The Fountain (2006)

Idea: Spanish conquistador Tomas (Hugh Jackman) searches the jungles of what is now Ecuador for the Tree of Life, as charged by his Queen, Isabel (Rachel Weisz). Present day (or slightly into the future?) Tommy searches for a cure for his wife, Izzi's, terminal brain tumor. Far into the future, Tom traverses the universe to reach the centre of a nebula wrapped around a dying star.

For far more time than is reasonable or necessary, Em and I went back and forth after screening this movie on Sunday. The back and forth had two parts: 1) wondering what we just saw, and 2) giggling. Which makes this review a little more difficult than usual.

Darren Aronofsky's third feature length film is visually stunning. His DP, Matthew Libatique, better be getting his due in a big way come awards time. Instead of the now-standard CGI, they opted for micro-photography of chemical reactions to create the film's unique look. Everything is set up perfectly for the eye: from the shots (heavy on the close-ups and high angles) to the lighting (take a look above - all very low and supernatural, as though the earth itself is lit from within).

Darren Aronofsky's third feature length film is superbly acted. Weisz and Jackman have wonderful chemistry, and it's a testament to both of them, as well as their writer-director, that they manage to make their relationship seem passionate yet tentative (in the conquistador story) and warmly lived-in (in the almost now one). Jackman quivers with impassioned fury as the embodiment of chivalrous love, and he's gut-wrenching as he crawls his way through the stages of grief. Weisz matches him frame for frame, though she's much less the protagonist than he is, and, to a certain extent, much less of a character. As is so frequently the case in these sort of stories (think The Odyssey or any medieval romance), the woman is less a person than she is the avatar of virtue. Weisz gives Izzi more three dimensionality than I am suggesting, but still.

Darren Aronofsky's third feature length film is alive with imagery. The way he criss-crosses through world religion, folklore, and traditional theatrical symbolism is a sight to behold. In any one scene there are hundreds of culture clues to pick up. With Clint Mansell's lovely, lilting score drifting through the scenes, it's hard not to let it carry you off as well.

So it's too bad that Darren Aronofsky's third feature length film makes no sense. Symbolism without substance has no meaning at all (although it did occur to me that this movie would be a semiotician's dream). As a mediation on grief, Aronofsky's picture is bar none, but as a movie? Emotional and evocative, to be sure, but it lacks a core argument to sustain the premise as it moves through time. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, but I wouldn't ward them off of seeing it either because I know I would see it again. It sort of casts a dreamy haze over you. B

Casino Royale (2006)

Premise: M (Judi Dench) promotes James Bond (Daniel Craig) to double-oh. For his inaugural mission, Bond must track down Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), who launders money for terrorists, and defeat him in a high stakes game of Texas Hold 'Em. Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is sent by the Treasury to oversee their investment, as they have provide Bond's 10 million dollar buy-in.

A few of us were talking in class the other day about how we wanted to see this movie , about the re-invigoration of the franchise, and the new direction of the protagonist. A return to the roots as Ian Fleming imagined them, to be sure, but far different from what we have seen in the past. At one point, while taking about how The New Bond isn't going to come across as a suave, pleasure-seeking playboy, one guy declared, "He's a thug." He said 'thug' so many times that it became something of a jarring credo, and I was wryly amused when M informed Bond that he is meant to be more than just that.

She's right, though, and Craig plays him as more of a cold-blooded mercenary than anything else. To be fair, this is Craig we are talking about, so he tends to be using his icy-blue eyes to conceal more than he'll ever show. Even so, this is by far a different sort of Bond. There's no Q, and he's not really one for gadgets - a gun and some serious hand-to-hand are his take down methods. In the past, Bond seemed to take out the baddie while stifling a yawn. Violence was a necessary component of his vocation. Here, however, Craig's Bond is something far nastier - he'll kill you, with his bare hands, just for the heck of it. There's an edge that has replaced the devil-may-care attitude of Bonds past.

Unfortunately for Bond, and fortunately for the viewer, there's a lesson to be learned on his first 00 mission. I inwardly cringed when I saw Paul Haggis' name flash on the screen. With two other screenwriters to temper him (Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) and the general possibility that the name that appears has nothing to do with the finished product, he appears not to have bollixed this one up. The bed-hopping and double-entendres are kept to a minimum, providing us with a sleeker, leaner, and, oddly enough, longer feature. From the opening adrenalin-pumping chase sequence to the utterly satisfying closing, you'll hardly notice the length.

Thank goodness Dame Judi remains in place after the re-jig. I adore her in this thoroughly anti-maternal role. She also happens to be the best looking woman in the pic.

I think we all know what happens to villains in this sort of movie, which is too bad. I enjoyed Mikkelsen as the number-crunching villain.

Can I just say one thing, though? What's with Bond villains and facial scars? Can anyone explain that to me?

Ah, well. It's the Bond we've all been waiting for, made possible by the darkness that has crept into, of all things, comic book movies. Enjoy this sinister delight. A-

Sad.

Here's to long tracking shots, overlapping dialogue, and a truly unique point of view.

Pop Culture Round-Up II

Glad to see that Mimi and I are on the same page re: Larry Clark. (You'll have to scroll a little bit) I don't know if that's what I would say if I saw him in the street, but, still: same page.

Do a pop culture crossword!

The wait, she is over. People has finally gotten around to reminding me which Hollywood men are sexy. Let's see . . . totally agree; agree; nope; lost me with the quote; no doubt about it (also, "in a relationship"? Is that official copy?) ; is going to die of a terrible infectious disease from his alien girlfriend; who?; maybe; true, but that pic doesn't really show it; sure; who, again; who because I don't watch the show and because he looks like a killer; yup; Tim from the L word? looks like a killer, too; accepted cannon. So, 6.5 out of 15.

Babel (2006)

Plot: Yussef (Boubker Ait El Caid) and Ahmed (Said Tarchani) are practicing shooting with their father's new rifle, using cars on the highway below them as targets. One of Yussef's bullets hits an American woman, Susan (Cate Blanchett) on vacation with her husband, Richard (Brad Pitt). Their crisis prevents them from making it home in time to relieve their live-in nanny, Amelia (Adriana Barraza), so that she may attend her son's wedding. When she can find no one else to take Susan and Richard's kids (Elle Fanting and Nathan Gamble), Amelia decides to take them across the border with her and her nephew, Santiago (Gael García Bernal). Meanwhile, a deaf-mute girl, Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), struggles with her relationship with her father (Kôji Yakusho) after her mother's suicide, in addition to all that adolescent fun.

Avoiding the press on this one has been difficult. I did, however, read this Crosstalk, in which Scott Tobias alleges that, in lesser hands than those of director Alejandro González Iñárritu, Babel would have been "Crash 2, an inelegant, deeply contrived narrative about the ripple effects of violence across the globe, or some such pretentious nonsense." For some reason, despite the fact that I am aware of how highly praised this movie, I got the distinct impression from this conversation that there was something wrong with the movie.

Unfortunately for the droves of people I have seen streaming from the movie's showings at ye olde Bytowne (or perhaps fortunately as no one else seems to have noticed), there is something wrong with this movie.

Guillermo Arriaga's screenplay tells four varied stories very well. Each individual story is expertly handled, but things start to fall apart when it comes to interlocking them. The two Morrocan stories and the Californian/Mexican story work well together, although they are not all chronologically linked up. Each story contains believable characters who, for the most part, make momentarily stupid decisions that end up going very poorly. Overall, it seems unlikely, but, in the moment, the acts seem plausible, even possible.

The Japanese story, though it is integrated about a hundred years in, is also well done, complete with fairly believable characters and performances. It's too bad that it really doesn't sync up with the rest of the themes. Sure, a few parallels could be drawn between, say, Yussef and Chieko. Even so, the story feels completely disjointed with the rest. It's too bad that they didn't make a movie just about Chieko, to be honest. I would have gone to see that.

Yes, the performances are all they are cracked up to be, with a particularly compelling turn from Pitt. Normally he seems like a fairly limited actor. Here, he pushes far beyond those bounds to get in touch with raw human emotion in a way he has never done in the past.

As for González Iñárritu's much celebrated visual style, I'm going to have to plead partial ignorance on this one. I've never seen any of his work before this movie. To be honest, if this is the norm, I don't think I want to. Disorienting your viewers can have its place, but making them nearly fall over because you refuse to find a focus in a given situation isn't a style at all. In his defence, the kind of instances I speak of were rare.

So, what am I saying exactly? Perfomances: good, story: good, visual style: mostly good? Where's the beef? It's here: this movie is the kind that can't just be good. It has to be more than the sum of its parts. Or, alternatively, it doesn't all add up. Everything sepearately is good but, taking all together, isn't good. Each individual section needs to be excellent for this kind of movie to achieve the harmony necessary to make it palatable. Instead, it feels long and somewhat overblown, even dull in sections. There are individual scenes that veer in the direction of excellence but not enough of them. As such, the whole movie is bogged down.

At least we get another evocative guitar driven score from Gustavo Santaolalla. B-

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

Story: Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) is an IRS auditor leading a dreary, repetitive existence until he is sent to audit a baker, Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal). Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) is struggling to finish her latest novel with no help from the publisher's assistant (Queen Latifah). The very novel Karen struggling to finish happens to be about Harold, and, when Harold realizes that the narrator he has been hearing is determined to kill him, he determines to find her. To this end, he enlists a literature professor (Dustin Hoffman).

As a director, I find Marc Forster pretty hit and miss. Screenwriter Zach Helm has written exactly one made-for-TV movie. Despite their short comings, this movie is a delight. The very premise is enchanting.

Ferrell gives a career best performance. He is wonderfully subtle and nuanced in the role. I don't want to give too much away about this scene, but there is one where he hits the exact right note of clever and dorky. I loved that.

Although Hoffman was likable in his role, it kind of felt like he was merely playing a more lucid version of his character in I ♥ Huckabees. On the other hand, when he begins waxing rhapsodic on "little did he know," a moment like that is a dream come true. You can see the fun the actor is having - it's impossible not to be infected by it.

Thompson decided to act the hell out of her role. Very few people can bring such delightful quirk to desperation in my opinion.

Gyllenhaal was also a welcome breath of fresh felicity. I have worried that there is a little similarity in the roles she has played in the past, so this movie serves as a welcome reminder that she can (and does) branch out.

As much as I like Queen, I don't really get the point of casting a name of such stature in a rather small role. I feel like a great number of other people could have gotten the job done just as well.

Unfortunately, Helm turns the whole thing rather oddly dramatic toward the end. Even worse, he goes sentimental on us. I get that writing about writers writing is a difficult task, and, in a way, it is a brave choice. I'd say that not changing the ending would have been a braver choice, but I'm not certain that that is true. Either way you'd end up feeling like you've gotten the short shrift. The problem is that the very conceit of the movie is self-defeatist. Harold knows he's going to die. Either he's going to die or he's going to live. There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

Logistics aside, this movie is the kind that would be described as a "feel good" movie. It's more than that - it's a feel better movie. B+

V for Vendetta (2005)

RE-view insanity!

Just the other day, I thought to myself: what am I going to put in this year's Top 10? Because, although things have picked up lately, I haven't seen that many good movies this year. Then I thought, "V! I'll put V on the list! And I was so pleased.

Imagine my confusion when I pulled up the review to write this RE-view and discovered that I put the year as 2005. Then I looked it up on IMDb and saw 2005. "But didn't I see this is March of this year?" I asked. Apparently, I did. I looked up the release dates and sorted myself out.

I know you don't care about any of that, but at least you got a preview of what will likely be part of the Top 10 that you won't read until March 2007!

Also, thanks to A & M for this lovely b-day gift!

I had been saving this movie to watch in honour of Bonfire Night. Prior to this, I had been trying to convince myself that my high opinion of the movie had been falsely inflated. I didn't want to see it again only to be disappointed, so I kept trying to lower my expectations. As is my custom, I watched the trailer before I started the movie, which, I have to tell you, makes the movie look pretty crappy. Stupid, even.

Listen, guys - I don't normally read my reviews and say, "Oh, good work, self!" I mostly read them over and notice the things I didn't remember to include from my mental check list. But I was reading this review . . . and I was spot on. No, really, I feel like I hit the nail on that head with that one.

The movie is much better than it has any right to be, given (in my opinion) its pedigree. It is far more intelligently penned than one would expect. It is thoughtful and insightful, and McTeigue has an incisive eye. The way he calls up Kent State and Vietnam to go with the other allusions is particularly perceptive.

Portman and Weaving do have some intense chemistry, which amazes me under the circumstances. And, though I am loath to sound like a squeeing fangirl, I have such a crush on him now. V may be the embodiment of revenge, but Weaving fills him the idea that remains unspoken until Evey pulls that lever. There's no way that someone you never see is going to nominated for any best actor awards, which is a shame. Weaving gives one of the best performances of the year.

I did miss one point, though - Natasha Wightman as Valerie. She isn't in the movie for long, yet her stirring monologue brought tears to my eyes. I hope I get to see her in many more movies.

Although I was right about the slow second act, it's not as bad as a remember it. Besides, this movie is so wonderful it charmed my low quality DVD player-through-VCR set-up into behaving. That makes me feel like bumping the movie up to an A. I won't just yet, but I am thinking about it.

Walk the Line (2005)

RE-view extravaganza!

Although I had picked up this movie months earlier, I had been saving it to watch with my mom. My mom, great though she is, never goes to the movies. She appearently used to go with my nana, but I have no understand of when or what movies they saw. I think they used to go to the downtown theatre, which closed when I was about 13. She once told me that the last movie she and my dad went to see in the theatre was The Godfather, which probably means that was the last movie my dad saw in the theatre.

And yet, I fully blame them for getting me hooked on movies.

Anyway, the point here is that I thought my mom would like this movie. When we were listening to the soundtrack at Christmas, my mom remarked that sometimes, not everytime, but sometimes, Joaquin Phoenix's voice could be mistaken for that of Johnny Cash.

After we watched the DVD together, I asked her what she thought. "Oh, it was good," she said. I blinked. "It was very good." My mom wasn't dismissive, she was emphatic, but still. "Very good"? Had I been mistaken about the quality of this film?

Yes and no. I don't think I was wrong about the performance, which are among the best from two highly talented actors. I think they do excellent work, and together that work makes the movie snap with electric energy.

Even so, the movie's sort of oddly paced. It speeds up and slows down, rushing through some perfomances, yet letting itself breath for beaitfully done scenes like the one in the diner near the beginning. She gets him to talk about Jack for the first time in years; she confesses to him all her feelings inadequacy as she stands in her family's shadow. Scenes like that are the stuff of great cinema.

I recall when I read Owen Gliberman's comment that WtL had the potential to become a "monster chick flick." I didn't get it at the time, but I can see it now. The film, probably conciously although it goes unmentioned, sets up Johnny's addiction in direct relation to his tortured, protracted romance with June. June turns him down for a kiss? He pops pills for the first time. He accidentally makes June cry? He rips a sink out of the wall, then scrambles to pick up the scattered pills and chase them with beer. He's like House, only with music instead of medicine. And, you know, real.

I wasn't wrong about Vivian, though. No offense to Goodwin, but what a harpy! Could she have resented his career a little more? She didn't want to him to talk about it? That's all he does! What the hell else is he going to talk about?

I admit that I may have over-estimated this movie when I originally reviewed it but only by a hair. It's still one of the best. New grade: A-

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

More RE-views!

No, I haven't seen this movie in two years either. It's not like I didn't want to see it, and I think I may have watched parts of it, but I didn't sit down and watch the whole thing through again until not so long ago.

My goodness, how my review didn't do justice to this film! I seem to have overlooked cinematographer Ellen Kuras' arresting visual style, Jon Brion's playful yet melancholy score, the perfect harmony of Michel Gondry's direction with Charlie Kaufman's incredible script. Overlooked no more!

Oh, Kate Winslet, how do you do it? How do you play everything so naturally? How do you manage to generate believable chemistry with just about anyone? (I even buy the pairing of her and Jack Black) Kate, I find it exceedingly difficult to place this mantle on anyone, but I think you are my favourite actress. You take risks, but you're selective. You're sensual and ethereal and achingly amazing in this movie. Clementine is seductive and bitchy and cruel and lovable.

The other half of the relationship, as presented by Jim Carrey, is pitch perfect. Joel is everything that Clementine hates to see and wants to possess. His futile attempts to save her are as romantic as they are idiotic, but the way he seems to write her into his memory - knowing that she's only the version of herself that he chooses to see - it's the way Carrey plays the cruelty of desperation matched with the courage necessary to try anyway that makes your breath catch in your chest.

That final, urgently whispered plea before Clementine disappears entirely from Joel's memory? That last scene in the hallway, knowing what they do and choosing what they do anyway? Makes this the most romantic movie I have ever seen.

As this review was also from the time before grades, allow me to attach another: A+

Mean Creek (2004)

RE-view time!

Now, I know you might be thinking, "Elfin April, you haven't watched this movie again in two years?" And the simple answer is, "Le no." I probably put it on my Zip list as soon as it came out on DVD, but it didn't arrive until recently.

As I recall, I saw this movie not only because of Caulkin but also because a few select reviews sold me on it. Occasionally, when I do not know about a movie in advance, the right review can sell me on seeing it. The problem with many of the reviews I read, however, was that they gave away the film's entire plot.

George's accidental (or not-so-accidental, depending on your point of view) death doesn't happen in the beginning of the film, and the film isn't solely about the fallout. George's death is the climax: there's a lot of rising action before it that centres around the group's ever-shifting opinion about George. Making the plan, calling off the plan, who's in, who's out - all of these things are in flux for most of the movie.

Peck's villain is the most eerily, true-to-life portrayal in the movie precisely because he gets what being a bully is all about - that he's a lonely kid with problems and no foreseeable solutions. The best part of his performance, however, is the way neither him nor the direction nor the screenplay allow us to forget the default setting. Even when he moves to mocking Marty's dead dad, you can see how much the betrayal has gotten to him. His voice has a too-casual anger to it, but his tearful, hurt look is unmistakable.

To have a prank turn fatal isn't a concept that Estes introduced to film. His exploration of it, nevertheless, is bar none. The shock, the rushed yet reluctant burial, the acceptance of consequences . . . it all feels so natural in a completely artificial situation.

But, really, it is all about Caulkin. Right at the end there, when the detective leaves the room, and he knows he doesn't have to say or do anything, when he turns to the camera and slowly, deliberately announces that he has never seen Rocky so out of control in his life - that's when the movie socks you in the gut. You see him, in the span of 30 or 45 seconds, age years, decades. The child is gone in a instant.

Because I wrote the original review before I graded movies, let's grade this one now: A

The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006)

Focus: Lennon's life during the late sixties and seventies when he became more politically active, lived in New York, and perceived by the US government as a national threat.

It's all in the tagline: Musician. Humanitarian. National Threat.

I'm about to say a lot of things that are going to sound ridiculously stupid and fangirl-esque, so allow me a brief explanation. It's been a long time since I saw a documentary with a positive focus. I've grown accustomed to polemic, one sided stories like Fahrenheit 9/11 or Outfoxed. Even something like Control Room, which presented a different side of the story than we normally get, still only presented one side of the story.

In that respect, this doc is no exception. Only a handful of interviewees are offered the opportunity to defend the US, and most of them end up looking ridiculous in the process. Co-writers and co-directors David Leaf and John Scheinfeld are smart enough to give the "experts" enough rope to hang themselves -- and I'm not saying that they put words in any one's mouths -- but we can see that Leaf and Scheinfeld aren't going for balance.

Nevertheless, the doc is compelling. It's a wonder what went on behind closed doors in Washingston when they decided that deporting John and Yoko would be their best move, and the Lennons refusal to take the situation lying down is as encouraging as it is challenging.

There is another thread to this movie that is heart wrenching - the love story. I'm too young to know how John and Yoko appeared to the outside world. I never thought Yoko broke up The Beatles. In fact, from what little I've known of her, I've always kind of had a soft spot for her. She seems so effortlessly cool, and she seems to have effortlessly weathered being the mouthpiece and collective memory of a lost legend. I think may be in awe of her.

And, oh, to see their bed-ins for the first time. To watch them waltz through Central Park. To glimpse how over-the-top and absolutely they were in love. It's truly touching.

Love story aside, the doc drags in parts. It's still pretty darn good. B+

Pop Culture Round-Up

I remember two of these songs. Can anyone best me?

This list contains all three shows I would nominate. The Rogen factor goes a long way.

David Edelstein reminds me why I like him.