Two brothers in financial stress choose to embark on a crime that leads to murder, guilt, and broken lives. No, this isn’t Sidney Lumet’s Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, it’s Woody Allen returning to the conscience and consequence of murder he previously explored in films such as Match Point and Crimes and Misdemeanors. So is it worth your time? Well, that’s the real question, isn’t it?
Cassandra’s Dream
3 Stars
“We’re crossing the line Ian; there’s no going back from this, I tell you.”
Ian (Ewan McGregor) and Terry (Colin Farrell) are brothers living outside their means. Ian has dreams of running hotels in California and a new expensive girlfriend (Hayley Atwell). Terry has a wife (Sally Hawkins) and a sizable gambling debt. Stuck in a situation without any alternatives the brothers reach out to their wealthy Uncle Howard (Tom Wilkinson) who agrees to give them the cash they need in exchange for one simple favor – murder a man who is set to testify against him (Philip Davis).
If this sounds familiar you probably saw Sidney Lumet‘s Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead released earlier this year which involves a similar tale of brothers in financial difficulty choosing to commit a crime. The film is also very similar to Woody Allen‘s earlier films Crimes and Misdemeanors and Match Point (read that review) without adding anything new to the equation. The film is well done and the story is engaging enough, but we are constantly noticing we have seen this all done before, and done better.
Much like the new remake of Sleuth this film is more a curiosity than anything else. The only interesting piece of the tale is the casting against type of both McGreggor and Farrell. It’s kind of interesting to watch McGreggor play the hard ass and Farrell play the conscience of the film. Although this makes for a cool acting exercise for both of them it isn’t really enough to carry the film.
Cassandra’s Dream isn’t a bad film, it’s just one that we’ve seen many times before in both story and style. At this time of year it’s hard to find quality movies at the theater and Cassandra’s Dream certainly qualifies as a well-made film. But it doesn’t really qualify as a well-made Woody Allen film. If you’re curious enough give it a try, but otherwise head to the video store and spend a little less on one of his other, better, films.
Save me from chick flicks. 27 Dresses is one long tedious joke about a woman who has spent her entire life making her friends dreams come true and helping to give them each the weddings they’ve always wanted. Trouble is she’s stuck with unhealthy crush for her boss, who is now interested in her devious little sister, and a new stalker who wants to write the story about what a whackjob she is, until he falls hopelessly in love with her. Ain’t love grand.
27 Dresses
1 Star
“I never do anything like this.”
Jane (Katherine Heigl) has a great job, and a man she adores. The problem is George (Edward Burns) is her demanding boss who doesn’t think of her romantically. Jane’s life is further complicated by a reporter (James Marsden) secretly doing a story on her and the appearance of her younger sister (Malin Ackerman) who immediately hits it off with George.
I don’t know if there is actually a book entitled “How to Make a RomCom,” but if so the these writers have read it cover to cover. Every cliche is present, the disinterested right guy, the animosity to meeting the really right guy, the embarrassing situations, the betrayal, the miscommunication, and the inevitable happy ending. The film even goes farther with wacky cab rides and bad drunken karaoke.
Nor does the story make that much sense. Both of the men here are complete jerks. Her choices are they guy who constantly takes advantage of her and never takes her feelings into account, or the guy who goes behind her back, lies to her, and makes a mockery out of her life. Ladies get in line to snatch up one of these prize hubby candidates.
About half-way through the film there exists a scene between Heigl and Marsden where she tries on all the bridesmaid dresses she owns and talks about being a bridesmaid. Somewhere, hidden deep down, in this is an interesting tale of a woman who gives so much of herself and makes everyone else’s dreams come true. There’s actually something there that might make the center of a good film. Sadly that’s lost among the bad jokes, groans, and pratfalls. And for a comedy there sure isn’t much to laugh at. There ware a couple lame attempts that got a chuckle from me, but only one genuine laugh from the entire film. I won’t ruin that one moment for you in case you are forced to see this film, though if your girlfriend drags you to this you might want to reconsider your options.
The quote above comes from the film. If only Hollywood would take it to heart and stop making these generic movie in a box tales filled with lame humor, stupid characters, “funny” coincidences and humiliations. You’ve seen it all before, and you’ll see it all again. Actresses seem cursed with having to make these films as some kind of rite of passage. It’s almost as if the studios want to see how bad of a movie an actress can carry without destroying her career. If she makes it through maybe she gets better scripts and if not she becomes Kate Hudson.
After five aching years, writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson finally returns to the cineplex with There Will Be Blood, one of the most hyped movies of the year. And, believe it or not, it deserves all the buzz it’s getting, if not more. Read on for details.
There Will Be Blood
4 & 1/2 Stars
If Paul Thomas Anderson has spent the his first films partying (Boogie Nights), getting together with a dozen different cronies (Magnolia) and living life to the fullest (Punch-Drunk Love), then his newest film, There Will Be Blood, is his sojourn into the dead desert. With only one main character and a seeming abandonment of any color or other cinematic enrichment that doesn’t match the dead beige of sun-cooked soil, he gives himself the task of proving that he can make a film without a trace of the extravagance he has so often used. Does it work?
Fuck yes it works. About a faithless, greedy oil baron who never finds out that morality is the most essential attribute to living happily, it might be the best movie of the year. This one is so good, it’s difficult to figure out where to start lathering the movie with complements.
Well, since we’re already on the topic, let’s start with Anderson. His comfort with the material is staggering – he can let a scene with nothing but a desert landscape with one man offering another some goat’s milk just as interesting as 98% of all the scenes in this year’s movies. It’s sort of amazing. Or how about the camera work? Anderson’s long time DP Robert Elswit is back on duty here, and can do wonders with nothing more than a broad spectrum of brown. And in one of those rare scenes that doesn’t take place in the California desert, when Elswit given a chance to work with a dull stain of pink, he just may nab the greatest single shot in any film this year. And it’s just of a guy sitting in a room.
Anderson goes out on a limb by giving the original music responsibility to Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead fame, in what I believe is the director’s first film with a traditional score. Plenty will have problems with Greenwood’s eccentric music jumping and hopping about forebodingly; but it’s still tense and, well, cool enough to justify itself. Come on, how does the guitarist behind Radiohead, a guy who has written actual orchestras, do wrong?
But perhaps the real star of the film – or at least the most obvious one – is Daniel Day-Lewis. It shouldn’t come as that big of a surprise to find that the guy plays a great anti-hero in the movie, but it’s damn tricky to quantify just how good he is in this role. Playing an utterly amoral oil tycoon (coincidentally also named Daniel) at the turn of the last century, his inability and lack of desire to be a decent man are what dooms and redeems him. Day-Lewis defines the the very edge between acting and over-acting, but stays on the better side as he slowly winds up Daniel’s insanity to the point that you don’t know what this guy is going to do next, and you’re damn glad you won’t ever have to find out first hand. In a year full of haunting bad guys like No Country For Old Men‘s Anton Chigurh and The King of Kong‘s Billy Mitchell, Daniel could be the best. And, though certainly overshadowed, the supporting cast is certainly worthy, like Paul Dano as the equally immoral, obsessed minister and Dillon Freasier as Daniel’s young adopted son.
Day-Lewis’ ability to put his character on the verge of madness, combined with Anderson’s obsessive style of clean filmmaking go together in this one like a good film and an Oscar. And, look what I brought up, if this movie doesn’t grab a nomination or seven, then there will be no justice.
The “Sarah Connor Chronicles?” Wait, isn’t she, you know, dead? The new FOX series resurrects (a less masculine) Ms. Connor, and puts her and her boy on the run from Terminators and cops on a weekly basis. Continuity problems abound, but the cast seems solid enough. After two episodes I’m not convinced enough to give the series a passing grade, but I will stick around for a few more to see where it’s planning to go. At least it’s better than Flash Gordon (although that’s not exactly a high standard). Check out the full review inside the Full Diagnosis.
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
Custom Rating
Totally ignoring the events of, the much under-appreciated, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, this new series starts up a few months after the end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day with Sarah Connor (Lena Headey) and her son John (Thomas Dekker) once again facing robotic assassins from the future. This time along John’s got a new protector in the form of a young hottie Terminator played by Firefly‘s Summer Glau. Forgetting for a second how this rips the movie continuity to shreds (we’ll get to that in a bit) first let’s examine the show on its own merits.
In terms of look and tone the show comes off a little disappointing compared to the big budget films. Acting wise Headey makes an interesting choice for Sarah, but so far I haven’t seen anything to make me care whether Dekker’s John lives or dies. He’s certainly no Nick Stahl or Edward Furlong. Glau, who seems to have carved out a niche for herself playing odd characters with powers far beyond her nimble frame, seems to fit well into the show and adds some much needed humor to the proceedings. Sadly, the castings of the other Terminators come off more like Arnold parodies (Aaron Cash) than serious threats. The writers also seem to have written themselves into a corner with the Federal Agent (Robert T. Johns) on the fugitives’ trail. If he gets anywhere near the Connors he will realize the truth, and if he stays away he’s not really a player. This severley limits his involvement, at least for the time being.
In terms of continuity this show makes changes similar to the Highlander franchise in keeping pieces the creators want and ignoring the rest. The difference here is the Highlander films are mostly forgettable and the television show was, for the most part, certainly of a higher quality. Here the stakes start off much higher, with all three films being good, each in their own way, and the show having a much larger standard to live up to right out of the gate.
And the continuity is a problem. The new show disregards the events of the third film and instead of making a series based on the resistance after Judgment Day in a future ruled by robots, it instead gives us Ma, son, and robot girl on the run. It’s like The Fugitive mixed with Small Wonder mixed in with what was kept from the movie franchise. The new storyline ignores the bleak and melancholy, but terrific, ending of the third film (which is the only one which really deals with the time paradox of the series) in favor of offering more hope to save the future by once again going after SkyNet.
Ben Franklin once stated that the definition of insanity is doing the same action over and over and expecting different results. Sarah and John know, even if they won’t admit it to themselves, that any action taken against the creators of SkyNet will not stop it from coming into being. The audience learned this lesson in T3 and I’m not sure we need 6, 12, or more, weeks for the show to come to the same conclusion. In fact there’s a scene in the pilot where this is brought up and then quickly dismissed, because any serious discussion of SkyNet’s creation and the inability to stop it would seem to end this series before it ever starts. If SkyNet is never formed there is no war and John Connor never becomes a leader. If John Connor never becomes a leader then no Terminators are sent back in time to kill him, or his mother. If no Terminators of sent back to kill Sarah Connor then Kyle Reese is never sent back to protect her. If Kyle Reese is never sent back in time, John Connor is never born. If John Connor is never born Sarah Connor has no reason to destroy SkyNet. (Follow that?) The complex issue of time travel and consequences can’t simply be ignored just because of a writer’s strike, an abundance of Terminator fans, and an hour of television needing to be filled every week. Whether you liked or disliked T3 the film did deal with these issues and raised the entire franchise from a simple monster/action adventure to a true sci-fi franchise with rules and consequences. I’m pretty sure devolving it back into a simple action/adventure story isn’t the best way to go.
The other issue with making the series based in this particular time period before anyone knows about SkyNet is how impossible it is to keep it secret. In only two episodes the show has created elaborate stunt sequences involving multiple homicides and explosions and left evidence (including the remains of a Terminator and countless witnesses, many of them police officers) which simply can’t be ignored, especially if the trend is going to continue with trying to maximize these events weekly. If authorities see physical evidence that Sarah isn’t crazy there’s no reason for her to stay on the run and the series would seem to go nowhere, unless there’s some great twist coming. And what’s up with all the Terminators being old school versions based of the T-100 from the first film? Are they saving the cooler new versions for sweeps week? Or is it simply not in the budget?
The show isn’t a total loss, and despite it’s many story issues I think it has the possibility of being an okay action/adventure show. Time will tell; right now it seems still a bit incomplete and not entirely thought out. Don’t expect much from it and you’ll probably be okay, but I think those looking for good sci-fi are going to be disappointed. Still, there’s not much sci-fi that’s even watchable on television right now, so this B-action show might be enough, at least until something better comes along, or we finally get more new episodes of Doctor Who and Torchwood on this side of the Atlantic.
It seems Lionsgate and Nu Image/Millenium Films have indeed aquired the rights to Robert E. Howard’s Conan the Barbarian and plan to make and distribute a new film to be shot in Bulgaria and tentatively scheduled for release in 2009. The third film of the franchise has been in development hell for decades, including a proposed “King Conan” film with Schwarzenegger. No word yet on who will be filling out Arnold’s loincloth in the new film, but the studio has said publically to expect a more faithful adaptation of Howard’s original character. You’ll know more when we do! For you Conan fans, I’ve thrown in some Cimmerian love in the Full Diagnosis.
