See This Movie

Title: Crash

Year: 2005

Writers: Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco

Director: Paul Haggis

My Take: Paul Haggis, who most of know as the writer of 2004 Best Picture Oscar Winner, Million $ Baby, wrote the script for Crash after he was car-jacked in LA. Haggis, a long-time television writer and producer, uses car crashes as the circumstances around which the lives of an assortment of LA residents revolve. The verneer of the piece is akin to the Avenue Q song, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist". The racism in the film beats you like Maggie "Baby" Fitzgerald beating up one of those poor defenseless chicks in the 2nd act of last year's Oscar Darling. However, if you look beneath the surface you see that the theme of the film isn't racism or intolerance (important themes to be sure), but how people who feel impotent because they don't have a voice draw attention to themselves through aggression and violence.

The story revolves around an incredible ensemble cast as blacks, whites, latinos, persians, and asians all collide in a melting pot of anger and hostility. The arcs of several characters are as severe as they are amazing to watch. There are several scenes that are simply visceral despite a lack of gore or overt violence. This isn't a film that you leave feeling good about yourself or others, but it explores some very important themes in a very emotional way.

The Verdict: As I said in my review of Hotel Rwanda, "Every so often a film challenges your world view. For me, this was one of those films." This and Hotel Rwanda should be required viewing in our high schools. For me it's a must see and a must own.

True love or insanity?

Title: A Very Long Engagement

Year: 2004

Writers: Jean-Pierre Jeunet & Guillaume Laurant based on the novel by Sebastian Japrisot

Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet

My Take: I went to a screening of this film completely deceived by the movie poster, ad campaign, and the title. I was sure I was in for a tear-jerker romantic drama in the vein of Cold Mountain or The English Patient. I've never been more pleased to be completely wrong. Those films are very good in their own way, but I just wasn't in the mood. What I should have put more faith in was the filmography of the director. Delicatessen is a deliciously black comedy about a tenement in post-apocalyptic Paris. City of Lost Children is a brilliant turn as dark and haunting as the grimmest of Grimm's Fairy Tales. And Amelie is, well, Amelie - a magical film that netted over $30 million in U.S. box office despite being French.

A Very Long Engagement did not only surprise, it delighted. That's not to say I didn't cry, there is romantic drama in the film afterall, but the comedy, action (it's a war movie), and fantasy stole the show. Audrey Tautou is a simple French farm girl who waits patiently for her fiance to return from the trenches in World War I. This despite multiple confirmations that he'd been killed for dissertion. This simpleton continues waiting for him, sure that he'll return. She begins an investigation into his disappearance. She begins to find inconsistencies in the stories of eye witnesses. Her hope grows as everyone else, her lawyer and a private investigator included, lose faith in the hunt. That's enough about the story. If you want to know what happens, you'll have to see it.

The cinematography is breath-taking. The use of color to convey the era is brilliant - sepia tones reflect the old photographs we've all seen from the 1920's. Splashes of color within the scene draw the eye to seemingly unimportant objects that at times become important. The sound edits was brilliant as well. The train scenes (she travels from farm to Paris, Paris to farm) are filled with the cacaphony of a steam engine - which at the time would have been far and away the loudest sounds a human would experience so they are the loudest sounds in the film. That is except for the sounds of war. The battle scenes are exquisitely crafted, certainly the most realistic depiction of combat since Saving Private Ryan. Many of the same techniques were used.

The Verdict: Unfortunately, this film was extremely poorly marketed in the U.S. Virtually everyone I've spoken to about it (those who had actually heard of it), had the same impression I did from the U.S. marketing campaign. You'd think they would have attempted to capitalize on the comic nature of the film and mention as many times as possible the the director and actress from Amelie were together again. This is a gem worth seeing on the big screen. Catch it if you can.

Gimme a Paternity Test and a Salmon Steak

Title: The Life Acquatic with Steve Zissou

Year: 2004

Writers: Wes Anderson & Noah Baumbach

Director: Wes Anderson

My Take: I've been a fan of Wes Anderson since the guy who turned me from movie buff to cinephile handed me Bottle Rocket and said, "Enjoy." The quirky characters, witty banter, and zany stories have made for hours of entertainment. His follow-up films Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and now Life Aquatic have all followed the same pattern with seemingly ever-increasing quirk, wit, and zane. I would usually attempt to summarize the story in a few words, but this film really denies a brief explanation. It's about a nearly washed up undersea documentarian searching for the shark that ate his best friend. But it's not. It's about that same documentarian coming to grips with his long lost son. But it's not. It's about that same documentarian's failing marriage. But it's not. Ultimately, the film is about life and living with our experiences, which is probably why the film manages to connect on some level despite being bizarre in so many ways.

Bill Murray nails another drama-comedy role on the heels of Lost in Translation. Owen Wilson plays country hick pilot as the long lost son. Angelica Houston is the aging and very wealthy wife. Willem Dafoe appears in an unexpectly comic turn as a 2nd mate who has always longed for the captain's attention. Cate Blanchett is a reporter profiling the documentarian. Jeff Goldblum is one nemesis (the shark is the other). And a quick shout out to Bud Cort who plays a watchdog for the bond company that funds the expedition. For those of you who may not have seen it or don't remember, Bud Cort was Harold in the truly brilliant Harold & Maude.

The Verdict: While I love Wes Anderson and enjoyed this film, I didn't feel as though it were a step forward. The richly dysfunctional Tenenbaum family was perhaps something I could relate to on some level. A boat full of quirky characters was not. That's not to say I wouldn't recommend the film, I would. It's still better than 75% of movies I saw in 2004. But if you're a Wes Anderson afficionado, don't expect progression.

A bottle of red, a bottle of white...

Title: Sideways

Year: 2004

Director: Alexander Payne

Writers: Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor based on the novel by Rex Pickett

My Take: Alexander Payne's last two films (Election and About Schmidt) have explored, at one level or another, the theme of men questioning their reason for existence in this world. Both were comedies as well. Sideways follows this same formula, and like About Schmidt before it, manages to be a completely original take on the same theme.

Miles (Paul Giamatti) is a struggling writer/middle school English teacher who takes his college roommate Jack (Thomas Haden Church), a former soap star and now voiceover artist about to be married, on a week-long trip to California's Wine Country the week before his wedding. Miles is two-years post divorce and still hasn't managed to get past it. Jack is a 40ish and never-married playboy who's primary goal for the week is one last fling before tying the knot.

Between the music and cinematography, the film simply sings like a 1970s road trip despite being set in the present day. The use of wine as a metaphor for life is a beautiful and subtle use of subtext throughout the film. Miles, who discerns the most subtle differences in wine (he's an enthusiast) and obviously spends a lot of time in introspection, is the complete opposite of Jack, who can't tell the difference between Boone's Farm and Puligny-Montrachet and wouldn't understand himself if he spent a year in therapy. That all of this can be accomplished with comedy is a testament to Payne's film-making talents.

The Verdict: I'm an unabashed fan of Alexander Payne's films. While some thought About Schmidt was overly sentimental or disingenuous, I found it a beautifully subtle kick in the nuts to the entire Baby Boomer generation. As for Sideways, if you've ever been divorced, loved wine, had a hard time relating to a former college roommate, or been caught in a lie, this film is definitely worth seeing. Hell, if you love great films, this is one of them.

A bottle of Scotch for another week of life?

Title: Hotel Rwanda

Year: 2004

Director: Terry George

Writers: Terry George & Keir Pearson

My Take: I was fortunate enough to attend a private screening of Hotel Rwanda in the MGM Screening Room in Manhattan. Based on a true story, the film centers around the experiences of a Rwandan hotel manager, Paul Rusesabagina, played by Don Cheadle. He's of hutu decent and is married to a tutsi woman. When the hutus begin killing tutsis in a blatant act of genocide, Paul begins harboring tutsis in his hotel. As supplies dwindle and foreign military intervention does not materialize, the situation at the hotel becomes increasingly perilous. I won't divulge any more of the story.

This film, based on the 1994 genocide of nearly one million Rwandans, is particularly appropos at this time, because it clearly demonstrates that the international community is not interested in protecting civilians in countries that lack natural resources. In the wake of the Somalian debacle, the US and its allies were loathe to enter into Rwanda to end the genocide. Today similar atrocities are occurring in Sudan and the international community is again turning a blind eye as hundreds of thousands of Africans are murdered. These are countries without oil or mineral deposits worth exploiting. Instead, comparably minor human rights violations are justification for invasion for resource rich or strategically located countries around the globe. The duplicity is disheartening at best, criminal at worst. It is past time for the West to take a long hard look at its motivation for international intervention. Hopefully this film will help create a groundswell of support for true humanitarian interventions.

Paul Rusesabagina himself was available for a Q&A after the film. There wasn't a dry eye on the place and he received two standing ovations. During my lifetime I've met any number of celebrities, politicians, and professional athletes. Never have I been more proud to shake someone's hand.

The Verdict: Every so often a film challenges your world view. For me, this was one of those films.

Incredibly Long

Movie: The Incredibles

Year: 2004

Director: Brad Bird

Writer: Brad Bird

My Take: Let me start by saying I'm a sucker for Pixar entertainment. Monsters, Inc. may be my favorite animated feature of all time. I thoroughly enjoyed A Bug's Life, Toy Story, and Finding Nemo. Even the shorts can be really good. I've been looking forward to The Incredibles since I first saw a teaser trailer late last year.

That's why I was so disappointed when I left the theater and did not feel the magic I'd felt with several earlier Pixar films. I think a big part of this was that the film felt overly long (1 hr, 55 minutes). That's a long run-time for an animated feature. The kids around me in the 1,000 seat theater got antsy several times. It was obvious which parts were not holding the children, because they were the parts that weren't holding me either.

The premise was great, the characters were a lot of fun, the dialogue was witty, and the theme was spot on. But there was something missing. I think that something was the sharpness of previous Pixar efforts when it comes to story telling. In the other films I've seen from Pixar there has always been an ever escalating risk in the threat to the character achieving their goals. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in Nemo and Monsters Inc. Things don't get easier for Nemo, they get harder. It doesn't get easier for Mike and Sully to return the little girl, it gets harder.

It's not exactly that things get easier for the Incredible family over the course of the film, but their efforts seem episodic - in and out of the bad guy's lair, eventually returning (without much effort) to civilization for the final showdown. Here in the final showdown a supporting character who hasn't been seen in over an hour, shows up to play a critical role in their battle. To me this film could have been so much better with some judicious revising of the story. Perhaps they'll get the sequel right. Afterall, Toy Story 2 was arguably better than the original.

The Verdict: This film was incredibly entertaining, but ultimately disappointing. If that makes any sense at all.

It's the hottest day of the year...

You can do nothing, do something, or Do the Right Thing.

I hadn't seen Spike Lee's breakout film in quite some time, but I've been trying to see films that use location as character and this one certainly fits the bill. The Brooklyn neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant should have gotten top billing.

This film primarily reminded me of two things I've known for a while.

1. Spike Lee is not a good actor. Thankfully he's stopped taking a prominent role in his films, opting instead for occasional cameos.

2. Spike Lee is an extremely talented film-maker. His direction and story-telling in this film are top notch. His blending of multiple characters into a cohesive neighborhood shows a Robert Altman-like talent for ensemble film-making.

Even after having seen this film several times before, the end brought tears to my eyes. This really is a powerful film that is stands up well even if the clothing and hairstyles can only be taken as retro rather than current.

That and I've had "Fight the Power" running through my head all day.

An Actual Documentary

Movie: Capturing the Friedmans

Year: 2003

Director: Andrew Jarecki

Writer: none (are you listening, Mr. Moore, WGA Best Original Screenplay Recipient?)

My Take: This documentary may be the most exclusive look into the dissolution of a family after a traumatic life experience. It seems odd to say that since this film is also an unrelenting exploration into the experiences of a pedophile. This is obviously not light entertainment. This is a film with a purpose and a message.

Mr. Friedman was an avid home movie buff shooting many family events. He passed this love on to his children and it turned out they were there to document the aftermath of his arrest for child pornography and sexually assaulting his students. His youngest son was also arrested. The film documents the case, the relationship between Mr. Friedman and his wife, he and his children, his wife and his children, and the three boys together. There is haunting imagery throughout.

What struck me as most amazing was that this was not Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills, which essentially paints a picture of innocence for those convicted of the crime. Nor is this a film that documents the experiences of an obviously guilty man. This is a film that leaves the audience wondering what the truth really is.

I've often debated with friends about the purpose of a documentary. Michael Moore, god bless him, is an obvious propogandist. Other documentarians are less overt in their biases, but in nearly every documentary there remains some residual bias from the director's point of view. I was extremely impressed with the complete ambivalence that the watcher is left with after this film is complete.

Even more powerful, for me at least, is watching a family self-destruct. The anger and resentment that leads to blindness was on the faces of several of the family members throughout. Even at the time of follow-up interviews, 14 years after the case had been resolved, there had not been a healing of the rifts created in the family. One son in particular was still blind to his father's sins while blaming his mother for nearly everything.

The Verdict: I've seen many disturbing documentaries, but I don't think I've ever had one affect me like this. Nor can I remember one that struck me as so "fly on the wall" without any effort to sway the viewer in one direction or the other... unless the director's intention was to leave everyone scratching their heads. If so, I say "bravo!" Well, I say "bravo" anyway. I have only one request - don't make me watch it again.

Another Burger Contender...

In my never ending search for the best hamburger in NYC, I gave a venerable institution another try. JG Melon at 3rd Ave and 74th St. has been consistently rated among the best hamburgers in NYC for years. The first few times I tried it, I was underwhelmed, eventually turning to their chili bowl as my meal of choice. Well, this afternoon I gave it another try and I think I may have found the perfect hamburger... or at least a damn good one.

Bacon swiss burger medium - add a couple pickle slices and a couple onions and skip any other toppings. The bacon was crisp and delicious, the cheese was a nice mild compliment to the salty bacon, and the burger was a perfect juicy medium. All that on a toasted bun made for one of the best hamburgers I've had in a very long time.

I'd suggest you try to get there for lunch, because they don't take reservations and the dinner wait can be very long.

Please Vote

This year more than any other. And let's try to keep it out of the courts, shall we?

Thanks.