The Aviator

© 2004 Ray Wong



2004 sees a slew of biopics, from NEVERLAND to KINSEY to BEYOND THE SEA. The AVIATOR, about the early life of Howard Hughes, is the newest addition, and arguably the best of the crop.

DiCaprio plays Hughes, a rich, young, ambitious egomaniac who knows what he wants. His family business and inheritance give him the opportunities to go after the things he loves: movies, airplanes, and women. And when he goes after them, he goes after them with everything he’s got. After dumping a staggering $2 million in the film HELL’S ANGELS – a moderate success that propels Hughes into the Hollywood limelight – he turns his attention to his first love, aviation.

That’s also when he meets Katherine Hepburn (Blanchett), the mesmerizing screen actress with a gravelly voice and strong, eccentric personality. Hughes and Hepburn carry on a torrid love affair, while he continues to split his time between Hollywood and the airfields. His obsessions and perfectionism slowly drive a wedge between him and the soaring film star, and soon they part ways. Hughes gets involved with numerous starlets until he finds himself falling for Ava Gardner (Beckinsale), who maintains a distance.

Hughes also battles a private illness. He suffers obsessive-compulsive disorder and he is terrified of germs and diseases. His illness slowly eats at him and eventually turns him to insanity, while his archrival Juan Trippe of PamAm tries to squeeze and swallow his companies: Hughes Aircraft and TWA.

DiCaprio (CATCH ME IF YOU CAN) returns to the silver screen with vigor. While his youth and public persona somehow prevent him from completely immersing himself as the larger-than-life, much-too-well-known Hughes, DiCaprio emerges as true and strong in his performance. One can argue another actor can portray Hughes better. Yet the steely blue eyes, the boyish charm, and the fierce, arrogant demeanors make DiCaprio a worthy Hughes, if only a bit slight. Despite an obvious age difference, Blanchett (THE MISSING) shares immense chemistry with DiCaprio. In her own way, she captures the essence of Ms. Hepburn beautifully and convincingly. Beckinsale (VAN HELSING) fares not as well as the luminous Gardner. Her screen time is limited and you don’t really understand what’s between her and Hughes, making the pivotal scene toward the end less convincing. In a way, her role seems like an afterthought.

The supporting cast is stupendous. Reilly (CRIMINAL), Huston (BIRTH) and Ross (DOWN WITH LOVE) are excellent as Hughes right- and left-hand men. Baldwin (ALONG CAME POLLY), as Juan Trippe, has the oily businessman down pat. Alda (WHAT WOMEN WANT) is also affecting as the corrupt Senator Brewster. Law (CLOSER) has an interesting cameo as Errol Flynn and Holm (GARDEN STATE) is amusing as the befuddled Professor Fitz.

Writer Logan has the thankless job of compressing Hughes’ fascinating life into a comprehensive three hours. I think he does a wonderful job in drawing the complexity of the characters. I can’t say how historically true his story is, but it sure is entertaining and well written. The dialogue is intense and the relationships riveting. The script shows an incredible restraint in showing Hughes’ brilliant as well as shady sides, without passing judgment. Given the complexity of Hughes’ life and the amount of information, events, and characters, Logan does a marvelous job in putting them all in perspectives. However, whether it’s the fault of the script or the editing, there seem to be many gaps between scenes. One has to, at times, strain to connect the dots.

There is no doubt that Scorsese is a master craftsman. The film has the lush look and feel of the Hollywood golden years. His pacing is excellent, and many sequences are simply breathtaking (including one hollowing crash scene). Like Logan, he has the thankless job of composing a complex life like Hughes’ in a cohesive way, even though the film runs a whopping 169 minutes. With great skills and artistic benevolence, he handles Hughes’ ingenious drives, and his slow descent toward insanity with taste and sympathy. And that’s what a good biopic is all about.

Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale, John C. Reilly, Alec Baldwin, Alan Alda, Ian Holm, Danny Huston, Matt Ross, Jude Law, Adam Scott
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: John Logan
Distributor: Warner Bros, Miramax
Rating: PG-13 for language, themes, brief nudity


RATINGS:

Script – 8
Performance – 8
Direction – 9
Cinematography – 9
Music/Sound– 8
Editing – 7
Production – 10

Total – 8.4 out of 10

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

© 2004 Ray Wong



Based on the Daniel Handler (writing as Lemony Snicket) children’s books The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Widow, A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS is a surprisingly dark and dreary family film for the holidays.

The story begins when the Baudelaire children become instant orphans after a mysterious fire destroys their stately home and wealthy, globetrotting parents. Violet (Browning) is a 14-year-old, imaginative inventor whose motto is: “There is always something.” The middle child, Klaus (Aiken), is an avid reader, and he remembers everything he learns. Infant Sunny (Hoffman) is expressive and curious, with an ability to bite and chew through materials.

Since there are no instructions left by the Baudelaires, the estate executor Mr. Poe (Spall) must send the children to their closest relative, Count Olaf (Carrey), who is an eccentric, diabolical actor. Olaf makes the children do all the chores in his derelict mansion and treats them like animals; his only reason to keep the children around is their inheritance. Soon the children find out Olaf’s plans to kill them for their money. They try to tell Mr. Poe but the oblivious fool does not take their words seriously. Thinking that Olaf is unfit as the guardian, Mr. Poe sends the children to their Uncle Monty (Connolly), who is a herpetologist living with a great assortment of snakes and vipers.

Just when Violet, Klaus and Sunny think they’ve finally found a home and a nice guardian, Olaf shows up, disguised as an Italian assistant to Monty. The children immediately recognize Olaf, but the adults continue to be ignorant. A series of unfortunate events later, Olaf escapes and the children are once again sent off to another relative – Aunt Josephine (Streep) who is afraid of everything. Other unfortunate events happen and as determined as Olaf is to inherit their fortune, the children are determined to survive and find out the mystery behind their parents’ deaths.

Carrey (BRUCE ALMIGHTY) gets top billing here. He is usually a master chameleon, whose ability to transform himself and contort his face and body is his trademark. However, I actually find his portrayal of the cartoonish villain two-dimensional and, at times, excruciating. He is fun to watch at the beginning just because the character is so strange and evil, but after the first third of the movie, his performance becomes increasing monotonic and repetitive. I blame it partially on his skin-deep character. On the other hand, Streep (THE MANCHURIAN CANIDATE) is delicious as the phobiaphobic aunt. Her colorful personality and tragic demise are amusing and troubling at the same time.

The three young actors who play the Baudelaire children do very well, especially when they’re together. Browning (DARKNESS FALLS) exudes calmness and authority as the eldest sister. Aiken (ROAD TO PERDITION) is very charming and resourceful, and his character grows the most during the film. Newcomer Hoffman is probably one of the cutest and expressive infant actors in the business. The director did a great job getting such performance out of her.

The rest of cast is adequate in relatively small roles. Spall (LAST SAMURAI) is trustworthy, although not very reliable, as Mr. Poe. Connolly (LAST SAMURAI) is wonderfully affectionate as the doomed Monty. O’Hara, Coolidge and Guzman all show up for their amusing but miniscule parts. Law (CLOSER) does a marvelous voice-over as Lemony Snicket. But an unaccredited cameo by Dustin Hoffman is a distraction.

Under director Silberling’s (MOONLIGHT MILE) skillful hand, the film is a beauty to behold. It is rich in colors and fantastic imageries. I suspect that everything is done in a studio and with computers, but the production value is high – the sets, the sceneries, the props, the costumes, the makeup, the architecture… everything is top-notch. However, Silberling could have picked up the pace in various places with tighter editing and fewer lingering, Tim Burton-esque shots.

Writer Gordon (GALAXY QUEST) combines plots and elements from three of the eleven Lemony Snicket books to create a relatively cohesive story. Surprisingly though, given the fantasy elements of the film, the over all tone is rather somber and lethargic. We can’t help but feel that something is missing. The plot also becomes increasingly frustrating as Olaf continues to fool the adults while the children can’t do anything to deflect him. We can’t help but yell, within us: “Do something already.” For example, Violet has an out of character moment during the climax, when she should be doing something instead of going through with her ordeal.

The good thing is we know we care about the children. The bad thing is it feels sadistic. The whole film has a sadistic, morose, hopeless feeling to it. It also doesn’t feel real. While the adults drop like flies, somehow we know the children will be okay, so there’s no real sense of worry when it comes to their fate. With such a great production and talented cast, it is unfortunate that the story doesn’t quite live up to the rest.


Stars: Jim Carrey, Meryl Streep, Jude Law, Emily Browning, Liam Aiken, Kara Hoffman, Timothy Spall, Billy Connolly, Catherine O’Hara, Luis Guzman, Jennifer Coolidge
Director: Brad Silberling
Writer: Robert Gordon (based on books by Daniel Handler as Lemony Snicket)
Distributor: Paramont, DreamWorks
MPAA Rating: PG for themes, scary moments and brief language


RATINGS:

Script – 5
Performance – 7
Direction – 7
Cinematography – 8
Music/Sound– 6
Editing – 7
Production – 9

Total – 6.9 out of 10

Ocean's Twelve

© 2004 Ray Wong



Danny Ocean and his gang are at it again, but this time it’s not about money or love.

Three years after the Ocean’s 11 stole $160 million from Terry Benedict (Garcia), they’re not doing all that well. Though now blissfully married to Tess (Roberts), Danny (Clooney) has “retired” into a quaint little town, itching and fretting. Rusty (Pitt) is broke, digging a huge financial hole with his failing hotel business. Linus (Damon) is still struggling with his talent company. The rest are either retired or doing something they’re not passionate about.

To their surprise, Benedict tracks them down, one by one, and threatens to either kill or send them to prison if they don’t return the money plus interest, within two weeks. The gang is $97 million short. They quickly assemble again and leave for Amsterdam, as they know they’re hot properties in North America. Tipped off by an underworld contact (Robbie Coltrane), they set out to steal a rare stock certificate from an agoraphobic recluse. But their heist is one-upped by another master thief, the legendary Night Fox. Soon Danny tracks down Night Fox, who is really a Frenchman named Francois Toulour (Cassel). It’s Toulour who tipped off Benedict. He presents Danny with a challenge: Whoever first steals a priceless jeweled egg in Rome can claim to be the best thief in the world. If the Ocean’s 11 win, Toulour will pay Benedict the money they owe, if they lose, Benedict will have them at his disposal.

Meanwhile, Europol agent Isabel Lahiri (Zeta-Jones) is hot on the trail after the Ocean’s 11. You see, she has a personal vendetta, too -- she and Rusty were once lovers, before Rusty left her and disappeared after a “job.” And Ocean’s 11 officially becomes Ocean’s 12 when Tess is pulled into the scheme after most of the group are arrested.

The cast does an adequate job recapturing the original’s camaraderie and spirit. Clooney (INTOLERABLE CRUELTY) and Pitt (TROY) play off each other very well. Damon (BORNE SUPERMACY) has a better role this time around, and offers some of the film’s more humorous moments. Roberts (CLOSER) also has a bigger role, honing her comedy skills and spoofing her own public persona in a funny plot twist. Zeta-Jones (THE TERMINAL) is sexy as the cat chasing the mice. Cassel is interesting to watch as the suave but oily Toulour.

However, the roles of the supporting cast are diminished. Gracia (TWISTED) is left with not much to do, other than huffing and puffing, acting like a Godfather wannabe. Mac, Affleck, Caan, Qin, Cheadle, Reiner, Gould et el are reduced to throwaway roles. Bruce Willis and Albert Finney do manage to show up for their excellent cameos.

Written by Nolfi (TIMELINE) and directed by Soderbergh (SOLARIS), OCEAN’S TWELVE is a slick, by-and-large entertaining con-within-a-con story. The plot is rather convoluted, but not entirely indecipherable if you pay attention. Unfortunately, due to the large and ever-expanding cast, the characters quickly cede to the background. While the original flick wasn’t character-driven anyway, we came to know this eclectic group of con artists and appreciate their personalities, dynamics and interactions together. Such is rather lacking in the sequel.

In keeping the plot moving, there are plenty of plot holes to go around. For example, it takes Benedict three years and all the resources he has, and he still can’t find the Ocean’s 11, but it takes only days for Toulour. And it only takes a few hours for Rusty to find out the identities of Night Fox and his mentor La Marque, when the Europol has been looking for them for years.

OCEAN’S TWELVE is clever with a certain joy watching the entertaining schemes unfold. What is missing, however, are the original’s spirited banter and the clockwork-like coordination within the group. While the original gave us adrenaline-pumped, climatic sequences of an actual heist, much of the dirty deeds are either off-screen or revealed in fast-cutting flashbacks in this film. The excitement is replaced by slick comedies and clever commentaries. Also missing are poignant moments such as the water fountain or the ‘Tess-realizing-what-a-weasel-her-husband-really-is’ scene. In their place is a certain lingering, ‘Hey look at how clever we are’ smugness. As it is, OCEAN’S TWELVE is all fluff. Let’s hope OCEAN’S THIRTEEN (and you can bet they’ll make it) will have more heart and soul, and be less self-congratulatory.


Stars: George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Matt Damon, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Andy Garcia, Don Cheadle, Bernie Mac, Vincent Cassel
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Writers: George Nolfi
Distributor: Warner Bros.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for brief language, adult themes


RATINGS:

Script – 6
Performance – 7
Direction – 6
Cinematography – 7
Music/Sound– 6
Editing – 7
Production – 8

Total Score – 6.7 of 10

Closer

© 2004 Ray Wong



Adapted by Patrick Marber from his own play, CLOSER is an intimate film about the lack of intimacy, a close-up character study of four strangers and their tangled relationships with one another.

Dan (Law) meets a beautiful stranger, Alice (Portman), on a London street when a car accidentally runs into her. He is a bored obituary writer and aspiring novelist. She is an ex-stripper-turned-waif from America. They are instantly attracted to each other and soon move in together.

With Alice as his muse, Dan finally gets his book written. In the process of getting his headshots done for the publisher, he meets photographer Anna (Roberts) and falls madly in love with her. Newly separated from her husband, she is intrigued by Dan’s charm and talents, but is reluctant to have a relationship with an involved man. Dan professes that he can’t leave Alice and, all the while, Alice is fully aware of what Dan’s up to. It creates a tense dynamic between the three of them.

Enter Larry (Owen), a dermatologist who has an affinity for raunchy, dirty sex. Through a sinister prank of Dan (one of the film’s most hilarious and telling moments) and a coincidence, Larry meets Anna and they fall in love. When things are going well with them, Dan shows up with Alice at the opening of Anna’s exhibition and declares his love for Anna. Meanwhile, Larry becomes intrigued with Alice. During that fateful night, everything changes for the four of them.

The four leads are very well cast. As usual, Law (ALFIE) is charming and handsome, but plays the selfish, soulless manipulator to great effect. The opening sequence is deceptive, what with Dan’s gawkish and somewhat nerdy innocence. But soon we realize Dan is not very likeable at all; but at the same time, we know why these women are crazy about him. Roberts (OCEAN’S 12) also plays against type -- no more Miss Romantic Comedy here. She is cold, manipulative, and deceptive as well. In a way, her Anna and Dan are made for each other, but we know that their lives together would only lead to destruction.

While Law and Roberts are both excellent, it is Portman (GARDEN STATE) and Owen (KING ARTHUR) who steal the movie. On one hand, Portman plays the same love-struck, naïve lass as she did in GARDEN STATE. As we go deeper to understand her character, however, we find a darker, sexually powerful side of her. Portman plays the duality of vulnerability and control exquisitely. This is by far her most adult and complex performance. Likewise, Owen’s virtuoso portrayal of Larry is three-dimensional, exuding both the sincerity and menace of a man who is sexually raw and emotionally fragile. Granted, Owen has the showiest role in the whole film (he played Dan in the original play), his performance is nonetheless fine-tuned and fascinating.

Nichols (ANGELS IN AMERICA) once again offers us a unique, thought-provoking character piece about fatally flawed human beings. His talent is evident in very frame and his skills help put together a tight production. At 98 minutes, the film’s pacing is just right. He also brings out tremendous, career-defining performances from four of Hollywood’s biggest names, without succumbing to their own public personas.

Marber’s (ASYLUM) adaptation of his own play is taut, intricate, and complex. His dialogue is beautifully written, perhaps too perfect and poetic to be spoken by real people. At times, there is an odd sense that we are witnessing a play -- something that is well-scripted, well choreographed, but not organic. Also, the non-chronological storytelling takes some getting used to. The film’s events are told in episodes, with huge gaps in between. While the connections are made flawlessly through dialogue (e.g. “I’ve been seeing Anna,” Dan said to Alice, “almost a year ago. Starting on the night of the opening.”) the effect is somewhat jarring as we try to put all the pieces together, filling in the blanks. It doesn’t help with flashbacks that are inserted unnecessarily.

There are some great moments, though. For example, the aforementioned scene with Dan and Larry. The breaking-up scene between Larry and Anna is both verbally and emotionally raw. The strip club scene with Larry and Alice is complex, twisted and erotic. Marber’s characters are severely flawed, but they’re also insanely human and flesh-and-blood. While Dan and Anna show us the destructive power of deception and cowardice, Larry and Alice offer a juxtaposition of self-actualization and resolution. While they may not be very likeable people over all, their humanity is genuine and relevant, drawing the audience closer to the core of being such creatures of lust and love.

Stars: Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Natalie Portman, Clive Owen
Director: Mike Nichols
Writer: Patrick Marber (based on his play)
Distributor: Columbia
MPAA Rating: R for frank sexuality, raw language, brief nudity, and strong adult themes


RATINGS:

Script – 7
Performance – 8
Direction – 8
Cinematography – 8
Music/Sound– 7
Editing – 8
Production – 8

Total Score – 7.8 of 10

Finding Neverland

© 2004 Ray Wong



I don’t think there is a person in this world who does not know at least one thing about Peter Pan. But how much do we know about the man behind the story, and how he came about writing such a masterpiece? FINDING NEVERLAND takes us back to a time when a celebrated playwright was both celebrated and cursed for his endless imagination.

James Mathew Barrie (Depp) is a famous playwright in Edwardian England who is having a severe writer’s block, turning out yet another dud. The careless whispers camouflaged by polite nods further put Barrie in despair.

While trying to write at Kensington Gardens, he makes friends with the Davies family. Silvia Davies (Winslet) is a new widow with four inquisitive boys: Jack (Prospero), George (Roud), Michael (Spill) and the withdrawn Peter (Highmore).

Barrie quickly becomes a playmate to the Davies boys. Clearly he and Silva also develop some kind of mutual attraction, but their relationship remains strictly platonic. It doesn’t stop gossips from spreading: What would a married man want from a young, attractive widow? Even worse, what of the prepubescent boys? Silva’s mother, Emma du Maurier (Christie) becomes immensely concerned and interferes. To complicate matters, Barrie spends almost his entire waking hours with the Davies family, ignoring his socialite wife Mary (Mitchell).

Barrie tunes them all out; instead, his vivid imagination is unlocked by his muses. He realizes that he is a boy who doesn’t want to grow up. Peter Davies becomes his blueprint for the character of Peter Pan. His imagination takes him to Neverland. To the delight of his manager Frohman (Hoffman) and fans, Peter Pan becomes a hit. But Barrie’s marriage reaches a dead end, and soon Mary leaves him for another man.

When tragedy strikes the Davies family again, Barrie becomes the surrogate father, even though he struggles to remain childlike. But to the boys who are on the verge of becoming men, Barrie must do the right thing.

Depp (PIRATES OF CARIBBEAN) is affecting as J. M. Barrie. His performance is introspective, restrained, and understated, a direct contrast to the flamboyance of his Jack Sparrow in PIRATES. While I don’t think this is his strongest performance in recent years, he surely has proven again that he is one of the best actors of our times. Winslet (ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND) plays Silva as charming, warm and beautiful; she’s a joy to watch. Christie (TROY) is solid as the cold and strict grandmother du Maurier. Hoffman (MEET THE FOCKERS) and Mitchell (MAN ON FIRE) serve very well in their minor but important supportive role as Frohman and Mary Barrie respectively.

The boys are truly delightful. Prospero (INTIMACY) is charming as the oldest son Jack. Roud (ISLAND AT WAR) and newcomer Spill are good as George and Michael. The standout is Highmore (TWO BROTHERS) as the inspiration behind Peter Pan. His portrayal of the reluctant, defiant and sensitive Peter is heartbreaking. The last scene he has with Depp guarantees to draw tears.

Knee and Magee’s script is taut, compressing the events surrounding Barrie and the Davies to create dramatic conflicts and poignancy. The writers do, however, sidestep the real-life speculation and suspicions of Barrie’s sexuality -- that he might have been a pedophile, trapped in a sexless marriage. While Barrie’s intention with the Davies boys are called into question, there is no hint or talk of any sexual perversion. In a society where a slight misstep would garner ridicule and wild speculations, the reactions from the townsfolk seem somewhat tame.

Director Forster (MONSTER BALL) has a keen eye for nuanced drama. The pacing is languid but not dull. The performances are understated but emotionally weighty. The cinematography is lush but not pretentious. The camera movements are dramatic but not overbearing. His renditions of Barrie’s Neverland and the fantasy sequences are also true to the original play’s spirit, without using overt CGI. And that’s one true Neverland we’d like to find for ourselves -- you just have to believe.

Stars: Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet, Julie Christie, Radha Mitchell, Dustin Hoffman, Freddie Highmore, Joe Prospero, Nick Roud, Luke Spill
Director: Marc Forster
Writers: Alan Knee, David Magee
Distributor: Miramax
MPAA Rating: PG for themes and brief language

RATINGS:

Script – 7
Performance – 8
Direction – 8
Cinematography – 8
Music/Sound– 8
Editing – 7
Production – 8

Total Score – 7.7 of 10

Kinsey

© 2004 Ray Wong



Much has been discussed, debated, studied, lauded and ridiculed about Alfred Kinsey’s studies on human sexuality. Bill Condon’s film, KINSEY, explores the man, his life, and how he changed the world.

Alfred Kinsey (Neeson) is an introspective yet resolute son of a hypocritical, abusive minister (Lithgow). Defying his father’s wishes, Kinsey becomes a zoologist, spending over twenty years studying and collecting gall wasps. During his tenure at Indiana University, he meets and later marries Clara “Mac” McMillen (Linney).

Kinsey’s foray into sexology comes about by accident when a married student couple consults him on their marital problems. Soon he starts a new graduate class on sexuality offered only to married couples, where he offers scientific, frank, and often embarrassing discussions. There, he meets and recruits graduate student Clyde Martin (Sarsgaard) to help him with his research. Realizing that what American couples do in their bedrooms goes far beyond the missionary position, Kinsey believes that the only truth lies in a scientific study, and the only way to carry out that study is by taking anonymous, objective, totally non-judgmental surveys across the wide spectrum of the country’s population. Together with Mac, Clyde and two other researchers – Wardell Pomeroy (O’Donnell) and Paul Gebhard (Hutton) – and backed by the school board and the Rockefeller Foundation, they embark on the groundbreaking yet controversial endeavor.

Meanwhile, the research opens Kinsey’s eyes about his own sex life. One of his most famous assertions is that human sexuality is complex, and people are rarely exclusively heterosexual or homosexual; instead, most people fall somewhere between a 0-6 scale. Admitting that he’s probably a 3, Kinsey lets himself seduced by the bisexual Clyde. He even tells Mac about it. Initially hurt and disgraced, Mac finally accepts Kinsey for who he is, and eventually carries on an open relationship with both men as well.

Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” is an overnight sensation, propelling him to celebrity status for over a decade. However, his team’s unorthodox research methods come under close scrutiny. When the follow-up “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” comes out, it creates an uncomfortable and controversial stir. As his team continues on their research on sex offenders, the lid finally blows open and they start to lose support and funding. Kinsey must now look at his life’s work and his personal relationships and decides where he wants to go from there.

As the title character, Neeson (LOVE ACTUALLY) is phenomenal. Kinsey was a complex, strange and damaged man who not necessary knew when he was hurting or offending others, including his loved ones. Neeson portrays him with utter sincerity, respect and empathy. Linney (LOVE ACTUALLY) is, as always, better than good as Mac. Her handling of the character’s internal struggles, love and support for her husband, and self-discovery is wonderfully rendered. Sarsgaard (GARDEN STATE) is equally affecting as Clyde. Normally his character would appear creepy and lecherous, but his performance brings a high level of charm and warmth that you can’t help but understand why both Kinsey and Mac, men and women, fall for him.

The supporting cast, including Platt (PIECES OF APRIL), Hutton (SECRET WINDOW), O’Donnell (VERTICAL LIMIT), is good but not exceptional. Curry (SCARY MOVIE 2) and Lithgow (SHREK), however, offer the same caricature we’ve seen many times. Lynn Redgrave shows up in a great cameo near the end of the film.

Writer-director Condon (GODS AND MONSTERS) is a gifted writer. His script provides many thought provoking moments and reflections, between uncomfortable squirms for the audience. The true strength of his script is the lack of judgment, much like Kinsey’s own research. He simply presents the facts and events, whether it is adultery or homosexuality or other “perversions,” and lets the audience draw their own conclusions. The dialogue is tight and effective. The editing pieces the bio-pic together with great clarity.

Condon’s direction is crisp; the story flows very well between current timeline and flashbacks. Often he is able to stay on a character and let the actor do their magic, gripping the audience with the raw material and emotions without any frills.

At 118 minutes, however, the film feels rushed at times. It’s simply too short and aggressive to cover such a fascinating and diverse life and work. As it is, KINSEY is a tour de force effort on the lead performance and writing fronts, but falls a little short as a bio-pic.

Stars: Liam Neeson, Laura Linney, Peter Sarsgaard, Chris O’Donnell, Timothy Hutton, John Lithgow, Tim Curry, Oliver Platt, Dylan Baker, Veronica Cartwright
Director: Bill Condon
Writer: Bill Condon
Distributor: Fox Searchlight
MPAA Rating: R for sexual content, frontal nudity, graphic descriptions


RATINGS:

Script – 8
Performance – 9
Direction – 7
Cinematography – 8
Music/Sound– 7
Editing – 7
Production – 7

Total – 7.6 out of 10

The Motorcycle Diaries

Diarios de Motocicleta

© 2004 Ray Wong



THE MOTOCYCLE DIARIES is based on Che Guevara’s journals and Alberto Granado’s memoir about their trip across the South American continent in their twenties. However, you don’t have to be familiar with Che’s life and politics to enjoy this film.

Ernesto “Che” Guevara, a 23-year-old medical student and Alberto Granado, 29 and a biochemist, are best friends. Granado decides to take a job in Venezuela, and he convinces Guevara to join him on a trip on his beat-up motorcycle before his 30th birthday, trekking across South America from Buenos Aires to Venezuela through the mountainous terrains of Chile and Peru.

As they leave the comfort of their relatively wealthy city life behind, they come across landscapes and cultures that open their eyes and their hearts. The two friends are as different in personality as they are in their world-views: Guevara is a serious, honest-to-a-fault liberal thinker-poet, while Granado is a materialistic, happy-go-lucky kind of guy who would do anything for a lay.

Eventually they see how unfair the world is, and how one person can affect changes, no matter how small these changes are. They start the journey as two boys, and they end it as two men.

“There are no heroic stories,” the narration states. “Just two lives running parallel for a while.”

Bernal (Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN) and Rodrigo De la Serna (TEMPOFINAL) have great chemistry together. You can see and feel that their friendship with each other is real, at least on screen. They bicker, they fight, they make up, and they take care of each other. Bernal is great in portraying the young Guevara. His transformation from a naïve lad to a serious thinker is subtle yet sublime. He lights up the screen whenever he is on (and from a dependent source, the Mexican actor speaks with a perfect Argentinean accent). De la Serna holds his own against Bernal, effusing wonderful charisma and a great sense of humor as Granado. Through each other, their characters also develop slowly and effectively.

The rest of the cast is good, giving strong support for the two leads.

Director Salles (BEHIND THE SUN) has created a film filled with grand vistas and subtle moments. His film is introspective and resolute. At times the political views and philosophies are somewhat heavy-handed, but fortunately those moments don’t dominate the film. Eric Gautier’s cinematography of Latin America is breathtaking, making us want to take a trip across the continent as well. The soundtrack, heavy on Latin music, is wonderful.

While the film touches on Che’s political views, philosophies and his change, it is ultimately a buddy movie – a significant testament to a great, lifelong friendship. Rivera’s screenplay is subtle, full of nuance, and understated. There’s no complex plot or grand climaxes, but the emotional impact is genuine. As we get to know these two men and their relationship, the cumulative effect is evident by the end of the film, when they say goodbye to each other. We can’t help but feel the genuine admiration, respect and love they feel for each other. And that makes for a very satisfying experience.

Stars: Gael Garcia Bernal, Rodrigo De la Serna, Mia Maestro, Mercedes Moran
Director: Walter Salles
Writers: Jose Rivera (based on Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s book)
Distributor: Focus
MPAA Rating: R for language

RATINGS:

Script – 7
Performance – 8
Direction – 8
Cinematography – 8
Sound/Score – 8
Editing – 7
Production – 8
Total – 7.7 of 10

Ray

© 2004 Ray Wong



The Hollywood rumor mill is abuzz with an early Oscar nod for Jamie Foxx for his portrayal of the legendary Ray Charles in RAY, a biopic centered on Charles’ early years. Truth be told, the film rests heavily on Foxx’s shoulders, and the praises he’s received are well deserved.

Foxx (COLLATERAL) plays Ray Charles Robinson, a poor southern African-American who became blind when he was a young lad. The loss of his eyesight helps sharpen his sense of touch and hearing. His musical talent also shines through at an early age.

At 18, he set out to Seattle in pursuit of a career as a musician. Naïve, broke, and lacking confidence, Ray is taken in by some shady people before his talent is discovered by Atlantic Records producers Ahmet Ertesun (Armstrong) and Jerry Wexler (Shiff), who launch Ray’s career and help him find his voice.

With success, Ray also succumbs to the temptations that come with it. Adored by his female fans, Ray finds his way through a long string of affairs on the road. He also finds heroin, which gives him inspiration as well as lets him escape from his personal demons. Feeling alone and the need to overcompensate as a blind man, Ray yearns for love and understanding, and he finally finds it in a pastor’s daughter, Della Bea (Washington). Their courtship is short by sweet, and soon they’re married.

Yet Ray doesn’t find solace in a simple home life. He’s destined for bigger and better things, and his ambition takes him on the road most of the time. While the heroin gives Ray bursts of musical genius that propels him to superstardom, it also renders him emotionally crippled. Though he confesses that Della Bea is the only woman he ever loves (except his mama), it doesn’t stop him from taking up mistresses: his ambitious backup singers Mary Ann Fisher (Ellis) and Margie Henricks (King), who becomes pregnant with Ray’s child. His success eventually breaks up his friendship with loyal friends and partners Jeff (Powell) and Fathead Newman (Woodbine).

Foxx is phenomenal. He’s in almost every scene (except the flashbacks), and his intensity stays constant throughout the whole film. You forget that you’re watching an actor who plays a legend. Foxx is Ray Charles -- not only has he gotten Charles’ mannerisms and voice, he also captures his spirit and soul. It is truly an amazing and inspiring treat to see an actor so utterly absorbed in a role that his own personality disappears. On screen, we’re left with Ray Charles, not Jamie Foxx.

The supporting cast is superior. Washington (AGAINST THE ROPES) plays Della Bea with conviction, kindness, and a genuine love that you’re left with no doubt why her character stays with Charles through thick and thin, even as he cheats and lies to her. King (DADDY DAY CARE) and Ellis (MEN OF HONOR) are wonderful to watch as the women who fall for Charles’ talent and fame. Shiff (THE WEST WING) and Armstrong (DODGEBALL) are equally effective as Wexler and Ertesun. Rounding out the great cast are Powell (FRIDAY AFTER NEXT) as Charles’ personal assistant Jeff and Woodbine (THE BREED) as Fathead Newman. Newcomers C.J. Sanders and Sharon Warren are phenomenal (both Oscar worthy) as the young Ray and Aretha Robinson respectively.

The script does a good job chronicling Ray Charles’ early life and road to fame and heartaches. Writer-director Hackford has created a solid, if straightforward, style of telling the captivating story of the larger-than-life legend. Approved by Charles before his death, the film shows both the good and bad, without making any judgment. We realize that behind the genius and charisma, there hides a man tormented by a childhood tragedy, lost, trying desperately to find his way.

Some of the most intensely emotional moments occur in flashbacks. The scenes between the young Ray and his mother Aretha are gut-wrenching, full of punches and powerful with heart.

Ultimately, this is a definitive star-making vehicle for Foxx, who, until now, has only made a name for himself as a comedian. His dramatic turn in COLLATERAL has put him on the map, but it is RAY that declares for him: I have arrived.

Stars: Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Regina King, Clifton Powell, Harry J. Lemix, Bokeen Woodbine, Richard Shiff, Curtis Armstrong, Aunjanue Ellis, Sharon Warren, C. J. Sanders
Director: Taylor Hackford
Writers: Taylor Hackford, James White
Distributor: Universal
Rating: PG-13 for drug abuse, alcohol, sexuality, mature themes


RATINGS:

Script – 8
Performance – 10
Direction – 8
Cinematography – 8
Music/Sound– 9
Editing – 8
Production – 10

Total – 8.7 out of 10

Birth

© 2004 Ray Wong




At first glance, BIRTH might appear to be another supernatural film about reincarnation. In reality, it’s a quiet, philosophical piece that examines our psyches, relationships, and social taboos.

After grieving for her husband for ten years, Anna (Kidman) finally decides to accept the insistent proposal from her boyfriend Joseph (Huston). Her late husband’s best friend Clifford (Stormare) and wife Clare (Heche) are unhappy about the engagement, but they keep it to themselves.

At the private birthday party at Anna’s mother Eleanor’s (Bacall) posh Upper East Side apartment, a ten-year-old boy (Bright) shows up unannounced. Later, he declares to Anna that he is her late husband, Sean, and urges her not to marry Joseph. At first Anna brushes it aside as a ridiculous prank, and asks Sean to leave her alone. Soon Sean grows more persistent, and seems to know so much about the relationship between Anna and her husband that she starts to waver. What if her husband actually comes back as a boy? What if?

Anna’s family is skeptical, of course, but they can’t explain how Sean knows so much. Is it a spell? A curse? Or is it possible that the little boy really is Sean? As Anna falls under the spell herself, Joseph becomes insanely jealous. Then everything takes a strange turn when Clare shows up, questioning Sean’s true identity.

Kidman (COLD MOUNTAIN) is exquisite as the tormented Anna. Her pixie hair, beautiful and expressive face, and slender figure remind us of Mia Farrow in ROSEMARY’S BABY (so does the film itself). She is mesmerizing in every scene, and her complex performance gives the film the emotional weight and anchor it needs. Huston (21 GRAMS) also is fantastic as Joseph. His performance is both sympathetic and complex, possibly the most multi-dimensional character in the film. As the young Sean, Bright (BUTTERFLY EFFECT) exudes great poise and a creepily adult quality. A young actor to watch.

On the contrary, screen legend Bacall (DOGVILLE) is rather wasted here as the wealthy mother. Her character is too cold and distant to have any kind of emotional resonance with her daughter or the audience (perhaps that’s the whole point, but I’m not buying it). The rest of the cast is adequate, if not underused and underdeveloped. Heche (JOHN Q) brings in a solid performance in the pivotal but small role as Clare.

BIRTH moves with such slow pace that at times you think the film stops rolling. Writer-director Glazer (SEXY BEAST), with the help of the gorgeous, lingering cinematography by Harris Savides (ELEPHANT), creates a moody, languid character study that is both thought-provoking and confusing at times. There is one particularly spellbinding scene at a symphony concert – as the strings swell and timpani thumps, the camera zooms in and stays on Kidman’s face for a long time; and you get to wonder: What is she thinking? I think it’s one of the most memorable cinematic moments.

The score by Alexendre Desplat (GIRL WITH PEARL EARING) is captivating and serves the film exquisitely.

Unfortunately, the writing is not as strong as the production. While consistent in tone and treatment, the plot lacks movement sometimes. The characters (except Anna, Joseph and Sean) are largely underdeveloped. The plot twist seems forced and contrived, not at all convincing. There are some plot holes that baffle the mind (For example, how does Sean know where “he” died? Or why doesn’t Anna’s family ask Sean the details about his work as a physicist?) The biggest problem I have with the script is that it is simply too introspective, even for a character-driven drama. Sometimes the characters don’t even talk to each other. It may have worked as a novel, but in the film medium, it is too internal. The audience is left to their own devices, a lot of times, to figure out what the characters are thinking or feeling, without the help of external events.

Despite its flaws, BIRTH remains enjoyable as it explores the psychological and philosophical aspects of love. What if your loved one comes back to life as a child? Can you fall in love again? With a child? Something to think about.

Stars: Nicole Kidman, Lauren Bacall, Danny Huston, Allison Eliot, Arliss Howard, Anne Heche, Peter Stormare, Cameron Bright
Director: Jonathan Glazer
Writers: Milo Addica, Jean-Claude Carriere, Jonathan Glazer
Distributor: New Line
MPAA Rating: R for sexuality and nudity

RATINGS:

Script – 5
Performance – 9
Direction – 7
Cinematography – 8
Music/Sound– 8
Editing – 7
Production – 8

Total – 6.9 out of 10

The Grudge

© 2004 Ray Wong



It is interesting to note that screenwriter-director Shimizu would remake his 2003 Japanese horror hit JU-ON: THE GRUDGE only a year later. Perhaps after the incredible success of THE RING, Shimizu understands it’s a good time to enter the American market with an attractive American cast against a Japanese backdrop.

In this updated story, Karen Davis (Gella) is an exchange student from the US studying social work in Tokyo, Japan. Her boyfriend, Doug (Behr), is a fellow architecture student. Karen volunteers at the care center to earn extra credits. When a care worker fails to show up for work, Karen takes her place to take care of an elderly woman, Emma (Zabriskie) who’s suffering from dementia.

Strange things happen in the house, and Karen finds a small boy named Toshio locked inside a cupboard, taped shut. Before long, she sees something horrific that shocks and kills Emma. The story then flashes back to tell us what happens to Emma’s family, including her son Matthew (Mapother), daughter-in-law Jennifer (DuVall) and younger daughter (Strickland). Then there’s the professor Peter who killed himself three years before (during the opening credit). Or the police officers who died shortly after investigating the murder that happened in that house, one day before Peter killed himself.

As detective Nakagawa (Ishibashi) tells Karen, there’s a legend in Japan that when someone dies in extreme horror or anger, the place of his death would be shrouded by a curse – or grudge – and the curse would extend to and follow everyone who enters.

In seeking the truth, Karen puts herself and Doug in grave danger.

Gella (SCOOBY-DOO) plays Karen with great innocence and sweetness, but also an uncharacteristically somber and subdued quality. Her character lacks the spunk and resourcefulness that have become her trademark. Behr (THE SHIPPING NEWS) has a very minor role here, basically playing the same part as the ex-husband in THE RING (with the same ultimate fate). Mapother (IN THE BEDROOM), DuVall (21 GRAMS), Strickland (ANACONDAS) and Zabriskie (CHRYSTAL) all give solid performances in their minor roles as part of a doomed family who moves into the haunted house. The likeable Pullman (INDEPENDENCE DAY) is somewhat wasted in his somber role as Peter. The character is essential for the plot, but his performance is not necessarily so. Japanese actor Ozeki (JU-ON) reprises his role as the boy with remarkable creepiness. And Ishibashi (MOON CHILD) offers gravity to an otherwise simple story.

By simple I don’t mean to say the film is laughable. On the contrary, it serves up some genuinely tense and horrific moments. However, writer-director Shimizu relies too heavily on a non-linear storytelling structure to unfold his mysteries and horror, and I find that method less effective than I’d hoped. The lack of focus makes it hard for us to root for one particular person. Surely we think Karen is the protagonist here, but in many ways, she is not. The Japanese boy and his mother are, and even as we learn of their history, it still takes a leap of faith to root for someone who is “evil” so to speak. However, the director’s transitions from present time and flashbacks are to be commended. Very well done, not at all confusing to the audience.

Shimizu also relies on a lot of standard Hollywood “tricks.” The lingering, long tracking shots; the strange angle shots, the quick “ghost walking past” shots, the sudden “cat jumping out” shots. They are effective up to a point, but after a while, you get desensitized. You know what to expect and the effect is ultimately diminished.

Yet unlike a standard Hollywood scare-fest, the story retains a certain Japanese quality: there is no definitive hero. The tragic story arc and the lack of happy ending or resolve is rather Asian. That’s somewhat refreshing to the American audience, I believe, and I really can’t hold a grudge against that.


Stars: Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jason Behr, Bill Pullman, William Mapother, Clea DuVall, KaDee Strickland, Grace Zabriskie, Yuya Ozeki, Ryo Ishibashi
Director: Takashi Shimizu
Writers: Takashi Shimizu, Stephen Susco
Distributor: SONY
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for horror, violence, some sensuality

RATINGS:

Script – 6
Performance – 7
Direction – 6
Cinematography – 7
Music/Sound– 7
Editing – 7
Production – 7

Total Score – 6.7 out of 10

Shall We Dance?

© 2004 Ray Wong



First of all, let me say that I adore the original 1997 Japanese film, which worked on so many levels and fit the Japanese culture like a glove. It was a wonderful surprise. Translating that to the American culture is less than smooth and perfect, however. One might argue: Why remake a movie that is already so good?

For the sake of this review, I’m going to try to forget the original and speak of this remake on its own merits and detriments.

John Clark is a successful Chicago estate lawyer, happily married with two wonderful kids and a supportive wife. Everything seems perfect, except that he’s missing something. A spark? A purpose in life? What does he want? As quick as we can say “mid-life crisis,” something catches John’s eyes. On his subway trip home every evening, he passes the Miss Mitzi’s dance studio and a sullen figure at the window intrigues him. One day, his curiosity gets the best of him and he gets off that station and takes up a ballroom dancing class at the studio.

The sullen figure at the window turns out to be Miss Mitzi’s assistant Paulina, an ice princess who used to be a ballroom dancing connoisseur. John meets a grab bag of eclectic personalities, including Link, a closet ballroom dancer who works at John’s firm. Link explains, “When you’re a heterosexual man who loves to dance in sequins, you walk a very lonely road.”

Originally smitten by Paulina, John soon finds that his passion for ballroom dancing is real. The thought of that at once excites and scares him, and he tries to keep it a secret from his family. His wife, Beverly, suspects that he’s having an affair, and hires a private detective to spy on him. When she finds out that he’s taking dance lessons, she’s perplexed by his secrecy, and she feels left out.

The rest of the story takes us through a series of self-discoveries and deepening friendships between these characters.

Gere (CHICAGO) is warm, charming and sincere as John. His shyness and self-deprecating humor is affecting. With CHICAGO, UNFAITHFUL and now SHALL WE DANCE, Gere has reestablished himself as a true actor. He lights up the screen every time he’s on. Lopez (GIGLI), unfortunately, is miscast here. She comes off as sullen and constipated instead of just icy and distant. The chemistry between Gere and Lopez is also quite abysmal. Fortunately, this is really not a “romantic comedy” involving Gere and Lopez. It’s a also a good thing that she gets to show off her dance pedigree, while Gere surprises with his suave dance moves.

Saradon (ALFIE) is wonderful as John’s wife. She and Gere have tremendous chemistry together, making the ending even more satisfying. Tucci (THE TERMINAL) is a real chameleon, giving one of his most flamboyant performances here as Link. The rest of the cast is very good, including Cannavale (STATION AGENT) as the stud muffin Chic, Miller (8 MILES) as the ultra-shy Vern, Walker (BRUCE ALMIGHTY) as the loud-mouthed wannabe Bobbie, and Gillette (THE GURU) as the regal Miss Mitzi. They work very well together.

The script follows the original Japanese version closely, only making adjustment to reference the American society and culture. It is a quiet, heart-warming, and charming little story. In fact, that’s exactly what made the original such an international darling (I know, I promised not to talk about the original).

In the American version, however, the original idea of an oppressed man and the stigma associated with ballroom dancing is gone. I’m not sure if the new characterization of the protagonist serves the story well, because you never really quite understand why he is unhappy and why he commits to the dancing (despite the initial attraction to Paulina) and why he keeps it a secret. That aside, the story remains engaging and charming, so I give a thumbs up to Wells (UNDER THE TUSCAN SUN). Chelsom’s (SERENDIPITY) direction is decent; though there are places he could have slowed down and let the story linger and the characters come to life. The ending seems rushed. The film could have been 20 minutes longer.

There’s no reason why they should make this American version. But I’m glad they did. It still dances.


Stars: Richard Gere, Jennifer Lopez, Susan Saradon, Stanley Tucci, Bobby Cannavale, Richard Jenkins, Omar Miller, Anita Gillette, Lisa Ann Walker
Director: Peter Chelsom
Writer: Masayuki Suo (original 1997 script), Audrey Wells
Distributor: Miramax
Rating: PG-13 for sexual references and some language


RATINGS

Script – 7
Performance – 7
Direction – 7
Cinematography – 8
Music/Sound– 7
Editing – 6
Production – 7

Total – 7 out of 10

Friday Night Lights

© 2004 Ray Wong



It’s difficult for a sports flick to transcend the Hollywood cliché of heroes and glory. FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS, a film about a West Texas high school football team, somehow manages to diverge from that cliché and deliver something more gritty and real.

The story follows football coach Gary Gaines (Thornton) as he takes his team, the Odessa-Permian Panthers, to the 1988 Texas state championship. Odessa, TX is a blue-collar town with an insatiable appetite for football and an unforgiving attitude toward losing. While real life might be bleak in this town, when the lights come on every Friday night, dreams become possible at the Permian High stadium.

Gaines is a no-nonsense, don’t-take-no-crap kind of a coach, but he has heart, and he treats his players with respect. Among these players are quarterback Mike Winchell (Black), running backs Don Billingsley (Hedlund) and Brian Chavez (Hernandez), and the superstar Boobie Miles (Luke). Winchell is a serious, taciturn loner whose sole responsibility of taking care of his mother has taken a toll on his outlooks in life. He can’t see the joy in playing football; instead, he sees it (and a scholarship) as his only ticket to escape the town and his misery. Billingsley tries too hard to impress his alcoholic father (McGraw), an ex-State champion who sees his own life dwindling away. Miles is hot-tempered and cocky, thinking that he’s God’s gift to the football world and that one day he’s going to make it big.

When Miles gets his knee busted, his hopes for superstardom vanishes together with Odessa’s hopes for an undefeated season and state championship. As the team begins to lose, Billingsley’s father becomes more and more violent. Winchell’s despair also deepens as his mother becomes sicker and his hopes of getting out diminish. But Gaines sees their potentials, and what they can accomplish if only they could see the perfection in themselves. “Being perfect is not about winning,” he says to the boys. “Being perfect is about giving your all, being able to look your family and loved ones in the eye and tell them there’s absolutely nothing more you could have done.”

Berg’s (WONDERLAND) direction is tense and personal. The hand-held camera shots do take some time getting used to, but they add to the film by giving it that gritty documentary feel. So does the washed-out look, which I think is beautiful and fitting for the film. The action on the field is rather standard, offering the usual excitement with close-ups, slow motion, and fast cutting. The rapid editing and short scenes, however, do add to the drama. I particularly like the editing – I really think it makes the film more intensely personal. The soundtrack is also very affecting.

There is no grand, complex plot, but each short scene reveals more of the characters in a nuanced way that makes for very compelling storytelling. You don’t get to come too close to the characters, but you care about them nonetheless. And they tug at the heartstring without being obnoxious about it. Little by little you get to know these characters and their situations, and you can’t help but feel attached to them. They feel real.

Thornton is low-key and very effective as Gaines. Every glance or twitch of the mouth reveals something personal and introspective about the character. There’s no overt acting here – you can tell that he’s totally immersed in this role. All of the largely unknown cast give admirable performances: Black (COLD MOUNTAIN) is strong but conflicted as Winchell. Luke (ANTWONE FISHER) is marvelous and heartbreaking as the loud-mouthed Miles. Hedlund (TROY) is not bad as the father’s boy, but he seems to be the weakest link in the cast. Country superstar McGraw is surprisingly good as Billingsley’s abusing father. His one soul-baring scene is heart wrenching to watch.

There’s nothing earth shattering in Cohen and Berg’s script (adapted from Bissinger’s best-selling non-fiction book). We have all the usual ingredients for a sports movie: underdogs with personal problems, abusive fathers, a tough-love coach, and impossible odds. What sets this film apart from, say, MIRACLE (with Kurt Russell), is that the story focuses more on the characters and their relationships with each other than the actual plays and wins. The ending is almost anti-sports movies – clearly it’s not about the destination, but the journey. There might not be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but there is that rainbow, dammit. And that message is powerful.

Stars: Billy Bob Thornton, Tim McGraw, Lucas Black, Garrett Hedlund, Derek Luke, Jay Hernadez
Director: Peter Berg
Writers: David Aaron Cohen, Peter Berg (based on book by H.G. Bissinger)
Distributor: Universal
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, language, alcohol, sexual content


RATINGS:

Script – 7
Performance – 8
Direction – 8
Cinematography – 7
Music/Sound– 8
Editing – 9
Production – 8

Total Score – 7.9 out of 10

Shark Tale

© 2004 Ray Wong



It’s inevitable that Dreamwork’s SHARK TALE would be compared to last year’s FINDING NEMO by their archrival Pixar. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), the only resemblance between the two films is that they’re both animated features with fish in them.

Oscar (Smith) is a smalltime fish that dreams of fame and fortune. He’s stuck in a lowly janitorial job at a Whale Wash; he’s unhappy even though he has many friends, including the lovely Angie (Zellweger). She has a secret crush on Oscar but he is blind to her feelings.

When Oscar’s puffer fish boss Sykes (Scorsese) demands him to pay back his overextension, Angie helps him out with her grandmother’s pearl. However, Oscar uses the money to bet on a (sea)horse race and loses it all. Sykes, whose boss is the Godfather shark Don Lino (De Niro), asks his minions to eliminate Oscar.

Meanwhile, Don Lino’s son Lenny (Black) is a soft-hearted vegetarian, thus a disgrace to his family. While out trying to prove his worthiness, Lenny interrupts Oscar’s “termination.” Unfortunately, Lenny’s brother Frankie (Michael Imperioli) gets killed in an accident. The disgrace and guilt prompt Lenny to leave his mobster family.

Oscar lies to the townsfolk that he’s killed Frankie, and he helps Lenny by pretending to have slain him in a public display. Soon Oscar is lauded as the shark slayer, and fame and fortune follow. Angie finds out the truth and urges Oscar to come clean. Instead, Oscar sinks deeper into the trap of his lies. In the process, Oscar loses himself, and he loses Angie. When Din Lino threatens to kill him to avenge his sons’ deaths, Oscar must tell the truth.

Again, it’s hard not to compare this to FINDING NEMO or Dreamwork’s own SHREK. The CGI animation is good, but not quite up to snuff, surprisingly having a hand-drawn feel to it. The characters are fluid and the colors vibrant. However, some scenes are too fuzzy and the general feel is that it’s too busy and frantic. The fishy characters look remarkably like the actors who voice them – it’s a little disconcerting, for example, to see Martin Scorsese’s head on a puffer fish. Some characters verge on being offensive stereotypes (e.g. Sykes’ two jellyfish minions).

Smith is good as Oscar’s voice, and his likeable mannerism shows through the character as well. I do sense a little self-indulgence in the performance, but his spirited reading serves the character well. Scorsese and De Niro play themselves to great effect, spoofing their own public personas. Zellweger is a knockout as the kind but spunky Angie. Her expressive voice gives the character extra dimensions. Black is really funny as Lenny. Jolie is interesting, if not a little predictable, as the gold-digging goldfish Lola.

In a way, SHARK TALE really is not a tale about fish. It’s basically a spoof of gangster and “hood” stories with characters played by fish. It’s an interesting take. The script has its moments of hilarity. The film is filled brim-to-brim with pop culture references, and the soundtrack is Rap and Hip Hop heavy. I’m surprised by how adult some of the materials are: race track gambling, mob killing, fame, money, lust, etc. Some dialogue is borderline saucy. There’s an undeniable gay undertone in Lenny’s character and subplot. In comparison, FINDING NEMO has a much purer storytelling. It’s not to say SHARK TALE is not suitable for children, but I think a lot of the jokes and messages would be lost on the young ones.

That said, the main plot of the story is rather old-fashioned and lacking in imagination: It’s about being “true to yourself and knowing who you are.” However, the film’s too busy, with too many characters and too many one-liners. It takes me a while to get used to the idea of fish having “hood” talks, singing and dancing Hip Hop and RAP, living in city dwellings with stereos and TVs, and dressing like gangsters or thuds. I’m particularly offended by the nonchalant attitude toward graffiti vandalism, as if it’s a cool thing for kids to do. At times I feel that the setting is ill-suited for the story. It simply feels odd. In comparison, the pop culture references in SHREK work much smoothly with better believability. I think it’d have been a better tale had they used human characters, or stuck to underwater realism.

Stars: Will Smith, Robert De Niro, Renée Zellweger, Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Martin Scorsese
Directors: Bibo Bergeron, Vicky Jenson, Rob Letterman
Writers: Rob Letterman, Damian Shannon, Mark Swift, Michael J. Wilson
Distributor: Dreamweork
MPAA Rating: PG for mild language and crude humor


RATINGS:

Script – 6
Performance – 7
Direction – 6
Animation – 8
Music/Sound– 6
Editing – 7
Production – 8

Total Score – 6.8 out of 10

The Forgotten

© 2004 Ray Wong



I went to see THE FORGOTTEN with trepidation, wary that it might be another movie of style over substance. Unfortunately, I was right.

Telly Paretta is a grieving mother who is still mourning for the loss of her only son, Sam, in a plane crash 14 months ago. She is seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Jack Munce, to help her let go. Her loving husband Jim tries very hard to accommodate Telly’s increasing psychosis. When personal effects such as photo albums and videos and evidence such as news articles start to disappear, and those around her deny that Sam ever existed, Telly is on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

The only person Telly could consult with is Ash Correll, an ex-hockey player whose daughter, Lauren, perished with Sam in the plane crash. At first, Ash, too, thinks Telly is a nut job. Then Ash remembers. Together they realize someone, or something, has tried to erase their memories of their children. And they believe that Sam and Lauren are still alive. As Federal agents come after them, Telly and Ash discover the conspiracy behind everything. Driven by the love for their children, they would do anything to get them back.

THE FORGOTTEN starts out strongly enough, offering an emotional core to a mystery that is slowly revealed, and the initial twists are riveting. The theme and premise are very strong. However, the story by Di Pego (ANGEL EYES) quickly descends into absurdity and cheap thrills. It becomes increasingly irritating and frustrating when minor, two-dimensional characters pop in and out of the story with no real purpose; when subplots go nowhere; and when the main plot contains so many plot holes that one has to ask why didn’t anyone ask any logical questions when making this film? The paranormal aspect of the story has so much potential. What materializes, though, is an illogical, mangled piece that is neither a psychological thriller nor an X-Files knockoff.

Director Ruben (RETURN TO PARADISE) further clutters the film by over-styling it. Dream sequences that supposedly reveal more of the mystery simply feel repetitious and gratuitous. The editing is choppy at places. The ending is sanctimonious, sappy and illogical. I am still having a hard time understanding it. For example, why would those behind the whole conspiracy, whom the Feds consider evil and dangerous, allow such a resolution? It defies logic. The only explanation we can offer is: you can’t explain it.

Moore (THE HOURS) plays the grieving mother with conviction and intensity. Some of the scenes are really heart wrenching, as we could all empathize with the pain of losing someone all over again, not able to hold on to their memories. She is by and far the best thing in the film. Her strong performance holds the film together, despite its poor story development and execution. However, West (MONA LISA SMILE) is wooden, offering us only a handful of expressions for anger, grief, and confusion. His performance is two-dimension and not very convincing at all.

The combined talent of Sinise (HUMAN STAIN) and Woodard (THE CORE) is wasted in two minor roles that never add to the story. Edwards (THUNDERBIRDS) plays a rather throwaway character, but his soft performance does support Moore in some of the more genuine, emotional scenes. Tergesen (OZ) has a breakout role as agent Patelis, a brief but pivotal character that offers some insight into the mystery and terror.

THE FORGOTTEN has such a strong start and great premise that it is a shame the writer and filmmakers, despite having a great cast, have forgotten these ingredients alone do not a good story make. Therefore, soon, this film will be forgotten as well.


Stars: Julianne Moore, Dominic West, Gary Sinise, Anthony Edwards, Alfre Woodard, Lee Tergesen
Director: Joseph Ruben
Writer: Gerald Di Pego
Distributor: Columbia
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, language, theme


RATINGS:

Script – 4
Performance – 7
Direction – 6
Cinematography – 7
Music/Sound– 6
Editing – 6
Production – 7

Total – 6.1 out of 10

Criminal

© 2004 Ray Wong



CRIMINAL is a slick Indie film about con artists, in the vein of OCEAN 11 but in a smaller scale. The result is a taut, character-driven ride with, alas, a frizzled ending.

Rodrigo is a down-and-out con man that is not very good at what he does. He has potential, however, and he catches the eyes of master crook Richard Gaddis. After his ex-partner failed him, Gaddis is in need of a partner who has the smarts and guts to carry out a con, but the innocence to not stab him in the back. And Rodrigo seems perfect.

As Gaddis teaches Rodrigo the fine art of smalltime cons, he comes upon an opportunity of a lifetime when his ex-partner Ochoa shows up at the Biltmore Hotel, where Gaddis’ sister Valerie works. Gaddis learns that Ochoa has successfully counterfeited a rare treasury bond and a potential buyer is staying at the Biltmore for only one night. Soon everybody wants in on the scam and the stakes gets higher and higher as Gaddis and Rodrigo try to close the deal.

One of the strengths of this film is the cast of seasoned, talented performers. Reilly (CHICAGO), in one of his few headline roles, is both despicable and fascinating to watch. His portrayal of Gaddis is three-dimensional and he makes us sympathize with the character even though we shouldn’t (and that may be a fatal flaw to the film, too – I will tell you why later). Luna (THE TERMINAL) is affecting and perfect as Rodrigo. He and Reilly have great chemistry together and you really believe in their relationship. Gyllenhaal (MONA LISA SMILE) looks mature and sophisticated, but she’s simply too young to be Reilly’s sister. Her performance is, however, excellent. Tucker (THE DEEP END) plays Gaddis’ younger brother – the problem is, there is at least 20 years age difference between Tucker and Reilly, making the supposedly deep bond between them unbelievable. Mullan and Kazann round out the cast nicely as businessman Hannigan and Ochoa respectively.

Writer-director Jacobs (OCEAN 11) has written a smart script with real, sharp dialogue and interesting characters. However, I think he gets somewhat carried away in being too smart. The plot unfolds almost too perfectly at times. In hindsight we see that it is deliberate, but it still feels manipulative. Too smart for it’s own good. The direction is smooth and taut, and pacing is just about right. I especially like the fact that the characters are revealed slowly, giving us a glimpse here and there, as the plot unfolds. It gives us a sense of intimacy, even when we don’t particularly like these characters.

As I said above, I think the weakest aspect of the film is the “trick” ending. It’s a clever ending but it’s too clever for its own good. Emotionally, it alienates the audience and makes us feel cheated, as we’ve invested in these characters. To realize that we’ve been “duped,” so to speak, leaves a really unsatisfying taste in our mouths. And I don’t think it’s the reaction the filmmakers want. To top it off, we’re supposed to despise Gaddis so much that it makes the ending satisfying. But Reilly is so good in the role that we actually feel sympathy for him, despite his obvious flaws and sometimes-nasty personality. If there’s a crime for being too good an actor for the material, Reilly is the true criminal here.


Stars: John C. Reilly, Diego Luna, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jonathan Tucker, Peter Mullan, Zitto Kazann
Director: Gregory Jacobs
Writer: Gregory Jacobs
Distributor: Warner Bros.
MPAA Rating: R for language and theme


RATINGS:

Script – 7
Performance – 8
Direction – 7
Cinematography – 6
Music/Sound– 6
Editing – 6
Production – 6

Total Score – 6.6 out of 10

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

© 2004 Ray Wong



With its art deco, noir style and straightforward storytelling, SKY CAPTAIN is a throwback of the comics in the 30s and 40s: Superman, the Rocketeer, etc. What sets this apart is the injection of state-of-the-art special effects and a painting-like world that is unlike anything we have seen before.

The story begins when a scientist mysteriously disappears onboard the Hindenburg. Reporter Polly Perkins, while investigating the story, discovers that a Dr. Tokenkopf might be behind the kidnapping of some of the world’s finest scientists.

Just then, giant flying robots appear from nowhere and terrorize Gotham City. Paired with Joseph “Sky Captain” Sullivan, they track down Dr. Tokenkopf’s secret island and must stop him from decimating the world.

That’s it. It’s a very simple premise, worthy of any sci-fi adventure. Almost every ingredient is in the mix: a spunky heroine, a dashing hero, an evil nemesis, a mysterious henchman, plausible science and a grand dose of fantasy and action. Writer-director Conran calls it “a film made by the nerds and for the nerds.” Fortunately, it’s also a film that everyone can enjoy.

Conran is our new Peter Jackson here. According to the story behind the making of SKY CAPTAIN, Conran spent four years of his life on a Mac coming up with six minutes of test footage. Without a Hollywood connection and armed with only six minutes of film and a grand vision, he managed to impress everyone along the way, including Law who signed on to be both the star and producer, and secure a $70 million budget – unheard of for a first-time director.

Law (COLD MOUNTAIN) is perfect in the title role. He’s dashing, he is self-deprecating, and he’s courageous. Paltrow (Sylvia) also does a great job bringing to life her Lois Lane-like character. The love-hate relationship between her and Law is funny and real, and they share some of the best banters. Reunited after their tour de force collaboration in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, Law and Paltrow continue to have great chemistry together. Ribisi (COLD MOUNTAIN) and Djalili (TV’s WHOOPI) are solid in their minion roles. Ling Bai (ANNA AND THE KING) doesn’t have much to do, hiding under a hood and acting cold and mean. There’s an interesting cameo by the late Sir Lawrence Olivier, composed by a series of archived footage. Despite stellar performances from Law and Paltrow, Jolie (TAKING LIVES) steals the film from them. Her characterization of the smart and loyal Captain Franky Cook is beautiful and crowd-pleasing, probably one of the best characters in an action-adventure film.

A combination of Superman, Indiana Jones and Buck Rogers, SKY CAPTAIN puts us back in a world where the good is good and the bad is mad. There’s a simple pleasure of watching a story unfold so purely, an almost child-like fascination. From the Indiana Jones-like musical score and the comic book look, we know we’re in for a treat. The script is smart, nothing too outrageous or strange (although I do find the “miniature elephant” oddly out of place).

However, the bad guys are always in the shadow so we only get to see things through our heroes’ perspective. That’s one drawback of the film: It feels somewhat too linear and distant. Also, even with all the action going on, there’s a lingering sense of “it’s still not exciting enough.” Perhaps it’s the languid pace between the action scenes, or the overall noir feel of the film.

The art direction and production are top-notch, however. Every frame looks like a painting and is gorgeous to behold. The retro, sepia-saturated look does take a bit to get used to. After a while, we do get somewhat weary of it. Fortunately, the screen gets brighter and livelier as the adventure speeds up. The comic-book feel works to its advantage. Except for the actors and the props they touch, everything is created by CGI or from archive photos. Some people may object to the feeling of watching a live-action “cartoon.” I personally love the look and feel, and the CG effects are first rate. It could very well be a new breed of films, one that is fitting for a world of tomorrow.


Stars: Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Giovanni Ribisi, Ling Bai, Omid Djalili
Director: Kerry Conran
Writer: Kerry Conran
Distributor: Paramount
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for comic-style violence


RATINGS:

Script – 8
Performance – 8
Direction – 7
Cinematography – 9
Music/Sound– 7
Editing – 8
Production – 10

Total Score – 8.2 out of 10

Wicker Park

© 2004 Ray Wong



It is difficult to label WICKER PARK with a broad stroke as a bad movie. There are things that I really like, and it is unfortunate that the filmmakers have missed the mark with what could have been a potentially smart, affecting film that rivals some of the best foreign films on the planet.

Matt is an investment banker who returns to Chicago after spending two years in New York. He’s on the brink of proposing to his girlfriend/business partner Rebecca but there is something holding him back. When he catches a glimpse of his old girlfriend, Lisa, he finds himself falling into an obsession of finding her.

He skips his business trip to Shanghai; instead, he goes on a wild goose chase around town looking for Lisa. When he does, he discovers that she is, literally, a stranger who has the same name and wears the same shoes and perfume. The truth unfolds as our hero and heroines get caught in a web of lies.

The distributor made a fatal mistake by marketing this film as a psychological thriller and hinting at, perhaps, a murder mystery or violence at the core, ala FATAL ATTRACTION. True, psychology is a big part of it -- as one character says to Matt, “Love makes you do strange, unthinkable things.” The film is about obsession, deception, fate and manipulation. Strong and complex themes that would have made a compelling film in more capable hands.

The script by Boyce (APT PUPIL) is uneven in places and manipulative over all. It’s not to say I absolutely hate it. I think the dialogue is, in general, natural and real and full of subtexts. I think some of the events and actions by the characters are thought provoking. However, Boyce litters the story with so much contrived coincidence and missed encounters -- trying too hard to pull on our heartstrings with that “AWW! They missed each other again” sentiment -- it makes one resentful. There is a more fundamental problem: if Matt is so obsessed with Lisa, why didn’t he look for her in the past two years? By the end of the film, there are enough plot holes to fill the streets of Chicago.

Another major flaw the film is the lack of any compelling, sympathetic characters. Almost every character is self-absorbed, manipulative and plagued by some level of obsessive, deceptive dysfunction. Sure, that can work with stronger material (think FATAL ATTRACTION again) but it is not the case here.

Director McGuigan (THE RECKONING) does attempt a refreshing approach in storytelling. Much of the story and suspense is revealed through a series of flashbacks. At times, he lingers too long to create that sense of longing and mystery. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. The problem is that without the flashbacks, the story would have been very straightforward, probably over in under an hour. They try to create suspense and mystery through the editing and structure. It is an interesting approach. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work. It’s a false sense of suspense, done in a very manipulative way, then ten miles before we reach Oz, we already know who the wizard is. We feel cheated.

Hartnett (HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE) is in dire need of a good film to reestablish him as a bona fide actor/star. Unfortunately he won’t find it here. His “hero” turns out very unlikable (cheating, lying, deceiving, breaking into someone’s apartment, etc.) all in the name of love. This guy doesn’t seem to have any ethics, does he? Hartnett’s characterization is lackluster as well -- we fall asleep just by staring into his puppy eyes. Lillard (WITHOUT A PADDLE) plays his normal doofus/best-friend role with good intention, but his role is merely a plot point, and you really can’t take his performance seriously. Kruger (TROY) is beautiful and engaging. However, she really doesn’t have much to do. The film belongs to Bryne (TROY). Sure, her character is despicable and ultimately a wicked witch, but you can’t help but feel sorry for her. Bryne is successful in showing her vulnerability, pain and internal conflicts -- it still doesn’t excuse her character from all the horrible things she does, but at least we get a glimpse of what makes her do them. Too bad her good performance still can’t lift the film out of its own misery.


Stars: Josh Hartnett, Rose Bryne, Matthew Lillard, Diane Kruger, Jessica Paré, Christopher Cousins
Director: Paul McGuigan
Writer: Brandon Boyce (based on L’APPARTEMENT by Gilles Minouni)
Distributor: MGM
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sexuality and language


RATINGS:

Script – 3
Performance – 6
Direction – 4
Cinematography – 7
Music/Sound– 6
Editing – 4
Production – 7

Total – 5.2 out of 10

Code 46

© 2004 Ray Wong



In a Bladerunner-isque world of segregation and isolation, William Geld (Robbins) is a fraud investigator who relies on his “intuition” to catch criminals. He travels to a city out in the desert named Shanghai (in an alternate universe) to investigate the “papelle” case. A “papelle” is a genetically coded ID and travel document, which allows an individual to travel in and out of the “special zones” – big cities full of promises and opportunities.

Someone at the Sphinx (the place where papelles are manufactured and processed) has been stealing and smuggling papelles. When William zeros in on his target, he meets an employee, Maria.

You see, before he embarked on his trip, he has injected himself with an “empathy virus” to better help with his job. Whether it’s the virus or that he feels a connection with Maria, he finds himself falling for the mysterious woman. His intuition tells him that Maria is the culprit, but he lets her go; instead, he voluntarily frames another employee and let Maria smuggle the papelle right before him. Their inevitable romance leads to a series of events that render them fugitive of an international law: Code 46.

At the beginning of the movie, we learn that Code 46 is a law to control population and ensure the quality of the future human race. People who are 25%, 50% or 100% identical genetically cannot procreate together. A violation of the law would result in pregnancy termination and memory eradication.

With that knowledge, we pretty much know where the story is heading right from the start. Any remaining suspense (involving dreams, mystery, and secrets) revolves around the fate of the two protagonists: What will ultimately happen to them in this world run by a Gestapo-like international government and law enforcements?

Robbins (MYSTIC RIVER) gives a lethargic performance here. Throughout the film, his eyes seem glazed over, his expression bland and his speech monotonous as if he’s sleepwalking instead of being the character. Or perhaps it is the character’s fault. We will never know. Morton (MINORITY REPORT), on the other hand, continues to be mesmerizing. Even in a murky, inconsistent character, she finds something worthwhile and captivating. Unfortunately, there is no chemistry between her and Robbins, and that’s a fatal flaw in a sci-fi romance. On a positive note, the hugely international cast does a good job in supportive roles.

The world conjured up by writer Boyce and director Winterbottom (WELCOME TO SARAJEVO) is interesting to behold. Using almost no extravagant CGI effects, but real locations such as Shanghai, Hong Kong and India, the result can be amusingly confusing (for example, why do they drive these old cars and SUVs in this futuristic world?) The noir feel and mood of the film, as well as the cinematography, do a great job in bringing us a future world that is both familiar and frighteningly alien.

While a sci-fi movie without CGI effects is a welcome treat, Boyce’s script is not. The common flaw of such a film is that it’s too in love with its “cool” ideas that it forgets about the story or characters. We never really fully understand the motivations behind the two main characters. We are led to believe that they share a strong connection, love, and passion but we don’t really believe it. The central suspense also elicits a “lackluster” or “ho-hum” feeling. The stakes are never high enough, which lead to a very unsatisfying and nonsensical climax near the end. The ending itself is sad and tragic, but by now, we’re so disconnected with the characters that we don’t really care. We’d come out of the theater feeling just as disconnected as the people in that world. To me, when the filmmakers break that connection with the audience, it’s a clear code violation.

Stars: Tim Robbins, Samantha Morton, Jeane Balibar, Christopher Simpson, David Fahm, Togo Igawa
Director: Michael Winterbottom
Writers: Frank Cottrell Boyce
Distributor: United Artists
MPAA Rating: R for nudity, sexual content, language, drug use


RATINGS:

Script – 5
Performance – 7
Direction – 6
Cinematography – 8
Music/Sound– 7
Editing – 6
Production – 6

Total Score – 6.4 out of 10

Garden State

© 2004 Ray Wong



GARDEN STATE, by actor and first-time writer-director Zack Braff (TV’s SCRUBS) has garnered much attention at Sundance Film Festival. It showcases the multitalented Braff and is lauded as a definitive Gen-X film.

Braff plays Andrew Largeman, a drifter and not-so-successful TV actor who sleepwalks through most of his life. He returns to his hometown in New Jersey – the Garden State – to attend his mother’s funeral. Estranged from his psychologist father, Andrew feels disconnected and alienated from the world in which he grew up. When he meets up with his old pal Mark (a grave-digging slacker), he further sees the meaninglessness of his life.

Heavily medicated to help him get through his days, Andrew decides to stop taking his medications (including Lithium) against his doctor’s and his father’s recommendations. Then he meets the free-spirited and chatty Sam at a clinic and they strike up an unlikely but immediate friendship. Sam has a perchance for telling little white lies, but her cheery disposition and outlooks in life slowly lifts Andrew out of his misery.

In writing the synopsis of the story, I realize that there really isn’t much plot in this story. It’s very slow moving and at 1h:55m running length, you can’t help but wonder: When is this going to end? It’s a predictable story, and mainly a character study, a mosaic of anecdotes on “the lost generation”. In a way, it succeeds in painting a rather bleak picture of a dysfunctional generation that struggles through life without directions. Almost every character in the film has no goals or directions in life. And that’s pretty depressing.

Braff’s script tries too hard to be quirky and irrelevant. Yes, they are irrelevant, and many snippets do make you chuckle at their absurdity. But ingenious? I’m not so sure. Strung together, these scenes create a not-so-pleasant scenery, and a story that just isn’t very coherent. The quirky characters come and go, and you really don’t know much or care about them, and they don’t really propel the plot. They’re like strange paintings on a wall. At times the dialogue is too heavy-handed and the situations too coincidental. The main characters, namely Andrew, Sam and Mark, are not very likable either so it takes effort to actually care about them. In a character-driven, thinly-plotted story, that can prove fatal.

Braff is serviceable as the dysfunctional Andrew, but in many ways he’s only recapping his character on SCRUBS. Portman (STAR WARS) fares somewhat better as the giggly girl-next-door, but her emotional scenes are handled too superficially. Holm (DAY AFTER TOMORROW) is fine in his small role as Andrew’s quiet, withdrawn father. Other actors serve their quirky purposes well in their minor roles: Smart (SWEET HOME ALABAMA) as Mark’s mother; Michael Weston (FINAL DRAFT) as Kenny; Ron Leibman (DUMMY) as Dr. Cohen. Sarsgraad (K19) is particularly good as Mark. His slacker character is not very likable but at least you can see some depth through those glazed eyes of his, and he more or less redeems himself at the end in one of the film’s most poignant moments.

Where Braff might have failed as a writer, he’s compensated with his deft skills as a director. It’s not easy to spot that this film is his directorial debut. His images are often haunting and unique. And quirky. While the cinematography is serviceably bleak, the soundtrack is very good. At times, when there’s not much on the screen to engage our eyes or our brains, it’s rather nice to have something to engage our ears.

Stars: Zack Braff, Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgraad, Ian Holm, Jean Smart
Director: Zack Braff
Writer: Zack Braff
Distributors: Miramax, Fox Searchlight
MPAA Rating: R for sexual content, strong language, drug and alcohol


RATINGS:

Script - 5
Performance - 6
Direction - 7
Sound/Music - 7
Cinematography - 6
Editing - 6
Production – 7

Total Score - 6.4 out of 10

A Home at the End of the World

© 2004 Ray Wong



Based on his 1991 novel of the same name and adapted by Pulitzer-winning author Cunningham (THE HOURS) himself, HOME is a bitter-sweet, slice-of-life story of an unconventional family driven by love and tolerance.

It’s easy to love Bobby Morrow, a man-child with a sweet and innocent disposition. As a boy, Bobby learns some interesting lessons about love from his brother, before witnessing his brutal death.

As a teenager, Bobby becomes fast and best friend with Jonathan Glover. They share with each other not only their joints, but also their sexual awakening. After Bobby’s father passes away, the Glover family takes Bobby in. He clings to Jonathan’s family as his own and they adore him in return.

Several years later, Bobby moves in with Jonathan and his roommate Clare in New York and they form a tight trio. Jonathan is gay but Clare is straight (and hopelessly in love with Jonathan), and they both love Bobby. When Clare and Bobby hit it off, Jonathan becomes jealous and moves back in with his parents in Arizona. After Jonathan’s father dies, Bobby and Clare visit him, and Clare lets on that she’s pregnant (assumingly with Bobby’s child, although it’s never made clear). The trio decides to relocate to Woodstock to raise the baby. The story continues to follow these three people who love each other so much and how the decisions they make in life change them all.

As Bobby, Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) sheds his bad-boy, tough-guy routines and consumes the role with a wide-eyed innocence and sweetness that surprise and delight us. His Bobby is all about love, and it doesn’t matter who he loves. Whether it is Jonathan or Clare. Or just life itself. But the world is not a simple place, and soon Bobby must choose. Farrell has succeeded in bringing Bobby to life – it’s probably his best work to date. It helps that the actors who play his younger self (Andrew Chalmers as the boy and Erik Smith as the teenager) both give excellent performances.

Wright Penn (UNBREAKABLE) is exquisite as Clare, the woman who loves both men but knows that she can’t have either of them completely. Her characterization is electrifying and achingly touching at the same time. Roberts (THE LUCKY ONES) has a harder time playing the confused, moody and introverted Jonathan. Naturally he is outshone by the stronger personalities of both Bobby and Clare. However, in a quiet, satisfying way, his Jonathan is the one who grows the most in the story.

Spacek (IN THE BEDROOM) is a national treasure, I now declare. She is simply incredible as Alice, Jonathan’s mother. Her character – and her portrayal – is so beautiful and affecting that everyone should want to have a mother like her. Frewer (DAWN OF THE DEAD) is fine as Ned, Jonathan’s father, but his role is too minor to have any impact.

The screenplay by Cunningham is languid and episodic. I figure it is very difficult to adapt a lengthy, literary fiction to the screen, especially one that is dear to your heart. Cunningham has done a good job, even though sometimes the script feels a little melodramatic or “TV movie of the week.” First-time director Mayer (mostly known for his stage work) may not very savvy, but he has a keen eyes for bringing out performances. The film excels in bringing to life the characters and their intricate, complex relationships. At times, it’s difficult to understand between the lines, but you get the feeling that these characters are real and you feel their emotions coming through with such power. A scene near the end, when Bobby and Jonathan scatter Ned’s ashes near their house, brings a rare tear in my eye. It’s because I really care about these characters, even though sometimes I don’t understand them completely. Just as in real life. In many ways, it’s an unconventional story about an unconventional family with an unconventional ending. And that is what makes this film unforgettable.

Stars: Collin Farrell, Robin Wright Penn, Dallas Roberts, Sissy Spacek, Matt Frewer
Director: Michael Mayer
Writers: Michael Cunningham (based on his novel)
Distributor: Warner Independent Pictures
MPAA Rating: R for nudity, sexual content, drug use, language


RATINGS:

Script – 8
Performance – 9
Direction – 8
Cinematography – 7
Music/Sound– 7
Editing – 6
Production – 7

Total – 7.4 out of 10

Little Black Book

© 2004 Ray Wong



Stacy Holt is an ambitious but naïve assistant producer for the Kippy Kann Show, a Jerry Springer knock-off. Life is pretty good. She’s making headway at her job, trying to save the flagging Kippy Kann from her rating lows. She also has a fun-loving relationship with her handsome boyfriend Derek, a sports agent with the New York Devils.

The only problem is that she doesn’t trust relationships: if it’s too good to be true, it is.

Her co-workers at the show, Barb and Ira, convince her that she needs to “look under the hood before buying the car.” So she did, snooping around until she got hold of Derek’s little electronic black book (a Palm Pilot). She tracks down his old girlfriends: supermodel Lulu Fritz, gynecologist Rachel Keyes, and sous chef Joyce. Her bad behavior not only uncovers unpleasant facts about how little she knows about Derek’s past, but also the deep, dark issues she has about trusting someone she loves. Her life is ultimately turned upside down when a betrayal forces her to confront everyone on her deceit and connivance.

Career girls. Snooping and deceit. Scheming. Sounds familiar? Unfortunately the similarities between LITTLE BLACK BOOK and WORKING GIRL stop at Carly Simon (don’t get me wrong, Carly is fabulous in her brief cameo). The trailers try to convince us that it’s a zany romantic comedy. The truth is that there’s nothing romantic about this film. It is too mean-spirited. It tries too hard to be a social satire about reality TV, ala NETWORK or BROADCAST NEWS, to the point that they cast Hunter, who played Jane Craig in the latter film.

Murphy can be really good, as she was in 8 MILES and DON’T SAY A WORD, but she seems lost in the contrived role as Stacy. Her performance comes off as trying too hard to be Meg Ryan-like. Hunter (THIRTEEN) is very good; unfortunately her character is so unbelievable, that by the end even a great actress like her can’t compensate for the material. Livingston (OFFICE SPACE) is charming, but he has nothing to do. There is not much chemistry between him and Murphy, and that’s part of the problem with the film. In minor roles, Bates (ABOUT SCHMIDT) is hilarious as the Jerry Spring send-up, Tobolowsky is funny as the boss without a heart, and Sussman (CHANGING LANES) is interesting as the befuddled but comedic Ira. The standout is Nicholson (SPEAKEASY) as the spunky, compassionate, kind and hurt Joyce. Her performance is one of the real pleasures of this film.

The script by first-time screenwriters Carter and Bell has the potential to be really sharp, hilarious and heartbreaking. However, what has transpired on screen is choppy and unfocused. Granted, there are some entertaining moments (the interview with Lulu, or Stacy smashing Derek’s answering machine) but they’re far and few between. But dubious motivations, clichéd dialogues and unbelievable incidents waste a potentially great twist toward the end of the film. By then, the characters including Stacy have become so unlikable or incredulous that it is difficult for us to identify with them. I have a feeling that the writers and filmmakers simply tried too hard to be clever and tart.

Director Hurran further diminishes the film with his clichéd direction and editing, constantly cutting to talking heads, office mayhem, and convoluted dialogues – at times, it is difficult for me to understand what’s being said; too much going on at one time. Too many minor characters you don’t know much or care about. The editing is sloppy in many places. This must be one of the ugliest visions of New York in recent films.

Looks like I’m going to have to erase this one from my little black book.


Stars: Brittany Murphy, Holly Hunter, Ron Livingston, Julianne Nicholson, Kathy Bates, Stephen Kobolowsky, Kevin Sussman
Director: Nick Hurran
Writers: Melissa Carter, Elisa Bell
Distributor: Columbia
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sexual content and language


RATINGS:

Script – 6
Performance – 6
Direction – 3
Cinematography – 5
Music/Sound– 6
Editing – 4
Production – 6

Total – 5.1 out of 10