This doesn't exactly speak to me, but then again I am rather tired of the "leading man as soft loser / everybody is in pain and life is hard" motif.

The trailer screams one week in the art houses, straight-to-video then straight to IFC where no one will ever see it again.

Who knows, Philip Seymour Hoffman could be a brilliant director who is being undermined by a weak ad campaign.







Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Amy Ryan, film, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman

Short Review: The media reports of Tom Cruise’s kid’s feces being bronzed may be in error. As it turns out, it may have actually been the shooting script for this film.


There are two big issues with this Tom Cruise movie:

1. Tom Cruise
2. The movie

My issue with Cruise is that he is Tom Cruise in nearly every movie he appears in. He is not an actor. He is a personality. I'm not a fan of personalities.

Looking beyond Cruise, which normally involves simply standing up, you will find Alias and Lost creator JJ Abrams at the helm of this project. This was his first feature film. I enjoy Abrams’ television work. His shows are vacuous and embarrassingly simple. His characters are emotional single-line caricatures but are given enough clever flints of dialog to make them likable. His shows are what they intend to be, disposable yet addictive fluff.

This film is just as disposable as Abrams' TV work. The difference is that this film actually prompts you to throw it away.

Where Abrams’ Alias can get you to suspend your disbelief so you’ll buy that Jennifer Garner can smuggle a XM8 Lightweight Assault Rifle in her camisole, his big fat McMovie can’t get beyond its own bloated subplots. This whole film is one big Alias episode without the benefit of Garner’s charm or Kevin Weisman’s (Marhsall Finkman) humor. Abrams goes so far as to insert, for no reason, Greg Grunberg (Alias’ Eric Weiss) into the first act. This would be like Leonard Nimoy striking it out on his own back in the 70’s but refusing to take off his pointy ears.

Absent the distraction of Jennifer Garner in a body sock shooting a TM-203 Grenade Launcher, Abrams' adoration of cheesy scripting is made just that much more obvious.

If you haven’t seen the film you may want to stop reading, I’m about to spoil the works. Although now that I consider my warning, I'm not sure that's really possible. Can you spoil trash?

The central point of the film is that super-spy Ethan Hunt tries to prove to himself (and others) that he can have a normal life with a wife and the whole shebang. All of this is wrapped up in a muddled plot which pushes Hunt to obtain “The Rabbit’s Foot”. This is currently in the pudgy hands of bad guy arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Yes, the villain’s name is really Owen. Owen. " Oh, no here comes Owen." "I'm so scared of Owen!" Why not Karl, or perhaps Irwin?

“The Rabbit’s Foot” is a toxin Owen is looking to sell to bigger badder guys. Actually, we’re never told what “The Rabbit’s Foot” is and why we should care. For that matter, we’re not given the identity of the bigger badder guys and why they're so scary. Everything is nebulous, which means they are meaningless.

Owen, while performed well by Hoffman, is not an ominous figure. Since he and Ethan aren’t the focus and the conflict between the two is not clearly established, the climatic scenes lose their wind. Any momentum found in the first act is spent by halfway through the film because Abrams is too intent on wedging in a conspiracy subplot into the piece that the film simply can’t support.

Here is a heads up for all of the big time, huge budget Hollywood goofballs; If you have a big, fat McMovie and you need to reach a broad international audience, the recipe is easy:


What this does is create a firm central plot from which you can hang subplots and any other nonsense you want.


If you’re a fan of JJ Abrams’ work, stick with his small screen products. This film, while offering a few well crafted moments, will ultimately waste your time. If you’re going to do that you may as well see Jennifer Garner kill a dozen guys with a flame-thrower while parachuting wearing nothing more than a teddy.


Related Reviews:
Tom Cruise movies
War of the Worlds (2005)
Vanilla Sky (2001)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film School Rejects
Beyond Hollywood




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Billy Crudup, Eddie Marsan, film, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Laurence Fishburne, Michelle Monaghan, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman, sequel, Simon Pegg, Tom Cruise, Ving Rhames

The persistent issue of homosexual pedophiles in the priesthood has been a devastating blight on the Catholic Church. To be fair, there are plenty of pedophiles in the clergy across all faiths and denominations. The rest of the denominations tend to get a pass on these crimes (in term of the media attention). It is the lurid acts of gay priests that really gets the attention of the press and activists.

The film industry, despite all of its self-created marketing to claim otherwise, is generally not a hot bed of gentleness and deep thought. A subject like a scandal involving a priest raping a boy is hardly something one would expect to be treated calmly with any measure of fairness. John Patrick Shanley, who wrote and directed this film, offers a careful film centered on such a sex scandal.

Father Brendan Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), runs a Catholic school. Father Flynn's collar is a bit loose and he tends to flaunt the tight rules of the institution in favor of a more personable approach to his mission. Countering him is Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep). She is wound tighter than an obsessive-compulsive's shoelaces. She is a law and order nun, down the line, who lords over her fiefdom with a scowl and iron fist. Beneath Beauvier is Sister James (Amy Adams) a mousy young nun who leans more towards Flynn's approach.

Beauvier comes to suspect that Flynn has been sexually abusing a student. She confronts him only to be rebuffed by his outraged denials. Lacking irrefutable proof, but knowing in her bones she is right to convict the man, Beauvier presses to have him removed. Flynn, not a completely innocent man outside of the accusations, tries to deny her moves.

Shanley wisely avoids digging too deeply into the sexual aspects of the charges and focuses on the subjects of pride, authoritarianism and justice. The rape accusation isn't pushed aside but it isn't the point. It is there to raise the stakes and give the conflict urgency.

Streep and Hoffman are a strong pairing and play off one another with impressive results. Streep's other partner, Amy Adams also work well. Adams is not of the same caliber, or at least doesn't appear to be, as her cast mates. She can play the doe-eyed innocent however and in contrast to Streep's sneering maternal figure, she fades into the background at times.
If you had been avoiding this film due to the assumption that it was little more than a strike against Catholics or Christianity in general, you can put those fears aside. The overall film has less to do with the clergy and more to do with the flawed people who hold the roles.


Related Reviews:
Meryl Streep movies
The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
Julie and Julia (2009)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
The Austin Chronicle
J&C's Movie Reviews




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman

Hey, Dark Horizons calls it a masterpiece - good enough for me.

Let see, dropping feces, flatulence, urination and bestial sex - sounds like a real masterpiece.





Screenwriter: Adam Elliot
Director: Adam Elliot
Actors: Toni Collette (The Sixth Sense), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) and Eric Bana (Star Trek)

Labels: Eric Bana, film, movie trailer, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Toni Collette

Short Review: The biggest problem with this film is that listening to Capote is like listening to someone scrape a fork on a plate.


The main criteria for who wins the Oscar for Best Actor should always be for the actor who delivers a performance that no one else could have done. They should offer a performance that is unique to them. Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump and Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Hannibal are great examples of this. Over the past few years we have been asked to swallow that good but not great performances were worthy of professional adulation. Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love, or Denzel Washington in Training Day? He loses for Malcolm X but wins for that pedestrian waste? Paaaleese! Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Best Actor win for his performance as Truman Capote returns us to a more proper recipient for this award. Hoffman’s performance is a singular achievement. His Capote is at first a heck of an imitation. He has the voice, the inflection and the gesture down pat. Beyond the mimicry, Hoffman provides a moving look at a brilliant mind injured by a deeply wounding history.

Director Bennett Miller’s work is usually overlooked when people talk about this piece because of Hoffman’s overwhelming performance. Miller gives Hoffman enough space to do his work but also manipulates the story and screen to let us see underneath this complex man. There is never a time when we don’t know that Capote’s hubris is at once well founded but also used by him as an emotional shield. Capote’s aggressive mind offered him the world’s blessings but it also forced him to curse himself at the same time. This duality is handled by Miller brilliantly both by giving Hoffman the ability to express it but also by maneuvering the scenes in such a way that this conflict is constantly at the forefront.

It has been made clear by the filmmakers that this is not an autobiography of Capote. I believe it is. Although you only follow him throughout the five years we was involved in the murders of the Clutter family and their killers, you get such an intimate look into his motivations that the film leaves little else one could possibly get from the rest of his life. One doesn’t need to drink the whole ocean to come to understand its taste. We can gleam much from a person by looking at the actions they take when faced with moral choices. This film follows Capote as he intentionally chooses to do the wrong thing, as he decides the wrong moral choice. He lies to condemned men, he defiles the sanctuary of closed coffins, he uses people and scoffs at their lives when they are away. In short, he was a very bad man who wasn’t far removed from the murderers he worked to popularize.

The film doesn’t condemn Capote’s abuse of those around him openly, but through subtle and intelligent moves it makes it clear his work is not something to be proud of. At one point Capote claims that he will return the killers to the realm of humanity. The scene, in context, is played in such a way that the audience is forced to recall the victims and therefore question if his work will remove them from humanity. Through Capote’s actions and statements, Miller allows the character to condemn himself. The final moments of the film accommodate the need for the film itself to come down with a moral choice in regards to Capote using the tragedy of a quadruple murder for his own gain.

This is a very good film is a brilliant performance at its center. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance is as good as you have heard and the film lives up to him. Despite a slight tilt to equating the death penalty to the cold-blooded murder of innocents, this film is very much worth seeing.


Related Reviews:
In Cold Blood (1967)
Infamous (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelViews
Quick Reviews

Labels: film, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Truman Capote

And Kenneth Branagh in the role of Dean Vernon Wormer...

Uptight Square Underling: "Sir, unwashed hippies are running a pirate radio station in international waters."
Dean Vernon Wormer: "They are? Well, as of this moment, they're on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION! "









Screenwriter: Richard Curtis (Bridget Jones' Diary)
Director: Richard Curtis
Actors: Gemma Arterton (Quantum of Solace), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead), Bill Nighy (Underworld), Emma Thompson (Wit), Kenneth Branagh (Conspiracy) and Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz)

Labels: Bill Nighy, Emma Thompson, film, Gemma Arterton, Kenneth Branagh, movie trailer, Nick Frost, Philip Seymour Hoffman

This is so well done that I still recommend this movie despite the fact that you see Philip Seymour Hoffman's bubble-gum butt. Right there in the opening scene, flabby Phil completely naked having sex with an equally naked Marisa Tomei. The "ewww" factor is off the scales. The thing is that not only is this scene disturbing to the core, it is also completely unneeded. There is no reason it needed to be shot the way it was. The same concepts could have been projected without having to show Phil's stretch marks.

Director Sidney Lumet (Network, Dog Day Afternoon, The Verdict, Fail-Safe) masterfully commands this film about a pair of brothers who have their lives ruined after they fatally screw up robbing their parent's jewelry store. He gives us an intimate film with little intrusion, just pure character and performance. Lumet dips into a distracting editing sequence to indicate flashbacks and time shifts. These jolts break in and unfortunately remind us we're watching fiction. Other than this awkward choice, Lumet is dead-on with his delivery and provides one of the most engrossing movies of his career.

I am pressed to think of any recent film that manages such a collection of strong performances. Ethan Hawke, who I've never considered to be a strong talent shows his skills in his role as Hank Hanson, a nervous loser who owes money all over the place and doesn't have the means to make it up legally. Hawke has lost his boyish looks and his face is getting ragged with age. He looks perfect for this role, thin, pale and tired. His performance is a sympathetic one but he doesn't make Hank an endearing man. He's just a pathetic lost cause. Hawke nails the man's desperation and fear. Hank is a man-boy who obviously has spent his life trembling in the shadow of his overbearing brother Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Hoffman brings yet another memorable performance to the screen as the alpha dog Andy but in their scenes, it is Hawke who surprisingly shines as Hank melts under the pressure from his big brother. Albert Finney likewise gives a heart aching turn as Charles, the father of Andy and Hank, and the victim of their awful crime. As Charles slowly pieces together the plot against him, the tension builds. Finney is understated and so real in this role. Hawke, Finney and Hoffman mix together perfectly and Lumet does the right thing, he steps back and let's the three do their work.

This is the debut screenplay by playwright Kelly Masterson. This may be the most impressive screenwriting debut in years. Forget about Diablo Cody, she writes cute stuff and is easy to serve to the press. Masterson is the real deal. Someone who can pen characters with this much verisimilitude is someone to watch and watch closely. There is a scene between Charles and Andy where the two men, father and son, get to the core of their relationship. It is a small scene and it is low key, but Masterson packs it with an stunning amount of emotion without falling into dramatics.

This is not a film for everyone. It is one of the best crime dramas I've ever seen but it is loaded with low behavior. Those who are wary of violence, cursing, scenes with drug use, nudity and frank sexuality will find plenty to avoid here. Lumet and company pull no punches and everything is laid out to be seen. If you're sensitive to questionable content, this is just not your film. If you are okay with seeing some rough stuff, and you enjoy literate films this is one you should put to the top of your list.


Related Reviews:
Philip Seymour Hoffman movies
The Big Lebowski (1998)
Capote (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
eFilmCritic
Critical Culture

Labels: Albert Finney, Ethan Hawke, film, Marisa Tomei, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Sidney Lumet

Given the entertainment industry's seemingly endless taste for attacking Catholics, I absolutely understand is any Christian watches this trailer and assumes this is yet another kick in the shorts.

Despite the obvious angle of having the Catholic priest being accused of pedophilia, this could be a highly dramatic work if it is handled with some care. On a personal note, this creeps me out a bit. We had a young priest in our town molest a kid and then committed a double murder then eventual suicide when the investigation closed in. The murders were done a hundred feet from my house. Just the subject matter alone is upsetting. I can't imagine how sensitive someone would be who was direct involved in such a situation. Given how hurtful this could be, hopefully writer/director John Patrick Shanley (Moonstruck) has some respect for his delicate subject.







Screenwriter: John Patrick Shanley (Congo)
Director: John Patrick Shanley (Joe Versus the Volcano)
Actors: Meryl Streep (Sophie's Choice), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote), Viola Davis (Nights in Rodanthe) and Amy Adams (Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby)

Labels: film, Meryl Streep, movie trailer, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Viola Davis

This film answers the question "how sicked out will I get if I ever see Tom Hanks' naked buttocks". There's gratuitous nudity and then there's a middle aged man pointing his middle aged bum at the camera for no good reason. Hey Tom, it didn't go to moving the plot along, you didn't need to do it. Save it for your wife, she married you, let her live with the image. Let the rest of us alone.

If you can struggle past seeing Hanks' wrinkled, pale mud flaps, you will find a fantastic movie. Hanks is perfectly cast as Good Time Charlie Wilson. Wilson, a hard-living congressman, was responsible for pushing the CIA's largest covert operation giving support to Afghan Mujahideen who were fighting against the Soviets and their puppets in the Communist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Hanks is perfect for the role because of his ability to charm. This is critical for the role because under any criteria, Wilson is bad guy. He's a drinker, womanizing hog, living off the teat of his constituents. Hanks is able to overwhelm the negatives and provide us with a charismatic lead we can get behind.

Supporting Hanks is Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gust Avrakotos, a CIA agent who guides Wilson through the political and special ops minefields of building a war against the Soviets via Afghanistan. Hoffman, like Hanks, is a reliable talent who tackles even his minor scenes with zeal. The two work together wonderfully as does most of the rest of the cast. The only fault is in Julia Robert's performance. She is a performer, a personality, not an actress and her inability to give her performance any depth is striking when she's put up against Hanks and Hoffman. Her numerous scenes feel like an extended cameo more than a support role.

Smartly, the script by Aaron Sorkin (The American President) is light on overt agenda. In this day and age it is important to note when someone (particularly someone like Sorkin) avoids turning their work into some cheap kick in the shins to their political opposition. The story is played as straight as possible and avoids the barbs of today's conflicts. Obviously, this film was made in reaction to the events on and after 9/11, but those connections are left as being inherent and not constantly hammered like one may expect. This gives the film a comfortable appeal for both sides of the aisle. We can watch the film with 20/20 hindsight and are left to consider the implications on our own.

This is a solid piece of storytelling and worth at least one viewing. If you haven't seen it, check it out, seeing Hanks and Hoffman together is worth the price of admission.


Cautions: Like swearing? Like swearing done very effectively? If so, this movie is for you. Tons of cursing permeate this movie. To be fair, the swearing is a natural byproduct of the characters, and it is cleverly peppered in the script. This said, some audience members may be offended. If the swearing disturbs you then I won't bother going into the nudity, sexual discussions and other adult content that makes up a majority of the narrative.


Worldview: Charlie Wilson defies his personality and his history to push for a covert war that served to give the Soviets a well deserved kick in their collectivist rumps. This covert war also seeded the Islamofacist movement we're battling today. Watching Wilson lopping the head off the foreign policy hydra seems to show the futility of rising above our human nature and doing "the right thing". Despite the claims of morons everywhere, people aren't inherently good - we're bad. Humans do the darnedest things and when I say "darnedest" I mean the most vile and despicable acts of craven self-interest. When we choose to do good (and I selected the word "choose" intentionally), when its not done to satisfy personal ends, we are casting aside our natures and attempting to live beyond ourselves. We know ultimately everything we do in this life will pass and most things we set right will eventually turn wrong once again. The point here is to keep doing what is right, what is good. For when we do good, we elevate ourselves to be more like God. Trying to be more like God may be as futile as standing on your tiptoes in an effort to be as tall as the Sears Tower, but every little bit does count. Our machinations are as flawed as we are and doing the right thing is a slippery proposition because the facts on the ground tend to change over time. Even knowing our good may spoil (as they did in this case), we are still asked to do our best. God knows we are faulty, broken by sin. This is why he has plans for us to be perfected. Before the mending comes our task is to fight our impulses and do as much good as we can, while we can.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galatians 6:9

For you non-believers, think of it this way, if there's no afterlife, then all that will remain of you is the fleeting memory by those near you. You will be remembered for your actions. Your acts today decide your obituary tomorrow. Will the summation of your life be positive or negative? Charlie Wilson may have been a bad man but it is his good acts that will really define him. Even a bad man who despite himself does the right thing is preferable to good men are virtuous but who do nothing.


Related Reviews:
Tom Hanks movies
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Da Vinci Code (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Monsters and Critics
Film Critics United

Labels: film, Julia Roberts, movie review, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Hanks