The Last Mistress

The Last Mistress is a French period piece revolving around the lives of the aristocracy. Specifically it deals with a young nobleman who is about to marry a very desirable woman with considerable wealth all because of his friendship with the lady's grandmother. There is objection to the parring by some due to the man's lack of wealth and the fact that he has been carrying on a liaison with a mistress for ten years. The young man explains his life to the grandmother and his relationship with the mistress. Attempting to free himself from his past, he moves away with his new bride and attempts to live and love.

A great deal of the narrative is devoted to the relationship of the young man and his mistress. Less time but equally interesting is his relationship with his proposed bride's grandmother. Little to no time is devoted to the relationship of husband and wife. As you could expect a lot of what one stereotypically thinks of a French film is evident here. Lots of talk, little action and plenty of beautiful period sets and period clothing. We get our share of stuffy aristocrats, the opera and parties. And to be honest it doesn't do any of those things spectacularly well.

What sets it apart and made me enjoy it with a sort of simply glee was of all things an actress. And not an actress I would normally think was any good. Asia Argento plays the mistress, a half Italian, half Spanish resident of Paris who has the complicated relationship with the man. Beyond a rather impressive bust and a pleasant face, she doesn't offer a whole lot of cinematic merit. So her being cast as a bedazzling mistress of the past seems a bit out of place. Then again maybe the point is the unconventional nature of her. She lets her anger control her and she is absolutely the opposite of the proper society of the upper class.

But even if that was the intent, Argento still seems slightly out of place. She slumps on her elbows frequently. She looks as if she dressed hurriedly. She scowls more often than she smiles. And she has a certain sadist attribute to her. And all of this makes her so out of place that I couldn't help but be a bit bemused by it and by her. Like as if the original premise was that a goth chick was transported to the past and expected to make it on her own.

Of course there are themes of love. The man no longer loves the mistress and despite deep and abiding love for his wife occasionally falls to sins of the flesh. The grandmother loves or admires the man. The naive bride loves blindly. All are manipulated in some way to little or no real effect. And then more or less the film just sort of ends. It doesn't end in any compelling way, it just has a dramatic swell and then credits.

And in the end I can honestly only recommend the film if you have a perverse desire to see a casting choice that is ultimately so bizarre that it actually works...sort of.

X-Files: I Want To Believe

I'm only passingly familiar with the X-Files. I was never really a weekly watching fan and mostly have only seen a handful of episodes and these usually the stellar ones because they were recommended by my friend who is big in to horror and the early seasons of the show. I did see the first feature film and vaguely remember a plot with aliens, black ooze and bees. Its worse that its been some time since even my passing interest in the show has been activated. So I can't really remember the characters that well or the major plot lines and there are definitely insider moments in the film that go way over my head.

The upside? The movie has no aliens. The shows convoluted alien storyline is abandoned for other paranormal activity. And honestly what few episodes of the show I watched and enjoyed revolved around singular phenomena anyway so this is really a big plus. The story picks up sometime after Mulder and Scully left the FBI. Scully (Gillian Anderson) works as a doctor in a church run hospital. Mulder (David Duchovny) skulks around his house all day with a full beard cutting out newspaper articles. An FBI agent (Amanda Peet) taps Mulder because of his familiarity with cases that deal with paranormal activity to help her rescue a kidnapped agent with the aid of a psychic.

When you boil it down it ends up being a mediocre if slightly over long episode of the show. Not terrible by any means but not exactly stellar either. Billy Connolly shines as the psychic formal priest pedophile who has a few discussions about faith and religion with science minded Scully. More sad in their performances is that of Peet who doesn't do much and Xzibit, who does even less. Duchovny and Anderson largely seem to phone it in having moved on to other roles and seem almost to not care that much about the characters but they do occasionally have nice on screen moments that remind you of the chemistry they had on the show.

Maybe a more hardened fan would get more joy out of it than I did, I'd advise everyone else to not bother.

Dark Knight

What exactly more could I say about a movie that has grossed over 300 million dollars in ten days and had the largest single opening day of any movie ever. At this point there probably isn't anyone who hasn't seen it and if you haven't you probably don't intend to do so. Its got a statistically meaningless rotten tomatoes record of 94% and is generally being hailed as one of the best super hero films of all time. So what can I saw of this movie a full week after being truly relevant? Its not nearly as great as you, the critics or itself thinks it is.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie. I had a lot of fun watching Batman kick ass, take names and struggle with his choice. And the Joker well, yeah no question that is one of the great performances of super hero villainy. And I was able to let go all the things that were bothering me and just enjoy the film. Still before I nitpick a little and open myself up to a lot of criticism from friends and haters alike I do want to acknowledge some things about the film.

First and foremost. Heath Ledger. His portrayal of the sociopath Joker is really extraordinary. Everything from his movement to the little facial tick is just really effective. Part of the praise has to go to the writing to be sure. But Ledger just brings it out and makes you really uneasy. The uttering of the line "you complete me" by the Joker works on so many levels not the least of which is that the line is heavily associated with another well turned out performance by Ledger in Brokeback Mountain.

The action sequences were spectacular and many of them old school stunts. No cgi in excess here. Trucks really flip over, cars crash etc. CGI is getting better but there is still quite a bit that still reeks of being cgi when it is seen. But it isn't just that they are real stunts, its that they are really well played sequences. A sequence at the end that included hostages, swat teams and henchmen was just masterful and I was grinning eagerly as it unfolded.

The film gets props for being dark. Lots of good stuff about how far the good guys can go before they are essentially the bad guys. There are nice themes about the need for everyday heroes to stand up and fight instead of letting the evil in the world takeover. Of course this is also a flaw. Dying a good guy or becoming a villain is so foreshadowed and heavy handed that at times it was painful. The humanity of criminals at times just obnoxious. The entire Harvey Dent/Two Face story line was pretty much just like being hit over the head with a tack hammer. I didn't buy it and it was too much.

Rachel Dawes is awful. And I that fully aware that Maggie Gyllenhaal is an extraordinary actress. I like her quite a bit in many of the films she has done. But Rachel Dawes is such a poorly written character and is so unbelievably boring that no actress can save her. She is such a mishmash of different character traits that make absolutely no sense. She's part damsel in distress, part take no prisoners Lois Lane and there is no rhyme or reason as to why she is one at one time and another at a second time.

I saw Thank You For Smoking and thought Aaron Eckhart was pretty good. Then I saw some other films with Eckhart and realized wow, he's really just the same guy in every movie. A fast talking salesman. At times it works and you think, he's really good and at times it doesn't and you think wow this is pretty bad. In truth in this movie casting has done more than Eckhart's talent. Although his Dent is a bit too squeaky clean at first. They should have really played up his Internal Affairs roots. As Two Face, Eckhart is just boring (to be fair this may be unjust given that he is matching up against a brilliant Joker performance by Ledger.

In the end its a serviceable action flick that will get you through the lean summer months of cinematic quality. It gets a sizeable bonus from Ledger's performance but on its own merits it doesn't stand head and shoulders above any other decently done super hero film.

Hell Boy 2

Hell Boy meets Pan's Labyrinth would probably at first cause you to turn your head in puzzlement but actually has a strange sort of logic to it. Beyond the fact that both are directed by Guillermo del Toro, Hell Boy is a world in which a demon who was brought into the world fights paranormal evils and so in fact is a perfect location for the wondrous fantasy images of Pan's Labyrinth. Hell Boy had a fairly straight forward and generally enjoyable story. Hell Boy 2 seeks to expand this world into a full fledged underverse of trolls, elves and other mythical figures. This results in some truly amazing looking creatures such as the angel of death or a endangered tree spirit that make up important scenes in the film.

Hell Boy 2 finds the titular hero in romantic troubles with his gal Liz wishing that he could have media exposure and receive thanks for all the good he does the world. Meanwhile a disgruntled Elf prince tired of humans plans to reactivate an indestructible legion of warriors to wipe humanity out. Hell Boy and his team must stop him and the film spends much of its alloted time dealing with fighting, emotional melodrama and comedy.

Quite honestly, Hell Boy was a tighter film and seemingly not as concerned with its status as a franchise. Hell Boy 2 seems quite aware it is a sequel and frequently meanders away from the story for cute moments or humor for humor's sake side bars. This includes a mildly amusing but completely unnecessary karaoke version of a Barry Manilow song by two of the leads. There are in fact quite a few wink at the camera type jokes that really test the patience at times. There are of course plenty of rather shallow questions about humanity and destiny thrown in to make it seem more mythical and epic than it actually is.

And despite these criticisms I still mildly enjoyed the film. The action sequences were fun enough and the imagery of the fantasy world was quite well done. The menagerie of the troll market was visually wonderful. And further more despite my criticism of the shallow philosophy, the Angel of Death scene as kind of creepy and visually delightful. When you boil it down the film could have benefited from a bit more coherent and better story but I was glad I got to see the visions of del Toro applied to the super hero genre.

Mongol

Western society has a particular fascination with Genghis Khan. There have been numerous Hollywood movies about him including one starring John Wayne of all people as the famous general/leader. In addition to utter the term "mongol horde" is to evoke a quite vivid image of monstrous barbarians who destroy great culturals. And so Sergei Bodrov's new film which attempts to tell a more true to history narrative of Genghis Khan's rise apparently as part of a planned trilogy is an interesting mix of the legend and attempts to personalize and humanize mongol culture.

The film starts a a young Temudjin (the future Khan) accompanying his father to choose a bride that will insure peace between two clans. The young Temudjin instead chooses a young willful girl from another weaker tribe and Temudjin's father is shortly after poisoned. Temudjin grows up shunned by his clan, without a father and constantly on the run from the new leader of his clan. In this time he comes to befriend a man who becomes his blood brother, Jamukha and reunites with his chosen bride Borte.

With a mix of spiritual mysticism and a fair bit that will remind you of Conan (the latter was developed out of Genghis Khan's mythology by the way) the film follows Temudjin through his trials to adulthood including an extended stay in a prison. There are two well done set piece battles that are well plotted and full of stylized blood. The film ends with the epic battle that united all the clans under his rule and promises much more in the intended sequels of his conquest of the largest empire the world ever knew.

Tadanobu Asano plays the adult Temudjin quite well. The story occasionally steers into the mystic nature of his persona but it is not too overdone and generally works quite well. The key to the story is the relationship Temudjin has with his wife Borte. It makes for a fairly compelling romance and even has a seemingly Iliadic inspired war to regain her after she has been kidnapped. The other relationship is that with his blood brother which eventually turns to hostility.

The film's goal is epic but also rehabilitative. Focusing more on the personal to show that Temudjin was human and not perhaps the monster he is at times conceived as. It is also able to mix a nice amount of epic with personal story telling that introduces a new and interesting take on the Genghis Khan mythos that has me ernestly interested in seeing the sequels.

Reprise

The Norwegian film Reprise directed by Danish director Joachim Trier is a rather unique film for me. Granted I don't see a whole lot of foreign films since they most compete with all the other indy releases for the limited screen space of the three or four cinemas that show anything but the latest blockbuster. The film can be a bit stilted as it tries various narrative techniques. These include developing back stories through dialog free scenes with a narrator explaining the happenings or a flash forward of the way things might happen if certain events occur.

The film focuses on two friends Erik (Espen Klouman-Høiner) and Phillip (Anders Danielsen Lie). Both are aspiring writers who mail in their first manuscripts at the exact same time. The idea is that both will be seen as brilliant and they will become successful artists like their literary inspiration and hero Sten Egil Dahl (Sigmund Sæverud). Reality has other plans. One has his book accepted and despite new found celebrity soon has a nervous breakdown. The other's is rejected and he continues on with the opinion that he is nothing next to his friend's talent.

The film picks up six months after the fated mailbox drop and follows Erik and Phillip. Both have girlfriends who seem only secondary to their lives and they hang out with a cabal of literary minded individuals who spend their time discussing or dismissing various aspects of the literary world. At times I found myself distracted by all the flashy attempts at direction such as the flash backs and flash forwards to a possible future but every time I was thankfully able to be drawn back in by the relationship between Erik and Phillip.

Anders Danielsen Lie and Espen Klouman-Høiner do very well in their roles. They are convincing as friends. Erik slightly jealous of his friend's ability to write and yet at the same time genuinely proud of his genius. This is perhaps best conveyed by the look on his face when an editor interested in Erik's book suggests that Erik may be influenced by Philip's work. Erik's look is at once proud and sad. The story is held together by the force of its characterization which worked quite well.

I confess I don't know what to make of its end which is a series of sequences of what might happen all down with voice over in the perfect subjunctive (would have, etc). Still the characterization and the relationship between Erik and Phillip hold the film together.

Bigger Stronger Faster

Bigger, Stronger, Faster is a documentary that takes a bit of time to get into. It starts with a personal voice over of the filmmaker discussing his youth and his obsession with professional wrestling. The story then follows Chris Bell and his brothers and their aspirations as weight lifters and would be professional wrestlers. This of course brings up the issue of steroids. Both of Bell's brothers use steroids while Chris does not. Chris sets up to discover exactly what is the deal with steroids. He attempts to cut through the hype and the public battle against steroid use.

Bell has a unique viewpoint of steroid use. Both his brothers take the drug and they seem to be fine. He systematically goes through the various arguments against steroids and attempts to show that they are not nearly as extreme as certain activists would have you believe. The narrative of the film is largely pro steroid and yet something holds back Chris Bell from using steroids. He attempts to be sensitive to the irrational opposition at times (unfortunately there irrationality points to their foolishness). He even asks some fairly pointed questions to Carl Lewis about steroid use.

Still although it has its moments of very fascinating revelation, the real interest of the documentary is the personal. Specifically the very candid conversations that Chris has with his brothers and his parents about steroids and life in general. Some of the best moments include a scene in which Chris' father discusses how one brother puts off solving his problems by playing up his dreams of becoming a professional wrestler and moving to California. This is undercut on occasion by a return to the wacky humor of the opening. Almost as if Chris Bell is uncomfortable with candid introspection.

Although it only briefly touches on the issue of image ideals in our society and the pressure to succeed, the very personal nature of the Bell family carries the film through and it is worth watching.

Hancock

The thing that might be the most telling of the movie Hancock was my reaction when the first end movie credit popped up. I hadn't done a whole lot of researching of the movie before hand and so was not aware of the director as I watched it. Then when the credit for Peter Berg appeared I immediately thought to myself, "yeah, that makes a lot of sense." The camera tends to move a bit too fast, there are far too many close ups of people and the comic timing is disastrously off when he attempts to more vulgar humor.

Hancock (Will Smith) is a drunken, depressed hero with powers virtually identical to Superman but with none of the Midwest instilled ideals. He spends his days drinking too much and when he can be motivated to stop the bad guys the damage he causes is often in the millions and all this frequently for a stolen car or some other smaller crime. Hated by the public with prosecutors wanting to put him in jail but being unable to do so, Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) who was recently saved by Hancock decides to help re-build Hancock's image. This involves him voluntarily going to jail and seeking anger counseling. There is more to the story which includes more proper super hero saves and a villain and the hero being put in grave danger by his one weakness but I'm not going to mention them because I knew one of the secrets of the movie due to a poorly edited trailer that gave it all away and one of the big reveals was just kind of boring as a result.

I'll try to avoid ranting about the state of movie previews these days and how they usually spoil everything about the movie or show all of the scenes that are good but you see them a thousand times before the movie opens and thus they lose their impact. The idea of Hancock was really good. A super hero who is truly fighting inner demons of loneliness and not knowing who he is and who succumbs to real world problems like alcohol is a pretty damn good idea in theory. The fact that the collateral damage caused by the hero saving the day is addressed is also pretty interesting.

Sadly much like My Super Ex-Girlfriend from a while back, this movie just loses itself in the familiar cliches of a super hero film. Apparently trying to fool us with an incomprehensible back story and inane character development, the film pretty much falls into the rut of all super hero films by the middle of the movie. Because we all know anger issues and alcoholism can be wrapped up neatly in a few weeks. Smith does what he can with the role but without his trademark jokes and smile that make him the popular blockbuster draw that he is. Instead we get a more morose character which is certainly different but I'm not sure I buy into. Bateman plays the same character he always plays which some people like but frankly I'm tired of it. His quirky funny man routine works in some things such as "Arrested Development" or as an adult who hasn't grown up yet in Juno but here it just comes off as goofy and unconvincing.

When the movie isn't being mediocre its being down right terrible. The sequence when Hancock goes to prison includes a tasteless variation on prison rape that just made me sigh in sadness that it had to go down that road. Not to mention that the song that plays when Hancock enters the prison is the absolute wrong song to be playing. It doesn't fit the tone of the movie or the scene and is just pointless. This was worse than most regular super hero movies and they frequently don't make any sense at all.

Wall-E

Looking eerily like Johnny 5 of Short Circuit fame, WALL-E is an industrious robot still working at a task he was assigned over 700 years ago to clean up the Earth which had been abandoned to the huge piles of trash the consuming society had left on it. He spends his days crushing small cubes of trash and then constructed elaborate buildings of trash. Occasionally he finds some piece of discarded rubbish that he sees value in and he has gathered these items in his domicile where he spends his nights and rides out dust storms. His only companion is a cockroach that follows him about.

One day WALL-E is present at the arrival of a space craft that launches an egg shaped robot called EVE. EVE is searching for something and as the fascinated WALL-E follows her, slowly the form a bond. When EVE accomplishes her mission she returns to space and a love struck WALL-E follows her. This opens us to a world of humans who live their entire lives on ships being fed nutrients and having their lives catered to. The movie follows WALL-E as he attempts to find EVE again and eventually in a plot to save humanity.

That is the hopefully spoiler free summary which doesn't quite manage to get across the charm of the film. WALL-E is more human than robot in most ways but there is a quaintness in the notion of a robot in love and the ability of the animators to articulate this is quite impressive. The story isn't all that complicated and is filled with plenty of homages such as an evil HALesque looking red eye that is the ship's auto pilot. I wasn't really laughing that much but I tend to be a bitter old man type when it comes to comedy and the audience around me seemed to be enjoying themselves. I enjoyed the narrative (just didn't laugh that much). The inevitable messages about pollution and consumer society are there and biting but not so heavy handed that you become irritated.

I did from time to time fall out of the story to think about robots that think for themselves and wondered if that were really a good thing. Occasionally I wondered why a robot would do A or B. But those were brief and usually I preferred to tell my mind to shut up and enjoy the film. And that I did.