300

5 Stars

Zak Snyder’s cinematic adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel “300” is operatic, beautiful, violent, visceral, emotional, gorey, poetic and just plain bad ass. I could go on and on with adjectives, but the best way to describe it is “Gladiator” on acid.

“300” is the story of Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler, “The Phantom of the Opera”) and his courageous stand at the Battle of Thermopylea in 480 BC. At that battle, Leonidas led just 300 Spartan warriors against over one million troops under the command of Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro, “Love Actually”). He proved that it’s not so much how many troops you fight with, but where you fight that can be a deciding factor. As the battle progresses, it becomes clear that it wasn’t whether or not the Spartans won that mattered to them, it was what the battle meant, freedom, that was important.

It’s told as a myth, or a campfire tale. Exaggerated for effect, larger than life characters, stunning visuals emphasize the story, as told through the eyes of battle participant Dilios (David Wenham, “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy). Xerxes is portrayed as an eight foot tall behemoth, cruelly lording over his subjects and troops. The strange animals the Persians brought in to the fight (rhinos and elephants) are gigantic monstrosities that strike fear into the hearts of the Spartans. And the traitorous Spartan hunchback who betrays the Spartan weakness to the Persians is a grotesque monster who has no place amongst the chiseled, heroic Spartan warriors.

Zak Snyder showed so much promise with his take on “Dawn of the Dead” in 2004, and after a series of failed or struggling projects, including a remake of “Day of the Dead” and the long awaited “Watchmen” project (now slated for a 2008 release), he comes into his own with an adaptation of Frank Miller’s epic graphic novel.

Snyder took a page from the Robert Rodriguez (“Sin City”) book of digital filmmaking, and shot the entire flick against a blue screen. Where other filmmakers have failed to produce competent performances and a compelling story to match the stunning visuals (I’m looking at you George Lucas), Rodriguez and Snyder have been able to craft amazing movies with a visual style unparalleled by any of their colleagues, and are able to construct fascinating and wonderful stories to prove that it’s not just a complete orgy of effects.

When watching this style of filmmaking, I get mixed feelings. On the one hand, it’s beautiful, and a few practitioners have been able to do fantastic work with it. On the other hand, if it catches on we could get a bunch of overzealous young filmmakers who won’t take the time to actually craft a watchable movie, and then the style won’t be able to realize its full potential. Here’s hoping competent professionals like Rodriguez and Snyder take the time to perfect it.

Butler is the perfect Leonidas. He exudes the sheer masculinity of the Spartans. He breaks down the complex emotions of the Spartan mind to show the respect he has for his fellow Spartans and the utter disdain he has for the Persians. There’s a deep sense of honor and loyalty exhibited by the Spartan warriors that is heartbreaking when they’re at the final showdown. Dominic West (“The Forgotten”) as the backstabbing and conniving Theron was the perfect foil to that ideal set forth by Leonidas and his warriors.

“300” is a welcome departure from the standard “swords and sandals” epic that enjoyed a brief resurgence with “Gladiator,” but went awry with “Troy” and “Alexander.” It’s a re-visioning of the genre, and it’s a simply fantastic film, in every sense of the word. This is one to watch come awards season next year.

Hey all you hooligans, got some more movie trailers for you… as usual, they’re from Apple.com, so they’re in Quicktime format. If you go to movies.yahoo.com, they’re in both quicktime and Windows Media Player.

Grindhouse
Underdog
In The Land of Women
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theatres
First Snow
Fracture
The Ex
Lucky You
Across The Universe
Knocked Up

The Number 23

2 Stars

Oh what a tangle web Joel Schumacher weaves. And he almost gets too intricate with his new thriller, “The Number 23” starring Jim Carrey and Virginia Madsen.

“The Number 23” is a film about obsession and psychosis. Walter Sparrow (Carrey) is a dog catcher running late for a date with his wife (Madsen). While she waits for him, she stops by a late night book store and picks up an odd novel called “The Number 23” by an unknown author named Topsy Kretts. As Walter begins reading it, he finds an increasing number of strange coincidences between the book’s main character Fingerling and himself. This soon consumes him as he begins to explore the origin of the book, including the investigation of a 15 year old murder.

I couldn’t watch this film without films like “Se7en” or “Fight Club” (both directed by David Fincher) popping into my mind. It’s got that same sort of feel to it, a gritty psychological thriller with a huge twist ending looming on the horizon. And that’s the mark of faulty directing. I’m reminded of another director’s work, a particular director’s work. Schumacher didn’t leave an impression on me. I know he can handle the thriller. “Flatliners” was a fantastic film. But I can’t help but think this film would have been better under the direction of Fincher. Schumacher just could not get this film to work right for him. He didn’t leave his mark on it.

The script gets too smart for its own good. It wants to be clever in it’s revealing of the plot and the surprise twist ending, but this ploy is something we as Americans have become so accustomed to with the works of Fincher and M. Night Shyamalan, that we start to expect twist endings, and begin guessing them before the film is even halfway over. If it’s not done just right, then the ending will be very apparent. It wasn’t done right; I could see this coming halfway through, which was a detriment to the enjoyment of the movie.

Central to the flick’s plot is the titular number 23. It has this mystical connection to the life of Sparrow. Key dates in his life add up to be 23, or 32, 23 reversed. The number pops up on the signs, buses, jerseys and license plates he sees. It’s even hidden in the colour his walls are painted. The number 23 is just a myth. Like one character says in the flick, if you look for it, you’ll find it. Too many inconsistencies in the theory though. On some dates you have to add all the numbers, in some you exclude the year, in some you exclude the month and day, in some you exclude the day. How do you know which one you include? As long as you can get 23, it works. It’s stacking the odds in your favour.

So what elevates this film? Jim Carrey does. He’s grown so much as a performer since he hit it big 13 years ago with “Ace Ventura”. It’s curious as to why some critics and award shows are still unwilling to recognize his talent. This isn’t by any means his finest performance, but it is a damn fine one. I can only hope to see more of this sort of serious work from him in the future.

I thought it would have been funny or clever to include a hidden message in the review, maybe by circling every 23rd word in the review, you’ll get the meaning of life. But that would turnout just like the film I’m reviewing- utterly pointless.

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.