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.

Why Trading Chauncey Billups Was the RIGHT Move

I've seen a lot of confusion and anger regarding the Pistons trading Chauncey Billups today. Being the resident NBA/Pistons expert that I am, allow me to explain to everyone why this was not a good deal, but a great one. The people who are primarily upset with this trade must not have been paying very close attention to the Pistons the past few years. They must think we're trading the Chauncey Billups of 2004. 2004 Chauncey had passion and heart. He was Mr. Big Shot. He played hard every night and was the floor general for one of the most surprising teams in NBA history. He rightfully earned his NBA Finals MVP.

That's not the Chauncey Billups we traded today. Sometime around 2006, Chauncey Billups, and all the Pistons for that matter, got it in their head that they DESERVED respect and it was owed to them. As the leader of this arrogant team, early playoff exits were OK with Chauncey Billups. When they lost to inferior teams, he shrugged it off. "We'll be fine. We've been here before." These are the not words of a player who belongs on my team. If the Lakers lost to an inferior team, do you think Kobe Bryant would have such a relaxed response?

Chauncey's on-court performance fell off as well. All of a sudden, he was doing things that he normally didn't do: He forced bad shots, he turned the ball over more, he missed free throws in clutch moments. When was the last time Mr. Big Shot actually hit a big shot? I began to suspect, and still believe, that Chauncey was point shaving and/or throwing games. Then, to top it all off, after each enormous fuck up, Chauncey would just flash that "I don't give a shit, I'm still the man" smile that SICKENS me. Early playoff exit after early playoff exit, Chauncey would continue to blow it off. I don't know any athlete who accepts failure as well as he does. I don't play in professional sports (obviously) and I take losing much worse than this guy does.

The Pistons have had 7 consecutive 50-win seasons. They've made it to the Eastern Conference Finals 6 years in a row. They only have one championship to show for it. When it's all said and done, the Pistons could be remembered as one of the most colossal underachievers in NBA history, and that's OK with Chauncey Billups. It's not OK with me, and it shouldn't be OK with any of you.

So what do we get in Allen Iverson? Where do I start? First off, the major knocks against Allen Iverson are that he's old, banged up, small, and a ball hog. Allen Iverson is, in fact, only 7 months older than Chauncey Billups. So let's throw that argument out of the window. As for being banged up and small, both of those assertions are true. However, Allen Iverson has been banged up and small for his entire career. This has not stopped him from being one of the greatest scorers in NBA history. A.I. is tied for 5th all-time in career scoring average behind Jordan, Wilt, Elgin Baylor, and Shaq. He's tied with Jerry West. For his career, A.I. is averaging 27 ppg. A.I. has never averaged less than 22 ppg in any season of his career. I think that's pretty impressive for a small and banged up guy. Finally, as for A.I. being a ball hog, yes, that used to be true. In high school, that was my primary knock against him. However, I graduated high school 9 years ago. He's a different player now. Iverson actually has a higher career assist per game average than Billups (6.3 to 5.8 I believe). Last season, Billups averaged 6.8 assists per game. Iverson averaged 7.1. For a ball hog, that's not half bad.

Finally, Iverson brings some things to this team that they sorely need. He brings flat-out scoring. He's a player we can go to in the clutch who can just take over. He's a go-to guy. We haven't had that since Grant Hill left. However, the most important thing that Allen Iverson brings to the Pistons is heart and passion, two qualities that have been absent in this team for many years. Allen Iverson has never been afraid to send his small and banged up body into the paint over and over and over, several times a game, every game of the season, for every season of his career. The man is fearless, and will put his body on the line to win. He's never had a supporting cast around him like he will have now. Try to imagine what the man will be capable of when he doesn't have to be "the man."

Chauncey's time is over. He had a period here that will never be forgotten, and he was the 2nd most important piece of one of the greatest teams this city has ever seen. It's been a great ride, but we're not trading the Chauncey Billups of 2004. We're trading a man who no longer cares whether or not the Pistons win. He assumes that they will win, whether they play hard or not, simply because he's in uniform. It takes more to win a championship than suiting up a great starting five, you have to PLAY like you're great. Chauncey Billups has no desire to win anymore, and Allen Iverson, in addition to being a better player than Chauncey could even imagine himself being, has never won and has a burning hot desire to win. Welcome to Detroit, A.I. We welcome you with open arms.