Short Review: Can't get a biopic of MLK done but this pervert gets lionized. Someone stick a fork in our culture...



Look at the original DVD box above. Liam Neeson peeking through a keyhole with the words "Let's Talk About Sex" underneath. The marketing team thinks showing the main character obviously peeking through a keyhole at others copulating is a selling point. Can we, as a society with hopfully an ounce of self-respect left, please give a collective "ewwww!"

I hope you're not shocked when I tell you that this was unpleasant movie.

I’m not against frank discussions about sexuality. such conversations are needed in a mature, intelligent culture. I believe people should be given information about sexuality and safe sexual practices. I am hardly a prude. What I do have a serious problem with is public discussions of sexuality and sexual practices outside of a moral context. It is one thing to offer biological dissertations on how intercourse occurs, its another to start rambling on about what should be considered normative behaviors with the same cold tone.

The film proposes America was a ignorant place where no one understood human sexuality. In comes Alfred Kinsey with his brave pronouncements of just how depraved we all are and now everyone is better. We all can talk about sex and think about it freely and with an informed attitude. But where is the morality?

People used to have horribly misguided ideas about the biological functions of sexuality (oral sex leads to pregnancy as an example.) But now, in our new enlightened state everyone is informed. Oral sex does not lead to pregnancy – heck even children know this. The problem is that sexuality without morality leads to a new kind of ignorance. We now have a couple of generations who believes oral and anal sex aren’t really sex. Which society is worse off? Which kind of sexual ignorance is more damaging?


Kinsey was a troubled man who did a great deal of damage to the world. To offer him a film honoring his efforts is ignorant and deceptive. To offer grand proclamations about the need for sexual freedom is easy from the high towers of the universities and Hollywood. But there is a deep and serious human cost involved. Look at your society and tell me if this “freedom” is free.

By the way, the film itself was passably done. It was neither a strong production nor a weak one technically speaking. The positives of the film are outweighed by the obtuse message and glaring anti-morality messages in the story. The point of the film is to obviously denigrate anyone who holds a connection between morality and sexuality and praise the free-love types.

This is a blatant reworking of history which means it is propaganda. As far as propaganda is concerned, you can do better than this. Obviously, I do not recommend this film.


Related Reviews:
Liam Neeson movies
Taken (2008)
Excalibur (1981)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema Blend
London Times




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

Labels: biography, Chris O'Connell, Dylan Baker, film, John Lithgow, Laura Linney, Liam Neeson, movie review, Oliver Platt, Peter Sarsgaard, Tim Curry, timothy hutton, William Sadler

I won't pretend to know the first thing about boxing. To me, it is nothing more than gladiatorial lunks pummeling one another for profit. I see no art, no finesse, no inherent worth. In other words, I have no reason to find any interest in this documentary about the career of boxer/media punching bag Mike Tyson. It is interesting however. Tyson, for all of his ominous reveals himself to be a broken, essentially scared man.

As far as portraits are concerned, this documentary does well to show its subject, warts and all. Tyson is a bad guy, but he is at least willing to acknowledge his sins. He manages to present himself as sympathetic while admitting his troubled nature and shameful path.

This is far from a balanced film, but it does offer some insight into the all-too-common duality of the abused becoming the abuser. I think his openness and seeing how his weaknesses has themselves in his behavior is the film's hook.

If you are interested in the film, chances are you will find it compelling enough to track it down. If you're on the fence, this is a good portrait, but not a masterful one. If you skip it, you won't be missing anything. If you pick it up, you won't regret it.

Labels: biography, documentary, film, movie review

There are times when it appears an actor is born to play a specific role. If this were true, Ben Kingsley work portraying Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would be the best example. Kingsley gives one of the great screen performances as the meek peace loving icon. The film is worth viewing just for Kingsley command performance. He humanizes the icon in a kind, promotional fashion that supports the legend more than the man. Now granted, Gandhi was a man who did great things with his life, but he was also a very flawed individual capable of some rather odd behavior (his disturbing sexual proclivities are one for starters.) This film wasn’t meant to show the real man but to lionize a fallen leader. Kingsley presents the legend with great conviction to where his performance solidified the man’s iconic status in the Western mind.

Director Richard Attenborough has crafted a patient, sprawling look at Gandhi’s life. There are a number of points where the story lags but these dips are short lived and the film as a whole is worthy of the praise that has been heaped upon it. It is a fascinating film to watch simply out of its masterful construction. Other than a few dry spots and the heavy “Gandhi as living saint” agenda, there is little I can find to criticize in this film. It is simply good cinema. It has a compelling lead, an engaging story and a writer and a director work perfectly in tandem – if only more films had so much going for them.

The one thing that has always stuck in my craw with Gandhi’s beliefs is that he promotes non-violence as a tool to shame the powerful into acting humanely. Gandhi confronted the British Empire, a society built on social order and appearances. Gandhi’s non-violence stance assumes the aggressor has a conscious. Would he done so well against Nazis, or Islamofascists? Believe it or not, there are belief systems out there that promote amorality and people committed to those ideologies are capable of inhuman brutality. It seems to me that Gandhi’s philosophy was so successful because he was dealing with civilized men, not true barbarians.

This is a brilliant film that is something you should at least try to sit through at least once. Those who have short attention spans or aren’t big on sprawling biopics, you may not make it all the way through. The more patient audience will find one of the better films ever made. Just remember that you’re watching an agenda piece more than a true biography.


Related Reviews:
Biopics
Patton (1970)
Milk (2008)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Classic Film Guide

Labels: Ben Kingsley, biography, Candice Bergen, film, John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, movie review

Short Review: A great movie, although it made me wonder how clean my hands are. Germs - all I see is germs!


I doubt I am the only who thought when the film cutie-pie Leonardo DiCaprio stepped on screen for the first time “What the heck, this guy is Howard Hughes?” I have to admit he pulls it off. DiCaprio's Hughes is a driven and deeply pained man. DiCaprio, along with director Martin Scorsese, express the fright and frustration that come with mental illness. To show this through a genius who lived a life of adventure and innovation is a tough job but they are up to the task. Opposite DiCaprio is Cate Blachett in a very strong performance as Katherine Hepburn. Even if everything else in the film were horrible, her performance would still make it worth seeing.

The film is not flawless. Like many of Scorsese's work, it goes on far too long. To be fair, in this instance, I don’t see how Scorsese could have cut it back. This is a grand film about a very big personality. It has the scope it needs to tell the story. This is more than worth the rental. This one is good enough to own.


Related Reviews:
Leonardo DiCaprio movies
This Boy's Life (1993)
The Departed (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Austin Chronicle
Goatdog's Movies

Labels: biography, Cate Blanchett, film, Leonardo DiCaprio, Martin Scorsese, movie review

I like this trailer, it's unconventional opening draws you in (although it over sells things a bit), and the remainder gives a good sense of the grandeur of the whole film.

The film itself is exceptional across the board, one of the best from the 1980's, in my estimation.

Return to the movie trailers page

Click on the little vulgarian to read the review

Screenwriter: Peter Shaffer (Equus)
Director: Milos Forman (Goya's Ghosts)
Actors: Tom Hulce (Jumper), F. Murray Abraham (Finding Forrester), Elizabeth Berridge (Hidaglo) and Jeffrey Jones (Ferris Bueller's Day Off)

Labels: adaptation, Amadeus, biography, film, movie trailer, Mozart, Tom Hulce

The pace of the film drags a bit and the third act dips into melodramatic overtures. This is not a film for people with short attention spans or the low in taste. If this is the kind of movie that sparks your interested then you will probably find that it delivers.

Labels: Albert Finney, biography, film, Ioan Gruffudd, Michael Gambon, movie trailer, Romola Garai, Rufus Sewell

Screenwriters: Peter Buchman (Eragon) and Benjamin A. van der Veen
Director: Steven Soderbergh (Ocean's Thirteen)
Actors: Benicio Del Toro (Sin City), Demián Bichir (Dark City), Rodrigo Santoro (Redbelt) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace)

Labels: benicio del toro, biography, film, movie trailer, steven soderbergh

It's a cliche to say that an actor was born to play a role. In the case of this production, it is clear George C. Scott was uniquely equipped to play the tough-willed, iconic general. His performance is so commanding it stands as one of the great performances in cinema history. He is so believable in the role that the famous image of him standing before the giant American flag exclaiming that "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." is the image most people today connect with the name Patton more than the actual man.

The film itself is a joy to watch. The competitive urges of the Allies' military upper echelon is a great conflict to watch and plays against Patton's personal/public turmoils perfectly. Patton brutish style and undeniable brilliance getting caught in a world of public perception and media is prophetic of the issues facing our military today. They have a tough job to do and a media waiting in the wings waiting to complain about how it gets done. Patton's inability to change his nature in light of the alternating tastes of his time and the frustration he faces at every turn makes this one of more engaging biographies put to screen. The real man was as big as depicted, usually the subject of a biography has to be punched up a little and their conflicts buttressed to give them more life. In Patton's case, his overbearing personality and his thick-headed belligerence is large enough to fill the whole movie.

One of the elements of the film that is often overlooked is Karl Malden's understated performance as Patton's contemporary General Bradley. Malden's calmer tone contrasts the bombastic theatrics Scott provides and acts as the anchor to the story. He deserves credit for a masterful supporting performance that assisted in creating the environment in which Scott could work. Without Malden's even presence, Scott's blasting characterization would have clearly become clownish. Malden's Bradley levels their scenes out and humanizes the larger-than-life Patton.

This is one of my movies that you simple have to see once before you die. It is a great example of how epic cinema can get and how, when done properly, how film can be used to its fullest effect.


Related Reviews:
Biographies
Control (2007)
John Adams (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Flick Filosopher
DVD Beaver

Labels: biography, film, George C. Scott, Karl Malden, movie review

Before I dig into the movie itself, I had to acknowledge that Charlize Theron does give a notable performance as serial killer Aileen Wuornos. It's not that she uglied-up and gained weight for the role. Her performance itself is strikingly good. I've often complained that some performers can be too good looking to be taken seriously. Their good looks are distracting and set them too far apart from the average person that having them in a common role doesn't jive - for a good example of this check out Theron in North Country. She looks exactly like what she is in that role, a model dressed up like a plebe. In this role, she buries her attractiveness and makes much out of the opportunity her mask offers. I suspect the ability to distract from her looks was one of the compelling reasons for her to take the role in the first place. Alright, I'm off on a tangent - she does a great job, noted.

The film itself is a detestable thing. Aileen Wuornos, a dim-witted serial killer, gets a sympathetic biography complete with A-List starlets. The film follows Wuornos' exploits as she carries out her crimes and drags her lesbian lover Selby (Christina Ricci) down with her. Writer/Director Patty Jenkins clearly intends on humanizing the most famous female serial killer of all time. She goes out of her way to show Wuornos, not as a gutter level whore/vicious killer but a psychologically damaged result of male sexual abuse. Jenkins' Wuornos is first and foremost a victim, a victim who strikes out in the only way she knows how, by killing other people. Now, Jenkins isn't a moron, she knows that she can't just lay out Wuornos as a product of our society and then ignore the fact the woman brutally murdered a whole bunch of men. She tries to soften her point-of-view by either making her victims out to be brutish abusers or by quickly trying to establish their humanity before their snuffed out. One of Wuornos' victims desperately explains his disabled wife can't pleasure him and he holds up a picture of his wheelchair bound spouse. This may be a factual display, I don't know, but just the same Jenkin's inclusion of it in the film and how it is presented is as manipulative as having the man cuddle a sad eyed puppy just before he's killed.

The story overall is a bumpy ride. Jenkins establishes Wuornos as a victim rather effectively, but also too forcefully. Theron's performance glosses over much of Jenkins' over directing however. The film runs into trouble when Wuornos begins to commit murders and her relationship with Selby hits the skids. When the two eventually hit the road, the film has lost much of its potency and we're left with two completely unlikable misfits arguing. These two do not make for interesting theater. Selby is a thin character, a quiet sociopath who blends into the backdrops. Christina Ricci doesn't have much to work with and seems to flounder in the role. Her results are flat and amount to little more than whining her lines and sulking. When contrasted with Theron teetering on overacting, Ricci seems to disappear altogether.

Finally, I have to mention that this film has a hilarious bit of anti-Christan bile slapped right in the middle of the story. Selby's overbearing mother is, of course, a Christian - because as we all know by now all overbearing, spiteful people are of the faith. Jenkins' couldn't have made a bigger prop if she had the role played by a cardboard cutout of Pat Robertson. What's funny about this ludicrously written part is that Jenkins', not satisfied with sticking to the run-of-the-mill Christian bigotry, Jenkins actually has the woman belch out the n-word like she's cursed with racist Tourettes. She hurriedly combines Christianity with racism and then moves on as if to say "alright, we've seen enough of this, you get the point - her mother is a Christian (who are racist by the way) and that's what screwed her up. What's interesting is that the film shows the Christian mother in poorer light that the drug abusing, murdering prostitute. At least the conniving whore gets excuses made for her behavior.

Overall, this movie seeks to justify the actions of a serial killer. Defenders will say I'm wrong and point out that the movie doesn't support her decision to kill all those men. The point here is that Jenkins and company decided to make a movie explaining this woman, and they try to get us to sympathize with her miserable life. Aileen Wuornos had a rough life to be certain, but so have a lot of people, and some worse than her. To come down on the side of the murderer, any murderer is wrong. The only reason they did it is because they believe they could score some neo-feminists points about societal abuse. What's truly pathetic, I'd go as far as to say it's horrifying, is that these idiots don't see past their urge to "express themselves" to see that the woman they so eagerly display in a wheelchair to "humanize" her dead husband has to live now knowing they made a movie glorifying his murderer and they used her disability in part to do it.

Like I said, detestable.


Related Reviews:
Serial killer movies
Mr. Brooks (2007)
L'Empire des loups “Empire of the Wolves" (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Jerk
Movie Gazette

Labels: biography, Charlize Theron, Christina Ricci, film, movie review, serial killer

Deceptively light and witty, this production packs some serious themes into a fun package. Tom Hulce gives a career performance as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He joyfully presents the belching, farting, scandalous but gifted composer. Mozart is a scamp who has been bestowed with unfathomable talent. As Mozart's fortunes rise and he creates his masterworks, his contemporary Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham) bitterly sulks in his shadow. Salieri wishes to glorify God through his works but his efforts are stimited by his view of the beliegerantly vulgar Mozart. Salieri, forgetting the purpose of his works (to glorify God), compares himself to the master. Seeing a irritating man-child instead of a man he can respect, Selieri takes his desire to please God and turns it into rengence against the Almighty.

While Hulce chews on the scenery, the real star of the movie is Abraham as Salieri. He also offers his best performance, he won a Best Actor Oscar for his work (one of eight Oscars the film won that year). Salieri is a great villain and Abraham perfectly explains his point-of-view, sharply expresses his anger and disgust. Director Milos Foreman guides the story and allows Abraham the moments he needs to unpack his character. Foreman also gives Hulce moments to settle down and reveal the wounded man at the heart of Mozart's person. His pivotal scene where he explains his creative impulse, how seriously he really does take his work, is one of the best in the film loaded with memorable scenes.

This is a very enjoyable, accessable film with some deep messages. I can't imagine there are many people who'd be compelled to read a film review that haven't already seen this film. If you are one such person, this is a good enough film for you to go see immediately. I guarantee it's better than most of the new releases out there right now. It's better written, better directed and better acted than 99% of the films out there.


Related Reviews:
Biographies
Control (2007)
John Adams (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel.com
Independent Critics

Labels: biography, F Murray Abraham, film, Jeffrey Jones, movie review, Tom Hulce

Are you kidding me? Let me get this straight, I'm a little slow I guess, there's no definitive Martin Luther King biopic (except a forgotten miniseries from the thirty years ago) and Medgar Evers is an obscure figure but this thug rapper gets a turn?

Who says our culture is in trouble?





Screenwriters: Reggie Rock Bythewood and Cheo Hodari Coker
Director: George Tillman Jr. (Men of Honor)
Actors: Jamal Woolard, Anthony Mackie (We Are Marshall), Derek Luke (Glory Road) and Angela Bassett (What's Love Got to Do with It?)

Labels: Angela Bassett, biography, film, movie trailer

Cass Pennant was a Jamaican raised in London. Learning violence as a way to survive, Cass moves through the ranks of the street to become a feared figure. At the height of his power there was an assassination attempt which then led him to reconsider how he was living his life. This could be good depending on how its handled. Writer/Director Jon S. Baird doesn't have a long track record, and I'm not familiar with his work. If he has a cautious hand and doesn't play up the violence too much and concentrates on the redemption of Cass, this could be quite good.





Screenwriter: Jon S. Baird
Director: Jon S. Baird
Actors: Nonso Anozie (The Last Legion), Nathalie Press, Leo Gregory (Hooligans) and Gavin Brocker

Labels: biography, British Cinema, film, movie trailer

A well-paced look into one of the most influential men in history. Joseph Fiennes is commanding in the title role and portrays Luther not as some larger-than-life icon, but as a bookish man who combats his fears to stand against his superiors.

Labels: Alfred Molina, biography, film, Joseph Fiennes, movie trailer

This film presents one of the best presentations of the ugly side to sexual addition and pornography. Given its content, it is most definitely not for everyone. Given the abundance of nudity, sexual behavior and rank coarseness, many will do well to avoid the movie. For some however, it is a rough but honest look at low living.

Related Reviews:
Willem Dafoe movies
To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)
Spider-Man (2002)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Spirituality in Practice
Ain't it Cool News

Labels: biography, film, Greg Kinnear, movie review, Peter Schrader, Willem Dafoe

Another biopic
John Adams (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelViews
Hollywood Jesus

Labels: Albert Finney, biography, film, Ioan Gruffudd, movie review, Romola Garai

Short Review: Here's a shocker, a musician who's a depressive and selfish jerk. Wow, that's so unique, we better make a movie about him.


I've never been interested in Joy Division's music and never had much need to know anything about them. I come to this movie as a completely disinterested party. Actually, that's not true, as someone who has seen a lot of movies, I did come to this with the hope that this wasn't going to be yet another self-absorbed jackass who finds success and then destroys his life just like Walk the Line, Ray, The Doors, and Sid & Nancy. Although I liked these movies, they tend to be very predictable, overly sympathetic to the artist, and just plain depressing.

This movie sticks to the template but cuts out the sympathy. This is a predictable film for anyone with cursory knowledge of English pop culture, Curtis has been dead for 28 years now, we know how this is going to end. Where this film breaks from the crowd is in its warts-and-all look at the man. Where Walk the Line and Ray are splashy, epic feeling odes, this is a gritty examination of the artistic mind and the often dark results it produces.

The film follows the rise and abrupt fall of Joy Division's front man Ian Curtis. Curtis is a mopey fellow with a haunting voice. As his band climbs through the ranks for the Manchester music scene, he hastily marries his girlfriend Deborah. Like clockwork, as Ian's fortunes rise, his marriage falls apart. This collapse is plain to see given the two appear to be far too immature when they tie the knot. It is also plain to see that Curtis is too selfish to be in a serious relationship. They crank out out a child and the pressures of life begin to weigh the singer down. On top of this, he is stricken with epilepsy which intrudes on his band's live performances as well as his private life.

The implosion of Ian Curtis is reminiscent of Jim Morrison in many ways. Both were deeply selfish men who were spurred on by their associates and fans. Both preferred to look through the back end of life instead of trying to see anything actually beautiful in existence. Both cruelly tormented those who loved them. And both could have been spared their fate by getting some help.

Director Anton Corbijn (known for his work making videos for U2 and Depeche Mode) does well to connect Curtis to the pantheon of rock stars. He clearly lines Curtis up with the likes of Morrison, David Bowie and Lou Reed and the film is very successful at establishing Joy Division's worth. He also does a fantastic job at getting at the sorrowful man's private life and choices.

The film doesn't give Curtis any sympathy at all, in fact, he comes off as a horrible person, not for who he is but the ultimate choices he makes. Again and again, he is given a chance to be redeemed , to be something - to live for someone other than himself. In his depressive stupor, he chooses to feed his own needs and eventually finds himself completely isolated. Corbijn, in his feature debut, handles the subject with a gentle but unflinching hand and gives us a film that, while a little slow, is nonetheless enthralling.

The performances are as strong as the direction. Sam Riley is mesmerizing as Curtis. Much of Curtis' issues are internal and Riley gives light to these dark thoughts in a quietly intense performance that is worthy of a best-actor nomination.

Opposite Riley is Samantha Morton (Elizabeth: The Golden Age) as Curtis' estranged wife Deborah. Usually, in these stories of imploding artists, the girlfriend or first wife is a cursory character who is pushed aside once the narrative moves along (see Walk the Line for a great example of this, Vivian Liberto, is cast aside by the film like yesterday's trash). In this story however, the abandoned wife clings on and we see the devastation brought on by the artist's myopia. Morton is brilliant in this role and honors Deborah Curtis with fair and moving performance. This woman obviously had to deal with a huge amount of pain being married to this man.

This movie is depressing and not for everyone. I recommend it but only if you're into watching depressing, independent flicks about self absorbed jerks. Being a former self-absorbed jerk myself, (now I'm just a jerk,) I can enjoy aspects of this film. I'd be surprised if there is a large audience for this kind of film.


Cautions: Foul language abounds but it is all contextual. It is a part of the culture shown in the film and hardly gratuitous. Although there is a adulterous affair in the center of the story, it is handled with care. Corbijn is thoughtful director and doesn't play the more lurid parts of this story for cheap thrills.




Worldview: Curtis was clearly a troubled guy. The opening scenes show Curtis as a teen in his dingy bedroom with pictures of David Bowie and Lou Reed hanging on his wall. Racked with teenage angst, Curtis loses himself in listening to music and going to concerts. His trouble isn't unique or spectacular - he's just another Goth kid in the making. Your artsy types are a temperamental lot.

The teenage years come to a close with Curtis dressing himself in glam rock style, mascara and frills, gender bending in the safety of his own bedroom. From early on Curtis is at odds with himself. You don't begin emulating Ziggy Stardust because he's cool, one does it because they want to escape what they really are - normal.

As Curtis gets older and his band succeeds it's precisely the normality of life that seems to drag him down. He has a lovely wife, a beautiful daughter and makes a living honestly helping people by locating jobs for the disadvantaged. Everything the man needed to be a complete person, a happy person, was at his fingertips. But Curtis was blinded by is angst, unimpressed with normality, he reveled in his torment thinking it was valuable.

His torments seem to come right from the verses of Ecclesiastes 2:17

So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

His troubled mind wasn't petty, but it was littered with the results of looking for peace in the wrong place. Worshiping rock stars and actors and looking to them for leadership is foolish. When you seriously consume messages of anger, depression and spite, impact the way you see the world.

Curtis replicated what he consumed and became another sour lyricist projecting his sorrow in his music. His music, as interesting as some of it may be, does nothing to improve the world. He, like many artists, believed the lie that he needed to coddle his depression and denounce the world in order to be authentic.

In the end, his disintegration was not surprising. When we deny the beauty of the world - a world created by God ,the meaningless of existence will overcome the best defenses and self-loathing and bitterness will be the result. The real shame of suicide is its angering senselessness. Curtis' death destroyed a number of lives beyond his own. All he needed to do to was turn his pathetic self around and see the real world around him.


Related Reviews:
Samantha Morton movies
Code 46 (2003)
The Libertine (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Rolling Stone
The Times of London


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

Labels: Anton Corbijn, biography, film, Ian Curtis, movie review, music, Sam Riley, Samantha Morton