosford Park”) recently won a Golden Globe and was nominated for an Academy Award for her powerhouse performance as Queen Elizabeth II, and she is certainly worthy of all the accolades she is receiving. She handled the quiet, solemnity of her character with the proper amount of grace one would expect of the Queen. What marks a standout performance for me is if I can imagine anyone else in that role, and I couldn’t. She was perfect. Vegas odds makers have even stopped taking bets on the “Best Actress” category for this year’s Oscars, as they consider her to be a shoe-in.

The rest of the cast is simply magnificent. Michael Sheen (“Kingdom of Heaven”) was superb as the conflicted, opportunistic and eventually sympathetic Tony Blair. In the past 10 years, Blair has made some political missteps, in the eyes of his countrymen, and those must be overlooked to properly appreciate his character in this film. This was the Tony Blair of 1997, just five months into his first term, not the Tony Blair of 2003 who made the unpopular decision of backing President Bush in Iraq. Sheen did a fantastic job of portraying the rookie Prime Minister, and at times outshines Mirren, though unfortunately isn’t getting quite the same notice as she is.

James Cromwell (“L.A. Confidential”) as the bullheaded Prince Philip (Elizabeth’s husband) was a great dynamic for the soft spoken Queen. And Alex Jennings (“The Four Feathers”) was pitch-perfect as the shy, wishy-washy Prince Charles.

I can’t recommend “The Queen” for everyone. It’s not for everyone. It’s distinctly a British film. There’s so much in the film concerning British politics, culture and society that would just confuse those who aren’t familiar with it. It would be perfect for a more worldly crowd. It is, however, a beautifully made film with some of the finest performances of the year and would love to see it take home an Oscar or two.

Hey everyone, I’ve got some more movie trailers for you. I’m loooking forward to all of these flicks.

Black Snake Moan
Reign Over Me
The Lookout
Hot Fuzz
Live Free or Die Hard
Shooter
Seraphim Falls
Rescue Dawn

Dreamgirls

3 stars

Since “Moulin Rouge” was dubbed the second coming of the movie musical in 2001, audiences have been waiting for that second coming. “Chicago” was a hit in 2002, and now “Dreamgirls” 2006. But with it too being dubbed the second coming of the movie musical, I’m left to wonder, just how long will we have to wait for that genre to be fully realized in the 21^st century?

“Dreamgirls” is the story of a struggling girl group called The Dreams in the 60’s and 70’s, based on The Supremes. Pop superstar Beyoncé Knowles, relative newcomer Anika Noni Rose and former “American Idol” contestant Jennifer Hudson star as Deena, Lorrell and Effie (respectively) the groups founding members. The movie tracks their ascension to stardom, with the help of manager Curtis Taylor, Jr. (Jamie Foxx) and their writer/choreographer C.C. (Keith Robinson). The girls start as the back up singers for soul star James “Thunder” Early (Eddie Murphy), and soon eclipse him in popularity. On the brink of making it big, Effie catches diva fever and is asked to leave the group. From then on it’s torrid love affairs, drug use and backstabbing, everything you’d expect from a musical biopic.

Murphy is fantastic as Early, who is probably based on a composite of Wilson Pickett, Marvin Gaye and James Brown. He was a dynamite performer, hitting with dead on accuracy the on stage antics and mannerisms of a 60’s soul and R&B singer. Knowles in the Diana Ross inspired role of Deena Jones was impressive, both vocally and dramatically, and comes into her own as an actress. Foxx and Robinson are both engaging in their supporting roles

Hudson is garnering the most notice from award shows and major critics. And I for one don’t understand the accolades. It was her film debut, and it showed. She can sing, and I’ll give her that. She has an amazing set of pipes on her. But in a film, even a musical, vocal talent is only a portion of what makes a great performance. Her acting was right at where I’d expect a newcomer to be. It needs work. It wasn’t quite there for me. And for that, I can’t really understand why she’s getting the most notice.

Where this film really falls apart is the storytelling. Director Bill Condon adapted Tome Eyen’s stage musical, and it’s poorly structured. It reminds me of when a five-year-old is telling a story, it just comes across as “and then this happened, and then this happened and then this happened” with absolutely no grasp of flow or basic story telling elements.

There seemed to be a heavy emphasis on style over substance. It was flashy, shiny, and hits you with a beautiful visual presentation, but there wasn’t much more to it than that. It’s almost fitting that a former “American Idol” contestant stars in this movie, as the best way to describe it is a quote often used by “Idol” judge Simon Cowell: “Yeah it was good, but so what?”

I was entertained, and it was pleasing to the eye, but at the end of the flick, I didn’t really care. It was two shallow hours. It’s not a bad thing, but this film was made with higher intentions than sheer entertainment, and it failed to achieve those higher intentions.

I feel it necessary to start off this review by stating that I am an atheist. I choose not to have any religion in my life. But I’d also like to state that I can fully enjoy a religious themed movie. The Passion of the Christ was a good movie. But The Nativity Story just simply is not.

The Nativity Story is one of the most familiar stories in the Western world, and is routinely told at this time of year. It’s the story of Jesus’ birth. And this film from director Catherine Hardwicke (Lords of Dogtown, Thirteen) covers his immaculate conception to his humble birth. Following the arranged marriage of Joseph (Oscar Isaac) and Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes, The Whale Rider), Mary is visited by The Angel Gabriel (Alexander Siddig, Star Trek: Deep Space 9), telling her that she will carry and give birth to the son of God. She flees Nazareth for a brief period to gather her thoughts, staying with her cousin Elizabeth (Shohreh Agdashloo, 24) who is also miraculously pregnant. Mary returns noticeably pregnant, and is at first an outcast, but after Gabriel visits Joseph, he becomes a believer to. King Herod (Ciarán Hinds, Munich) orders every man to return to the town of their birth for a census, forcing Joseph to lead a very pregnant Mary back to the town of Bethlehem. They arrive just in time for her to go into labor, and are only able to find a manger to stay in. Jesus is born, everybody is happy. The end.

It’s the same old thing we’re drilled with time and time again, every December, with TV specials and recreations on the Discovery Channel. And that’s exactly what this feels like. I’m sure if I flip to TLC later tonight I would find “The Story of Mary” playing. It has only a slightly better production value than those made for TV movies, but only slightly better. But the whole production was very bland and mechanical, like they didn’t even try with it. It’s as if she, the producers and writer Mike Rich (Finding Forrester, The Rookie) felt that the story was good enough as is, so there would be no need to do anything special to it, which is where this film fails. I’m not implying there should have been a car chase or a fight scene, just jazz it up a bit. Make me care about Jesus. Do something new.

The cast was walking through that. I didn’t get the feeling that they really even cared about it. That it was just a paycheck for them. The only actor that impressed me was Isaac. It’s sort of a breakout performance for this Guatemalan actor who is relatively unknown in the States. His was the most impressive and engaging in the film. He really captures your attention and emotion and holds it throughout. When the focus shifts to Mary at Elizabeth’s house, you want to go back to Joseph.

The most insulting part of the production is the three wise men. They’re used as comedic relief, as almost every scene they’re in (the exception being the manger scene) features jokes and “witty” banter. I fail to see why this film needed moments of levity. It’s ok to be serious. Especially with Jesus. You don’t mess with Jesus.

What it all comes down to is, was this film necessary? I think this film begs that question. It wants to have significance, but it doesn’t offer anything that you can’t get with a church sermon or a PBS special.

1.5 Stars

Modern science fiction has been greatly influenced by George Lucas. It’s become this big grand production of epic proportions. New age auteur Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) has dared to scale back the genre, falling more in tune with Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Oddity, making The Fountain, starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz one of the more intriguing sci-fi films in recent years.

The base story of The Fountain is about Tommy and Izzy Creo (Jackman and Weisz, respectively). Tommy is a contemporary research scientist trying to figure out the cure for cancer, which his wife Izzy has. He believes he has found it in an ancient Central American tree. Meanwhile Izzy is finishing her novel set in 1500 Spain about Queen Isabel, who sends Conquistador Tomas on a mission to find the tree of life in New Spain (Central America). The third portion of the story is set in 2500, where Tommy has lived for the past 500 and is waiting for the tree to enter a nebula and be destroyed.

I could spend the entire review trying to explain the plot, but it’s too intricate to do so. Jackman is still trying to prove his worth and talent as an actor to the general film going public, and after this and The Prestige from earlier this year, I don’t think he has anything left to prove. He’s a very capable actor, and his scenes as present day Tommy were some of the most touching I’ve ever seen in a sci-fi film. Weisz continues to push herself as an actress, taking on challenging or different roles than what she could take, and thus stretching her dramatic range, making her that much more appealing as an actress.

Aronofsky is of the new generation of filmmaking, the millennial generation. Where Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and David Fincher led the pack in the 90’s, Aronofsky is in the company of Christopher Nolan and Richard Kelly on the front lines of 21^st century filmmaking. He retools a genre that’s become known for being bombastic, goofy and out there. He evokes drama and emotion from the genre and it’s simply moving. I can’t wait to see more of his work

The primary reason Aronofsky is so engaging as a filmmaker is his visual style. It’s not enough for him to present a beautiful and wondrous tale; he does so in a beautiful and wondrous way. The scenes set in the future take place in space in this sort of, bubble. The tree and some of the surrounding earth is floating in a bubble towards the nebula that was believed by the Mayans to be the afterlife. It’s one of the most beautiful effects created. The Queens palace in the 1500 set scenes is just as stunning. The room was lit by an amazing series of suspended candles, and it provides some of the most aesthetically pleasing visuals I’ve seen all year.

Aronofsky’s gift for making an intriguing web of a film is a curse upon his talent that sometimes he gets so far into his own world that he forgets that the audience isn’t inside his head with him. The futuristic scenes aren’t made clear in their narrative intentions till about halfway through the film, confounding the audience to their impact on the story. But it’s a treat to look at, so you almost don’t even mind.

It’s a welcome step outside the generic mainstream, which I can only assume is Aronofsky’s intention.

4.5 Stars