Review: Night Watch (2006)

Night Watch
2004
120 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelsom

Night Watch, released in Russia in late 2004, is an intentional attempt to copy the sci-fi punk fantasy formula that has found a solid niche in the United States in the last several years. Of course, this genre hasn't exactly produced the highest level of quality to begin with. For every Dark City or Matrix, there's an Underworld or Ultra-Violet, or Aeon Flux, or Matrix Revolutions, or Blade Trinity. Why a foreign nation would want to emulate this not often worthwhile genre of American film making is a good and valid question. For whatever reason, Russian audiences have flocked to this would-be epic and its just-released sequel (Day Watch) and a trilogy caper is imminent. The original broke Russian box-office records, grossing over $16 million and the sequel has so far grossed $33 million (that's 432 million rubles and 891 million rubles respectively).

This only proves that the current state of Russia is far more dire than we know. They have the crippling breadlines, the insane Russia/Chechnya territorial civil war (say what you will about George W., but at least he doesn't stage or instigate Al Qaeda attacks to give an excuse to arrest or trample political opponents and business rivals), and the government that is slowly slipping back into dictatorship (which tends to happen when you elect a guy with a mysterious past who probably worked for Blofeld and tried to kill James Bond back in the 1970s). So desperate is their situation that they have flocked to Night Watch, a film that is so awesomely bad that it may in fact be the worst thing to happen to Russia since the North Ossetia school massacre in September 2004.

The plot, to wit: Thousands of years ago... superstition and the sword ruled. It was a time of darkness, it was a world of fear. It was the age of... Gargoyles? No, that would have meant being entertained. Instead this age of darkness/fear/swords involves two warring cultures with special powers, creatively named the Light and the Dark. Way back when, they stopped their fighting ways and made an uneasy truce. From then on in, the Light would watch the Dark at night, while the Dark would watch the Light during the day. Thus the truce has been kept, right under the noses of regular folk. Until something occurs to potentially break the truce. This thing doesn't actually occur until the last five minutes of the movie, as this is all set-up for the next two pictures. And what a ridiculous, boring, and sophomoric set-up it is.

The Light and the Dark are together called The Others (insert your own joke concerning hatches, lottery numbers, or polar bears). In the present day, they have special powers; powers that aren't terribly well defined but they do involve jumping, kicking, making CGI light shows, and wearing sun glasses at night (the latter power apparently allows them to see the light that`s right before their eyes). The Dark are also vampires, and it's implied that the Light likes blood too, but who cares?

The entire film is a mishmash of the worst of sci-fi. The characters are boring and underdeveloped. The action is fractured, heavily edited, and impossible to follow or care about. Even the audio is pointlessly loud. Worst of all is the story itself. Aside from the opening narrated prologue and several key events throughout the story, the picture is, from moment to moment, completely incomprehensible. The film is obsessed with being cool, hip, edgy, and geeky. Everyone is dressed in leather and everyone wears sunglasses. The music is loud and not the least bit lyrical. There is no poetry, only noise and random movement.

In conclusion, Night Watch is downright unwatchable. It's the worst film so far this year and will probably keep that title for the near future. If this is the path of this particular trilogy, then perhaps the concluding saga should be entitled 'Don't Watch'.

Grade: F

Review: Something New (2006)

Something New
2006
rated PG-13
97 minutes

By Scott Mendelson

Something New isn't. Something New is actually a stock romantic drama, a slight reworking of the romantic drama archetype. Of course, formula isn't always a bad thing. Movie making is often less about what and more about how. A good film can survive unoriginality if it is stylistic or fresh in its approach. Alas, Something New isn't any of those things to the extent to which it can overcome its trappings.

The plot: Kenya (Sanaa Lathan) is a 30-something African American accountant who, along with her friends, mourns the lack of quality African American men in the dating pool. Her friend attempts to help by setting her up on a blind date with Brian (Simon Baker). Alas, Kenya refuses to date white people, so she basically flees in terror. Fate plays a hand as they meet again and she ends up hiring Brian to landscape the yards of her new home. Romantic complications do eventually ensue as Kenya must come to grips with her feelings toward Brian, her prejudicial notions about dating outside of her skin color, and her idealized idea of who she wants to spend her life with.

The film confronts, rather bluntly, the casual racism that can exist in the black community. As Brian enters Kenya's world, he is constantly a target of offhand racial barbs and off-color jokes that would force a public apology were the skin colors reversed. Kenya's family is upfront in their disapproval of her 'skiing the slopes' and her friends initially aren't much nicer about the subject (though they warm up much faster). In fact, it's a bit shocking to see Alfre Woodard, who usually plays the voice of reason and wisdom, portraying such a bigoted and unsupportive mother figure. There is also a token mention of her workaholic lifestyle, though the film refreshingly doesn't have her quit her successful and high-paying job and become a dog walker, unlike the otherwise terrific In Her Shoes. Also refreshing is that Brian's eventual rival for Kenya's affections (Blair Underwood) is not a villain, which makes the drama that much more credible.

As promising as the film is, it falls short in several key areas. First and foremost, the dialogue is often absurdly on-the-nose. Big ideas and themes are explicitly detailed in the dialogue, often in platitudes, instead of flowing naturally. This problem reaches a paramount during a climactic speech by Kenya's boss, which unintentionally comes off as highly condescending (though it is appreciated that her boss is also not villainous). This lack of subtlety also extends to the direction itself, with several shots that highlight Brians' manly' landscaping work to the point of humorous leering.

Speaking of Brian, he is presented as a nearly perfect creature of patience and comfort. Granted, this is not the first romantic drama where a perfect man is consistently and unfairly pushed away from a the selfish and often cruel female lead, only to come back hat in hand to the point of sadomasochism (most Julia Roberts comedies and the later seasons of Friends spring to mind), but it's still annoying. Throughout the film, we learn very little about Brian's life outside his work and his courtship of Kenya. Ironically, there probably was a subplot involving Brian's family, but it was cut out. We know this because John Ratzenberger shows up at the very end in a literally wordless 30-second cameo. Surely he had more scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor.

There is much to like about Something New, which makes the fatal flaws all the more aggravating. The film's eventual message is worth hearing, and it's well acted, but the writing fails it and the whole package just feels too much something old to recommend outright. Still, it's miles better than the usual romantic tripe offered around this season and if a date movie is inescapable, and he or she isn't willing to try Brokeback Mountain, then Something New will probably be an acceptable substitute.

Grade: C+

Review: Annapolis (2006)

Annapolis
2006
rated PG-13
96 minutes

By Scott Mendelson

Annapolis is a stunningly stupid, hilariously inept ode to brainless testosterone. It celebrates the triumph of reckless ego over brotherhood, and brute strength over brains and common sense. Of course, the joke is that this film is set at Annapolis, a very well regarded school for training Navy leaders, and the very last place where selfishness and arrogance should find a home.

The plot: Jake Huard (James Franco, slumming) is a kid from a lower-class shipbuilding neighborhood. But he doesn't want to spend his life building ships. No, he'd much rather go to Annapolis, which can be seen from his neighborhood. But, he has a major chip on his shoulder and things don't start out on the right foot. With the help of a sympathetic lieutenant (Donnie Wahlberg, again proving that hes a far more natural actor than his more famous brother), and a commanding officer that he tried to hit on in civilian life (Jordana Brewster, looking like you CAN be an army leader before you get your drivers license), Jake will try to redeem himself against a brutal and demanding officer (Tyrese Gibson, quite good as the smartest character in the movie) not in the arena of knowledge, nor in the arena of Navy skills, but in a boxing ring.

Yup, that's right folks. The entire last third of this film is focused on the annual boxing tournament that eventually pits Jake against his rival Cole. Apparently, one doesn't need to be smart to be a top-notch Navy leader. Nor does one have to be wise to be a top-notch Navy leader. All one has to do, apparently, is be a top-notch prizefighter. Never mind that James ends the movie with the same terrible attitude and disdain for learning and cooperation that he came in with. Never mind that Cole is often viewed as the bad guy because he wants to push his recruits (he points out that he's been to war, so he knows what it allegedly takes). All James needs to validate his year at Annapolis is a keen right hook in front of his friends, fellow servicemen, and his estranged dad, who of course shows up late to the match at the most dramatic moment possible.

Putting aside the films stupid point of view, Annapolis is awash in the hoariest of cliches. We have the kid from the wrong side of the tracks, who has an attitude and a problem with authority. We have a comic relief overweight sidekick, who needs to prove himself to his hometown. He's played by a surprisingly winning Vicellous Reon Shannon, who tragically just became an orphan on 24. His story arc is actually far more compelling than the lead plot line, perhaps because he's the only one whose dialogue sounds human (he has a terrific monologue comparing Arkansas to Mississippi). We have the requisite hot commanding officer, whose purpose in the story is to... um, well... Brewster does look lovely. We have the straight-laced Asian student who is seemingly a villain because he wants to follow the rules. We have the halfway quit point, where the hero is talked out of quitting by a character from earlier in the story. We even have the cliffhanger moment where Jake's future rests in the hands of his mortal enemy.

All of this would be fine on its own accord. Cliches become cliches because they work. B-movies are a storied tradition in Hollywood and as long as they come in at a price, and they have competency at the core levels (acting, writing, directing), then formula stories are not doomed from inception. This is not the case. The core problem with the story is that Jake never, EVER truly learns to be a better person. He constantly gets his classmates in trouble and often has violent outbursts (a sucker punch delivered in a boxing match mid-movie will remind viewers, not in a good way, of Million Dollar Baby).

Even till the very end, he has a violent temper, a disdain for his colleagues, and a superiority complex. We don't root for him because the film gives us no reason to. Worst yet, the film sidelines a far more sympathetic character purely so Jake can have someone to fight in honor of. The moral of the story seems to be: be a violent, superior, unintelligent punk. As long as you can knock out your commanding officer in a boxing ring, then you're all good to be a top-notch Naval commander.

Grade: D

Review: Darwin's Nightmare (2005)

Darwin's Nightmare
2005
107 minutes
not rated

by Scott Mendelson

Hubert Sauper's documentary Darwin's Nightmare feels like an unfinished product, full of interesting anecdotes and the occasional interesting idea, but never feeling like a complete film. It is a rushed, half-hazard work, seemingly rushed to meet a deadline. The film has no real connecting tissue and, shockingly enough, one of the central ideas is in fact cribbed from a different documentary, which Sauper shows us right in the middle of the film. It is a bad piece of would-be activism that has accidentally captured several moments of terrible potency. The activism for these issues is important, but this film is not.

The film is a 107-minute tour of the rampant poverty and desperation in Mwanza, Tanzania. We see testimonials from prostitutes, security guards, businessmen, and impoverished villagers. They all tell stories of starvation, disease, civil war, and the various kaleidoscopes of problems that pervade parts of Africa.

Eventually, a story presents itself. Some time ago (the film doesn't say but outside research brings up the 1960s) a business or government (the film doesn't say, but outside reading blames Russia) dumped a new breed of carnivorous fish into the Tanzanian waters. This fish provided an expensive and tasty new export from Tanzania to Europe. This fish also literally ate every other species of creature in the waters. This is bad for two reasons. First, these new 'fresh water killers' ate the fish which previously ate the various algae, seaweed, and other now polluting substances.

The bigger problem is that while many of the indigenous people were provided jobs at the new plants that caught, sorted, and prepared the new fish, the new fish were so expensive that no one in the villages could afford to buy them. The Tanzanian waters have been filled the fish that the Europeans love, while the indigenous people starve to death as their primary food source has been devoured by the new Nile Perch. The Africans get fish heads and leftovers, which are abandoned in areas that threaten the safety of those who collect them (one woman has had her eye swollen shut by fumes).

This story isn't actually told until halfway through the movie. Shockingly, it is told not through the lens of Sauper's footage, but through a secondary documentary 'Fresh Water Killer', that is played onscreen at a conference. Sauper doesn't lay this out himself, but rather points his camera at a TV screen and lets someone else tell the story. This is as lazy and unprofessional as a Holocaust documentary that merely pointed a camera at a TV showing Shoah or Night And Fog and hitting 'record'. The well-intentioned film is full of similar shoddy shortcuts. There is a running bit about a prostitute who was forced into the life and would rather study computers. Why her you ask? Because then it will be more poignant when she's murdered by a client toward the end of the film. Either the director filmed dozens of testimonials and picked out the one who got killed so as to add 'emotional impact', or he simply 'lucked out' when the very prostitute that he chose to focus on was the one who ended up dying. Either way, this coincidence is unnerving.

While the film may be not worth a recommendation, there are some interesting bits worth mentioning. It is never out and out stated, but we eventually learn that the planes that arrive to bring the fish back to Europe may in fact be carrying weapons to fuel the various African civil wars. Alas, much of the arms-dealing content is unproven innuendo. Most poignant is the interview of a security guard, who states that civil war may in fact be good for the starving people of Africa, since the best paying and most secure jobs are those found in the army. And, ironically, donations and aid are far less likely to be given during relative peacetime.

Darwin's Nightmare goes out of its way to tell a simple story in a complicated way, withholding information from the viewer for the sake of 'gotcha' moments later in the narrative. While the subject matter is interesting and quite tragic, it's not a very good film. It's the sort of factual documentary where reading other reviews of the documentary or Google-ing topics related to the film will bring one far more information than the film itself. I learned more reading about the subject matter before and after seeing this film then I did during. Those seeking knowledge might be inclined to skip the movie altogether.

Grade: C

Review: The Producers (2005)

The Producers
2005
135 minutes
Rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

The Producers, the 1968 Oscar-winning debut of Mel Brooks, is one of the funniest movies ever made. It’s a complete original; sharp, witty, charming, and utterly shocking in an innocent way. The acting by Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel is top notch, the writing is spot on, and it is and will be a classic for generations to come. The Producers, the 2005 musical remake, is based on the hit Broadway adaptation. I wish I could just cut and paste the above paragraph and substitute Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane for Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel. You have no idea how much I wish I could say that this new version honors and celebrates all that was good about Mel Brooks and his comedy classic. I wish it were so, but it isn’t…

The Producers 2.0 is a travesty, a cataclysmic flop, and a stunning miscalculation on every level. It is the worst musicals in ages, and one of the worst films of the year. It is a film so terrible that it devalues the original in a way that no remake ever has before. Gene Siskel once said that no good movie is truly depressing while every bad movie is. In a season of alleged downers such as Brokeback Mountain, Munich, The Family Stone, Rent, King Kong, and Syriana, no movie saddened me more than The Producers.

A token amount of plot - After discovering a scheme that would allow more profits from a flop show than from a hit show, rock-bottom Broadway producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane, badly aiming for the back rows even in close up) and cowardly accountant Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick, also seemingly forgetting how to act for the camera after all these years on Broadway) go on a hunt for the worst play imaginable so that they can produce an instant-flop.

For starters, each and every song is nearly ten minutes long and none of them advance the plot or deepens a character. Every song is monotonous, repetitive, and useless. They repeat information we already know, after the characters have spoken said information prior and during a given song. A climactic number even spends five minutes recounting the entire story for no particular reason. Worst of all, the lyrics are witless and as banal as can be. It is rare that one watches a musical and dreads the songs. As a musical, The Producers stands proudly alongside its betters such as Grease 2 and At Long Last Love.

The original film was 85 minutes. This version runs 130 minutes and the padding shows. The biggest casualty of story expansion is Leo Bloom. Bloom was originally a cowardly loser who wanted to get rich by doing something daring and bold. In this version, Bloom sings at length about his secret dream to be a successful Broadway producer. So then why is he aligning with Bialystock who plans to produce an instant flop and end both of their careers? And the extra three new endings don’t help either.

The film also butchers much of the original’s charm. The initial office meeting between Leo and Max is one of the funniest scenes in film history, yet here it goes on and on, without a drop of comic timing to be found, just two people yelling at each other when they should be whispering. Every scene, every song, and nearly every line is completely over the top, which not only makes for an annoying cinematic experience, but kills the humor when we finally see the show that Max and Leo have been producing. In the original, the musical number in question is the punch line to an hour-long setup, and an explosive orgy of comic inappropriateness and gleeful naughtiness. Now, it’s merely another over the top song and thus is no longer special.

In the original, the play was funny because the lead actor was an atrociously bad actor and intentionally miscast. Now, the lead actor is merely ‘funny cause he’s gay’. Much of the new humor comes from ‘queenie humor’, which is shocking coming from someone as enlightened as Mel Brooks. Brooks’ Blazing Saddles (co-written by the recently deceased Richard Pryor) is still the funniest and one of the smartest films ever made about racism. In this film, producer Brooks and director Susan Stroman are laughing at gay people, not with them.

We have terrible, boring, pointless songs. We have bad writing, unfunny new jokes and botched old jokes. We have insanely over-the-top acting that completely kills any sense of human interaction. Please, rent or re-watch the 1968 classic instead.

Grade: D

Review: King Kong (2005)

King Kong

2005
188 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Peter Jackson’s King Kong is a complete joy; a ripping yarn that refuses to let the audience settle for less, both in technical and artistic achievements. At its best, it has the showmanship to remind you of how you felt while watching your favorite adventure film from childhood. It’s not perfect, but its flaws are ones born out of risk, imagination, and the willingness to swing for the fences in an age when all too many filmmakers settle for a ground rule double.

Review: The Family Stone (2005)

The Family Stone
2005
102 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

The Family Stone is an odd duck, as it is undermined by its own cleverness, even while that cleverness earns points for moxy. It is subtle in its characters, yet overly broad in its plot mechanics. One word of warning though- do not be fooled by the light and fluffy advertising materials for this film, which make it look like a reverse-formed Meet The Parents. While the skeletal outline merits such comparison (instead of a wacky male going to meet his girlfriend's uptight, rigid family, it's a rigid, uptight female going to meet her boyfriend's wacky family), it is a far more dramatic and far darker story that really never tries to be funny in the traditional sense.

The plot, to wit... Meredith Morton (Sarah Jessica Parker) is a workaholic nervous wreck, nervous because she is spending Christmas with the family of her longtime boyfriend Everett (Dermot Mulroney). Her fears turn out to be well founded as she is more or less ambushed
by the Stone family, using her uptight nature and overly formal manner as weapons against her in their slightly frumpier, jollier household. Desperate for backup, Meredith calls on her sister, Julie (Claire Danes), which only makes matters worse as the family seems to like Julie far more than Meredith. As the weekend progresses, lines are drawn, confessions are made, and the reasons for the Stone's behavior are made potently clear. If the previews resemble Meet The Parents, then the synopsis above will likely remind viewers of You Can't Take It With You, without the element of class warfare.

But, while the plot spins off in often-wild digressions and often- forced directions, the acting and the character development keep it grounded. Every single character is played by an esteemed and well-liked actor, and they are all in top form. Diane Keaton plays the matriarch, aptly named Sybil, as she has several sides to her, using soothing, maternal cliches to dish out brutal truths and accusations. Craig T. Nelson shines in a rare lead role as a sympathetic patriarch who tries to remain uninvolved by the character assassination until it crosses the line. Dermot Mulroney wins points by not being the usual blank slate the occupies the role of the 'prize child' (think Teri Polo's thinly written role in the Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers), and actually having a backbone as he stands up to his siblings and his mother. Luke Wilson also shines in a subtle performance as the oldest brother of the family, a proverbial black sheep who immediately sympathizes with Meredith's plight. Finally Rachel McAdams revels in the chance to play a normal, grouchy little brat of a sister, after playing several versions of 'the ideal woman' in the last couple years. Here she is vain, petty, and often the instigator, and she obviously loves every minute of it.

At the very least, The Family Stone is a triumph as an acting treat, and on that level alone it is worth seeing. From a story and plot point of view, however, it flounders. I won't reveal the overly complicated storyline, except to state that it becomes tripped up in its own would-be cleverness. When the film sticks to emotional truths and character, it succeeds. The tangled web of conflicting story lines is merely a burden, a burden that the film cannot overcome. Bonus points are nonetheless earned by the subtly of certain plot developments and that fact that crucial information is delivered visually rather than through expository rants.

In the end, The Family Stone is worth seeing for what it attempts, regardless of whether it always succeeds. It attempts to be a different sort of family dramedy. It attempts to be a different kind of holiday movie. It attempts to be a romance of a most unusual sort. The effort is appreciated and the characters are far richer and deeper than is the norm for this sort of film. And the quality character work is backed up by strong acting by a strong ensemble. Thus, despite my misgivings about how the story works itself out, the film is worth seeing for the strong acting, and several worthwhile emotional beats that arise out of character and honest feeling. The Family Stone is a big, messy movie about complicated, messy people and their messy lives.

Grade: B

Review: Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Brokeback Mountain
2005
135 minutes
Rated R

By Scott Mendelson

Based on E. Annie Proulx’s short story, Brokeback Mountain has been allotted plenty of industry attention due to the obvious fact that it is one of the first big-studio homosexual romantic dramas. Yes, in this film, you do see Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal engaging in sexual activities, kissing, hugging, etc. Now that that’s out of the way, one must view this film not on its noted status as the first such film, but its quality if it were merely the 50th such film. And, in fact, Brokeback Mountain does feel like the 50th such film, as it’s not really about being gay at all. Like all of Ang Lee’s previous movies, it is about regret, missed opportunities, and the crippling nature of social expectations and very real responsibilities. And, by that standard, it’s quite compelling.

Ennis (Ledger) and Jack (Gyllenhaal) are young cowboys in 1963 Middle America. They meet and spend a summer working as sheepherders in a place called Brokeback Mountain. They eventually engage in a torrid romance that ends as August arrives. Four years later, they meet up again, as they will for the next sixteen years, every few months, for a brief respite from their own very different lives. While Ledger and Gyllenhaal share top billing, this is clearly Ennis’s story, as we see far more of his life then Jack’s. Aside from romantic yearnings for Ennis, Jack’s life seems content. He is seemingly happily married to Lureen Newsome (Anne Hathaway), the daughter of a wealthy salesman, and he has most of the comforts of a financially stable household.

Ennis, however, is the model of lower-class tragedy. As the summer of 1963 ends, he immediately marries Alma (an Oscar-worthy Michelle Williams) and, within four years, he has two children, a one-sided marriage, and bills that keep him and his wife working non-stop in menial, psychically demanding jobs to support their bare minimum lifestyle. For Ennis, Jack is an escape from this impoverished and joyless life. Alma has no such outlet for her burdens, and her pain becomes the most devastating aspect of the film. She quickly discovers the nature of Ennis and Jack’s relationship and heart-breakingly realizes that she has based her future with a man who can barely support her, does not love her, and eventually cannot be passionate with her.

For twenty years, Jack and Ennis meet for occasional ‘fishing trips’ and for twenty years, even when seemingly able, they do not take their relationship beyond romantic getaways. Jack wishes this, while Ennis refuses, blaming social intolerance. But Ennis is really afraid of being truly destitute, of abandoning his children, and afraid of the possibility that he cannot open up emotionally to anyone at all. Alas, Jack and Ennis’s relationship is not a great love affair, but a fantasy, based on idealized memories of their first encounter. Jack and Ennis are wildly different people, and their lust would likely not have been enough to sustain their differences in a normal relationship. Of course, had they tried and failed early in life, they both could have moved on. The tragedy is that their yearning is both what sustains them and what renders them unable to rebound from their respective problems.

Like most of Ang Lee’s previous work, Brokeback Mountain is a good, emotionally potent film about lives unfulfilled due to fear and the excuses we make to stop ourselves from pursuing what we really want. Bruce Banner runs from Betty Ross’s nurturing love because he fears that his inner rage will hurt her. Master Li uses his potentially final breaths to confess his love for Yu Shu Lien, now that possible death has freed him from the social constrictions that have rendered him silent. And Ennis uses social intolerance and family responsibilities to disguise his fear of being incapable of baring his soul to another person. In the end they all lose, they all end up wasting their lives.

As the film winds down, Ennis must come to grips with the life he has made for himself as he undertakes a journey that will vaguely remind people of screenwriter Larry McMurtry’s masterpiece, Lonesome Dove (the mini-series adaptation of which is perhaps the finest western ever made). But in the end, there is a glimmer of hope, and a potential first step. Perhaps all of these lives we see connected through Brokeback Mountain will not be in vain.

Grade: A-

Review: Streets Of Legend (2005)

Streets Of Legend
2005
85 minutes
rated R

By Scott Mendelson

Streets of Legend is a rare breed of movie. It is special in ways that one rarely encounters. It is bad in so many ways it’s criminal. In fact, it IS criminal in one very obvious way. The press materials loudly trumpet that this very low budget tale of love and street racing was shot using hidden camera footage of actual street races. Yes, this epic tale consists of real footage of actual highly illegal street races, as stupid, insecure, or highly bored young males speed down (hopefully) deserted stretches of road at speeds topping 200 miles per hour. I say hopefully as that’s not always the case. I have a friend whose father’s best friend was killed by a collision with one of these idiots back in June, 2003. So to make this artistically vacant film, they in fact facilitated illegal street races putting you and I in greater peril. And the best part is, the film is so incomprehensibly shot and edited, that the footage looks completely fake. Putting aside my disdain for the featured sport, the question becomes, to paraphrase Rent, what’s the apropos way to review a movie, that’s also a crime?

The legality and morality of street racing aside, the film fails on every other conceivable level. The film is filled with first-time actors, and on the basis of this picture, they will still be ‘first time actors’ on their next film. The shot choices and editing resembles a poor freshman student film, with pointless shots of alleged symbolism. The film was shot on the very lowest quality digital video, so it looks like a snuff film shot on Betamax. The press materials boast that this is a 'character-driven' film, but each and every character is unlikable, paper-thin, and dumber than two boxes of rocks stuck together with silly putty. To wit, we have the lead character, Chato, a mean, possessive punk who yells at his mother, abuses his girlfriend, and cheats on said girlfriend with her best friend. Next we have Noza, the girl in contention. She loves Chato, but is furious when he gets caught cheating and gets sent back to jail for failing a drug test.

Derek is the main street racer in the cast, first seen getting upset after he gets a ticket for doing 140 on the highway. Derek’s best moment is his tearful lashing out at the unknown reckless driver who killed his mother. This speech comes after he nearly gets himself and Noza into a wreck because they were um… recklessly driving. The lovebirds first meet as she joins her friends to watch a street race, and they are immediately taken with each other. This might be romantic if, acting and writing aside, Noza didn’t look like she was 12 years old.

But trouble looms when Chato breaks out of the maximum-security prison. Does he break out using a complicated scheme involving full body tattoos of prison blueprints, deals made with the top mobster at the joint, years of architecture training, and a cunning scheme involving digging a tunnel in the old shed with the help of a guy who might be DB Cooper? Nope, but Prison Break's Michael Scofield will punch himself if he sees this film and realizes that all he had to do was kick a soccer ball into the forest, run after it and hop a small fence to glorious freedom. The end involves Chato returning to reclaim Noza, with Derek fighting for his new girlfriend. It is here that the film crosses the line from insulting and ridiculous to morally foul and offensive. It is not the actions per se, but one character’s reactions to said events that cause the film to stop being funny in its incompetence and leave a sour, bitter taste with its alleged worldview.

If it needs to be further said, this film is truly ghastly. It has no real production values, no acting skill, nothing worth looking at on the screen. It also has the added component of being achieved through wanton criminality, and having a vile and contemptuous worldview toward the underclass and toward women in particular. That this film was shown at Sundance is a mockery of quality underground film making. That it’s getting a theatrical release is a sick joke. This film is a blight on the art of film making and should be avoided at all costs.

Grade: F

Review: Match Point (2005)

Match Point
2005
125 minutes
rated R

By Scott Mendelson

Match Point is being widely heralded as Woody Allen's best effort in many years, and that much is probably true. This critic is not the world's foremost expert on Allen, having seen only a dozen or so of his films. But, Allen's legacy aside, Match Point is a potent romantic drama, which eventually evolves into a brutally quiet thriller. Whether one is an Allen fan or not, Match Point is a terrific film.

The plot, to wit: Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers). is a British tennis pro, formally a major contender, who takes a job teaching at an exclusive tennis club. He almost immediately hits it off with fellow opera-buff Tom Hewitt (Matthew Goode), who provides the gateway to a better financial and social status. With this new life come the attentions of Tom's sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer), the paternal devotion of father Alec Hewitt (the always welcome Brian Cox), and the
temptation of Tom's fiancee, Nola (Scarlett Johansson). Complications ensue.

That's all the plot one needs, as the film works best with less known about its outcome. The picture slowly envelops you in the life of Mr. Wilton just as surely as Wilton is ensnared in the new life of luxury, privilege and business success. The film ultimately comes down to a belief in luck versus skill, chance versus fate, and comfort and security vs. dangerous, unpredictable happiness.

As stated above, the film eventually develops into a terribly tense thriller of sorts. But it is not a conventional thriller of action, violence, and jolts, but a tense, low-key armrest grabber in the
Claude Chabrol vein, where sympathetic characters make questionable decisions and are constantly caught by their own foolishness. Whether any of this tension is relieved and in what manner will not be revealed here, but it should be noted that there are more moments of sympathetic edge-of-seat tension in this film than in any film released this year. Who would have thought that, between the two major Brian Cox films released this year, the Woody Allen drama would out-suspense Wes Craven's terrific Red Eye? And who would have thought that the normally sinister or methodical Brian Cox would play two completely virtuous and sympathetic fathers in a row?

It's merit as an unlikely suspense film aside; the picture is a visual and acting triumph. The London locations are obviously a new venue for Mr. Allen, and it provides an interesting view into modern British social privilege. Every actor involved is in peak form, and every major character gets several shadings to his or her persona. The two female leads are completely desirable in completely different ways, allowing viewers to sympathize over Chris's dilemma. Sure, Chloe is a bit needy and not terribly sensual, but she's sweet, intelligent, and occasionally playful. Oh, and she's played by Emily Mortimer, which means she's cute as can be, although the English accent is probably more of a draw for a Yank like me then for someone living in London in the first place. As the requisite femme-not so-fatale, Johansson plays Nola in a manner similar to a Daisy Buchanan. Her highly seductive opening scene is never matched, and there is a sense that she never really was that person from that moment, no matter how much others want her to be.

Of course, at the center of the drama is Chris Wilton, a burned out tennis pro who seemingly lives only for new challenges. While he is not a thrill seeker per se, his pursuit of challenge provides constant difficulty as he quickly loses interest in any goal achieved. For him, life is a continuous tennis match against a top seed, with only a little luck deciding the victor.

In this case, the victor is surely Woody Allen. By moving away from his comfortable New York locations, and trading in his quirky off-the-cuff comedy for almost Shakespearian black comedy, Mr. Allen has sacrificed none of his trademark themes and motives, and he has reaffirmed himself as one of the premiere filmmakers of this generation, last generation, and the generation to follow. Match Point is one of the very best films of the year.

Grade: A-