Review: Little Children [2006]

To make a film about good people being decent is a pretty easy task.  Audiences want to watch good people winning the good fight.  Making a film about questionably moral or bad people is a much tougher nut to crack.  The characters and surrounding story have to be engaging enough to not only attract an audience, but to get the audience to care about ignoble characters.

“Little Children” is a good, interesting film about a group of questionably moral people.  Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson play Sarah and Brad; young parents married to workaholic spouses.  Sara seems constantly exhausted by motherhood while Brad seems to genuinely enjoy fatherhood.  They meet by chance at the neighborhood park and slowly fall into an affair.

The affair is the main thread of the film and is supplemented by the subplot of a sexual offender, Ray, (Jackie Earle Haley) who is routinely harassed by a disgraced cop, Larry (Noah Emmerich).  As is the way with a lot of modern cinema, these two plots—the affair and the sexual offender—slowly interweave with a connected story.  It’s a build that comes along slowly, just a scene here or there, and then delivers in a quiet, creaking crescendo that left me with chills and a supreme level of creep factor.

“Little Children” has nothing but strong, impressive performances.  Kate Winslet and Jackie Earle Haley both received Oscar nominations for their work and certainly deserved the recognition.  Patrick Wilson and Noah Emmerich have an interesting, tense response to one another that helps lay the tension for the big finale.

Stylistically, “Little Children” is uneven.  The film is peppered with occasional narration that fills in blanks that may have played better if the narration had actually been acted out on-screen.  The narration comes off as omnipotent while the rest of the film carries a feeling of secrecy and half-truths.  There are more character aspects explained through narration than through actual character interaction.  “Little Children” is a film about characters and their individual choices.  It is also based on a book, and the narration issue could be a carry over from the original text.  It’s a strong film with an interesting, twisting story and were it not for the off-putting narration, I’d be recommending it whole-heartedly.

Review: Call Me Madam (1953)

“Call me Madam” is a drinking game of a 1950s musical.  Charming leading actors (Ethel Merman and Donald O’Connor)?  Drink.  Charming supporting actors (George Sanders and Vera Ellen)?  Drink.  Fun music?  Beautiful dance sequences?  Everyone falling in love?  Drink.  Drink.  Drink.  If “Call Me Madam” were any more cookie cutter, you’d be boozed to your ears.  If “Call Me Madam” were any less cookie cutter, it wouldn’t be charming at all.

In “Call Me Madam”, Ethel Merman and her brassy, air horn voice play a rich oil widow, Sally Adams, who becomes an ambassador to Lichtenburg.  Donald O’Connor and his glorious comedic talent, plays Kenneth, the press attaché to Miss Adams.  Sally falls in love with the handsome, baritone foreign minister (George Sanders), and Kenneth falls in love with a princess.  And everyone lives happily ever after.  There’s nothing new or experimental in “Call Me Madam”, and that’s precisely what makes it so great.

It works like this:  Every 1950s musical is meant to give you a world of sunshine and roses with just enough conflict to give reason for comic misunderstandings.  “Call Me Madam” is a film you watch because it stars Ethel Merman.  “Call Me Madam” is a film you watch because you want to see Donald O’Connor and Vera Ellen perform two beautiful dance sequences.  “Call Me Madam” is a film you watch because you want to spend two hours smiling, and spend the rest of the night smiling, too.

If you like the formula of the 1950s musical, if you appreciate the talent and the fun you can find in them, see “Call Me Madam”.  If you’ve no interest in the 1950s musical, skip straight out, but try to do it on the beat.

And a touch of bonus content:  Donald O’Connor’s big solo sequence in “Call Me Madam”.

Review: “Closer” (2004)

“Closer” is a story about four people who form two couples and wreck their relationships with infidelity.  Or, perhaps, “Closer” is a story about the idiocy of believing in love.  Or maybe “Closer” is just a reason to be vulgar about the things in life which are always painted up as simple and natural.  Whatever the preferred definition (and it varies greatly person-to-person), “Closer” is a film that necessitates unflinching performances.  The four characters—Dan (Jude Law), Alice (Natalie Portman), Larry (Clive Owen), and Anna (Julia Roberts)—spend the entire film speaking only to each other.  “Closer” is the essence of a  “talky picture”, and it holds itself together by the sheer talent of its actors.

Most notable in the film is Julia Roberts.  America’s Sweetheart becomes foul-mouthed and morally grey.  Her trademark smile is rarely used, and there’s nothing light or carefree about Anna.  Picking a scene to spotlight Roberts’s portrayal is difficult.  Anna is complex and closed-up, and so much of what Roberts does is small bits of business.  The way she almost looks Owen in the eyes during a pivotal scene in their shared apartment; the quiet, uneven tone she adopts for any conversation involving emotion—these small touches take what could be an obvious attempt to break out of an established character and make it a full-fledged rush of talent from an unexpected sector.  It makes me wonder, watching Roberts’s bitter, wrenching performance, what kind of an actress has been lost to the genre of romantic comedies.

Clive Owen, forever a strong presence, weaves together the character of Larry with a precision that is almost unnoticeable.  He takes a generally kind but slightly misguided man and pulls you into his slow, imperceptible breakdown into full-on bastard with elegance and understatement.  Owen has been cast again and again as the tough guy who breaks heads.  Larry is a man with a broken head who is trying to be tough.  It’s a tour-de-force performance precisely for his lack of force.  Owen’s usual take on simmering rage only comes up once in the film, and it’s put to fierce use opposite Roberts.  It’s a five-minute scene that will stick in your head for the rest of the film and beyond, and you’ll walk away from the movie amazed that Owen can be so very subtle and careful when he’s onscreen.

Don’t think that the praise being heaped onto Roberts and Owen means that Law and Portman didn’t hand out amazing performances as well.  “Closer” wouldn’t work at all if half the cast was crap, and Law and Portman are both talented actors.  However, where Roberts and Owen play against type, Jude Law plays a variation on his standby character of a smug jerk.  He’s doesn’t play it badly, and he doesn’t play it wrong.  He plays it as he always plays it—with talent, charisma, and ease—but as I already knew he could play the character well, my attention was drawn more to Owen and Roberts.

Portman’s Alice was her first adult role in a film, and I wasn’t at all surprised when the role turned out to be foul-mouthed and borderline raunchy.  Where Law’s smug jerk is par for the course, an actor’s first starring role as an adult with a foul mouth and no moral compass is also par for the course.  But that’s not a hit on Portman.  Where some actresses would look uncomfortable or out of place throwing out the kind of dialogue “Closer” wallows in, she doesn’t even flinch.  I believed everything she said because Portman didn’t look nervous or ashamed to say it.  That’s a lot to ask for a first-time adult role, and Portman delivers without having to work at it.

It comes down to this:  If you believe true love conquers all and love is all you need, you need to flee in the other direction.  If you consider yourself a realist and know that not everyone is a happy person, see “Closer”.  You’ll probably want a very hot shower after the fact, but you’ll probably come away amazed at how much you liked it.

Review: “Tombstone” (1993)

“You gonna do somethin’, or are you just gonna stand there and bleed?”

That quote, delivered with borderline disgust by Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp, sums up the theme of “Tombstone.” What do you do in the face of danger? Do you stand, mouth agape, or do you take a swing?

“Tombstone” looks at that question from the point-of-view of a retired Wyatt Earp. Wyatt and his brothers, Virgil [Sam Elliott] and Morgan [Bill Paxton], settle into Tombstone, Arizona planning to live out their lives as businessmen. They happen along Doc Holiday [Val Kilmer], and if you don’t know what happens next, you need to go take a history course.

“Tombstone” is not a film about surprises. If you have any prior knowledge of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, or the OK Corral, you know what’s coming. But it’s not about what’s coming that matters; it’s the character of the men trying to get there.

Kurt Russell gives a layered performance as Wyatt Earp. He paints a picture of a man caught between having a regular life and doing what he feels is right. He’s confused and conflicted, and Russell’s performance is well-executed and wonderfully carried. I say this not only to brag, but to make clear Russell’s talents in the role are considerable, and that the scene-stealing I’m about to mention was no simple feat.

Most of the scene-stealing comes from Val Kilmer’s Doc Holiday. Kilmer doesn’t chew scenery or push himself into shots; the eye-catching part of his performance comes from his complete disappearance into his role. Kilmer slides into a honeyed drawl and waxed moustache and vanishes. All that’s left is Doc Holiday, all-around scoundrel and charming devil.

What scenes Kilmer does not charm into his pocket find their way to Sam Elliott, possibly the best modern-day cowboy Hollywood has to offer. From his bristly mustache, to his rumbling baritone, all the way down to his boots, it feels like Elliott simply showed up on set to see what was happening and stuck around because it was a western. He’s gruff and stubborn, and he makes you believe in the type of lawmen the Earps’ have always been rumored to be. There are very few actors still working who seem to have fallen from the westerns of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and “Tombstone” did well to catch Sam Elliott to play Virgil.

The supporting cast for “Tombstone” is a who’s who of “Yeah, that guys”, including Powers Booth, Michael Biehn, John Corbett, Thomas Hayden Church, and Jason Priestley. Priestley’s performance is probably the most interesting simply because once you recognize who he is, you can’t believe it’s the same guy who came from “Beverly Hills: 90210”.

“Tombstone” doesn’t end at the OK Corral, as previous interpretations of Earp have. “Tombstone” stretches out into the aftermath, using true accounts of the bloodshed that followed to show Wyatt Earp not as a legendary hero of the West, but as a full-fleshed man with decisions to make and consequences to handle. It’s a movie based on truth, as much as legends can be, and it’s the truth that gives “Tombstone” a depth and emotion that’s never been granted Earp before.

The legend of Earp is a story which needs no embellishment to be entertaining and spell-binding. The story of Wyatt Earp, the man, has to show those moments of legend and put them together to showcase a man who didn’t just walk in and start shooting; sometimes he had to be dragged. That is what “Tombstone” is; the moments in between Wyatt Earp’s famous feats, and how a man became a legend.

Joint Review: “Lars and the Real Girl” (2007)

It’s a bit after 48 hours, but we do have the written reviews polished and ready for reading!

Gayle’s Review: Lars and the Real Girl

Sean’s Review: Lars and the Real Girl

And, in case you missed it, we also did a podcast of our reactions. There’s even a bit of arguing, just to make it properly authentic.

Review: Death at a Funeral (2007)

“Death at a Funeral” is filled with gallows humor, slapstick ridiculousness, and no less than a hundred amusing lines delivered in a complete deadpan. It’s a film you see because you want a collection of cheap laughs delivered at regular intervals, and because you want to see Alan Tudyk in the all-together [all back shots, sadly, but very nice back shots].

There are parts of “Death at a Funeral” that fall flat, specifically a five minute scene about an elderly relative needing someone to take him to the bathroom. It gets just as disgusting as you’re imagining, and while that’s certainly a laugh for people with a truly toilet-attuned sense of humor, I just cringed and looked away. The tension between the brothers [played by Matthew Macfayden and Rupert Graves] seemed tacked on to add a bit of drama to a film that spends its time trying so hard to be as funny and wacky as it possibly can. The movie throws out half a dozen threads of possible plot and tension that it never properly ties off, and goes out of its depth every time it tries to move out of the farce genre.

Peter Dinklage, a personal favorite, gets underused in a role that is to be expected in any farce dealing with a family death. He is the skeleton in the closet, the dark, dirty secret that only ever comes out, in movies, at funerals. He gives it the best he’s got, and even gets in a couple of good lines, but is pretty much left to flounder in the midst of a plot device that’s so obvious I spent the first twenty-five minutes of the movie wondering when it was going to show up. There’s a bevy of other characters underused in a similar fashion, and to go on about where they started and how they stalled would be completely uninteresting and a waste of perfectly good internet space.

So let’s change gears and talk about the upside: Alan Tudyk is on the scene to bring in the big laughs. He plays a man named Simon, going to the funeral with his girlfriend because she thinks it will impress her disapproving father. Before their entire plotline becomes one overused and outdated sitcom joke, poor Simon gets dosed with a raging hallucinogenic and spends the majority of his time in the film spouting complete nonsense and walking around naked. If there is an actor built to deliver ridiculous lines in a believable manner, it’s Alan Tudyk. He has an affable, confident delivery that just makes you want to go along with the joke because he seems to be having such a good time.

Matthew Macfayden also gets his share of very fun moments, starting at the beginning of the film when he informs the undertakers that they’ve made an error in the casket. When he’s not bogged down with Rupert Graves in their unneeded brotherly tension, he shines with dry wit. Peter Vaughan plays the semi-senile and bitter Uncle Alfie with great fire when he’s not being forced to yell for help in the bathroom.

“Death at a Funeral” has plenty of strong, funny moments that bookend tired, unnecessarily dramatic moments, and the funny moments are enough to recommend the movie. There’s a good deal of laughter to be taken from this film, both in deadpan and utter silliness, and that’s more than can be said for a great deal of recent comedies. See it, enjoy it, and have fun talking about how green things are for the next few days.

Gut Reaction: The Dark Knight (2008)

Being a particularly nerdy type, the Husband and myself managed to score advance screening tickets to see “The Dark Knight”. We’ve been home all of ten minutes, and I feel that my feelings on the film can be summed up thusly:

Holy freakin’ christ, go see this damned movie.

Allow me to expand: This is not a comic book film. Yes, it’s based off a comic book character, and yes, it uses elements of particularly excellent “Batman” canon for its story*, but this is not a comic book movie. This is a stone-cold-turn-you-inside-out-and-upside-down crime thriller with characters faced with hard decisions and performances that are, to be brief, stunning.

To be less brief, let it be known that we’re officially on the bandwagon of the amazing abilities of the late Heath Ledger. We were both fans of his before, and this movie, no matter when he would have made it in his career, would have simply made us appreciate him more. His Joker is definitive. Nicholson’s Joker was a sad imitation to the depth and breadth Ledger gave to the Joker in “The Dark Knight”. He’s not just some wackjob giggling away in a big dark room; Ledger’s is a Joker that wants to get his hands dirty, and that is the ultimate point of the Joker. He is crazy, and loves it, and Ledger brings that to the film with a sharp, sure edge that will make you shift and wince and crave to see just a bit more.

Ledger’s is not the only performance worth its weight. Aaron Eckhart is a strong, compassionate, understandable Harvey Dent. He is a man who wants to make his city a better place, and he means it sincerely. Everything he says is coated in a pure truth, and his evolution throughout the film is brilliantly paced. Maggie Gyllenhaal breathes life into Rachel Dawes in a way Katie Holmes never did. Gyllenhaal’s Dawes is a woman who doesn’t run scared, because Gotham is her city, and she knows all its dark corners. I felt throughout “Batman Begins” that Katie Holmes was a second from fleeing the set. Gyllenhaal’s Dawes is a much more believable character, if only because she appears to have a real understanding of the truth of the darkness of the city.

Christian Bale continues to own his role as Batman, and watching him hit the struggling philosophical moments just makes the journey that much sweeter. Batman, in his early days, should be shown weighing the pros and cons of what he does, and Bale does an excellent job of bringing that struggle out in a way that doesn’t seem forced or over-the-top. We should care about Batman because he’s Batman, not because the brooding onscreen forces us to do so. Michael Caine hands us an Alfred that Batman needs. He’s caring, he’s compassionate, and he knows when to look Batman in the face and call him on his crap. Morgan Freeman produces a Lucius Fox who is useful, highly intelligent, and sly in a way that is utterly necessary to the way the story fleshes out.

A brief paragraph for Gary Oldman, all on its own: There is not a better man to be playing Jim Gordon. Oldman gives a smart, tough, but ultimately idealistic man who you love because he’s just so damned decent, and that’s how Gordon should be. There is a moment in the film where Gordon shows up, and the audience burst into spontaneous applause, so in love were they with this plain, decent man.

Okay, enough about the acting, although it’s superb, let’s talk plot: The plot twists and turns and twists some more, but where some films would leave you scratching your head, “The Dark Knight” lets you keep up. You keep up by keeping on the edge of your seat, but you keep up all the same. This is a smart, well-written, beautifully paced film, and watching it bloom from the opening scene to the final title card will leave you gasping. There was spontaneous applause throughout the film; not just for Jim, but for bits and pieces as the various threads of the plot began to tie up. The action scenes are phenomenal. There are, at individual times, explosions, giant fires, plenty of fist fights, and, in case you needed it, possibly the top two car chases to ever be put on film. Yes, “The Matrix Reloaded” had a seventeen minute chase scene, and yes, they did lots of cool tricks, but the way the chase scenes end out in “The Dark Knight” make them better, plain and simple.

“The Dark Knight” is a film pushed forward by the strength of its performances and followed on its heels by the astounding feats completed by the stunt department. You will gasp, you will jump, you will laugh, just a touch, and you may even tear up a bit. See it. Now. Because you have any love in your heart of film at all.

*Ledger was given a copy of “The Killing Joke” to give him a starting place for the Joker he produced for the film. The Nolan brothers based quite a few of their plot points on “The Long Halloween”, which was written by Jeph Loeb and drawn by Tim Sale.