Across the Universe (2007)

Across the Universe {dir. Julie Taymor, 2007} (*/****)

I've never been one to bury the lead, so let me tell you straight away, I hated this movie with a passion. The more I think about it the more I'm enraged, even offended, by this film. It is an attempt to weave the songbook of the immortal rock band The Beatles into a grand, romantic, cinematic spectacle. Its production design and narrative conceit are at times engaging but only in the smallest of fits. Suffice to say the bad outweighs the good; the treacle drowns the sublime. It contains good songs, well sung by capable actors (all of whom are given types not characters) but its soul is so hollow that it can only rely on its naive intentions. The simplistic attempts at establishing time and place are ham fisted and cloying. The 1960's were a complex time; the decade brought about social upheaval along with revolutionary ideas regarding music art and cinema, yet if one were to judge the period by this film they would come out with a completely positive and simple message: peace and love conquered all. That is simply not the case; the hippies goals were ultimately unrealized, that is the sad truth.

As for incorporation of songs, Taymor's methods are flimsy (a character named Prudence is there specifically for the song 'Dear Prudence' to appear)and its entertainment value low. The more I consider this film, the more it enrages me and its been a few weeks since I've seen it. Get back, JoJo!

Titanic (1997)

Titanic {dir. James Cameron, 1997} (*½/****)

Somewhere on its way to becoming the all time box office champion and biggest Oscar winner of all time, James Cameron's Titanic etched out a place in my mind as the one film that can most easily send me into a frenzied rant against the dangers of big- budget, epic film making. Sure, I might not have put it that way when I first saw it (I was seven) but, upon first viewing I knew that this film was nothing special. Four years later, I was able to identify it as simply money thrown onto the screen with little room left for intelligence, emotion or character. Yet even as I professed the evils of this production and its vapid screenplay (penned by director Cameron), there were those who maintained that Titanic was an achievement. Among those people are esteemed film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert , both of whom included it on their top ten lists of 1997. Those celebratory citations led me to revisit Titanic again recently, for the first time on DVD, a disc which preserves the film's original aspect ratio and presents the clearest available picture and sound. The Verdict: As the old truism goes, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig."

The film isn't all bad; the cast is solid (considering the material..but more on that later), the score is rich, the cinematography is evocative and the production design and visual effects are impeccable. Yet as it turns out, all these elements do not a great film make. Titanic's greatest weakness lies at its very core: the screenplay. It reaches a level so wretched that I will be blunt in my metaphoric criticism. Cameron's script isn't just a turd, it is a floater; it refuses to just be flushed away to haunt us no longer. It insists on having an epic length and employing a framing device that may very well be the cause of a sudden onset of narcolepsy. I'm sorry to resort to such infantile comparison, but I believe that is best to convey the utter insult that is Cameron's screenplay. I consider myself a romantic, yet the so-called romance of this film left me cold, with nothing to do except roll my eyes. The film lacks any new vision or originality, and that can never be commended.

I'm fed up at this point; three viewing, each one revealing an un-plundered area of Cameron's incompetence. This film remains an interminable, and wildly popular, mash of tired formula only be idolized by starry eyed tweens.

A New Batch of Quick Capsule Reviews

Rachel Getting Married {Dir. Jonathan Demme, 2008}

(****/****)

One of the very best films of 2008, at once Altman-esque and yet it remains distinctively Demme. Complaints about the "shaky" camera work are unfounded and beside the point. The ensemble is strong with special recognition going to Hathaway, in a performance that establishes her as one of the best young actresses around, Rosemarie DeWitt, in a complex and heartfelt role and Bill Irwin. Yet, this is Demme's achievement. A film with tough subjects and dark revelations that remains lively and hopeful. He balances themes and tones like a true master of the form. Since the death of Robert Altman, the cinema has been missing a master craftsmen in the field of ensemble drama, with Rachel Getting Married, it appears the Jonathan Demme is worthy of that vacated seat. This is his finest film yet.

Duplicity {dir. Tony Gilroy, 2009}

(****/****)

Possibly the best film I've seen this year so far. A dense and fascinating con game thrown together with sleek and sophisticated romantic comedy. Keeping up with this film is a large part of the enjoyment, Gilroy's tight screenplay is good company. The leads are in full star mode (as they should be) and the supporting actors are perfectly cast (as they should be.) The chemistry between Roberts and Owen is palpable and refreshing. The closest a major studio film has come to channeling the charismatic cool of Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. A sparkling entertainment!

Mean Streets {dir. Martin Scorsese, 1973}

(****/****)

Before this second viewing, the praise for Mean Streets had always alluded me. I viewed it as a good work by a great director (Scorsese) who still had his best films ahead of him. Indeed, Scorsese would go on to make great films later, such as GoodFellas and Raging Bull, but now I see Mean Streets as a film that belongs in that esteemed company. The film is a thinly plotted view into the lives of small time hoodlums in early-1970's New York City. A fairly tiresome presence, but the films roots are in Martin Scorsese's own past and it is that personal insight that makes Mean Streets something truly special. Also of note, this film is the first pairing of legendary actor director combination Robert DeNiro and Scorsese. DeNiro plays the violate and headstrong Johny-Boy. It is a performance of such malevolent and volcanic charisma that I think it ranks among Jake LaMotta as one of DeNiro's most sharply observed and well played characters.

Elmer Gantry {dir. Richard Brooks, 1960}

(***/****)

Considered a minor classic in most circles Elmer Gantry is a strange little bit of blasphemy in that it isn't really that blasphemous. It tells the story of Elmer Gantry (Burt Lancaster), a drunk drifter/salesman in the early 1900s. In his youth Elmer studied to become a preacher, but was expelled when he gave into some of his own...animalistic instincts. One day he drifts into the Revival tent of Sister Sharon (Jean Simmons), and he attempts to join up with the group posing as a preacher himself. The setup seems like a beginning for vicious satire, yet the film lacks the teeth to take any stance on the plot points. Character motivations/actions are sometimes non-sensical, perhaps a product of the censorship codes of the era, but all of the performances are strong and the film is filled with nicely composed and crisply shot scenes.

Watchmen {dir. Zack Snyder, 2009}

(***½/****)

Although it loses some luster upon second viewing, Watchmen remains a top-notch movie. It is strictly loyal to the source, and actually improves upon the ending. (Sorry squid-lovers!) Yes, the sex scene is gratuitous, but I'll give Snyder room to take one false move when the rest of the film is this good. Beautiful to look at and interestingly plotted, Watchmen resembles Kubrick in the way it seems game to go against every rule of the comic book genre. Needless to say, we are a long way away from the mindless antics of Daredevil or Ghost Rider. This blockbuster has a brain to match its brawn.

Taken {dir. Pierre Morel, 2009}

(**½/****)

A mindless little thriller, but entertaining in its own right. It features Liam Neeson (good to see him back in leading film roles) as an ex- C.I.A. Agent. Neeson daughter is kidnapped whilst vacationing with a friend in France and it falls to Neeson to get her back. The film's best scene comes early with Neeson addressing the kidnappers over the phone, and warning them that they are unaware of with whom they are messing. He, of course, phrases it differently and speaks with a steely reserve that is quite effective. Neeson is very good, but overall Taken is too mindless, to violent and too xenophobic to truly recommend.