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.

The Prestige

"The Prestige" is a very entertaining but convoluted movie about the competition between two illusionists for the best magic trick in the trade. Interestingly, the movie not only evaluates character traits and magic shows, it also explores the moral consequences of actions. In other words, a trick may bring you prestige, but at a sinister cost. "The Prestige" was directed by the talented Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins), who shines in his creation of late nineteenth century culture and the ambitious atmosphere of the film. " My only problem with the movie was, much like a magic trick, it left us a little confused by the end. The timeline of the movie is a bit jumbled; I found myself obsessively backtracking the plot in my mind to recheck the chain of events. Still, a little confusion is not all that bad--"Mulholland Drive" is a brilliant movie when you figure out its meaning. In the end, I highly recommend "The Prestige" if you are in the mood for solving a complicated mystery.

4.5

Back for Harvest

I must sincerely apologize for my absence as of late. I have been working on PhD applications and writing samples. In any case, I am back and will write 4-5 reviews and an article explaining how I judge movies.

The Departed

Martin Scorcese is back, and as you would expect from his style as a storyteller, he is back with a vengeance! "The Departed" is a master work of crime drama and mystery. It encompasses every positive aspect that Scorcese brings to the table: its complexities flow seamlessly through twists and turns, realistic violence, and tormented yet human characters. Although this movie will probably not get a best picture nod, it might produce a nomination for best director or even best actor for Leonardo Dicaprio.

I cannot retell the story because it would be giving away surprises and ironies. However, the basic plot goes like this: There is an Irish mob in Boston. Obviously, the police are trying to infiltrate and beat organized crime through the use of moles. The interesting aspect of the movie is that moles are on both sides: cops give information to the mob and vice versa. The theme of the movie revolves around the nature of "the rat." How much can you lie without deceiving yourself? How long can you work with the mob until you sympathize and befriend them? As one would expect, Scorcese does a much better job with the above theme than do previous mob movies, including "Donnie Brasco," a film that I wanted to like, but did not.

The movie also has great actors at the top of their game. As stated above, Dicaprio has developed under Scorcese into a phenmonal performer. Matt Damon uses his natural charm and arrogance. Mark Wahlberg takes advantage of his simple yet streetwise talents to create an entertaining cop character. Jack Nicholson indulges in the evil and brashness of his character, as he did with the joker in "Batman" and Jack in 'The Shining." His "teetering on the edge of crazy" persona fits perfectly into the character.

My final comment has to genuflect before Scorcese as a director. He has learned from making blockbuster movies like "Gangs of New York" and "The Aviator" how to combine perfectly wrought stories and characters with obsessive camera placement. His shots were poetically near perfection. Finally, Scorcese adds a dimension to "The Departed" that is not in his other movies. His current work is almost a dark satire or comedy about the serious and multifaceted aspects of crime. It is at times thrilling and other times almost ridiculous. The key component is that the movie works concurrently from different perspectives.

"The Departed" is easily one of the best movies of 2006. It's really time to give Scorcese his Oscar.

4.9

Jesus Camp

"Jesus Camp" is a well-made and highly entertaining documentary, but it is anything but fair and balanced in its judgment of evangelical radicalism. Even though the movie purports to show both sides of the issue, a skeptical talk show host and the bible camp organizers, the evangelicals are doomed to a portrayal of stupidity and alarming belligerence. Then again, my view is very biased as I despise religious radicalism with a great passion. Still, "Jesus Camp" will have this paradoxical effect on most audiences; it will make them laugh and it will scare the hell out of them.

The world of documentaries is a hard business. Unlike other genres, documentaries cannot rely on visual acrobatics, superb directing, or even great acting. Great documentaries are the result of relentless shooting, keen editing, and the luck to stumble upon interesting subjects. "Jesus Camp" manages to break the above mold just a little by incorporating some fine directing. We are not only shown interviews with people, but contrived visual sojourns that serve the movie's general theme of fear and radicalism. For example, there are scenes involving phone interviews and radio shows that are paired nicely with portraits of dark foreboding forests and towns. Additionally, many of the shots involving people, which one would expect would be haphazard, are very well crafted. To be honest, I have to wonder if some of the scenes were staged. The camera always seems to zoom in at the perfect moment or catch an event from a perfect angle. Perhaps it is luck or the result of a director with good instincts.

The subject matter of "Jesus Camp" explores a camp in North Dakota where young teens are sent to be indoctrinated (this is not too harsh a word) with religion and even worse, politics. Children are driven into emotional states and are forced to pledge their lives to Christ, their community, and George W. Bush (I am not kidding!). They are also taught the evils of science and its multiple lies like global warming, evolution, and the big bang (Again, I am not kidding). Camp Counselors discuss their various tactics and hope that one day American children will be as fanatical and Islamic children. Oh yeah, and Harry Potter is an evil warlock who sins against God!

"Jesus Camp" is a yelp from the blue states. It demonstrates a burgeoning worry for people with brains and education. As the movie states, "There are so many evangelicals that if they all vote, they can be the majority in any American election [as they were nationally in 2000 and 2004]." That is a scary thought! Run for the hills! However, in the end, a good documentary tries to depict an event, not make judgments. Although I agree with the film's premise from what I have seen in the movie and in my own real experiences, I could not help but feel that I was being led by the hand. Much like Michael Moore's films, "Jesus Camp" represents stellar filmmaking, but poor objectivity and argumentation. For a an example of a more balanced documentary, see Morgan Spurlok's "Supersize Me," which puts the blame of America's obesity problem on fast food companies AND the customers for making poor choices. In "Jesus Camp," we should not only be horrified by evangelicals, we should be angry at our own complacency in watching their growing movement. Is making a scathing documentary the best we can do? My advice is: spare the rod and spoil the child. It is time to discredit and defeat these people politically, socially, and scientifically.

4.5

Half Nelson

What happens to those poor college grads who join Teach for America or to the liberal hippies who didn't have the grades to get a real job? "Half Nelson" is a movie that explores the throes of inner city schools both for the teachers and the students. Even though I had considerable issues with the directing, I think that "Half Nelson" is a strong film. In particular, Ryan Gosling (the boy next door from "The Notebook") shines with an epic performance as a troubled teacher.

The best aspect of the movie was the acting. In addition to the flawless Gosling, who may or may not have Oscar gold shining on him, there is another great performance by a little African American girl who is tangled in a world of drugs, anti-heroes, and difficult life choices. The exemplary acting gives the film a realism that is almost scary. It almost feels like watching a gripping documentary, especially because of the fast jump cuts and the use of a hand held camera throughout most of the film. Even though I prefer well planned placement of cameras, I can understand why the director would choose to use more gritty slipshod methods.

The theme of "Half Nelson" is two fold: First, we can see the life of a teacher who does great work with children, but is forced into poverty and its effects, which includes drug use. One of the best scenes in the movie is when Gosling smokes crack in a bathroom and is caught by his student---which dovetails into the second theme, a lack of opportunity for inner city kids. Who can a moral girl look up to if not her teachers or family? Even more interesting is the duality with which the movie presents every character. Gosling is a hero because he cares about his students, but he is no role model because of his drug use. A local drug dealer helps out the young girl, but sucks her into the world of drugs. Finally, the little girl is strong and moral but eventually succumbs to temptations. Should we judge these characters as a whole or bifurcate their alter egos? This complex inquiry makes "Half Nelson" a very interesting, well crafted, and important film.

4.5

Little Miss Sunshine

After a scorching summer of substandard movies, "Little Miss Sunshine" was a breath of cool and refreshing air. In my opinion, it was the best movie of the summer and a notable movie of the year. It is very rare that an independent movie can be both popular and quirky, but "Little Miss Sunshine" does just that. It provides a plethora of interesting characters who commence a road trip (a staple of independent films) to enter a little girl in a beauty contest. There are three reasons why "Little Miss Sunshine" is a huge success with audiences and critics.

First, the cast is perfect. Some highlights: Greg Kinnear is great as the ambitious yet witless patriarch. Toni Colette plays the role she has mastered: a plain yet strangely attractive middle aged woman. Finally, Steve Carell gives the best performance of the film as the quasi-suicidal gay scholar (again, a staple of independent film). I was so blown away by Carell's performance that I cannot help but speculate about his future as an actor. I think it is quite possible that he could make a very fruitful transition from comedy goof-ball antics to dramatic roles (a la Bill Murray and Tom Hanks). I hope writers continue to take advantage of Carell's impeccable timing as an actor.

Second, the film very interestingly balances wholesome familial themes with a parody of trashy poor people who enter their daughters in beauty contests. Although the family is loving, one cannot descry their dysfunctional nature nor their motives for placing so much credit in contests. The grandfather of the family is loving and supportive, but is addicted to heroin. The enigmatic son is goal oriented (he wants to fly jets), but is hateful and buried in his existentialism. Finally, the little girl in the contest is cute and lively, but also aesthetically challenged. Throughout the film, the family confronts their duel nature (their ambitions against reality) and ultimately learn more about theirselves.

Third, the writing and directing in "Little Miss Sunshine" stands as a pillar in a season of Hollywood blunders. As for the former, we are given a witty story, weird digressions, and snappy dialogue that keeps us laughing and even sulking in parts. The directing is what one would expect from an independent film; it was interesting, color coordinated, detailed, and emotionally driven. I especially liked the scenes with the pastel yellow Volkswagen.

In the end, I highly recommend this movie. It will appeal to movie fans as well as those who only go to the cinema once in awhile.

4.8

The Illusionist

"The Illusionist" is a solid movie that piqued my interest and kept me entertained until the very end. The movie stars Ed Norton as Eisenheim, a famous illusionist in nineteenth century Vienna who was so convincing that he formed occult status. Eisenheim falls for the fiancee of the crown prince and much intrigue and romance ensues. Paul Giamatti stars as a police inspector who investigates the tricks and exploits of the magician. Although one may call "The Illusionist" a humdrum whodunit, the movie is quite skillful in how it examines the serpentine trail of crime, jealousy, and romance. ED Norton is a fine actor who brings a mixture of mystery and humility to Eisenheim. Giamatti is jarringly memorable as the bearded inspector. To my surprise, Jessica Biel plays the fiancee character with great finesse. Finally, the director masterfully balanced light and dark forces while giving an older, rusty look to the film by using various camera filters. Oddly enough, there are 3 films dealing with magicians and illusionists being released in the next few weeks. I cannot explain the sudden interests in ambidextrous entertainers. I can hope, however, that the other two movies are as good as "The Illusionist."

4.5

Beerfest

I do not want to spend alot of time on this review. Suffice to say that "Beerfest" is a horrid movie not worth seeing or talking about. It is an absolute wonder how its middle-aged stars could be so immature and complacent in stupidity. "Beerfest" rivals "Lady in the Water" for worst movie of the year.

0.5

World Trade Center

Oliver Stone's new movie, "World Trade Center," has many successes and many failures. On one hand, it tells the touching story of rescue workers who were buried under WTC rubble following the attacks on September 11, 2001. One really gets an appreciation for how harrowing and brave the rescuers and the rescuers of the rescuers were. On the other hand, focusing on two or three people tended to shrink the audience's concept of just how devastating and grand in scale September 11 was. Additionally, the optimistic and restrained feel of the film is very uncharacteristic for Oliver Stone, who is at his best when he is angered by the Vietnam War or befuddled by the JFK assassination. Wouldn't Stone be better suited in making an anti-Bush or an anti-Arab film? Those two problems aside, "World Trade Center" is a movie worth seeing.

The movie begins with an introduction to the lives of three or so Port Authority policemen. They get up in the morning and leave their families to serve New York City every day. I believe the preceding plot line, which continues throughout the film, is the first wrong move by Stone. It is well known that every character in a movie has families, whether it be a wife and kids, a mom and dad, or a close uncle or cousin. Plus, isn't the movie about what the policemen did rather than who they were? Does having a family make their feats more amazing and courageous? Giving your life to help others is the same sacrifice no matter who you are.

The extended scenes involving the families wasted valuable time that could have spent on expanding the story to other people who were trapped in the building. While the story of the two policemen trapped under the rubble is admirable, it is not the whole story. What about the other 2700 people who died? What about their stories? How did it feel to jump out of a window to escape flames? How did it feel to see a plane coming right at you? How did it feel to be trapped inside the WTC until it caved in? These are the more interesting questions that represent the aggregate experience of those involved. The 20 or so people who survived the collapse are not the norm; they were the unexplainably lucky. Why are their stories more important than the fireman who died on the top floor trying to save people? Oddly enough, the cops depicted in the movie did not even accomplish anything before the collapse. They were on their way into the building! True to the rest of the film's concept of time, many of the main characters stand around and meander before they actually do anything to save people.

Besides the small scope of the film and the unnecessary emphasis on the character's personal lives, the other problematic aspect of the film was the fact that it did not show the planes hitting the buildings. Stone assumes that we are all a bunch of babies who could not possibly handle seeing what truly happened on that day. We are shown shadows and big kabooms in place of a powerful picture. Perhaps if the audience did see the planes hit, they would have better understood the magnitude of the catastrophe. One final note: while we are on directing style, the scenes in which the police first find out about the attack and travel to ground zero were very poorly done. For a reason that I cannot understand, Stone fades in and out of slow moving shots. Instead of feeling paranoia and confusion, the audience gets a slow disjointed build towards arriving at the WTC.

The above problems are joined with very good filmmaking depicting the actual entrapment and rescue of the cops. Personally, I did not know how difficult it was to retrieve survivors. Rescuers dug 40-50 feet under unstable rubble and slowly guided the victims through twists and turns of metal and rock. If Stone' goal was to show you the goodness and determination of people in times of crisis, he was a great success. However, as stated above, I still think his story is unmistakably incomplete.

In the end, I do recommend "World Trade Center." You will see the beauty of survival and rescue. More importantly, you will see a director who has progressed from making "Alexander," one of the worst movies in recent memory to making a very decent and often powerful film.

3.8