Mentok's Movie Reviews

300

2007-03-24T09:47:00.001-07:00

Dear readers, do any of you indulge in historical strategy games, like Age of Emipes or Rise of Nations? If you do, you'll recall that such games typically have a victory option called Wonder, whereby you can win the game non-militarily by building and maintaining cultural or scientific achievements which ensure the immortality of your civilization.

I thought about this as I watched 300, which is a retelling of the ancient Battle of Thermopylae. You'd never want to play for the Wonder victory option if you were Spartan. Every Western imperialistic civilization from the ancient Romans to the modern Americans has had a big hard-on over Sparta, the legendary warrior society. Yet, despite that the Spartans dominated much of Greece for various periods, all we know of the them comes to us from other people. The Spartans themselves have given us nothing. No poetry, no history, no sculpture, no architecture, no science. As a civilization, they barely existed. But more on that later.

The plot, in brief, for those of us who have forgotten our Greek history lessons: in 480 BC, the Persian king Xerxes I sent a massive invasion force against Greece, but suffered gigantic losses and was critically delayed because a tiny force of Greeks, led by 300 Spartans under King Leonidas, held them off at the narrow mountain pass of Thermopylae ("Hot Gates"). Sparta had not sent its full army against the Persians due to political machinations at home which were resolved too late to help the valiant Leonidas and his men.

If you are looking for a good history lesson, look elsewhere. As director Zack Snyder eloquently put it "this is an opera, not a documentary."

This is no doubt, a visually stunning film. Comic author/artist Frank Miller, who created the original graphic novel, has succeeded where other comic greats (such as Alan Moore) have failed in maintaining the integrity of his work on film.

He has, in fact, done more than that. With the surrealistic style he pioneered in the film version of Sin City, he seems to have found the secret of translating graphic novels onto the screen...at least his own.

The problem that has always existed with comic adaptations is that comics are not just, as many assume, a dumbed-down form of written novels. Comics are a medium of its own, with its own set of tools and visual vocabulary. Miller, at last, has found a way to make that distinct visual vocabulary come across in moving pictures.

The visuals in this film are all classic Frank Miller, conveying splendidly his unique blends of gore and sensuality, beauty and corruption.

The plot premise likewise perfectly suits Miller's usual schtick of a lone rebel tough guy facing off against an unspeakably corrupt, decadent establishment.

If you view this movie purely on the level of appreciating an adaptation of Miller's work, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

But this movie isn't just a comic book adaptation. This is a movie that is trying to convey a message, and so it should be judged on that message.

The movie frantically tries to deliver the pro-Republican, post-9/11 message that freedom comes at a cost, namely the cost of eternal vigilance and defence. This is a perfectly good message which I don't dispute in the slightest.

However, the film ignores (except, perhaps, by inadvertent implication) the much more important message that we can easily destroy freedom by trying too hard to defend it. As in everything, balance is key. The Spartans were so preoccupied with military defence that everything in their society was enslaved to it. Even slightly deformed infants were summarily killed. Children, in the name of "training" were subjected to every imaginable form of physical and mental abuse. The economy was a proto-communist one in which every aspect of society existed for the sole purpose of feeding the war machine.

And this is a civilization held up as an example of "defending freedom"?

But of course it is easy for us to understand such hypocrisy, since we live with it. We live in a society in which the secret police have the right and ability to monitor the lives of every citizen and to arrest and hold people without charges or a trial for extended periods, all in the name of "defending freedom".

Most likely, everything that America is doing in the modern day "Persian War" (i.e. Iraq) is every bit as justified as the actions of King Leonidas in the ancient one. But, in a free society, this should never be assumed and should perpetually be questioned. Further, anyone who tries to shout down such questions in the name of patriotism is really no patriot at all.

The central question of our age is: How much of our freedom are we willing to sacrifice for our security? We must never stop asking that question.

This movie, for all of its pretentions, provides no answers, only more of the same slogans we have heard over and over again during the past four years.

The Departed

2007-02-13T14:12:00.000-08:00

I'm really not having a good week for seeing Oscar contenders. The Departed has been hyped to the sky in advance of its nomination, but I don't feel it deserves it.

OK, I'll grant you, the premise is clever. A police unit that uses moles to investigate organized crime is itself infiltrated by a mole. Moley, moley, moley!

Clever, but hardly brilliant. The woods are full of clever crime dramas. You don't see, for example, Lucky Number Slevin nominated for major awards. There are crime dramas that are smart, not just clever, such as Mystic River. But The Departed is not a particularly smart movie.

And, oooh, my goodness, the range that these actors give us. Matt Daimon is cocky. Leonardo di Caprio is brooding. Martin Sheen is paternal. Jack Nicholson is weird and self-indulgent. They should have just used CGI animated characters, for all the originality we see in the casting or performances.

But while the film isn't overflowing with originality, there are a couple bits of funny foreshadowing I enjoyed. Early in the film, students at the police academy receive a lecture on the physics of bullet wounds to the head, which proves useful information for the audience since we have to watch so many head-shootings during the course of the film.

In another scene, diCaprio is mocked by one of his superiors for making a literary reference. "What's the matter - Shakespeare not good enough for you?" Indeed, the movie's bloody climax, which leaves almost none of the film's main characters standing, is quite Shakespearean in its unrelenting brutality. Still, it is more than a little pretentious for Scorcese to try to put a literary dress on scenes that feature so many brain-splatterings.

Don't get me wrong. I like crime dramas as much as the next guy, and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie on that level. If you're looking to get your adrenalin level pumped with a nice shoot-em-up action movie, by all means see this movie. If you are looking to be edified by a thought-provoking, artistically crafted Oscar contender, look elsewhere.

Notes on a Scandal

2007-02-12T12:35:00.000-08:00

I have a theory that Hollywood defines "great acting" as yelling a great deal with a British accent. In that sense, this movie deserves all the praise it has received, for it does in fact contain a lot of yelling by British people. If you enjoy that sort of thing, you should definitely see it.

On the other hand, I found that if you filtered out the accents, this movie was not that great. The plot was pretty heavily telegraphed. There was no point at which I was left wondering what was going to happen next.

In brief: Judi Dench is a lonely old spinster / battleaxe teacher at an inner-city British school. Cate Blanchett is an enchanting art teacher who takes a job at the school and promptly becomes involved in a very messy and dangerous sex scandal. Dench's conniving character soon tries to manipulate the situation to her own advantage. When events go awry, much British shouting breaks out.

I think what disappointed me most with this film is that the lead actors played so much to type. Judi Dench played a Judi Dench character. Cate Blanchett plays Cate Blanchett.

There were two really good performances in the supporting cast. Bill Nighy, who plays Blanchett's much older and long-suffering husband, manages to carry off his role with both panache and subtlety. Likewise, veteran character actor Philip Davis manages just the right dash of humour as the horny-goof fellow teacher who has a crush on Blanchett.

Still and all, for all its weaknesses, the movie has a message. It tells us that lonely spinsters are probably old lesbians and that old lesbians are generally evil. That's a message that we don't hear very often in this day and age. Should we hear it more often? You be the judge.

The Queen

2007-01-31T18:52:00.000-08:00

This is one of those rare movies that is both entertaining and informative. It gives a rare glimpse into an exclusive world, namely the British Royal household.

The movie recounts the events immediately following the death of Princess Diana as the Royal family and British politicians try to come to grips with the public relations fall-out.

The story could have easily fallen into one of two traps. It could have been a fawning love-letter to Princess Di. Or it could have been a sychophantic tribute to the Royal family. It was neither.

Without going into detail, the film conveys that the Princess Di story was not as simple as her post-mortem cult would have us believe. It is implied that the behind-the-scenes Di was hell on wheels and a persistent trouble-maker. From the little I know of this drama, I find this credible.

The Royals, and particularly the Queen, are shown from both sides of their human nature. On the one hand, the film shows us how hilariously insular and culturally inbred they are. In one particularly funny scene, Prince Philip proposes cheering up the young princes by taking them out hunting the day after their mother's death. "All right," says the Queen. "But no guns - it's Sunday."

On the other hand, the Queen is depicted as a woman who has dedicated her whole life to the British nation and has done so without a word of complaint or a whiff of scandal. At one point, she reminds her staff how she had served as a mechanic during the war. One starts to suspect the Queen resented Diana because she felt the latter had unjustly absconded with the title "the people's princess".

To me, perhaps the most enjoyable parts of the movie were the ones that showed that Elizabeth II is not just the Queen of England but also the archetypical English woman of her generation: frumpy, stubborn, witchy yet full of wry humour. When you see her stomping about in her head-scarf, raincoat and rubber boots, she seems like she could be anyone's grumpy old English grandma.

The movie is, above all, a character study. Helen Mirren does a phenomenal job of capturing this complex personality. If she doesn't win the Oscar for this performance, it will be a travesty.

Honourable mention also goes to Michael Sheen for his performance as Tony Blair. His acting is so convincing that you really find yourself thinking that he actually is Tony Blair, as we watch him go through his evolution from being a socialist who sneers at the monarchy to a seasoned politician who admires Elizabeth II. "Like every other Labour Prime Minister, you all end up ga-ga over the Queen", his wife complains.

A solid movie, worth seeing and well deserving its Oscar nominations.

Letters from Iwo Jima

2007-01-31T18:43:00.000-08:00

We're into Oscar season, so I'm trying to cram in a few more movies. Consequently the reviews will be more frequent but shorter.

I was disappointed with this film. It is a good movie by all standards - well written, well acted, good production values.

But it was too soon after Flags of Our Fathers. My reaction was "Oh, another war movie. Oh boy."

War is hell. No matter what side of the battle you are on, war seems senseless when you are in the midst of it. That's the whole message of this movie. Not exactly original. This movie has nothing more to say on the subject that hasn't been said a million times in a million other war movies. The only difference is that they say it in Japanese.

Definitely worth seeing, but I wasn't blown away.

Apocalypto

2007-01-11T21:10:00.000-08:00

Let me start with the good things about this movie, of which there are many.

This is a great film. I was blown away.

Movies like this are the reason the cinematic form was invented. Watching this movie did not feel like watching a movie; it felt like virtual reality or like peering through a time portal.

So lavish were the production values, so thoroughly-researched and authentic were all the details that I really felt like I was seeing real people from another time.

A major part of this achievement was Gibson's much criticized technique of filming period movies in their original languages with subtitles. Not only does this enhance the feeling of authenticity of the film, it also enhances the acting. Since the actors don't have to worry about sounding real - since no one can tell what they are saying anyway - they can instead focus all their energy on acting real.

In case you haven't heard the buzz, this film is basically about a clash of cultures in pre-European South America. A primitive tribe is ravaged by the greed of a "civilized" culture. This conflict ultimately boils down to a life-and-death race through the jungle between two men, a tribal prince (named Jaguar Paw) and an imperial general, who come to represent all the strengths and weaknesses their respective cultures.

This film, I feel, performs a great service to the human race by meticulously documenting what we know about mesoamerican civilization. Of all the major ancient civilizations, that is the one most people know the least about. The fact an entire continent full of advanced civilizations was wiped out due to greed and ideology was truly a crime against humanity. It is fitting that this culture at last receive such a lavish tribute.

I think what impressed me most about this movie was its wise and nuanced depiction of the human animal. Like all truly great art, this movie sees humans for what they are: a group of apes who became too smart and too greedy too fast. The movie shows the human capacities for love, skill and creativity. It also stares unblinkingly into the profoundly ugly face of human greed, cruelty and sheer madness.

In one series of scenes, a group makes its way from the jungle towards the city. The road to the city depicts the gradual evolution of technology and society. The closer they get to the city, the more technology people use, the more clothes they wear, the more art they create. But, most importantly, the closer they get to the city, the more insane, corrupt and decadent people behave.

To be sure, this movie is not for the squeamish. There is a lot of gory violence. Still, this is a masterful, important film and everyone should make an effort to see it.

OK, there's all the good stuff. Now for the criticisms. This movie is not subtle. It hits you over the head with its message pretty heavily. Near the start of the movie, I was impressed by the irony of the fact that mesoamerican civilization oppressed and exploited other less advanced cultures. But the movie isn't content to let the viewers figure that irony out on their own. Towards the end of the film, Gibson beats us over the head with it. And just for good measure, there is a scene where a tribal elder tells an ancient fable, which of course delivers the moral of the film in the simplest possible terms, just so there is no chance that anyone in the audience will miss it.

This film also gives new meaning to the theatrical term deus ex machina. Jaguar Paw is repeatedly rescued from certain doom by the most outlandish miraculous events. Combined with the fact that this is basically a chase movie, these improbable rescues made me think I was watching some sort of mesoamerican version of the Roadrunner cartoon. There was one point in the movie where I completed expected to see the Acme logo.

Please, dear readers, keep in mind that this is a serious and thoughtful film. When you see this movie and you see the scene I'm talking about, please do not laugh out loud. And , once the chase scenes start, please please do not allow the Roadrunner music (dat dada dat dada dada) to creep into your brain. It would be such a shame if that happened. ;-)

Ultimately, these criticisms are pretty picky and technical. The long and the short is that this is an important film. While Gibson may be a loon and a bigot in real life, he is proving himself to be a great cinematic craftsman. It is, I suppose, ironic that greatness and ugliness should be so evident in Gibson's life, since this film helps show us that these are the common qualities of the whole human race.

Borat

2006-11-13T10:46:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago when reviewing Beerfest, I wished that, if Hollywood insists on cranking out gross-out comedies, at least they could try to make creative gross-out comedies. Well, my wish has been answered. Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is truly one of the grossest films you'll ever see but it is also a rare gem of inspired comedy.

You know, comedians don't get enough respect. It's a hard business that is very creatively and spiritually draining. As the old saying goes: "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." That's why it is so impressive to see a performer like Cohen so totally dedicated to his craft.

The premise, I expect, is well known. The chameleon-like Cohen, famous for his Ali G fake interview character, uses another character, Borat, a "journalist" allegedly from Kazakhstan, to stage another round of fake interviews. (By "fake interviews", I mean that the interview subjects are not aware that the interviewer is an actor playing a character and therefore react to his outrageous questions as though there is simply a culture gap.)

It takes real courage and discipline for Cohen to pull this off effectively. He is routinely roughed up by security guards. His interview subjects frequently threaten to call the cops on him. In one scene, he offends an entire audience at a rodeo. Now, that's gutsy showmanship.

If you google up "how much is real in Borat", you will find a vigorous debate about which scenes are staged (i.e. the people appearing in the scene are in on the joke) and which ones are "real" (people in the scene not in on the joke). It is part of Cohen's great skill that it is very hard to tell the difference.

Cohen uses his comedy skill to eviscerate a wide range of subjects, including anti-Semitism, homophobia, intolerance and nationalism. At all times, the film is a hilarious study of how gullible people are when you point a camera at them.

My favourite scenes involved Borat receiving lessons from a prim-and-proper Southern etiquette coach. I won't wreck the scene for you, but it revolves around Borat asking the etiquette teacher to explain the proper way in America for a guest to ask his hostess for permission to use the "shit hole".

Another whole level of comedy (and there are so many in this movie) involves the comparison between America and Kazakhstan. Cohen's fictional version of Kazakhstan appears cartoonish, featuring a characters like the village rapist and Borat's sister the prize-winning #4 prostitute in all of Kazakhstan. But the real-life America shown in the film - including frat boys, gun shop owners and evangelist revival meetings - seems equally cartoonish.

Before I close, I want to warn readers again that this is a gross movie. It is not for kids and not for the faint-hearted. There are scenes so repellent that I wish I could blank them out of my memory.

Yet, for all of that, this movie is a true comedy masterpiece whose influence will be felt for years to come. Cohen stands head and shoulders above the current crop of very mediocre comedians and, on the strength of this piece alone, deserves to be called a comedy genius.

Flags of Our Fathers

2006-11-05T19:32:00.000-08:00

I went through a period of a couple years during which I only read two books, over and over again. One of them was Sun Tzu's Art of War, so I can tell you with great authority that, since ancient times, military strategists have understood that the first step in mobilizing a nation to war is to win the propaganda battle for the support of your own people. That is what Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers is all about.

The movie, set mainly during WWII, cuts between the battle of Iwo Jima and the propanda / war bonds drive into which the hapless Iwo Jima flag-raisers are recruited. For good measure, there are also a few scenes set in modern times of the Iwo Jima veterans in old age.

In 1944, America was on the verge of bankruptcy. The US public had grown tired of war and had started to think about ducking out of what at times seemed to be a losing battle. The bloody battle of Iwo Jima was the scene of the famous photograph of five American soldiers raising the US flag over the tiny island battlefield. This literally iconic photo served to boost the flagging morale of the American public. The military quickly capitalized on the public's love of the photo by recruiting a few of the surviving soldiers to participate in a massive war bonds drive.

At first, I was relatively non-plussed by the war scenes. In and of themselves, they add nothing more to the genre that hasn't already been done (and probably better) by Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.

However, the war scenes serve two major functions. First, unlike Saving Private Ryan, this movie has come out while the Western world is at war, so it's useful to be reminded of just how horrible, inhuman and wasteful war is. Second, the gritty reality of the war scenes serves as a contrast to the goofy unreality of the propaganda campaign. (There is a scene of dark comedy involving ice-cream sculptures that has to be seen to be fully appreciated.)

But while the propaganda campaign often seems foolish, even to the characters, it nonetheless serves an invaluable purpose. It helps preserve in the minds of the public the black-and-white morality and heroism of the war which of course cannot really exist in this messy, shades-of-grey world of ours. Second, it raises funds for the war from a nation on the brink of economic collapse. There is a stunning scene in which the war-time spin doctor character, played by John Slatterly, lays out the blunt realities of America's crumbling finances. In one speech, the movie brilliantly succeeds in showing the moral need for a nation to lie, cheat and steal from its own people during war.

The Slatterly character stood out to me. That character is my people. Some of you who read this are also my people, so you know what I mean.

Another actor I noticed for different reasons was Neal McDonough of Band of Brothers fame. Guess what: he plays a crusty, steely-eyed army officer! Apparently his agent has never heard the term 'type-casting'.

On the whole, this movie is a phenomenal achievement in exposing the contradiction between the fictions we create about war and the horrid realities of it. At one point, one of the characters talks about war as "a waste". In the end, that is all war can be: a waste of life, potential and goods. It should always be the last, last, last resort. On the eve of Remembrance Day, I found it salutary to be reminded of that.

I should say I have a great bias about this movie. My father, who passed away a year and a half ago, was a WWII veteran who saw combat in spite of being in the Dental Corps. There is a scene in the movie, set in modern times, in which the son of a veteran sits by the hospital death bed of his father and receives his father's last words, his regrets. I've been there, literally. I'm not a tearful sort normally, but I cried all the way through that scene.

Even with this scene subtracted, this is a powerful movie. I can't recommend it strongly enough.

World Trade Center

2006-10-20T15:29:00.000-07:00

I've never much cared for the libertarian religion. I know my libertarian friends will probably balk at the use of the word "religion", but the disciples of Ayn Rand do indeed make a great number of spiritual assumptions whether they admit it or not. Watching Oliver Stone's World Trade Center made me think about how very false so many of those assumptions are.

In case you have just returned from a lengthy vacation on the moon, the plot involves the true story of two New York cops trapped under the World Trade Center after 9/11.

It's hard to think of anything to say about this movie that hasn't already been said. Stone's decision to tell the 9/11 story from the micro, on-the-ground viewpoint was inspired. The performances are great. The special effects, wow. This is a solid movie. It will get an Oscar nomination and deserve it. Go see it.

With that out of the way, I'm going to do what drives my wife crazy about these reviews and focus on the negative, just for the hell of it.

Although this is a powerful movie, it deserves to be said that it derives a lot of its emotional power from fairly rudimentary cinematic manipulation. Ya got your 'band of brothers' quasi-military loyalty to comrades unto death. Ya got your guys doing the old "tell my wife I love her" dying message bit. And you've got lots of parental situations. That last one is the simplest trick to pull in a movie. We parents are sucker. Stick a scene in a movie with a guy and his kids and even the toughest he-man on earth will start tearing up. It doesn't take a lot of story-telling sophistocation to pull that off.

But despite the sometimes superficiality of the story-telling, the fact that it is a true story delivers a powerful message, and that's what got me thinking about libertarianism. Libertarian thought revolves around the notion of the "sovereign individual" whose connection to other humans is not intrinsic but only a function of explicit or implicit contract. I've heard libertarians argue that even motivations like parental love are merely matters of "choice".

Among the many problems with the "sovereign individual" assumption is the observed behaviour of people in disaster situations. In an emergency, most people will try to help each other. Even in the face of imminent physical danger and with no benefit to themselves, ordinary people will typically make superhuman efforts to save the lives of other members of their species.

This movie shows this phenomenon over and over again. At the end of the movie, a narration observes that these ordinary people who performed heroic acts did so instinctively, compelled by the simple feeling that what they did "just seemed like the right thing to do."

So, with all respect to my many libertarian friends, the whole notion of the disconnected "sovereign individual" is full of shit in my opinion. We all participate in a life that supersedes our individual lives. Human experience demonstrates this in a million ways.

Moving from one impolite topic to another, this movie also got me thinking about the political and tactical implications of terrorism. In the landmark third seasoner opener of Battlestar Galactica, a suicide bomber successfully slaughters hundreds of evil Cylons and traitorous human collaborators. When a Cylon official asks a human leader Laura Roslyn to condemn suicide bombing as a tactic, Roslyn just sneers. "It looks like we've finally found something that scares Cylons," she says.

I couldn't get that line out of my head as I watched the scenes in this movie where they flash around to terrified crowds of people all over the United States watching the events on TV. I couldn't help but think that there was an otherwise moderate Islamic leader somewhere in the world thinking "It looks like we've finally found something that scares Americans."

This doesn't bode well for the pursuit of the War on Terror. The fact is our enemies will never give up terror tactics. Why should they give up tactics that work, and that work so economically? On September 11, 2001, for the price of a few airline tickets, a small group of radicals brought the most powerful country in the world to its knees. If you sincerely believe that your enemy is fundamentally evil, why would you ever give up such tactics?

Further, as the history of Israel has proven, it is effectively impossible to eliminate terrorism. No matter how many security systems you impose, there will always be loopholes as long as there is any traffic of people or goods.

Therein lies the conumdrum of our times. What can we possibly do to prevent terrorism?

The answers are still very unclear and, I'm sure, will remain so for a long time. This movie, in its own sometimes-subtle, sometimes-blunt way, deserves kudos for making us think about those questions again.

The Devil Wears Prada

2006-10-05T14:51:00.000-07:00

Here at Mentok the Mindtaker, we're all about saving you money. For example, I once managed to jerry-rig a big screen projection system using electronic spare parts that cost a fraction of the store-bought versions. Of course, my projector contraption looks like it was built in the former Soviet Union and it emits an odd odour if you leave it running for more than an hour, but it works.

In that jerry-rigging, do-it-yourself spirit, I offer you this simple plan for viewing the Devil Wears Prada without the expense and hassle of going to a theatre or renting it on video.

1. Using a four-way splitter, attach 3 DVD players to your TV and begin playing the movies Working Girl, Swimming With the Sharks and the Princess Diaries simultaneously.
2. On the fourth input feed, tune your TV to the Fashion Network.
3. Consume enough alcohol so that things begin to blur together, but not enough that the room starts to spin. If you choose Mentok's signature drink, the Hurricane Katrina, two of those babies should do the trick.
4. Use your universal remote to quickly switch among the four input feeds. Keep this up for about two hours.

Voila! You have just watched the Devil Wears Prada.

Seriously, although the movie draws on some well-worn themes, it is on the whole a good movie well worth renting on video.

The story, in brief: struggling young fish-out-of-water (Anne Hathaway) who knows nothing about fashion lands a job as an assistant to monster-boss Meryl Streep, the editor of a prestigious fashion magazine. Yada, yada, yada, Hathaway discovers wealth and glamour are shallow and instead finds the secrets of true love and real happiness.

The movie on the whole does a very good job of depicting the "royal court" environment of an industry that is fixated on itself and therefore totally alienated from real life. This is symbolically depicted in a scene in which Hathaway's is supposed to drop something off at the editor's house with strict instructions not to go beyond the foyer. When Hathaway is lured into the private areas of the house, she sees that her all-powerful boss is, in her "real" life, completely powerless to stop her husband from falling out of love with her.

In this and other scenes, Streep does a particularly subtle job of adding dimension to a boss-from-hell character that could have been played even more cartoonishly than it was written.

I question the casting choice of Anne Hathaway. More to the point, I question Hathaway's career choice in making this movie. There really is far too much Princess Diaries in this story. I have faith that Hathaway has talent but she's in danger of getting typecast, if she isn't already. (By the way, guys, this is definitely a chick-flick, so regrettably there is no Anne Hathaway nudity in this movie.)

I fully expect this movie to pop up at the Golden Globes and possibly the Oscars. It doesn't deserve it, but it will get there anyway on the basis of its Working Girl vibe, I predict.

On the whole, I liked the movie, wasn't knocked out by it, but it's a perfectly suitable choice for a video night.

Beerfest

2006-09-20T08:49:00.000-07:00

You could say this movie exceeded my expectations. I was expecting it to be bad and it was far worse than I could have imagined.

When I worked in professional politics, I used to be amused at the concept of focus groups. Here we were, the people at the core of the democratic process, yet we were so alienated from the way normal people think that we had to go out and hire some normal people to point out the obvious to us.

I know that people in Hollywood are even more disconnected from reality than politicians and that they therefore rely heavily on focus groups. It's hard to understand, then, how a movie like Beerfest could ever have been made.

This movie is bad, bad, bad. It is Ed Wood bad without the irony. The script seems as though it must have been written by a bunch of 14 year old boys, and not even smart 14 year olds, but rather the type of 14 year olds who sit around food courts guffawing at nothing and shouting things at each other like "Hey you f**ker, get me some f**king fries!"

Don't get me wrong. I am not that much of a movie snob. I like a good goofball, no-brainer, gross-out comedy as much as the next feller. But, for heavens sake, can't they at least be creative goofball, no-brainer, gross-out comedies? Have we really sunk so far that we have to feel nostalgia for movies like Porky's or Something About Mary?

Let's get this over with, shall we.... A pair of American slacker brothers must assemble a rag-tag team of beer drinking experts to defend their family honour after being humiliated by a family of aristocratic Germans at Beerfest, a super-secret, extra-decadent off-shoot of Oktoberfest. After the premise is established in the first half hour, what ensues is 90 more minutes of every conceivable beer- or drunkenness-oriented gross-out gag conceivable, none of them funny.

The only scene I laughed at had nothing to do with beer drinking. It involved an argument amongst the Germans, who are on a mission to retrieve an ancient beer recipe from the Americans. It reminded me of the stupidity and navel-gazing of every committee meeting I've ever attended:

German partriarch: It's time to begin Operation Recipe Rescue.
Brother 1: Is that the name we agreed on? I thought we were going to go with Operation Steingrabber.
Brother 2: Actually, I kind of liked Beerblitz 2006.
Brother 3: But what if the mission takes longer and ends up stretching into 2007?
Brother 2: You're right. I'm good with Steingrabber.
German patriarch: This isn't a democracy. We're calling it Operation Recipe Rescue and that's all there is to it.
All Brothers: OK, sure, yeah, I'm liking it now that you say it that way.

If you smiled at the above, then you have received for free the sum total of the entertainment value of this film.

There is a great deal of nudity in this movie, which I would normally view as a redeeming quality, but in this case the nudity is so fake and plastic that it is devoid of any erotic quality. It is, once again, the sort of nudity that only an awkward 14 year old would appreciate.

Well, as much as I'm enjoying slagging this movie, it isn't worth my time or yours. Don't see this movie, not even on video. If you want to enjoy an evening of gross-out beer humour, rent Strange Brew. If you come into possession of a copy of Beerfest, burn it.

Rent

2006-09-16T08:22:00.000-07:00

There's two hours of my life I won't get back.

Little Miss Sunshine

2006-09-14T16:36:00.000-07:00

Mrs. Mentok has already done a review of this movie and she loved it. I really liked it, but not quite as much as her.

I've heard some critics calling this "the most original movie of the year". I don't agree at all. In fact, it was quite formulaic. The cast of misfits, the dysfunctional family who struggle through adversity, grow closer and come to learn the value of family. I think there's like a zillion sitcoms with that premise.

On top of that, this is a road movie that follows the same formula of every road movie from Homer's Odyssey to Planes, Trains and Automobiles: the journey as an allegory for life, constant obstacles that grow more outrageous the closer the characters get to their goal, yada yada.

But what a road movie! Here's a movie stacked with the true giants, the real geniuses of modern comedy. No Jim Carrey, no Wayans brothers, none of these other so-called "comedians" that appeal to...um...well...just insert your own favourite snobby word here. I always get in shit for labelling people, but you get what I mean.

The entire cast is stellar, but the best of the bunch is obviously Alan Arkin. It is a real travesty that Jerry Lewis wins international honours while the far superior talent of Arkin goes relatively unnoticed. Does anyone remember him in Gattaca? His character was funny, but in such a subtle way that most people probably categorized that as one of his dramatic roles.

So the long and short is that a comedy road movie with Alan Arkin anchoring the comedy is going to be a good movie no matter how you cut it.

The plot of this particular road movie is that this highly dysfunctional family is trying to get their young daughter to one of those typically American child beauty pageants. I don't know about you, but those things really turn my stomach, and this movie to its credit dealt with that issue unflinchingly. When they finally get to the beauty pageant (of course they get there! It's not a spoiler), the daughter, who has been coached by Arkin's irascible character, turns in a performance that totally scandalizes the judges...in spite of the fact that all of the girls who performed previously were grotesquely sexualized in ways that were truly sickening. (Those things should be banned if you ask me.)

So there you go. Great comedy, a bit of a social comment and, to cap it all off, they find a credible way to make Proust scholars funny.

Verdict: A must see. Will probably get some Oscar or Golden Globe nods.

Superman Returns

2006-09-13T19:56:00.000-07:00

I'm an old DC Comics partisan from 'way back. So it was a little strange that I waited until the end of the summer before going to Superman Returns. I think I was just afraid of being disappointed. On the whole, I wasn't.

Superman is a tricky character to do. As everyone knows these days, he is cursed. The movie star curse is only part of the story. The comic book has gone through a few roller-coaster periods when it has become a serious money-sink for Warner Brothers. After all, no matter how much money the comic loses, they can never cancel it, because it's freakin' Superman. All of this flows from fundamental flaws that developed in the character after DC arrogantly and unceremoniously gave creators Siegel and Schuster the boot.

The long and the short is that there are a lot of ways to screw up the Superman character and not many ways to get him right. Fortunately, this movie was one of the better renditions of him.

The main thing of note about this movie is the effects. I mean, a movie that starts with a planet blowing up, c'mon, what else do you want? Since I waited so long to see the movie, the last place in town showing it was the IMAX, which made the visuals that much better.

The CGI flying effects I found particularly stunning. The original 1970s movie series used the slogan "You'll believe a man can fly", but really all they had to work with then was green screens and cranes. The scenes in this movie really make you think "wow, so that's what it would look like if a guy flew overhead."

So much for the effects. The acting was .... competent. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing right with it either. I completely agree with the critics who noted that there was no magic, no electricity between the characters. That's the whole problem with this movie in a nutshell.

The big exception was, of course, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Has Spacey ever put in a bad performance? My favourite scene was a small one. Lois Lane stumbles across Lex Luthor in his bathrobe brushing his teeth. They both babble incoherently and look embarassed. It was perhaps the only moment in the movie when these larger-than-life characters seemed human.

While the acting was flat, the movie redeems itself by making an honest effort to deliver a slightly brainy message. The whole story turns into a commentary on man's relationship with God and the true nature of heroism. Without hitting the audience over the head with it too much, the movie makes a statement that comic afficianados have been saying for ages: Most of the time, Superman is not really a hero. He's freaking invulnerable! You can't really be courageous if you are freakin' invulnerable.

The story shows that we poor mortals, when we risk our lives for those we love, are the real heroes. Superman becomes a hero only when he loses his powers.

Not as deeply meaningful as Batman, the greatest comic book hero ever, but it's a reasonably smart premise for a superhero movie.

The verdict: Well worth seeing, but only on the big screen and the bigger the better. Do not bother renting it unless you've got a 52" set or a projector.