Review: The Break-Up (2006)

The Break-Up
2006
105 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

From a critical point of view, one is divided over a movie like The Break-Up. On one hand, it does attempt to be different from the usual cookie-cutter romantic comedies. And, there are a few scenes here and there that do have an element of honest human truth to them. However, as a whole, the film collapses under key narrative and character errors and eventually becomes a combination of boring and cringe inducing. While The Break-Up may be a noble failure, it still fails.

The plot, to wit Gary and Brooke (Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston, respectively) meet at a Cubs game and take an immediate liking to each other. Over an opening-credits montage, we see two-years of their relationship as it progresses from courtship to living together in a rather nice Chicago condo. Alas, all is not well, and a nasty after-dinner fight ends with their decision to split up. Alas, they both love their condo and neither want to give it up, so they decide to play Solomon and split it in half, with Gary taking parts and Brooke getting parts. Alleged comedy ensues.

The key problem with this enterprise is that it stars two very unlikable characters. Gary is immediately presented as a selfish jerk, as his opening scene literally has been forcing his way into a date with Brooke even as she's on a date with someone else at the time. He eventually reveals himself as almost psychopathically lacking in basic empathy and a generally lousy human being. Why anyone, be it Brooke, or his family, or his friends would put up with him is never explained, as he isn't even presented as being particularly funny or charming.

As for Brooke, she is presented as a rather mal-adjusted needy individual who seemingly tries to win Gary back despite his complete lack of respect for her. Like many romantic comedies (like The Wedding Crashers or The Wedding Singer), the film makes the tactical error of having the female lead pining for or being engaged to someone who is such a disrespecting, abusive creep, that we lose respect for her and don't particularly care about her happy ending.

Ironically, while Vaughn and Aniston are miserable together, utterly lacking in chemistry, the cast around them shines and provides what entertainment there is to offer. Vaughn has fun sparring with Jon Favreau as his best friend, obviously playing on Swingers-nostalgia. In about fifteen minutes of screen time, Vincent D'Onofrio nearly steals the heart of the picture as Gary's put-upon oldest brother. It's his dealings with Gary's selfishness that gains our sympathy as Gary costs him more than just having to do dishes after a dinner function. By the end, we couldn't care less if Gary and Brooke get back together, but we sincerely hope for Gary to make amends to his own family. Between this, Thumbsucker, and the always-terrific Law And Order: Criminal Intent (aside from everything else he's done in the last 20 years), D'Onofrio is quickly becoming one of my favorite character actors (unlike the other braniac TV detectives, Goren is the only one who is shown learning all the stuff he will spout out later).

On Brooke's side, Joey Lauren Adams fills the best friend role but does nothing of interest with it. More amusing is Judy Davis as the insightful diva-ish boss at the art museum where Brooke works (an almost unrecognizable Justin Long hams it up as the flamboyant receptionist). Also amusing, albeit with limited screen time, is Jason Bateman as their mutual friend and their realtor. It's his big scene that sets the third act into gear.

Of course, all the great character actors in the world don't help all that much when the leads are unlikable and boring. Despite attempting to make an honest and unflinching look at a couple falling apart, the movie in the end is 102 minutes of unlikable, unsympathetic people playing hurtful head games with each other while we allegedly root for them to reconcile. Also hurting is the indecisive ending, which is a known compromise between what the filmmakers wanted and what the foolish test audiences demanded. Besides, in the end, a part of us does want them back together, if only so everyone else in the dating scene will be spared.

Grade: C-

Review: Inside Man (2006)

Inside Man
2006
124 minutes
Rated R (language and some violent images)

By Scott Mendelson

Inside Man is a perfect example of complete and total craftsmanship. It is not art, nor does it try to be, but it is an expertly oiled machine and under that qualification it is nearly a complete success. It also makes a compelling argument for the continuing pattern of high quality auteurs trying their hand at genre pictures and giving those pictures a unique professionalism. Spike Lee is one of the greats, who usually makes social issue films that may or may not involve race. By having him work in the classic bank robbery thriller genre, Lee makes a superior thriller while still peppering the film with intelligent drama and social insight that a lesser hack wouldn't have bothered with.

The plot, in brief: Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) walks into a major Manhattan bank with three cohorts and promptly holds up the joint. After hauling about fifty hostages to the back of the bank and forcing them to dress in identical outfits resembling their captors, Russell puts his plan into action. Meanwhile, Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) and Bill Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor) are called onto the scene as the official hostage negotiators. After setting up protocol with Captain Darious (Willem Dafoe), our heroes are immediately perplexed by the lack of standard procedure shown by the robbers. Meanwhile still, the owner of the bank (Christopher Plummer, looking his age for once) is concerned about the contents of a certain safety deposit box, so he enlists a fix-it person (Jodie Foster) to watch over the situation. As the hours go on, complications seemingly ensue, secrets are possibly revealed, and, to use a cliche, things may not be what they seem.

As one can see from the above paragraph, the cast is uniformly stellar, and they all relish the meaty character roles that they are given. Denzel Washington is far less intense and serious than usual and he and Ejiofor (so frighteningly human as the genocidal government agent in Serenity) enjoy a real bond and chemistry that suggests genuine friendship. Jodie Foster has a blast playing a woman of mysterious morals and possible villainy. Only Owen fails to stand out, but only because his ice-cold and logic-based villainy is something we all know he can do in his sleep. Even the various cops and hostages are given sharp and amusing personalities.

Dabbling in his first big-studio thriller, Spike Lee relishes the chance to play with his usual themes in a subtler manner. Issues of class, race, and privilege are tossed about, almost in an off-the-cuff manner. The worthwhile question of whether one can in fact be redeemed, despite a past wrong, eventually becomes a core theme. Lee also isn't afraid to play with some of his classic cliches, and the classic Lee sorrowful saxaphone solo that enters the soundtrack about an hour into the movie will put a smile on fans of the director. Lee even finds a place for his classic man floats through the street shot (think the end of Malcolm X, where Malcolm rides in his motorcade seemingly well-aware of his impending doom), even if it is a bit shoehorned in.

The film feels distinctly New York-ish, as much humor is made of the countless ethnic groups and races that all live together in relative harmony. For such a gripping, serious-minded film, the writing and dialogue is often very, very funny. The humor is all rooted in character and works nearly every time. Ironically, one of the reasons that the film is so tense is due to the lack of brutal and sensationalistic violence. There is violence, but it is infrequent enough to be shocking when it occurs and the suspense is palpable, as one doesn't know if or when these robbers will snap again. Like The Score (2001), this adult thriller builds tension through old-fashioned suspense, rather than shocking us with unrealistic carnage and gore-filled action set pieces.

To be fair, the final fifteen minutes consists of about four false endings, none of which add anything to the picture except to drag it out well beyond its natural conclusion. Aside from that quibble, Inside Man is terrific, near-perfect example of what happens when you let an A-list director tackle B-movie genres with the same gusto. It's expertly paced, terrifically written, and wonderfully acted. By dialing back his ambitions, but not his passion or his qualities, Spike Lee has made his best film since Get On The Bus, way back in 1996. Inside Man is glorious grown-up entertainment and the best film of 2006 thus far.

Grade: A-

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-