| Waitress”: Keri Russell plays Jenna, a waitress in a diner, whose pies are the stuff of legend. Jenna can whip up a pie for almost any occasion, including an “I hate my husband pie,” a reaction towards Earl (Jeremy Sisto), her insensitive pig of a husband, who, during a weak moment (Jenna was drunk) got his wife pregnant. So now she’s unhappily married AND with child. She finds a degree of comfort with her small town’s new physician, Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion), who, despite the fact that he’s married, cannot keep his eyes (and hands) off the extremely vulnerable Jenna. Both parties know an affair would be wrong, but, well, like Jenna’s pies, they just can’t help themselves. “Waitress” was written and directed by Adrienne Shelly, who also co-starred as Jenna’s waitress co-worker, Dawn. The sweet film also features memorable turns by Andy Griffith as the diner’s owner, Cheryl Hines as a spitfire waitress (think Flo from “Alice”) and Eddie Jemison as a love-struck patron. There is an inescapable side-story to this film. Shelly, who so lovingly created “Waitress,” was tragically murdered this past November, just weeks before her film debuted at the Sundance Film Festival. As an avid filmgoer, I affectionately remember Shelly from her earliest work in Hal Hartley’s underappreciated films, “The Unbelievable Truth” and “Trust.” Shelly worked strictly outside the Hollywood system; she was also a staple in off-Broadway plays. Admittedly, knowledge of her death was a constant distraction while watching this film. But trying my best to put that aside, I was smitten by “Waitress.” It’s a charming and very well-made and well-acted film (and with a nice ending!) that rightfully should be judged on its own merits and not because of any sentiments toward its creator. *** 1/2 (out of) **** “The Valet”: I’ve often wondered why the French love Jerry Lewis. Sure, his old films with Dean Martin can be fun, but Lewis is hardly our greatest artist. But then there’s their love of screwball comedies. The current and longstanding master of the genre in France is Francis Veber. He’s written or directed several features over the past 35 years, including several that were remade by Hollywood. His latest feature (already slated to be remade by the Farrelly brothers) is “The Valet,” and it continues Veber’s love of farce. It stars Gad Elmaleh as Veber’s hero, Francois Pignon. Francois is a parking valet by trade and a silly innocent by nature who happened to be walking by supermodel Elena Simonsen (Alice Taglioni) and her very-married billionaire lover, Pierre Levasseur (Daniel Auteuil) at the precise moment the paparrazi snapped their photo. Pierre is willing to give Francois whatever it takes to convince Pierre’s wife, Christine (Kristin Scott Thomas) that it’s actually the very ordinary Francois who is with the beautiful blonde Elena. It seems that Christine has a 60% share in Pierre’s company and a divorce would ruin the very greedy Pierre. So, to make it all look good, Elena has to live with Francois for however long it takes Christine and her spys to buy the ruse. Francois’s price? Just enough money to get his ideal girl (played by Virginie Ledoyen) out of debt. Whew. That’s a lot for an 85 minute film. Veber also throws in Francois’ sad-sack roommate; his hilarious parents, an amorous cell-phone salesman, and a great running joke involving a not-so-healthy family doctor. It took me a little while to get used to the frantic style and to accept the film’s all-too-tidy and very abrupt ending, until I realized “The Valet” was really just a love letter to all the great screwball comedies (with the same pacing and methods) of the past century. Francis Veber’s precise direction and hilarious script, coupled with an excellent cast, adds up to a lot of value for your entertainment dollar. If you love laugh-out-loud comedy, you’ll enjoy “The Valet.” *** 1/2 (out of) **** (In French with English subtitles). “After the Wedding”: Mads Mikkelsen plays Jacob, a deeply compassionate man who runs an orphanage in India. One of his thankless jobs is to seek donations from wealthy corporations and individuals. One such donor happens to be in Jacob’s native Denmark, a place from which he escaped a completely different life over twenty years earlier. He’s hesitant to go, but the fate of the orphanage depends upon it. Maybe not-so-coincidentally, the donor (played by Rolf Lassgard) happens to be married to Jacob’s ex-lover, Helene (Sidse Babett Knudsen), whose daughter Anna (Stine Fischer Christensen) is approaching her wedding day. “After the Wedding” is a bit of a soap opera, so you can almost figure out the rest without seeing the film, but if you don’t mind a lot of heavy-handedness, you might be surprised by this film which was nominated in the very strong Best Foreign Film category at this year’s Oscars. “After the Wedding” was directed by Susanne Bier, who, along with her writing partner, Anders Thomas Jensen, won Best Film awards in her native Denmark for her last three efforts, including this one. She now ‘graduates’ to Hollywood where she’ll direct this fall’s ‘daddy downer’ film, “Things We Lost in the Fire.” Here’s hoping one of those things isn’t her artistic integrity. Her lead in this film, Mads Mikkelsen, showed a side completely different from his recent turn as the baddie Le Chiffre in “Casino Royale.” He’s softer as a man trying to forget his past. He’s supported very nicely by Rolf Lassgard, as the wealthy donor with more than good deeds on his mind. Despite its theme, “After the Wedding” is rewarding. With its not-so-predictable ending (after telegraphing much of the rest of the film), it ultimately saves itself from, well, itself. It’s a thoughtful and mostly engrossing character study. *** (out of) **** (In Danish, Swedish and Hindi with English subtitles). “Hot Fuzz”: What do you get when you take one hot-shot London cop and throw him into the quiet countryside to work with a Hollywood action-film-loving police officer? Well, if it’s made by the guys behind the crazy British zombie film, “Shaun of the Dead,” you get a pretty funny film, well, in a ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ sort of way. “Hot Fuzz” stars Simon Pegg as Sargeant Nick Angel and Nick Frost as Danny Butterman, a police officer in the small village of Sandford. The gung-ho Nick is sent there as “punishment” for making the rest of his big city force look lazy. Sandford is the polar opposite of London: a serene town more interested in its image as an ideal place to live than police enforcement. And it isn’t a big deal that the citizens who upset the sensibilities of the town’s strict Neighborhood Watch happen to end up dead. Nick thinks it’s all a murderous conspiracy, but Danny and the rest of the police force, including his father (played by Jim Broadbent) chalk it up to business as usual. Nick, starved for some action, turns up stones until his hunches start to play out. “Hot Fuzz” was co-written (with Pegg) and directed by Edgar Wright. Pegg and Wright take the concept of bad Hollywood action films (it specifically cites “Point Break” and “Bad Boys 2,” but references dozens) and gives it the ol’ British humor treatment. But this isn’t some “huh?” Python skit. Wright and Pegg made this for a worldwide audience. It will appeal to their countrymen and to those State-siders who unfailingly embrace Michael Bay’s films. The script, in fact, has a lot of genius to it. And the film is loaded with cheeky performances from an All-Star British cast, including Broadbent, Timothy Dalton (as the villainous supermarket owner), Bill Nighy, Edward Woodward and several other familiar faces. And of course, the aforementioned Simon Pegg, who is wonderful as the dry man of action, and Nick Frost, as his anxious sidekick. “Hot Fuzz” isn’t high art, but it’s a lot of fun. *** (out of) **** “The Hoax”: is the story of Clifford Irving (Richard Gere), self-styled writer and the man who nearly brought the literary world to its knees with his promised “book of the century;” an autobiography of millionaire Howard Hughes. The book, of course, was a hoax. Irving had no contact with the reclusive Hughes. He merely suggested the book as a knee-jerk reaction to his latest novel getting rejected by McGraw Hill, specifically their editor, Andrea Tate (Hope Davis). Irving, along with his partner Dick Susskind (Alfred Molina), string along the publishing house until they cave into his elaborate demands. “The Hoax” was directed by Lasse Hallstrom (“The Cider House Rules”), who, along with his screenwriter William Wheeler, takes the somewhat flimsy concept (albeit a true story) and sustains it for all of its 115 minutes. It’s helped along by solid performances from Gere and Molina, as well as the barely recognizable Hope Davis (a far cry from her character in “American Splendor”) and a supporting cast that included Stanley Tucci, Mary Gay Harden and Julie Delpy. This isn’t award-winning stuff, but it’s a solid evening at the movies. *** (out of) **** “The Wind That Shakes the Barley”: depicts the Irish Guerilla war (and its aftermath) that took place in Ireland in the early 1920s. A faction of working-class Irish men, dissatisfied with the way England are controlling their homeland, form the Irish Republic Army as alternative means of voicing their disapproval of a treaty (which did little to change a bad situation) between the two countries. The film shows the IRA at its infancy when two brothers, Damien (Cillian Murphy) and Teddy (Padraic Delaney) were allies in their cause, to later (after the treaty is signed) when they choose opposite sides. And not surprisingly, as its director Ken Loach is a progressive thinker whose films often explore compassionate themes, “Wind” isn’t a film about the “violent terrorists” as the world media often paints of the IRA. Instead it shows us both sides: the individuals who go too far while trying to spread their message, and those who are merely trying to do the right thing for their homeland. But where the film lacks balance in its portrayal of the British, whose own “Black and Tans” spread horrific violence (including against innocents) across Ireland. We see the good in the Irish and in the IRA, but not the Brits. But underneath its sweeping period imagery and the thick brogues of its characters, beats a powerful, riveting film. “The Wind That Shakes the Barley” isn’t an easy film to watch, but it’s a good one. *** (out of) **** “Grindhouse”: attempts to replicate the style of the old drive-in exploitation movies of the 70s and early 80s: low budget, double-features with no redeeming social value. I watched several of them in my far younger years. Alas, those days are gone. I’ve grown up and my tastes have improved, but there’s always room for some good ol’ nostalgia, and who better than Quentin Tarantino to remind us of our roots? Tarantino, along with his good friend and occasional partner, Robert Rodriguez (they worked together on “From Dusk Till Dawn”), team up for a “double-feature,” complete with fake trailers during the intermission between the two films. The first feature of “Grindhouse” is Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror” and boy, is it a blast. Complete with grainy footage, snipped scenes and a ‘missing reel,’ the director of “Sin City” takes the story of a chemical leak at a military base and turns it into a zombie gore-fest. Yep, fun stuff (believe it or not). Rose McGowan and Freddy Rodriguez team up with Michael Biehn and Jeff Fahey to stop mad-man Bruce Willis (in an uncredited role) whose greed has inadvertently unleashed a gaggle of zombies upon a small town in Texas. Rodriguez skillfully navigates the wild terrain, all while staying true to the genre and his aim: to entertain his audience. His film is loaded with clever one-liners, stilted acting (hello, Jeff Fahey is a co-star!) and mind-numbing acts of sheer violence. In short, it’s pretty frickin’ good! And in true grind-house tradition, we’re treated to some wild “prevues” after the conclusion of “Planet Terror.” Rob Zombie contributes a fake trailer for “Werewolf Women of the S.S;” Edgar Wright (“Shaun of the Dead”) checks in with “Don’t,” complete with a hysterical narrator; Robert Rodriguez also adds the violently over-the-top “Machete,” while Eli Roth concludes the entertaining mess with “Thanksgiving.” You could almost go home at this point as Quentin Tarantino’s “Death Proof” was, well, just okay, but to this QT fan, disappointing. His segment feature eight women and one psycho stuntman (played by Kurt Russell) with a “death-proof” muscle car. “Stuntman Mike,” for unknown reasons, stalks a woman to a bar and then convinces her friend to allow him to take her home. That was a big mistake on her part. But later, it’s Stuntman Mike who makes the mistake of taking on some faster pussycats not in the mood for a kill, kill. It makes for a silly, pointless film, saved only by likeable performances (especially from Zoe Bell) and some snappy dialogue, a QT specialty. But his “Death Proof” seems to ignore the grind-house theme, preferring to be just another Tarantino flick. The problem is, in the Tarantino catalogue, this is easily his weakest effort. I’ve been watching Quentin Tarantino movies since 1992, the year he debuted “Reservoir Dogs.” Sadly, with “Death Proof,” Tarantino confirms that he still hasn’t grown up and his tastes, aside from music, haven’t improved. The man has an abundance of talent but it’s time to turn the page on the shtick stuff and shows us what he’s really got. He also needs to stop stepping in front of the camera (he also acted in both segments), as he comes off as annoying and loud. As a whole, “Grindhouse” is a unique and entertaining times at the movies, even if part of it misses its aim. “Planet Terror” ***1/2 (out of) ****; “Death Proof” ** (out of) ****; Overall (including the “prevues”) *** (out of) **** Black Book: It’s 1944 in Holland and the Second World War is in its last throes. The Dutch Resistance is battling the Nazis, who are still hell-bent is destroying every Jew. Rachel Stein (Carice van Houten) happens to be Jewish. She also happened to be a popular singer in her native Germany, well, before war broke out. And she comes from a fairly well-to-do family. Her background and the persecution she’s suffered have toughened her through the years. But nothing prepared her for the horror of watching her loved ones brutally murdered. Determined to seek revenge against the Nazis, Rachel joins the Resistance and eventually, as Ellis de Vries, torch singer extraordinaire, infiltrates her sworn. She gains an inside as secretary and lover to the head of the Gestapo, Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch), who, because of his own personal losses, shows he does have a human side. But, shortly after their first meeting, things start to get a little sticky. Someone is feeding the Nazis with information regarding the Resistance and suspicion falls in many places, including upon Rachel. “Black Book” was co-written and directed by Paul Verhoeven, who, to most of us, is better known for his schlocky Hollywood fare like “Robocop,” “Basic Instinct” and “Showgirls.” But he got his feature start in his native Netherlands back in the 70s making films like “Turkish Delight” and “Soldier of Orange.” It was the latter film that, together with his writing partner, Gerald Soeteman, encouraged him some 25 years later to return to his roots. “Black Book” is that effort and it’s a fine one. Their story is fast-paced (amazing, considering the film is nearly 2 1/2 hours long) and unafraid to show it all. It’s dripping with sex, violence and some horrific images of the depicted period, but it doesn’t necessarily pick heroes and villains. It’s an intense depiction of World War II as seen through the eyes of a very brave heroine. But it also shows to what length both sides will go to seek their respective idea of justice. Deliberately and brilliantly, often, the lines between those sides are blurred. “Black Book” is wonderfully shot and acted. In the case of the latter, especially from the thoroughly rapturous Carice van Houten. She’s entrancing as the courageous Rachel Stein. Sebastian Koch, excellent in “The Lives of Others,” actually manages a very human portrayal of the Nazi, Muntze. “Black Book” was named for the list of Jews who sought safe passage out of Holland back in 1944. It’s one of the more intriguing films of the still young year. *** 1/2 (out of) **** (In Dutch, Hebrew and German with English subtitles) “The Lookout”: Chris Pratt (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is the star of his high school’s hockey team. He has a beautiful girlfriend and the admiration of his classmates. He sits atop a glorious world of his own design. But it all came crashing down one bright, firefly-filled night when he, with his girlfriend and two other friends as passengers, smashed his convertible into an unseen (because his car’s lights were deliberately turned off) stalled tractor. His two friends in the backseat were killed instantly, his girlfriend lost a leg, and Chris, though irreversibly damaged, walked away. A few years later, Chris is now living in a home with his older blind friend, Lewis (Jeff Daniels). Like Chris, it’s better for Lewis that he’s living with someone who can watch out for him. For Lewis, the reasons are fairly obvious, but for Chris, part of his everyday is his notebook, which reminds him to use soap when taking a shower, and to keep a spare car-key in his shoe, for those all-too-frequent times when he locks himself out of his car. The accident left Chris with little short-term memory, and that’s just enough to limit his employment opportunities to night janitor at the town bank. Chris’ job also opens up an opportunity for local punk Gary Spargo (Matthew Goode). Gary, with the help of his seductive girlfriend Luvlee (Isla Fisher) and a few of his thugs, hatches a plan that involves the innocent Chris and a couple million dollars in farm receipts. And this is where the film turns from how Sad Chris functions on a daily basis to how Sad Chris could possibly outwit a band of devious outlaws. “The Lookout” was written and directed by Scott Frank, who has quite the screenplay resume (including “Out of Sight” and “Get Shorty”), but is just making his directorial debut with this film. The script was reportedly attached to some of Hollywood’s hottest directors (including David Fincher and Michael Mann) but ultimately entrusted to Frank, who did not disappoint. Frank keeps his film moving along, in large part to a series of fascinating actors and performances. In addition to star-making turns from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Matthew Goode, Jeff Daniels is letter-perfect as Lewis, while Isla Fisher is beautiful to watch. The consistently-interesting Bruce McGill also contributes a terrific turn as Chris’ rich daddy. “The Lookout” is a small word-of-mouth film that deserves to be seen by every discriminating filmgoer. *** 1/2 (out of) **** “The Dead Girl”: In Akira Kurosawa’s great film “Rashomon,” the story is told from multiple perspectives. In what could be described as a delicate homage to that film, writer-director Karen Moncrieff (“Blue Car”) takes a mystery of a dead girl (played by Brittany Murphy) and examines the effect it has on the stranger who discovered her body (Toni Collette); what that does to that person’s relationship with her abusive mother (Piper Laurie), and how it leads her to meet a creepy guy (Giovanni Ribisi) who’s a little too obsessed with the dead girl’s personal effects. “The Dead Girl” also shows us the side of what it’s like to be the sister (Rose Byrne) of a missing girl; the wayward best friend (Kerry Washington); the wife (Mary Beth Hurt) of a serial killer, and the mother (Marcia Gay Harden) of a victim. It also spends time studying the dead girl’s last days. I didn’t particularly care for Ms. Moncrieff’s previous film, “Blue Car” (too much one-sided male-bashing), but I still admired her obvious talent, which is very much on display in this terrific character study. Moncrieff sets a somber mood, but captures her audience’s attention through solid performances across the board and its well-paced (and often fascinating) story. “The Dead Girl” is dark and depressing, but underneath its many intricate layers is a great film. *** 1/2 (out of) **** “300”: What do you get when you send 300 of the toughest, war-hardened soldiers into a seemingly no-win battle against hundreds of thousands? Why the latest Frank Miller (“Sin City”) graphic novel adaptation, of course. Co-writer and director Zack Snyder, from all accounts, is faithful to Miller’s historically inaccurate story of the infamous Battle of Thermopylae that took place in 480 B.C. with the 300 Spartans taking on anywhere from 30,000 to over a million Persians (depending upon who you choose to believe). The Spartans were led by King Leonidas of Sparta (Gerald Butler) against the Persian Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), in a battle where blood and decapitations rule the day. Recently, in a review for “The Situation,” I was critical of that film’s overt anti-war stance, feeling that, despite my similar feelings, its bias was “embarrassing.” On the opposite end of the spectrum, “300” felt like a Marine recruiting film and (not so ironically) Persia felt like, well, Iran. Admittedly, the testosterone side of me enjoyed the film’s blood-soaked violence and its “against all odds” attitude, but again, I couldn’t help but see what appeared to be a blatantly overt pro-war film. For me, it was overriding and far too distracting, even as I was watching the film’s beautiful, but hollow CGI display. Despite its story’s place in history, I cannot overlook the timing of this film. In conclusion, “300” is nothing more than the latest “The few, the proud” commercial. Tsk. * 1/2 (out of) **** “The Namesake”: Are we our parents? If you look at your various nuances as a person, it’s impossible to deny a large part cannot be attributed to either your mother or father. Gogol Ganguli (Kal Penn) had the misfortune of being named after the infamous Russian author Nikolai Gogol. The young man has struggled his entire life to keep his Begali heritage separate from his American life, where he attempted to assimilate in New York City. It wasn’t that Gogol was ashamed of his family, but when you’re a 17 year-old high school senior nicknamed “Goggles,” you try your best to carve out your own identity. His son’s denial of his origin doesn’t please his father Ashoke (Irrfan Khan) and mother Ashima (Tabu), but they have their own problems with living in America. Both come from a strict culture and feel an obligation to instill their ways into their children, including arranging a marriage (to a nice Indian girl, of course) for Gogol. The young man rebels in their eyes when he embarks into a serious relationship with a beautiful blonde named Maxine (played by Jacinda Barrett). This is just part of the film, which evolves from interesting culture lesson to a soap opera – but without the proper necessary character growth. This makes “The Namesake” difficult to review, as I did like the film and was quite touched by it, but its flawed storytelling is hard to overlook. The filmmakers (primarily director Mira Nair) seemed to prefer cultural insight as a substitute for actual character development. Nair also repeatedly show us metaphors to demonstrate the sharp contrast between the cultures instead of occasionally trusting the intelligence of her viewers. This is a disappointing approach to a film that is otherwise well-acted and beautiful to watch, the latter thanks to cinematographer Frederick Elmes, who infused the film’s look with a nice palette of appropriate colors. In conclusion, if you can forgive its glaring flaws, “The Namesake” can be a rewarding film. ** ½ (out of) **** (In Bengali and Hindi with English subtitles) “Black Snake Moan”: Count me among the admirers of writer-director, Craig Brewer’s film, “Hustle and Flow.” But the artistic success of that effort seemed to give Brewer license to get all weird on us with his follow-up, “Black Snake Moan.” Well, if you think that a film about a God-fearing man (Samuel L. Jackson) chaining up a nymphomaniac (Christina Ricci) to cure her of her “disease” is weird. Yep, that’s the central plot of “Black Snake Moan,” which takes its title from an old blues song. In fact, there are a ton of old blues songs in this film. Dare I say that it’s one of best reasons to recommend “Black Snake Moan.” The others might be the performance from Jackson as the aptly-named Lazarus, and the surprisingly good turn from Christina Ricci as Rae the wayward child. Lazarus lives in a modest home in the woods of Tennessee. He grows and sells vegetables and ponders a comeback as a blues guitarist. Rae is, well, mixed up. She’s young and foolish and gets involved with the wrong people. Her poor decisions get her beaten and left for dead. She’s discovered along the roadside by Lazarus who’s convinced it’s now his responsibility to rehabilitate her -- whether she likes it or not. The rest of the film explores their characters’ transformation as they begin to understand each other. All in all, this is a loud and somewhat overstuffed film that isn’t as good as I’d hoped, but it’s still well-made, very well-written and quite ambitious. With “Black Snake Moan,” Brewer continues to show us why he’s one of the brightest lights working in film. *** (out of) **** “The Situation”: Connie Nielsen plays Anna, an imbedded American journalist in Iraq. She sniffs out a story that has a group of American soldiers possibly responsible for the drowning death of two Iraqi civilian boys. Through the course of her investigation, she uncovers massive corruption not only from the Iraqi assigned to protect their country, but from the Americans. In-between, Anna is romantically involved with a State Department idealist (played by Damian Lewis) and a young Iraqi photographer (Mido Hamada). “The Situation” was directed by Philip Haas (“Angels and Insects”) from a meaty script by Wendell Steavenson. The performances are generally strong and its heart is in the right place, but did it have to wear it on the outside of its shirt? Not surprisingly, in a nation divided over personal politics, the conflict in Iraq often causes disagreement. Is it justified? Is our country safer now that Sadaam Hussein is no longer? I have my opinion, but what I appreciate in media coverage is an honest perspective, not covered in agenda. I expect the same from any film – fictional or real – that attempts to tell a story. For me, it doesn’t matter whether its bias happens to match my feelings; I want the other side, too. Sadly, “The Situation” is so blatantly anti-war that it’s embarrassing – and it clearly affected how I ultimately felt. It repeatedly tells us that war is hell and Americans are careless, greedy fools. Does it matter (at least for the latter) that it’s not all like that? * ½ (out of) **** “Zodiac”: is director David Fincher’s (“Se7en,” “Fight Club”) tale of the infamous serial killer who stalked the San Francisco Bay Area back in the late ‘60s and ‘70s. The Zodiac Killer was blamed for at least five killings between December, 1968 and October, 1969, and claimed through a series of often-cryptic letters to San Francisco area newspapers to have killed as many as 37 people. He was never caught and his real identity is the subject of much discussion. One of the newspapers that published his letters was the San Francisco Chronicle, where Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) was employed as an editorial cartoonist. Graysmith took a keen interest in the Zodiac phenomenon from the very beginning, much to the chagrin of reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) who was assigned to cover the case. Working separately, the men, along with San Francisco police homicide detectives, David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) spent years obsessed with finding the serial killer, to the point where it affected their personal lives as well as their careers. “Zodiac” covers these struggles well in addition to taking us inside what it was like to have a serial killer creeping out an area with a population of several million people. As a child growing up in that area where the film was set, I am quite familiar with the Zodiac and with that time. To the producers’ credit, “Zodiac” is loaded with wonderful touches that are remarkably accurate for its era. Their attention to detail is fantastic. Everything from the color scheme of the Chronicle newspaper truck (I used to deliver their papers) to the very precise car license plates that were dead on with the various years depicted. David Fincher’s film is an unflinching look at a fascinating case that accurately recreates the horrors of the day and sheds good light into this great unsolved mystery. Fincher was also unafraid to paint his central characters in a very human, very unflattering light, despite their importance to the project. Robert Downey Jr. was the perfect choice as Paul Avery, a man with his fair share of demons. And Jake Gyllenhaal was excellent as the nebbish Graysmith, who seemingly put the Zodiac case before everything. I also loved Mark Ruffalo as the pushy, unrelenting homicide detective. Look for him to be typecast in that role. From top to bottom, “Zodiac” is first-class, and, despite the open-ended nature of the subject, one of the more complete films of its genre. *** ½ (out of) **** “Red Doors”: In film review circles, there’s nothing quite like the high of “discovering” a small movie that few have heard of. Roy clued me into seeing “Red Doors” after I read his wonderful review. Needless to say, I wasn’t disappointed. Set in the suburbs of New York, “Red Doors” is the story of the Wongs: a very dysfunctional Chinese-American family. Father Ed (Tzi Ma) and Mother May-Li have three lovely daughters: the successful businesswoman, Samantha (Jacqueline Kim); medical student Julie (Elaine Kao), and impetuous teenager, Katie (Kathy Shao-Lin Lee). Despite his family riches, Ed is disenchanted with life. He spends an unhealthy chunk of his newly-retired life reminiscing over old family videos. He longs for the days of his childhood innocence and laments the craziness around him, which includes his teenager’s prehistoric view on flirting; Sam’s mid-life crisis in her early 30s, and Julie following her heart, even if might mean alienating her beloved family. Well-written and directed by Georgia Lee, “Red Doors” (the title refers to a Chinese symbol for good luck) is a sweet film that mixes humor and drama together in a nice combination to satisfy a wider audience. Sadly, this film barely made it out of the festival circuit. Lee’s film is also well-acted all the way around and packs enough plot to never lose its audience’s attention. “Red Doors” is one of those small films that deserve to be in everyone’s Netflix queue. ***1/2 (out of) **** (On DVD) “Breach”: Robert Hanssen is a complex man. The FBI agent is a deeply religious family man and an intimidating force who would think nothing of humiliating his fellow employees. He was also a spy who sold secrets to Russia and the former Soviet Union for a period of fifteen years. “Breach” is the story of how he managed to fool his superiors and wreck many lives. Finally convinced that Hanssen is a traitor, the FBI, led by Dan Plesac (Dennis Haysbert) and Kate Burroughs (Laura Linney), recruit budding agent Eric O’Neill (Ryan Phillippe) to act as Hanssen’s new assistant. It’s O’Neill’s job to find evidence that will lead the task force to actually catching Hanssen in the act of selling secrets. What follows is a cat-and-mouse game between the fiendishly-clever veteran agent and the neophyte up-and-comer. Director and co-writer Billy Ray continues on the promise of his previous film, “Shattered Glass,” by delivering a taut character study of two men: one seemingly untortured by his vast demons, and the other so psychologically destroyed by what he has to do to himself and his loved ones in order to nail the spy. “Breach” is a consistently compelling film that never loses its viewer. It’s also one of the best films of the new year. ***1/2 (out of) **** “Amazing Grace”: is the story of William Wiberforce (Ioan Gruffudd), the man thought to be the most instrumental behind the end of the British slave trade. William, along with his colleagues Lord Fox (Michael Gambon), Henry Thorton (Nicholas Farrell) and through advice from former slave-trader-turned-good-guy, John Newton (Albert Finney), battle the negative forces in Parliament, including the Duke of Clarence (Toby Jones) and Lord Tarleton (Ciaran Hinds). The period piece jumps back and forth between different years between 1782 and 1807, chronicling Wilberforce’s ascent from the British House of Commons to deeply-respected abolitionist. The film also chronicles the sweet romance between Wilberforce and his devoted supporter, Barbara Spooner (Romola Garai) and his friendship with England’s youngest Prime Minister, Pitt the Younger (played by Benedict Cumberpatch). These parts work well, as does the overall feel of “Amazing Grace,” but director Michael Apted’s film is overstuffed and rushed, with a flashback style that was a little too unsettling for this viewer. There’s plenty to like about this film, including its acting and humanist theme, but this is strictly rental material. **1/2 (out of) **** “The Lives of Others”: It’s 1984 and the Berlin Wall had yet to fall. The German State Security (also known as the Stasi) has thousands of employees with the stated goal to “know everything” about everyone. It’s truly an Orwellian time in a divided nation that would soon find resolution. But before 1989, if you were a subversive with sentiments towards the West, your life was in danger. Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) is a successful playwright with an equally successful actress girlfriend, Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedick). Like many others, Dreyman is being watched by the Stasi, not because of anything he did, but because they suspect he might have ties to the West. And, well, there’s another reason, but it wouldn’t be fair for me to give that away. Dreyman’s flat is thoroughly bugged and monitored by the Stasi, led by company man, Captain Gerd Wiesler (played wonderfully by Ulrich Muhe), who’s convinced Dreyman is guilty of something; he just isn’t sure what. “The Lives of Others” is about secrets and to give too many of them away here would be doing the film a great disservice. Suffice to say, it’s also about much more than archaic tactics, privacy issues, or even politics. It’s a film with great depth and intrigue. And it’s easy to understand why it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Film. “The Lives of Others” marks the feature film debut of writer-director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, who infuses his film with a self-assuredness not usually found in a 33-year-old filmmaker. His script is smart and articulate and his direction confident and rarely flashy. His talent is immense and I look very much forward to the next “von Donnersmarck film.” Until that moment, I will revel in the brilliance that is “The Lives of Others.” (In German with English subtitles).**** (out of) **** “Letters from Iwo Jima”: is director Clint Eastwood’s companion piece to his very recent “Flags of Our Fathers,” which depicted the American side of the famous battle at Iwo Jima. “Letters” shows us the Japanese side, through a series of letters unearthed at the historical site. The letters relate the struggles the Japanese had with holding the island, a very important piece towards keeping control of mainland Japan. We see the story of young soldier, Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya), who left behind a wife, as well as an infant child (whom he’d never met), to fight a war he didn’t believe in. But Saigo, in the Japanese tradition, carried on. We also peek into some of the soldiers’ problems with Lt. Gen. Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe), who spent a lot of time in America, speaks English, and seems a little too “Americanized” to be able to effectively lead them in their fight against their bitter enemy. The film’s story depicts the class struggle between the defeated soldiers who are greatly outnumbered by the Americans storming the island by ship, and bombing it by air, and their leaders who are determined to die with honor. Eastwood, who directed “Letters” from a script by Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis, goes to great lengths to show us the Japanese way; how they fight and how dignity is ever-present in their lives. His film is very respectful of the Japanese side of the battle and for that matter, both sides of the war/anti-war fence. “Letters” used white subtitles that were at times very difficult to read. It’s also positioned itself as a foreign film, which I don’t agree with, but from a viewing standpoint, “Letters” feels like it could’ve been made by a great Japanese director. It was that honest. The look of “Letters” is beautiful (with much credit to Eastwood’s cinematographer, Tom Stern) and was well-acted, especially by the very powerful Ken Watanabe, and a heart-breaking performance by Kazunari Ninomiya. “Letters from Iwo Jima” reminds us why Clint Eastwood continues to be one of our best directors. (In Japanese with English subtitles) *** ½ (out of) **** “Pan’s Labyrinth”: “Innocence has a power evil cannot imagine.” That’s the tagline for writer-director Guillermo del Toro’s new film, “Pan’s Labyrinth,” and it couldn’t be more appropriate. Ivana Baquero as the wide-eyed 11 year-old Ofelia is the innocent to Sergi Lopez’s Army Captain Vidal, an evil fascist in Franco’s Spain, circa 1944. The film begins with Ofelia and her very pregnant mother, Carmen (Ariadna Gil) arriving at the Captain’s remote home in the mountains of Spain. The Captain had married the recently-widowed Carmen and wants nothing but bed-rest for his new bride and their soon-to-be-born son. Meanwhile, the bored Ofelia seeks a little more than her prized books to get her through the day (school doesn’t seem to be an option), so it’s off to the woods. It’s there that Ofelia discovers a magical labyrinth that inhabits (among other things) Pan, a grotesque ogre who not only convinces her he’s harmless, but that she was a princess in another life. Ofelia isn’t very happy in her present world (especially with her wicked stepfather) and happily buys into her new fantasy world. But is it just a fantasy? Pan gives the impressionable girl a few seemingly impossible tasks that, if accomplished, will greatly improve her situation, which includes a sick mother, the sadistic Captain and strange goings-on up in the mountains. All this makes for a wondrous, often exhilarating film that’s both strange and magical at the same time. Writer-director, Guillermo del Toro (“The Devil’s Backbone”) alternately takes us from the violent reality of the fascists versus the rebels, to the fantasy of a little girl in the woods. It’s a little jarring at times, but it reminds us that we all have our escapes (or at least we should) when the world gets a little crazy. And among other things, del Toro’s film is about both the beginning AND the end of life, which is shows us in several parallels throughout his story. And in spite of its sometimes shocking violence and scary images, “Pan’s” never shakes the sense of wonder of its viewer. The film is gifted with a wealth of talent, from the stunning performances of its lead actors: the wonderful Ivana Baquero as the sweet Ofelia; Sergi Lopez’s blistering turn as evil incarnate; Doug Jones’ grueling task as both Pan and the Pale Man, and Maribel Verdu’s splendid job as the Captain’s courageous assistant. Technically, “Pan’s Labyrinth” is a marvel. Not only is del Toro’s film stunning to look at (thanks to Guillermo Navarro’s cinematography and Eugenio Caballero’s set design), but he achieved it on a budget of $5 million -- food money in Michael Bay’s world. I could go on and on, but you’re better off just watching this incredible film. In summary, “Pan’s Labyrinth” is a beautiful, deeply thought-provoking, masterpiece of a film; one of the more intelligent in recent memory. And it all came from the wild, wonderful imagination of Guillermo del Toro, one of three great Mexico-born directors (along with Alfonso Cuaron and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu) who helped make 2006 one of the best film years (in terms of overall quality) in my lifetime. And it’s “Pan’s Labyrinth” that stands in front of them all. (In Spanish with English subtitles) **** (out of) **** “Notes on a Scandal”: Two of the better actresses in the world (Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett) team up for what could be best-described as a tour-de-force of acting in an otherwise so-so film. Dench plays a bitter old coot of a schoolteacher named Barbara Covett. Barbara has been teaching at her London school forever and has cultivated quite a watch-out-for-the-kooky-spinster reputation among the faculty. Apparently, fellow teacher, Sheba Hart (Blanchett) missed that memo, as she feels a little sorry for Barbara, who’s also the focus of little whispers about a mysterious relationship in her past. The two form a tentative friendship that “blossoms” once Barbara catches Sheba in a very inappropriate encounter with a 15 year-old male student (played by Andrew Simpson). In exchange for some sorely-needed attention from Sheba, Barbara agrees to not reveal the indiscretion to the school or to Sheba’s family, which includes a teenage daughter (Juno Temple), a Down’s-afflicted son (Max Lewis) and Sheba’s loving husband, Richard (played by Bill Nighy). Meanwhile, Sheba and the male student aren’t exactly behaving like two people with a lot to lose. The whole matter is not only more than a little uncomfortable, but the film’s architects (director Richard Eyre and writer Patrick Marber) are asking us to buy this whole relationship thing. Sheba and Richard seem to be in a loving marriage, even though Richard is considerably older. Eyre even goes out of his way to show the strength of the Hart family unit. And we scarcely see teacher and student together before we’re asked to believe that the beautiful and intelligent Sheba could look twice at a wet-behind-the-ears teenage boy. But what absolutely (and almost terrifyingly) works is Barbara’s character. Dame Judi Dench is jaw-dropping scary as Sheba’s glorified stalker. Blanchett, who seems to be getting most of the positive press, is excellent as the mixed-up teacher, wife and mother with a whole lot to lose, but it’s Dench who stands out. If watching two great actresses at the very top of their game is your thing and you don’t mind a very implausible story, then “Notes on a Scandal” is for you. But if you like a little realism in your fiction, you may come away a little disappointed. ** ½ (out of) **** “The Painted Veil”: Who says editors aren’t the difference between a good and bad movie? In some circles, actor Edward Norton is best known for trying to take over Tony Kaye’s “American History X,” a difficult but important film about skinheads in today’s society. Norton reportedly re-edited Kaye’s original cut, reducing the film’s impact and compromising the director’s original vision. Fast forward eight years and Norton’s new film, “The Painted Veil” appears to have been betrayed by poor editing. Irony or justice? Norton plays Walter Fane, a quiet bacteriologist a bit out of place in “Veil’s” setting of England in the 1920’s. It’s there that Walter meets Kitty (Naomi Watts), daughter of the cream of British society. Out of spite for her snobbish mother, Kitty marries the shy doctor. Almost predictably, Kitty falls in what she thinks is love with notorious playboy Charlie Townsend (Liev Schreiber). As “punishment” when he finds out about the adulterous affair, Walter blackmails Kitty (threatening her with a disgraceful divorce) into joining him in cholera-stricken Shanghai, where the good doctor has agreed to treat a high-risk community. To well-bred Kitty, such a move is madness. She is forced into a life of boredom while her husband attempts to mend his broken heart through his important work. Will husband and wife find common ground? “The Painted Veil” is based on W. Somerset Maugham’s novel and was well-directed by John Curran, who clearly has an eye and feel for film but was partially sabotaged by some choppy editing and a story that was a little too slow for my taste. Stuart Dryburgh (“The Beautiful Country”) contributed some nice cinematography and Alexandre Desplat wrote a very memorable score (the best of the year, in my opinion), while across the board the performances were outstanding, especially Edward Norton, whose immense acting talents were on fine display. Ditto for the luminous Naomi Watts as “bored housewife” Kitty. Toby Jones almost stole the film as a well-connected official, while Diana Rigg surprised as a nun (!). Overall, “The Painted Veil” was an impressively produced, but flawed film that felt too incomplete to this viewer, hence the reason for only a marginal recommendation. ** ½ (out of) **** “Venus”: is the story of a man who loves women, yet can no longer LOVE women. Peter O’Toole plays Maurice, a 70s-something actor who, along with fellow aging British thespians Ian (Leslie Phillips) and Donald (Richard Griffiths), spends his day reading obituaries, taking colorful pills and reflecting on a career that’s been reduced to “playing corpses.” New life is breathed into Maurice when Ian’s grand-niece Jessie (Jodie Whittaker) arrives in town to take care of her uncle. The young girl is rough to Maurice’s refined, but finds herself reminding the much older man of his place. Slowly, but surely, that “old man” teaches Jessie some valuable life lessons. Jessie and Maurice are from completely different worlds, yet find that the basic need of love knows no gaps. In spite of its basic outline, “Venus” isn’t at all delicate; has a lot of funny moments, and keeps the heavy-handedness to a bare minimum. “Venus” was directed by Roger Michell (“Notting Hill”) and written by his longtime collaborator, Hanif Kureishi. It doesn’t mine any new territory, but it’s a pleasant film with some nice performances from its leads (including Jodie Whittaker in her film debut) and supporting cast, which also features Vanessa Redgrave as Maurice’s ex-wife. And of course, just watching the still-dynamic Peter O’Toole is worth the price of admission. In conclusion, “Venus” is a nice little film. *** (out of) **** “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer”: is one of those love-it or despise-it films. Stick me in the former category. Ben Whishaw plays Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, a quiet young man with an extremely-heightened sense of smell, but no body odor. The unusual defect haunts him from birth (literally in the midst of smelly fish in 1738’s Paris) and throughout his life. He realizes right away that he wants to learn every scent in the world and what better way than to become a perfumer? Grenouille gets a job as an assistant (a sort of ‘scentless apprentice,’ if you will) to the once-successful perfumer, Giuseppe Baldini (Dustin Hoffman). Using his biggest rival’s latest creation, Baldini exploits the young man’s gifted ability to distinguish the origins of certain scents. In return, Baldini gives his assistant advice that will prove valuable once Grenouille is ready to ‘graduate’ to procuring the ultimate scent, in large part to overcome his body’s inability to excrete an odor. Grenouille’s life is dotted with tragedy, or at least tragedy seems to befall everyone with whom he comes in contact, especially the pretty kind who possesses the right smell. “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer” is undoubtedly one of the stranger films I’ve watched in recent memory, but one that improves upon repeated reflection. It’s also a tribute to the genius of its filmmaker, Tom Tykwer (“Run, Lola, Run”), although I admit a little bias, as Tykwer is one of my top five favorite directors. Tykwer faithfully adapts Patrick Suskind’s classic novel (that was deemed unfilmable by no less than Stanley Kubrick) into a movie that’s surprisingly well-paced (given its daunting subject-matter) and well-performed. Ben Whishaw is appropriately creepy in the lead, while Dustin Hoffman delights as the perfumer Baldini. I also admired Alan Rickman as Antoine Richis, loyal father to Grenouille’s prized target. ”Perfume” also benefits from the beautiful look (by cinematographer Frank Griebe) of its French, Spanish and German settings. But the film belongs to Tom Tykwer, who once again (see “Heaven”) takes a story by an intimidating author(s) and makes it his own. By toning down the violence of the murderous acts and brilliantly casting the innocent-looking Whishaw as Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, Tykwer is able to effect a degree of sympathy for Grenouille. And, through narration (by John Hurt) and simple scenes, he also carefully goes to great lengths to explain the oddities and nature of his primary character, a tact that went a long way with this viewer. I will caution that “Perfume” has a difficult (some might say preposterous) ending, but that’s where the reflection comes in. Like a strange, but haunting perfume, the more you think about it, the better it becomes. *** ½ (out of) **** “Dreamgirls”: is pure packaged Hollywood entertainment. Jamie Foxx plays a car dealer named Curtis Taylor Jr. In addition to selling Cadillacs, the man is an aspiring manager of musical acts. He spots three girls at an audition and convinces them they have enough talent to be backup singers for James Brown-wannabe, James “Thunder” Early (Eddie Murphy). The singers, Deena (Beyoncé Knowles), Lorrell (Anika Noni Rose) and Effie (Jennifer Hudson) are talents in their own right, but it’s Effie that stands out. Her voice is stunning, but it’s also as large as her ego, which at first, makes her for a perfect match for her new manager, Curtis. The film, naturally, centers on the rise and fall (surprise) of the three singers, eventually dubbed the Dreams. In recent years, we’ve been treated to excellent musically-oriented biopics on Ray Charles (“Ray”) and Johnnie Cash (“Walk the Line”) and musicals such as “Chicago.” “Dreamgirls,” which is based on the long-running Broadway success, is a musical that seems to position itself between “Chicago” and “Ray,” with a lot of allusions to Diana Ross and the Supremes (and James Brown, the Jackson 5 and Donna Summer) along the way. If you’re a big fan of musicals, you should like this film. If you’re like me, someone who could do without modern musicals (give me the classic variety), you’ll be a little annoyed. I appreciated the solid performances of the cast (including Danny Glover as Early’s manager), but without the huge job by Jennifer Hudson (albeit in a bit of an unsympathetic role), “Dreamgirls” is all glitz and little wow. ** (out of) **** “Children of Men”: is a deeply moving film about the slow end of the human race. It’s the year 2027 and the most recent child born (18 years earlier) has just died. That icon, known as Baby Diego, is the last evidence from an unexplained plague that’s prevented any new births. Great Britain is the new hub of the world. The United States and many other countries have died out. Whoever is left and not a British citizen is considered a “fugee.” The refugees are rounded up and thrown in a compound at Bexhill-on-Sea. It’s a dark, bleak world with literally no hope for the future, well, until a young black woman named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) is discovered to be pregnant. With the assistance of The Fishes, a “terrorist” group headed by Julian Taylor (Julianne Moore), Kee’s destiny is the protection of a mysterious organization called The Human Project, but there are considerable obstacles to her path. For not-quite explained reasons, Julian recruits her ex-husband, Theo (Clive Owen), who years ago fathered their now-deceased child. Theo is literally thrown into the middle of the mess, which is sheer anarchy. The government is bent on stopping the radical factions and rounding up any “illegals” it can find, while it’s The Fishes’ mission to seek protection for the refugees. The result is unbridled violence. Beyond that it is unwise to further articulate what is “Children of Men,” except I will say its heart moved me to tears. The vision for this incredible film originated from the mind of novelist P.D. James, and was brought to the screen by inventive director Alfonso Cuaron (“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”), whose talent, long-bound by the studio system, is finally unleashed. Cuaron, with the assistance of some amazing camerawork from his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki (“The New World”), delivers a film that’s a feast for the eyes and brain. And while “Children of Men” isn’t likely to win a lot of acting awards, it does boast solid performances from its leads, Clive Owen and Claire-Hope Ashitey, though it is curious that the usually strong Owen is consistently outshined by whomever he’s with on-screen; still, that’s likely by design and a tribute to his activist-turned-working-stiff character’s background. Julianne Moore, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Pam Ferris, Danny Huston, Peter Mullan, Charlie Hunnam and the wonderful Michael Caine (as Theo’s colorful friend, Jasper), contribute nicely in supporting roles. “Children of Men” is an excellent companion piece to “V for Vendetta” and “The Queen,” two other 2006 films with a lot to say about the state of British society. But as great as those films were, this one’s even better. **** (out of) **** “Volver”: There’s a certain charm to Pedro Almodovar’s films. The Spanish-born director's body of work ranges from the sublimely wild (“Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!”), to the achingly powerful (“Talk to Her”). And just when we thought he calmed down a bit, he gave us the controversial “Bad Education.” He’s back with something a little more in the middle: “Volver,” a bit of a late-night telenovela starring Penelope Cruz as Raimunda, who is struggling with the day-to-day of raising her teenage daughter, Paula (Yohana Cobo) while maintaining her marriage to immature Paco (played by Antonio de al Torre). She’s offered the chance to “house sit” a closed restaurant while the owner is away, which she uses to showcase her catering skills for a movie-crew. We think this part of the plot is going somewhere, but it’s merely window-dressing for the dissolution of Raimunda’s marriage and the strange relationship with her mother, who’s been dead for years. Okay, I’m giving too much away again. And yes, I said telenovela, but I also said Almodovar, so you know you’re going to get some bang for your buck. Penelope Cruz is lovely and the whole cast is charming. And while “Volver” isn’t Almodovar’s best film (I’m partial to “All About My Mother”), it’s still very entertaining. *** ½ (out of) **** (In Spanish with English subtitles) “The Good Shepherd”: begins in December, 1961 during the aftermath of the failed Bay of Pigs operation. Matt Damon plays Edward Wilson, a long-time counterintelligence agent for the CIA. Wilson is one of a few who knew certain specifics about the operation. One of them is a traitor, but it’s Wilson who painstakingly traces the roots of failure until the betrayer is revealed. At its heart, that’s the plot of “The Good Shepherd,” but it’s about so much more. The film is directed by Robert De Niro, who, clearly borrowing a page from “Goodfellas,” moves back and forth from 1961 to 1938 until it slowly reaches 1961 again. It’s a nice approach and one that shows the maturation and, to a lesser degree, deterioration of Wilson, who is a deeply serious man – a character trait that first attracted Wilson’s eventual superiors way back when the young man was a member of Yale’s secret society, Skull and Bones. We watch as Wilson does the honorable thing by marrying his pregnant girlfriend (played by Angelina Jolie), to his overseas missions with the OSS. We also see his important role with the startup Central Intelligence Agency and how his work-life affects his marriage to Jolie and relationship with their son. De Niro, working from a terrific script by Eric Roth (“Munich;” “The Insider”), does an excellent job of balancing the intrigue of the story with Matt Damon’s intricate character. And Damon, for his part, is outstanding as Edward Wilson, who could be Jason Bourne’s grandfather (the roots are definitely there). “The Good Shepherd” is also supported by a terrific cast, including William Hurt and John Turturro, plus smaller appearances by De Niro, Timothy Hutton, Billy Crudup and Joe Pesci. The film runs a long 157 minutes, but it’s well-paced. It’s a nice little spy-thriller. *** ½ (out of) **** | |
