Reviews
Grizzly Man (2005)
A rare look into the life of a very unique man
Sometimes a film is released that is so realistic that you have to constantly remind yourself that it is just a motion picture. "Grizzly Man" is the exact opposite of that. It is a documentary, but in the world we live in, it is difficult to believe that there existed a man like Timothy Treadwell. Treadwell was a grizzly bear activist who took his passion for bears to a level like no one else. For 2-4 months at a time, Treadwell would camp in Alaska and live amongst the bears completely unarmed, watching them and interacting with them, somehow co-existing with some of the most dangerous animals in the world. In October of 2003 Treadwell and his girlfriend Amie were killed and eaten by a bear. Director Werner Herzog used Treadwell's personal footage as well as interviews with his friends and family to make the documentary.
Treadwell claims over and over throughout the film that he is the "only one protecting these bears", and he criticizes wildlife officials for not doing their job. However, it is never made clear how Treadwell is actually protecting the bears, or that they even need protecting, as they are in the middle of a wildlife preserve, and we never actually see any use that the bears have for Treadwell. It is clear though that Treadwell finds true joy in what he does, and believes very strongly in it. Often, he is very critical of civilization, and seems more content roaming through the woods with a fox he has befriended than he would with a human being.
The great thing about Herzog's presentation of Treadwell is that he does not craft the film in a way that we are told what to think about him. Throughout the film, we are presented a number of viewpoints on Treadwell, from great admiration to "he got what he deserved", and even Herzog offers his own personal thoughts at times. From what I have seen, everyone comes out of this film with their own views on Treadwell, and I have read some heated discussions online regarding the true merits of Treadwell's work.
As for myself, I am not really sure what to think of Treadwell. I strongly suspect that his adventures in the wilderness did nothing for the grizzly bears, but I still cannot help but admire him. It is rare to see someone spending their life doing what they love, and Treadwell made it explicitly clear that he was willing to die with the bears. With Herzog cutting the film, we get perhaps a very different perspective than if Treadwell were editing his own documentary. Herzog leaves uncut pieces of footage in; sometimes we see Treadwell do multiple takes of a "scene", and it is as if we are looking into his secret diary at times as he speaks to the camera. While on the surface it is a documentary about a man and grizzly bears, the film is really somewhat of a character study. We see Treadwell's emotional highs, such as the joy he displays when interacting with the bears, and the lows, such as when he suddenly goes into a complete fit of rage directed at the national park service.
"Grizzly Man" is a very unique film about a very unique individual, and I applaud Werner Herzog's ability to present the film without bias, as this film could very easily have been a piece hailing Timothy Treadwell as an American hero, or one that portrayed him as a lunatic. The pacing was a bit odd, and I do have to question Herzog's commentary on Treadwell at times during the film (to my knowledge he never even met Treadwell, so do we really care what he thinks?); it seemed a little ego-centric. Those were very minor concerns, though, and I was very impressed overall by the film. As we all know, a certain nature documentary has been holding its ground at the box office for months now, and by no means is that certain documentary a bad film, but my recommendation would be to pass up the cute and cuddly birds, and go see how Timothy Treadwell lived and died in a place where few could survive unarmed.
3.5 stars (out of 4)
Loggerheads (2005)
A Very "Real" Experience
Tonight I had the pleasure of attending a screening of Tim Kirkman's "Loggerheads". Tim is a graduate of NC State, and he was on hand for a Q&A session after the screening, so it was really interesting to get some insight into the film, and of course it is always rare to see someone from this area "make it" in the "business".
As for the film itself, I was very skeptical going in, having been unimpressed by the trailer and synopsis, but I was extremely surprised by how well-crafted "Loggerheads" was. The film is quite slow paced, and driven one hundred percent by its characters, which means even the smallest mistakes stick out, as there is no high style and 'noise' to mask them. It works out very well, though, as the performances were extremely good, and the attention to detail outstanding.
Kirkman weaves together three separate but interconnected stories, all taking place in North Carolina (one in the western mountains of the state, one in the middle of the state, and one in the eastern beaches). The film deals with such issues as homosexuality, religion, and suicide, so a delicate touch is required in making the actions of the characters believable. "Loggerheads" felt more "real" to me than any other film I have seen this year, but it could be the North Carolina locations and characters that made it seem that way. I doubt I would have connected with the film on the same level had it been set in another state, and I am not so sure viewers unfamiliar with North Carolina will fully appreciate some of the film's qualities. If anyone reading this sees "Loggerheads", I would be interested in seeing some discussion on that subject. And I definitely would recommend seeing it.
A History of Violence (2005)
A Punch to the Stomach
A History of Violence Most of the people in the Raleigh theater that I was at were looking for a good way to have some fun on a Friday night. "Ah, that one has 'violence' in the title, it should be entertaining." Or maybe they just saw that it had "that nice young man with the long hair from the hobbit movie", and might be worth seeing.
They never knew what hit them.
I, however, had a secret weapon; a trick up my sleeve. I had seen a little film titled "Naked Lunch". I know David Cronenberg's game; you are searching for two hours of escapism, but what you get is a punch to the stomach, and in the end you leave the cinema scarred for live, yet for some reason wanting to go back and buy another ticket.
Cronenberg brings his A-game with "A History of Violence", and the unsuspecting viewer will be shocked beyond belief at what they see. As the film unfolds, we find ourselves in the ultimate clichéd rural small town; a "Pleasantville" style place where everyone knows each other and most people will spend their entire lifetime living in peace in the same house. But as anyone who has seen the trailer, read a synopsis, or probably even read the title of the film knows, one of the residents of the town has a background unlike any of the others. Viggo Mortensen's 'Tom' is that character, and through the duration of the film, we see the transformation that violence sparks in him, and others connected to him.
And as you might expect, Cronenberg is not afraid to show that violence, front and center. The violence in the film was extremely realistic, and the shock that the audience experiences is equal to that of the characters in the film. When a character is killed, it happens fast. In the blink of an eye, it is over, but the characters that remain standing are stunned. They stand frozen on the spot, unable to turn away from the horrifying sight, and the audience's reaction is similar, as the theater falls deadly silent (no pun intended).
While the violence is terrible, and immediately abhorred by both the characters in the film and the audience, some of the characters display an innate attraction to violence. Maria Bello plays Tom's wife Edie, and there are a couple of somewhat disturbing scenes involving her that highlight this. More than once during the film, a violent encounter sparked a sudden burst of laughter throughout the audience, followed immediately by silence, as the effects of the actions seen on screen sank in. The film seems to be making a commentary on violence in the world, and the reactions of the audience confirm the authenticity of the reactions of the characters on screen.
David Cronenberg has managed to direct a film that serves as both a well-paced, immensely entertaining thriller, and a thought provoking character study. Every shot is crafted to perfection, and amazing performances are pulled from most of the actors. Viggo Mortensen has said this is the best film he has ever been in, and I would certainly affirm that it is his best performance. Ed Harris is phenomenal, and puts on one of the best supporting performances of the year. "A History of Violence" is shocking, disturbing, eye-opening, humorous, and engaging, and I certainly will not be surprised if it receives a best picture nod this winter.
4 stars (out of 4)
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)
Simply Fantastic
The final installment of Terry Gilliam's "dreams trilogy" further proves that he is a god of film-making. It's simply fantastic. From meeting the king and queen of the moon in a "Trip to the Moon" style adventure, to an encounter with Greek gods inside of a volcano, and even into the stomach of a giant sea creature, Gilliam never fails to delight as he whisks us to Baron's next adventure. The film displays the power of imagination and fantasy, blending it with reality until the line between the two disappears. Every member of the cast does a marvelous job transforming into the film's dynamic characters. And, of course, with the likes of Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown, and Eric Idle involved, it is also hilarious. I was rolling with laughter at Oliver Reed playing an incarnation of the Greek god Vulcan, trying to control his fit of rage while showing off his ballroom. "NICE. ISN'T IT." Even Robin Williams shows up in an uncredited role, and his style of humor fits well into Gilliam's surreal visuals. Beautiful.
4 stars (out of 4)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
Thought Provoking, Touching, and Incredibly Funny
There's quirky, and then there is outright weird. I would have to place "Me and You and Everyone We Know" into the latter category. It's yet another indie drama that no one will ever see, and it is also the most original film I have seen this year. Miranda July is certainly someone to watch for in the future, as she writes, directs, and plays the lead female role in "Me and You". The film is a character study on a wide range of characters, ranging from young children to the elderly, depicting how their relationships connect with each other. It is thought provoking, touching, and incredibly funny as well. The movie certainly has its flaws, though, as I felt the 90 minute running time did not allow the many characters to be fully developed. At times I had that feeling in the back of my mind that perhaps July was being quirky just for the sake of being quirky, but ultimately I do not think that was the case. But, like many films of this type, I find it easy to overlook the problems, and it is unfortunate that most people will never even hear of this movie. And oh yes; if you are easily offended, you may want to stay at home.
3.5 stars (out of 4)
The Brothers Grimm (2005)
Watered-Down Gilliam Is Better Than No Gilliam
Rather than fight yet another war with Hollywood (see: "Brazil", "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen", and "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote"), Terry Gilliam took off his gloves and allowed the Weinsteins and Miramax to force their will upon him. With his new film "Tideland" coming out soon, Gilliam chose to focus his efforts on molding it, while allowing "The Brothers Grimm" to go wherever the studio wanted to take it. The result is by far the most commercial film to Gilliam's name, but in this case watered-down Gilliam is better than no Gilliam, and his first film in seven years ("Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" in 1998) is a fun one.
"The Brothers Grimm" certainly looks like a Terry Gilliam movie, loaded with extravagant visuals and wide angled shots, although the $80 million budget did allow for his first use of CGI (it really isn't too bad, though), and it does not have the incredibly surreal feeling to it that most Gilliam films have. It takes a bit of time to get used to Matt Damon (as Will Grimm) and Heath Ledger, moreso Damon, as Ledger is surprisingly good as Jacob Grimm. The film was much more humorous than I had expected, and has plenty of subtle Gilliam humor. Many will find Peter Stormare' Cavaldi character to be extremely annoying, but I thought he was hilarious, and one of the highlights of the movie. Jonathan Pryce returns to another Gilliam movie as Delatombe, and does a decent job, although his character was a little overly obnoxious at times. Lena Headey is good as Angelika, and Monica Bellucci also pulls off a good performance, although unfortunately she does not get a significant amount of screen time.
The plot of "The Brothers Grimm" wanders a lot, and I actually thought the movie was winding down at around the 90 minute mark, but this works somewhat to the film's advantage, as it makes a fairly straightforward plot seem slightly less predictable. The film is much sillier than the promos may lead to believe, and that probably will not come us much of a surprise to big Gilliam fans. Unlike previous Gilliam movies, however, there really is no substance behind what we see on screen, so what we get is really the first 'popcorn flick' with Gilliam's name on it. Like all Terry Gilliam movies, the reaction will be mixed, and there will be some people who absolutely love it, and some who name it their worst film of the year. As far as I'm concerned, "Grimm" does not hold a candle to Terry Gilliam's previous films, but it is one of the better 'big summer movies', and I certainly felt my time was well spent watching it.
3 stars (out of 4)
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
The Most Underrated Coen Film
"The Hudsucker Proxy" is perhaps the Coen Brothers silliest film, and also may be their most underrated. Although the structure of the plot is fairly straightforward as far as Coen movies go, drawing a lot from "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", the dialog and character interactions are absolute madness. It's just as clever and maybe more bizarre than anything the Coens have ever done. Tim Robbins does an excellent job, although I am not sure he was the best choice for the role, but Jennifer Jason Leigh unexpectedly steals the movie, and is captivating to watch from beginning to end. Some of the best material in the movie comes from the smaller parts, such as Bruce Campbell as a newspaper reporter, Bill Cobbs as Moses the clock man, and Jim True-Frost as Buzz the elevator operator. For some reason this film slipped under the radar, and tends to get pushed aside by the rest of the Coens' impressive repertoire, but this movie is not one to be missed.
3.5 stars (out of 4)
The Island (2005)
Just Make Sure You Don't Think While You Are Watching It
Ewan McGregor has worked with the likes of Tim Burton and Ridley Scott. Scarlett Johansson has been directed by the daughter of one of the greatest directors of all time in an Oscar-nominated movie. Steve Buscemi has frequently been on the set with perhaps the godfathers of independent film-making, and Sean Bean has experience with just about everyone in Hollywood. So I have to wonder what went through the minds of these performers as they headed from their trailer to the set each day to find out the latest use Michael Bay had for his $100 million budget. "I should have read this script a little closer"? "My agent is so fired for this"? "At least I'm making a ton of money"? "I wonder what we get to blow up today"?
For that matter, I would be curious to witness what Michael Bay is like on the set. Surprisingly, "The Island" does not open to explosions and carnage, but actually begins with drama. In fact, Bay makes it through the first act before going buck wild. You can feel the tension mounting as the film progresses. You can picture Bay offscreen, gripping the arms of his chair, repeatedly glancing at his wristwatch. And then, he can wait no longer, and he leaps to his feet, flailing his arms wildly and screaming "ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE LET'S BLOW SOME **** UP!" And with that, all logic is abandoned. Things explode. Automobiles spiral wildly through the air. People scream. Guns blaze. And boy does this excite the filmmakers. The editor is having the time of his life, making a cut once every tenth of a second, and the cameraman is jerking the camera around as if he has completely lost his mind. Whoever is composing the score is sitting back and drinking coffee, having already taken the five minutes necessary to copy and paste an annoying jungle techno loop to run for two hours. Around the time railroad axles began falling off of the back of a truck demolishing cars (having just learned that in this futuristic world trains do not even use wheels, but levitate above the ground), I started laughing. I laughed without stopping until the credits rolled, and then I laughed my way out of the theater. In fact, "The Island" was unintentionally one of the funniest movies I have seen in years. The incredibly over the top action and the abrupt transitions between story and mindless chaos are so absurd that you cannot help but smile at how delightfully terrible this movie is.
"The Island" does in fact have a plot, and at first it actually is a decent one. Sure, quite a few of the scenes seem to be ripped straight out of "Logan's Run" (Logan 5=Lincoln 6?), but heck, maybe it was just an admiring nod to the 70's cult classic. Before it degenerated into madness, I was quite optimistic about where the film was heading. The dialogue, as you would expect, is incredibly cliché at times, and a somewhat experienced movie-goer should be able to finish a lot of the actors' lines for them. One particular line near the end of the film certainly falls into my list of the cheesiest lines ever.
"The Island" is mindless and has things exploding, which means it should attract the masses. It also makes summer blockbusters like "I, Robot" (which I did enjoy) look like a best picture nominee. There are a few things this movie will teach you, though: Cadillac, MSN, X-Box, Aquafina, Johnny Rockets, and Puma shoes are all excellent products, and stem cell research and cloning are evil Nazi practices.
May the box office slump continue...
1 star (out of 4)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Outstanding
Regardless of the strong attempts to separate 2005's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" from the 1971 "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", the comparisons will undoubtedly be made. The classic film, with its memorable performance by Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, still holds up just as well as it did nearly thirty five years ago, and it is likely that a large portion of the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" audience will have seen the first version. Thankfully, the new adaptation of Roald Dahl's beloved novel, directed by Tim Burton ("Edward Scissorhands", "Big Fish"), distances itself quite well from the 1971 movie, and offers a new perspective to the story.
Many have billed the new film as an adaptation more true to Dahl's novel than the Gene Wilder version, as Roald Dahl reportedly hated the 1971 movie. Dahl's widow Felicity is onboard this time as executive producer, and she has expressed her belief that Dahl would have loved Burton's take on his novel. Screenwriter John August never even watched the 1971 film until after he had drafted the screenplay, and the result is a script that does not get tied up with trying to avoid and outdo its predecessor. I honestly hate to compare and contrast the two versions of the story, as I am sure we will all be reading plenty of that over the next few weeks, but it is practically unavoidable, so I suppose I will just run with it.
The major flaw with the Gene Wilder Wonka was that the film lacked much character depth, and never truly developed the relationship between Charlie and Wonka. The point at which Wonka selects Charlie as his successor arrives abruptly, and comes across more as process of elimination than a true connection between the characters. This is not an issue in Burton's version, as we see Wonka's appreciation of Charlie grow throughout the journey inside the factory, and his disgust with the naughty children is immediately evident. Furthermore, with Tim Burton's Wonka, played by Johnny Depp ("Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas", "Finding Neverland"), we see the humanity of the eccentric chocolate maker. Burton has always made movies involving turmoil between a father and son, so I suppose it should not be a surprise that he has brought this new element to the story of Willy Wonka. Through Wonka's constant nightmarish flashbacks, we learn the origins of his love for candy, involving his strict candy-hating dentist father, played by Christopher Lee ("Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith", "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"). Wonka's emotions are more apparent as well, as he expresses a genuine child-like joy at times when proudly displaying his factory, and becomes furious when Mike Teavee (Jordon Fry) insults candy. He displays an innocent inability to deal with people, and a complete lack of courtesy.
Johnny Depp has always displayed himself as a very versatile actor. As far as I'm concerned, his bizarre depiction of Hunter S. Thompson in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is one of the best performances of the 1990's, and his recent portrayal of author J.M. Barrie in "Finding Neverland" may have been the best performance of 2004. In "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", he once again disappears into character, and his depiction of Willy Wonka borders on downright disturbing, while also being completely hilarious. The Michael Jackson comparisons everyone seems to be making are, quite frankly, dead on. His fellow "Finding Neverland" star Freddie Highmore is outstanding as Charlie Bucket, and further proves that he may be the most promising child actor in Hollywood today. The other children do a great job as well, as do the actors playing Charlie's family members. The grandparents provide a substantial amount of humor. And then, there is Deep Roy. Roy plays every Oompa Loompa in the film, wonderfully showing off endless personalities and providing a lot of humor.
While Roy's performance is outstanding, the Oompa Loompas were a bit of an issue for me. Visually, the depiction was excellent, and quite true to the novel, but the musical numbers left something to be desired. For the most part they were hilarious and fun, but also sometimes hard to understand, and the pop music was an unnecessary addition in my opinion. The 1971 Oompa Loompas and their songs, while not as true to the book lyrically, had a much more timeless feel to them. That is the biggest issue for me with the 2005 film; I'm just not sure it will hold up over time in the same way that the Gene Wilder version did. It is a wonderful film, but a classic? I'm just not so sure of that, and only time will tell.
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is pure Tim Burton, with each frame bursting with color and imagination, and the pacing is nearly flawless. Overall it is a very warm film, and Burton's direction keeps the movie extremely bizarre without becoming completely surreal (not that I would have minded that at all). The orchestral score by Danny Elfman is perfect, and sets the mood of the film immediately while accompanying Burton's sweeping camera movements in the opening sequence. Tim Burton fans will recognize quite a few familiar faces, and may notice a number of subtle references to past films. I really cannot choose between the two adaptations, but they compliment each other very well, and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is an outstanding effort. I would definitely recommend it.
3.5 stars (out of 4)