This film has been praised far beyond its actual value. It is nowhere near as wonderful as one may be led to believe due to all of the awards and critical praise. Having seen the film, it is clear to me all of the hoopla is little more than politically correct cheerleading. The problem criticizing a film like this is that given its overt agenda, combined with today’s neo-fascist attitudes, going against the grain and pointing out how emotionally distant and manipulative the film is will be confused with hatred towards gays. The fact is that this film is much like every other Gus Van Sant film, it is completely lacking in any meaningful emotional connection and overloaded with self important dialog, along with heavy-handed visuals. The story of Harvey Milk should be told. I honestly believe this. He was an important figure and the rebellion of Castro Street is ripe for cinematic explanation. The man’s life lends itself to being a fascinating biography, despite one’s feelings about homosexuality; he was a notable figure and a fascinating one as well. This film doesn’t tell his story in the best possible way.

I will be upfront and admit that I don’t jive Van Sant’s directing style. I think he gets in front of his camera too often. We see this in overt shots like one in this film where Milk and his lover are sitting on the stoop of his camera shop. The two men, having just been insulted by a Christian liquor store owner, are shown making out in front of Milk's store. This is presented as an act of love and defiance. Behind them a large store sign that reads “Yes, we’re OPEN” may as well be a billboard. Where a more delicate director would combine these images Van Sant practically puts the sign in neon pink and has animated arrows pointing out his clever use of environmental symbolism. Blunt overtures like this litter his works.

Sean Penn’s performance as Milk is solid, but certainly doesn’t rise to the level of a Best Actor Oscar. Then again, I believe the award shouldn’t be an annual distribution but only passed out when someone honestly excels at the art of acting. Penn's work doesn't rise to the level of a signature performance. He plays the man with vigor and brings him to life, but he doesn’t stand out. He doesn't get lost in his portrayal, which he is certainly capable of doing. In this performance, he's always just Sean Penn with an affectation.

This is not a biography as much as it is a piece of political theater. Yes, Milk was an activist who became a politician and telling his life’s story demands his politics be explored. I don’t have a problem with his activism and political attitudes being on display. I concur with some of his assertions. Gays should be allowed to live their lives in peace. Yes, they are God’s children and they deserve respect and love. With the exceptions of being able to marry and adopt children, I agree with many of the political aspirations of the homosexual community. But this film overplays its hand. Van Sant is too overt, too involved to deliver this material without getting in its way.

If you’re comfortable seeing homosexual activity and are looking for a biography that is good, not great, then this will work for you. Just don’t be fooled by the hype machines. It’s not a great film and Penn doesn’t give a stunning performance. It is a good film, and has some merit. Perhaps someday the subject matter will be revisited and a stronger film will result.




Related Reviews:
Sean Penn movies
21 Grams (2003)
The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
The Flickering Wall
Behind the Hype

Labels: Emile Hirsch, film, Gus van Sant, James Franco, movie review, politics, Sean Penn

Seth Rogen has cut out a niche for himself. As he did with Knocked Up, he portrays a stumbling loser who is completely amoral and emotionally stagnant. He’s a lovable loser however because he knows he’s a lost cause and is able to find humor in his pathetic existence. Actually, his character in this film, Dale Denton, is almost exactly like his character Ben Stone from Knocked Up with the only exception is that he’s just a little more pathetic this time around. Dale is a bumbling part time process server, fulltime pothead. He has a lousy job, wastes his time smoking dope and hangs out with his girlfriend who is still in high school, he’s much older. After buying a new brand of pot that has hit town called Pineapple Express from his wheezing pot dealer Saul (James Franco) Dale witnesses local drug kingpin Ted (Gary Cole) murder a competitor. Dale and Saul spend the rest of the film being chased by Ted’s thugs. Essentially, this production attempts to combine a pot comedy like Up in Smoke or Half-Baked with the simple structured comedic action-adventure film like Hot Fuzz or The Blues Brothers. The combination is possible to pull off, but in this case it fails.

The film fails because it’s just not very funny. It is amusing in spots, but the script and performances lack any life. For most of the film there’s sarcastic interaction in place of wit, buttressed by sophomoric physical humor. Screenwriters Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (Superbad) avoid mining any humor from their scenes and stick to offering awkward juxtapositions instead. Everyone in the film is a softy, concerned about being friendly and not having their feelings hurt. Drug dealers are openly worried whether people like them or not. Hired killers complain they’re not spending enough time with their family. Characters capable of ruthlessly shooting people are easy to get misty eyed over insensitive remarks. These character contrasts are played over and over until they become wearisome. The entire cast literally acts like eleven year old boys deciding they’re going to be friends. While this may be amusing at first, it quickly loses its edge and it becomes clear Rogen and Goldberg don’t have any other tricks up their sleeve.

The final act of the film is a complete mess thanks to a lack of consistency. The final act revolves around a prolonged gunfight. This battle is rather violent. Is it way over the top, ala Tarantino? No, there isn’t too much here most audiences haven’t seen before. The issue with the final fight sequence is that it is starkly different from the previous portions of the film. There was violence in the first acts but the overall tone of the movie was still lighthearted and the violence was displayed within that frame. The final act removes the humor and tries to portray itself as a full out action movie. Director David Gordon Green mishandles this transformation and ends up delivering a nonsensical flurry of guns and death. Given the half-man losers he has as his heroes, this transformation is also lacking any logic. You can't say the hero is a pothead dolt who is sent into a panic because he’s scared of being a dark woods alone and then have him magically discover the internal fortitude to single-handily attack a gang of drug runners. It doesn’t work.

To sum up, if you are lacking any standards and pretty much thoughtlessly consume whatever comes down the pipe, you’ll probably enjoy yourself with this film. If you’re a little more discerning, say by wanting actual jokes or at least something clever, you’re out of luck. This is a very predictable and unoriginal film. Yes, there’s not that many pothead action films out there, but you’ve seen these characters and situations under different name a hundred times before.



Related Reviews:
James Franco movies
Annapolis (2004)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Cinema Verdict
Cineopinion

Labels: comedy, Danny McBride, drugs, film, Gary Cole, James Franco, movie review, Seth Rogen

Oh, if only the film were half as good as the trailer. This is a fantastic piece of marketing, if you don't want to check this film out after seeing this ad, there's no helping you.

But no, trust me - this film seriously stinks. You should skip it.







Screenwriter: Phil Sears, Blake T. Evans and David S. Ward (Major League)
Director: Tony Bill (My Bodyguard)
Actors: James Franco (Annapolis), Jean Reno (Mission Impossible) and Philip Winchester

Labels: film, James Franco, Jean Reno, movie trailer, war

Short Review: Hint to filmmakers: When you make a movie about World War I, try to keep the running time of your movie shorter than it took for the war itself to play out.


I wanted to like this film, I did. The problem is that the filmmakers conspired to keep me from enjoying one single moment. A film about World War I flying aces with the planes and the flying and all of that very interesting content. What do you get? Two and a half hours of bad movie - two and a half life sucking hours. I would have wasted less time if I just stared at the clock and counted the passing of 5,400 seconds.

This film is so long that it bored me in shifts. First the “whimsical” character development scenes where all of the characters would say one or two lines to reaffirm who they were before they went back out to fight. The rich guy would say rich guy stuff. The Christian guy would say Christian guy stuff and so on, the African guy (at least I think he’s African, he starts the film with an accent and then sounds like he’s from America by the end,) received random insults from passing white guys and then punches said white guys. There is absolutely no depth to these people. They may as well have pull strings hanging out of their back that lead James Franco could pull when the plot was too thin. On the subject of the plot, it is dreadful. There isn’t a villain other than a series of faceless German pilots. I’ve said it a thousand times, no clear villain means no clear conflict, no clear conflict means no reason to see the film. At the heart of this whole disaster is James Franco mumbling his lines to some meek French girl. The two are supposed to be a romantic couple. There have been sock puppets being jabbed together by children in mock “kisses” that have sparked more romantic interest than these two pieces of cinematic deadwood.

This kind of film irritates me. It is certain this could have been a wonderful film if it were made by people who knew how to make movies. As it stands, not even the flight sequences are worth the price of the rental. The flight sequences are chaotic, confusing and, in the end, unimpressive. If for no other reason, when a guy was shot down I had to confer with those around me who it was that died. When I found out, I found myself responding with a shrug. My long-suffering wife complained that she could tell who the characters were wearing all of their World War I flying headgear (goggles, head cover, etc.) during the dogfighting sequences I responded “If you think its hard now, wait until their on the ground and talking.”

Don’t bother with this one folks, it will only waste your time and let you down.


Related Reviews:
War movies
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)


Other Critic's Reviews:
MovieBoy Review
CinemaBlend

Labels: film, James Franco, Jean Reno, movie review

At first glance this appears to be a fawning ode to a gay politician made purely for the sake of political correctness. While this cynicism, if you're inclined towards it, would be grounded in a natural reaction to how the entertainment industry works, I would advise to give the story a close inspection. Yes, this is a film about the first openly political in California, Harvey Milk. Yes, it will be fawning and present Milk as a wonderful man and will most likely avoid displaying his flaws. Milk is a martyr for the gay movement and the reason this film found funding is obvious. The story isn't without merit however. Harvey Milk's story is a fascinating one and his life and death had repercussions for the nation on both political and legal grounds. The building confrontations with democrat Dan White, who murdered Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone is rich with drama and will probably make for a good film. There is an agenda here but there is also a compelling story to be told.





Screenwriter: Dustin Lance Black
Director: Gus Van Sant (Finding Forrester)
Actors: Sean Penn (The Assassination of Richard Nixon), Emile Hirsch (Speed Racer), James Franco (Annapolis) and Josh Brolin (American Gangster)

Labels: Emile Hirsch, film, James Franco, Josh Brolin, movie trailer, Sean Penn

Screenwriter: Ann Peacock (The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe), and John Romano (Intolerable Cruelty)
Director: George C. Wolfe
Actors: Diane Lane (Hollywoodland), Richard Gere (The Hoax), James Franco (Flyboys), Scott Glenn (The Silence of the Lambs), and Christopher Meloni (Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle)

Labels: adaptation, Christopher Meloni, Diane Lane, film, James Franco, movie trailer, Richard Gere, Scott Glenn

As a rule, be wary any film that has the main characters flying through the air in a car screaming at the top of their lungs.

The fact that the trailer doesn't show anything funny is another hint that his may not be the top of line.

Two potheads get caught up in a drug killing and are hunted down by zany hit men. While on the run, said potheads learn about themselves and life and everything gets tied up into a nice little bow in the end.

Who knows, maybe all the red flags are for nothing and this will be a great comedic gem.

Yeah, I kinda doubt it too.




Screenwriters: Seth Rogen (Drillbit Taylor), and Evan Goldberg (Superbad)
Director: David Gordon Green (Undertow)
Actors: Seth Rogen (Knocked Up), James Franco (Flyboys), and Gary Cole (Office Space)

Labels: film, Gary Cole, James Franco, movie trailer, Seth Rogen

Short Review: The mediocre raid.


There have been many attempts to express the torture American soldiers endured at the hands of The Japanese during WWII. Like To End All Wars, this film goes out of its way to show the brutality of the Japanese P.O.W. camps in an unfiltered and realistic fashion. This movie also shares another quality with that film, it is painfully slow. We come to get a glimpse at how low humans can drop when personal honor is cherished over personal morality. In this respect, this film is successful. The viewer does come to understand how bad it was for the prisoners. This film fails, however, because beyond this weighty point, there is little else of note.

This film primarily suffers from a clear lack of direction. The structure of the film is built from two stories that are split into three portions. That sounds fun doesn’t it? There is the drama of the prison camp where Major Gibson, played wonderfully by an intense Joseph Fiennes (Luther), tries to control his men while he is slowly dying of malaria. The second portion is dedicated to Margaret (Connie Nielsen (Gladiator), Major Gibson’s unrequited love. She struggles to remain free while operating a local underground movement and smuggling drugs to the P.O.W. camp. This makes up one of the two stories told in this movie. This would have been a successful production if this was the extent of the narrative. There is enough here to make a deeply moving story about the separated couple. Well, this is called The Great Raid not The Great Story About The Separated Couple - there has to be more.

Finally we have the last portion given to the actual raid. This is equally as interesting and potentially striking as the other plot lines in the film. Like the other plots there is enough content in this portion to make its own film. The raid section of the film holds some good content but could have been improved. James Franco and Benjamin Bratt offer strong performances although their roles don’t require much. It would have been better if the film had the time for character development and conflict. As it is, the raid is shoehorned into the film and the story suffers.

The central issue is that the plots have nothing to do with one another until the final act. While Gibson and Margaret go through their internal struggles, the raid is being massed and executed by people who otherwise have nothing to do with them. In a way it is like watching a movie on television and clicking over to another movie on another channel and then coming back. The actual raid seems to impose upon the film about the struggles of the suffering couple.

The piece as a whole is tragically disjointed. With the stories not connecting until the final moments and the complete lack of a centralized villain there is nothing pushing the story forward. We have a series of events that end without meaning, thus, no real reason to watch. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, a story requires a central villain. This forces a thrusting conflict against the hero and is used to move the story forward. Conflict demands a question be proposed to the audience; “Will the boy get the girl?” “Will the raid be successful?” “Will the hero get his goal?” Through the conflict that drives the story the storyteller and audience learn the answer to the central question. This answer gives birth to “the moral of the story”. If there isn’t a notable bad guy, there isn’t a notable conflict and thus there isn’t a notable moral to close the story. This is a first class ticket to an unsatisfying ending.

While I can’t tell you to avoid this one, there are some good scenes and some fine acting, I’m certainly not raving about this film. It is lukewarm, proceed with caution.


Related Review:
Another P.O.W. Movie
Rescue Dawn (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Armchair Critic
CinemaBlend

Labels: film, James Franco, Joseph Fiennes, movie review, war, World War II