Ronhamprod

Hereafter (2010)
Dir: Clint Eastwood
Stars: Matt Damon, Cecile De France, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jay Mohr and The McLaren Twins

I think my listing of the stars of Hereafter sounds like an old west gang.  Anyhow, as usual, Eastwood’s casting is as sharp as his story, his editing, his use of music and sound to tell the overall story.  While Hereafter may not be his best work, it’s still an astoundingly entertaining volume, further rounding out Eastwood’s encyclopedia, which should be entitled, “What Every Film Maker Needs to Watch”.

“Great, Burke”, you’re saying: it’s another fine film from Eastwood… but what’s it all about?  Well, it concerns three inter-locking stories that eventually illustrate the film’s overall theme, which is A) we’re all connected in one way or another and B) we’ve got nothing to worry about – just enjoy life.  A swell theme, if you ask me, but be advised – this title plays like a book.  The story is grand and the characters and locales numerous: but it is a very paced drama, not an action-packed adventure.

The first of the three characters is a psychic named George Lonegan, played by Matt Damon.  He’s got an immense talent for simply holding hands with his clients, then reaching out to the departed in their lives and communicating back key bits of information that give his clients closure with those they’ve lost.  But, it’s more of a curse than a talent for George.  In Act 1 and 2 of the film, George spends a lot of time trying to do other jobs and meet new people with the hopes of forgetting the work he’s done as a psychic; he was in the psychic healing business for sure, which was so comprehensive, he had a web page.  Believe it or not, this is a key part of his story.

The second of the three characters is Marie Lelay, played by French actress Cecile De France.  The film opens with normal, everyday circumstances leading to Marie nearly being killed by a vacation resort in the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.  During the scene, which uses intense and realistic special effects as they’re intended to be used (see note 1), she gets quite a bump on the noggin.  Two locals revive her, but only after she experiences the legendary “bright light” and sees shadowy figures milling about in what must have been Heaven.  After this experience, Marie’s job as a network news anchor seems to have lost its pizzazz and she starts seeking the answers to more philosophical questions. 

The third character in Hereafter is Jason, a nine year old British boy whose twin brother dies in a crazy circumstance.  As if this isn’t enough, poor Jason is removed from his Mom by social services and he’s sent to live with well-meaning foster parents.  Desperate for closure amidst this upheaval, Jason researches and meets with psychic after psychic, mystic after mystic: these scenes do a very polite and admirable job of illustrating that 90% of those who claim a connection to the next world are simply full of it.

I won’t tell you how these three characters, who seem appropriately far removed from each other, actually are connected.  Instead, let me jump off the praise-train for a moment and say Hereafter has its weaknesses.  Top of mind is its slow pace.  And yet, here’s the challenge in critiquing one of Eastwood’s pictures: as soon as I say, “Well, it’s good, but it’s a slow movie”, I can’t answer the question, “OK, chief, how would you make it move along quicker?”  On another issue, I can’t really complain about the subplot concerning George trying to date one of his cooking classmates because of the sincere way this episode ties into the overarching story!  George just can’t connect with the world or have a normal relationship because of this psychic curse he has.  The subplot supported and illustrated this problem in an entertaining way.

So, once again, Eastwood delivers a fine piece of entertainment.  I’m not going to rank this against some of his other pictures I’ve reviewed (see Unforgiven and Changeling) because this isn’t Rotten Tomatoes.  It’s ronhamprod.com.

Note 1: what I mean by my comment about special effects being used appropriately is that Hereafter called for one pivotal scene with special effects.  After that scene, the film makers didn’t use special effects again just for the purpose of using them – that’s all I’m saying.  The entire film wasn’t driven by special effects and most importantly, the story wasn’t contingent upon them.  Don’t get me wrong – I’m excited by films like Avatar and Iron Man which extensively use special effects.  However, I’m more impressed by the appropriate use of “making a Tsunami” in a film like this that is mostly a drama. 

Does this make any sense at all?  Oh, no?  Then leave a comment!

Tree of Life (2011)
Dir: Terrence Malick
“Stars” – Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain and some kids

In my line of work, we’re often challenged with comparing a film to other similar titles.  The only film I could think of that approached a comparison to Tree of Life was 2001: A Space Odyssey.  I’m putting this benchmark up front to help you in your decision to see Tree of Life, which I sincerely hope you do.  I hope you see it because it’s a demonstration of how the medium can be used.  It’s much closer to grandiose art and very far from narrative film, which I think helps to explain why some of the media coverage claims, “it’s so hard to describe.”  Let me put it this way: watching this film is like listening to a symphony in its entirety.  There will be some movements you like more than others – and frankly, some movements you could do without all together – but in the end, you’ll probably have an appreciation for the work.  Similarly, I think you’d do well to go and see the film with your “museum visit” hat on as opposed to “popcorn-eating-movieogoing” hat.

I don’t think I’ve ever prefaced a film more – my apologies!  I really enjoyed this film, but I do think it’s important to have a little context before going to see it.  Luckily perhaps, I was in the mood for an art house, almost film school, type of movie when I saw it.  I like movies of all kinds as you’ve probably guessed by now: Tree of Life is a demonstration of how much a film maker can do with moving pictures and musical score applied to them.  There is the backdrop of a narrative, concerning three boys growing up in a 1950s Texas town: but let me be clear that this is a minimal part of this film’s theme.  But, the strength to this movie was its astounding, National Geographic-esque cinematography and extensive use of majestic music.

They say that theater is the actor’s art and movies belong to the director’s: Tree of Life most certainly supports that point.  Terrence Malick, genius that he is (literally – a Rhodes scholar, Harvard grad, taught for 20 years in Paris, lives now in Austin TX), spent years and years on this film.  The scenes with Brad Pitt were finished three years ago.  Rumor has it he rented out the entire street in which the scenes from the 1950s were shot and just rolled the film.  There are five – count them, FIVE – editors credited.  What results is a two hour and twenty minute “film experience”, much like Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, Seven Samurai – or Koyaanisqatsi (how’s that for a film reference!).  In the end, you’ll like Tree of Life or detest it – much like the rumored audience members at its first screening in Cannes – but it’s well worth the watch.

Note of Clarification: Spoiler alert, I guess?  I put “stars” above because the narrative to this film is loose to the point that it’s simply a reflection.  This film might have alternatively been titled “Memories and Moments” because there is no conclusion or grand arc to the narrative. 

Final Note: On a completely separate and recommendation kind of note, if you’re in the mood for a film that pushes the boundaries using merely sound and images and have less than 90 minutes to kill, give Koyaanisqatsi a chance: FYI, that is a Hopi word for “life out of balance”.

Casino Jack (2010)
Director:  George Hickenlooper
Stars: Kevin Spacey, Barry Pepper, Kelly Preston and Jon Lovitz

If you like films that “take you into a world”, then Casino Jack will almost certainly be for you.  In this case, we are thrown into the ocean of political lobbies from the very first scene.  There is no confusion that Jack Abramoff, the anti-hero of this story, is a go-getter based on his opening monologue to himself in the bathroom as he brushes his teeth: the scene really sets the tone of the movie.  I have to caution you, though, that this is a cringe-worthy story about how lobbyists – in a way – rule the United States political system.  Despite its playful musical score, sharp editing, multiple storylines and engrossing acting, this movie has serious subject matter at its core.  What I mean by that is I myself laugh at the news when I’m done reading it: after watching Casino Jack, I wanted to cry.

Kevin Spacey stars as Jack Abramoff, a master Washington D.C. lobbyist who is able to bend the wills of congressmen, senators and perhaps even the President: their barter is most simple, really.  He gets them “support” for their re-election campaigns and pet projects – not to mention the occasional deluxe trip to the Marshall Islands or St. Andrews – and they vote in the direction his clients’ need to make them lots and lots and lots of money.  Hickenlooper’s quickly paced direction from scene to scene and character to character give us an “inside look”, which is always very exciting.

For me, the fascinating thing about Abramoff’s character is his automatic and supreme assumption that he knows what’s best to do with the money he collects from his clients.  Actually, I’ll revise that: he knows what’s best to do, period.  In any circumstance.  For any group of people!  As played by Kevin Spacey, Abramoff is so assumptive that what he is doing with the money – opening restaurants (that’s right, “restaurants” plural), charitable foundations and a Jewish school – all justify his means of getting the money.  Whenever he’s confronted by the “voice of reason” in the form of his wife, colleagues, friends or bosses, his first response is, “Do you have any idea how much I’ve DONE for those people?”

I have a couple of noteworthy items not exactly included in the viewing of the movie: however, that might indicate that I’ve seen a great film, that I was interested enough to look up facts and reviews of it the next day!  Anyhow, I was shocked to see some of the reviews for this movie.  Casino Jack collected numerous reviews totaling a 35% Rotten Tomatoes score, which is just awful.  Some of the ridiculous comments in the reviews make me wonder if some lobbyists reached out to the reviewers and said, “Really, who cares about this story?  I mean, how old is the Abramoff story by now?”  Because really, the story is about the whole system as a whole and not this one guy that took it way overboard.  Just because Abramaoff’s the bad guy everyone can point to, doesn’t mean it’s all over and corrected!

The other noteworthy item I had is from one of Abramoff’s brief online bios that his Dad was president of a credit card company called Diner’s Club.  Ever heard of it?  Jack went to Beverly Hills High School growing up.  No doubt the kids there knew who his Dad and what he did for a living.  Regardless, it occurred to me: it’s quite possible that no one ever told Jack he was WRONG – about ANYTHING – from the time Jack was a wee lad up until the Senate hearing that led to his ultimate incarceration.  I mean, how can a guy who works for several respected lobbying firms, lives in an abode just short of a mansion, has a beautiful wife and five cute-as-a-button kids, travels extensively, leads a Republican prayer group and wears delightful baseball caps really be wrong?  Well, I think this story shows he can be very wrong indeed.

Final Note: I couldn’t believe the parallels between this film and The Informant!  (see my review of that film as well).  Just like I commented with Soderbergh’s movie, Casino Jack is scored with very playful, light music throughout.  As if the story was a fictional, political satire, when in fact, it covers one of the biggest frauds in our nation’s history!  Maybe it’s just me, but perhaps this subject matter concerning lying, cheating, fraud and crime – all committed by the law makers of this country – could have used a more sober score?  Would love to hear your comments on this issue!

Final Note – This Time I Mean It: apparently, a documentary came out on ol’ Abramoff last year as well, which I’m moving to the top of the Netflix cue – stay tuned!

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/casinojack/

Jackie Brown (1996)    *** Burke Favorite ***
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Stars: Pam Grier, Robert Forster, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert DeNiro, Bridget Fonda and Michael Keaton

Lots of times you’ll hear industry types talk about the “pitch meeting”.  This is the meeting in which the producer and/or writer and/or director discuss their ideas for a potential film with a studio executive, the studio boss or a team of execs.  I wonder if my title for this entry was the “log line” used by Quentin Tarantino to “pitch” Jackie Brown to his studio execs, the Weinstein Bros.  As you may have guessed, a “log line” is intended to grab a decision maker’s attention, to get them to kind of frown, rub their chin and say, “Really?  Well that sounds pretty good.  Tell me more…” 

A Criminal Plot
Based on the novel Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard, which is well worth the read, Jackie Brown is a caper, a dramatic investigation into who’s going to end up with the $500,000 and how and why.  While the storyline definitely follows the half million dollars, I think in a funny way, this story could alternatively be described as a criminal trying to retire and “spend the rest of my life spending”, as he says.  The criminal is Ordell Robbie, played expertly with a sinister, creepy aura about him by Samuel L. Jackson.  Jackson truly embodies Ordell Robbie to the point you don’t really recognize him.  For me, that’s a thirty by thirty foot red flag of an impeccable performance, when no matter how many times you see the film, you’re unable to see the person as the actor.  Jackson as Robbie is that kind of performance.  He has not only stylish clothing (obviously a wink and a nod to some 70s styles) but also long straight hair that ends in the middle of his back, a braid of chin whiskers – and oftentimes gloves over his hands. 

Robbie has been dealing illegal guns for many years.  By now he has $500,000 in a bank account in Cabo and after he sells a few M-60s he’s acquired – some of his customers are “starting a neighborhood watch kinda thing” – he’ll have well over a million.  So what’s the problem?  Well, Ordell has employed Jackie Brown, an aging airline stewardess – played with more layers than you might expect by Pam Grier – who acts as a mule to bring his cash to and from Mexico.  We check into the story when she’s picked up at the airport by ATF agents.

A Gallery of Characters
Jackie Brown is chock-full of colorful characters, which is one reason it’s such a classic to me.  Robbie’s associates include Beaumont Livingston (Chris Tucker), a younger fellow who sometimes does gun deals with him, a cute little surfer girl named Melanie (Bridget Fonda), a newly re-acclimated and aging ex-con Louis (played subtly by Robert DeNiro) and a couple of other ladies that Ordell shacks up in residences around L.A.  It’s quite a team Robbie’s got.  The other characters are important, too, starting with an ATF agent played with a cocky swagger by Michael Keaton.  There’s a bail bondsman named Max Cherry, played by 70s star Robert Forester, who is ruffled by absolutely nothing.  You could say, “Hey Max?  Your office is on fire and the only way out is through those flames, so…”  He would sigh and respond, “Well, I’m sure they’ll admit us at the hospital if we get out.”  And of course, there’s the title character Jackie Brown.  She may look like a tired airline stewardess, but she’s also capable of pointing a .22 pistol at an attacker’s privates in self defense if need be.

Let’s get back to Ordell, the gun runner.  How serious is he?  Well, let’s take the instance of Beaumont Livingston, the younger “associate” of Ordell’s who is picked up on a weapon’s charge.  One of Ordell’s strengths – and thus, a definite positive for the film as a whole – is that he understands people’s characteristics, their buttons and their breaking points.  Ordell knows for a fact that Beaumont is not the type of person to do a lot of time in jail when he can make a deal for key information about a gun runner like Ordell.  So, in a pivotal Act One scene shot mostly in one long shot, Ordell shoots Beaumont.  Then, he shows his old partner Louis (DeNiro) Beaumont’s body.  Right in the trunk of his car.  In the middle of the street.  He goes through this process simply to ensure that Louis understands he’d rather “let people go” from his employment than risk the half million he’s got in Mexico.  Any questions?

Fresh Eyes
I am convinced that part of the problem with the general audience’s reception of Jackie Brown was their expectations following Pulp Fiction.  Don’t get me wrong, this was a successful film in that it made some money, had some award nominations and the like.  But people didn’t flock to this like moths to a bright light.  I think Tarantino had no chance with this release from the beginning considering his previous film had been Pulp Fiction.  It’s the same thing a director like Coppola goes through with a fine little film like The Outsiders.  I’m sure critics and audiences alike said, “Well, Jackie Brown was OK – but it’s no Pulp Fiction, that’s for sure!”  Hey genius?  Of COURSE it’s not Pulp Fiction!  That’s why they titled it Jackie Brown!  To support this point, I’ll say that when I ask people who have seen Jackie Brown recently what they thought of it, they’ll usually admit it was better than they remember.  That’s because you weren’t expecting Pulp Fiction this time…  I mean, how many of those does anyone really have in their career?

Get Him to the Greek (2010)
Dir: Nick Stoller
Stars: Jonah Hill, Russell Brand (as himself), Rose Bryne, Elizabeth Moss and Sean Combs

Talk about inserting a movie into the DVD player and having absolutely zero expectation: I started at exactly zero mph with Get Him to the Greek.  Produced by Judd Apatow?  OK.  Jonah Hill?  He’ll always be the kid in Superbad, but I thought he’s been pretty good in other stuff… Russell Brand?  One word – meh.  So, you get my vibe – I was expecting… NOTHING.

Act One had me splitting a gut.  I’m not a big fan of celebrity gossip shows like TMZ, Extra and Entertainment Tonight, but I can’t help seeing these shows a few times a week because they are incessantly on at my gym… The opening of Greek, which is shot in documentary/comedy style (as if TMZ is airing the story) has Aldous Snow producing a single called “African Child”.  This opening was a delicious mixture of spoof, parody and wildly inappropriate background.  The fact that it took me half the movie to recognize his girlfriend Jackie Q as actress Rose Bryne should speak to the unexpected sophistication of the comic acting in this title!

By the end of Act One, we’ve met crazy Aldous, who was actually a character in I Love You Sarah Marshall, his gorgeous girlfriend, his somewhat dorky looking son (sorry) and Aaron Green.  Aaron is one of the many underlings in Sergio Roma’s music production company, and the poor guy has been assigned to go fetch Aldous from London and somehow, someway get him to perform on time in three days time at the Greek theater in L.A.  Let me just say that the preview to Greek completely downplayed Roma’s involvement as a character in the film.  I thought that Sean “P. Diddy” Combs, who played Roma, would serve as a cameo, just a quick stunt with Combs playing a famous producer who would simply get to utter the line, “Get Aldous to the Greek”.  Yeah, not so much.  He ended up being one of the funniest characters in the whole title (See Note 1).

Act Two has many of the bits and pieces shown in the preview: the kind of laughs you’d expect in a title such as this.  Hey!  Russell Brand sure is a crazy rock star!  Aw, man – Jonah Hill has to do something disgusting!  Look at that, Rose Bryne just said “Asshole” in a music video – and she’s dating the drummer from Metallica!  Aw man…

However, this movement of the picture from London, to New York for a Today Show airing (see note 2), to Las Vegas for a visit with Aldous’ dear old Dad (played by veteran character actor Colm Meany – see The Commitments if you never have) all the way to L.A. contained some most unexpected surprises.  In the end, I was reluctantly adding this to the ol’ Netflix cue after seeing The Other Guys a few weeks back.  I try to load the cue with a big mixture of stuff – some drama, a little bit of action/adventure, plenty of thriller/suspense, a handful of foreign films, etc… I was not in a hurry to see a studio comedy after the deafening “thud” that was Other Guys.  But, I hope I’ve convinced you to give Get Him to the Greek a shot. 

Note 1: For anyone who has seen this film, two words – “Mind F$&%”.

Note 2: Regarding some of the blatant product placement in pictures today, it’s getting disgusting.  Within Greek, we had a Sarah Marshall show airing on NBC, we had Today Show cameos, we even had another placement related to the whole NBC/Universal/Big Happy Family Company that escapes me at the moment.  When I watching part of that steaming pile that was called 2012 (directed by the wonderfully creative and destructive Roland Emmerich) the other night, I noticed all of the laptops in the world were built by Sony, the very company who made the film.  Placement in motion pictures sure has changed: we’re no longer limiting ourselves to putting Reece’s Pieces in E.T.  [Oh, and there will be no review or further commentary on 2012, don’t worry.]

8 Mile (2002)
Dir: Curtis Hanson
Stars: Marshall Mathers (A.K.A. Eminem), Brittany Murphy, Mekhi Phifer and Kim Basinger

Imagine, if you will, yourself back in late January of 2003: it’s been a long afternoon, so you decide to duck into a movie theater and see what the hubub is with this “8 Mile” movie.  You sit down, start munching your popcorn and look around.  There are few people in this matinee screening because the film’s been out for nearly three months.  But, you do see two ladies sitting down together that don’t exactly seem to match the demographic for this film.  What I mean is, they are slightly older than the typical MTV fan – that’s all I mean.  You notice they each have a sheet with them.  You can’t help but overhear how they’ve now seen this movie and that, so they can “cross it off their list”.  So that’s why they’re at “8 Mile” – they are attempting to see ALL of the films nominated for any and every Oscar that year.  And just to remind you, “8 Mile” was not only nominated, but won for best song!

We’ll return to these two very particular audience members in a moment, but first, let’s talk about the story behind “8 Mile”.  Inspired by Eminem’s real life, it concerns a blue collar machinist named Jimmy (also known as Rabbit) in his early 20s trying to use his talents as a rapper to break into the big time.  You wouldn’t know he’s talented at all from the first scene, in which he hops up on stage to “do battle” with another rapper at a Friday night competition in front of hundreds of audience members – and he completely freezes.  But, Rabbit is apparently one talented rhymer.  

Whether it’s Rocky, Flashdance (there’s that reference again), Rudy, The Express or the very recent Burlesque, this is a story line that lends itself to the three act structure that most Hollywood movies are built from.  We have a hero we can root for, we have insurmountable odds against him/her, we have a romantic interest for him/her and a two hour clock – now go! 

So, what makes “8 Mile” worth the watch?  I found the combination of Hanson’s direction with Eminem’s screen prescence placed in the setting of Detroit made for a very interesting take on this “little guy conquors the bully” type of story.  Now, did Eminem have to stretch in this role?  No, but here’s the thing with that issue: he wouldn’t have done the job he did of holding my attention without a capable director like Hanson (who you all know from L.A. Confidential, hopefully – that, Dear Reader, will be a very, very long entry) steering him along.  Regardless, Hanson wastes no time in establishing Rabbit’s downtrodden existence, which seems to be an endless cycle between work at the machine shop, riding the bus while listening to his influences and writing down potential lyrics, arriving at his Mom’s trailer to argue with her and her slovenly boyfriend (good ol’ character actor Michael Shannon) and hanging out with his knucklehead friends.  In one scene, these pals help steer Rabbit’s moving car while he fires a paint gun at a Detroit cop car.  To briefly quote the Guiness TV ads, “Brilliant!”

I guess I liked “8 Mile” because it took me to unfamiliar territory in an effective and entertaining way.  I have my own hopes and dreams and can identify with what Rabbit was struggling against: why does he have to spend 10 hours a day in a machine shop when he could spend that time writing songs?  Well, life intrudes, girlfriends take off, bills must be paid.  I’ll put it this way – I can’t play football well at all and didn’t play in high school, but I understand it, which is surely one of the reasons I dug “Rudy” so much.  Similarly, I don’t understand nor can I rap at all, but I was still engaged in Rabbit’s desire to be the best at it.  After breaking up with his girlfriend, finding his new girlfriend sleeping with someone else, stamping another press at the machine shop and watching his Mom’s boyfriend assaulting her, the film makers did a great job of making me feel for poor Rabbit!  And in the end, I wanted this kid to win SOMETHING during the course of this story: I could (and did) root for him.

So, let’s go back to January 2003.  You’ve finished “8 Mile”, you liked it, you’re leaving the theater.  And you see one of the ladies from before the movie crossing this film off of her lengthy list in the lobby of the theater.  Remember, this lady looks like someone’s Mom (hint).  You stop short, perhaps open mouthed to observe as her pal joins her after using the restroom and says, “Yo!  P-Dog!”, holding out her palm, awaiting “P-Dog’s” grasp.  Without skipping a beat, “P-Dog” clasps hands with her pal through the thumb – like they all do in “8 Mile” – and shoulder bumps her pal, saying, “What’s up, G?  Let’s bounce out this place!”  True story.  I kid you not. 

********************************************************************************

Get Rich or Die Tryin’ – a SKIP
Dir: Jim Sheridan
Stars: Curtis Jackson (A.K.A. 50 Cent), Joy Bryant, Terrence Howard and Viola Davis

So, as the title of this entry suggests, I did not enjoy “Get Rich or Die Tryin'”.  Is Marcus (the character whom Jackson plays) a character I wanted to root for?  I guess not.  I hate to say it, but I guess not.  Towards the beginning of this biography/drama, Marcus’ Mom dies for dealing drugs.  The poor guy has no strong parental figure in his life, so instead of being steered away from that lifestyle, he just plunges right into it.  I was sad that this was the only option he saw for himself.  Much of the film establishes his rise to power as a drug dealer, or at least to the level of right hand man to the drug distributor (Bill Duke).

The thing about “Die Tryin'” is that the only reason Jackson ends up rapping at all is because he gets busted, sent to jail – and seems bored as hell.  I say this knowing I could have misinterpretted the scene in jail, in which Marcus seems to get serious about rapping, but I don’t think so… Anyway, it turns out there’s not a lot to do in jail when you’re not defending yourself from a knife attack (a terribly violent scene).  Yes, it’s been established in earlier scenes that Jackson seemed to enjoy rapping, but it took his getting sent up to see his true desire to express himself through rap.  So, you’ve got an unapologetic drug dealer and a girlfriend that knows what he does and sticks with him regardless as the central characters of this film.  I just couldn’t hop on board. 

And I was excited for this one, particularly after seeing Jim Sheridan’s film, “Brothers” recently.  With apologies to all involved in this picture, it just didn’t seem to have the heart of “8 Mile”.

The Beat That My Heart Skipped (2005, France)
Dir: Jacques Audiard
Stars: Romain Duris, Niels Arestrup, Aure Atika and Melanie Laurent

This title was recently recommended to me and I had a chance to see it earlier this week: it’s been a while since my last foreign film (my, that sounds like a confession) and I was really in the mood for one.  Little did I know that it was directed by Audiard, who did that great crime drama, “A Prophet” that I absolutely loved – use the search box in the top right to see my take on that gem! 

Regardless, “The Beat That My Heart Skipped” is basically about a young man who seems to be letting his demons get the best of him; at least that’s how I saw the film…  When we meet Tom, a skinny fellow in his early 20s, he is assisting a couple of other hoodlums as they creep into a Parisian slum armed only with moving satchels.  I kid you not, they’re carrying big sacks that seem to be moving!  It turns out the bags are full of rats, which they release into the tenament.  Right away I’m into this film: I’m curious to see who this guy is, why he would ever do such a thing and if he’ll change over the course of the film.  It’s a pretty great movie when you’ve got my full attention a mere 10 minutes in.

We continue to learn about Tom.  He has a Father who guilts him into all kinds of petty criminal activity, like collecting bills for him.  When we first meet dear old Dad, he’s excited to see Tom because he wants to introduce him to his latest girlfriend, who is about 25 years his junior.  Also early in Act 1, Tom catches sight of a music producer who apparently used to work with his very talented Mom.  It’s established that Mom died a while back, but through a scene in which Tom listens to her old tapes, we also understand that she had immense talent as a concert pianist.  Clearly, Tom relishes these tapes and the instrument itself – he can play for sure.  When the music producer suggests he try out for him, Tom hesitates, but then calls the producer’s office soon after for an appointment.  As Act 1 concludes, we understand how much it means to Tom that in his difficult existence, there is this hope he has, to one day play like his Mom did.  Maybe he can?

At this point we enter a piano teacher into the mix who recently moved from Beijing.  In a pretty interesting story element, we see a young man overhearing Tom’s call regarding this immense opportunity he has to audition for the music producer.  The young man suggests this lady and then introduces the two of them.  When they first meet, Tom finds out she doesn’t speak French, which adds an interesting curve ball to their relationshi.  It’s these scenes with the piano teacher coaching Tom on how to improve his technique and relax himself that really give Tom’s character an interesting “arc”.  By this time in the movie, we’ve seen him pouring live rats into tenaments and then taking a baseball bat to the abodes.  We’ve even seen him threaten Russian gangsters (related to another one of Dad’s requests) and sleep with one of his business associates’ wife: but it seems beneath this hardened exterior, there is a hope and drive to him.  He wants nothing more than to leave an artistic mark of his own.

The last act really surprised me, that’s all I’ll say about it.  Like I mentioned in my entry on Foreign Films (that’s right, I capitalized them), one of the best things about them is their “no rules” attitude.  What I mean is, from watching so many American films, I feel like we have more of a structure, an assumed direction for most stories: “Heart Skipped” has many elements that defy the rules, and its ending is no exception.  From a more macro standpoint, I really dug Romain Duris’ portrayal of Tom.  It really reminded me of Tahar Rahim’s performance as the young convict in “A Prophet”.  Clearly, I need to see more of Audiard’s work!

Brewster’s Millions
Dir: Walter Hill
Stars: Richard Pryor, John Candy, Jerry Orbach, Pat Hingle and Hume Cronyn

I have owed a friend of mine, D.R., a post on this film for some time now: let me say up front, D.R., my apologies for how long this took – and I loved this movie!  Frankly, I can’t believe I had never seen it.  I have a pretty damned good memory, and I’m sure I would’ve remembered this one.

Brewster’s Millions has an intruiging “what if” storyline, presented in a very efficient, entertaining, text book example of a set up.  What if this knucklehead minor league baseball pitcher (Richard Pryor) suddenly – literally overnight – had the opportunity to become a multi-millionaire?  As presented by the pitcher’s long-lost, dying grandfather via VHS video, the catch is that he has to spend $30 million dollars in 30 days.  At the end of that time, he can’t have one cent to his name.  If he successfully spends the dough, he will inherit (deep breath), $300 Million Dollars (I think that deserves capitalization).  This set-up, delivered by veteran character actor Hume Cronyn is spectacular.  By this time in the movie, we agree with Hume that Pryor’s character is a bit of a goofball since we’ve already seen Pryor in a bar fight and thrown in jail.  We are entertained by this knucklehead nonetheless.  And needless to say, we’re interested to see how he’s going to try and get through the cash because frankly, we wouldn’t have much of a movie if he declined the opportunity to spend the $30 million in return for $1 million and no questions asked. 

Brewster’s Millions had several other elements going for it.  Walter Hill, the director, is a veteran who seems to concern himself with pretty great stories (he’s one of the folks responsible for titles like the Alien series, Red Heat, The Warriors and more…).  I’ve already touched on Pryor’s popularity: this role wasn’t exactly a stretch for him.  Plus, he was surrounded by a talented supporting cast (listed above).  Brewster’s even had a pretty thought provoking story element in Act 2: what if he could get through the money by spending it all on a politcal campaign urging all voters NOT to vote for anyone!  I relished this part of the story and was surprised that such a screwball comedy had this deep of a question for all of us as voters.  Movies like these work because it’s all about the “how’s he going to do it?”  They don’t try and go overboard…

This title is phenomenal take on the “fish out of water” story structure, driven by the zeitgeist that was “Richard Pryor” in the late ’70s and early ’80s.  A trail blazing comedian to say the least, this was – at least in my opinion – one of Pryor’s better roles that I’ve seen him in.  He was entertaining without going overboard.  I think of this film in the way I think of Anchorman or Old School: Will Ferrell was “reigned in” with both of those titles, while he was not wrangled at all in Blades of Glory or Step Brothers.

Which brings me to my bigger question for you, Dear Reader: I don’t know if you’ve seen Blades of Glory, The Other Guys, Tropic Thunder or Year One?  How about Evan Almighty?  Is it just me, or do today’s comedies try too hard?

Appaloosa (2008)
Dir: Ed Harris
Stars: Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renee Zellweger and Jeremy Irons

I would expect most film critics and academics probably agree that the Western genre’s “rules” were created back in the early days of film up through the 1950s.  With that in mind, I have to say that Ed Harris’ Appaloosa does something I’ve never seen done before within the genre.  This story makes a female supporting character an interesting “question mark” right up until the end.  I’ve seen supporting characters and villains as a “question mark” repeatedly in Westerns – but really, how often is a lady in the story a true mystery? 

Renee Zellweger’s character, Allison French, comes to town and she’s dressed well, she’s alone, she plays the piano.  Harris as the town sherriff asks if she’s a prostitute: Ms. French acts all embarrassed and blushes substantially when he puts the question to her, as if that’s out of the question.  Oh, the scandal, sir!  Throughout the movie, though, she hints at being just that, a “lady of the evening”.  But then, in the very next scene, she convinces you she might be innocent indeed, and “playing a part” in the previous scene!  It was a refreshing bit of bending the rules within the Western genre that fit the rest of the picture. 

Harris as the veteran peace keeper who has been, well, keeping the peace across the wild west in whichever town needs him throughout his career, is perfectly supported by Mortensen’s sidekick character.  Their knowledge of each other is astounding when you consider how little these guys actually chat, despite having known each other for years.  I think another aspect of Appaloosa I particularly liked was the realism in the violence.  While the old showdown in the middle of the street is a traditional scene we’re all used to, I kind of liked the short, to the point, explosive violence captured in this title.  If you missed this one, I’d highly recommend adding it to the Netflix cue.

The Bank Job (2008)
Dir: Roger Donaldson
Stars: Jason Statham, Saffron Burrows and David Suchet

Do me a favor and do NOT watch the preview to this film: that is unless you detest films with intruiging true stories, plausible action, a fun cast and a director who knows what the hell he’s doing.  If you find these things deplorable, please stop reading this blog and seek out the preview to The Bank Job, which will give you all the things you need to know about it in a little over 2:10.  If you’re like me, though, and you love all these things, please give this movie a watch. 

Several things surprised me about The Bank Job, first of which was Statham’s performance.  Having seen many of his action roles, I wasn’t expecting much, and I have to say he did rather well with the material.  The film also was unique in its approach to the caper genre: it seems to have stuck to the true story that this film is based on.  Also, the crew of thieves were not all experts in something or other: in fact, they were “ordinary people”, which made the story even more engaging to watch!  Finally, I found myself saying to myself towards the end, “I can’t believe how good this story is…”  Don’t mean to build it up too much, but I’ve thought about this title several times in the weeks since I’ve seen it.  And I bloody LOVE the poster to this film.

Three Kings (1999) – Burke Favorite
Dir: David O. Russell
Stars: Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube, George Clooney, Spike Jonze and a whole lot of others You’ll recognize

The credits to this film read like a who’s who of modern experts in their respective categories: the movie was shot by Newton Thomas Siegel, designed by Catherine Hardwicke, scored by Carter Burwell, not to mention the all star cast.  I mean, you know the actors I’ve mentioned above there, but I recognized cast members from Lost, other movies, Arrested Development… it’s a fun movie to watch if only for the talented ensemble. 

I’d recommend this movie regardless because Three Kings takes the action-adventure genre and actually presents the violence in a mature manner.  I was mentioning in my entry on The Losers how the violence in today’s movies is awfully cartoonish, at times: in Three Kings, the violence comes with a penalty.  Bullets do actual damage to the human body, which is creatively shown in a way we don’t soon forget.  Best friends die.  And still the “quest” for the gold continues.  We’re basically tagging along with a group of guys who have decided that the risk is worth the reward.

The last thing I’ll say about Three Kings is that it leaves you with an intersting message, too.  I refuse to view this film as making a political statement regarding what we should or shouldn’t have done in the first Gulf War of 1991.  To me, this movie is about challenging the viewer to think next time they say, “I wish I won the lottery”, or “just one more pass on the craps, please!” or “sure I’ll hold your beer while I watch you _________.”  Is the money really worth it to you?  Are you willing to do it if it kills one of you or your friends?  If you knew some good would come out of your scheme, would that make it worthwhile – regardless of your reward?  These are some good questions, I think! 

In the end, you just gotta see this movie for two things: first, the banter regarding the Infiniti convertible and two, the matching of the Chicago song, ‘If You Leave Me Now”, to a scene of ultra-super-duper-incredible action!

Chicago – If You Leave Me Now