Review: Naughty "Bad Santa" is Quite Nice (Happy B'day, Billy Bob Thornton)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 170 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Bad Santa (2003)
Running time: 91 minutes (1 hour, 31 minutes)
MPAA – R for pervasive language, strong sexual content and some violence
DIRECTOR: Terry Zwigoff
WRITERS: Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, with contributions from Joel Coen, Ethan Cohen, Arnie Marx, and Terry Zwigoff
PRODUCERS: Sarah Aubrey, John Cameron, and Bob Weinstein
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Jamie Anderson (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Robert Hoffman
COMPOSER: David Kitay

COMEDY/CRIME with elements of drama

Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Tony Cox, Brett Kelly, Lauren Graham, Lauren Tom, Bernie Mac, John Ritter, Ajay Naidu, Octavia Spencer, and Ethan Phillips

The subject of this movie review is Bad Santa, a 2003 crime comedy and Christmas movie from director Terry Zwigoff. Although Glenn Ficarra and John Requa are credited as the film’s only writers, Joel Coen, Ethan Cohen, Arnie Marx, and Terry Zwigoff performed various rewrites of the script, with the Coen Bros. also credited as executive producers on the film. Bad Santa was the late actor John Ritter’s last film appearance.

Some bovine in the media have already asked, “Is nothing sacred?” in response to director Terry Zwigoff’s (Ghost World) new Christmas movie, Bad Santa. They can get over it. Bad Santa is the Christmas movie for the rest of us – those who don’t buy all the must-be-happy hype, over consumption, and phony religious tradition. Besides, it’s so damn funny.

Willie (Billy Bob Thornton) is a department store Santa. He’s also a lecherous, nympho-manical alcoholic. For the past several holiday seasons, Willie and his dwarf partner, Marcus (Tony Cox), play Santa and elf in department stores. They case the businesses and eventually rob the store safes of tens of thousands of dollars. They move to Arizona for their next big heist, but they run into a few problems. One is fastidious store manager (John Ritter in his final film role). Another is a sly store dick (Bernie Mac) who discovers their scam and wants in on the action. The biggest stumbling block is when a lonely, strange boy (Brett Kelly) whom Willie calls The Kid, latches onto Willie for friendship.

The movie has a few rough and dry spots, but otherwise it’s hilarious. Bad Santa is dark, foul, and vulgar, but it’s not cynical. Many of the characters are just not the kind usually found in holiday fare. These are people who live on the periphery of society, lonely people, and criminals. Willie is depressed and suicidal. The Kid may not be mentally handicapped, but he’s a bit of a retard – euphemistically speaking. As dark as it is, however, Bad Santa is quite hilarious in the way it deals with frank sexual matter, people who are frankly sexual, and conniving criminals who’ll do whatever it takes to get what they want. Maybe the most frightening thing for many people is how much profane language is directed at children in the film. Willie consistently curses at The Kid, and as Santa, at children who come to the store to sit on his foul lap.

But Thornton is a fine actor with grand talent. His Willie is a living, breathing, and believable person whose life is falling apart. He and Zwigoff handle Willie’s transformation with subtleness and a kind of brazenness that surprises the viewer at each turn. In fact, Zwigoff masterfully directs the film, knowing, except for some poor moments, just when to hit the viewer on the head with blunt coarseness and when to gently splash the mire in our faces. Zwigoff pulls off the trick of making this film roughly anti-sentimental and sentimentally rough. In a way, Zwigoff does manage to make the typical Christmas movie, and it’s good that he does it the way he does.

I heartily recommend Bad Santa to anyone who can take it. This film also has one of the better Bernie Mac performances. This is the moment he proves that he is a comedian and an actor, and it’s in performances like this that he can find the road to being both a good comic and dramatic actor. Good Bernie Mac is always reason to see something.

7 of 10
A-

NOTES:
2004 Golden Globes, USA: 1 nomination: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical” (Billy Bob Thornton)

------------------------

Review: "DysFunktional Family" is Foul and Funny (Happy B'day, Eddie Griffin)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 57 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

DysFunktional Family (2003)
Running time: 89 minutes (1 hour, 29 minutes)
MPAA – R for strong sexual content, language and drug-related humor
DIRECTOR: George Gallo
WRITER: Eddie Griffin (head writer)
PRODUCERS: Paul Brooks, Eddie Griffin, and David Permut
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Theo van de Sande
EDITOR: Michael R. Miller
COMPOSER: Andrew Gross

DOCUMENTARY/CONCERT

Starring: Eddie Griffin

The subject of this movie review is DysFunktional Family, a 2003 documentary film, concert movie, and stand-up comedy film starring actor and comedian, Eddie Griffin.

I’ve actually gone to a theatre on five occasions to see a concert film; four of movies were concert films by comedians (the fifth was Prince’s brilliant documentary Sign ‘o’ the Times, chronicling his concert tour of the same name across Europe). I’ve seen two hilarious Richard Pryor films, Richard Pryor Live on Sunset Strip and Richard Pryor Here and Now, brilliant works that showcased the flourishes that made him the funniest man on the planet and that revealed his personal tragedies in poignant, yet humorous stories. Along the same lines was Eddie Murphy Raw (currently the most successful concert film at the box office in film history), which was very funny and very revealing about Eddie Murphy’s family and his personal views on relationships. Martin Lawrence’s You So Crazy dismayed me; it was partly funny, but mostly just long, boring, and vain.

Comedian Eddie (Undercover Brother) Griffin’s DysFunktional Family is quite similar to those four works in several ways. Griffin is stylistically similar to Richard Pryor in his delivery and his storytelling and in the kind of stories he chooses to tell. Like Eddie Murphy, Griffin brings a harder and meaner edge to the kind of family and personal storytelling that makes up his act than even the very blue Pryor brought to his. However, like Martin Lawrence, Griffin’s act is filled with too many dry spots were the comedy isn’t humorous; it’s just vulgar and strained, but I have to say that Family is far funnier than I remember You So Crazy to be.

Griffin’s material is quite vulgar, not just in the explicitness of the language, but also in the harshness of the subject matter. Family was filmed during Griffin’s return trip to his hometown, Kansas City, Missouri for a concert. The film mixes concert footage with documentary footage of various members of Griffin’s family and of childhood landmarks. Director George Gallo uses footage from family get-togethers to introduce each subject or topic in Griffin’s act. For instance, film footage about a particular uncle would lead into Griffin’s routine about that uncle.

Griffin’s family is, as the say, “something else.” I found myself both laughing at and being repulsed by his family’s behavior, but I guess that we all have bone yards in our respective family closets. I know that my closet doesn’t include my mother trying to run me down in the street with her car, an uncle who directs and films homemade pornographic movies, or a junkie uncle who shoots up in front of me; still, none of us are perfect.

Griffin, at times, is absolutely hilarious. Some of the stories are quite entertaining, and some of his impersonations are dead on. Some of his social commentary is succinct, while much of it is dated and has been said before by lesser talents, especially the observations about white people. A lot the concert was just hardcore vulgar, and Griffin uses the words “nigga” and “nigger” so much that he literally takes way the impact of those two words. In fact, he states that he thinks the more you say those words, the less power they have. I can understand that using harsh language might represent the natural flow of his speech, but when he’s trying to entertain, he has to be able to communicate his message or story to his audience. Sometimes the overuse of profane and vulgar language just gets in the way. The listener just can’t capture the essence of the story if he has to spend all his time picking through the foulness.

For the most part, I like what Griffin brought to the stage. He just doesn’t seem to have much control over his material. It’s like both he and his act are forces of nature that clash against each other and what results is the cacophony of a potty-mouthed man in need of therapy, perhaps because he allegedly improvises on stage instead of having a prepared script. There’s some funny stuff here, even some belly laughs, but the delivery is so foul that I’m not sure if the end results justify the means. DysFunktional Family is for people who like it raw and shitty.

5 of 10
B-

--------------------

Review: The First" Hulk" Movie: I Like it More Now Than When I Wrote This Review

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 94 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Hulk (2003)
Running time: 138 minutes (2 hours, 18 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for sci-fi action violence, some disturbing images and brief partial nudity
DIRECTOR: Ang Lee
WRITERS: John Turman, Michael France, and James Schamus, from a story by James Schamus (based upon the Marvel Comics character created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby)
PRODUCERS: Avi Arad, Larry J. Franco, Gale Anne Hurd, and James Schamus
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Frederick Elmes
EDITOR: Tim Squyres
COMPOSER: Danny Elfman

SUPERHERO/SCI-FI/ACTION/DRAMA

Starring: Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliot, Josh Lucas, Nick Nolte, Paul Kersey, Daniel Dae Kim, Lou Ferrigno, and Stan Lee

The subject of this movie review is The Hulk, a 2003 superhero science fiction and action movie from director, Ang Lee. The film stars the Hulk, a Marvel comics superhero character created by Jack Kirby and Stan Lee and first appeared in The Incredible Hulk #1 (May 1962). The film explores the origins of the Hulk.

So is The Hulk a good movie, you might ask? And my answer is simply “no.” The film doesn’t even cut it as a second-rate summer thriller. This is not a joy ride. It’s a ponderous, lumbering…well, lumbering hulk of a picture, full of sound and fury signifying nothing – nothing on the screen and nothing left in the space in your wallet where that money was you spent to see this junk. There are a few good moments, emphasis on “few.”

The story goes thusly. Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) and his on-again/off-again girlfriend/scientist Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) are scientists working on a method of using nano-technology to cure injuries. Banner and Ross use gamma radiation to activate their so-called nanomeds once they’re inside the injured test subject, but one day Bruce is accidentally exposed to the gamma rays. To make things worse, Bruce is the byproduct of his father David’s (Nick Nolte’s) bizarre experiments when he was a child.

Combine the radiation with whatever weird crap Bruce’s father put in him and whenever Bruce gets mad (you won’t like him when he’s mad), he becomes the behemoth force of nature, The Hulk, a big green brute with a muscular body cut along lines any bodybuilder would kill for eight days a week. Of course, there’s the obligatory greedy scientist, Talbot (Josh Lucas), who wants to study the Hulk DNA for possible military applications. Talbot is also Bruce’s rival for some of Betty’s booty. And one more thing, Betty’s father General Ross (Sam Elliot) has to hunt the Hulk – keep it in the family.

Director Ang Lee and his cinematographer Frederick Elmes from Lee’s great film, The Ice Storm, turn the film’s photography into a series of kinetic moving pictures. They happily cut and divide the screen into multiple pictures and frames that mimic the panel grid of a comic book; sometimes the movie looks like a photo album or a photo collage. At best this is purely superficial, adding nothing to the story.

The most ironic thing about The Hulk is the tagline, “You wouldn’t like me when I angry.” It’s quite the opposite. The only time we really like the Banner character is when he is the Hulk. That’s the only time this morose, sullen, humorless picture has any life. Lee literally buries his film in the rubble of boring psychological struggles amongst the characters, in particular between the Banners. I was literally climbing the walls of the theatre. No one gives a damn about Banner’s evil daddy! Show us the Hulk. Lee races through scenes of The Hulk madly and wildly destroying his environment almost as if he were embarrassed to be making a monster movie. It’s as if actually showing a rampaging CGI Hulk is an unpleasant thing Lee had to do to appease his studio; then, it’s back to the real people and their mental and emotional baggage.

Dammit, we came to get down on some mindless fun. Who’s gonna like this? The kids? Hell, no. Even adults are going to be bored. If we wanted this much therapeutic confession and angst, we’d rent a Woody Allen movie. The Hulk comic book concept was a metaphor about the inherent and potential dangers of the atom bomb, not about bad daddies and emotionally distant sons. It’s like going to see an Austin Powers' film and discovering that Freud’s really the star this time.

I’ve seen three of Ang Lee’s films (Sense and Sensibility, The Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), and they were brilliant. This effort is beneath him. I can’t believe that the director who had so much fun with Crouching Tiger couldn’t have fun with The Hulk. Even the effects are only okay, but in an age when the SFX is supposed to “blow you away,” the Hulk effects just blow. The most interesting and exciting scene isn’t until the end of the film, and the final battle is so beyond being ridiculous that I’m not articulate enough to tell you just how lame it is. I can understand Lee’s desire to do a big budget, Hollywood, effects extravaganza, but that doesn’t mean he should let the film do him.

4 of 10
C

---------------------------

Review: "Down with Love" With is a Showcase for Costume Design (Happy B'day, Renee Zellweger)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 39 (of 2005) by Leroy Douresseaux

Down with Love (2003)
Running time: 101 minutes (1 hour, 41 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for sexual humor and dialogue
DIRECTOR: Peyton Reed
WRITERS: Eve Ahlert and Dennis Drake
PRODUCERS: Bruce Cohen and Dan Jinks
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Jeff Cronenweth
EDITOR: Larry Bock

COMEDY/ROMANCE

Starring: Renée Zellweger, Ewan McGregor, Sarah Paulson, David Hyde Pierce, Rachel Dratch, Jack Plotnick, Tony Randall, and Jeri Ryan

The subject of this movie review is Down with Love, a 2003 romantic comedy. Directed by Peyton Reed, it is a pastiche of early 1960s sex comedies.

The Renée Zellweger-Ewan McGregor comedy, Down with Love, was apparently an attempt to recreate the Doris Day-Rock Hudson film Pillow Talk in both appearance and mood. Down with Love also tries to capture the time period of similar comedies from the 1950’s and 1960’s, like the 1964 Natalie Wood movie, Sex and the Single Girl, from which Down with Love borrows the plot device of a heroine writing a best selling book. The film does want to be something from the past, but it is more retro than accurate. The anachronisms may be deliberate, but that makes the film a strange hybrid of being both historical fiction and a naïve nostalgic revival. It’s so peculiar that the best I can do is say that I found it mildly entertaining and pleasant with its wall to wall tongue-in-cheek humor, but I can’t say any reader of this review will like it, although the film clearly had admirers including several print, television, and online reviewers.

Barbara Novak (Ms. Zellweger) writes a best-selling book, Down with Love, that leads a lot of women to start looking at love, relationships, and sex the way men do. Barbara earns the ire of dashing playboy journalist, Catcher Block (McGregor). A womanizer who is described as a “man’s man, ladies’ man, man about town,” Block targets Barbara for a takedown. He adopts the guise of an innocent Southern gentleman and astronaut and courts Barbara in an attempt to make her do just what her book says women should not do, fall in love with a man, but will Catcher fall in love with Barbara?

Down with Love is coy and filled with sexual innuendo. The innuendo is good for some laughs, but the coyness ultimately hurts the film. In the final analysis the films seems to encourage marriage, while also suggesting that a woman assume some feminist position of power. Chase a man, then run away from the man when you realize that you’ve mistakenly fallen in love with him. Make him beg to respect you, play hard to get, then give in – I don’t know what’s going on here. However, Down with Love certainly looks like the few romantic comedies from the 1950’s and 60’s I’ve seen. The art direction resulted in some truly beautiful sets and the cinematography is both of a fine quality and convincingly looks like the time period it attempts to mimic.

Ms. Zellweger and McGregor are charming, but are more or less on automatic, relying on star power, their good looks and reputations rather than on acting chops. The actual standout performer in Down with Love is the costume designer Daniel Orlandi and his crew. Every costume (from head to toe) was custom made for each character. So I’ll recommend this film for fans of the lead performers and romantic/comedies, especially of those from the 1950’s and 60’s.

5 of 10
B-

-----------------

"Stuck on You" Not a Typical Farrelly Brothers Film

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 76 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux


Stuck on You (2003)
Running time: 118 minutes (1 hour, 58 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for crude and sexual humor, and some language
DIRECTOR: The Farrelly Brothers
WRITERS: Bobby Farrelly and Peter Farrelly; from a story by Charles B. Wessler, Bennett Yellin, and the Farrelly Brothers
PRODUCERS: Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly, Bradley Thomas, and Charles B. Wessler
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Dan Mindel (D.o.P)
EDITORS: Christopher Greenbury and Dave Terman
COMPOSER: Charlie Gartner

COMEDY with elements of drama

Starring: Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Eva Mendes, Cher, Seymour Cassel, Griffin Dunne, Wen Yann Shih, Jackie Flynn, Terence Bernie Hines, with Frankie Muniz, Jesse Ventura, and Meryl Streep

The subject of this review is Stuck on You, the 2003 comedy from brotherly filmmaking duo, Bobby and Peter Farrelly. The film follows the adventures of conjoined twin brothers who want to become professional actors.

In the Farrelly Bros.’ film, Stuck on You, Bob Tenor (Matt Damon) and his brother Walt (Greg Kinnear) are conjoined twins (also known as Siamese twins) living in Martha’s Vineyard and working at Bob restaurant, Quickie Burger. When Walt decides to pursue his acting career, Bob, of course, has to move to L.A. with Walt. The twins find fame and fortune when Cher (playing herself) picks the boys to be “co-stars” in a new TV show she’s obliged to do, hoping that the presence of the conjoined siblings will get the show cancelled. Of course, it doesn’t work, and the brothers become the program’s true stars. When Bob loses her girlfriend, however, the brothers may just have to do the thing that’s been in the back of their minds for most of their lives – have a difficult and dangerous surgery that will separate them. And even then, can they stand being apart from each other?

Farrelly films are known for the sibling directors including such shocking elements as characters with handicaps, physical deformities, retardation, and anything that makes a person really stand out in a crowd. Some of their characters are also astoundingly dumb, naïve, and stupid. Farrelly films succeed because their characters oddities make us uncomfortable, no matter how PC or charitable we may pretend to be. Within the context of the film, all the characters may act as if nothing is peculiar, but we know better, and this strangeness often leads to belly laughs.

In this Stuck on You, the Farrelly’s have toned things down considerable. Odd and odd-looking character prevail, but it all seems somewhat mundane, as if odd really isn’t odd. It’s part of the everyday fabric of the outside world. The citizens of Bob and Walt’s hometown certainly don’t act as if anything is “wrong” with the brothers; indeed, even the folks in la-la land don’t act all that freaked out by conjoined twins.

What makes Stuck on You work and that’s different from other Farrelly Bros. films is the poignancy; there is a realness to the story that goes beyond the usual craziness of Farrelly world. Damon and Kinnear are very good actors, and they sell us on the close-knit relationship between the brothers. Both are good-looking men and have charming personalities, so the audience is likely endeared to them. The closer the actors make us feel towards the characters, the more likely we’re going to laugh at the crazy things that happen to them and root for them to overcome obstacles.

Ultimately, it’s Damon and Kinnear who really sell this film as a heart-warming comedy and make it worth watching. That’s important because, Stuck on You is the antithesis of Farrelly classics like Kingpins and There’s Something About Mary. For all the laughs, the film is, indeed, quite dramatic, and while that drags at the film a few times, there are many heart-warming moments to go along with the belly laughs.

7 of 10
B+

Review: "Master and Commander" Was One of 2003's Best Films (Happy B'day, Russell Crowe)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 82 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
Running time: 138 minutes (2 hours, 18 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for intense battle sequences, related images, and brief language
DIRECTOR: Peter Weir
WRITERS: John Collee and Peter Weir (from the novels by Patrick O’Brian)
PRODUCERS: Samuel Goldwyn Jr., Duncan Henderson, and Peter Weir
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Russell Boyd
EDITOR: Lee Smith
COMPOSERS: Iva Davies, Christopher Gordon, and Richard Tognetti
Academy Award winner

WAR/ADVENTURE/DRAMA/ACTION/THRILLER

Starring: Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany, James D’Arcy, Edward Woodall, Chris Larkin, Max Pirkis, Jack Randall, Max Benitz, Lee Ingleby, Richard Pates, Robert Pugh, and Richard McCabe

The subject of this movie review is Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, a 2003 historical war drama. Much of the film’s plot comes from the 1984 novel, The Far Side of the World.

One of the best films of 2003 is Australian director Peter Weir’s film, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. It was also one of the most honored films of the year, earning many award nominations and capturing quite a few critical prizes, including wins of two Oscars (for Russell Boyd’s cinematography and Richard King’s sound editing). It’s on my very short list of best pictures of the year, and it’s one of the best films of the last half-decade.

Based upon an outline in the tenth book of Patrick O’Brian’s series of 20 novels about Lucky Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe), the British Royal Navy’s greatest fighting captain, and his ship’s doctor, Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany), Master and Commander is set during the Napoleonic Wars. The brash Lucky Jack pushes the crew of his ship, the Surprise, in pursuit of a formidable French frigate, the Acheron. The Acheron launches a sneak attack on the Surprise near Brazil. Although his ship is heavily damaged, Lucky Jack, the “Master” of the Surprise and the “Commander” of his men, chases the Acheron around South America, all leading to a daring showdown near the Galapagos Islands.

As an expensive film production by three of the biggest film studios in the world (Fox, Miramax, and Universal), Master and Commander is blessed with a big production budget that guaranteed that the film would look brilliant and the technical aspects of the film would be quite good. But what makes this film is that the basics are topnotch. First, the story is a rousing sea adventure, something that is sure to please the male audience – there’s something to the lure of the sea. When a sea adventure movie is done well, we have a memorable film on our hands.

Secondly, the Peter Weir, one of the great directors of the last three or so decades (and one of the most underrated and under-appreciated in proportion to his talent and work) simply makes this a grand movie: a brilliant tale of fighting men, camaraderie, brotherhood, and old-fashioned adventure that is the superb and perfect vicarious experience for those of us that have never had to run from a cannonball or live through the hardships of naval life during wartime.

Last, but not least, is a collection of excellent performances. It goes without saying that Russell Crowe was good. Can he ever be bad? In the tradition of old Hollywood stars, Crowe allows his film personality to shine through every performance. There’s a basic template that we recognize no matter how disparate the roles he takes. Still, he’s the great method actor who can also bury himself in a part.

However, I must also give shout outs to Paul Bettany as the ship surgeon, Dr. Maturin. He well plays Maturin as both confidant and foil to Crowe’s’ Aubrey. A child talent to watch is Max Pirkis, as the young Lord Blakeney, Midshipman. I think Pirkis’ character is the one the audience lives through, as we, like him, are novices. Pirkis’ performance is open and invites us in to suffer the hardships, enjoy the good times, and learn from his experiences. His performance is so good and plays such an important part in the film’s success that it can be considered a gift.

I heartily endorse Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Not only is it good drama, it’s also an adventure film likely to stand the test of time, and if it doesn’t, it’s still damn fine for the here and now.

10 of 10

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 2 wins: “Best Cinematography” (Russell Boyd) and “Best Sound Editing” (Richard King); 8 nominations: “Best Picture” (Samuel Goldwyn Jr., Peter Weir, and Duncan Henderson), “Best Director” (Peter Weir), “Best Art Direction-Set Decoration” (William Sandell-art director and Robert Gould-set decorator), “Best Costume Design” (Wendy Stites), “Best Film Editing” (Lee Smith), “Best Makeup” (Edouard F. Henriques and Yolanda Toussieng), “Best Sound Mixing” (Paul Massey, Doug Hemphill, and Art Rochester), and “Best Visual Effects” (Daniel Sudick, Stefen Fangmeier, Nathan McGuinness, and Robert Stromberg)

2004 BAFTA Awards: 4 wins: “Best Costume Design” (Wendy Stites), “Best Production Design” (William Sandell), “Best Sound” (Richard King, Doug Hemphill, Paul Massey, and Art Rochester), and “David Lean Award for Direction” (Peter Weir); 4 nominations: “Best Achievement in Special Visual Effects” (Stefen Fangmeier, Nathan McGuinness, Robert Stromberg, Daniel Sudick), and “Best Cinematography” (Russell Boyd), “Best Film” (Samuel Goldwyn Jr., Peter Weir, and Duncan Henderson), “Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role” (Paul Bettany)

2004 Golden Globes: 3 nominations: “Best Director - Motion Picture” (Peter Weir), “Best Motion Picture – Drama,” and “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama” (Russell Crowe)

------------------

Review: "Daddy Day Care" is Eddie Murphy Empty Calories

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 91 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Daddy Day Care (2003)
Running time: 92 minutes (1 hour, 32 minutes)
MPAA – PG for language
DIRECTOR: Steve Carr
WRITER: Geoff Rodkey
PRODUCERS: Matt Berenson, John Davis, and Wyck Godfrey
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Steven Poster
EDITOR: Christopher Greenbury
COMPOSER: David Newman

COMEDY/FAMILY with elements of fantasy

Starring: Eddie Murphy, Jeff Garlin, Steve Zahn, Regina King, Kevin Nealon, Anjelica Huston, Jonathan Katz, Leila Arcieri, Khamani Griffin, and Max Burkholder

Once upon a time Eddie Murphy starred in movies people couldn’t get enough of like Trading Places and Beverly Hills Cop. Then, according to bigoted critics, Murphy turned his back on his “white audience” with films like Harlem Nights and Boomerang, which were not blockbusters but were nevertheless both excellent films featuring mostly African-American casts. Since the mid-90’s Murphy has starred in a number of “family-oriented” films that have been huge hits: The Nutty Professor, Mulan, Dr. Doolittle, and Shrek, etc. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind a combination of the star that appeared in Trading Places and Boomerang, but I can deal with the family friendly fare like Murphy’s recent hit, Daddy Day Care.

Charlie Hinton (Eddie Murphy) and Phil (Jeff Garlin) are laid off (fired) from their well paying jobs. As the weeks of being unemployed blow by they are spending more time with their sons, not that that’s a bad thing; they’re just not used to being employed. Like a light bulb exploding in his head, Charlie gets the idea of opening a daycare center, partly because he can no longer afford the posh Chapman Academy his son was attending when he was working. After initial skepticism, a growing number of mothers begin to rely on the affordable care that Charlie and Phil provide. However, the Chapman dowager, Mrs. Haridan (Anjelica Huston), doesn’t like the competition and schemes to have Charlie and Phil’s increasingly popular Daddy Day Care closed.

There’s no point in beating around the bush. Daddy Day Care is an entertainment delivery vehicle meant to give the “family audience” a few chuckles while affirming the bushy middle-class, suburban lifestyle. If that’s sounds like a criticism, it isn’t, not quiet. It’s simply that this film doesn’t have to be so vapid. Even the menace of Mrs. Haridan’s attempt to close the school is at best a lukewarm threat. If not for Ms. Huston’s ability to chew into even the most cardboard cutout characters, there would have been no dramatic tension in this film. The two male leads have lost their well-paying jobs, for chrissakes. That resonates with much of the audience in these shaky-as-ever economic times. Hell yeah, there are lots of laughs; I certainly found many, but this film could have been about something – about two dads struggling with new roles, roles men are not used to playing.

Oh well, I don’t regret seeing Daddy Day Care, and there are lots of warm and fuzzy feelings. It’s a safe trip to the movies for the entire family. Steve Zahn as Marvin, Daddy Day Care’s first new employee is an absolute show stealing delight. Impossible as it might seem, I like him more each time I see him in a movie. His inspired performance and off-kilter character were more than worth my time.

P.S. Two characters speak Klingon (a language from the Star Trek television and film franchise, for those who don’t know) in this movie; that alone is worth $1 of your admission price.

6 of 10
B

Review: "In America" is Powerful and Heartfelt (Happy B'day, Jim Sheridan)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 77 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

In America (2003)
Running time: 105 minutes (1 hour, 45 minutes)
MPAA – R for sexuality and brief language
DIRECTOR: Jim Sheridan
WRITERS: Jim Sheridan, Naomi Sheridan, and Kirsten Sheridan
PRODUCERS: Arthur Lappin and Jim Sheridan
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Declan Quinn
EDITOR: Naomi Geraghty
COMPOSERS: Gavin Friday and Maurice Seezer
Academy Award nominee

DRAMA

Starring: Paddy Considine, Samantha Morton, Sarah Bolger, Emma Bolger, Djimon Hounsou, Merrina Millsapp, Juan Hernandez, and Ciaran Cronin

In America is a 2003 semiautobiographical drama from director Jim Sheridan. This Irish/British film tells the story of an immigrant Irish family’s struggle to survive in New York City, with the story told through the eyes of the older daughter. Although gritty and dark, In American is actually an enchanting story about the bonds of family.

An out of work Irish actor takes his family to America for a fresh start. Johnny (Paddy Considine) and his wife Sarah (Samantha Morton, who received an “Best Actress” Oscar® nomination for this role) leave Ireland with their two daughters, Christy (Sarah Bolger) and Ariel (Emma Bolger), in toe and head for New York City via Canada. While Johnny pursues his acting career and Sarah works at an ice cream parlor, the children take in their new world with eyes that may be innocent, but are also world weary. When things seem most down for them, the family gets help from one of Sarah’s co-workers and Mateo (Djimon Hounsou, received an “Best Actor, Supporting Role” Oscar® nomination) an artist dying of AIDS, who brings magic and hope to the family.

Jim Sheridan and his daughters, Naomi and Kirsten, received “Best Screenplay, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen” Oscar® nominations for writing In America, one of the best films of 2003. While the financial plight and wellness of the parents are riveting (although I found Considine and Ms. Morton’s performances a bit flat at times), the film is the daughters’ story. Christy narrates while Ariel steals one scene after another, and, in doing this, the Bolger girls (especially little Emma) give two of the best performances by young artists in the last year or so.

Although In America is a gritty tale, in a lot of ways it is told as if it came from a children’s book (albeit a dark, downbeat children’s book). Through Christy’s eyes we see the real world, but we see it through a character determined to survive and make the best of things. In Emma, the supernatural, the fantastic, and magic are possible; their presence in the real world isn’t an intrusion. It’s the just the way things are; they belong. I heartily recommend this beautiful and heartfelt drama. In America is a little more magical than it is honest, but to see Jim Sheridan weave loveliness from all this despair and sorrow is itself magic.

9 of 10
A+

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 3 nominations: “Best Actor in a Supporting Role” (Djimon Hounsou, “Best Actress in a Leading Role” (Samantha Morton), and “Best Writing, Original Screenplay” (Jim Sheridan, Naomi Sheridan, and Kirsten Sheridan)

2004 Golden Globes: “Best Original Song - Motion Picture” (Bono, Gavin Friday, and Maurice Seezer for the song "Time Enough for Tears") and “Best Screenplay - Motion Picture” (Jim Sheridan, Naomi Sheridan, and Kirsten Sheridan)

2004 Black Reel Awards: 1 win: “Black Reel Film: Best Supporting Actor” (Djimon Hounsou)

2004 Image Awards: 1 nomination: “Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture” (Djimon Hounsou)

-----------------------

Review: "The Weather Underground" is Interesting, but a Little Dry

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 158 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Weather Underground (2002)
(film received its U.S. theatrical release in June 2003)
Running time: 92 minutes (1 hour, 32 minutes)
Not rated by the MPAA
DIRECTORS: Sam Green with Bill Siegel
PRODUCERS: Carrie Lazono, Marc Smolowitz, Sam Green, and Bill Siegel
EDITORS: Dawn Logsdon and Sam Green
PHOTOGRAPHERS: Andy Black and Federico Salsano
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY

Starring: Bill Ayers, Kathleen Cleaver, Bernadine Dohrn, Brian Flanagan, David Gilbert, Todd Gitlin, Naomi Jaffe, Mark Rudd, Don Strickland, and (narrator) Lili Taylor

Some people believe that not acting against violence is itself violence, and from this belief sprang the Weathermen. Their group, The Weather Underground, was a radical offshoot of the 1960’s anti-war student group, Students for a Democratic Society. The Weather Underground not only marched in protest, but they also rioted and bombed the offices of government organizations in an attempt to bring about a revolution in America. It was not about changing the American political landscape; it was about destroying it.

The Weather Underground is a 2002 documentary about the rise and fall of The Weathermen. The film earned an Oscar® nomination in the category “Best Documentary, Features” for directors Sam Green and Bill Siegel. The filmmakers interviewed former Weathermen and compiled those interviews with archival film footage of the Vietnam War, news broadcasts, and anti-war demonstrations. They also included readings of Weathermen letters, footage of 60’s and 70’s era interviews of the Weathermen, and photographic images of the original group and related subject matter.

The film is a sobering account of the group and its members, but the Weathermen, at least now, don’t make compelling characters, either in the present or in old film footage of the group. They’re certainly not as intriguing as, say, the subjects in fellow 2004 Oscar® feature documentary nominee, Capturing the Friedmans. The Weathermen (and Weatherwomen) actually don’t go into the kind of detail that would have really brought their story to life and given the film more life, likely because some of what they might say about their activities could still be used against them in a court of law. They are understandable secretive, but no matter how coy they may be, their hints aren’t really enough to pique interest in their former activities, and even less in what they’re now doing.

In fact, the most interesting things in this film are the accounts of the Vietnam conflict and The Weather Undergrounds quasi-spiritual and philosophical connection to The Black Panthers. When the film deals with the destruction of lives on both sides of the Vietnam conflict and the FBI’s murderous war against the Panthers, that’s when The Weather Underground is most passionate, a fatal flaw in the film, actually. Every time the filmmakers and editors move from the war and the Panthers to the privileged middle class whites who made up The Weather Underground, I found myself eagerly anticipating when the filmmakers would return to the war and the Panthers. Those parts of the film are great. Of course, the Weathermen’s story is very interesting, but it is ultimately told a little too dryly here for this documentary’s own good.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Sam Green and Bill Siegel)

-----------------------

"Capturing the Friedmans" Seems Eternally Timely

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 151 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux


Capturing the Friedmans (2003)
Running time: 107 minutes (1 hour, 47 minutes)
Not rated by the MPAA
DIRECTOR: Andrew Jarecki
PRODUCERS: Andrew Jarecki and Marc Smerling
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Adolfo Doring
EDITOR: Richard Hankin
COMPOSER: Andrea Morricone
Academy Award nominee

DOCUMENTARY/CRIME

Starring: Arnold Friedman, Elaine Friedman, David Friedman, Seth Friedman, Jesse Friedman, Howard Friedman, John McDermott, and Debbie Nathan

Producers Andrew Jarecki and Mark Smerling earned an Oscar® nomination for “Best Documentaries, Feature” and won several critics “Best Documentary” awards for Jarecki’s directorial effort, Capturing the Friedmans. The controversial film about a controversial child molestation case was arguably, with Errol Morris’ The Fog of War, the best film of 2003.

The Friedmans: the husband Arnold, the wife Elaine, and the three sons David, Seth, and Jesse were a seemingly average upper-middle class Jewish family in Great Neck, New York until disaster struck. Arnold was an award-winning high school teacher in the 1980’s. He taught elementary school children computer classes in his home where his wife operated a toddler childcare group, and that made Arnold Friedman one of the first instructors of computer courses for children that young. However, the U.S. Postal Service began investigating Arnold for possession and dissemination of child pornography. After the local law enforcement became involved, they began an investigation that led to eventual criminal charges against Friedman and his youngest son Jesse for allegedly committing dozens of sexual acts with children during the computer classes. The arrest of Arnold and Jesse and the charges for the horrible crimes destroyed the family.

Although the case became a media sensation in 1987-88 and news organizations saturated the airwaves and newspaper pages with coverage of the investigation and trial, the best footage of what happened to the family was shot by the family members themselves, especially the footage shot by the three brothers. Jarecki composed his film with interviews of many of the event’s participants: the Friedmans, relatives, friends, attorney’s, investigators, and victims and with the footage the brothers shot, footage that was not publicly shown until this film.

Although the film presents compelling evidence that Arnold Friedman was indeed a pedophile, the film makes the argument that what really happened concerning Arnold, Jesse, and the sexual abuse charges during the computer classes may never be known. It also throws a harsh light on the reality that the police investigators (pigs) were overzealous in their investigation and that they may have coerced or encouraged children to declare that Arnold and Jesse molested them. The filmmakers also actually found and recorded on film participants who claimed that they made statements about being abused that weren’t true, as well as participants who refused to cooperate because they did not know of abuse, did not see it, or were not abused.

Beyond the meat and potatoes of the case, Capturing the Friedmans is compelling because the participants and events – both past and present are so intriguing. Fiction writers would kill or sell their souls to get material so good and so damn interesting. I can’t help but be amazed by how frank and honest the Friedmans were in the video footage they shot in the late 80’s. They spoke and acted on videotape as if they never expected anyone to see them being themselves, letting the real Friedmans that are behind closed doors come out. By the end of the film, the Friedmans have revealed themselves to have been a dysfunctional family from the moment the parents married.

Even the present day interviews are as compelling as the old footage. In fact, through present interviews, David, a highly paid party clown in New York, is the best character in the film. He’s so forceful, adamant, angry, and bitter that it borders on being laughable and poignant. You can’t take your eyes away from this film for one moment. Jarecki is a storyteller who makes every moment of his film riveting and a must-see. Would that more fiction films could be like Capturing the Friedmans.

10 of 10

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Documentary, Features” (Andrew Jarecki and Marc Smerling)

Review: "Runaway Jury" is Unrealistic, But Entertaining (Happy B'day, Gene Hackman)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 32 (of 2005) by Leroy Douresseaux

Runaway Jury (2003)
Running time: 127 minutes (2 hours, 7 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for violence, language, and thematic elements
DIRECTOR: Gary Fleder
WRITERS: Brian Koppelman and David Levien, Rick Cleveland, and Matthew Chapman (based upon the novel by John Grisham)
PRODUCER: Christopher Mankiewicz, and Gary Fleder
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Robert Elswit, A.S.C.
EDITOR: William Steinkamp, A.C.E. and Jeff Williams

DRAMA/THRILLER

Starring: John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, Rachel Weisz, Bruce Davison, Bruce McGill, Jeremy Piven, Nick Searcy, Joanna Going, Stanley Anderson, Cliff Curtis, Jennifer Beals, and Bill Nunn with Orlando Jones and (uncredited) Dylan McDermott

Runaway Jury is a 2003 legal drama/thriller from director Gary Fleder. The film is based on the 1996 novel, The Runaway Jury, by author John Grisham.

Set in New Orleans, Runaway Jury is the story of a mysterious man named Nicholas Easter (John Cusack), who talks his way onto the jury of a landmark civil case against a gun manufacturer and attempts to influence the verdict by manipulating the other jurors. Meanwhile, on the outside, Easter’s girlfriend, Marlee (Rachel Weisz) runs a game to swindle the two lawyers involved in the case into paying her 10 million dollars if they want the verdict friendly to their clients.

Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) is a torts lawyer who represents the plaintiff, Celeste Wood (Joanna Going), the widow of Jacob Wood (Dylan McDermott), who was killed in a shooting rampage at brokerage firm. She believes the gun manufacturer knew that the killer bought the gun from a store that was careless and ignored gun laws. Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) is a jury consultant for the defense. Fitch is almost superhuman in the way he is able to discover the pasts of jurors, examine their beliefs and mindsets, and find out who can be bought, bribed, or blackmailed. His war with Nick Easter and Marlee drives the trial to the brink of ruin for a breathtaking finale.

Runaway Jury is the latest film adapted from a bestseller by John Grisham, author of books such as The Firm and A Time to Kill, both of which were adapted into films. The novel’s original premise was about a civil action against big tobacco, but the gun industry, also a target of big lawsuits, may have seemed like an easier sell to moviegoers, as guns are a lightening rod and divider of the American public. However, the film really doesn’t turn on a change of litigants. The best thing this film has going for it is the trio of John Cusack, Gene Hackman, and Rachel Weisz because they put the drama and thrills in this film. Dustin Hoffman is good, but he seems like the odd man out. His one good chance to chew up the scenery with Hackman is decidedly one-sided with Hackman eating his lunch. Anyone seeing this movie will clearly understand what power Hackman radiates. His star power and acting ability is worlds better than most other actors. An actor in a film with him has got to bring serious game, or Hackman will sweep him away. I so loved Hackman’s performance here that I wanted to have a baby for him.

Parts of Runaway Jury certainly test the bounds of belief and reality, but this is a great legal drama even if stuff happens in this film that no judge would allow to go on in his courtroom. And I say that knowing that most judges ain’t worth crap and are as crooked as a devil in gambling parlor. Runaway Jury is wonderful entertainment, and if you turn your reasoning down a little, it’ll keep you on the edge of your seat.

7 of 10
B+

--------------------

"Underworld" Still Slick, Sexy and Cool

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 145 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Underworld (2003)
Running time: 121 minutes (2 hours, 1 minute)
MPAA – R for strong violence/gore and some language
DIRECTOR: Len Wiseman
WRITERS: Danny McBride, from a story by Kevin Grevioux, Danny McBride, and Len Wiseman
PRODUCERS: Gary Lucchesi, Tom Rosenberg, and Richard Wright
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Tony Pierce-Roberts
EDITOR: Martin Hunter
COMPOSER: Paul Haslinger

HORROR/FANTASY/ACTION

Starring: Kate Beckinsale, Scott Speedman, Shane Brolly, Michael Sheen, Bill Nighy, Erwin Leder, Sophia Myles, Danny McBride, and Kevin Grevioux

Underworld is a 2003 action/fantasy film about a war between vampires and werewolves (called Lycans). I believe that this film exists in a fantasy world that looks so good and convincing on screen because of modern cinematic technology.

Quite a few people have come to believe that computers generated special effects have elevated what was once traditional Hollywood B-movie material (science fiction, fantasy, horror, etc.) to A-list status. Once upon a time quality story telling was king because even the best that special effects could do no more than make an obviously fake flying saucer look like an obviously fake flying saucer. Now, special effects can convincingly create fantastic worlds, outlandish creatures, and bizarre scenarios. A plain old movie drama pales next to some two-and-a-half hour vampire, car chase, kung fu, and alien invasion action movie.

I’d like to believe that Underworld, with its straight-forward tale about a centuries-long blood feud between werewolves and vampires, could still be very entertaining without the aid of computer generated effects (CGI) or any kind of SFX, for that matter. There’s no doubt that the movie proudly wears its B-movie heritage on its sleeve, and the creators sold the studio on the movie by pitching the idea, “Romeo and Juliet with vampires and werewolves.” Truthfully, very little about Underworld vampire/werewolf conflict makes much sense. The feud only seems a reason for Vampires to walk around in fancy and expensive leather gear and shoot hundreds of rounds of ammunitions. For the werewolves, or Lycans as they called in this film, the conflict gives them a reason to hide in the city’s underbelly, crawling around like low-rent thugs and thieves and engage in homoerotic intra clan feuds, as there are apparently no female Lycans.

Selene (Kate Beckinsale) is a death dealer, a Vampire warrior who hunts the Lycans. The Lycans were supposed to be on the run ever since their great leader Lucian (Michael Sheen) was killed six centuries prior, but the war never ended. Selene’s people are clan of secretive, modern sophisticates, as much dilettantes as they are vampires, and she alone seems to hold a hard line against the Lycans. Now, Selene has found the werewolves tracking a handsome young human man named Michael Corvin (Scott Speedman), and she is determined to discover why, even as she suspects her clan leader Kraven (Shane Brolly) is involved in a great conspiracy that could endanger all of her kind.

Visually, Underworld resembles The Matrix films, and stylistically the story is quite similar to the Blade films (maybe even a bit of The Crow), but director Len Wiseman and his cohorts create their own crazy dish from the various sources they raided to concoct Underworld. It’s by no means a great movie, and the acting is as much unintentionally funny as it is dreadfully serious. It’s oh-so-dark and oh-so-seriously gothic and Goth, and the dialogue is so stiff and formal that I can almost swear that no character spoke one word of contraction.

Still, though this film is ponderous and painfully derivative, I couldn’t take my eyes off it. I found Underworld to be quite good, and I’ll see it again. I can’t imagine that many fans of genre films would not see it, though many may actually not like it. For me, it’s one of those “ultimate” popcorn flicks – horror, fantasy, and action all put together and filmed as if it were a very, very, very long music video. It’s gloriously and hilariously dark eye candy for the comic book and sci-fi geeks. The nitpicker in me might sneer, but the film geek in me wants more. I’ll take it warts and all.

7 of 10
B+

"Bringing Down the House" Brings Laughs

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 31 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Bringing Down the House (2003)
Running time: 105 minutes (1 hour, 45 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for language, sexual humor and drug material
DIRECTOR: Adam Shankman
WRITER: Peter Filardi
PRODUCERS: Ashok Amritraj and David Hoberman
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Julio Macat (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Jerry Greenberg
COMPOSER: Lalo Schifrin

COMEDY

Starring: Steve Martin, Queen Latifah, Eugene Levy, Joan Plowright, Jean Smart, Kimberly J. Brown, Angus T. Jones, Missi Pyle, Michael Rosenbaum, Betty White, and Steve Harris

Critics and naysayers have been lying in wait for Bringing Down the House almost immediately after the first trailers and advertisements were aired. A straight-laced, older white man and a down to earth hip hop queen - racism and stereotypes of course – it couldn’t be anything but that. Well, they were wrong.

Peter Sanderson (Steve Martin) is a lonely, divorced, tax attorney who meets Charlene Morton (Queen Latifah) in an online chat room. He assumes she’s a young, curvaceous blond, but she’s actually an African American prison inmate, which he discovers when she shows up on his doorstep one, fine evening. Charlene wants Peter’s help to clear her of a crime she says she didn’t commit, but his life is already complicated by mild turmoil. He misses his ex-wife Kate (Jean Smart) and their two children, Sarah (Kimberly J. Brown) and Gregory (Angus T. Jones). His bosses at his high-pressure job have given him the assignment of bringing a frugal heiress’s (Joan Plowright) billion-dollar account to the company. To make matter worse, the FBI is searching for Charlene, as is her creepy boyfriend (Steve Harris), and Peter’s friend Howie (Eugene Levy) really has a jones for Charlene.

First, I should say that Bringing Down the House is hilarious, laugh out loud, knee-slapping funny. It’s the best comedy I’ve seen a long time, and I haven’t laughed, really laughed, at a movie in a while. I could call Bringing a “feel good” movie because it made me feel good. Looking at the poster and seeing commercials for the film might give people the idea that this is an un-politically correct film in a PC age, but it really is about making new friends, people with different social and economic backgrounds. If that sounds a little high brow, it might be, but it’s the long way around saying that birds of different feathers can flock together.

As for as the it’s politics, you have to watch the film really close to notice something I think becomes obvious half way through the picture. The film parodies the stereotypical portrayal in popular culture of white people’s stereotypical reactions to black people. It’s not making fun of black people; it’s poking fun of the way whites are played as sheltered nerds who only know a skewered version of black culture.

Queen Latifah’s character Charlene is actually well rounded, and Latifah plays her as a brassy, self-reliant, never-say-die woman who takes the initiative to defend herself. What you see is what you get, and Charlene is certainly not one of those women of ill repute who actually has a heart of gold. Latifah takes her character seriously and plays her with a sense of humor. Charlene, though loud and confident, is sensitive and doesn’t look out for her own interests without regards for other people.

Martin could make a career out of playing the odd straight man to black comedians; he worked quite well with Eddie Murphy in Bowfinger. His chemistry with Latifah is as good as or better than the chemistry between him and his white co-stars. He gives Peter a dual edge; you can laugh at him and with him, and you care about him. And if you’ve seen the part of the ad that shows Martin in a black club thuggin’ it out while wearing “street” gear, do know that it’s damned funny and not stereotypical. In fact, he plays the scene as a white guy who likes hip hop and hanging out with black people instead of playing it as a naïve white guy with a stereotypical idea of how to be “black.”

But to heck with all the social politics. This is a funny movie. It lags at the end as it tries to tie everything up for a feel good end, and there were some good characters that would have made this movie even funnier if they had a little more screen time. However, I give Peter Filardi credit for writing a funny movie that gives the finger to its critics. Martin, Queen Latifah, and the rest of the cast put on a good show, not a coon show. To miss this is to miss a rare treat, a film that makes you laugh and feel so good that you probably wouldn’t mind seeing it again.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2004 Black Reel Awards: 1 nomination: “Film: Best Actress” (Queen Latifah)

2004 Image Awards: 1 win: “Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture” (Queen Latifah)

Review: Washington and Franklin Save "Out of Time" (Happy B'day, Denzel Washington)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 150 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux on Patreon

Out of Time (2003)
Running time: 105 minutes (1 hour, 45 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13
DIRECTOR: Carl Franklin
WRITER: David Collard
PRODUCERS: Jesse B'Franklin and Neal H. Moritz
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Theo van de Sande (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Carole Kravetz-Aykanian
COMPOSER: Graeme Revell

CRIME/DRAMA/THRILLER

Starring: Denzel Washington, Eva Mendes, Sanaa Lathan, Dean Cain, John Billingsley, Alex Carter, and Robert Baker

Director Carl Franklin (One False Move) and Denzel Washington previously joined forces to make the underrated noir thriller, Devil in a Blue Dress. They’re together again in the deliciously dumb crime thriller Out of Time. It’s dumb because its premise is stretched light years past the point of probability and reasonable suspension of disbelief. It’s hilarious, but not so dumb that’s it hard to watch. In fact, it’s quite delicious because, like the best thrillers, Out of Time is a riveting drama that hard to stop watching.

Mathias Lee Whitlock (Denzel Washington), the police chief of a small community in the Florida Keys, is having an affair with his high school sweetheart Anne Merai Harrison (Sanaa Lathan). After Anne is diagnosed with terminal cancer, Chief Whitlock gives her 500,000 in cash for an experimental cancer treatment. The problem is that Whitlock is supposed to hold onto the money because it’s evidence in a big time criminal case. When Anne disappears, Chief Whitlock suddenly finds himself knee deep in crap from an arson/double homicide, and the local FBI is pressuring him to give them the money for another criminal case. It doesn’t help that his estranged wife Alex Diaz-Whitlock (Eva Mendes) becomes an investigator in the homicide case, and Whitlock knows all the evidence is pointing at him as the killer.

For all the suspense movie clichés that the script gobbles, Carl Franklin is still able to create an incredibly intense police thriller. The characters are shallow, and the script short shrifts some of the better ones, though Washington’s Whitlock and John Billingsley’s Chae are quite captivating. Still, Franklin moves the players around like an adept gamesman and makes Out of Time very entertaining and fun to watch film. There may be no art here, but the movie shows all the signs of being directed by a master craftsmen. Denzel is a known property, as a star, an actor, and an artist. It’s time more film fans also recognize the fine director that Franklin is. Hopefully, he isn’t being slighted because of the prominence of melanin in his skin.

6 of 10
B

NOTES:
2004 Black Reel Awards: 2 wins: “Film: Best Actress” (Sanaa Lathan) and “Film: Best Theatrical (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer-MGM); 2 nominations: “Film: Best Actor” (Denzel Washington) and “Film: Best Director” (Carl Franklin)

2004 Image Awards: 2 nominations: “Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture: (Denzel Washington) and “Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture” (Sanaa Lathan)

Review: "House of Sand and Fog" is Filled with Conflict (Happy B'day, Jennifer Connelly)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 101 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux


House of Sand and Fog (2003)
Running time: 126 minutes (2 hour, 6 minutes)
MPAA – R for some violence/disturbing images, language and a scene of sexuality
DIRECTOR: Vadim Perelman
WRITER: Shawn Otto and Vadim Perelman (from a novel by Andre Dubus III)
PRODUCERS: Michael London and Vadim Perelman
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Roger Deakins
EDITOR: Lisa Zeno Churgin
COMPOSER: James Horner
Academy Award nominee

DRAMA

Starring: Jennifer Connelly, Ben Kingsley, Ron Eldard, Frances Fisher, Kim Dickens, Shohreh Aghdashloo, and Jonathan Ahdout

After being abandoned by her husband, Kathy Nicolo (Jennifer Connelly), an alcoholic, discovers that the county has foreclosed her home and put it up for auction. After the county discovers that the foreclosure was an error on their part, they try to buy the home back from the new owner, Colonel Behrani (Ben Kingsley), an Iranian military officer under the Shah (who was deposed by the Islamic revolution in the late 70’s). However, Behrani bought the house with the intention of selling it again at a profit, and he will not sell it back to the county unless he gets his asking price, which is four times what he paid for it. Thus, begins a conflict between Kathy and the colonel that has tragic consequences for all involved.

House of Sand and Fog is a well-acted mega-tragedy that switches from being harrowing and riveting to depressing and boring. The film is a brilliant rumination on how living in the past and failing to move on with one’s life can lead to both a figurative and literal death. However, it is also a painfully obvious, artsy movie drama racing down the slippery slope to film tragedy.

The film received three Academy Award nominations: Ben Kingsley for “Best Actor in a Leading Role,” Shohreh Aghdashloo for “Best Actress in a Supporting Role” for her part as Behrani’s wife, and one for James Horner’s gorgeous score. Although Kingsley and Ms. Aghdashloo did not win, they were clearly robbed. The rest of the cast stands out quite well (even prior Academy Award winner Jennifer Connelly), but Kingsley and Ms. Aghdashloo give impeccable performances in this relentlessly morose drama. In fact Kingsley is not only clearly a great film actor; he is also an artist, and when he’s in a film, his filmmaking collaborators’ efforts sometime end of up merely being the canvas upon which he paints his brilliant work.

I’ll recommend House of Sand and Fog to people who love to see good acting, if they can stomach this film’s heartache and misfortune. At least we can give director Vadim Perelman credit for so convincingly making sadness eye candy the way pop directors make action sequences so appealing.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 3 nominations: “Best Actor in a Leading Role” (Ben Kingsley), “Best Actress in a Supporting Role” (Shohreh Aghdashloo), and “Best Music, Original Score” (James Horner)

2004 Golden Globes: “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama” (Ben Kingsley)

Review: "Anger Management" Overdoes It (Happy B'day, Adam Sandler)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 50 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Anger Management (2003)
Running time: 106 minutes (1 hour, 46 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for crude sexual content and language
DIRECTOR: Peter Segal
WRITER: David Dorfman
PRODUCERS: Barry Bernardi and Jack Giarraputo
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Donald M. McAlpine (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Jeff Gourson

COMEDY with elements of drama

Starring: Jack Nicholson, Adam Sandler, Marisa Tomei, Luis Guzman, John Turturro with Woody Harrelson, Lynne Thigpen, John C. Reilly, and Heather Graham

First of, let me say that Anger Management is extremely funny and all the characters are very well played, from the stars to the smaller roles. I’m still surprised that this movie was able to keep its hilarious energy so long. Actually, it doesn’t naturally run out of steam. All at once, the filmmakers decide to screw up the ending.

Dave Buznick (Adam Sandler) is a under appreciated, low level secretary who is wrongly sentenced to an anger management program, after a ridiculous incident on an airplane. He has the luck of one-eyed, one-legged dog, so he only gets into more trouble after he enters the program. His counselor, Dr. Buddy Rydell (Jack Nicholson), decides to move into Dave’s apartment so that he gave give his patient 24-hour intensive therapy. The problem is Rydell, in Dave’s eyes, is more crazy and angrier than he could ever be. However, he’s forced to live with Rydell’s unorthodox and bizarre behavior, causing Dave to slowly go insane, which is the very last thing he needs because another alleged outburst of extreme rage and the judge (Lynne Thigpen) would sentence Dave to a year in state prison.

Sandler and Nicholson make an excellent comedy team, and they have such amazing, yet surprising chemistry. Jack does what he does best; he’s the wicked, little devil and conniving imp at the seat of the controls – the conductor, the master manipulator, Rasputin.

Sandler tempers the sullen and explosive character traits that he gives most of his others characters to play Dave Buznick, who is a put upon guy simmering quietly beneath his clothes and ready to have one good explosion. He makes Dave very sympathetic. The audience can feel the stings of the wrongs done to Dave and can root for him to win. I know that I certainly wanted him to just really get angry and let his tormentors have it. This is an understated performance that’s just obvious enough to work. However, Sandler does experience the occasional lapse; he plays such a second banana to Nicholson’s antics that he falls into moments when he isn’t even acting. It’s like he’s just serving up volleys for Nicholson to jump on, and he’s just an emcee. Still, Sandler and Nicholson worked together like a veteran comedy team.

There’s not much to the story, and a plot is nonexistent. Really, the writing and directing only exist to serve as staging for the two main players to exercise their shtick. It’s much the same with the supporting cast, but they make the most of their onscreen time, especially Luiz Guzman and John Turturro. Sadly, Marisa Tomei is less than a cipher, and her talent is wasted; pretty much any actress of modest attractiveness could have played her part.

Now to the end – it’s mostly a New York Yankees, New York City, NYC folk heroes love fest, and it kills this movie. In fact, the resolution of the story and the ridiculous explanation for Dr. Rydell’s behavior almost kills the story and certainly retards Nicholson’s very entertaining character and performance. There are certainly several other endings that would have made perfect sense in the context of Rydell’s antics and Buznick’s predicament. Instead, the filmmakers tie everything up in a most awful and sappy finale that truly deserves to be called a “Hollywood Ending.” Worst of all is a cameo by Rudolph “Rudy” W. Giuliani, former mayor of NYC. He is someone I wish would have been in the Twin Towers the day they fell and not made it out alive.

Girl, did I say that? Anyway, Anger Management is still very funny, at least up to the end, and worth seeing.

6 of 10
B

-----------------------

Review: Performances Carry "Thirteen"

TRASH IN MY EYE NO. 174 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Thirteen (2003)
Running time – 100 minutes (1 hour, 40 minutes)
MPAA – R for drug use, self destructive violence, language and sexuality – all involving young teens
DIRECTOR: Catherine Hardwicke
WRITERS: Nikki Reed and Catherine Hardwicke
PRODUCERS: Jeffrey Levy-Hinte and Michael London
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Elliot Davis
EDITOR: Nancy Richardson
Academy Award nominee

DRAMA

Starring: Holly Hunter, Evan Rachel Wood, Nikki Reed, Jeremy Sisto, Brady Corbet, and Deborah Kara Unger

Thirteen is the story of Melanie Freeland (Evan Rachel Wood), a 13 year-old girl living with her single mother, Tracy Louise Freeland (Holly Hunter), and her brother, Mason (Brady Corbet). Melanie is an A-student but the pressures of being an L.A. teen surround her and eventually break her down via promiscuous bad girl Evie Zamora (Nikki Reed). Before long Melanie is into sex and drugs, and she becomes so materialistic that she begins to steal people’s purses and such for money. Things rapidly go from bad to worse when Evie invites herself to live with the Freelands, and Melanie falls headlong into reckless teenage abandon and rebellion. When will she hit bottom?

Thirteen is a nice drama about out of control and depressed teens, like Larry Clark’s Kids, but much less graphic and shocking. Still, the film’s portrayal of the hedonistic lives of the youngest teenagers is unsettling. Catherine Hardwicke does a good job keeping her film from being an “ABC After School Special” or some kind of movie of the week melodrama. The script by cast member Nikki Reed (who based the screenplay upon her actual experiences) and Hardwicke focuses more on delineating teenage rebellious atrocities, dangerous youth lifestyles, and other reckless behavior than on plot.

Thus, it’s the performances that really carry this film. Holly Hunter earned an Oscar® nomination for “Best Actress in a Supporting Role” for her performance as the mom Tracy, who does a remarkable job holding things together considering the state of her life. Ms. Hunter does have a habit of wearing her characters’ angst on her sleeve, but here, her Tracy is authentic, and the character centers everyone else’s dysfunctions into a workable system.

Evan Rachel Wood smolders as Melanie, but she clearly isn’t ready to show too much beneath the surface, though she has her gallant moments. It’s the same case with Nikki Reed; her face tells that there is so much more beneath the pouting, the sad eyes, the crassness and the trickery, but she’s not ready to go where the big girl actresses go when they create unforgettable performances.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: “Best Actress in a Supporting Role” (Holly Hunter)

2004 BAFTA Awards: “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role” (Holly Hunter)

2004 Golden Globes: 2 nominations: “Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama” (Evan Rachel Wood) and “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture” (Holly Hunter)

---------------------------------

Review: Strong Performances Carry "21 Grams" (Happy B'day, Alejandro González Iñárritu)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 98 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

21 Grams (2003)
Running time: 124 minutes (2 hours, 4 minutes)
MPAA – R for language, sexuality, some violence and drug use
DIRECTOR: Alejandro González Iñárritu
WRITER: Guillermo Arriaga
PRODUCERS: Alejandro González Iñárritu and Robert Salerno
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Rodrigo Prieto
EDITOR: Stephen Mirrione
COMPOSER: Gustavo Santaolalla
Academy Award nominee

DRAMA

Starring: Sean Penn, Naomi Watts, Benicio Del Toro, Eddie Marsan, Clea DuVall, Danny Huston, Melissa Leo, and Paul Calderon

In the heavy drama, 21 Grams, the lives of a former drug addict, Cristina Peck (Naomi Watts), a terminally ill mathematics professor, Paul Rivers (Sean Penn), and a spiritual ex-convict, Jack Jordan (Benicio Del Toro), intersect tragically and hopefully after a car accident. Jordan kills Cristina’s husband Michael (Danny Hutson) and her two daughters in a hit and run accident. After receiving Michael’s heart in a transplant operation, Rivers seeks and woos Cristina at the cost of his already deteriorating marriage.

The film by rising directorial star Alejandro González Iñárritu and screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga (the duo who collaborated on Academy Award nominee Amores Perros) is wrought with unpleasant circumstances in the lives of the characters. That’s not bad, but too much heartache and tragedy can become tragicomic. Verisimilitude becomes stark reality, and the drama is spoiled by harsh realism. The audience prefers the staged reality of drama to heavily dramatized reality. Iñárritu and Arriaga deliver the pain and suffering with the precision of sledgehammer blows, and it all becomes too much and can disengage the viewer from the characters.

That’s a pity, too, because the cast gives such good performances that make the viewer care about the characters, really get into their lives, and root for them. For this film, Ms. Watts earned an Oscar® nomination for “Best Actress in a Leading Role,” and Del Toro earned a nomination for “Best Actor in a Supporting Role.” Had Sean Penn not earned an Oscar nod for Mystic River in 2003 (which he later won), he certainly would have received a nomination for his work here.

21 Grams is worth a look for people who love to see exceptional acting, especially the kind delivered by the leads, but the supporting players also do some standout work.

6 of 10
B

NOTES:
2004 Academy Awards: 2 nominations: “Best Actor in a Supporting Role” (Benicio Del Toro) and “Best Actress in a Leading Role” (Naomi Watts)

2004 BAFTA Awards: 5 nominations: “Best Editing” (Stephen Mirrione), “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role” (Benicio Del Toro), “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role” (Sean Penn), “Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role” (Naomi Watts), “Best Screenplay – Original” (Guillermo Arriaga)

-----------------------------

Review: "Gothika" is Creepy and Crazy (Happy B'day, Halle Berry)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 168 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

Gothika (2003)
Running time: 98 minutes (1 hour, 38 minutes)
MPAA – R for violence, brief language and nudity
DIRECTOR: Mathieu Kassovitz
WRITER: Sebastian Gutierrez
PRODUCERS: Susan Levin, L. Levin, Joel Silver, and Robert Zemeckis
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Matthew Libatique (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Yannick Kergoat
COMPOSER: John Ottman
HORROR/THRILLER

Starring: Halle Berry, Robert Downey, Jr., Charles S. Dutton, John Carroll Lynch, Bernard Hill, Penélope Cruz, Bronwen Mantel, and Kathleen Mackey

Gothika is a 2003 supernatural thriller and movie vehicle for Halle Berry. It is a ghost story about a female psychiatrist who awakens to fins herself a patient in the very asylum where she works.

Miranda Grey (Halle Berry) is psychiatrist who deals with really crazy people everyday at a prison for the criminally insane. A respected colleague, Dr. Douglas Grey (Charles Dutton), is her husband. One night she leaves work during a driving rainstorm. After taking a detour, a girl suddenly appears on the road ahead of her and forces Miranda to drive her vehicle off the road. When she goes to the girl who obviously seems to be in some kind of distress, something really strange happens. When Miranda awakens, she finds herself locked in the same institution where she worked, and she’s been accused of committing a horribly gruesome crime of which she has no memory.

Quite a few critics have given it bad reviews. One even called it trash – glorious trash, but Gothika is a very entertaining movie. Like a lot of films, it’s really absent of new ideas, and it seems to borrow heavily from What Lies Beneath and The Ring (2002). It is, however, an effective and entertaining horror film and a nicely made thriller. It has some genuinely creepy moments, and at the theatre where I saw it, one girl immediately screamed after a nice “bump in the night” moment.

French director Mathieu Kassovitz is a hot property, and he has the makings of good director, although I don’t see much that would make him stand out from a whole pack of qualified professionals. There are moments in the film, when Kassovitz makes Gothika a bit too mannered and cold. With an asylum for the criminally insane as a setting and a shocking murder upon which the plot turns, Kassovitz needed to make his film get down and dirty. Instead, Gothika is overdressed and over designed, and the cinematography is too slick and glossy.

But you know what? I love watching Halle Berry, and she gets better practically with each film she does. She sells us this film, even when her costar Ms. Cruz seems to be hanging around only to lend her tabloid star presence and her accent. Like the great actresses and stars, Ms. Berry takes us inside the character with her, forcing us to share the extreme terror that comes from loosing one’s memory, place in society, and, most fearsome of all, loosing one’s mind. We can believe that there is a horrible crime hanging over her head, and that she doesn’t remember it and doesn’t want to because it means admitting and learning horrific things. Have fun, and go see this movie.

6 of 10
B

NOTES:
2004 Black Reel Awards: 1 nomination: “Film: Best Actress” (Halle Berry)

2004 Image Awards: 2 nominations: “Outstanding Actress in a Motion Picture” (Halle Berry) and “Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture” (Charles S. Dutton)

----------------------------

"Final Destination 2" Travels to Grand Guignol

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 13 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Final Destination 2 (2003)
Running time: 90 minutes (1 hour, 30 minutes)
MPAA – R for strong violent/gruesome accidents, language, drug content and some nudity
DIRECTOR: David R. Ellis
WRITERS: J. Mackye Gruber and Eric Bress; from a story by Jeffrey Reddick, J. Mackye Gruber, and Eric Bress (based on characters created by Jeffrey Reddick)
PRODUCERS: Craig Perry and Warren Zide
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Gary Capo (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Eric Sears
COMPOSER: Shirley Walker

HORROR/ACTION/THRILLER

Starring: Kimberly Corman, Ali Larter, Michael Landes, David Paetkau, James Kirk, Lynda Boyd, Keegan Connor Tracy, Terrence T.C. Carson, Justina Machado, and Tony Todd

When we left the movie Final Destination a few years ago, seven people had miraculously been thrown off a plane that would explode within minutes of takeoff – the Explosion of Flight 180. Unfortunately, those passengers were meant to die on that plane, so Death stalked them and knocked them off one by one in a series of bizarre accidents. By the end of the film, only two of the miracle seven survived.

Final Destination 2 and enter another set of fresh face teens leaving for fun in the sun when one of them has a premonition of a fantastic and horrific traffic accident that takes many lives – the Pile-up on Route 23. Kimberly Corman (A.J. Cook) manages to save some of those lives, but she, like her male predecessor from the first film, has fooled with Death’s intricate design, and he comes stumping for her and the rest of the supposed-to-be-dead crew.

Final Destination 2 is simply a fabulously entertaining film. At once trashy and cheesy, it is also very well composed and a sheer joy to watch. During the first ten minutes or so, I had mixed feeling. The film didn’t seem like it would amount to much; then, it just exploded with unbridled mayhem and becomes this delirious display of gruesome accidents. In fact, the sequel is far bloodier and gorier than the original, but it has a peculiar sense of humor like that of a leering ax-wielding murderer. The filmmakers don’t seem to take the film seriously, but they were certainly quite serious in the making of it.

Director David R. Ellis was a long time stunt coordinator and second unit director, so that meant he handled many action sequences, and it shows here. The movie’s opening car wreck easily rivals the execution and has the thrill of the famous train wreck in The Fugitive. I don’t know if Ellis is a diamond in the rough that no one in Hollywood noticed before the last few years, but he has the touch of top director. He builds a level of suspense and a sense of dread that’s nonstop, and he can surprise you when you didn’t think there was anything left in the film to discover.

For those who like or liked Scream, Final Destination 2 is in that vein, but more tongue in cheek, more gruesome, and more darkly comic. Its inspired wackiness makes for a film that is as good or better than the original. Horror movie sequels almost never surpass or even match their originals, in box office or quality; I don’t know about the former, but 2 soars in quality. In fact, it stands alone quite well; the sign of well thought out filmmaking. Think of the gore of 80’s slasher films, the non-stop mayhem of most action movies, and the cynicism of late 90’s horror and suspense thrillers and you have Final Destination 2.

7 of 10
B+