Hairspray (2007)

Brief: Tracy Turnblad (Nikki Blonsky) dreams of landing a spot on The Corny Collins (James Marsden) Show, a sort of local American Bandstand, despite her plus-sized frame and her mother's (John Travolta) objections. Hair height lands her in detention with Seaweed (Elijah Kelley), who teaches Tracy some new moves that help her get the attention of Corny and her crush, Link Larkin (Zac Efron). Seaweed's help catches the attention of Tracy's best friend, Penny (Amanda Bynes). With the help of Seaweed's mom, Motormouth Maybelle (Queen Latifah), the host of the show's monthly "Negro Day," Tracy begins pushing the show toward integration against the wishes of studio manager Velma Von Tussle (Michelle Pfeiffer) and her daughter Amber (Brittany Snow).

Confession: I read reviews before going to see this. I wasn't entirely sure about the movie to Broadway to movie transition. Didn't work so well for The Producers, after all. I've also seen it on stage and liked it on stage, which made me wonder if this version would fill me with rage, à la Rent. Yet by the time Blonsky had finished belting out "Good Morning, Baltimore," John Waters had shown up to grant his blessing, and I was smitten. Newcomer Blonsky is a treat in this candy-coloured world, perfectly showcasing Tracy's bubbly enthusiasm.

I must say that I didn't have a problem with Travolta playing it straight in a fat suit, and I don't think you should either. I have no real connection to the role as a gay icon, but I can tell you Travlota gets fussy and maternal with the best of them. The way he finds a new centre of gravity for each role is something to be relished. His graceful waltz with Christopher Walken* as Wilbur is delightful and reminds us what they both can do. By the time Travolta busts out the Grease moves in the finale, they feel earned.

*Is there a reason Walken's head appears to be getting bigger while his body mass is shrinking? Did anyone else notice this, particularly when he was on The Daily Show last week?

For a musical packed to the brims with showstoppers, none compare to the finale on stage, a number which manages to fill the entire theatre regardless of where you see it. So it's strange that the finale on film feels airless at times and seems to showcase everything that went wrong with this adaptation: Queen Latifah's oddly quiet performance; lack of redemption for Penny's mother (the always fantastic Allison Janney), Velma, and Amber; the de-sexualized relationships between Tracy and Link, and Penny and Seaweed; Penny's marginalized character; director and choreographer Adam Shankman's occasionally bizarre camera choices.

Still there's a lot to love, from Kelley's astounding performance (I am so with Dana on this one) to Pfeiffer's ice cold one to the sugar rush that follows pretty much every musical number. Besides, the movie did correct what I consider to be the musical's biggest mistake: Link dumps Amber this time around, making Tracy his first choice. As it should be. B+

P.S. I would be remiss if I didn't mention my favourite number, both on stage and in this version: "Welcome to the 60s," in which Tracy convinces her housebound mother to go outside for the first time in over a decade. This time around it features Jerry Stiller (famous original Wilbur) as Mr. Pinky.

Eagle vs Shark (2007)

Outline: Lily (Loren Horsley) uses the rejected invitation of a co-worker to get into the costume party thrown by her crush, Jarrod (Jemaine Clement). Pretty soon, Lily and her brother Damien (Joel Tobeck) are driving Jarrod back to his home town, so he can fight the bully who beat him up in high school.

Writer-director Taika Waititi (sometimes Cohen)'s awkward central romance is hard to categorize. There are ways in which is feels too horribly, awkwardly realistic and others in which it doesn't come together quite right. He invests a lot of energy into Jarrod's exceptionally bizarre back story, but he lets Lily's life come together more naturally. By Jarrod's abrupt about face at the end, Lily and Jarrod's relationship has stopped making sense (particularly Lily's continued interested in him).

It's fairly obvious that Waititi and Clement have worked together before. A lot of Clement's character elements borrow heavily from his stage/HBO sitcom persona, although he doesn't look nearly as good here as he does there. The film benefits far more from the winsome Horsley's performance. As ridiculously awkward as Lily can be, there's also something sweet and fresh about her that makes her irresistible. It's no wonder that Jarrod's family find themselves charmed even when Jarrod fails to be.

For my money, the stop motion animation bits that serve to underscore the movie's core relationship are, in a lot of ways, better than the movie itself. I never questioned the apples interest in one another, and it's sweet when they finally find themselves together. Actually, despite the unbelivable quality to Jarrod and Lily's courtship, it's quite sweet when they finally get together as well. What can I say? B

Pop Culture Round Up

Rescue Dawn means Christian Bale interviews for one and all.

Sara Vilkomerson wonders, "Wither the male celebrity?"

See how Smart Movie Marketing Ploys have helped a few of this summer's releases.

Check out the Emmy nods, if only to feel annoyed at the injustice of it all yet again.

Aaron Sorkin makes a small mea culpa and wins me back again.

I couldn't agree more.

Donnie Darko (2001)

I'm not going to bother re-reviewing this movie, even though I only wrote about it in the vaguest of terms three years. I recently sat down with the director's cut, and it got me thinking about this coming of age tale that has been lodged in my brain since I first saw it in 2002.

I have sort of a love/hate thing going on with director's cuts. Part of me grooves on the insider feel - getting the story behind the story, so to speak. If it's the movie as the director would have wanted it, then it's the movie as it should exist, full stop, right? I can certainly see the value behind the idea, particularly when a director has had the genuine article chopped up by a nervous studio. I don't think, however, that anyone should be directing any picture with it in mind to make two different versions: one for the studio and one for her/himself.

Other times, there are directors who benefit from having someone else rein them in. Some directors need someone else to make the movie accessible and understandable. I'm not saying we should dumb everything down; I'm saying that sometimes ideas that work in our minds don't always work on the screen, but we can't see it for ourselves. A good producer should be able to step in and smooth that sort of thing out. So should a good editor. But I've seen enough incomprehensible things to know that this doesn't always happen.

Truth be told, the only kind of movie for which I would seek out a director's cut would be a movie I already enjoyed. I want to know how it could be improved. The director's cut in this case is about 20 minutes longer the original release, and, at first, it's difficult to see the differences (musical changes, more time spent with Donnie's parents) as improvements.

Perhaps because the reason that everything that happens to Donnie from the jet engine on is unclear is what makes the film so enjoyable in its original version. You get to talk about it, debate it, substitute your own philosophy and morals where the movie leaves its events open-ended. Normally I don't like that in a movie. Memento, for example, is a movie only made clear in its final moments, but those moments leave no room for debate as to what is really going on. Even though the plot's all sown up, there is still plenty of room to look inside the characters and their motivations, to look at the way it all comes together outside that tattoo parlour. Conversely, the ambiguity works in Darko's favour because the events in the movie are based in a reality outside our own.

The director's cut, however, seeks to move the film away from indefinite to definite. There are a few additional scenes, but most of the new understanding to be gained comes from the addition of pages from Roberta Sparrow's The Philosophy of Time Travel into the transitions. It goes further into who Donnie is and why these things are happening to him, although the outcome (and the reasons for it, in my opinion) remain the same.

I thought that having everything spelled out for me would turn me off the movie (or at least the director's cut), but it didn't. There's a few gimmicky transitions I could have done without, and I don't think that viewing this version negates the beauty of the original. The melancholy that permeates the original is deepened in the director's cut in a way that allows it to resonate more clearly. If you liked the movie to begin with, the director's cut can only serve to deepen your appreciation. A-

Paris, je t'aime (2006)

This anthology isn't one film but 18 short ones, so it's a little difficult to give you a plot synopsis. Each of the shorts is set in a different quartier, and a different director (or pair of directors) tackles each one to give their distinct take on the city of lights and love.

Some are more fanciful, such as Vincenzo Natali's vampire love story "Quartier de la Madeleine" or Christopher Doyle's cosmetic salesman fantasy in "Porte de Choisy." Others are disarmingly sad, working class stories, like Daniela Thomas' "Loin du 16ème" or Oliver Schmitz' "Place des Fêtes." All of them, it would seem, are sweet, romantic tales of love found and lost, of missed connections and opportunities found again. Gurinder Chadha's "Quais de Seine" is perhaps the most hopeful of these, while Frédérick Auburtin and Gérard Depardieu's "Quartier Latin" competes with Isabel Coixet's "Bastille" for the most bittersweet.

There are also a handful of shorts from directors you may be more familiar with, like Gus Van Sant's sly "Le Marais," Joel and Ethan Coen's strange but delightful "Tuileries," Wes Craven's surprisingly tender "Père-Lachaise," Alfonso Cuarón's single shot "Parc Monceau," and Alexander Payne's perfect coda, "14th arrondissement."

Each short does that wonderful city justice, and it makes me hopeful for the planned installments in the series, New York, I love you and Shanghai, I love you. A-

The Iron Giant (1999)

Premise: Hogarth (Eli Marienthal), the only son of single mother Annie Hughes (Jennifer Aniston) discovers a giant alien robot (Vin Diesel) living in the woods outside their small, 1950s town. As Hogarth teaches the robot to speak and about our world, he convinces local junk yard owner Dean (Harry Connick, Jr.) to take the robot in. Unfortunately, a government agent (Christopher McDonald), convinced of the robot's danger, descends on the town to gather enough evidence about the robot to have him exterminated.

Isn't that always the way in these movies? Lost little boy finds an otherworldly friend, only to have the government get in the way.

I was reading this list, and I started wondering how he could have omitted this gem. David Edelstein rarely misses a chance to sing the praises of one of wunderkind Brad Bird's early works, and Dana Stevens is ready to pick up the slack when he does. I finally screened this apparently largely ignored ready-made children's classic, and I couldn't agree more.

Effortlessly charming and built around the sort of message that seems to anchor all of director Bird's films, Tim McCanlies' screenplay, adapted from the book by Ted Hughes, sells its simple story honestly and winningly. There isn't a lot of fuss in this movie: the largest subplot revolves around Dean's artistic endeavours, and the Giant gets involved with those as well.

There's no mention of Hogarth's father (although it is implied that he may have died), and neither the Giant nor Dean are put into pat substitute father roles. Instead, Hogarth is allowed to form friendships, and his relationship with the sweet and childlike Giant (a surprisingly subtle performance by Diesel, if you can imagine a subtle Iron Giant) forms the tender and heartbreaking core of the movie.

Combined with the warm and lifting score by the late, great Michael Kamen, it's difficult to understand why this movie didn't do better, why it isn't the great children's classic it was meant to be. If you want to see an excellent movie about a robot from outer space and the boy who befriends him, look no further. A

Transformers (2007)

Story: Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf)'s father buys him an used Camaro, which turns out not to be a car at all. At the same time, an unknown entity is attempting to hack into the Pentagon's archives for files having to do with Sam's explorer grandfather. The same entity attacks a platoon stationed in the Middle East, and the survivors (among them Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson) struggle to contact the Pentagon with what they know.

You know, if that didn't make a lot of sense, I'm not sure what I can do about. For a movie two and a half hours long, it's a little light on what insiders like you and I like to call "plot." It's also a little light on things like "internal logic" and "sense, making." That's okay, though, as director Michael Bay sure as hell knows his way around an action set piece. Together with some tight editing, he makes the lengthy running a lot easier on the viewer.

The movie is aided in no small part by LaBeouf's hyperactive performance as our erstwhile human hero, Spike. His energy and obvious fun in making the picture spills out to the other actors and into nearly each scene. Too bad it couldn't ignite love interest Megan Fox's dead eyed performance. Mind you, if I was saddled with that junior porn star wardrobe, I don't know how invested I'd be in giving the green screen my all either.

Now, you might be wondering, "Didn't I see John Turturro and/or Jon Voight in the previews? What's that about?" The answers are: Yes and yes. I have no idea and not much. Anthony Anderson is also around, and I think we all know how much he rocks (short answer: a lot), but he doesn't get nearly enough screen time to make any number of things add up.

All in all, it's a good thing Bay keeps it moving as well as he does, as I only paused to ask a handful of questions while it was rolling. Afterwards, dozens started to pop up. You're better off not asking questions at all. You're spoiling the fun, and what fun it is. Also, if I were into obnoxious novelty cell phone ring tones, I would totally get Hugo Weaving as Megatron intoning, "Prime." C+

SiCKO (2007)

Subject: Michael Moore takes a look at how insured Americans are buried under health care costs.

One of my fellow moviegoers was quick to point out how much more focused this movie was than some of Moore's other efforts, and I have to agree. The first one I saw, Bowling for Columbine, took school shootings and spiraled it out into a look at gun culture and violence in America as a societal ill. Now, three years after the incendiary Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore is back, but it isn't the same. It's quieter around here and decidedly more depressing.

I do like how Moore skipped over those who don't even have insurance to look at those who do and get screwed anyway. From a couple who have to move into their daughter's storage room to 79 year-old man who works as a janitor at a grocery store to 9/11 rescue workers who aren't covered because they volunteered, Moore certainly knows how to collect the right stories to tug at heartstrings and prick the tear ducts.

Yesterday, after I screened this doc, my only complaint would have been that it is a bit sluggish in spots and that one asshole move he pulls (you'll see what I mean). Today, as I reflect on the time he spent in my hometown of Sarnia, I find a lot more complaints springing to mind. He paints Canada, with our universal health care, as a socialist utopia. Sarnia has the greatest disparity between doctors and patients of any city in Ontario. You can have chemo in Sarnia, but you have to travel to London, at least an hour away, for radiation. AIDS tests are sent out to Toronto.

Even so, I know we are better off with what we've got, so I can't hold these flaws against him. Documentaries aren't like non-fiction books: they don't have the space or time to explore every issue or all the angles. What Moore's doing here is only meant to be an eye opener. With the time he's allotted, he's got to paint with broad strokes, and he does that exceedingly well. It's one light in a deep pit, but it burns brightly enough. Plus he introduced me to former parliamentarian Tony Benn, and I have a total intellectual crush on him now. B+