After a couple of weeks of works that are not only shoddy but morally questionable, it’s almost a relief to review a film whose failures are totally aesthetic. And I’m here to tell you, the aesthetic failure of Dragonball:Evolution is indeed total.
Michelle Pfeiffer was an Academy Award nominee for Stephen Frears’ Dangerous Liaisons (1988), for which screenwriter Christopher Hampton took home a statuette. But I don’t expect literary adaptation lightning to strike again with Cheri, which is based on two novels by Colette.
Poised somewhere between The Queen (2006), High Fidelity (2000), The Grifters (1990), and My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) at the top of Frears’ prolific film and TV career and Mrs. Henderson Presents (2005) and Mary Reilly(1996) at the bottom, Cheri has all the externals you’d expect from a costume drama set in 1920s Paris. Photographed by the gifted Darius Khondji (Se7en), the stately homes and bountiful gardens could fill a week of HGTV programming. A go-to composer of the moment, Alexandre Desplat (of The Queen, and one of my favorite recent scores, The Painted Veil), has contributed lush music. If anything breaks through with end-of-year awards voters, it’ll be the sumptuous costumes of Frears veteran Consolata Boyle, which wrap around co-star Kathy Bates like so many exotic tents. And there is the luminosity of the 51-year-old Pfeiffer, as Lea, the belle of the Belle Époque.
Lea is a retired courtesan, comfortably ensconced in the home all those years on her back with rich and powerful men bought her. Regarded suspiciously by polite society, the courtesans live in a world of their own, sipping champagne and gossiping, which gives Hampton a chance to drop witty Wildean epigrams into the dialogue. One of their number, Madame Peloux (Bates), has an incorrigible, bed-hopping son, Fred (Pride & Prejudice co-star Rupert Friend), who is nicknamed “Cheri”—and proves very dear indeed to Lea, who claims the 19-year-old as her lover. Their passionate relationship ends when Peloux decides she wants grandchildren, and marries off Cheri to an eminence’s daughter. To Lea’s secret delight, marital bliss eludes the foppish Cheri. But the child-man decides to grow up, forcing painful reckonings. (more…)
An Audience of One (2009, Indiepix)
Purchase this DVD from Amazon or from Indiepix
At age 40, Richard Gozawsky, a San Francisco Pentecostal pastor at one of those houses of worship where the members are encouraged to speak in tongues and prayers become shouting matches with the devil, saw his first movie ever. Soon thereafter he received a message from God: Richard was to form a production company and make the greatest, biggest motion picture of all time. It was to be called Gravity: In the Shadow of Joseph, and this cross between Star Wars and The Ten Commandments was going to change the world.
Sounds like the makings of a high concept, studio-budgeted comedy from the Bruce Almighty playbook, doesn’t it? Think again, my friends, because Gazowsky and his journey are the subject of An Audience of One, a documentary from director Michael Jacobs. The film, originally released in 2007 and the recipient of many festival awards, has come to DVD through Indiepix. If you’re tired of documentary filmmakers injecting their beliefs and themselves into their movies, or if you simply enjoy well-made, dramatic movies with humor and eccentric characters, then the nonjudgmental An Audience of One is a film you should see.
Jacob’s film opens as preproduction of Gravity is underway. The volunteer members of the church are making costumes, running the finances, and planning a company move from California to Alberobello, Italy, where they plan to shoot their movie. Having never directed a movie in his life and having never produced anything of this capacity before, Gazowsky is able to raise enough money to put the film into production. His “how hard can it be” attitude about film making and his undying faith that God will guide him have convinced people that he will make this movie. As spiritual leader of his entire production staff, no one questions his actions; no one thinks he’s going to fail. As for the professionals hired to light and work on the camera crew, well, a gig is a gig as long as you get paid, even if the director of the film is delusional. (more…)
Sandra Bullock is at the top of her game and Ryan Reynolds gives one of his best performances to date in the romantic comedy The Proposal. This funny, sweet and beautifully shot film is released today on DVD and Blue-Ray.
Reynolds plays Andrew, a degraded executive assistant at a publishing company working for bitch on heels, Margaret (Bullock). Although it’s a lowly job, Andrew understands that if he can survive his tenure with the reviled Margaret, he’ll eventually be promoted to book editor. As the film opens, Margaret has a huge dilemma: Through a visa violation she’s about to be deported back to her native Canada, and she’ll losing her job and reputation. In a moment of desperation, she lies to her bosses and U.S. Immigration that she and Andrew are actually engaged, thus meaning she can stay in the U.S. Andrew only goes along with her plan on the condition he gets his promotion. However, the government expects her to prove their engagement is real. To further perpetuate the scam, Margaret must accompany Andrew back to his home state of Alaska for his grandmother’s 90th birthday. From there, Peter Chiarelli’s script becomes a fun fish out of water story as Margaret the ice queen’s heart slowly melts.
Once they arrive in Andrew’s small Alaskan hometown, Margaret quickly learns that Andrew isn’t the man she thought he was and gains new respect for him.  She gets to see the loving relationship he has with his mother, Grace (the always adorable Mary Steenburgen) and his rambunctious grandma (a riotous Betty White). Besides the tension created by Andrew and Margaret lying about their relationship, there is the strained relationship Andrew has with his father, Joe (an excellent Craig T. Nelson). Joe looks at Andrew’s literary pursuits as a whim and is impatiently waiting for his son to return home and take over the family business empire. (more…)
I can understand why fans of the character Wolverine and his band of misunderstood mutants, the X-Men, were disappointed with this film. Sure, the movie has some kick-ass action sequences, but the story is just hodgepodge of scenes thrown together to get to the next big fight. I still can’t say that it’s is a complete waste of time, though, because I find Hugh Jackman (who portrays the titular character, also known as Logan) to be one of the most charismatic actors working today. However, I’m glad that I didn’t lay down eleven bucks to go see this in the theater because, like the rest of those fans I mentioned, I would have been disappointed and pissed off.
There were so many times during the film I almost shut it off out of frustration, but then director Gavin Hood and his team of technical wizards would throw another amazing sequence at me (Wolverine sailing through the air toward a helicopter, a battle atop a nuclear tower) that I would have to push my jaw closed. With an assortment of characters from the comic books showing up throughout the movie, it felt like Fox was trying to cram as many new characters into the movie to see which ones might stick and possibly branch them off into their own spin-off movies.
The film opens with a prologue showing Logan as a boy in 1800s Canada being raised by a nobleman. A tragic turn of events leads Logan to discover that he is a mutant, with bone claws that extend out of his hands and the ability to heal at an accelerated pace. He also learns that his strange friend, Victor, who has the same healing ability and nasty razor sharp nails, is actually his brother. The two of them run away with a mob chasing them and the credits roll over a montage of great battles that take place during the Civil War, World Wars I and II and the Vietnam War. We watch as the adult Victor (Liev Schreiber) and Logan (Jackman), both soldiers, fight in each of these conflicts and never age. With their mutant power of incredible healing, they can’t die, even when bullets go through them. (more…)
It’s the most-watched film in history, and unless you’re an extremely unusual person, you’ve seen it more times than you can count — but The Wizard of Oz still somehow never loses its ability to enthrall audiences of all ages. I’m old enough to remember the days when Oz was an annual television tradition for the whole family; I can’t think of it without imagining Thanksgiving celebrations, and thanks to having three younger siblings and a mother who fell under the movie’s spell as a girl, I knew the movie inside and out by the time I was in high school. After my daughter was born, The Wizard of Oz — both the movie and the original L. Frank Baum book — was one of the first gifts she received from my mom, and although we worried that the Wicked Witch and the flying monkeys would freak Sophie out, we eventually caved in and let her watch the movie around her third birthday. Surprise, surprise — she loved it, and it’s become her own most-watched movie and favorite film.
Through her repeat viewings over the last year, I’ve rediscovered The Wizard of Oz myself (we’ve also read her the first 14 books in the series, but that’s another story). There aren’t many things that can hold up to seven decades of the kind of hype Oz has earned, but if there’s any such thing as a perfect movie, this is it — and if there’s a movie worth an incredibly lavish 70th anniversary box featuring books, a watch, and more than 16 hours of bonus material, it’s this one. (more…)
Writer/director David Mamet and co-star William H. Macy have a good time reminiscing on the commentary track that accompanies the Criterion Collection edition of Homicide (1991). This “cop movie that didn’t want to be a straight-up cop movie,” and started as an adaptation of a novel that was soon abandoned, is the third of the playwright’s films, following 1987’s hard-edged House of Games (also on DVD from Criterion) and the gentler Things Change (1988). Whatever it is—“I’m paid to write it, not read it,” Mamet growls—the movie is one of his more compelling, and makes a timely reentrance on the scene, given its relation to the “Jewish vengeance” pictures Defiance and Inglourious Basterds.
Those are set during World War II, or, rather, the fact-based Defiance is; Tarantino’s unspools in the multiplex in his head. Filmed in Baltimore (before the like-named TV show got there), Homicide unfolds in Mamet-land, that semi-realistic place where everyone has a “thing,” and if your thing collides with someone else’s thing you better look out. It centers on police detective Bobby Gold (Joe Mantegna, the star of Mamet’s prior films, here with a wounded face and manner like slightly bruised fruit), whose “thing” is being a stalwart first-through-the-door cop. But the overt racism of black FBI agents trying to take down an elusive drug dealer (Ving Rhames) and the institutional prejudice of the force (Macy is his best friend, a member of the Irish old guard) get him more personally involved in the routine murder of an elderly Jewish candy store owner—whose past includes running guns for Zionist causes. Gold’s assimilation offends the proprietor’s family and colleagues, who close ranks around him. But he wants to know more about their “thing,” which draws him into a noir-ish hive of archaic symbols and anti-neo-Nazi activity. (more…)
When you’re presented with the opportunity to see a film deemed “too unbearable to release,” you have to check it out, don’t you? That’s how I wound up with a copy of the 2008 horror movie Deadgirl, in my mailbox. I’ve seen my share of slasher movies and torture porn films like Saw and Hostel, so I felt like I was prepared for anything. Deadgirl definitely has its disturbing moments. But I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it’s just as much a story about friendship, young love and loneliness as it a movie about sex with a zombie.
Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez) and JT (Noah Segan) are best friends, a couple of high school outcasts who cut class one afternoon to go pound beers and vandalize the boarded up remains of an abandoned mental hospital. As they explore the halls of the empty hospital, they venture down into the dank basement and make a gruesome discovery: a naked woman chained to a table with a plastic bag over her head. Who is she? Where did she come from? And what happened to her? These questions are never answered, creating a creeping case of ambiguity that lurks in thee dark shadows of the movie.
One of the guys pokes the “dead” girl and she opens her eyes. Holy shit! She’s alive! Rickie immediately wants to go tell the police, but the sicker, hornier JT has other plans for the chained up woman. Now before you start thinking that the film is going to get exploitative, I hate to disappoint. Although there are some glimpses of nudity and a couple of well done blood-splattering scenes, everything disturbing about Dead Girl is what’s implied. The fact that we know that JT is going to screw the chained up woman made me squirm enough that I didn’t have to see it. It’s what happens next that really makes the movie twisted. (more…)
In the HBO/BBC co-production Into the Storm, a visibly moved Winston Churchill (played, in an Emmy-winning performance, by Brendan Gleeson) screens his favorite movie, That Hamilton Woman (1941), for guests. Churchill is said to have a hand in its production, whose intent was to rally an isolationist America to Britain’s side as World War II ravaged Europe. It’s also beloved by the venerable film critic Andrew Sarris, who claims to have seen it 80 times. And it earned a spot in Danny Peary’s outstanding three-book overview, Cult Movies. So what’s special about That Hamilton Woman?
A typically fine Criterion Collection disc gives a few answers—though the booklet essay by Molly Haskell is silent on her husband, Sarris’, affection for the picture. It’s unabashed propaganda, so much so that only Pearl Harbor and America’s entrance into the war spared producer/director Alexander Korda from a Senate subcommittee investigating the interventionist influences that were attempting to sway public opinion. That New York audiences cheered its anti-appeasement and pro-war sentiments, allegedly penned by the prime minister himself, made a strong case for the government. But the film is leavened by a classic romance, actually two—the one onscreen, between the dashing Admiral Lord Nelson and the irresistible Lady Emma Hamilton, and the one off, between stars Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh. Both were steeped in adultery, though the movie, mindful of Hollywood censorship, minimizes the facts of the historical affair—Hamilton’s extravagantly checkered past has been tidied up, and the inconvenient truth of their out-of-wedlock daughter ignored.
Having married in 1940, Olivier and Leigh were off the hook, but just barely, as audiences knew. Romantically involved since Korda paired them in his earlier Fire Over England (1937), the two became major movie stars in 1939, Olivier in Wuthering Heights and Leigh in…well, do I have to say? (Look for it on Blu-ray in November.) That Hamilton Woman, their third and last collaboration onscreen, was a honeymoon project for them. (more…)
People love a contrast in proportions. That’s why so many great comedy teams consist of a fat guy and a skinny guy. And that’s why some entertainment stories have legs and some don’t. When a big-budget summer tentpole picture makes fistfuls of money, it’s of interest primarily only to the investors — it’s not a story of cultural importance. Same thing when a modest little indie movie underperforms at the box office; that’s business as usual. When your no-name indie quirkfest rakes in mad cash, though, it’s a heartwarming underdog story. And that’s nice. But when your super-ambitious would-be blockbuster goes down the hopper, maybe taking the studio with it — now that’s a story that people want to hear. Waterworld, Heaven’s Gate, Ishtar — these are films that have become legends, cited as cautionary tales by people who often haven’t seen a single frame of them.
Now, I have seen Delgo, to my sorrow — a movie which seems destined for a place in the same malefic pantheon — and while I have neither interest nor the expertise to discuss the financial implications of the movie, I do have to say: It’s ambitious, all right. Hugely so. You can see where all the money went. And you can also see exactly why it tanked. Delgo is a movie brimming with ideas, every one of them utterly boneheaded. It is that rare film whose aesthetic failure is nigh-absolute. There’s a horrified fascination to the spectacle, as you think of the smart, highly-skilled, well-intentioned people who made it, certain that they were leaving their mark on film history, that they were trailblazers, pioneers — and that the end result could be so fundamentally Wrong, in so many ways. All that hard work and talent, expended to create something so butt-ugly and unlikeable and morally dubious; forty million dollars to create a bold, exciting, immersive new world that looks like nothing so much as a series of screen caps from Fate. The sheer scale of the self-delusion is breathtaking. (more…)