Angel Heart (1987)

Directed by: Alan Parker
Starring: Mickey Rourke

**1/2

There is nothing overly special about Angel Heart but the fact that I think Alan Parker either knew that or simply played to its strengths helped the movie along. Its a movie that could have very easily gotten way too busy and confusing but it maintained a relatively level plotline despite going deeper and deeper into Harry Angel's (Rourke) investigation.

Harry Angel is a private detective not all that unlike a Philip Marlowe. He's a pretty easy-going conservative from Brooklyn who despite his line of work comes no closer to death than watching a funeral procession drive by. For this reason, he's hesitant to take a job from a mysterious client named Louis Cypher (Robert DeNiro). Every man has his price though and for $5,000, he sets off to look for Johnny Favorite.

Harry's hunt leads him to Louisiana where he encounters all sorts of strange voodoo. As the body count increases and Harry gets closer and closer to finding Favorite, the plot inevitably thickens. There are points within his Lousiana trip where I began to think the movie was taking a rediculous and unneccessary turn for the worse. With a twist ending obviously around the corner I attempted to give the movie the benefit of the doubt and assume it was all relevant.

Well, the turns were indeed relevant, unfortunately they were too in depth and graphic. As I mentioned, the movie did maintain a level plotline but by doing so, it hadn't earned a crazy graphic sex scene with the rain leaking through the roof turning into blood. It hadn't earned the graphic images of death and nudity. Up until a certain point, the film was gritty, real and authentic. Its focus on voodoo cultures was acceptable but it was like watching another movie all of a sudden. I guess, in short, it lacked consistency.

I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that with the exception of The Wrestler, Angel Heart is my first look at Mickey Rourke. I was not disappointed. He is as natural an actor as I've seen and really plays Harry Angel to a tee. Even the sweat consistently pouring down his brown (whether it was intentional or not didn't matter) added to his character. DeNiro was of course very good. Evidently, the director was so freaked out by his performance he didn't want to direct him... he just left him direct himself. While I don't really by that, nor was I that freaked out by DeNiro... he was freaky. The pacing and delivery of his lines was almost musical and as it turned out... very appropriate.

The end of the movie I think would hurt a lot of other movies as far as a twist goes. I think it helped Angel Heart. It ended a bit abrubtly but it worked. Would I have done the same thing... I doubt it but that is neither here nor there. What's important is that when all was said and done, Angel Heart was a pretty average movie that was saved by its ending and its performances.

Chaplin (1992)

Directed by: Richard Attenborough
Starring: Robert Downey Jr.

**1/2

Richard Attenborough is perhaps most recognizable from his acting appearances in Jurassic Park and the Great Escape, among others. His directing resumes, however, while not as extensive, is certainly impressive with both Gandhi and Chaplin. Gandhi was a great movie about a great person who lived a very storied life. On the flipside, Charlie Chaplin was a unique, interesting and progressive character of his time but, according to Attenborough's portrayal of him, not enough really happened to make a movie about. A famous character does not necessarily make an interesting one.

Like all biopics, Chaplin was an opportunity for the selected actor to showcase his impersonation abilities. Robert Downey Jr. is a fine actor and he was nothing short of spectacular in his impersonation of Charles Chaplin however when all is said and done, it was nothing more than an impersonation. Jamie Foxx portrayed a blind man in Ray, Ben Kingsley completely transformed himself into an Indian man in Gandhi. Robery Downey Jr. was simply a man who was a relatively normal man and on a number of occasions hurt himself for the sake of comedy. Well, while those scenes were entertaining and impressive, I would have been just as satisfied watching Modern Times or City Lights.

Chaplin's life wasn't completely without drama or excitement. His many love affairs and marriages certainly didn't make things easy for him. His childhood and his relationships with his mother and brother were a struggle and his response to his fame was well portrayed. The film surrounds him at an old age, writing an autobiography with the aid of George Hayden (Anthony Hopkins). It appears that he has written said book with very little detail and information and Hayden is looking for those additional details and little by little he gets them but it seemed that whenever there should have been something more significant in Chaplin's life but wasn't, they simply escaped it by having Chaplin say, "I don't want to talk about that". Just because Downey delivers the line well, doesn't mean its okay to cop out.

The most intriguing part of the story was Chaplin's involvement in the congressional hearings regarding communism and his subsequent ban from the United States. Not only was this an unknown aspect of his life for me, it was also the most dramatic and conflict driven aspect of the entire film. I once saw a movie I remember very little about called Guilty by Suspiscion and it was about Hollywood figures' involvement in those hearings. It was a relatively simple film but the real life drama of it made it extremely interesting. Chaplin only designated about 30 of its 150 minutes to this aspect of Chaplin's life. Granted it was only a single part of his life but it was by far the most interesting and most worthy of a feature film recreation of his life.

At times I felt like I was being too hard on this film and using too many comparisons to other biopics which is unfair, however, it is frustrating that so many of this genre's films are essentially the same story. Struggle-filled childhood, tough relationships with family and with women/men, addictions to drugs/alcohol/fame (whichever's one's poison) so on and so on. Chaplin isn't the worst biopic, I've seen but its far from the best. At the same time, its just about the same as any and every biopic I've seen.

Lost Reviews #11

Donnie Darko
Richard Kelly

--With The Box soon to be released I expect that I'll revisit Donnie Darko. I'm curious as to what I'll think about it because despite the quality of writing in this review I consider it one of my more thought out and interesting reviews.--

Donnie Darko is described by many as a cult classic. It is difficult to completely understand which is what fascinates so many of its viewers. However, the first time I saw this recently after its release I was neither fascinated nor entertained. Richard Kelly’s final cut was not much better. I failed to notice any differences aside from the length but that was only because of the time it had been between seeing it for the first time.

I understand what is so liked about this movie. It keeps you guessing for most of the movie however it answers very few of the questions asked. To accept this film, you must accept the fact that time travel could have taken place, a boy could be psychotic enough to obey a rabbit and you also have to believe that several other freak occurrences are possible. Richard Kelly realizes that the magic of the movies makes all of these things possible and he puts them together however, that is where the film goes sour. It forces the viewer to accept too many things at once and by the end we receive no explanation.

If there is a strong point in the film it is the acting. Jake Gyllenhaal turns in his best performance as Donnie. He makes his psychotic character believable simply by his very dark mood. However, this is only one of the aspects we need to accept and it doesn’t bring us any closer to answers. The supporting cast of Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jena Malone and Mary McDonnell also hold their own as Donnie’s family and girlfriend.

This film is now hailed by critics and certain groups of viewers. This must be partly due to the fact that it is such a mystery. It is the same reason that any David Lynch movie is liked. However, like a David Lynch film, without getting any answers and at the same time, not being able to make any decisions about the film on my own, I’m unable to accept it as a good film. It is certainly an interesting film to study and one can question its intentions endlessly, however until the answers are revealed I will see it as an intriguing piece of artwork, rather than a cult classic.
11/29/04

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

Directed by: Richard Marquand
Starring: Mark Hamill

***

Perhaps the most surprising thing about both Empire and Return of the Jedi is that George Lucas didn't direct either of them. This is by the way... a good thing The original Star Wars, which was directed by Lucas was a great story in itself. I hate to say this about some movies but it did, in many ways, make itself good. George Lucas' talents shined elsewhere throughout the film, but it was a great story. Interestingly enough, I've found that Empire is the most liked of the three original Star Wars films. Having now seen all three recently enough to critique, I find it to be the worst of the three (not to say its bad). Return of the Jedi, was suprisingly good. I'm not sure why it was surprising.

Before I get into the good about Jedi, I'll point out that I don't know how great a conclusion to such a large trilogy it was. Not to say it was open ended or there was no conclusion but something about it didn't really wrap things up as I'd hoped. I guess it is easier to end a movie than it is to end a trilogy... expectations are high and one is certain to be disappointed. That having been said... nothing about Jedi disappointed me. I thought that unlike the other films which I'd catagorize as drama/adventure, Jedi was much more action/adventure. That action was fast-paced and entertaining and was a big part of what seperates Jedi from its two prequals.

Part of the action packed excitement stems from Lucas having three plus years more technology to work with since Empire but he doesn't abuse it. Perhaps this is because there was another eye calling the shots but regardless of the reason... the special effects aided the film.

In short, Return of the Jedi follows Luke and the gang making yet another effort to conquer the indestructable empire. Luke is now a full-on Jedi... that is until he faces Vader again, but aside from fighting the most evil character ever, becoming a Jedi seemed pretty easy. Empire and Jedi combined had Luke doing some serious cardio work and some strength conditioning followed by very deep meditation techniques. For something so sacred, becoming a Jedi didn't seem that hard. Of course its a movie and there are such things as time lapses, but even that being the case, I can't imagine that I'm the only one who thinks there should have been significant time spent on showing what goes into becoming the most powerful kind of person in the galaxy.

Now that Luke is a Jedi... he's also not the little woose he once was. It comes out a little bit when he is worried about his friends but I let that slide due to its importance. Understanding that importance now, having seen all six Star Wars films is very interesting. The rise and fall of Anikan Skywalker stems from his passion and feelings for his friends. That which he can't control is what Luke is successful in doing. Lines of dialogue suggest this in Jedi but there is nothing concrete. Things like that make me appreciate the series more than the movie.

Return of the Jedi, like all the Star Wars films has too many muppets running around serving no purpose. The opening scene in Jaba the Hut's lair is littered with weird looking creatures. I feel like things would have been more bareable if there were a select amout of species in this galaxy far, far away rather than one of every thing imaginable. In other words... I think since there seems to be a lot of humans, there should be a lot of wookies, and a lot of Jaba the Huts... something like that. Its weird having to adapt to a different creature every two minutes and wonder whether or not its critical to know who or what that creature is.

Overall, despite the problems I appear to have with the film, Return of the Jedi is a quality action/adventure film. Its an acceptable conclusion to a strong franchise and an entertaining movie start to finish.

The New World (2005)

Directed by: Terrence Malick
Starring: Colin Farrell

**1/2

There isn't all that much about The New World that is entertaining. In fact, good portions of it could be considered by some as borderline boring. Its a very slow moving film both in story and style. However, it has something that very few films I've ever seen have and that is in its style. Malick creates an amazing illusion in the way he films this story. Its not documentary but its not narrative... it is, in a way, a peep show.

Historical dramas are always recreating true events and so often the intrigue is in how its done... how certain actors portray characters that we are already familiar with and how events are reinvented in a stylistic and entertaining way. Never, or at least infrequently are we so engrossed in a particular event that we really feel like we are there, experience something that has never happened before. The brilliant subtlty of Malick's style in The New World creates the feeling that we are spying on the events transpiring. When Native Americans gather and watch with confused and curious expressions as ships come ashore their never before discovered land, surprisingly, I really shared that confusion and curiosity.

In the midst of this brilliant style of filmmaking however, I was forced to endure the slow moving development of a non-believable relationship between Captain Smith (Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher) followed by a less than believable one between she and John Rolfe (Christian Bale). Fortunately, performances were well above average and while slow and not believable, all was watchable. While Kilcher's performance was the critically acclaimed or the film, I recognized Christopher Plummer as Captain Newport who gave me two reasons to want him on screen. He was not only a pleasure to watch thanks to his performance, but his character was so in charge, so sure of his actions, so deliberate, that I was much more comfortable having him around. He really kept chaos away from the settlers of the new world and when he was gone, he was clearly missed. A character like that really helps films because by not even being in scenes, conflicts are immediately created.

I give Malick enormous credit for maintaining his style and his pace throughout the film. He really tried (and succeeded) to create that illusion I mentioned regardless of what that meant about the entertainment quality of the film. There is always something to be said for a film that doesn't need a million things going on in order to sustain itself. Granted, when those millions of things going on come together well in a film... it too is a success and often more entertaining from start to finish but that doesn't necessarily make a better film. The New World at times runs long but the fact that everything is so deliberate I'm hard-pressed to suggest that even a frame should have been cut.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Directed by: Spike Jonze
Starring: Max Records

****1/2

The reality and the human nature of the wild things seems like it would have been something impossible to create. The subtle yet starch comparison between Max's relationship, experience and feelings for the wild things and those for his family is done so masterfully that you develop the appropriate feelings for every character even when they aren't involved.

Family's aren't perfect, things don't always go as planned and love is a feeling that's never easy to understand. While the ten page children's book may not have explored these themes in detail, they are what turned it into a brilliant feature film. Something as simple as getting sent to his room and imagining a world where he is king is just as powerful as the magic that ensues when Max runs just minutes from his own home to find a boat and a raging sea which he conquers before he arrives to where the wild things are.

My anticipation for the film sent me in wanting to feel like a kid again but that was far from necessary. I can't imagine it possible for one to avoid memories of building forts and having snowball fights, even the times when they had to be done alone. That loneliness that Max feels, even in the company of friends or family is the hardest emotion with which to deal and the wild things share that emotion with him. So they turn to their king... Max, to make everything right. They do this because Max promised to make things right all so they wouldn't eat him, but love him and play with him and be wild with him. Max and the wild things couldn't be any more different in one way but they deal with all the same things as he does.

There are movies based on books that need to be very specific in choosing their star. No movie wants to ruin the sanctity of iconic character with bad casting or a poor performance. Max Records has such a sympathetic look and captured the excitement over simple things that only a child that age could understand so perfectly that it seemed like he was pulled straight from the book. In contrast, his sympathetic and innocent look did on occasion make it difficult to get upset with him. Perhaps one of the few problems with this film is that he and even the wild things were all so cute and sympathetic that it was hard to take a side in an argument or be upset with a character for being arrogant or selfish. While this doesn't prevent conflicts, it does give a a sense that everything will be fine and that nothing bad will happen. At the same time, this works in the sense that we know deep down that all these characters are good. There doesn't need to be a villain to have a conflict. The conflicts in this film are internal. They only become external because the characters care about each other and bring out their inner most emotions. In doing so, we are forced to care for the characters... characters perhaps more fictional than any we've ever seen.

Something truly amazing about the film were the performances of James Gandolfini (most famous for playing mob boss Tony Saprano) who plays Carol... lovable, misunderstood and sensitive... Catherine O'Hara as Judith... lovable but kinda bitchy or "a downer", Forrest Whitaker, Paul Dano, Chris Cooper and Lauren Ambrose all made up a family of wild things so relatable that anyone could be dropped right in and feel like they belonged.

The simplicity of the film rivals that of the book. There aren't really many points for it to go wrong. There are times when the music was a bit of overkill. I didn't always need music to tell me that Max was running and jumping and having fun... I could see that happening. At times I did feel like I was being duped into feeling happy. That having been said, Where the Wild Things did make me happy and it did make me feel like a kid and even if I was occasionally duped, I did go into the film wanting that and that's what I got... so, a success.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Directed by: Irvin Kershner
Starring: Mark Hamill

***

There are times when I give an actor the benefit of the doubt. I'm one to believe that someone can be a good actor and give a bad performance. Well Mark Hamill had three changes to be a good actor when he played one of cinema's most iconic heroes.

I've seen the original Star Wars film enough times to remember that Hamill wasn't great in his introduction as Luke Skywalker, I did however pardon it because it was his introduction and the naive, obedient yet stubborn personality of Luke was well-captured regardless of the quality of his line delivery. In Empire, we no longer need an introduction to this personality and Luke just becomes annoying. That being the case, it becomes a lot easier to see how poor those line deliveries really are. All this having been said, Hamill's performance hurts Empire, but it doesn't ruin it.

After the triumphant conclusion of its prequal, Empire opens in depressing fashion on the ice covered planet of Hoth (I apologize if Hoth is a system and not a planet... I don't really have a good memory for such things). The Rebellion is basically in hiding from the Empire which seems unnecessary considering they blew up their whole base, but whatever, gotta start somewhere I suppose. So after an action packed opening appropriate for such a film, Luke heads off to learn how to become a Jedi from Yoda. Given the history of films, it was hard to imagine that Yoda's introduction was in fact Yoda's introduction. Would I have known that the funny looking green character was a great Jedi master or would I have been as in the dark as Luke. While the thought of this doesn't nearly have the impact as it would had I known nothing about the movies, it is still an interesting observation.

Plot points such as this one mentioned are part of what makes Empire a good movie. If you are the one person who hasn't seen the Star Wars movies or at least know the basics, that's your fault. When Darth Vader reveals to Luke that his father was not murdered but that he in fact is his father, even Hamill's poor acting can't take one out of the moment. It is perhaps one of the most iconic revelations in film history and it involves two of the most iconic characters. That alone could set Empire on some kind of pedestal.

There are parts of Empire that really do take you out of the film and there would be more had it not been for Harrison Ford's ability to keep cheesy lines from being too cheesy. Nevertheless, some of those lines, some of the ridiculous looking characters which seem to serve little to no purpose hurt the overall quality of the film. The battle scenes however are entertaining and plot driven. The climax of the film rivals just about any other movie if not in the quality of its execution then in the way its placed within the context of the film, the story and the trilogy.

I have intentions of revisiting The Return of the Jedi and I only expect to have a similar reaction the that film. That being the same one I had upon concluding the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I'm amazed at the structure and completeness of such film compilations and even without having seen the final installment of the Star Wars trilogy recently I can already respect and admire the accomplishment if not the quality. In short, Empire is a good part of something greater.

L.A. Confidential (1997)

Directed by: Curtis Hanson
Starring: Guy Pierce, Russell Crowe

*****

L.A. Confidential is another one of those movies that's so good I feel like its unfair to all the other movies that I review. As my most recent viewing of the film came to and end I started thinking about what makes this movie so good and also, how is it so good, but not as good as the select few I consider better? The answer is simple of course in that its just a different kind of movie than say The Apartment, or Jaws or Magnolia. L.A. Confidential is one of the best movies of its kind therefore it joins the likes of Double Indemnity, Seven and The Departed. That's good company.

Guy Pierce has somewhat of an underrated reputation and I think the roles he chooses should be commended as much as the performances he gives. He plays Edmond Exley, perhaps the only completely clean cop in the Los Angeles Police Department. Everyone else has their alterior motives, payoffs and extracurricular activities. This includes Bud White, who has a reputation for being a bruiser and a protector of abused women. Jack Vincennes spends his spare time consulting for Badge of Honor and his work time getting payoffs from Sid Hudgens from Hush Hush magazine in return for good stories on hot busts.

Nothing is really as it seems in Los Angeles and the way all of these characters deal with this is what makes this story so suspenseful and intriguing. In a way, its an ensemble piece as each event effects each character in some way or another. That in turn effects everyone else. What keeps this from becoming a routine cop movie is its ability to take a pretty complex story and do two things successfully. All while keeping its audience guessing, the structure prevents them from becoming confused. Additionally, without giving anything away, nothing is too far fetched, everything both believable and plausible.

Something else that keeps this film from being average is the brilliant casting and the great performances that come as a result. I mentioned how great Pierce is. Russell Crowe turns in one of his most sympathetic performances which says a lot given his characters brutal reputation. Kevin Spacey turns in easily one of his top five performances. Despite his on again, off again Irish accent (which I'm certain, despite what anyone says, is directly referenced to in Changeling by Jeffrey Donovan who plays a high ranking corrupt Los Angeles police officer) James Cromwell's performance as Captain Dudley Smith could be the most memorable of all of them. Interestingly enough, Kim Basinger won the best supporting actress award and I think she was the least deserving of an award. Not to say she wasn't good. She too was very sympathetic but her personality mixed with the sad story surrounding the character almost made her a bit too cheesy for lack of a better term. Lastly, Danny DeVito who never ceases to amaze me with his acting chops is brilliant. Perhaps the best performance in the film, although I can't say that with absolute certainty because everyone is so good but DeVito is just sleezy, smart, funny and innocent all at the same time.

The in-depth story, the strong performances and the overall brilliance of this film speak for itself and because of that, and my not wanting to tell the whole story leave me in the position to cut this review short. For anyone who has seen this movie you know that everything is suspect, everyone's for sale and nothing is as it seems. For anyone who hasn't seen this film its better that this review remain off the record, on the QT and very hush hush...

The Invention of Lying (2009)

Directed by: Ricky Gervais, Matthew Robinson
Starring: Ricky Gervais

**1/2

Having read the script prior to seeing this movie, thus knowing the story start to finish, I was somewhat pessimistic about the movie as a whole but equally enthusiastic about how funny it could be. While disappointed by the lack of laugh out loud moments, the quality of the film matched my expectations.

Mark Bellison (Gervais) is a loser and in a world where lying doesn't exist, no one is shy about reminding him of this. Imagine your life spiraling downward at a rapid pace and it only stops for everyone you know to rub salt in your wounds. This is the point Bellison is at before he stumbles upon the ability to say something that wasn't... to lie.

The idea behind this movie is brilliant but its very difficult to wrap ones head around. In a movie like Liar, Liar, which has a similar idea, just flip flopped, its easy to relate to as everyone is normal except for your main character. In Lying, everyone behaves abnormally compared to what we are used to. Its funny but when it comes to them accepting Bellison's lies as truth, its hard to remind oneself that its impossible for them to second guess anything. As hard as it is to suspend my disbelief time ten, it was equally as hard to figure out why this wasn't done well.

So many of the jokes in this film rely on people speaking one hundred percent literally. They tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To speak so completely literally and not come across as fake or jokey proved to be very difficult for a majority of the actors. Interestingly enough, the performers who do comedy well, Gervais, Jason Batemen, Jeffrey Tambor, Jonah Hill and a couple of the surprise cameos seemed best at making this way of the world seem natural. Jennifer Garner, Louis C.K. Rob Lowe and many others didn't really sell the idea well enough to maintain the humor throughout.

The performances weren't bad overall. I felt for most of the characters which was ultimately most important as the structure of the story relied fully on it. In the beginning, we are introduced to a world where lying doesn't exist. At this point, its okay that everyone has verbal diareah because it gives an exaggerated example of what its like when people tell the full truth all the time. As the story progresses however, I began to realize that the inability to tell a lie doesn't necessary mean one needs to speak their mind at all times. This often could have been solved by simply by prefacing many lies with "I think..." Because something is that one particular character's truth, doesn't mean that it is actually the truth. Understandably, when there is no contrary to truth, its impossible to realize this. Once Mark learns how to lie, he sees the flaws in a society where everyone is completely honest.

When Mark tells a lie to benefit himself, he learns that he can have anything he wants if he takes advantage of it. At his most selfless moment however is when he learns that as much as his ability can benefit others it can spiral out of control... no different really than what telling the truth can cause. This is where the stories structure really works. It highlights very subtly the pros and cons of both telling the truth and telling a lie. Its simple but its accurate. Most importantly, again its subtle. The subtle aspects of this film are the ones that worked best. The subtle jokes.; A home owner asks a burglerer his name so he can report him and the burglerer immediately tells him, the subtle conflicts; Frank (Jonah Hill) decides not to kill himself and now wants to hang out with Mark, and so on. Not to mention, Gervais' ability to be subtly comedic is matched by no one. These subtlties work even more so when you're faced with major conflicts that require even further suspension of disbelief. Without giving too much away, Mark essentially "lies" to the world about the existence of God, or "the Man in the Sky". Regardless of your religious beliefs, for this to work, Gervais, being the atheist that he is, needed to assume that everyone in the history of the the world he has created is too an atheist. In addition, his entire audience needs to forget their specific beliefs and accept the fact that he is telling a lie.

What works here, however, and what keeps this film from becoming extremely sacreligious, is that Mark's "lie" comes from his best intentions. He reads an exaggerated form of the ten commandments to make people happy, just as he did for his mother in his most selfless moment. This is the film's primary suggestion that lying isn't necessarily a bad thing. While this is not the message of the film... this is not really the type of movie out there to send a message... it is an accurate message.

Overall, Lying is an average movie. Given the comedic talent involved, I was disappointed at how rarely I rolled over laughing but the heart of the story was real enough to overcome the fact that the idea behind it all is, while a really smart idea, so far fetched its hard to accept. I think there were things that could have been done to bring the idea down to earth a bit... that would have made it a little bit more relatable, but again... what is was did work. It didn't work great, but it worked well enough to outline a pretty heartfelt story.