Alexander

Hollywood should not be surprised that this bloated epic was a big budget disaster.

The biggest mistake was the miscasting of Colin Farrell, with his improbably blonded hair, and the laughable notion of an Irishman trying playing a Greek with an English accent. Plus, there is some nudity in the film, and I got to see way more of his male anatomy than I would have ever wanted to see.

Angelina Jolie is appropriately deviant and conniving as his mother.

It is not wholly bad, but whatever is good about the film is not helped by the running back and forth in time. (I refer to the director’s cut; I don’t know if the longer studio cut was any better, and this version doesn’t inspire me to find out.)

Also, what is the point of the film? There is some suggestion that the multiculturalism doesn’t work, but there’s no feeling of admiration about Alexander, or any sense of transcendence about the events of his life. One wonders who at the studio made the determination that a movie about Alexander the Great was a subject Americans would be desperate to see. Contrast that with The Passion, released earlier the same year, which was passed over by every major studio (even with Mel Gibson’s name attached!), probably cost less to make than Alexander, and grossed way more money, and you can see how much Hollywood is out of touch, and why the studios are always saying they never make profits.

Red Eye/The Transporter 2

Another study in contrasts:

Red Eye

It is a credit to the skill of the filmmakers that they can make this 85 minute film seem longer than it is, and derive such suspense from a thin, "been there, done that" premise.

The director is Wes Craven, and there a lot of Scream-esque moments.

Without Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy, I doubt this would have worked so well. McAdams may be too pretty for the role, though- I spent a good amount of time admiring her hair when I should have been paying atention to the plot. Is that a sign of weakness on the filmmakers part, good marketing, or the fact that I don't have a girlfriend?

Brian Cox, who usually plays the villain, is seen here in the thankless role of the threatened father.

The Transporter 2

Although I have come to appreicate the first Transporter, on intial viewing I like this one better. It moves more smoothly, and is directed a bit better, with the exception of a few visual tics that I did not like.

There's this scene where the female nemesis (who inexplicably struts around naked or near-naked during most of the film) says to Frank, "I'm going to kill you -for pleasure. My life is all about pleasure." (Or something like that.) This line kind of opens up the opportunity for a meditation of the futility of seeking pleasure in contrast to finding contentment and experiencing joy. But the filmmakers are just making a "movie", intended for quick consumption by mindless masses, not "art". The elements are there for a good artistic action film, I really wish they hadn't been so lazy.

I have recently been noticing this about thrillers lately, that the less they concentrate on characters, and the more they depend on whatever the "gimmick" of the film is, the less they stand up to repeated viewings.

And in that sense, the original Transporter was a better film.

The Great Water/I am David

The Great Water (Golemata voda)

The Great Water is a Macedonian/Czech production set in 1945, right after the end of WWII. The main character, Lem, is taken to an orphanage (what he accurately calls a dungeon) for the children of those who had been opposed to the Communist regime. When another child, named Isask, arrives, the prison attendents said the monks had referred to him as a "devil's seed", but Lem seeks his friendship, and eventually earns it, only in the end to betray him.

The theme of the film seems to be that of freedom and faith versus compulsion, of religious faith versus ideological faith. These themes are not well-developed, though, or rather there are wrapped in a cinematic style that is mystical, poetic, and a bit obscure- I suspect there is something especially Macedonian about the film, a cultural barrier which prevents me from understanding what a native of the country would not need explanation.

I had difficulty following the plot. It's not clear, for example, whether Isak is practicing some occult art, or whether he is an Orthodox Christian. There are some disturbing scenes which involve the electrocution of a cat, and then its revival by what appears to be the sign of the cross, but what feels like an occult ritual. It's kind of creepy.

There is a beautiful young actress in the film named Verica Nedeska, but unfortunately her beauty is obscured by the psychologically unstable character she plays, Komrade Olivera.

I am David

By contrast, I am David, feels very mainstream and American. It's the story of a child who has known nothing but life in a Bulgarian prison camp, but makes his way through Italy, trying to get to Denmark. However, the boy doesn't look Bulgarian, and he certainly doesn't sound Bulgarian, and the fact that the film cheats us by arguing that the Bulgarian boy can understand Italian because he was exposed to prisoners who spoke other languages in the camp means that this film, based on a novel by Anne Holm, is intended for an American/UK market. It is also said of the character that he is a very special boy, and while the actor who plays him is not bad, there doesn't seem to me to be anything special about him, he seems more like just a very serious and polite English boy who been's roughed up a bit in the past.

I would have preferred some of the I am David's clarity of plot, with The Great Water's poetry and realism.

The Constant Gardner

Filmmakers today don't seem to understand that there is a difference between a film and a documentary, and the psuedo-documentary style of Shaky Cam direction does not enhance, but detracts from the story. This is one of the drawbacks of The Constant Gardner, based on the John Le Carre novel of the same name.

This is one of those arty British films which tells a story in a series of scenes that are short bursts, and not in and of themselves impressive. In as much as is possible, film scenes should stand alone, not depend on the other scenes for their impact, which is also a drawback of the flashback technique, with its convoluted chronology, a technqiue in which this film indulges, without catastrophe, but also without effect.

Since it is based on a novel, the producers have had to compress which is undoubtedly a more intricate story into about two hours. The film would have benefited, I think, from about another hour of running time, and yet, on the other hand, the framing and editing of the scenes makes the film run a bit slow.

However, the message of the film, about how pharmaceutical companies act like a Mafia- with the protection of the goverment- makes it worthy to be seen, but it too bad that the message wasn't given a crisper presentation.

Of course, this is a British film. It does have a realistic feel to it. The bad guys are not grandiose, and passionately committed to a scheme, but casually evil, cold, dull, calculating for profit.

If this were an American film, a lot more things would get blown up, and the bad guys would get blown away at the end, maybe by Steven Seagal. I would have maybe preferred that more emotionally satisfactory ending, but I do respect the filmmakers for not descending into that mentality. As it is, the ending is moving, and there is (some) recompense for the villains, but it is without bloodshed by the protagonists, in keeping with their respect for human life.

Ladies in Lavender

After watching The Constant Gardner, I saw Ladies in Lavender, with Judi Dench and Maggie Smith as two old women in pre-WWII Cornwall, who rescue a shipwrecked Polish youngster, who has a gift for playing the violin. Dench in particular develops an affection for the young man, who reminds her of her late husband, and both women go to shield him from the interest of an Olga Danilof, whose brother is a famous violinist, because they are lonely and don't really want him to leave.

The film was a bit tedious for my tastes, but there is a difference between judging on taste and judging on merit, and I can't find anything especially wrong with any of the elements, that is, anything that ought to have been done differently.

There was an extraordinary parallel, however, between the ending of the story, and the ending of Jet Li's most recent film, Unleashed.

In case you think The Constant Gardner was an Exaggeration...

http://www.afbis.com/analysis/crisis.htm

Why not simply privatise whole African countries?, asked Robert Wheelen of theInstitute of Economic Affairs. In the journal of the institute in September 1996 Wheelen argued that multi-national companies should be invited to bid for the right to run African nations under leases of up to 21 years. They would undertake to provide specific services and bring about efficiency and discipline in return for pre-set tax revenue.

http://paulmartintime.ca/story/000343.html

Last August, Paul Martin was named co-chair of the Global Compact, a major initiative that is supposedly designed to “advance responsible corporate citizenship” so that the “private sector…can help realize the Secretary-General’s vision [of] a more sustainable and inclusive globaleconomy.”

Members of the Global Compact include what corporate watchdog CorpWatch refers to as “notorious violators of UN values.” Infamous companies such as Nike,Unilever, and biotech giant Aventis have violated one or more of the Principles of the Compact since they signed on. Other corporations have milked their new relationship for promotional purposes, using the imagery of the United Nationsto improve their reputations and hawk their products. One DaimlerChryslerpublication featured the Global Compact logo, an “editorial” by the UN Secretary-General, and a photo of a smiling Daimler executive shaking hands with an equally enthusiastic Kofi Annan.

One of the contradictions of the Compact, according to CorpWatch, is that it allows companies to “bluewash” their sullied images and reputations, “without committing to scrutiny, transparency or concrete changes.” Indeed, this secretive organization – the UN refuses to name the companies involved with the project – has no intentions to monitor or enforce the principles of thecompact. Despite the idealist rhetoric, the UN has yet to prove how forming unequal partnerships with known human rights violators and perpetrators of ecocide can contribute to sustainable human development.This misleading legacy now includes the latest step in the corporatization ofthe UN, the Commission on the Private Sector and Development that Paul Martin chairs. In a recent report the Commission states that private sector growth is held back by “disabling business environments” and that governments must “avoid actions that impede” the private sector.

Casanova

Casanova seems like a pale imitation of 1998's Dangerous Beauty.

There were great stretches of the film wherein I was, not bored, but impatient.

Heath Ledger, in the lead role, is convincingly seductive (although I am getting tired of him mumbling through all his roles), while Oliver Platt provides much of the best humour, although one wonders why an Italian nobleman is played by an Canadian actor with a Cockney accent. The producers must have thought that was hilarious. Jeremy Irons, as the inquisitor chasing after Casanova, is phlegmatic.

There is some good dialogue, partcularly an exchange on horseback- "Self-love is self-doubt"

But ultimately the film is not satisfying because it doesn't realize it can't wink at fornication while professing true love. I would have preferred a meditation on the nature of seduction, where purity, chastity, and modesty are pitted against its opposites, like Cruel Intentions, and we see the effect in people's lives. That would take more skill than is evident from the screen writing here.

Also, what is the deal with all these films making the Church look bad?
Not that any filmmaker ought to be deferential, but where is the balance?
Where are the wise and loving spiritual fathers? Not all Roman Catholic are repressed, buffoons, hypocrites, or corrupted by power. But this anti-Catholic bias is also present in the (much, much better) Chocolat, from the same director, Lasse Hallstrom.

And though it is rated R, there is no profanity, no nudity, and surprisingly very little actual sex. It's more a comedy of manners.

This is also the first time I've gotten to see Sienna Miller, who I guess is supposed to be a babe in the UK universe, but while I don't dislike her, and she is not unattractive, she doesn't do anything for me. I'd much prefer Sienna Guillory.

The Order

I'm not sure what to make of this film. It was written, directed, and produced by Brian Helgeland, who also wrote the Mel Gibson film Conspiracy Theory and wrote and directed A Knight's Tale, a take-off on Chaucer's Cantebury Tales. Unlike both of those films, which I quite liked, there is no focus as to what this film is supposed to mean.

Heath Ledger plays Fr. Alex, a young priest whose mentor, the former head of a religious order, appears to have committed suicide. Ledger is skeptical, and accompanied by friend and fellow priest Thomas (Mark Addy) and a young woman whom he had exorcised the previous year (Shannyn Sossamon), he goes to Rome to investigate.

He finds that his mentor had employed the services of a "sin-eater", a person who takes on the sins of those about to die who have been excommunicated (apparently unjustly?) by the Roman Catholic Church.

Once he finds the sin-eater, the rest of the film deals with Ledger's motivations for being a priest, his conflict between his vows and his love for the young woman, and the sin-eater's offer to make Fr. Alex his successor, as well as interference run in these matters by demons and pagans...

While this description suggests a compelling drama of religious conflict, the execution is schematic, murky, half-witted...characterization is imcomplete and inadequately subtle, motivations remain unclear, tension is diffused- in short, the project was not well-thought out.

Some things to keep in mind when watching-

1. Real priests do not chase demons (Helgeland has been watching too much Buffy!) nor do competant priests permit themselves to be taunted by demons so that the priest feels the need to challenge them...

2. Fr. Thomas encounters Fr. Alex in the graveyard, where he has just buried his mentor. Sensing something he asks Fr. Alex what has happened, and Fr. Alex (who had just been attacked by demons) responds "demon spawn in the form of children- nothing I couldn't handle". That disposition is so wrong! Relating the casting out of demons to your own ability would only invite the demons to attack you more fiercely! We defeat Satan through humility. Jesus said, "Don't be glad because the evil spirits obey you; rather be glad because your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:20, Today's English Version)

3. "Knowledge is opposed to faith" one character says. This is the most annoying line in the film. What kind of knowledge is he referring to? Knowledge of sin? Well, we may say that knowledge of sin obscures faith but is directly opposed to love. Knowledge of the occult? Beyond certain limits, knowledge of the occult is dangerous and unnecessary, and thus opposed to faith. But what about scientific knowledge, as in the laws of history or physics? Or knowledge of the faith itself? Does the Scripture not say "My people perish for lack of knowledge?" (Hosea 4:6)

4. In one instance, Fr. Thomas denounces a pagan as a "blasphemer"; yet, in another, earlier scene, he practically goads Fr. Alex into breaking his vows. Why does he act honorably in one scene and not in the other?

5. If the relationship between the young woman and Fr. Alex did not deserve to be developed more than what is here, it deserved to be excised from the film as a needless distraction from the story arc. When Fr. Alex breaks his vows, what could have been a meaningful scene between the two, is instead a PG-13 lovemaking montage with no dialogue at all!

Is the director being anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, or anti-God? It seems to me none of these things, but rather he objects to his perception of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think he realizes there is a conflict between the genuine Catholic dogma of sin and redemption and the false one portrayed here, a false understanding no doubt arising from exposure to distorted and legalistic expressions of the Roman Catholic faith.

To unspiritual people, this will seem a silly, cheesy film. But I doubt that Helgeland just decided to arbitrarily throw together supernatural elements in order to make a thriller. He seems to be aware that these elements do exists, but he is confused about their nature.

This is not a film that should be seen without someone wise and mature in the Catholic faith.

Domino

The fact that this film got made at all is a testament to the fact that in Hollywood, talent is not often as important as who you know and what your previous box office track record has been.

The script is bad. If I were some newbie who presented a script like that to an agency, I'd get verbally lacerated, they'd want to know who I thought I was offering them a piece of crap like that.

Tony Scott's direction is also bad, but not as annoying as it was in Man on Fire. I don't know if this is because there were less cuts or because I just did not notice them, but since the tone of the film is vaguely psychedelic, the hyperactive edits don't seem so out of place.

If either the script or the direction had been good, it would have improved upon the other. Whatever talent any actor has here is wasted. A better director would have drawn out better performances. The script gives everyone little on which to go. Characterization is reduced to caricature-zation.

Mickey Rourke comes off as more authentic than anyone else of the main characters, but he is just playing a variation on the sleazebags he usually plays.

Edgar Ramirez reminds me of Brad Armpit circa Legends of the Fall- "filmy" and looking in perpetual need of a bath. In contrast to Keira's freshly scrubbed face, lovingly bathed in light so strong that one can see the downy peach fuzz on her cheeks in a few scenes, she and Ramirez have no explicable reason to connect other than that old standby, Because the Plot Requires It.

As for Knightley, I know she wanted to do this role to dispel her (alleged) "English Rose" image, but I think this film will have the opposite of that intended effect. She is about as intimidating as a bitchy old grandmother. Being tough is not about smacking gum and smoking cigarettes, or swearing and leering and pouting and pretending to be annoyed or angry with people. Knightley said in an interview with TeenHollywood.com and one with Rolling Stone, that the performance was not based on Harvey, but rather on her best mate, who was always getting into trouble at school, i.e., a bratty teenager, which is exactly what she comes off as. And according to an interview with her in the New York Post, Tony Scott's direction to her simply consisted of "Tony was always shouting, 'Come on, Keira. Nasty bitch! Nasty, nasty bitch!'"

She also did not get to spend the time doing the physical training and weapons training that she needed. And the evidence is on the screen.

The best film of 2005 I have seen so far is Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. There has been criticism about its historical inaccuracies. But the film still rings true. Domino, by contrast, and in particular Knightley's performance, doesn't ring true regardless of whether it's based in fact or not.

The narration is clunky. If it were to be retained at all, it should have been cut in half. Wasn't it Clint Eastwood who said that one should never explain what one can suggest? The coin toss motif is awkward. "I am a bounty hunter" is repeated several times, assuring us that she is not in fact yet a bounty hunter. (Don't tell us, show us. If you are what you say you are, we'll know it, you don't have to keep telling us.)

There is an interesting religious aspect to the film, the business about man being created in the image of God, the impact that going to a church as a child made on her, the theophany in the desert, all of that would be interesting in a film that was better and more coherent.

Finally, there is the matter that the film is too busy to develop an iconic image, which is something every famous and successful film has. The head spin in The Exorcist. Indiana Jones running away from the giant ball. The little child standing at the doorway in Close Encounters. Think of films old and recent, and the most classic are those that have an image which sums up the spirit of the film. When I opened the entertainment section to the Houston Chronicle for October 14, there was a large color photo of Keira as Domino with a sawed off shotgun and bullets around her chest, a low-angle shot with BAIL BONDS in the background that could have easily been used in the film as some sort of definitive shot. I never ever saw a sequence that used that shot. Why not?

Pride and Prejudice

Well, there are four ways we can consider this film:
(a) in relation to the book, which I never read in its entirety
(b) in relation to the 1995 version, which is one of my favorite films
(c) in relation to Domino, the last film Keira Knightley I saw
(d) on its own terms

The best approach is probably the latter. I don't see why they felt the need to make another version. I suppose Jane Austen novels are like Shakespeare, where everyone wants to give their own interpretation. It is actually closer to the book, both in tone, and in dialogue, which only highlights how much of an improvement PP95 was over the novel.

Just like 1996's Sense and Sensibility, the plot of the novel is compressed into roughly an hour and a fourth, which causes the story to lose a lot of its impact, and make it hard to follow what is going on. The wickedness of Mr. Wickham cannot fully be appreciated, which means, by extension, the hidden nobility of Mr. Darcy cannot fully be appreciated.

However, the director has a larger budget to work than PP95, and he adds some cinematic flourishes through the use of camera movement and cinematography.

Also, whereas in the 1995 version, Lizzie and Darcy matched wits and developed an attraction, whereas in the 2005 version, it is more of a matter of attraction begetting a battle of wits, though there is not much chemistry between Knightley and her generic looking leading man.

I was surprised that I was moved by the ending of the film, with Lizzie pleading the case for Darcy with her father.

Knightley was a lot better in the role than I expected her to be. She was a big fan of the 1995 version, and though she said she consciously went to avoid imitating Jennifer Ehle's performance, there is about 10 percent of Keira's performance which has the same mannerisms: the darting eyes, the intonation, the smiles...