Just Forgettable

Ryan Reynolds is trying hard not to be typecast. He's also failing hard. He tried to reinvent himself as an action star in Blade: Trinity (2004) and it didn't work. He tried reinventing himself as a horror film star in Amittyville Horror (2005) and it didn't work. And now with Just Friends he is trying to reinvent himself as a romantic comedy star and sadly I must report it doesn't work. I think he's running out of ways to reinvent himself.

Reynolds plays a formerly fat nerdy, now cool and thin, recording industry big wig who by accident ends up back in his hometown for Christmas discovering his old feelings for his high school friend played by Amy Smart. The problem is at no point do they seem even remotely compatible. I even questioned why they would have been friends in the first place. And when Reynolds returns and attempts to act as a jerk then a nice sensitive guy, I was more baffled.

And why Amy Smart's character ends up giving him a second chance is beyond my comprehension. I was racking my mind trying to figure out why she would have done that based on the character so far represented. The movie has all the stupid humor you might expect. Little kids beating up adults, taser jokes and fat guy jokes which all play to the lowest common denominator. But suprisingly it did have two stand outs.

The first was Anna Farris as a bubble gum pop princess. She plays the dumb weird "but I'm an artist" character to a t and it is funny most of the time she is on screen. Her best moment may be when they walk into a crowded New Jersey bar and she acts as if she is being ogled and hawked over even though not one person is actually looking at her. Scenes like that were some of the only redeemable moments in the entire film.

The other refreshing character was that played by Julie Hagerty of Airplane! (1980) fame, who played Reynold's characters mom. She isn't on screen very much but when she was I laughed and it made me want to go home and watch Airplane!. Chris Klein plays the competition who turns out to be scum because god forbid in a romance the competition actually be someone worthy of the girl. How would the hero win the day if he couldn't prove he was the better man by virtue of the fact that he proves to be right about the scumminess of the other guy. From setup to conclusion Just Friends was and is entirely forgettable except for a few memorable scenes with Anna Farris which were just filler anyway.

30 Day Eviction Notice

I don't really like musicals and so I probably should have just avoided Rent altogether. But I didn't it and I suffered for it. Perhaps musicals work better on stage where despite all attempts to appear real, the confinement of the stage is recognizable. In a movie, however, filmed in a real city the very idea that a person would break into choreographed dance or staged song as they go about their day is absurd in the extreme. And from the first song as Anthony Rapp rides his bike along, I was stifling laughter at how absurd the film was truly going to be.

Under the guise of being about AIDS in the 90s, the film seems really to be about Bohemians. And I like hippies/bohemians about as much as I like musicals. Why must I watch a movie about a bunch of whiny generation x-ers who feel that reality is stifling their creativity? It seems a travesty to the people out there who really are homeless with no place to work, no family to turn to in need. Truly hungry and truly cold, these people seem almost mocked by the bohemian who rejects responsibility for no good reason.

What little background we get to why some of the characters have AIDS tend to point to drug use, which doesn't exactly earn sympathy points in my book. And of course the villain of the story is the guy who finally recognized he had to accept responsibility. Oh gosh no, evil reality we can't let that spoil our good times. The film has all the cliched roles you could dream for. There is the struggling musician (who had a name but all I can recall is that he reminded me of Bon Jovi) is struggling to find love again after having lost his true love. There is the struggling filmmaker striving not to sell out to the corporates while making what might possibly be the worst film ever made. There is the struggling performance artist, the struggling graduate student, and so on and so forth. None is particularly interesting and none ever rises above their generic template.

The film and perhaps the musical (I admit I have never seen it) doesn't even have the balls to end on a down note. God forbid anyone actually die or be sad. One hundred twenty eight minutes, how you measure the time I wasted watching this film.

The Ice Harvest

In The Ice Harvest, it seems like every actor is having a good time. From Randy Quaid to Billy Bob Thorton, everyone relishes in their role and plays as if with tongue firmly in cheek. The problem is, just because everyone is having fun doesn't mean that a movie is good. Everyone seemed like they were having a good time in Ocean's Twelve (2004) as well and that film was a convoluted mess. But The Ice Harvest has an ace up its sleeve. It has John Cusack. Cusack is such an immensely likeable guy no matter what character he plays, that one ends up rooting for him. And it is one of the only reasons I found the movie tolerable.

Billy Bob Thorton plays that standard Billy Bob role as the guy who isn't trustworthy but hides under the auspices of being a friend. Connie Nielsen plays a sex pot femme fatale type character and for some reason I got the impression that in many of her scenes they were intentionally lighting her eyes which gave the scenes a pseudo-film noir look. I didn't care for either character. Thorton's because its the same one he always plays and I'm getting tired of it and Nielsen's because I just don't buy her performance. Randy Quaid and Mike Starr both do wonders with what they have, unfortunately what they have isn't very much and they're out of the film almost as soon as they came into it.

Other than Cusack only one actor was really enjoyable. Oliver Platt's drunk gets to ham it up to great effect from angry to idiotic to sincere. Of course in these scenes we also like Cusack more as he selflessly aids his friend. The caper as it were goes horribly wrong and obligatory scenes show up like clockwork. There are hostage situations and scenes were the partners plot to do the other in and even Cusack couldn't stop me from sighing in disappointment during these scenes.

Some of the transitional moments of the film were helped along by Ned Bellamy as a bartender with anger management issues. Despite this flaw we figure out quickly he is one of the good guys, if anyone can be considered such in this film. In the end the good guys are rewarded for their goodness, the evil guys are punished. Unfortunately there was also a flash back reveal segment as well. And I hate those segments. This is where a character comes upon a realization and recalls scenes in which as it turns out a character was actually there all along off in the shadows are something equally ridiculous. These things irritate me because most of the time they are shots you have never seen before and therefore there is no way for you to figure it out before the end because the clues weren't there.

In the end The Ice Harvest wasn't very good. But neither was Must Love Dogs (2005) and I went to see that. I always go see John Cusack movies because as I said, Cusack is always so damn likeable. But I do hope everyone making the film had as much fun as it would appear because then someone will have enjoyed the film.

Harry Potter and the land of me being creeped out

There isn't much one can say about the Harry Potter movies. You probably fall into one of three categories: 1) You loved the books and love the movies, 2) You loved the books and hate the movies or 3) You are often found to be saying "Harry Who?". I found myself enchanted by the early books and now sucked in like a heroin junkie, I can't escape no matter that the books just don't give me that same high that they once did. In truth even with a fix as it were, I am still irritable at how annoying the Harry Potter character truly is. And luckily for those who can't read or have no desire to read, we have Hollywood, ever ready to make a few hundred million from an established franchise.

The first two Potter films were faithfully adaptions that although I enjoyed wore down my patience awaiting the climax of the film. The third film took a less verbatim approach and had a darkness and humanism that I enjoyed very much. So now enter the fourth film Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Again, the filmmakers have decided not to show us everthing from the book. And for this I thank them immensely because at two and a half hours the film is already far to long. Because of a need to show all of the action filled scenes, the film has all but forgone any notion that these kids are in school. Which makes me wonder why it is exactly that Harry is considered so great a wizard. Unless luck is magic.

But what stuck with me most about this film and truly began to bother me is when the school dance was to take place. Suddenly 14 year old characters were being asked out by 17/18 year olds. I thought seniors dating freshman was creepy when i was in high school and here I find it no less creepy. Should age matter? For mature adults? No. For adulescents? Yes! Mike Newell, the new director, tries for the same sort of tone that Alfonso Cuaron so marvelously achieved in the previous film and failed. Whereas Cuaron seemed to understand kids, Newell seems uncomfortable and so almost all the scenes were uncomfortable.

So although I will no doubt read the last book in the series and see the remaining films that are made, I can not in any real way endorse this film as good. It was ultimately forgettable.

Man in Black

Johnny Cash was one of the great singer/songwriters of the 20th century. I have several of his albums in my collection but on threat of torture I could not have told you much about him. The new film Walk The Line, therefore, is a pleasant biopic for the casual listener. It gives insight into his early inspirations and the sources of some of his most famous and best songs. I can not attest to which aspects of the story were streamlined or fictionalized for dramatic effect but one definately walks away from the film with a feel for who Johnny Cash was and why he was the Man in Black.

Joaquin Phoenix does an amazing job portraying Cash. From pining over June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) to being caught up in a drug enduced haze, Phoenix brings to life an amazing character. The film follows a fairly conventional path for a biopic but one that is nonetheless interesting. It was the small quiet moments that I enjoyed the most, such as Cash or Carter working out songs in their heads. To what extent a non Cash fan would enjoy the film is unknown by me. I found my foot tapping along right from the opening scene and anytime Phoenix was on stage singing.

Robert Patrick as Ray Cash, Johnny Cash's father also impressed me in the film. In the end I am glad I saw the film but there is little of the film that stuck with me even less than 24 hours latter. There was no particular scene are dialogue that impressed me fully except for the music which is all Johnny Cash. In some respect, I was even disappointed I didn't get to learn about some of my favorite songs or hear them, such as Man in Black or the Ballad Of Ira Hayes. In the end I wanted to go listen to my Cash albums more than anything. Something I encourage any reader to do as well, and if you are short on time instead of seeing the film.

Good Night and Good Luck: Testament to debate

The most striking moments, for me, of George Clooney's film Good Night and Good Luck are the opening and closing of the film. The scene is a dinner in honor of journalist Edward R. Murrow. Murrow steps up to the podium and gives his speech. He prefaces that what he says may be controversial. The speech which Clooney has stated in interviews was verbatim regarded the future of television journalism. He made grim often polemical statements about what a misstep in journalistic integrity could lead to. It is striking because it closely resembles what much of news media has devolved into. That Murrow saw and warned against the dangers in 1958, is all the more remarkable.

From the middle of the speech, we jump back five years to the height of McCarthy era paranoia with a patronistic scrawl explaining fears of Communism that were prevalent at this time. I found my self for the only time in the film irritated. The text indicated an assumption that the average viewer doesn't have a basic idea of McCarthyism and needed such clarification. We are immediately drawn into the bustling news room at CBS, where Murrow's team are working out stories for his show. A general dislike among the newsmen for the fear mongering of Joe McCarthy is discernible but the news cast that is the catalyst for the movie has nothing to do with McCarthy. It was a tactful look at Communist fear that had resulted in a soldier being dismissed from the army.

It is addressed from the terms of civil and constitutional rights. This news cast leads to a head on battle between McCarthy and Murrow on much the same grounds. The use of archival footage to represent McCarthy is cleverly used to avoid modern criticism of misrepresentation on Clooney's part. The climax of the film comes in the senate investigation of McCarthy which resulted in censure and the fallout within CBS (lay off of workers, change of time and regularity of Murrow's program) implemented by the head of CBS. A friend put out the criticism that we don't see the fall of McCarthy, which to an extent is unfair because when considering the overall lasting implications of McCarthy, only truly happened with the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Recurrence of fear and mob mentality can be seen less than four years after McCarthy's censure in the uproar regarding Sputnik. Equally, Ronald Regan's terming the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire was much in a McCarthy spirit.

In as much as any movie, song, tv show or book is in some way a reflection of its times, Good Night and Good Luck is an indictment of modern journalism. To say it is a liberal take is intentionally pejorative. There are enough moments in the film which admittedly you have to pay attention for which indicate a bias in Murrow's argument but they are biases regarding persuasion not fact. There is also a clear repition of the theme of fair trial. The importance of that fundamental right, in fact the importance of all fundamental rights is the clearest message of the film.

Clooney has expressed in interviews regarding this movie that McCarthy wasn't completely wrong in his fears regarding communist spies, but that he was out of control and some opposition had to be raised. And the debate as it unfolded is what was important about Murrow's opposition not that either Murrow or McCarthy was right. In the end, with the return to Murrow's cautionary speech, one can't help but reflect on current journalism and consider what is happening. If nothing else the film should generate a much needed debate on modern journalism.

Jarhead: War movies ain't what they used to be

Jarhead is a movie based on the memoirs of former Marine Anthony Swofford regarding his time in the Persian Gulf war (the first one). And it is probably the most interesting war movie I have ever seen. One of the primary failings of US war films is that they fall into one of two camps. The first: the US army as the ultimate weapon, an ode to American elitism (e.g. The Green Berets (1968)). The other: the horrors of war on the American solider...while he displays that he is the ultimate weapon and an ode to American elitism (e.g. Platoon (1986).

Jarhead manages something different. The army ideology is certainly there and a prime motivator in the first act as we follow Swofford through boot camp and elitism is the impetus to train hard. But once Swofford arrives in the Mid East, the devolution of this ideology begins. The criticisms are subtle: Harhness of military life on relationships, the stress of trained killers (for in truth that is what a soldier is) waiting, and even faulty equipment.

And when finally the war starts, our soldiers are ready to serve their country...only to discover that airstrikes and artillery have eliminated the resistance. And then the war is over and the soldiers have to go home. It would be hard to say that Swofford hates the military because I don't feel that he does at all, but it certainly changed him in a fundamental way. The opening voice over and the final voice over are virtually the same. A soldier learns to kill and hold a gun and even later in life, no matter what he is doing, he will always remember the gun.

This insight, that soldiers are emotionally altered by the army and it influences their lives is of course interesting but less so than Swofford's last line of the film "We are all still in the desert". It is this sentiment that one is left with. His life is not just fundamentally changed, he is in fact lost. To say you are still in the desert is to say that you can not successfully integrate back into "civilized" society.

Jarhead caused me to reflect in a way that only two other movies have ever caused me to reflect when thinking about war. The first film was All Quiet On The Western Front (1930) in which a character having returned from the trenches of WWI, feels isolated from his people back at home. He glimpses his old school master stirring students to join the army just as the master had done when he was a student and in the end the soldier re-enlists so that he can return to the only world he understands, despite the inevitable conclusion that he will die this time.

The second film is Deer Hunter (1978) in which Christopher Walken's character actually loses his mind and becomes a Russian Roulette player in Saigon. Walken's escape is death. Robert DeNiro's character who struggles equally with re-integrating himself only survive because his will is stronger. Which leads to the conclusion that the army trains soldiers to be warriors, killers but leaves no contingencies for the re-training of civilians.

Jarhead is a movie worth seeing for the questions it raises alone and the performances are varied but all enjoyable. Jake Gyllenhaal is amazing and his relationships with Peter Sarsgaard and Jamie Foxx are very well done.

Legend of Zorro: or Ode to America

When I go to a movie like "The Legend of Zorro", I'm not asking for too much: an attractive love interest, an interesting villain, a fair amount of sword play. Martin Cambell delivers Catherine Zeta Jones, Rufus Sewell and a plethora of sword fighting. Unfortunately, it also delivers a healthy dose of USA A Okay ideology that made me feel like I was listening to a two hour lecture on the history of American Manifest Destiny as opposed to watching an action adventure film. This film touches on everything from the evil of the South to a conspiracy of Old Europe to destroy the US. It is also seems fairly liberal with its interpretation of history. California was a U.S. territory with a military governor, there would be nothing preventing US soldiers from arresting a dissident as the movie claims.

The film reinforces the most traditional American values: a democratic Christian nation. The enemy in this love poem to America? An illuminati-esque group known as "Orbis Unum", which is supposed to mean One World, but as a Classicist I can assure you actually would mean something like One of World, which is gibberish to me. I guess Orbis Una wouldn't sound as cool. I'll admit my furor at the misuse of Latin is petty of me. Regardless the reliance on such a cliche world controlling secret society seems pure laziness.

It is also a shame, because Rufus Sewell is such a good villain. Even if he hasn't always gotten the best roles, he does an amazing job with them. He was disturbing as an Occult leader in "Bless the Child" (2000), deliciously arrogant and sadistic as a lord in "Knight's Tale" (2001) and now he has done as much as he could with his role in the "Legend of Zorro". Sewell's Count Armand is the perfect amount of playful menace in the early scenes with Antonio Banderas' Alejandro/Zorro. Unfortunately by the last act of the movie, he is reduced to obligatory scenes where he must explain the evil plan to destroy America and scenes where he must fall set conventions such as leaving his enemy alive despite the incredible stupidity of such a decision.

In the end "The Legend of Zorro" fails because of its reliance on archetypal action film conventions, poor performances by much of the main cast (Sewell being an exception that makes the other performances even more conspiciously bad) and an overbearing moral ideology that plays to traditional values. The last being particularly odd since Zorro is an outsider, a vigilante who is supposed to stand for the oppressed, a modern day Robin Hood. He is not supposed to stand for the values of the elite.