Prime

© 2005 Ray Wong



Stars: Meryl Streep, Uma Thurman, Bryan Greenberg, Jon Abrahams, Zak Orth
Director: Ben Younger
Writer: Ben Younger
Distributor: Universal
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sexual content, language, adult themes
Running time: 105 minutes

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

Total Score – 7.0 out of 10

The trailers of PRIME give the impression that this is a laugh-out-loud romantic comedy. In truth, PRIME is a humorous drama that examines relationships with regard to differences in age, intimacy, religions and cultural backgrounds.

The title, PRIME, alludes to the fact that the two romantic leads are each at their respective sexual prime. Rafi (Thurman) is a 37-year-old fashion designer who suffers self-esteem issues and is seeking psychotherapy. A week after her heartbreaking divorce, she meets sweet and cute David (Greenberg) and they hit it off immediately. At first Rafi thinks David is 29 and a little too young for her, and when she discovers that David is actually 23, she freaks out. But the attraction between them is so strong, and David makes her feel so young and alive and loved that she throws caution in the air. Also, she has her dear, trusting therapist, Dr. Lisa Metzger (Streep), to confide in.

Rafi has no idea that David is Lisa’s young son. She shares every intimate detail with Lisa during her sessions, and asks for her opinion. Before long, Lisa figures out who “David” really is and she freaks out. But she truly, sincerely cares about Rafi’s wellbeing, thinking that it is just a May-December fling between David and Rafi. She sticks around and tries to be the non-judging therapist she is, despite her own issues dealing with information about her own son’s sex life, and the fact that he’s dating a woman 14 years his senior. Worse, Rafi’s not a Jew!

The premise sounds hilarious enough. And some scenes, especially between Rafi and Lisa, are in fact hilarious. But the film is, at its very core, a serious drama about romance and relationships – not only between lovers, but also between parent and child.

Streep (LEMONY SNICKET’S A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS) proves that she could do comedies as effortlessly as she could dramas. Well, it’s not fair to peg her role as comedic, since she has some fine dramatic moments; but seeing her squirm and twitch and fluster while listening to Rafi describing her son’s “beautiful penis” is well worth the price. Streep is a seasoned actor, and she handles the conflicted character very well. Thurman (BE COOL) is also excellent, playing the middle-aged woman in love with a man almost half her age with equal doses of self-pity, maturity and giddiness. It helps that she truly is gorgeous, even at her age. Her chemistry and timing with Streep are impeccable.

Greenberg (PERFECT SCORE) holds his own against the two veteran actresses. He is handsome, charming and loving, and you believe that a 37-year-old woman could really fall for him. Then when he acts like a child, you also believe him so much that you just want to scream, “Grow up already!” Abrahams (HOUSE OF WAX) is funny in his minor role as David’s womanizing jerk of a close friend, Morris. Now, why would David hang out with a punk like Morris is not entirely clear – they can’t be more different.

Writer-director Younger’s (BOILER ROOM) script is uneven. At times this feels like an out-and-out romantic comedy or a satire. At times it feels like a family drama. However, Younger’s dialogue is usually true and spot-on, and he handles the complex relationships with interesting insight. Some of scenes and dialogue are really funny. And some touching.

Still, I think the work is uneven. The characters of Rafi and Lisa are very well written, and their relationship is rendered beautifully. Coupled with the wonderful chemistry and performances of Streep and Thurman, the scenes between Rafi and Lisa are the best things about this film. Unfortunately, when the focus switches to Rafi and David, the film somehow sags and drags.

It’s not entirely Younger’s fault, nor is it Thurman’s or Greenberg’s. I suppose what’s between Streep and Thurman is so strong that everything else just pales in comparison. Still, as much as I’d like to believe that a May-December relationship is possible, or as much as Younger wants us to believe that such a relationship would end badly, it doesn’t quite work on screen. Thurman and Greenberg are terrific actors, but their chemistry is off, even if so slightly. Again, Thurman and Streep are so good together that we just want to see more of them. If only the film focuses more on Streep and less on Greenberg (sorry, pal, nothing against ya), it would have, indeed, be a prime film to behold.

Capote

© 2005 Ray Wong



Stars: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins, Jr., Chris Cooper, Bruce Greenwood, Mark Pellegrino
Director: Bennett Miller
Writers: Dan Futterman (based on book by Gerald Clarke)
Distributor: SONY Classics
MPAA Rating: R for violent images, brief strong language
Running Time: 98 minutes

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

Total – 8.1 out of 10

When Truman Capote first set out to write a short article for the New Yorker, he had no idea how the story was going to change his life. Or how the eventual creative non-fiction, In Cold Blood, would make him the most famous American author of his time and change the American literary world altogether.

On a bleak wintry morning, a Kansas girl finds an entire family murdered. Thousands of miles away in New York City, sophisticated writer Capote (Hoffman) is telling his raunchy stories at a cocktail party. Later, he decides to research and write a story on the killings, and sets off to Kansas with his dear friend Nelle Harper Lee (Keener), who has just finished writing a novel entitled To Kill a Mockingbird.

During the following few months, Capote and Lee interview the townsfolk, including Sheriff Alvin Dewey (Cooper) who is heading the investigation. Soon, two men, Richard Hickock (Pellegrino) and Perry Smith (Collins), are apprehended, tried and convicted for the murders. Seeing Smith’s gentle and thoughtful side, Capote reaches in and manipulates him to tell his life stories. He makes Smith believe that he’s writing a sympathetic portrayal. Smith, on the other hand, also manipulates Capote to help him with his appeals. Four years later, Capote becomes so absorbed in the book and obsessed with the man that he can’t separate himself from it all. Smith still refuses to tell Capote what really happened on that fateful night. As Smith’s execution draws near, Capote slowly sinks into madness and depression, not only with trying so desperately to finish the daunting book, but also with the conflicted feelings he has for Smith.

Hoffman (ALONG CAME POLLY) is the Jamie Foxx of 2005. He so truly immerses himself as Truman Capote that he becomes the gay, peculiar, eccentric, self-absorbed writer himself. Physically, Hoffman has a striking resemblance to Capote. Complete with candid mannerisms, vocal inflections, and facial expressions, Hoffman is going to turn a lot of heads at the Oscars this year. Pit against Hoffman’s showy role, Keener (40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN) offers a more subdued, understated, but equally impressive performance as great American author Harper Lee. Her gentle and resolute demeanor is, ironically, the yang to Hoffman’s ying.

Collins (MINDHUNTERS) is solid as the deep but deceitful Perry Smith. His portrayal of the complex man, who could be soft and worldly one minute then violent and cold another, is chilling and remarkable. Pellegrino (NATIONAL TREASURE) is smug and sinister in his relatively minor role as Hickock. Greenwood (BEING JULIA) is in fine form as Capote’s lover and fellow writer Jack Dunphy, while Cooper (BOURNE SUPREMACY) serves up another solid performance as the taciturn sheriff.

First time screenwriter Futterman has done a great job adapting Clarke’s book on the writing on In Cold Blood to the big screen. The dialogue is often sharp and insightful, capturing the essence of the time and the spirit of the characters. While the plot is complicated and fascinating, it’s never convoluted or confusing. We don’t always know what’s in Capote’s mind -- or Smith’s, for that matter -- but that makes the story even more captivating. The relationships (between Capote and Smith, Lee and Dunphy) are crucial to the intimate nature of the film, and the murder case serves as a good mystery. The script is intricate with themes and nuances as well.

Director Miller (THE CRUISE) has a deft style, sending us back to the late 50s and early 60s, and juxtaposes effectively the sophistication of the writers’ world in New York and Spain with the stark harshness in the corn fields and penitentiaries in Kansas. Miller has a keen eye for composition, structures and colors. His pacing of the story is also pitch-perfect, never moving too fast or lingering for too long. Supported by a brilliant cast, Miller has crafted a mesmerizing tale of one of the most influential books and one of the world’s most fascinating writers: Capote.

Elizabethtown

© 2005 Ray Wong



Stars: Orlando Bloom, Kirsten Dunst, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Bruce McGrill, Judy Greer, Paul Schneider
Director: Cameron Crowe
Writer: Cameron Crowe
Distributor: Paramount
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for language and some sexual references
Running time: 123 minutes

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

Total Score – 7.6 out of 10

Since the Oscar-nominated JERRY MCGUIRE, writer-director Cameron Crowe has given us slices of the American pie with some hits and some misses. ELIZABETHTOWN follows the same quirky path after his long hiatus since VANILLA SKY failed at the box office.

Drew Baylor (Bloom) is a hotshot shoe designer whose flagship design just costs the company $956 million. Fired and humiliated by what he calls a “fiasco” and not just “failure,” Drew is about to kill himself when his sister (Greer) calls and tells him his father has died while visiting his hometown, Elizabethtown, KY. Drew promises his shocked mother-in-denial (Sarandon) that he would bring his father home.

On the red-eye flight to Kentucky, the defeated Drew meets a perky, observant flight attendant, Claire (Dunst). Claire seems to have a way of seeing through Drew even though he tries so desperately to hide his pain. In the following week, as Drew deals with his long forgotten relatives and his father’s past, he forms a strange, almost-a-romance bond with Claire. Through it all, Drew begins to see where he is heading in life.

Bloom (KINGDOM OF HEAVEN), in his first contemporary leading role, is very likeable as the downtrodden Drew. His performance is affecting and true, full of nuances for a young actor who was virtually a newbie only four years ago. Dunst (WINBLEDON), on the other, is an old pro. She seems to have a knack for playing free-spirited, perky ingénues. Here, her spunk makes for an interesting counterpoint to Bloom’s broodiness. Both she and Bloom are still unproven properties in Hollywood; after this film, perhaps things will change for them.

The supporting cast play an eclectic group of characters, headed by Sarandon (ALFIE) as Drew’s mother Hollie. She’s always an actor’s actor, and she puts in her all for this relatively brief and small role. She’s particularly touching in one bizarre scene where she tells jokes about her late husband, then proceeds to tap dance to Moon River. The prolific Baldwin (AVIATOR) can probably sleepwalk through his brief role as Drew’s unforgiving boss. McGill (CINDERELLA MAN) plays an old friend with equal amount of slime and sincerity. Greer (CURSED) is underused as Drew’s grieving, neurotic sister, but Schneider (CRUDE) makes a good impression as Drew’s slacker cousin Jessie.

Crowe has a gift for creating interesting, deeply flawed and introspective characters. And through his characters’ eyes, we get to see some very unique worldviews. Sometimes, though, his quirky characters and situations border on being absurd and surreal. I think after a while it can lose its grips on reality. There are many memorable moments, though. I think how Drew and Claire really bond, over cell phones, is really cute and touching. There are some very interesting characters such as Jessie, but then there are also superficial ones simply there for comic relief.

Crowe is also very deft in creating his moods using just the right kind of popular music. The soundtrack and the road trip theme somehow pay tribute to his earlier, critically-acclaimed film, ALMOST FAMOUS. One of the strengths of this film is the use of music with very creative imageries. Sure, Crowe pulls out all the stops to try to make us cry and laugh at the same time. Sometimes the film feels manipulative, but sometimes genuine. I think that’s one of its problems – it’s uneven. And we pretty much know where the story is heading. Even so, it’s really about the journey, isn’t it? The ride is fun and ELIZABETHTOWN is a delightful and touching destination.

Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

© 2005 Ray Wong



Stars: Peter Sallis, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Peter Kay, Nicholas Smith, Liz Smith
Directors: Steve Box, Nick Park
Writers: Bob Baker, Steve Box, Mark Burton, Nick Park
Distributor: DreamWorks SKG
MPAA Rating: G
Running time: 85 minutes

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

Total Score – 8.8 out of 10

The team behind CHICKEN RUN and the WALLACE & GROMIT shorts is at it again, this time offering us a feature-length animation starring our beloved cheese-loving inventor and his silent dog.

Wallace (Sallis) and Gromit are a good team. While Wallace dreams up new inventions to make life easier for everyone including himself, Gromit takes care of everything including making breakfast and cleaning the house. Not to mention tending to their beautiful vegetable garden, in preparation for the Giant Vegetable Competition. Business is booming for their company Anti-Pesto, too, because there’s a persistent pest problem involving free-roaming rabbits. Lady Tottington (Carter) believes in getting rid of the problem humanely, despite the objection of her fiancé Victor (Fiennes), a gun-crazed hunter. Wallace handles it beautifully with his new invention, the “Bunny-Vac.” Using another new contraption that alters the minds, Wallace successfully retrains the rabbits to dislike vegetables. Problem solved.

Or so they thought. Suddenly, the town is terrorized by a giant rabbit that sabotages their vegetable gardens. Wallace and Gromit set out to find and capture the creature, while Victor insists on shooting it. As the competition draws close, the townsfolk become anxious and paranoid while Gromit discovers the awful truth about the creature. Wallace and Gromit must race against time to prevent Victor from killing the creature and save the Giant Vegetable Competition.

The voice talents serve the film well. Sallis’s voice IS Wallace. He captures the neurotic, kind and clueless nature of the absentminded inventor so well that it’s hard to imagine anyone else voicing that character. Gromit is, of course, always silent, but every arch of the brow or squint of the eye conveys so much with this character. Carter (CORPSE BRIDE) lends her effervescent, joyous voice to Lady Tottington beautifully. In fact, I think her performance here is so marvelous that it dwarfs her performance in that “other” claymation feature. Fiennes (CONSTANT GARDENER) is delightfully menacing as the self-absorbed Victor. It also helps that none of the lead talents look anything like their onscreen characters. The rest of the cast is simply amazing.

The writers, including directors Steve Box and Nick Park (CHICKEN RUN), have written a wonderful script. It’s imaginative, witty, and filled with colorful characters and interesting plot twists. Granted, it isn't difficult to figure out where the story is heading, but how the story gets to the end is a joyous ride. They give the characters wonderful, funny dialogue (and for Gromit, a lot of opportunities to emote). The story is straightforward but very smart and “logical,” given the genre.

It took five years for Box and Park to make CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT, and the effort pays off. The animation is not as slick as in CHICKEN RUN, but that’s exactly the charm of Wallace and Gromit, down to the occasional fingerprints and cheeky character designs. It’s not to say it’s a poor production – far from it. The sets and props and characters and animation are top-notch. There’s absolutely no doubt, when watching the film, that these are clay figures, real miniature sets and backdrops. The amazing thing, though, is that after a while, we do forget that we are watching an animation. These characters become real to us, and we care about them. Yes, especially the silent beagle named Gromit.