Movie Review: The Wrestler

Darren Aronofsky's 'The Wrestler' is short on flash and flair. There are no fancy camera tricks and no mind blowing plot twists. The story plays out chronologically, and there are very few action sequences and no special effects. 'The Wrestler' is nothing more than simple and direct story telling at its very finest.

'The Wrestler' stars Mickey Rourke as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson, a professional wrestler who probably should have retired about a decade ago. He's well past his prime and, despite being in great shape, is riddled with injuries. Randy lives in a trailer, and can barely afford his rent. Aside from a daughter he barely knows, he has no family. He's so lonely that his best friend is a stripper named Cassidy, played by Marisa Tomei. When your best friend is a stripper, how are you supposed to be sure that you even have a friend in the first place? The pay for over-the-hill wrestlers must not be too good either, because Randy has a second job (or is wrestling his second job?) at a deli.

The only place Randy gets any respect is in the ring. His fellow wrestlers are honored to work with him. They relish the opportunity to lose to him in the ring. His fans adore him, and boo his opponents mercilessly. They roar with anticipation as he climbs the ropes to perform his signature move.

Outside of the ring, Randy's life is not so glamorous. He gets no respect at his job at the deli, being forced to wear a name tag sporting his real name, Robin. His daughter, who he knows nothing about, loathes him. He attempts to reconciliate, only to fail yet again. Unfortunately, he does not have the success rate in real life that he has in the ring. Randy's also confused about his relationship with Cassidy. He thinks there's something between him, but Cassidy is quick to draw the line between herself and her 'customers.' Despite severe health problems and with no one to turn to, Randy returns to the ring, the only place where he is respected and wanted.

The power of 'The Wrestler' is in its simplicity and realism. Aronofsky puts us right into the middle of Randy's life, both figuratively and literally. The camera regularly follows around the film's protagonist, making us feel as if we're chasing Randy throughout the film. Most of the scenes are shot in medium to close range, and the wrestling matches are very intense. The camera gets right in there for every bit of the action, and we can almost feel every blow. When most people talk about wrestling, they refer to it as 'fake.' It's no secret that wrestling is staged, but Aronofsky makes it a point to show that nothing is fake about bodies hitting the concrete...or in some cases, barbed wire and thumb tacks. He then takes us backstage, and shows us how real wrestling actually is. There's nothing fake about sewing up open wounds and removing thumb tacks and staples. There's nothing fake about taking drugs, constantly working out, altering your appearance, and putting your body on the line, only to barely be able to afford rent. It's all very real to Randy, much more so than his life outside of the ring.

Mickey Rourke is astounding as Randy, and will probably earn himself an Oscar nomination. Rourke shows Randy as a man with a lot of pride on the outside, but a lot of pain and loneliness on the inside. Randy suffers from something a lot of us can relate to: feeling of inadequacy. He feels inadequate as a father, worker, and in his love life. We can see the pain in Randy's tear-filled eyes as he begs his daughter not to hate him. Randy's a simple man; all he wants is to be significant outside of wrestling. We feel for him when we realize, and he realizes, that he can never be a good father. Then, we understand, as he does it, that he must accept his fate. Acceptance of your place in life is another theme that we can all relate to, and Randy accepts his place and bows out gracefully. Most importantly though, he finishes on top, and we're happy for him.

Movie Review: Seven Pounds

Do truly good people really exist? What causes a person to do a selfless act? Is any act truly selfless? Don't we all get something from every good thing that we do? Even if it's only the satisfaction of helping another human being, if we enjoy that feeling, are we truly being selfless? There are two reasons people do nice things, one reason is good, and the other is bad. The first reason is because they enjoy helping others. They like to make other people smile, and it makes them feel good when they make someone else feel good. They do it simply because they want to. The other reason is because they hope they will get something in return; or, they are afraid of what will happen to them if they aren't nice. They don't do the nice act for someone else, they do it for themselves. The truly good people do kind acts for the first reason; the pseudo good people do it for the second. So again, do truly good people really exist?

Will Smith's latest movie, "Seven Pounds," shows us that it is indeed possible for good people to exist. "Seven Pounds" isn't so much about Smith's character, Ben Thomas, being a good person; it's about his quest to find good people. Ben, an IRS agent who has probably spent most of his life doing bad things, is trying to do something good. He has something at his disposal that, as we hear in the trailer, can "drastically change someone's circumstances." So, Ben is on a quest to find seven people deserving of this gift.

Director Gabriele Muccino, who also directed Smith in "Pursuit of Happyness," masterfully takes what sounds like a simple and, frankly, uninteresting premise, and does a fabulous job of generating and maintaining interest from the opening credits. Muccino does this by constantly raising questions, and then revealing the answers at precise moments throughout the film. Not one answer need, or should, be given any earlier or later than it is. Why does Ben behave the way he does? Ben seems like a great guy one minute, but then is inexplicably cruel to a blind man over the telephone the next. Who are these people Ben has chosen to help? Why has he chosen them? Why is he helping them? Why seven people? We know Ben is going to help these people, but how? What is his gift? Muccino expertly answers these questions sporadically throughout the film, just in time to maintain your interest and then create more.

As has come to be the norm for Will Smith, his performance is marvelous. We can tell that Ben has something inside him, compelling him to do good things. We don't know what it is, but we can see that he struggles with it. Throughout the entire film, Ben tries to retain his composure. We don't know why he's so sad, or so determined, but we can feel his pain and his struggle. Ben's quest only becomes more complicated when he falls in love with one of the women he's attempting to help. He wants to tell her the truth, and we can see that as bad as he wants to, he knows that he can't.

Smith's career has been filled with great performances that did not get the credit they deserve, and this year will probably be no different. It seems as if every time Smith gives a great performance, someone else gives the performance of their career. Is Smith going to get an Oscar nomination? The answer to that question is not clear. There have been many great performances this year. However, there is one question that needs to be answered sooner than later. When will Will Smith get the Oscar nomination, and win, that he deserves?

"Seven Pounds" is a film that makes no secret of its intention to tug at your heart strings. It will undoubtedly touch many people, and it should. It is rare in today's world to see people being good, just because they want to. One man asks Ben why he was chosen. What did he do that made him so deserving of Ben's help? Ben tells him, "You're a good man…even when you don't know people are watching you." If only we all were…

Movie Review: Towelhead

Speaking from personal experience, becoming a parent is a difficult time. There is much to learn, and no time to learn it. We learn on the fly. Once we grow up, there is little thought given to the difficulties of being a child. To say that "Towelhead" gives adults an idea of what it's like to be a child would be a drastic understatement. "Towelhead" gives us an in depth look into the life of Jasira, a 13-year old Lebanese girl, born in America. Jasira, like any other 13-year old, is just beginning to understand herself, her body, and her sexuality. At the same time, she has to deal with other external factors that make her life exceedingly difficult.

Jasira's mother has just shipped her off to live with her dad. She found out that Jasira had allowed her step dad to shave her, and blamed Jasira. She felt Jasira needed to live with a man in order to know how to act around one. Jasira's father is an extremely strict Lebanese man who is very traditional. He slaps Jasira for coming to breakfast in a t-shirt with no bra and boy shorts. He talks to her rudely, seems to have little to no care for her well being, and generally just treats her horrendously. At school, Jasira is constantly being made fun of for being foreign - she's called every dirty racial slur in the book - despite the fact she is American. When she finally finds a boy who likes her, her dad forbids her to see him because he's black. As most racist parents say, he's only doing this for her. He didn't create the world's rules. At the same time, her father hates their next door neighbor Travis, played by Aaron Eckhart, because Travis thinks he likes Saddam Hussein. He'd really hate Travis if he knew that Travis had an eye for his daughter.

Jasira's life is so complex, much too complex for a 13-year old. One can only hope that the average teenager doesn't have it this difficult, although if they do, it would go a long way into explaining all the teenager suicides and murders. Jasira is taught to respect adult men, but where she should she draw the line? Is it OK to allow Travis to touch her? Or does she know it's wrong, but her teenage hormones want to allow it?

Jasira needs help, but doesn't seem to realize how harsh and unfair her life is. Even if she did, she can't turn to her self-absorbed father. His trivial problems are much more important to him than her well-being; "just do this and you will be fine" pretty much sums up the extent of his fatherly advice. Jasira has one neighbor, Melina, played wonderfully by Toni Collette, who appears to be the only person concerned for Jasira. Unfortunately, Jasira grows to resent her because of her suspicions about the inappropriateness of Jasira's relationship with Travis. All of this may seem to be a lot to take it, but that is the life of the confused American teenager.

The performances in this film are all very well done. You hate Jasira's father, played by Peter Macdissi. Macdissi plays the father as a traditional Lebanese man, but only when being traditional benefits him. He has no semblance of an accent, sounding almost completely white, and carries all kinds of American beliefs. He's so disrespectful to Jasira, and we feel for her because we know what she's going through. Then we feel worse because we know that not only does her father not know, but he seems to have no interest in knowing.

Toni Collette is splendid as Melina, the only person looking out for Jasira. She's sees Jasira fraternizing with Travis, and wants to nip the relationship in the bud before it becomes inappropriate. You can see all the worry and concern in Melina's face as she chases Jasira from Travis' house.

Aaron Eckhart is yet again first-rate in his "other" role this year. Travis is someone who seems completely normal, like a pretty cool guy, until he's sneaking Jasira off to restaurants far away from their town in order to cut down the chances of anyone they know seeing them. Jasira, the naïve child that she is, calls herself Travis' girlfriend, "You touched me down there. I'm your girlfriend." Travis gives a shy smile and chuckles, and it sends a shiver down our spine. Eugene Jones III is also pretty good as Thomas, the black boy Jasira isn't allowed to see. He really seems to care for her, but of course has his own teenage boy agenda.

"Towelhead" is a very good film, and it gives its audience an idea of what it's like to be a teenage girl. However, it gives us very little new information nor does it explore any new territory. It's not like it's a surprise to find out that pretty 13-year old girls have boys their age, as well as grown men, trying to have sex with them. The fact that Jasira is Lebanese adds a different angle to the film, but again, racism is not exactly a new concept in film either. It's difficult to find any reason to recommend this film over any other film like it, for instance, "Thirteen." Director Alan Bell takes his material and does a great deal with it, making a very respectable film. Films about teenage angst are not in short order, so if you decide to make one, it should really find a way to stand out from the others. "Towelhead" seems to come off as a film that wants to be new and different, but doesn't want to put in the effort. The film may have benefitted from focusing on one or two teenage issues, and really building on those, rather than lumping them all into one 2 hour film.

Movie Review: Appaloosa

Last year's "3:10 to Yuma" did more than its part in helping to rejuvenate the western genre in Hollywood. Ed Harris hopes to continue the resurgence of the western with his latest film, "Appaloosa." Harris directs and stars in "Appaloosa," a film about two vigilantes who travel from town to town, restoring order by any means necessary. They are hired by the sheriff of Appaloosa after Randall Bragg, played by Jeremy Irons, kills their current City Marshal and his two deputies. Bragg and his cohorts take over the town, doing as they please with no respect for the law. After all, why obey the law when the lawmakers are terrified of you?

So the town calls on Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch, played by Harris and Viggo Mortenson. Cole and Hitch agree to help them take back over the town, as well as subdue Bragg and his men. They two men come at a hefty, though. The sheriff must sign the town over to Cole; basically making whatever Cole says is the law, the law. Cole and Hitch then go about cleaning up the town, starting with two of Bragg's men, who seem to find it necessary to urinate on the floor of the bar. Once Bragg sees that he and his men can no longer do as they please, he has a meeting with Cole and Everett.



Cole: There's a set of bi-laws posted right outside the door here of this very saloon. Your boys do like they say, and everything will be muy bueno.

Bragg: And if they don't?

Cole: I arrest them.

Bragg: And if they don't go along?

Cole: Then I shoot them…or Mr. Hitch shoots them. That's the law.

Bragg: Your law.

Cole: Same thing.



A rather simple arrangement is complicated by the arrival of Allison French, played by Renee Zellweger. Allison immediately falls for Cole, and their relationship appears to cloud Cole's judgment. Cole must now juggle his questionable relationship with Allison, while trying to stay focused on arresting, or killing, Bragg and his men.

The main thing that keeps this film afloat is the fantastic performances by Harris and Mortenson. Their chemistry is great, and both men fully get into the roles, appearing as if they've been working together (in the movie, and in movies) for many years. Cole has many moments in which he can't seem to find the right word; and Hitch is right there to help him out in that "we finish each other's sentences" sort of way.

This film has all the makings of a spectacular western, but suffers from a few fatal flaws that make it difficult to fully recommend. For starters, the plot is extremely thin and the story suffers from a lack of depth. It's a very basic film, and you keep feeling as if it's about to incorporate some new and creative aspect or twist, but it just never seems to get there. After it's over, it leaves you with a "That's it?" sort of feeling.

The film also suffers from a lack of background information. It opens with Bragg killing Appaloosa's City Marshal, and then all of a sudden, the entire town is terrified of him. Was the City Marshall the only tough guy in town? Why was Bragg so intimidating that the sheriff was willing to sign the town over to Cole at the drop of a hat? Bragg may have come off as a more frightening character had we seen more than one instance of him displaying his wrath. Also, Allison appears out of nowhere. Her presence appears to be nothing more than a tool to help move along the plot. Allison and Cole immediately being seeing each other, without even as much as a brief wooing phase. Zellweger's performance and presence lend very little to the film. Finally, Jeremy Irons performance, while good, seemed to come directly out of the Daniel Day-Lewis playbook. Bragg seemed to be nothing more than a carbon copy of Day-Lewis' character Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood," minus the genuine creepiness.

"Appaloosa" is a good film, definitely worth renting. However, if this is the direction Hollywood plans on taking the western, it may be a long time before we get another "Unforgiven."

Movie Review: The Day the Earth Stood Still

Every year, Hollywood releases a generic group of films that are aimed at a certain audience. Usually in January in February, you get your generic dance film. The next month or two, you get your "athlete overcomes tremendous adversity" film. The athlete's obstacle can either be one of personal tragedy, racism, or overcoming incredible odds. Then, usually in the late spring or early summer, you got your alien invasion or apocalyptic film. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is this year's combination of your incredibly generic alien invasion film AND apocalyptic film.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" stars Keanu Reeves as Neo - I mean, Klaatu - an alien sent here to save Earth. The same empty and expressionless "style of acting" that Reeves has used so many times before is yet again his "go to move" in this film. He arrives in some sort of giant alien snow globe, accompanied by something that can only be describes as equal parts Iron Giant, Iron Man, and Cyclops from "X-Men." As usual, Reeves gives very little, if any, information on why he has arrived on Earth. After all, his face says more than enough, right? Jennifer Connelly co-stars as Dr. Helen Benson, someone the government inexplicably finds qualified to figure out why Klaatu is here.

Klaatu, against all common sense and logic, is taken to a secret government facility for interrogation. Here, he meets with the Secretary of Defense, Regina Jackson, played by Kathy Bates. Once Jackson realizes her primary method of bullying and intimidation doesn't seem to work on aliens, she moves on to the next logical step: drugging him and hooking him up to a lie detector machine. Brilliant. After Klaatu escapes, he somehow gets detained at a train or bus station, picked up by Dr. Benson, and meets with another alien to discuss the future of the Earth at McDonald's. You can't make this stuff up.

Clearly, this film's story is not worth discussing. It's a bad film, plain and simple. Any cliché character or story point is utilized, poorly, in this film. Kathy Bates plays your customary generic authority figure on a power trip who refuses to listen to logic and stubbornly sticks to own agenda, despite all evidence she should do otherwise. Will Smith's son, Jaden, plays the typical rebellious and disobedient kid who resents everything and everyone because his father has passed. He thinks he knows everything, and risks everyone's lives because he's stubborn.

The film is predictable, and the people make stupid and illogical decisions. Seriously, what purpose was there behind shooting Klaatu as soon as he emerged from his snow globe? Who would do that? He hasn't even posed a threat, unless "walking" can be perceived as threatening. Just like every generic disaster movie, all the characters are complete idiots who are incapable of seeing or doing the obvious, and continually put themselves at risk for no discernable reason. Finally, this film reeks of blatant product placement. Microsoft, LG, McDonald's, some watch company ... they're all present in this film, and you will NOT miss them. So in addition to watching a bad film, when it takes breaks from sucking, you have to watch commercials too?!?!?

Don't go see this movie. You'd be better served watching your paint dry or, God forbid, watching a Jack Black movie. This film has absolutely no redeeming qualities. The makers of this film thought so little of us, the audience, they didn't even compensate for the film's countless flaws by throwing in a nude scene or two. Don't support these selfish filmmakers by giving them your $10. Your world will stand still for an hour and a half if you see this film.

Movie Review: Gran Torino

"Gran Torino" is the second film to be released this year, in only a few months, that is directed by Clint Eastwood. Now in his 70's, Eastwood has almost made more of a name for himself as a director than he has as an actor. He will only add to his legacy with his latest film, "Gran Torino."

Eastwood stars in "Gran Torino" as Walt Kowalski, a Korean War vet who still harbors ill feelings toward, well, everybody. Kowalski snarls and growls at everything and everyone who is young, different, or not white. He's a racist old man who, having done despicable things in the war, loathes all people, particularly Asians. They're all Korean to him. After the passing of his wife, Kowalski returns to his home in Detroit, only to find a Hmong family moving in next door. The grandmother of the family doesn't like him either. She can't help but wonder why the only remaining American in the neighborhood refuses to move. Kowalski mutters a seemingly endless variety of racial slurs under his breath as the two scowl at one another from their porches.

The teenage children in the family, Sue and Thao, are complete opposites. The family wants Sue to find a man because they feel that Thao will never be masculine enough to be "man of the house." Thao is quiet and keeps to himself while he washes dishes, does the gardening, and obeys his sister's every order. When a local gang decides they want to recruit Thao, he decides that this would be the best way for him to prove his manhood. In one of the best scenes of the year, and one that will undoubtedly go down in history as the "get off my lawn" scene, the gang attempts to kidnap Thao from his house, and the ensuing fight spills onto Walt's lawn. Walt's response is interpreted as heroic and Thao's family feels they are indebted to him. Thao is ordered to work for Walt in order to repay him, and the two eventually develop an interesting relationship where they both learn a lot about each other's lives and culture.

Eastwood, as usual, is great. Walt's character is a composite of all the bad asses he's played through his entire career. Walt is The Man With No Name. He's Harry Callahan, Josey Wales, and Bill Munny, all wrapped in one. Walt is a man who doesn't like, know, or care to get to know, his own family. They have nothing in common with him, and his own children don't understand him. Walt seems to have more in common with his dog than he does with his family. He has no respect for his local priest, a man he calls (to his face) "an over-educated 27 year old virgin who likes to hold the hands of old ladies who are superstitious and promise them an eternity." Young people infuriate him. He snarls and growls at every tattoo, piercing, and youthful act of ignorance or rudeness. Yet, for some reason, he realizes he has more in common with the people he hates the most than he does with his own family. Walt develops a relationship with Thao; a caring relationship in which Thao calls Walt "Mr. Kowalski," and Walt regularly refers to him as female genitalia when he can't think of a new racial slur.

Though on paper the film really appears to bring nothing new to the big screen, the script is elevated by Eastwood's performance and direction. The film is very entertaining and interesting, and it's refreshing to see a major Hollywood film starring unfamiliar faces. One also can't help but smile at the fact that Eastwood appears to be leaving the acting game just as he entered: a bad ass who always wins, even when he loses.

Movie Review: Cadillac Records

After the success of "Dreamgirls," it appears that films chronicling the rise and fall of record labels and their artists are going to be the new trend. Despite the fact that the incredibly overrated "Dreamgirls" received all the Oscar buzz, "Cadillac Records," while still not a great piece of work, is the better film. "Cadillac Records" follows Leonard Chess, the creator of "Chess Records." In his quest to take advantage of all that America has to offer, he signs the best blues artists he can find on the streets of Chicago, and due to his ear for talent and a great sound, shoots "Chess Records" and its artists to the top of the charts. The label changes its name to "Cadillac Records" because they're so successful that "if you work there long enough, you'll get one." Chess buys all his artists Cadillac's, and they in turn bring him hit records. As they become more famous, they become more reckless with their lives, ruining their families and their careers.

Despite this film being based on a real label and real people, it is incredibly predictable. The story progresses in standard Hollywood fashion: Man starts label, finds unknown artists, makes them famous, they all have fun at the top, they become corrupt, and they fall from grace. The thing that keeps this film from being ordinary Hollywood drivel is the characters. They are interesting, entertaining, and all very well portrayed. Though they will receive little attention, the majority of the performances were top notch. Columbus Short steals the show as Little Walter, a fiery and passionate harmonica player with a slick mouth and an alcohol problem - not a good combination. Short, of "Stomp the Yard" fame, is nothing short of phenomenal. He does an amazing job of showing Walter's progression from the streets - he carries a gun on him at all times - to fame, his corruption from money and power, and finally, his deterioration because of alcohol and how it all causes him to hit rock bottom as an old man. Jeffrey Wright is also very watchable as Muddy Waters, as is Adrien Brody as Leonard Chess. Beyonce, in a misleadingly small role, is good as well when she is on screen as Etta James.

The film suffers greatly, however, from plot holes and unexplained events that happen in large gaps of time. Chess opens the film on the cusp or marrying one woman, then the next time we see him with a woman, it's a brand new woman and she is apparently his wife. Where did she come from? He's also incredibly faithful to her, despite the fact that she literally appears out of nowhere. We don't even see him meet her. Then, after Beyonce's character, Etta James, is finally introduced, despite her and Chess having literally no interaction, all of a sudden they're in love! She's crying as she sings to him. Didn't you just meet him in the last scene? How are we supposed to believe this love, with no prior evidence of it being built? There are also large gaps in time that, would they have been filled with some back story, the film could have been a little stronger. Chess goes from broke and destitute to buying a club. Where'd he get the money? How'd he end up in Chicago? Who goes from being broke in one scene, to buying a club in the next? If only that sort of instant success happened in real life! The movie makes it seem as if a lot of aspects of Chess' life instantly went from horrible to luxurious.

The filmmakers know that they're working with a film with few, but large, flaws. They attempt to cover this up and get people to come see the movie by passing Beyonce off as the headliner. She's all through the trailer, she's on all the posters, her name is all over the screen in the commercials - but her character isn't even introduced until nearly an hour and a half into the movie. Had the target audience known this, far fewer people would have gone to see the film. This is not to say that the movie is hurt due to a lack of Beyonce, it is just that one can feel very misled after seeing the film, and that makes the flaws more noticeable.

Despite the flaws, though, this film is still entertaining and interesting, thanks to the interesting characters and great performances. It's a shame that if you're not Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, or (for whatever reason) Jennifer Hudson, you don't seem to get much Oscar consideration. He doesn't deserve to win, but Columbus Short was exceptional in this film, and he can't even get his name on the poster or any attention because he briefly had to share the screen with Beyonce; they only have one scene together. The treatment of "divas" in the entertainment business is really becoming quite shameful and loathsome. "Cadillac Records" isn't the best film, but it's worth a couple hours and a couple of bucks if you're looking for a movie to see on a weekend night.

Movie Review: Frost/Nixon

One might find it hard to believe that a film that about an interview, preparing for the interview, talking about the interview, and conducting the interview, could be entertaining. Ron Howard once again proves with "Frost/Nixon" that he is one of the great directors of our time and can literally take any subject and make it captivating. "Frost/Nixon" is little on action, but it's big on subtlety.

Essentially knowing nothing about David Frost and very little about Nixon (his Presidency was over before I was born); I entered the film with a blank palette. As the film opens, we see David Frost portrayed not as a journalist, but as a talk show host...and an average one at that. He's a slick talking Austin Powers-esque man with a charming smile who is never at a loss for words. He was already very well-known overseas and had met with a great deal of success. In the film, he appears to only want to interview the recently-resigned Richard Nixon for publicity purposes. At one point, he's asked by his producer if he has a "plan" for interviewing Nixon, and Frost essentially avoids the question. While understanding the importance of interviewing Nixon, he walks around with a swagger that screams "I'm in over my head!"

Frost was humbled when he came to the American television networks, asking for funding for the interview. He essentially had to pay for the interviews out of his own pocket. Despite having already convinced Nixon to participate in the interviews, American networks would not fund the interviews and advertisers backed out. They saw no reason to pay exorbitant amounts of money for a British talk show host to get eaten alive on national TV by one of the nation's fiercest politicians. After Frost finds the mean to fund the interview, and by "fund the interview" I mean "pay Nixon," he gets to work on preparing for the greatest, and toughest, interview of his career.

The film itself is done magnificently. Howard incorporates some documentary-style interviews into the film that help to give the viewer a closer look into the inner workings of the preparations for the interview, as well as to add some depth. Howard uses the camera magnificently, saying a great deal with very little, if any, actual words. He did, however, have a few moments that crossed the line between poignant shot and belaboring the point.

The performances on both sides were stellar. As I was told by a friend who worked on the film, Frank Langella was in character all the time as Richard Nixon. He had to be called "Mr. President," even when not filming. He was in character so much that, after the film wrapped, crew members were shocked to find Langella was indeed NOT Richard Nixon. The effort shows in his performance. From the voice to the mannerism to the walk, Langella has Nixon down to a tee. An Oscar nomination is certain to come in January. Sheen also does a phenomenal job as David Frost. He plays the character with a relaxed coolness that would be necessary to keep those around you calm in the face of a political figure like Richard Nixon. At the same time, we can see that Frost, too, is concerned, and questions his own ability to succeed with the interviews.

Unfortunately, the film is not without its flaws. While the film itself is still entertaining for anyone who doesn't lose focus without the occasional fight and/or car chase, I couldn't help while watching the film but feel as if Howard was being somewhat liberal with the facts. Upon arriving home and doing the research, my suspicions were found to be correct. In the film, Frost is portrayed as an under qualified joke in the eyes of the American media. He essentially has no plan going into the interviews, and it shows. During the first several sessions, he proves the criticism to be true, as Nixon dominates the interviews and Frost is left looking like a helpless victim. It is only after a phone call from Nixon prior to the final interview session (a scene which is one of the most powerful in the film), that Frost finds the motivation to really do his homework and get serious about the interview. Then, like Michael Jordan, he dominates the fourth quarter and steals the game with a resounding buzzer beating game winner. All of this is a very nice storybook ending, but apparently not how it really happened.

The phone call during which Frost found the motivation for his fourth quarter comeback, apparently never happened. This fact essentially tears down the entire way in which Frost is portrayed in the film. As mentioned earlier, he's portrayed as a screw up who has failed in the interviews up to this point. He then finds the motivation in the phone call, and gets his act together. If the phone call never happened, where did he find the motivation? To take it one step further, if motivation never came, was he ever really failing in the first place? Then that begs the question of whether or not he was ever really an under qualified talk show host in the first place. Was he actually a good journalist the entire time, and this whole concept of an average fellow beating the mighty Richard Nixon just done to add more human interest to the story? Whether or not any of this is the case really isn't even the point. It's the fact that without knowing anything about Frost, I was able to tell just watching the movie that the way in which he was being portrayed may not be accurate.

Upon reading a bio of Frost, it appears that he actually was a respectable journalist. Although he did host several satirical programs early in his career, he also had many legitimate shows to his credit prior to the Nixon interviews. He hosted a heavier interview-based show called "The Frost Programme," and a tribute to JFK following his assassination on "That Was the Week That Was" brought him some American notoriety. He's also the only person to have interviewed all six British Prime Ministers.

Having said that, all of this takes very little, if anything, from the film itself. If you're looking for some action, you might want to see "Quantum of Solace." But if you're looking for an in depth look into the greatest political scandal of all-time, as well as seeing one of the best performances of the year, look no further. "Frost/Nixon" is entirely entertaining and interesting, even if it did have to have a little extra thrown in to make it that way.

Movie Review: Milk

"My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you."

It's a shame Harvey Milk didn't live to realize his potential. At the same time, were he alive today, he'd probably feel as if all of his time and effort had been wasted. "Milk" chronicles the last 8 years of Harvey Milk's life, starting from his move to San Francisco, until the tragic end of his life in 1978. Milk, played by Academy Award winner Sean Penn, was the first openly gay man to be elected to public office. His infectious personality and charming
smile served him well, both in his social life and in his political life. Although in his political life, his smile was not enough to combat his sexuality.

Milk moved to San Francisco in 1970 and opened up a camera store in 1972 with his boyfriend, Scott Smith, played by James Franco. In 1973, he ran for the prestigious position of City Supervisor in San Francisco. 7 supervisors would be elected to the position. Milk's way with words, along with his fiery and passionate speeches and charm, garnered him plenty of votes. However, in what would not be his first defeat, Milk placed 10th, despite winning his region by a gigantic margin. After yet another defeat in 1975, Milk's chances improved for the 1977 election when an ordinance was passed that allowed the city to elect Supervisors by district, rather than city wide. Milk easily won in his district in 1977, becoming the first openly gay man to be elected to public office.

While in office, Milk helped to defeat Proposition 6, a proposal that would make the firing of homosexual teachers mandatory. The biggest supporter of this proposal and a candidate for Governor, John Briggs, held several debates with Harvey Milk in an attempt to help pass the proposal. In one of the most powerful scenes in the film, Briggs asserts during one of the debates that gay men only want to teach so they can "recruit" young boys into their
gay lifestyle. Milk fires back, "If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you'd have a helluva lot more nuns running around."

"Milk" is undoubtedly one of the finest films of the year. There have been few films in recent memory in which all performances, up and down through the entire cast, have been so exceptional. James Franco, in a very new and different role for him, is phenomenal as Milk's lover, Scott Smith. Josh Brolin, though only present for the second half of the film, follows up his astounding performance in "No Country For Old Men" with yet another amazing performance as Dan White, one of Milk's fellow supervisors and chief rival. Emile Hirsch also shines as Cleve Jones, Milk's protégé, and may earn himself a "Best Supporting Actor" Oscar nomination. The spotlight, however, definitely belongs to Sean Penn. Nearly unrecognizable as Harvey Milk, Penn is flawless in his performance. He has clearly studied Harvey Milk intensely, and has all of Harvey's facial tendencies and mannerisms down to a
tee. Milk is a man who is not only passionate about gay rights, but about helping gay people come to terms with themselves and their sexuality. At the same time, Milk struggles with his own sexuality. He's open with his sexuality, and proud of it. Yet, he never told his parents about Scott, and wrestles with the guilt of three of his four previous boyfriends having attempted suicide. Penn does an excellent job of conveying these conflicting ideas, and how much it would affect a person to have to be one way publicly, while hiding demons inside. He is certain to receive an Oscar nomination, and in my eyes, should be the front runner to win.

This film, however, is not for the faint of heart. Director Gus Van Sant is very frank and direct with his portrayal of the homosexual life in 1970's San Francisco. Initially, the film appears to be less a political film about a gay man, and more of a gay film featuring a politician. For the first 45 minutes, the film seemed to toe the line between being accurate in its portrayal of gay life, and merely making gay men look promiscuous. Not all gay men find all
other men to be "cute" or "adorable," nor do they spontaneously make out or have sex with men they just met. We know the characters are gay; we don't need this fact shoved down our throats (no pun intended).

Unfortunately, 30 years following Harvey Milk's death, gays have yet to make much headway (again, no pun intended). Were Milk alive today to see gay marriage outlawed in California, so long after he had begun his crusade for gay rights, he would probably begin to wonder why he should continue. Then again, were Milk alive today, who's to say that gay marriage would not have been legal a long time ago? Harvey Milk didn't become active in politics until he was 40. The fact that Harvey was able to do so much for gay rights in only 8 years is inspiring, and should be a reminder to all of us that it is never too late to make a difference in life.

Movie Review: Changeling

One of the best movies of the year, "Changeling" stars Angelina Jolie as Christine Collins, a mother and supervisor at a telephone company. After agreeing to go in to work on her day off, Christine comes home to find her son, Walter, is nowhere to be found. Horrified, Christine reports her son missing to the corrupt LAPD. In an attempt to finally gain some good press, the LAPD finds another child and presents him to Christine as Walter. Christine knows this is not her son; and over the next several months, she attempts to convince the LAPD to resume searching for her real son. Not wanting to look like frauds, the LAPD fights back, declaring Christine an unfit mother and committing her to an asylum. Christine continues to fight the LAPD, and through the help of a benevolent reverend, clears her name and continues her struggle to find her son.

The thing that sets this movie apart from the majority of the other films released this year is that director Clint Eastwood does an amazing job of telling this true story. This is not merely a film "based on a true story." Eastwood uses actual court transcripts and facts from Christine's case against the LAPD to keep this movie as real as possible, and it works. It's an extremely touching and, at times, horrifying film. As a new father, the film really hit home for yours truly. Clint Eastwood is, simply put, one of the finest director's of all-time. When it's all said and done, he may go down in history for the film's he has directed more than the ones in which he has acted.

The cinematography, sets, and costumes are also exceptional, and they paint an excellent picture of 1920's Los Angeles. Jolie is difficult to recognize in her 1920's clothes, short hair, and signature hat that she wears throughout the film.

Despite being virtually ignored by the critics and the general public, the performances in this film are magnificent all around. Jolie is Oscar-worthy as Christine Collins. Mother of several children herself, Jolie probably reached deep into her own life in order to convey the desperate nature of someone who has lost a child. Her performance is heart wrenching, and one can't help but feel her pain, whether we can relate to or not. John Malkovich is excellent, as always, as the passionate reverend who is determined to expose the LAPD for the corrupt frauds that they are. The standout performance, however, goes to feature-length newcomer Jeffrey Donovan. Despite having few feature-length films under his belt - he's mostly only done TV shows - Donovan stole the show as Capt. Jones, the man primarily responsible for presenting Christine with another child, as well as her subsequent commitment into a mental asylum. You will HATE Capt. Jones. Though he briefly shows moments of regret, he is a loathsome and repugnant person who is only concerned with his reputation, not with finding Christine's son.

Though this film has not received much attention in the media, it will undoubtedly make this critic's best films of the year list. An emotional and entertaining thriller, and very true to the actual events of the case, "Changeling" certainly deserves more respect from the critics, and more viewings by the public. You all owe it to yourselves to see this film.

Movie Review: Slacker Uprising

Michael Moore's latest film was released with little
fanfare, for free, over the internet prior to this year's Presidential
election. Moore released it for free not only because he wanted to reach as
many people as possible, but because he feels it's important that the American
people be GIVEN the facts about what is going in our country, rather than
having to pay for it or be force-fed falsehoods by the mainstream media. He may
also have given it out for free because it's the least interesting of his documentaries,
and it's also extremely outdated.



"Slacker Uprising" follows Moore's nationwide tour of the same name.
The purpose was to get people out to vote, new voters in particular, in hopes
that George W. Bush would not win another term in office. Moore makes stops at
various college campuses, and invites several celebrity guests and musicians to
speak and perform at his rallies.



A large part of what makes this film so...well, boring...is the fact that he
released it four years too late. The documentary was being filmed all the way
up until the 2004 election, which would make it impossible to release before
the election. How about stopping filming a month before the election and
releasing it the weekend prior to the election? Four years after Bush did indeed
win a second term; this film does little to invoke emotion because we already
know what happened. It is also peppered with too many musical performances,
none of which were entertaining. The film feels thrown together, and was
essentially only released so that all the time and money would not be a
complete waste. We can only hope that the film may have reached some people who
were still undecided on whether or not they were going to vote for Obama or
McCain, and were swayed to vote for Obama by this film.



However, the film was not an entire snooze fest. It actually offered up some
very insightful quotes, and had a particularly interesting portion that
documented the presence of Republicans at Moore's rallies. During a press
conference following his previous film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore was
asked by a reporter if his films are propaganda. This is one of the biggest
criticisms of Moore and his films, and his answer could not have been better:



"The propaganda that exists appears every night on the nightly news. Night
after night after night before this war started, "There are weapons of
mass destruction! Saddam had something to do with 9/11!" And there were
all of you (the media), on TV every night, flying our flag all over the screen
as you told these misstatements and these untruths to the American people. How
much were we propagandized by the Bush administration and by our mainstream
media, over and over and over again? What if you'd done your real job? What if
you'd asked the hard questions and demanded evidence about this war? Because
the great thing about the American people is, once they have the truth - that
there were no weapons of mass destruction, that there was no connection to 9/11
- they flipped. 70% were for the war when you didn't do your job, and now when
they are informed, 54% are opposed to the war: the majority. Because they got
the truth. Because they got the information. What took so long? My movie exists to counter the managed, manufactured news, which is essentially a propaganda arm of the Bush administration. My movies are the anti-propaganda. The only
thing sad about that is that people have to pay 8 or 9 dollars, to come to a
movie theater, get a babysitter, to learn things they should be getting for
free, sitting on the couch, eating Tostitos."



Bravo, my good man. Bravo.



Another interesting segment takes place at the University of Florida. There are
many Bush supporters at Moore's rally, included brainwashed children who shout
"Michael Moore sucks!" at the camera. It's nice to see that
Republican parents are wasting no time instilling their own beliefs into their
children, who are too young to even know what Moore, or what their parents for
that matter, are even talking about. The Bush supporters decide to do
interviews for the film, and offer up various "facts," including, but
not limited to, the "fact" that Moore is a communist and all of his
supporters are anti-American. They bash his film, "Fahrenheit 9/11,"
saying that it is full of lies. Then, in typical Republican fashion, they admit
that they have actually not SEEN the film, but they've HEARD ENOUGH to know
that it's full of lies. They wouldn't pay to see a Michael Moore! What an
outrageous thought! Apparently they won't pass up on the opportunity to speak
on it, though. Viggo Mortenson also makes an interesting cameo during which he
points out that, unlike Canada and other nations; we don't get automatically
registered when we turn 18.



This film is free for a reason. It's not a bad film, it just has bad timing.
Maybe if it were released prior to the 2004 election, Bush may not have ever
seen that second term. As it is, we already know what happens, and it's
difficult to have interest in rallies for a goal that ultimately was not
accomplished. There are also too many musical numbers and the film drags on
much longer than is necessary. Seeing as how it was released four years late,
there is much that could have been trimmed from it. The best portions of the
film have already been outlined in this review, so unless you insist upon
seeing them for yourself, don't bother downloading this movie. However, it is
free, so it couldn't hurt.

Movie Review: Burn After Reading

"Burn After Reading" is the Coen Brothers follow-up to the best film of 2007, and one of the best films in many years, "No Country For Old Men." "Burn After Reading" has an all-star cast comprised of Brad Pitt, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, George Clooney, and John Malkovich. The film follows two personal trainers, Chad and Linda, played by Pitt and McDormand respectively, who stumble upon a disk belonging to a former CIA agent that holds what they deem to be "sensitive information." In order for Linda to pay for her cosmetic surgery, they attempt the blackmail the agent, Osbourne Cox, played by Malkovich.

The plot has many twists and turns, and all the characters seemed to be involved with each other in one way or another; and they all have their separate stories and issues. Linda wants cosmetic surgery because she's very self conscious and wants to find a man. She frequents social dating sites and has sex with the men she meets, presumably in order to feel that she has some worth in the eyes of men. Osbourne Cox, in addition to having lost his disk, has quit his job at the CIA and is being divorced by his wife, played by Swinton. Harry Pfarrer, played by Clooney, is a womanizer who just so happens to be married (one must wonder how much of a stretch this role was for him). He's also being followed, but does not know by whom, or for what reason. Chad, played by Pitt, well...he's just there.

All of these characters stories are intertwined and the plot weaves, fairly seamlessly, between all their stories. It even manages to poke fun at itself and how silly its characters and situations truly are. It's very well written, and has some fairly snappy dialogue. However, when it comes to comedies, the main factor in deciding whether or not to issue a positive or negative review is quite simple: Is the movie funny? In the case of "Burn After Reading," it mostly is not. There are a few chuckles here and there, and one should still be able to "get it" even when the joke does not make them laugh. However, this movie simply is not funny enough to be recommended. As a comedy, it is average at best; and that is the only factor worth considering when deciding whether or not to go and see, or rent, a comedy. The film does have excellent dialogue, and it is interesting to see how the convoluted plot plays out. But if you want laughs, you may want to look in another direction.

Movie Review: Ghost Town

Bertram Pincus is my hero!

Ricky Gervais stars as Bertram Pincus in "Ghost Town," a comedic version of "The Sixth Sense." Pincus is a dentist who basically hates people. He intentionally closes the elevator doors as people approach; he shows blatant disregard for people's feelings; and he enjoys his job as a dentist because it allows him to put things into people's mouths in order to stop from them talking. We get the impression that Pincus, despite having moved to Manhattan, would prefer that he were the only person on Earth.

During a routine colonoscopy, Pincus dies for 7 minutes. Unaware of this fact, he leaves the hospital and finds that he now has the ability (or curse, as he would have it) of being able to see and speak with dead people. One of the dead, Frank Herlihy, played by Greg Kinnear, approaches Pincus in hopes that Pincus can help him stop his wife from marrying her new boyfriend.

The two main leads, Kinnear and Gervais, are exceptional in their respective roles. Kinnear, one of the more underrated actors in the business, continues to impress me with his comedic roles. "Stuck On You," "Little Miss Sunshine," and "Ghost Town," were all hilarious films, largely due to his presence; and "Baby Mama," which wasn't funny overall, was good whenever he was on screen. Gervais, although not having starred in many films, has a very successful career writing comedy. He's written many episodes of "The Office," as well as an episode of "The Simpsons.

Gervais and Kinnear work wonderfully together and have very good onscreen chemistry. The dialogue in this film is simply wonderful, and writers David Koepp and John Kamps should be commended. Gervais and Kinnear are given great material to work with, and they flawlessly deliver witty line after witty line. This film is recommended based on comedy alone, it's hilarious. However, what really sets this film apart from other funny comedies is that it managed to integrate some heart into the story, without coming off as overly corny or forced. A lot of comedies feel that they can't just be straight jokes throughout the entire film, so they integrate some sort of "lesson" for the character to learn, or a romance, or a forced heartfelt moment that simply doesn't FEEL right. "Ghost Town," does an excellent job of setting up these emotional scenes, so when they happen, you actually feel what the characters are feeling. Then they even manage to integrate some comedy into the serious scenes, rather than simply just going serious over the final portion of the film. While not on par with 2008's reigning comedy champion, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," "Ghost Town" still holds its own and should definitely be rented or purchased on Dec 27th.