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

Australia

Australia is the ultimate Oscar film via previews - an foreign period epic love tale with dramatic war themes and two A-list stars, as well as a critically acclaimed director who has his own style. What you get after nearly 3 hours of viewing is a disarray of incomplete mixed messages and wildly intersecting plot points that leave you disappointed and confused.

It's not quite as bad as I make it out to be. Typically I am a Kidman hater. I don't think she's attractive, or that great of an actress, but in this film, she hits her character right on the money. She plays an uppity British aristocrat who heads to Australia when she thinks her husband is cheating on her, only to find him dead. From there she learns on the run how to manage a cattle ranch with the help of Jackman and some unfortunately misplaced aborigines.

Jackman does fine, but there are far too many prolongued camera shots of his swarthy, concerned face. He is too Hollywood to play a real cattle driver, and the cliche that he has no name except "Drover" makes my eyes roll (and my eyelids heavy).

The story progresses quickly for an epic period piece, but there are far too many areas of focus to keep your attention on any one general problem. The film covers the entire gamut of serious topics; racism, sexism, war, class differences, cultural differences, poverty, industrial competition, love and loss, the list goes on and on. This is my primary problem with this film. There is no focus, and by the end, there are so many scattered emotions that there is no sense of lesson learned or moral victory.

I was reminiscent of There Will be Blood, but only on a surface level. There were also many overt references and allusions to the Wizard of Oz, so Baz Luhrmann clearly has a personal affinity to the story (he is directing Wicked in 2010...) Unfortunately, as original as the story was, the characters and developments were not compelling in the slightest.

I was a big fan of Moulin Rouge, and deeply respect Luhrmann's abilities as a writer and director, but Australia missed the mark. Perhaps too ambitious, perhaps the wrong timing for this particular story. Whatever the case, I won't give up on him in the cinematic world, but I would be as surprised to see any Oscar nominations for this as I would for Tom Cruise as Colonel Von Stauffenberg. The scenery is beautiful and the cinematography well done, but this is not a Best Picture candidate. 5/10.

Quantum of Solace

The 22nd foray into the twisted and convoluted life of cinema's favorite British spy, Quantum of Solace displays the aftermath of Casino Royale with a frenetic journey across continents that pits Bond against his own MI6 as well as the man behind the death of his love, Vesper.

Quantum does well within the Bond family, particularly with the evolving feel that Daniel Craig has lent to the franchise. He brings more of a physical presence to the screen that hasn't been felt before, and some of the tongue-in-cheek dialogue and extravagantly entertaining, yet innocuous scenarios have fallen by the wayside in deference to a more terse and realistic tone.

The only problem with this 21st century spy paradigm (see the Bourne movies) is that the fantasy aspect all but dies as the realism becomes more prevalent. The most noticeable exception to this is still the seemingly invincible Bond. He gets cuts and scrapes, but what bothers me is that there is never any doubt that he will beat the villain, and do it in a new and cinematically appealing way. He confronts dozens of men, and walks away after beating all of them in hand to hand combat. He takes down three of MI6's best in an elevator, in handcuffs with not a scratch or a bit of trouble.

Missing are the gimmicky gadgets, and the trademark car (with the exception of the opening scene, which is breathtaking, but far too short). Bond is getting darker and more physical, but also is beginning to convey superhuman strength and decision making skills. This is exactly what he is supposed to be, but it should be subtle and admirable.

The fast paced action in the beginning matches that near the end, but the middle lacks real substance and drones on for just a bit too long before bringing us back full-circle. Bond is an icon for the ages, and with Craig, it is a more noticeable transition or changing of the guard than there has ever been in the past. He does the character great justice in all the right ways, but there needs to be a little bit more originality tied to this new darker and brutish tone. Audiences clearly are interested in seeing some of the old and some of the new, but the mix threw me off a little.

Good action, weak story, Craig is great. The infamous "Bond Girls" were contrived and cute, but nothing memorable in this outing. I will continue to see Bond, but will expect more from the next one. 6/10.

W

Having not read the reviews, I approached W with an open mind. After all, I have enjoyed many of Oliver Stone's films in the past, and I think Josh Brolin is on the type of acting roll that creates Oscar winners. However, I also have a bit of apprehension about any politically motivated skewering of one of the most controversial presidents in the history of our country, not to mention the current leader of the free world.

I was surprised and pleased that the film focused less on the mistakes that George Bush has made (although those were certainly incorporated) and more on the growth and path that led him to the white house. Perhaps the most interesting and entertaining aspect of the film was the supporting cast of players, who all did an exceptional job with the exception of Thandie Newton, who I can't tell if she intentionally made Condoleeza Rice look like an ignorant puppet, or if that's just how it turned out. Anyway, from Dick Cheney, to George Bush, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld, the actors hit the characters with stellar accuracy.

Especially remarkable were the performances of Jeffrey Wright playing Colin Powell, and Josh Brolin playing W himself. I fully expect Oscar nominations for Brolin as well as either Cromwell or Dreyfuss based on the pivotal scenes and likenesses of character. The story is compelling if not a bit uncomfortable, but the personal perspectives of the director are subtle and restrained. I fully enjoyed the ride, although it did start to slow down a little bit toward the end.

Where the film missed the mark is in the absence of critical information to the development of the story. For example, Bush's campaign for governor of Texas breezed through the process without a hint of how he found himself in the position. Likewise, with flashes back and forward from his prolongued adolescence to the aftermath of 9/11, there is no time spent dealing with the event that polarized our country forever. Additionally, for a man who has difficulty holding down a job, how exactly does he find himself as the owner of a major league baseball team? The business sense he gained from Harvard's business school should have been more than mentioned in passing, as that accomplishment alone warrants some attention.

We, as viewers do achieve a sense of the motivation and political influence of the prestigious Bush name, and to Stone's credit, it is quite well done. The acclaim belongs to the players though.

A very interesting story; it makes you think about the changes in the political world over the past 20 years, and that although many things have changed for the better or worse, the old school wealthy grey-haired Ivy league politicians still rule undisputably. Worth seeing whether you are a supporter or not. 7/10.

Body of Lies

I read David Ignatious' book in 2007 and thought it was a riveting CIA story about an operative who finds himself torn between the real-time intelligence that he receives in the volatile Middle East, and the bureaucratic red tape in Washington that dictates his rules of engagement.

Ridley Scott's adaptation is an exciting thrill-a-minute action movie, but too much of the mystique of covert operations is wasted behind an absurd power struggle between the man on the ground (DiCaprio) and his supervisor in the safety of an air conditioned office (Crowe). The interaction between these two is cool, but Crowe's character is despicable and callous not to mention ignorant of Middle Eastern customs and language. Qualities that certainly do not qualify someone to head a division even in the black ops realm of the CIA.

The film belongs to DiCaprio. He displays his inner action star, but does so with a bit of nobility. Films like Blood Diamond and the Departed showed a glimmer of his potential in this arena, and he brings quality acting to the table as well as a believable character. Crowe simply brings a second big name to the mix. He could have played this part in his sleep, and it's obvious.

Ridley Scott accentuates the technological capabilities as well as the ethical grey areas as it concerns the global war on terror. There are no boundaries or rules when dealing with extremist groups who want nothing more than to punish the infidels. Scott makes sure that the viewer realizes this, and it helps the film.

What does not help the film however, is that it is far too long. At 2 hours and 8 minutes, it seems more like 3 hours, and the multitude of plot twists that made Ignatious' book so entertaining have found themselves on the cutting room floor save one mildly unexpected twist.

The film comes and goes, and there is no real satisfaction or resolution. The climax comes far too quickly during the pivotal scenes near the end, and although the intent is to be a smart, realistic, spy thriller, Ridley Scott should have milked the action angle a little more for entertainment value since he scrapped major plot points.

Some of the action is commendable - particularly with regard to the military and intelligence scenes, but the action is dulled by interludes of nonsensical romantic tension that is seemingly only placed in the film because there was nothing else to put in it.

I loved the book, but only moderately enjoyed the film. Perhaps my standards are skewed and a comparison is unfair. If you have no basis for comparison, this would be one of the better films in recent years to tackle the subject of terrorism, but in many ways it is still just a waste of talented actors, writers and director. By the way - William Monahan (the Departed) wrote the screenplay for this one, and fails in my book. I'm looking forward to more of DiCaprio's films in the near future. 7/10.