the Spirit

All I can say about this disaster is that it is a polished turd, and the polish is simply beautiful women.

The Spirit is based on a comic book (or graphic novel - I don't know the difference) of the same name about a resurrected crime fighter who is a womanizer and is sometimes impervious to pain (I know, it confuses me too). It is shot in a style blatantly stolen from Robert Rodriguez. The director, Frank Miller, was the author of 300 and Sin City - both of which made wonderful film adaptations (by talented directors might I add), but his ambition to foray into the film industry may have hit a brick wall with this one.

Eva Mendes and Scarlett Johansson for my money steal the show with their looks and curves. Sam Jackson is wasted talent as the antagonist, the Octopus (which really is never quite explained except for the 8 tentacle tattoos he has running down from his eyes).

There is never really any direction. It's convoluted and more importantly, uninspiring. Even the special-effects sequences seem just a bit too amateur; rough around the edges and cheap.

Finally, I had absolutely no comprehension of why the Nazi theme was introduced. Although Johansson looked incredible in her SS uniform, the whole thing came out of nowhere and really didn't contribute to any resolution or progress in the story.

I guess you could say I wouldn't recommend this, even to fans of superheroes, comic books, Robert Rodriguez, Zack Snyder or even gorgeous women. OK - maybe for the women, as there is plenty of eye candy. However, a polished turd is still a turd. 3/10.

Doubt

Written and directed by the playwright John Patrick Shanley, Doubt is a fairly cut and dry story of suspected pedophilia within the Catholic church in 1964. From the onset, there is a sense of contrived emotional manipulation, and it never subsides. An A-list cast led by Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman playing the head sister and the priest respectively, there is little more than Mamet-inspired dialogue and innuendo. Each character has a precise role, and there is predictability up until the final confrontation.

One of the problems is that there is no mystery here. Streep's nun is the old-school disciplinarian who is feared and respected by all - including the other sisters. Hoffman's priest is a more hip, new generation father who sees a more friendly and progressive education as what the kids need. Is that due to his true educational philosophy, or is there an ulterior motive? I'll never tell. Amy Adams is the fresh faced, ignorant girl who seemingly came from under a rock in the Midwest, and Viola Davis is the mother of the boy who may or may not have been abused by the priest.

A truly great assembly of actors, but overacting is all of their downfall. With the exception of Davis, I never for a minute forgot who I was seeing on screen. It was Hoffman and Streep giving their all for an Oscar nomination, never a sister or a priest. The dialogue is sharp, but there is always a sense that this adaptation should have stayed on the stage. It doesn't make the transition to film very smoothly.

There is a lot of buzz about Viola Davis' performance, and she does a wonderful job for the 5 minutes that she's on the screen, but it is not the runny nose and tears that has won over critics as much as what her character says. It is shocking and jolting, but not particularly unique or indicative of a seasoned thespian. What I mean is that the dialogue and character gives her the edge here. Any actress in that role would have received the recognition based solely on the character's slightly simple perspective.

The story itself lacks any real conviction (no pun intended) and has very little depth regarding the plot, or the character development. I never saw the stage version, but I could see how it would be a very compelling play. Unfortunately, it should have stayed that way.

I have become skeptical of individuals who write, direct, adapt, etc. their own work for the screen. More often than not, it just lacks a fresh perspective that would add more weight to the final product. Very few can do it successfully on a regular basis, and John Patrick Shanley is not one of them. Just a side note - this is his second directorial film - the first being Joe Versus the Volcano in 1990 (which coincidentally holds a spot on my all-time worst movies list).

Hoffman and Streep are wonderful - don't get me wrong. They always are. Davis and Adams, I'm not so sure are deserving of their Golden Globe nominations, but I haven't seen all of the movies for comparison, so it would be presumptuous to conclude that.

Bottom line - this is an intriguing story, but falls flat on the big screen. I was disappointed to say the least. 6/10.

Frost/Nixon

In the aftermath of the Richard Nixon resignation of 1974, English television personality David Frost saw an opportunity to conduct a candid interview with the 37th president, and perhaps gain some American notoriety as well as raise some much needed income. Things didn't quite work out the way he intended.

Nixon's advisers encouraged him to take the interview, as it would be easier than confronting Mike Wallace, and Frost offered up a substantial fee that Nixon was naturally drawn to. The unconventional thing was that Frost did so without the networks, and without any pending corporate sponsorship. Essentially, he put up $600,000 out of his own pocket confidently expecting revenue and fame.

The agreement was to be four 90 minute television interview segments contractually broken into Nixon's life, domestic affairs, foreign policy, and finally - Watergate.

What drives this story is Nixon's Frank Langella. My pick (so far) for best actor of the year honors. He conveys the larger than life Nixon with such professionalism, that at times you forget he is acting and become absorbed in the man's intelligent, yet obviously sinister visage.

The story hinges on the tense and successful game of cat and mouse. An ignorantly over matched Frost gets into a verbal spar with the silver-tongued Nixon, and from the opening question, you can see the look of fear and regret in his face. Over the next few sessions, the ball is entirely in Nixon's court, and his advisers couldn't be more pleased. The climax leads Frost to solicit a confession and apology about Watergate, and Langella's prolongued close up shows the pain and loneliness of a man burdened by his transgressions. It is a truly stirring and riveting finale.

The supporting cast does a great job of staying in the background - they are collectively memorable, but there are intentionally no standout performances so that the emphasis and attention can be focused on the interaction between Frost and Nixon. Very nice subtle job done by Ron Howard as well with the direction. There was little ancillary information - just enough in the intro about the impeachment and resignation so as not to bog down the story with political theories or obvious liberal Hollywood motives. Likewise with Frost's character. He was a well known English and Australian talk show host and entertainer, but his celebrity wasn't as well known in America, and that fact wasn't glorified or belittled.

It is difficult to describe why this film won't win many awards despite its deserved nominations. Langella may very well walk out with Best Actor, but this frankly wasn't the best film of the year. Like Milk, it contains an incontrovertibly amazing lead performance, but the story may be a little too serious (biopic), and not imaginative enough to coax the votes out of the academy members.

The story is something I knew little about (alright - nothing) and although it is monumental in its own right, I have personally become a little desensitized to many of the cinematic recreations of important moments in history - I am more of a fan of realistic fiction or historical fiction. I suppose I see little creativity in the process of recreating transcripts and personal accounts of events and conversations.

Either way, this film was well done, and Langella shines in ways that he never has before. He is Richard Nixon, and his delivery of dialogue and facial tics, posturing and other nuances of tricky Dick are awe-inspiring. This film is worth it to see him alone. 8/10.

the Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Benjamin Button is a social pariah, abandoned by his father shortly after childbirth in 1918 and taken in by a loving New Orleans couple who run a convelescent home. He is born with the body of an 80 year old man and ages backwards.

This concept poses a myriad of potential logical flaws, but David Fincher does a wonderful job of maintaining the humanity, the mystery and the realism despite the absurd scenario. Benjamin's life unfolds not unlike Forest Gump; he is raised with his kindred spirits - learns life's lessons through his experiences with the old and dying, and even falls in love with the granddaughter of one of his fellow residents. At the age of 18, he succumbs to his curiosity and begins an adventure at sea. He takes a job as a deckhand on a tugboat, and meets a variety of interesting people as he discovers passion and tries to make his way through life knowing that he is a unique and lonely soul.

There are numerous remarkable aspects to this film - the direction, acting, the story, but most engaging of all is the visual effects and the makeup. As Benjamin (Brad Pitt) ages backwards, it is not done with the traditional actor substitution, but by making Pitt appear as an old man all the way back to a man in his late teens. The effects are astounding, and will certainly win awards hands down.

Pitt does a fantastic job as the lead, and conveys the silent pain of the character through his brooding eyes and soft southern-drawl voice. I have thought for years that Pitt is a great actor who has made many outstanding choices of roles throughout the years to work with some of the more innovative directors in the industry. He plays Benjamin with convincing confidence from death to birth.

The supporting cast is mostly unknowns, but Cate Blanchett and a brief encounter with Tilda Swinton add to the star power, and showcase the talents of both. As mesmerizing as Pitt's transformation from old to young is, Blanchett's is almost as captivating from young to old.

David Fincher is one of the most visionary directors in the business, and he follows up the most underrated film of 2007 (Zodiac) with a masterpiece that will quite possibly be named the best picture of the year. His body of work continues to impress and grow, and he has me hooked as an undiscriminating fan.

The film is tied together by the backdrop of an unrequited love story of two proverbial ships passing in the night. One is growing older and the other younger, but their chemistry is undeniable. Much like Forest Gump, they take advantage of their window of opportuniy but it is destined for heartbreak.

The film ends leaving the viewer with a feeling much like the beginning - curiosity. The acting, direction, story are all incredibly moving, and there is a sense of grounded fantasy that moves it toward a satisfying conclusion. There are brilliant details, and the dialogue and interaction is done with appropriate humor as well as emotional sincerity. I would strongly recommend this film to any fan of quality cinema - it is a wonderful journey and will find itself among the favorites for many awards come March. 9/10.

Slumdog Millionaire

A story this original only comes around about once a year. Like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine, this will be the blindside indie favorite going into award season.

Slumdog is a coming of age story told in flashbacks via the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire. The main character, Jamal is being held on the charge of cheating his way to the million dollar question, and his validation of each answer takes us back to one of his pivotal life lessons. This film may sound formulaic, and as predictable as it is, its originality and earnestness drives the story forward with a sense of purpose and sincerity.

Shot in the style owned by Danny Boyle, the film has a mysterious foreign flavor, quick shot cuts fueled by beat-driven techno music, and even an odd sequence involving human feces. This one is a step up from some of his earlier work however - in terms of taste and quality. This story is believable, and the basic humanistic qualities of hope and goodness shine through.

Admittedly, the star of the film for me was the setting - the slums of Mumbai (Bombay), India and the poverty-stricken youth that happily roam the garbage-strewn cities filled with over-crowded tin roof shacks. The flashbacks in particular really conveyed the claustrophobic feel of the hot, dirty landscapes.

I got a nostalgic feeling of the Usual Suspects as the story was unfolding - a young man being interrogated in a police station regarding his winnings, and the pivotal question: is he lucky, cheating, genius, or "it is written"? We don't find out until near the end, and I found myself getting caught up in the anticipation of the million dollar question (which is predictable given his life story) and wondering how this would all turn out.

In the midst of this arc is a subtle love story that epitomizes the Indian lower class and the struggle to move up and in most cases, out.

The cast is comprised of unknowns to Americans, and there is a co-director - Loveleen Tandan who presumably had a major influence on the cast/customs. What I am curious to find out however, is what drew Boyle to this project, as it is more Bollywood than Hollywood (see closing credits) and is a little tame for his typical style of filmmaking.

Whatever the reason, it is extremely well done, and will likely receive nominations for its feelgood spirit, and its out-of-nowhere originality and completeness - including perfect musical selections. I was thoroughly entertained, and would be surprised if there weren't at least 3 major nominations (picture, director, screenplay). Best picture I've seen this year that didn't have a superhero. 9/10.

Milk

Milk follows the political rise and tragic fall of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to win a major public office in the United States. Taking place in the mid to late 1970's, Harvey runs for district supervisor (city council) in San Francisco during a time of bigotry, social confusion, religious intolerance and surprisingly, above all else; hope. Sean Penn portrays Milk with such a convincing performance, that the legitimacy of his sexual orientation is incontrovertible, and therefore never compromises the integrity of the story. Beyond that, his performance is so subtle and heartfelt that his orientation falls into the background early on, adding even more depth and emotion to the tragic conclusion.

Milk was assassinated alongside San Francisco mayor Moscone by fellow district supervisor Dan White. White, played by Josh Brolin is the antithesis of the civil rights movement. He is a former police officer and fire fighter, a traditional fundamental christian family man who finds himself trying to play the political game with Milk, only to feel slighted when his ideas are not supported.

Gus Van Sant tackles an obviously controversial subject, but from the opening scenes, there is little discomfort or gratuitous politicking. Blended shots of actual historical footage creates a sense of familiarity and continuity, and the characters are introduced without any flash of insincerity or embellishment.

The supporting cast does a fine job for the most part - I had a slight problem with the choice of actors for Milk's boyfriends - James Franco and Diego Luna. Franco is just too much of a James Dean clone - handsome stares with little substance behind his eyes. Luna was just plain annoying. Perhaps those were the realities of the individuals, but neither seemed to fit what Milk stood for as a person - he was a principled, yet pragmatic individual with a heart for the greater good of society. Of course his main cause was the gay civil rights movement, but Franco and Luna just didn't seem right.

The ripples of Milk's life and death are clearly understated, but there are subtle hints at the impact that he and his band of supporters had on the infamous Briggs Initiative of 1978. The proposition, supported by senator Briggs and Anita Bryant's anti-gay crusaders would have allowed discrimination against homosexuals in employment practices - particularly in public schools.

For those who skipped Brokeback Mountain because of the content, you needn't be worried about this one. There are a few kissing scenes, but the lifestyles and relationships are very tastefully portrayed. This is a bit of a surprise given Van Sant's past films and the graphic shock-value tendencies he has from time to time. This film is more a vehicle for award hunting, and the nominations are well deserved. Expect Penn to receive a nomination for certain. He is currently my front-runner for Academy gold, edging Smith (seven pounds) as the only other worthy recipient.

A good film, uplifting to the spirit, but emotionally depressing at the same time. The pacing maintains a solid balance of that polarity. 8/10