Reign Over Me

I am almost hesitant to write this review because Richard Roeper summed up the movie perfectly in the Chicago Sun-Times:

"and we hear "Love, Reign O'er Me" as a signal for the credits to kick in.
But it's not the Who's version (which we heard earlier) at the end -- it's a cover version from Pearl Jam. Eddie Vedder doesn't hit any sour notes; he just can't hit the soaring notes. Much like the film."

Exactly right. "Reign Over Me" had the potential to be a great movie. The plot is interesting. The movie has strong performances from Don Cheadle and even Adam Sandler. Despite its potential, "Reign Over Me" was lost in its own ill thought details and the awful performances of its secondary characters. Worst of all, good performances by Sandler and Cheadle were wasted as they faded into the ridiculousness of the film's totality.

Sandler plays Charlie Fineman, an ex-dentist who lost his family on September 11. To deal with his severe pain and anger, Charlie attempts to forget his family through two methods. First, he becomes introverted and obsessive about fixing his kitchen. He is only seen outside riding on a motor scooter. Second, if anyone mentions his family, he denies their existence, and depending on the person, will become physically violent.

Stop right there. Where to begin. Is it really necessary for Charlie to have lost his family in such a topical event like September 11? I cringed at the thought of the screenwriter hoping to capitalize on the sympathy Sandler would get fro mentioning the World Trade Center and the "monsters" who blew it up. Isn't it too soon to be creating fictional characters involved in 9-11? As if that were not enough, the fact that Sandler rode a Scooter (a la The Who's Quadrophenia) was equally annoying for its simplistic attempt to paint Charlie as "different." In short, the scooter tried to do the job that the screenwriter and director should have done earlier. Finally, and most annoyingly, instead of just suffering from a mental disorder (post traumatic stress disorder), amnesia, or a broken heart, Sandler teeters in the middle on a nonsensical condition in which he willfully tries to deny his family's existence, thus undoing the whole point of the denial. In other words, if he tries to deny their existence, then he still knows that they do exist. The movie would have been better served by a realistic condition in which trauma totally repressed his memories. Even better, Charlie could have been so hurt that he told people that his family had once existed but that he does not wish to discuss them because of the trauma it induces. Denying the existence of loved ones to deal with pain is just too unbelievable and simplistic.

Still, the odd aspect of "Reign Over Me" is that despite the terrible backstory of the character, Sandler manages to portray it very well. The shortcomings of the charcter come not from Sandler but from the screenwriter. In many ways, Sandler is the perfect actor for this part. As Ebert and Roeper have discussed in their reviews, Sandler's persona is based on inner rage. Think of Billy Madison (You Blew It!), Happy Gilmore (The Entire film!), and "The Waterboy" (which is awful). Interestingly, audiences find Sandler's outbursts humorous while a doctor might find them psychopathic. A few movies have utilized Sandler's inner rage, frustrated disposition, and emotional immaturity. The ironically titled"Anger Management" is probably the best "Adam Sandler" comedy, while "Punch Drunk Love" masterfully showed us the real Adam Sandler without the comedic window dressing. The latter movie, which I enjoyed immensely, shocked Sandler fans expecting to hear baby talk and see funny outbursts. It showed the vulnerable side of Sandler and his mental shortcomings. Likewise, in "Reign Over Me," Sandler is a depicted as his persona truly is: an emotionally unstable psychopath who has a short fuse and an immature penchant for flash violence. Sandler played the character perfectly and even managed to induce fear and suspense for what he would do next.

Back to the plot: Charlie has a chance meeting with his old Dental School roommate, a relationship which apparently inculcates the same bond as undergraduate school roommates. The friend is played very well by Don Cheadle. The depth of his own crisis is shown by his attraction to Charlie's freewheelin' lifestyle. In a sense, Cheadle's character wants to find himself by getting lost with Charlie. Eventually, "Johnson," as he is called, will try and help Charlie deal with his problems. However, the movie interrupts this story by injecting a dose of jarringly awful plot line into it. We are introduced to a beautiful woman who has a crush on Don Cheadle and wishes to give him oral sex. She meanders in and out of the film as a temptress, a crazy villain, a sympathetic character, and at the end, a new friend of Charlie's. Her presence in the film is useless, meaningless, and distracting. She exists only to empathize with Charlie because, of course, a sane person could not possibly understand the hurt felt over losing family.

The film's plot heats up as Charlie's in laws want to have him committed. The in-laws are played by two truly terrible actors, a comedian named Robert Klein and a woman who has appeared in such classics as "Harry and the Hendersons," in which a gentle vegetarian Sasquatch bunks with the Henderson family and shows them the evils of hunting, the interconnectedness of nature, and the ability of Jon Lithgow to prostitute himself to the highest producer if the price is right. In any case, the in-laws totally lack motivation for how mean they are to Charlie. They show no understanding of his pain or his grieving process. Although one could posit that they are upset that Charlie is nullifying his family's existence, the in-law's animosity soon dissipates as the woman is given a lamp that belonged to her daughter, unintentionally (for the director) pointing to the source of her ridiculous hatred.

"Reign Over Me" could have joined "Punch Drunk Love" in the pantheon of Adam Sandler movies. It was perfectly cast and had a plot which brought out Sandler's true disposition. However, through no fault of Sandler's, the screenwriters vacillated in a sea of retarded logic. As Roeper said, the film is acceptable, but it did not soar despite having the wings to do so.

3.5

Zodiac

"Zodiac" is an interesting film that explores one man's obsession with finding the elusive Zodiac killer. I really do not have much to say about this movie, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Suffice to say, the movie is heavy on plot and has a standout performance from Jake Gyllenhaal. I had a small gripe with how fast the movie moved through scenes. As you probably know from reading my reviews, I am a great admirer of Kubrik and his long shots that allow audiences to soak in atmosphere. I really don't like films that convey the plot as one damn event after another, which is what "Zodiac" tended to do. I would have liked to see a few scenes really focus on Gyllenhaal's unhealthy obsession or even the brutality and randomness of the killer. Those scenes are what movies are made for--to bring together visuals, music, writing, and acting into a cohesive whole. "Zodiac" would be a better book than a movie (Ironically, it was a best selling book).

It is worth lingering over the idea that a given work could be a better book than a movie or vice versa. Many critics argue that Charlie Kauffman's movies, which include "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," are better suited to books because of their complex ideas. For example, in "Adaptation, " Kauffman attempts to discuss the many faces of evolution and adaptation (the earth, animals, flowers, people, relationships, etc). Contrast this philosophical plot with films that are made for the movies and its visual potential: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. I disagree with these critics because complex ideas that seem to be better in book form can be portrayed just as good or better in movies under the supervision of a talented director. Spike Jonez did a wonderful job showing the earth's evolution from volcanic mass to fruitful sphere and exploring Kauffman's frustrating struggle to adapt The Orchid Thief. Likewise, in " The Silence of the Lambs," the audience sees a whodunit thriller that could easily have been a better book. However, the director masterfully creates suspense with visuals (the police going in the wrong house near the end and Jodie Foster bumbling around in the dark against Buffalo Bob). Furthermore, let us not forget that we are able to see the evil of Hannibal Lecter incarnate with Anthony Hopkins in one of film's greatest performances. In sum, even though "Zodiac" is probably better suited in book form, a good director could have pulled some visual nuggets out of its core.

Still, I liked "Zodiac" because it was entertaining. Similar to "Breach," the former movie is a nice outing, but could be missed.

4.0

Breach

"Breach" is an acceptable but not great movie. It tells the story of America's most severe breach of national security. Chris Cooper, whose excellent acting is immortalized in "Adaptation" and "American Beauty," gives a competent but not stellar performance as Robert Hanssen, the traitorous bastard who sold American secrets to the Russians. To my surprise, Ryan Phillipe gave a memorable performance as the undercover agent assigned to investigate Hanssen. Oddly, the movie delved into Hanssen's obsession with religion and his bizarre personal life. My guess is that this angle was pursued to add character depth where it would have otherwise lacked and to add to the less than interesting plot. All in all, "Breach" is a run-of-the-mill espionage flick that can be missed. However, if you are bored, it might be entertaining.

3.5

300

The adaptation of graphic novels and comic books has officially become the new millennium's most impressive movie art form. Frank Miller's "300," a follow-up to the brilliant "Sin City" is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful cinematic experiences you are likely to have. The visuals are so impressive, in fact, that they compensate for the total lack of story and character development (the film's only shortcoming). Then again, why do all movies need an airtight plot and deep characters? The genius of films like "300" and "Sin City" is that they entrench the audience in a totally new world. To be sure, "Sin City" wanted to envelope you in a world where caricature creatures like Marv (Micky Rourke), the Yellow Bastard (haha), and Kevin (Elijah Wood) wreaked havoc; it didn't much care to show you what made them tick---although Marv and Hartigan (Bruce Willis) get some depth. Likewise, "300" takes you back to an almost ancient world where men were men and the women were too. War, blundering, and misogyny ruled the day!

"300," like any good movie, set out its themes early. We are shown an old man inspecting a Spartan baby to decide whether it is fit to be a citizen soldier. I particularly liked this scene because of its Kubrikesque shots. The theme continues as a boy is trained to wrestle, survive in the harsh wilderness (aptly against a wolf), and embrace death as a glorious gift to Sparta. When Sparta is threatened by the Persian empire (demonstrated by beautiful shots of armies and the effeminate king) and its motley assortment of weird creatures, 300 Spartan men are called to defend their country against hoards of invaders. That's it. That is the plot. The movie relishes in visual depictions of manliness, courage, glory, and legend.

Unlike some mediocre movies like "Gladiator," "300" does not take it self too seriously, nor does it try to be historically or physically accurate. This is a lesson that most directors should learn: in movies, we cannot recreate the past with accuracy, we can only show the tinted view of legend and hindsight. Plus, audiences are more forgiving of movies that lack pretension. For example, there were several scenes in "300" that are physically impossible, ridiculous, or confusing (the Spartan king's trip to the old men on the mountain was nonsensical). However, I was not bothered by them because they were using film to make a point about glory, legend, and manliness. Thus, when I saw characters jump ten feet in the air or get shot with 50 arrows and still fight, I knew the director was depicting sensationalized history rather than just plain history.

I highly recommend this film for avid movie buffs and lovers of violence. It may not appeal to those who cannot suspend reality, stomach brutality, or appreciate abstract filmmaking.

4.5

I'm Back

The farmer has returned to guide your movie going habits.