2nd Annual Golden Gallo Awards

It’s that time of year again. The Oscar nominations are out, as are the Razzies. Everyone in Hollywood is either aglow (you go Abigail Breslin and Ryan Gosling) or embarrassed (I’m talking to you Sharon Stone and M. Night Shyamalan). And I, Chris Gallo, solo member of the Wannabe Film Critics Association have just announced the winners of the 2nd Annual Golden Gallo Awards. Congratulations to all the winners, however undeserved they may be…

Most Annoying Domestic Quarrel: THE BREAK-UP

Best Revamping of a Dying Franchise: SUPERMAN RETURNS

Best Ending to a Seemingly Endless Franchise: X-MEN THE LAST STAND

Best Performance by a Scientologist: Tom Cruise, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III

The “What the Heck Were They Thinking” Award: LADY IN THE WATER

Best Use of Boy George’s “The Crying Game” - SLITHER

Worst Use of Lionel Richie’s “Hello” – SCARY MOVIE 4

Best Opening Credit Sequence: INSIDE MAN

Best Closing Credit Sequence: CARS

Best Comeback from a Previously Horrid Attempt at Filmmaking: Oliver Stone, WORLD TRADE CENTER

Best Misleading Marketing Campaign: MAN OF THE YEAR

Scene Stealer Award: Meryl Streep, THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA

The Trailer is Better Than the Movie Award: MIAMI VICE

Best Gratuitous Use of Bathing Suits: TURISTAS

Best Film Most Likely to be Forgotten by the Academy: THANK YOU FOR SMOKING

The “Or How I Learned to Love a Bomb” Guilty Pleasure Award: POSEIDON

Best Documentary About Global Warming: AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Corniest Line of Dialogue from Snakes on a Plane: “Well, that's good news, snakes on crack.”

The Ishtar Big-Budget Stinker Award: ALL THE KING’S MEN

The Grease 2 Unnecessary Sequel Award: BASIC INSTINCT 2

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It Award: THE PINK PANTHER

The Jaws 3D “I Only Wanted To See It Cause it Was in 3-D” Award: MONSTER HOUSE

Best Self-Flagellation – Paul Bettany, THE DA VINCI CODE

Most Popular Word in a Movie Title – “good” THE GOOD GERMAN, THE GOOD SHEPHERD, A GOOD YEAR, & A GOOD WOMAN

Most Authentic-Looking Staged Sequence: Sacha Baron Cohen & Pamela Anderson, BORAT

Best Use of the Word “Bollocks” – Emily Blunt, THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA

Best Eye-Gouging in a Holiday Movie – BLACK CHRISTMAS

Coolest Movie Poster Award: THE DESCENT

Most Graphic Panther Attack: APOCALYPTO

Best Striptease by a 7-Year-Old – Abigail Breslin, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE

Best Horror Film with a Cast Member of TV’s Lost: THE HILLS HAVE EYES

Worst Horror Film with a Cast Member of TV’s Lost: PULSE

Mobsters, Mayans and Royals, Oh My! The Best Films of 2006

Ahh, 2006 was a great year for movies. Then again that’s what I said last year. I just love movies! It was a year that finally brought snakes onto a plane, the return of Superman (to some triumphantly and to others boringly), and a foreign journalist who took a crap in the middle of midtown Manhattan. What a simply sensational year for motion pictures! And finally the so-called “box office slump” was able to reverse itself, at least slightly. No other form of entertainment can be as fun as checking out the local multiplex or art house. So grab some Goobers and check out my long-awaited list of the best films of 2006:


1) The Departed
"The Departed” is by far my favorite film of the year. Not only is it constantly entertaining, but it’s Best Picture worthy as well. Many know me as the guy who praises the stupidity of films like “Showgirls,” but I actually enjoy well-made films as well. Director Martin Scorsese, who has done nothing for me in the past, has finally made a truly enjoyable thriller with a knockout cast that includes Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, and lastly Leonardo DiCaprio, who simply shines as an undercover cop infiltrating a Boston mob ring. Kudos to that awesome soundtrack! This is brilliant, classic filmmaking on all levels.


2) Little Children
A film that sadly didn’t get the wide release it so deserved (it includes such taboo subject matter as adultery and a pedophile who’s portrayed as a human being!), Todd Field’s brilliant “Little Children” is a film as allegorical and beautiful as it is entertaining. Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson play unhappily married adults stuck in suburban hell who start an affair, with their “our kids are playmates” as a cover. This engrossing satirical drama, based on the thoroughly enjoyable novel by Tom Perrotta, is absorbing from the first scene and deserves every award that could possibly be given out.


3) United 93
"United 93” is a harrowing account of the last airplane to be hijacked on September 11, 2001. It was reported that the passengers fought back against the hijackers after hearing of the other flight’s fates. Their courageous intervention prevented the plane from reaching its Washington D.C. target. Paul Greengrass has crafted a disturbing, visceral but ultimately moving film that has to be seen to be believed. It honors those that died. Those who refuse to see the film are missing out on one of the 21st century’s most heart-wrenching and important films.


4) An Inconvenient Truth
How could a documentary staring Al Gore possibly be one of the best films of the year? Don’t ask stupid questions and see this amazing piece of environmentally conscious filmmaking. If you’re not fascinated by the vast scientific facts that Gore presents to us about the dangers of global warming, then you should have your pulse checked. Director Davis Guggenheim has crafted an engaging film that is powerful, entertaining and a devastatingly realistic portrait of the Earth in crisis. This is a film that you’ll thank yourself for experiencing.


5) Little Miss Sunshine
“Little Miss Sunshine” showcases a dysfunctional family on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The Hoover family makes the Griswolds of the “Vacation” series look like the Royal Family. It has an amazing ability to go from sidesplitting comedy to heart tugging drama within the same scene. All the actors are award-worthy including little Abigail Breslin, who just may be the breakout star of 2006. Eat your hearts out Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen!


6) Apocalypto
There seem to be so many things working against this film: overly graphic violence, its a movie about the decline of the Mayan civilization that's not really about the decline of the Mayan civilization, and speaking of which, it’s all spoken in an ancient Mayan language. Call Mel Gibson whatever you want, but he’s a talented director who surprisingly turned “Apocalypto” into the year’s most exciting, exhilarating chase film. Not only it is tremendously thrilling, but it’s also certainly something you haven’t seen before.


7) Cars
Pardon me for saying that “Cars” is the best animated film since “Finding Nemo.” No I haven’t conveniently forgot about “The Incredibles.” I just never found that film to be well, incredible. Even thought it’s title is boring, “Cars” showcases stunning animation, a great story and charming voice work by the likes of Owen Wilson, Bonnie Hunt, Paul Newman, and the list goes on. And besides, any film that can crack a Ten Best list that features Larry the Cable Guy must be one awesome flick. This is a movie you want to hug after it’s over. And you’ll never look at your car the same way again.


8) The Queen
Helen Mirren doesn’t just play Queen Elizabeth II she embodies her. She creates a character so deeply layered that you’re just simply drawn to her. Peter Morgan has written a winning script about what supposedly went on behind the palace doors the week after Princess Diana’s tragic death. Elizabeth refused to treat the tragedy as a public circus, but her loyal people were frustrated that this leader could be so cold and stubborn by not acknowledging what happened. Mirren’s character could easily have been the bad guy but her scenes with Michael Sheen as Prime Minister Tony Blair crackle with wit and authority. And importantly this film is far more entertaining than you’d ever expect.


9) The Descent
“The Descent” is one of the best horror films of recent memory. A sense of dread is created from the very beginning and you don’t know where it’s going until, WHAM it hits you. This is a film that’s scary, gory and most of all, suspenseful. You wont find all three of those in many of the recent excuses for horror. Director Neil Marshall places ordinary, strong woman (who go cave exploring in the Appalachians) in a frightening situation with extremely unordinary underground creatures who enjoy ripping people apart. This is the rare horror movie that is as intelligent as it is scary.


10) The Devil Wears Prada
Forgive me one guilty pleasure upon my list of 2006’s great films. This is a terrific portrait of the horrors of finding a first job and the suffering at the hands of the person in charge who is simply a pain-in-the-ass. We’ve all been there, but “Prada” takes it up a notch. A role Meryl Streep was born to play, Miranda Priestly is the devil of the film’s title. She’s the editor-in-chief of a splashy fashion magazine who makes life a living hell for her second assistant played by Anne Hathaway. Miranda’s demands are simultaneously sadistic and flat-out hilarious, but the one who steals the show is Brit Emily Blunt as the flippant first assistant who has a comment or wisecrack for everything.

Honorable Mentions in alphabetical order:

I told you it was a good year for movies!

Babel, Blood Diamond, Borat, Bubble, Children of Men, Dreamgirls, Half Nelson, Notes on a Scandal, Thank You For Smoking, This Film is Not Yet Rated

Scroll up for my picks for the Worst Films of 2006!

The Mourn Identity: “The Queen” is a Royal Achievement in Which Politics and Tradition Butt Heads

You certainly have to give credit where credit is due. Screenwriter Peter Morgan had the cajones to write a film that questions the Royal Family’s behavior after Princess Diana’s death. Okay, okay it’s not as if he’s suggesting the Royals should be kicked off of their pompous high horses, but it’s fascinating to witness a film in which Queen Elizabeth II can be portrayed as a royal pain in the butt, yet 100 percent likable. This is a role that could have easily turned into a Wicked Witch of the West type, but seasoned Brit Helen Mirren creates an aura of such sophistication and complexity that you’re simply drawn to her hook, line and sinker.

“The Queen” begins with newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair (an altogether pleasant Michael Sheen) meeting the Royal monarch herself Elizabeth II for the first time. Only several months later Princess Diana is tragically killed in a car crash. The film sets up this conflict: is the death of the former princess a public matter or a private family matter, insisted by the Queen? Blair’s speechwriter insists Diana was “the people’s princess” and even though she wasn’t technically a real member of the Royal family she certainly was a respected and loved human being.

Of course Elizabeth in her traditional, stubborn ways insists the funeral should be a private matter and handled accordingly. But the public’s immediate grief and outcry begins a battle between the Queen and Blair. Elizabeth insists that the public’s mourning is nonsense, because after all it’s not as if they knew Diana at all. And inside her palace she sits, refusing to make a statement or even acknowledges the hundreds of people mourning the loss of their princess.

This is a film with top notch acting and writing. Every line is delivered with power, sincerity, emotion or wit. Mirren simply commands the screen, but she doesn’t pretentiously steal the show. She knows there are plenty of good actors around her (particularly James Cromwell as Prince Philip, Helen McCrory as Blair’s wife and Sylvia Syms as the Queen Mother) and she doesn’t pull the rug out from under her costars. Morgan’s script is dramatic without being overly so and it has a surprising amount of humor that never undermines the drama. The actors who are playing real life people never turn their roles into flashy impersonations, but rather create wholly realistic people.

Director Steven Frears gets tremendous performances from his cast and has to be commended for assembling a terrific film. He uses stock footage of Diana and integrates it seamlessly. Diana’s presence comes alive in the film.

“The Queen” is a fascinating character study that is outstanding from beginning to end. It’s a film that gives us a peek behind the palace doors. What exactly was Elizabeth up to the week following Diana’s death? Mirren is a strong lead and her costars are tremendous as well. This is a film that is completely enjoyable and will spark fun debates afterwards. GRADE: A-

Grim Fairy Tale: “Pan’s Labyrinth” is a Dark Blend of Fantasy & Reality Many Will Find A-maze-ing

Take the horrors of Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, the magical awe of Alice in Wonderland and you might have a vague sense of what to expect of Mexican director Guillermo del Toro’s adult fairy tale “Pan’s Labyrinth.” It’s got magic fairies and a world of wonder, but it also is home to bleak fascism and it’s one little girl’s wild imagination that takes her away from the horrors of reality and into a fantasyland where huge toads vomit gobs of gluttonous grossness. It’s a wild journey of magic and wonder that is something you’ve most likely never seen before. And while I found this fable at least worth taking, others will find it a mind-blowing cinematic experience.

Ofelia played maturely by 12-year-old Ivana Baquero travels with her sickly and pregnant mother to live with “The Captain” her new stepfather. This guy makes Ralph Fiennes’ Nazi character from Schindler’s List look like Mr. Rogers. I’m not completely clear on the politics of the situation, but its 1940s Spain, and the people are living in a fascist state that doesn’t seem like a very appealing place to live. Oflelia meets a large stick-bug creature who she believes is a fairy. She soon meets a Faun, a creature of well-designed bravado, who tells her she must perform three tasks. The big question is whether we believe the fantastical situations unfolding before her eyes and our eyes.

This is a film that even though it’s spoken in a different language and we’re forced to read subtitles, nothing really gets lost in the translation. It’s never too confusing. If anything, it makes a lot more sense than any of the “Lord of the Rings” films and it’s more imaginative if you ask me. There are visual effects here that seem to have been made with a smaller budget, but it all works. The combination of make-up, animatronics and CGI works well in bringing you into this world. And the striking imagery certainly speaks for itself. You don’t need subtitles to understand the awe that can be created. And I love the creature who has eyes on his hands and flabby skin that is straight from a nightmare.

It’s interesting to see such stark, graphic images in a film that feels like it should be for young children. There are shots that seem more appropriate for a Saw film but it works well. This is a film that doesn’t forget where fairy tales came from. It’s not afraid to make it’s tale frightening or suspenseful and certainly not all fairy tales have gloriously happy endings.

Some will say Pan’s Labyrinth is one of the best films of the year and while it won’t make my list, it’ still recommended viewing for fans of horror and fantasy. It’s a strikingly different type of movie well worth seeing. GRADE: B

American Spy: “The Good Shepherd” is a Film About Foreign Intelligence and Intrigue That’s Neither Intelligent Nor Intriguing

If there were an Oscar category for Biggest Waste of Talent “The Good Shepherd” would win hands down. It kind of boggles my mind that so many great actors and filmmakers have come together to produce something that’s just kinda sorta alright. Robert De Niro is directing! Academy Award winners Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie and William Hut star! The writer of “Forrest Gump” and “Munich” has written the screenplay! And one of the industry’s great DPs, Robert Richardson, has captured it all on film! So where did everything go wrong? Okay, it’s not as if The Good Shepherd is a bad movie. It’s not like having to sit through “Lady in the Water” or “Gigli,” but it has the potential to be “The Godfather of CIA movies” and in that department it comes up a severed horse head short.

The biggest problem isn’t that the film isn’t technically well made, it’s that it’s really difficult to care about anything that’s going on. De Niro, in his second turn behind the camera, has managed to take a subject that should be fascinating and makes it completely unappealing. The film opens with the film’s most fascinating mystery: a grainy video of a couple doin’ it. Immediately I want to know who these people are and what does it matter? We’re then introduced to Damon’s character Edward Wilson. During his Yale years, he’s recruited into the Skull & Bones secret society, which is moderately interesting. Then he’s enlisted to help start a team of secretive operatives investigating God knows what. I didn’t really care and you probably won’t either.

This film is supposed to be about the “birth” of the CIA, but when exactly that happens in the film is beyond me. The film meanders for 2 hours and 40 minutes of uninteresting conversations. Wilson begins wooing a deaf girl, played by Tammy Blanchard, who doesn’t give nearly as good a performance as Rinko Kikuchi in “Babel.” But of course, Wilson is flawed and he then sleeps with Clover (Angelina Jolie) and knocks her up. They begin a marriage that hardly qualifies because he’s away doing boring secret spy stuff. She’s always mad at him because she insists, “I don't know what you do! You leave at five, you're home at ten, seven days a week! I live with a ghost! I don't know anything about you!” Perhaps their marriage is on the fritz because their dialogue is so melodramatic.

There is other supporting work from people we’d like to see more of. Joe Pesci turns up in one scene, playing an older version of his “My Cousin Vinny” role, complete with Mona Lisa Vito sound-alike wife. De Niro appears in a few scenes as wheel chair bound General Bill Sullivan who first tells Edward of his mission to start a foreign intelligence agency. Even Alec Baldwin, hot off of “The Departed” shows up. And wouldn’t you know Billy Crudup pushes the art of acting with a fancy British brogue. And frankly, and I may be spoiling something for you here, the best part of the film is when a certain supporting character gets thrown from an airplane mid-flight.

“The Good Shepherd” could easily have become a great film had it been more interesting. But the film meanders from scene to scene with boring dialogue and literally zero suspense. It’s really more of a film to admire than to really thoroughly enjoy, while “The Godfather” is both a movie to admire and enjoy. It’s really not anyone's fault in particular, but I guess the story of the birth of the CIA just isn’t exactly the story of the century. Some secrets are better left untold. GRADE: C

Bleak to the Future: “Children of Men” Presents a Society in Which Humans Face Extinction

Have you ever been placed into a world that you don’t know anything about? Let’s say, getting dropped off in a foreign country. Or what about Paris Hilton stranded at a Mensa meeting? Films can transport an audience into a world unlike their present surroundings. Director Alfonso Cuarón does this splendidly in the appropriately dreary future of England in 2027. This society has turned itself inside out. Crime fills the streets, bombs go off at the local coffee shop and illegal immigrants are locked away. Like futuristic stories like 1984 or Fahrenheit 451, “Children of Men” (based on the novel by P.D. James) presents us a bleak future, but unlike those films it actually predicts that humans will become extinct. In this society humans can no longer reproduce and the world’s youngest person has just died at the age of 18.

Classic books like the ones I mentioned previously do a fantastic job of setting the scene of a futuristic hell. While the film “Children of Men” presents us with a vision of hell, it comes up short when it comes to giving the details of this society. The film’s opening is a little jarring at first, because we don’t really know how this society is run, but we definitely get it isn’t exactly “Pleasantville.” The film also doesn’t give away the answer to why humans are infertile, but that’s not exactly a big deal. It’s more fun not knowing exactly why. And that’s the film’s point; it doesn’t want to answer your questions, but wants to present to you something you’ve never seen before, and in this way it delivers in spades.

The film takes a little time to get going, but once it does it doesn’t stop. We meet Theo (Clive Owen) who seems to be just an everyday, normal guy. He’s a friend of Jasper (a completely loose Michael Caine) who’s constantly asking those around him to “pull my finger.” He’s an aged hippie who lives in a house in the woods. Theo used to be married to Julian, (Julianne Moore) who is part of a group rebels. Julian and her colleagues introduce Theo to a young woman, Kee, who just may have the answer to the world’s infertility problem: she’s 8 months pregnant. From here on it’s a race to get Kee to the Human Project, who supposedly are looking for a cure.

We are completely immersed in this decaying society. The camera is fluid and constantly moving. The editing is first rate. We’re put right in the line of fire, which is very often. This is a civilization that is in constant trench warfare. The film’s color is appropriately dark with blacks, blues, grays and browns filling each frame. And the detail to be seen is astonishing. Although we don’t really get to learn a whole lot about this society, there is plenty of it to be seen throughout the film’s entire run.

While it takes a little while to get into and some parts tend to be confusing, “Children of Men” completely takes a hold of you. Its point is to take you to a world that was once familiar but is not anymore. The idea that there aren’t any children left in the world is a depressing fact and the filmmakers use every ounce of talent to present a truly unique cinematic experience. GRADE: B+

The Talented Ms. Dench: The Dame and Cate Blanchett Share a Dirty Little Secret in “Notes on a Scandal”

It’s highly unlikely that Dame Judi Dench will be nominated for an Oscar for her supporting work in the recent 007 revival “Casino Royale.” However, when it comes her brilliant portrayal of withered spinster/teacher Barbara Covett in “Notes on a Scandal” she’s practically a deadlock for a nod. She creates a character who is darkly mysterious and pathetic and forces you to instantly connect with this wickedly wretched old woman. She is a lonely, frumpy teacher at a British private school who all the students fear and the other teachers basically avoid. The only one she has in the world is her cat. Enter Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett) who first makes the mistake of befriending Barbara and secondly begins an unlawful affair with a fifteen-year-old student.

Barbara quickly spins a web of deceit and blackmail once she learns of Sheba’s illicit act. However, although Barbara is pitiful she’s not stupid. She confronts Sheba and confides that she’ll keep hush, hush about Sheba’s affair. Barbara instantly realizes that she could “gain everything by doing nothing.” And from then on the audience is on the edge of his or her seat waiting to see what demand Barbara will come up with next.

The film moves like a Hitchcock thriller, by mainly focusing tension-fill situation that the characters find themselves in. Dench is mesmerizing as Barbara most because director Richard Eyre (who previously directed Dench in the Oscar-nominated “Iris”) let’s us see the film through her eyes. We instantly sympathize with the bad guy much in the same way director Anthony Minghella forced us to identify with Tom Ripley in the similarly structured “The Talented Mr. Ripley.” While “Notes on a Scandal” is definitely more of a psychological thriller (there are no dead bodies or blood splattering to be found here) it instantly takes a hold of you and doesn’t let go.

Kudos goes to Blanchett for helping create (but let’s not forget talented screenwriter Patrick Marber) a similarly lonely and pitiful character. We want to like her but she does start the affair with Andrew (Steven Connolly, channeling a young Colin Farrell with a similarly hard-to-understand brogue), which is not something easy to sympathize with. Sheba is married to Richard (Bill Nighy) and has two children, one of whom has from Down’s syndrome. Like Kate Winslet’s character in “Little Children,” although Sheba is married, she hungers for something different than her traditional lifestyle. Sleeping with a 15-year-old boy isn’t necessarily the best answer, but she does it and we’re supposed to go with it.

And again Philip Glass provides a haunting score. Glass is the type of composer who you either love or hate because of his repetitive driving harmonies, but it helps drive the story forward. And it's catchy as ever.

“Notes on a Scandal” is a powerful and dark psychological drama with award worthy performances. If you’re a fan of the Dame then check out her latest acting gig because you certainly haven’t seen her like this before. GRADE: A-

A Star is Born: “Dreamgirls” is a Moving, Stylish Piece of Musical Cinema

Yes, it’s true that "Dreamgirls" is very good musical; perhaps the best since "Chicago." Of course with films since then such as "Phantom of the Opera," "Rent" and "The Producers" that’s not exactly saying a lot. "Dreamgirls," which was written and directed by Bill Condon (who wrote the Oscar-nominated "Chicago" screenplay), is a movie musical that can be enjoyed by those who don’t know anything about the Broadway show; myself included. When I first heard of the film I assumed "Dreamgirls" was an original piece, however I learned that it was an early ‘80s musical loosely based on the rise of Diana Ross & the Supremes. It has a jazzy R&B sound that employs many talented voices and an intriguing, although not altogether original, story.

Perhaps the headline of the year is the breakout performance of American Idol contestant Jennifer Hudson. The finalist scores the role of a lifetime as Effie, whose emotions and dreams get stomped on when she’s forced out of a smalltown1960s female R&B group (The Dreams). Like big stars before her, she’s destined for big things, but she’ll have to wait until the third act before she gets any hope of her dreams being fulfilled. The other two members of the talented trio are Deena (Beyoncé Knowles) and Lorrell (Anika Noni Rose). Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx becomes the girls’ manager and before you can say Gladys Knight & The Pips, stardom comes their way. Hudson is definitely the standout here, and while she’s not the best actress to ever grace the silver screen, it's impossible to deny the sheer emotional power that she emulates during her song numbers. She moved the audience I was in to tears and thunderous applause; in the middle of the film!

Yes the story is something that been seen countless times before: small town singers hit it big and obsession with fame gets the best of them. But Condon tells his story in such a flashy, entertaining way that you never realize you’ve actually heard it all before. He’s skilled at making the song numbers catchy and engaging, while letting it all make sense. Yes there are times when characters breakout in song, (during catfights, no less) but most of the music takes place on stage or in the recording studio. This is truly a beautifully filmed vision of dreaming big and achieving big time success.

And who could talk about “Dreamgirls” without mentioning the return to form of Eddie Murphy? While I’m not exactly Murphy’s biggest fan, I know talent when I see it and he’s got it. He slips easily into the role of aging Motown star James “thunder” Early. Murphy can actually sing despite having previously recorded “Party All the Time” way back in the ‘80s.

"Dreamgirls" is a well crafted movie musical, with performers and filmakers in top form, that sweeps you up and entertains for its entire running time. It’ll be interesting to see how it does come Oscar time, and while it’s not one the best films of year, you really don’t need to look much further to find such a winning time at the multiplex. GRADE: B+

A Christmas Gory: “Black Christmas” is a Treat For Blood Fiends, Fruit Cake for Everyone Else

If you thought Arnold Schwarzenegger staring in “Jingle All the Way” was a holiday horror film, wait until you see “Black Christmas.” Horror movies have covered many holidays over the years, from the iconic film Halloween, to the horror-spoof April Fool’s Day to the, killer-in-miner suit flick My Bloody Valentine. I guess it’s only a matter of time until a horror movie is set on Thanksgiving with murderous Native Americans. Or what about a psychotic killer slaughtering voters on Election Day? Somebody please page Wes Craven! It was inevitable that a remake of 1974 not-so-classic slasher “Black Christmas” was in order. While that original film had the benefit of a small budget with some suspenseful moments, this new film is filled with more expensive style and some of the more gruesomely graphic violence since Hostel. In fact there are more gouged out eyeballs than Eli Roth could have ever imagined putting onscreen.

If there’s anything really wrong with this new Black Christmas it’s that it is completely awkwardly structured. I don’t go into a gore fest actually expecting a “well-made film” but I at least want some coherence. A bunch of college girls stay home for Christmas in their sorority house. They basically sit around the house recalling the story of the wacko family that used to live in their sorority house. And wouldn’t you know the psychotic children who used to living there are celebrating a murderous Christmas homecoming. The blandly written girls refer to each other by name when the other is not present, so we have no idea who they heck they’re talking about. They’re like, “Where’s Clair,” or “Have you seen Kelli?” And I sat there thinking who the heck are they talking about? Director Glen Morgan hardly has character exposition in mind, but at least he gets spends little time getting to the good stuff. And while the girls sit around drinking wine, the sorority mother (do these even still exist?) entertains the girls with the backstory of wacky Billy and how he killed his family and now lives in a mental institution. These flashbacks, although filled with cool angles and a sense of style, should have been regulated to the opening of the film instead of breaking up the present day scenes.

This is one of the most gory films I have seen in a long time. This movie puts The Hills Have Eyes, Hostel, Saw, etc to shame. The violence is old-fashioned 1970s exploitation gruesomeness and you couldn’t ask for anything more in a film set on the wonderfully cheery holiday of Christmas. And Morgan lingers on the blood. He doesn’t cut away or use flashy editing to make it “scarier.” I’m talking bloody close-ups galore! This film, like the Final Destination films, (in which Morgan and James Wong made together) has some of the most exciting and original deaths in recent memory. And this is perhaps the only film in which I’ve seen a death by candy cane.

Anyone who is fan of the splatter film will rejoice for Black Christmas. While the film isn’t necessarily “scary” or “suspenseful” it has enough style and blood to please fans of the genre. And of course it has the necessary scary moments to make the annoying teenage girls in front of me to squirm in their seats. Now here’s hoping that the sequel finds Father Time offing sexually active teenagers on New Year’s Eve. GRADE: B-

Saved by the Mel: “Apocalypto” is a Spellbinding Success Due to Mel Gibson’s Masterfully Sadistic Direction

The enjoyment I received from watching Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto is directly proportionate to how much I ultimately didn’t want to see it. I think the common people will agree with me. I was sick of the trailer by the middle of the year when the film was originally slated to be a summer release. A film about an ancient tribe of people who all speak an ancient language, with no familiar faces? Yawn. I had already seen The Passion of the Christ and even though this new film didn’t star the Savior I didn’t want to see that again. But I gave the movie a chance and by golly it’s amazingly good! This sadistically bloody, action-packed epic, which shames gore pictures like Saw with its excessive use of realistic violence, is a completely thrilling film that had me on the edge of my seat.

If there were any film that is Apocalpyto’s opposite in terms of cast it would be the recent Bobby or any Robert Altman film. Gibson, who co-wrote with Farhad Safinia, has chosen to use unknown actors. And by unknown I mean unknown. Seriously, have you ever heard of Rudy Youngblood? I didn’t think so. Mr. Youngblood makes a strong lead as Jaguar Paw who is a member of a close-knit South American (?) tribe deep in the jungle circa centuries ago. His wife is pregnant and they have a young son. Without warning some Mayan pillagers completely ransack the village in a sequence that is brutally realistic as anything seen in Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan. Many of the adults are taken as prisoners, leaving some small children behind (including Jaguar Paw's wife and son in a deep hole). And on sets the film’s entire story, which is seen through Jaguar Paw’s fearful but brave eyes. He has no idea what these people have in store for him.

Mel Gibson, who hasn’t exactly been having the best public year ever, proves that he is a tremendously talented person who certainly belongs behind the camera. This is one of the most suspenseful action films I’ve seen in recent memory and it’s emotionally powerful and truthful. The film is essential one long chase, on foot no less, and Gibson applies a sure hand and eye. He has brought a gloriously conceived vision to the screen in a film that in essence shouldn’t really have succeeded to begin with. This could have been a boring, confusing mess, but Gibson knows exactly what he’s doing and has crafted a tremendously entertaining film.

Many will be put off by the fact that the film is, like I said, just one long chase. Jaguar Paw carries the entire weight of the film on his shoulders as his escape from the Mayans makes up most of the film. We really learn little of the Mayan culture or how their society eventually collapsed. We only understand as much as Jaguar Paw can conceive as he is taken prisoner. He and his people are taken to a ritual in which the captives’ bodies are painted blue and their heads are loped off, but not before their hearts are ripped out while still alive. This is a gristly and gory movie that will likely turn off many filmgoers. It’s a movie that doesn’t really glorify the violence, but depicts it as a natural way of life for this ancient people.

Gibson, who deserves a Best Director nomination, has made a film that shouldn’t have succeeded on so many levels, and yet it does. Not for one second was I turned off by having to read subtitles. The detail that was put into the film is extraordinary. You really sense the history behind these ancient people. This is a brilliant story of survival, revenge and family that sucks you in right from the start and never lets go. The two hour-plus running time literally flies by. The film is worth seeing if only for the exciting jaguar (or was that a panther?) chase scene that almost has the power to stop your heart. This is a great film that’s a highly recommended must see. GRADE: A

Like a Surgeon: Partying Travelers Run Into the Brazilian Organ Harvesting Massacre in “Turistas”

Vacation movies can go either way: sidesplitting comedy (National Lampoon’s Vacation, European Vacation, etc) or gut wrenching horror (Hostel, Wrong Turn etc). I think National Lampoon should start making horror films. If they did, they’d end up with National Lampoon’s Brazilian Vacation. But it’s already been made as “Turistas,” in which some South America-bound hotties looking to have a good time end up being unwitting organ donors. Director John Stockwell, (Blue Crush and Into the Blue) known for showing off outside body parts finally gets to show us the inside parts and display enough graphic surgery to make the show Nip/Tuck blush.

We start off with a young woman being strapped down to a table. She’s shaken and disturbed. She cries out “I want to go home.” At this point most people are going to want to take her advice, however, if you enjoy the typical hot vacationers + weirdo locals = graphic torture, you’ll probably want to stick around. Big brother Alex (Josh Duhamel) is chaperoning his sister Bea’s (Olivia Wilde) and her friend Amy’s (Beau Garrett) Brazilian vacation. Somehow the tour bus they’re on ends up at the bottom of a hill, so they’re stranded for hours until the next bus comes. They meet up with fellow travelers Pru, Liam and Finn and party all night at bar located right on the beach.

I’m sure you can guess what happens next. They wake up the next morning in a tub of ice and their kidneys have been removed! Well not exactly. They are drugged and robbed. But unfortunately it takes awhile before any graphic surgery takes place. Meanwhile a local named Kiko takes them on a ten-hour hike through the jungle to his uncle’s cabin in the middle of nowhere. They stop off at some underwater caves for no other reason except for the establishing fact that these caves exist so that when the final chase occurs we’re familiar with the locale. They finally end up at the house, with no one home. In the middle of the night, the surgeon and his team arrive, and some internal organs are finally spilled.

While there are some “suspenseful” early moments, a modicum of impending doom, and some gory parts (finders being cut off, a stick in the eye) the film doesn’t take as long to get to the good stuff as Hostel did. Hostel was definitely a National Lampoons movie that took way to long to get to the gooey goods. Turistas doesn’t take quite as long and even though there’s really only one major organ removal scene, it’s quite graphic and disgusting. It’s obvious that this film is one 10-blade (I'm a Nip/Tuck fan) slice away from an NC-17 rating.

Turistas is definitely standard horror movie stuff. Fans of the genre should enjoy it but everyone else will want to take the film’s opening “I want to go home” advice. I’m sure I could make up some kind of meaningless cinematic reason to see the film. The cast’s beautiful bodies are in sharp contrast with the grotesqueness of the situation they find themselves in. Oh who am I kidding, this movie’s a piece of junk. In other words, it’s a pretty enjoyable. GRADE: B-

Family Jewel: “Blood Diamond” is Equal Parts Suspense, Brains & Morals

I’ve never found Leonardo DiCaprio to be an actor with very much range. That isn’t to say that he hasn’t tried a variety of roles, many of which I haven’t found him very compelling in. Earlier this fall I utterly enjoyed DiCaprio in Martin Scorsese’s brilliant crime thriller “The Departed” and wouldn’t you know he’s just as enjoyable in Edward Zwick’s thrilling “Blood Diamond.” Both films are gritty and share themes of violence and greed and neither shy away from fully exploring the violent human mind. While it might sound weird at first to hear a South African dialect come out of the same guy’s mouth who started his career on the TV sitcom “Growing Pains,” DiCaprio and the rest of the cast deliver a wonderfully enjoyable story about the morals of the ravenous human condition.

The film is set in the 1990s in the western African country of Sierra Leone. There is a brutal (and that’s an understatement) civil war raging on. The rebels kidnap the adult male locals and force them to search for diamonds, to be unlawfully traded. The boys are sent to rebel training school, which includes machine gun target practice with dummies and live humans. The women and girls are of no use. The boys are completely brainwashed to honor the rebel army. One man who is taken from his family is Solomon Vandy (an intense Djimon Hounsou). While being forced to dig for diamonds, he comes across a large one that will set the film’s entire plot in motion (cue the McGuffin). Solomon is able to bury the diamond for safekeeping and is able to escape his rebel army captors. He hopes the large diamond will be a key in reuniting with his wife, daughters and son (he of whom has begun rebel army training).

Let’s enter DiCaprio in his best performance since “The Departed” as mercenary Danny Archer. Danny is a character who is constantly doing something that is wholly not “the right thing.” He smuggles diamonds and is sent to prison where he hears about Solomon’s hidden diamond. The diamond will mean a big fortune for Danny and could mean a family reunion for Solomon. And so begins a relationship that isn’t exactly what you would call buddy-buddy. While we get to understand DiCaprio’s character it’s hard to predict how he is going to act, which causes tremendous anticipation in the viewer. Danny knows in his head he’s basically just using Solomon to get the score of a lifetime. American photojournalist Jennifer Connelly also realizes this. She befriends both Solomon and Danny on their amazing journey through rebel territory to recover the “conflict diamond.”

This film not only offers a plot that is exciting and completely enjoyable but offers a realistic and moralistic tone that isn’t preachy or forced. We learn early on that people are tortured (i.e., hands lopped off) just so that illegal diamond trade can exist. And where exactly do these precious stones end up? Most likely on your favorite gal’s ring finger. The film does an incredible job of raising awareness of an important issue that I personally had no knowledge of. It’s horrible to think that so many innocent people are killed just so a woman can have an engagement ring loaded with karats.

The film is brutally realistic in a documentary/Schindler’s List kind of way, but it’s never gratuitous. It just helps it feel real. You almost sense that the filmmakers actually shot scenes in this conflict zone. And while the film does use a non-fiction backdrop to tell a fictional story, it almost seems too real to be just a movie. This is a film that shows that violence is occurring in other countries besides Iraq. This isn’t only an intelligent and suspenseful drama, but it has an actual soul. If it causes one person to think about where exactly the diamond came from on their ring and who had to die just so she could have it, then maybe it’s true that art can change the world. GRADE: A-

You Say You Want a Revolution: “Bobby” is a Nostalgic Look Back to an Age When Politicians Could Be Heroes

It’s hard to imagine Emilio Estevez writing and directing a movie let alone one about the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Yes, the former Brat Packer has gathered enough stars to make the show Will & Grace jealous for a film that isn’t so much about RFK’s death as it is about what was going on in America around the same time. The film opens up with a brief history of what the U.S. was like in 1968 with the war still raging in Vietnam and the public’s dismay of the never-ending bloodshed (sound familiar?). The best parts of Estevez’s film are the bookends, the instant nostalgia trip opening and the closing scenes in which all of the film’s characters intersect as RFK’s assignation is carried out. The middle however is chock full of Irwin Allen-esque movie stars that seem to be awaiting some kind of natural disaster.

While the film doesn’t really do anything new with the ensemble cast drama (think Crash, Magnolia, or Nashville) it presents us with interesting enough characters to last us two hours. It would take three full reviews to even begin to mention the entire cast, which is made up of the prestigious (Anthony Hopkins, Helen Hunt, Martin Sheen etc) to the not so prestigious (Heather Graham, Ashton Kutcher, Joshua Jackson etc). It’s obvious from the film’s ideals that Estevez certainly doesn’t segregate the good actors from the bad ones. Let’s not forget the has-beens (Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Estevez himself) and the up and comings (Lindsay Lohan, Elijah Wood, Shia LaBeouf). There is what seems like a million more from where that came from. Each character has their own backstory which together plays like a microcosm of the American people of the time. This includes women marrying men so they didn’t have to go to war, the plights of people of color, tripping on acid for the first time, adultery, and political campaigning.

The movie weaves many plotlines without ever really confusing the audience. But maybe that’s more of a complaint than a real compliment. After all with so many stories and characters (more than 20) it’s impossible to be very in depth. The movie sort of plays like a long pilot of a TV show, taking it’s time to establish the characters and their motivations so that we can be hooked for the rest of the season. What Estevez skimps on in terms of storyline depth he makes up for in political idealism. It’s extremely interesting watching the stories unfold at the Ambassador Hotel in California during a summer primary election. Senator Kennedy will be at the hotel to give a speech and what will be his final public appearance before his untimely death.

The problem with these characters is that on the surface their troubles seem completely unimportant when played against the backdrop of RFK’s assassination. Since the killing only occupies the film’s last quarter, it almost seems as if it was an afterthought, a climax so dramatic and tragic that perhaps the characters will become better people because of it. Actually the ending scenes are far more intense and dramatic (with a voiceover of one of Kennedy's most powerful speeches) than anything we had previously seen in the film.

While the characters’ stories in “Bobby” seem insignificant when compared to RFK’s tragic death, the film certainly is an interesting ode to the chaotic time period. It does a great job of evoking the era without the gratuitous use of popular 60s rock tunes (with the exception of the well-placed "Sounds of Silence). RFK was an important man, and Estevez has crafted an intriguing look at a time when people actually looked up to politicians with a glint of optimism in their eye, instead of daggers and false hopes. GRADE: B

Hollywood Squares: Christopher Guest’s Usual Quirky Cast is Award Worthy in “For Your Consideration”

I want to criticize “For Your Consideration” right away to get it out of my system. The film as a whole was a slight disappointment. Perhaps it’s because Christopher Guest and his genius troupe of extremely gifted actors’ high point was way back in 2000 with "Best in Show." That film expertly skewed those nutty dog show contestants, created an air of excitement and suspense, and gave us extremely appealing characters that all had hilarious chances to shine. For Your Consideration should work simply by default. When you assemble the same funny actors in a story that is entertaining it should just work. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. There were large chunks of the film in which I just didn’t laugh. And that was disappointing. However, this is a movie that is really hard to dislike despite its faults.

Now that it’s out of my system let’s talk about the film’s positives. The actors are very funny people, and when the film focuses on the funny storylines it’s a success. The film revolves around the production of the independent film Home For Purim. Catherine O’Hara, Parker Posey, Harry Shearer, Rachael Harris and Christopher Moynihan are the actors playing actors in the film within the film. Christopher Guest is the director. Eugene Levy (co-scripter with Guest) is an agent. Jennifer Coolidge is a producer. Ed Begley Jr. is the flaming make-up artist. John Michael Higgins is a publicist. Bob Balaban and Michael McKean are the screenwriters. Michael Hitchcock and Don Lake are co-hosts of an Ebert & Roeper-like film critic show. And finally Jane Lynch and Fred Willard are at their best as co-hosts of an Entertainment Tonight-like entertainment news show. During the filming of the film within a film, someone mentions O’Hara’s name with an Oscar and there you have the simple flame that starts the fire that is Academy Awards buzz.

What’s interesting about the film is how bad Home For Purim really is. From what we see of the shooting, there’s no way that any of the actors would ever be nominated in real life. And that’s the film’s point. That awards really mean nothing. Sure there are plenty of filmmakers and actors out there worthy of praise, yet there are just as many who aren’t. Just the simple excitement that such a crappy film could be considered in the Oscar nomination race is enough to send shockwaves through the film’s cast. I less time was spent on the filming of Home For Purim, and more time on the actual building of buzz. Some of the scenes of Purim are so bad they’re tedious because like I said its film that would never win awards. All of the actors are uniformly excellent except they all don’t have the juicy roles that they all had in Best in Show. The film does create excitement leading up to the nominations.

Of particular interest here is Catherine O’Hara would is actually so good that she deserves a nomination. Seriously. She is funny as always, but she adds just a bit more that makes her role not only humorous but also actually quite affecting. Her character’s transformation from simpleton thespian to… well I don’t want to spoil it… is just simple exquisite and delightful. Wouldn’t it be the film’s ultimate irony is she scored a nom? She’s definitely worthy and under appreciated actress. This is her best performance.

While For Your Consideration isn’t Guest’s crowning achievement, it is a fun and lighthearted ode to movie making. While it’s not in the “mockumentary” form as his previous efforts, the narrative flows evenly enough to keep the viewer intrigued for the most part. While the actors themselves are funny, I couldn’t help but wish they’d all grab a pooch and go all dog show nutty for me. GRADE: B

On Golden Bond: “Casino Royale” is an Ace Short of a Full House

My James Bond knowledge is limited to what I’ve seen in the Austin powers trilogy. During the outstanding and exhilarating opening sequence in which Mr. Bond follows a suspect by foot up a construction site, I wanted to shout “Juno chop” whenever he punched the bad guy. I don’t really count what I’ve seen in bits & pieces of the sometimes unavoidable 007 marathons on cable TV. Of course there had to be something about the super secret agent that has caused him to spawn films for nearly four decades. And that something finally came with the latest installment “Casino Royale” in which Munich co-star Daniel Craig donned the black tux and shaken martini. This is a film that will be overwhelmingly pleasing to Bond fans and a modicum of entertainment for Bond virgins.

Seeing as though I don’t know too much about the Bond franchise, “Royale” is more like The Bourne Identity than Dr. No but critics are certainly happy with it. I found most of it exciting (the first half) but the rest seemed to creep along at a snail’s pace. Director Martin Campbell who directed GoldenEye starring Pierce Brosnan as Bond, does an equal job of creating excitement in breathless action sequences and scenes in which the character sit down to a game of extremely high stakes poker (we’re talkin’ millions here). I’ve never found poker extremely fun to play let along watch so I have to give credit to Campbell. He must have spent his nights watching Ultimate Poker Challenge or something.

I’m not so sure what the plot of this renovated Bond flick is but from what I hear this is supposed to be a prequel of sorts. Bond has just been granted with 007 status and the person in charge is none other than Dame Judi Dench herself. (Oscar worthy you ask? You never know with the Dame) He tends to be a rather pesky pain in the butt for her and the audience gets to laugh at his annoying antics (he breaks into her house and is sitting on her couch when she arrives home, he calls her in the middle of the night). Bond travels all over from Madagascar, without the talking animals, to Europe to the Bahamas and Miami. The bad guy is Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who tears blood. The “Bond girl” is Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) who Bond names his trademark drink after.

I knew the action was flagging with the film took a strange turn. Towards the end of the film our hero is captured, stripped and tortured ala “Hostel.” While it’s not graphic at all, it seems a rather odd development. I’m not sure of 007 films’ naked torture record. I would say the film runs about 25 minutes too long but the first half is extremely strong and fun.

Bond fans are probably going to rejoice with this reinvigorated action flick. Apparently the last installment was God-awful, (Denise Richards as a scientist?) but I’m sure this is the way Bond was meant to enter the 21st century. While many are balking at Craig’s blonde hair and baby blues, that hardly seems like a worthy complaint. If anything, I wish editor Stuart Baird had convinced the director to cut this Bond down a bit. GRADE: B

Write Club: “Stranger Than Fiction” is an Entertainingly Quirky Ode to Literature

There’s one thing that was on my mind after seeing “Stranger Than Fiction.” I want a damn chocolate chip cookie. Not just any cookie, but a warm, homemade cookie. The delicious kind your mom used to make on a snowy winter day as a child. The whole house would reek of chocolate goodness. This film is not only an ode to literature and the interweaving of fiction and reality, but the sweetness of life. It’s all about the little things, i.e. homemade cookies that make life worth living. Perhaps I’m a little ahead of myself, but director Marc Forster (Monster’s Ball, Finding Neverland, last year’s Stay) has crafted an intelligent, original film which answers the age old question of what would happen if an author’s fictional main character were actually a real life person living his own real life.

Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson) is an eccentric author writing a book. Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) is an IRS agent living his dull life. What they don’t know is how these two separate individuals are related. Harold is the character Thompson is writing about. We’ll learn that they both exist in real time. Harold can hear Kay narrate as she writes her novel. He thinks maybe his toothbrush is talking to him. He asks the woman next to him at the bus stop if she can her the voice too. Perhaps he’s just crazy. Crazy in love that is! He is auditing Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal) a baker with her own fabulous cookie shop. (Geez where is this place, I wanna go there!) Ana and Harold have a love-hate relationship that just might develop into a love-love relationship. Ana just happens to be the person to show Harold that life doesn’t have to be so mundane.

Kay has a problem in that she doesn’t know how to kill off her main character. Her books have always been successful because she kills off her protagonists for dramatic purposes. Maybe a car crash? Maybe he should jump off a building? The thing is, since Harold just so happens to be a real person, the audience is completely and quickly sucked in to what Harold’s fate will be. Harold receives some advice from English professor Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman). Hilbert suggests to Harold that he figure out what kind of novel the voice is narrating and perhaps then he can track down the author and prevent her from killing him off.

No description can give this movie the justice it deserves. It’s very funny, extremely smart, completely original (credit first time screenwriter Zach Helm) movie. It’s some sort of cross mutation Charlie Kaufman and Woody Allen hybrid that delivers in spades. If you’re in the mood for a smart, beautifully made slice of American entertainment, with great actors giving even greater performances, Stranger Than Fiction is the way to go. It’s certainly one of the most unique films of the year that certainly makes life a little sweeter. GRADE: B+

Do You Hear What I Hear: “Babel” Offers an Intriguing Patchwork of Characters Lost in Translation

Babel is a complicated and mature film that interlocks the stories of several characters all of whom are of different races. Sound familiar? This isn’t a rip-off of last year’s Oscar-winning “Crash” but it is certainly just as well done. Of course it’s not as “in your face” about its statements how people from different cultural backgrounds relate to each other. It’s simply the story of how a deadly riffle ends up in the hands of two young Moroccan boys and the tragedy that unfolds before the audience. It is a film filled with sensationally subdued performances from a racially diverse cast.

Brat Pitt and Cate Blanchett are Richard and Susan a married couple vacationing in Morocco. While riding a tour bus an unseen object strikes Susan. She’s bleeding erratically. This is serious. In the previous opening scene we’ve seen a man giving two young boys a riffle to be used to scare of animals that might try to eat the family’s flock of sheep. Unsurprisingly the boys decide to shoot the riffle into nothingness and then into driving vehicles far in the distance. One of those vehicles is a tour bus. There is also the story of promiscuous Japanese teenager Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi in her first American film) who is deaf. Her and her father are also connected to the riffle.

Meanwhile back in the states, Richard and Susan’s two WASP children are being taken care of by their Mexican nanny Amelia (an effective Adriana Barraza). She and her nephew (Gael García Bernal) have to travel to Mexico to go to her son’s wedding and since she can’t find anyone to take care of the little tykes (Susan’s accident has prevented them from coming home on time), she takes them and their passports along for the ride. This will prove to be an obviously terribly rash decision. Two Mexican’s traveling across the border with two Caucasian children is unfortunately not a good situation.

Director Alejandro González Iñárritu has crafted an intriguing tale of characters who all speak different languages whether it be Spanish, English or even sign language. What we have is a morality play about how difficult it can be for people of different backgrounds to really understand each other. Iñárritu’s direction of Chiecko’s scenes is especially effective due to his way of immersing the audience in the world of a deaf girl. Pitt performance here is subtle but strikes a nerve that he has rarely evoked in the past. Barraza has a strong emotional weight as the children’s caretaker and the scene in which they attempt to cross the border into the U.S. crackles with suspense.

Iñárritu has crafted a meaningful, well-made film that is a terrific follow up to his “21 Grams,” a film that is equally emotionally riveting. In a time where immigration is the talk of the town, perhaps we should follow the film’s extremely useful and wise tag line: “If You Want to be Understood... Listen.” All that wisdom for the price of a movie ticket. GRADE: B+

Odd Bless America: See “Borat” For Make Benefit of Laughing Audience; I Like!

I purposely postponed writing this review until I could see “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” twice. The film basically requires two viewings. The first time you see it, you’re completely shocked and awed by it and since you spend so much time laughing, you miss a lot. I felt a second screening was necessary so that I could determine whether the film stands up to multiple viewings. It does. While the film obviously wasn’t as surprising the second time, it still felt as fresh and funny as the first time. While the film runs at only 84 minutes, it is certainly stretched awfully thin and feels as though it’s nearly two hours, but you’re so into what’s going on you don’t even have time to notice. This is certainly the funniest, craziest and most bizarre film of the year.

Borat is a character created and played by British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen (of The Ali G Show) who you may have seen this summer in “Talladega Nights.” Of course you would never know that the man you are watching for 84 minutes is only a fictional character. You never think for a second that Borat is a character being played by an actor. You believe 100% of the time that Borat Sagdiyev is an honest to God real human being. Of course human being is pushing it. This guy is racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semitic and wet your pants funny. We accept that this man is so culturally inept because he’s portrayed as a real person. He makes such a horrible person into such a lovable, endearing character. Part of what makes Borat so genius is that he’s really not nearly as mean-spirited as the many Americans he meets along his journey through America (in an ice cream truck, no less). You see Borat is a Kazakhstan TV reporter sent to the “U.S. and A.” to bring back some cultural learnings to his home country.

Along the way Borat meets the epitome of the American people, whether they be rodeo lovin’ red necks, gun totin’ Southerners, Jesus freaks, drunken frat guys, homophobic subway riders, high society, garage sale “gypsies”, a nice old Jewish couple and plastic-breasted Pamela Anderson. While Borat himself is rather offensive, he lets the Americans make fun of themselves more than he could ever hope to. The film is essentially a mockumentary with some scripted footage along with what seems like in-the-moment reactions with real people in real locales. Borat has squeamishly awkward confrontations with feminists, hotel clerks and Jews that are so over the top that you can’t help but laugh. (During dinner with some high society people he comes back to the table with his feces in a bag and invites an overweight hooker to the party) That includes some of the most un-PC dialogue ever to grace an American film. Things that would be offensive in any other dumb R-rated flick make a perfect home here in this film. References to Jews causing 9/11 would be in extremely poor taste in any other movie but here it’s turned into brilliant satirical wit.

“Borat” is truly a sight to be seen; a film that is nearly impossible to describe. Fans of reality TV will be impressed, sketch show fans will be delighted by a sketch film that is actually funny, and anyone who is distraught with our country’s current political climate will certainly be in for a surprise with Borat. He is a unique character whose film makes the guys from “Jackass” look like the Little Rascals. You’d be doing yourself a favor by checking out “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” more than once if you’ve got the time. It’s nice! GRADE: A

Stars & Stripes Forever: “Flags of Our Fathers” is More Than the Flag-Waving Film You’d Think It Would Be

“Flags of Our Fathers” just very well may find itself on the ballot for Best Picture this spring at the Academy Awards. Of course that would just seem like Clint Eastwood overload after Clint’s previous two Oscar-grabbing efforts “Million Dollar Baby” and “Mystic River.” One can’t help but wonder what the heck Clint is putting in his gin & tonic to help him make such fantastically successful films. While it’s easy to dismiss his latest directorial effort as just another World War II drama trying to impersonate Steven Spielberg’s genre defining “Saving Private Ryan,” Eastwood’s film is much more than just elaborately staged battle scenes with emotionally charged performances. It has an interesting story to tell, based on actual events no less, about the Battle of Iwo Jima and the effect that one particular flag raising had on entire nation sick and tired of war.

It’s obvious from the time we live in that war films no longer have the flag-waving “proud to be an American” feel they way they did back in the 40s and 50s. War films are constant truthful reminders that war is an evil that no human being should have to suffer; yet thousands have, do and will throughout the years. The story of Flags of Our Fathers revolves around the infamous photo of several American soldiers raising an American flag upon the top of a mountain during the Battle of Iwo Jima in the South Pacific. This image forever changed the view of the war. Americans were tired of war but the government insisted that they press on and continue to fight. The image represents the American can-do attitude and it instantly became a staple of America’s hope to come out on top during this tragic period in time.

Eastwood’s film certainly does justice to this extremely interesting story of war being sold as if it were popcorn at a movie theater. War can very well be a product and the waning American people’s interest in supporting the fighting turned around as soon as the government turned those men who raised that flag into a symbol of helping support the war, “buy war bonds!” The cast Eastwood has assembled is simply wonderful. Ryan Philippe is as strong here as he was in “Crash.” The same goes for the other assorted young men including Jesse Bradford, Barry Pepper, Jamie Bell, Joseph Cross and the relatively unknown Adam Beach who turns in a great performance as Ira Hayes, an Native American who is constantly the target of disgusting racial discrimination.

What is so interesting about the film is the way its two stories are intertwined. We get lots of footage of the actual Iwo Jima battle that many will agree seems to be in direct comparison with the opening scene of “Saving Private Ryan.” But give Eastwood credit, these scenes are very well done (the DP is John Stern) and certainly stand well on their own. A simple flag mounting on the island and its photo is enough to change history. We get to see the soldiers as they reenter society as heroes. The photo is in every newspaper and monuments are erected. These men aren’t just turned into heroes of Iwo Jima they are turned into an image of how America is the best and we can overcome anything.

What a perfect time for a film like this to come along with our current state of affairs overseas. It’s so simple to turn one image into something completely different. Writers William Broyles Jr. and Paul Haggis (Crash’s Oscar-winning screenwriter) craft an interesting story about war, hope and heroism that will certainly make people think about the parallels of present day. In a time where so many are being killed everyday, maybe a movie can help many of us change our minds for the better. GRADE: B+

Cut it Out: Hopefully “Saw III” is the End to this Blood-Soaked Thrillogy

There are some things that Saw III is and some things it is not. Saw III is gross and bloody. What it is not is suspenseful, scary or “Return of the Jedi.” While I’m not exactly a Star Wars aficionado I do know the ending of a trilogy when I see one. But what I don’t get is why the end of Saw III which kind of wraps things up nicely, leaves the door open for Saw IV: A New Beginning. Have the Saw movies, low-budgeted, bloody and wildly popular, turned into the Friday the 13th films of the 21st century? Are we bound to have 10 more installments in which helpless victims are strapped into heavy duty, expertly designed devices ready to gouge, rip and shred up the people foolish enough to be trapped in one? If there’s one thing I’m thankful for the Saw films is reinventing the hard R rated horror film with plenty of blood and guts to make The Passion of the Christ look like a fairy tale. What I don’t like is the style in which these films are made, let’s credit director Darren Lynn Bousman for copying James Wan’s style from the first “Saw.”

I get a headache every time the camera whips around the room in circles, the focus going in and out, and hard rock music blaring on the soundtrack, with an edit every 10th of a second. It’s mind-numbing and headache-inducing. If there’s one thing we can expect in a Saw film is lots of blood and guts. So just linger on it already! You’ve ripped open someone who had metal hooks attached to every one of their body parts so why must you shake the camera so much that we can’t even see what’s going on? If you’re trying to avoid actually showing us the gore maybe you shouldn’t of hired a make-up guy and just pulled a Blair Witch and imply the violent dread. What’s the point of showing a person’s ribcage being torn open if you’re just going to cut away? Ok I may sound like a freak here, but the camerawork of Saw III (and all of them) is the most annoying thing about them. It’s supposed to be stylistic, but it’s not.

While I didn’t love the second Saw installment, I must say the plot of it was more interesting than Saw III. Here we have our villain Jigsaw, a cancer stricken patient on his deathbed (ooo scary!) and his apprentice Amanda, who was a victim in the first film. It turns out she was in on the torturous events of the second film, and there’s something that we’ll learn about her and Jigsaw that is mildly interesting (No, Jigsaw is not her father). They have kidnapped a surgical doctor and placed a device around her neck that will make her head blow up if Jigsaw’s life-support machine flat lines. And let me just say this guy’s about 20 minutes away from death. He has to be kept alive so that he can witness the game that is being played on a man who has lost his young son to a hit and run driver. This man is all about vengeance so it’s Jigsaw’s job to torture him until he realizes that he should give up trying to find the man responsible for his son’s death. Jigsaw isn’t just a sadistic cancer patient, he makes people realize the value of life. That’s something you don’t see in a Jason flick. We don’t get to learn anything about this guy, which is why I liked the second film better, because we get to see the people work together to escape the torture house, and see the evil that is waiting inside every human being.

There are some pretty decent death scenes in the film but the camera moves so fast or scenes are so under lit that it’s kind of hard to tell what’s really going on. We get a woman who freezes to death, a man stuck in a huge bin with pig guts nearly drowning him, and let’s not forget the guy in the twist-o-matic, in which his arms and legs get twisted so that his bones break and protrude from his flesh. Okay if this all sounds gross, maybe you shouldn’t see the movie, but it’s surprisingly not as gross as the second installment. And it’s most definitely never scary. The parts I did like were going back to the beginning (the first film) and seeing things we know now that we didn’t know then. There are some interesting surprises that fans of the series will look forward to seeing.

All in all, Saw III fits the other films well. If you like sadistic horror, this is your ticket. Unfortunately the film isn’t scary or that well made. It’s obvious that the filmmakers are amping up the visuals to make up for the lack of budget, good acting, plot, yada yada. But do we really care about any of that? I don’t think artistic merit is on the menu when you buy a ticket to film called Saw III. GRADE: C