Precious

Precious is a film riddled with so much sadness that it would be easier to believe it if it were true. Based on the book Push, the protagonist is an amalgamation of various young women the author, Sapphire, met when she was teaching in Harlem during the mid-80's. Any one point of the girls' depressing life would make do for a fine drama, but when you combine her mothers' physical abuse, her fathers' sexual abuse, her pregnancies due to her fathers' sexual abuse, her lack of education, her obesity, her dire straits living off of welfare in Harlem...one begins to wonder if anything can get worse for poor Precious (and it does). Now, we could speculate that one point leads to the next: her parents' character might suggest a life of destitution, destitution generally offers a neglected education, pallid nutrition and so on and so forth. And we can assume that there are many young women who find themselves in similar situations. But I have not felt so much despair in a film since Schindler's List and because this film is not about a true life event, like the Holocaust, you're left wondering if you're not being emotionally manipulated for the sake of the film's resolve.

This can all be excused, however, because the melodrama sets up a great character, superb acting and nearly flawless direction on the part of Lee Daniels, whose production credits include Monster's Ball and The Woodsman. Gabourey Sidibe has made a wonderful debut with her subtle characterization of Precious and grounds this story in the frank realism it needs. But Mo'Nique steals the show as Precious' mother, a neurotic self-absorbed nihilist of a woman, whose physical and mental abuse knows no bounds. Mo'Nique plays the character with just enough flair to reveal her dysfunction without over sensationalizing it and her final scene has Oscar written all over it. Paula Patton, Mariah Carrey and Lenny Kravitz also put in graceful performances as a teacher, social worker and nurse, respectively, who all offer Precious a slice of what life might and ought to be.

Lee Daniels, in his sophomoric directorial effort, takes a screenplay from newcomer Geoffrey Fletcher, and gives it an energy that ought not to exist in a film with such depressing subject matter. That anyone could find something to smile about in this film is a credit to both Fletcher and Daniels. Executive producers Oprah Winfrey & Tyler Perry, not known for being shy about developing stories around strong black women, have not had a character with so much empathy and suffering, since Oprah herself played Sethe in Beloved.

There is a minimal amount of hope offered at the end of the film, just enough to get us and Precious on by. If such a young woman exists in the real world, Harlem or otherwise, I hope that this film can be, at the very least, a testament to the idea that, although we must make do with what is given to us, the outcome of our lives is not necessarily bound to the situations we find ourselves in.

****1/2 (out of five)

500 Days of Summer

In 1977, Woody Allen gave audiences the gift of Annie Hall, a wonderfully eccentric romantic comedy that gave a refreshing boost of energy to the genre. With witty dialogue, superb acting and enough clever film techniques to make Fellini gush, Annie Hall is considered one of the all-time greatest films and subsequently won Best Picture at the '78 Oscars. In that same spirit, (500) Days of Summer brings a breath of fresh air to the concept of boy meeting girl. Although not quite on par with Annie Hall, it is about as close to capturing that same excitement and idiosyncrasy as a film has done in ages and should revive hope in the art of film for even the most cynic of viewers.

The film's title is a little misleading. The story is not about an over-extended season of the year but instead about a girl named Summer and the year-and-a-half that Tom Hansen finds himself smitten with her. A narrator tells us right off the bat that although this is a tale about a boy meeting a girl it is not a love story and a humorous author's note that appears before the opening credits prepares us for an arc that may not end on a particularly happy note. But, like Tom, we can't help falling in love with the idea of he & Summer living happily ever after. The chemistry between actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zoey Deschanel is without doubt responsible, in part, for our belief that these two are fated for one another. Marc Webb, making his feature length debut, does an excellent job capturing their charming courtship as it progresses from the first day to its last. Also making their debut, screenwriters Michael Weber & Scott Neustadter who have written a gem of a script. I hesitate to use the word "quirky" as it has now become a tired term but the film has a peculiar sensibility that (although more muted than, say, Juno or Away We Go) fans of the independent scene will appreciate.

The film has a brilliant soundtrack (kudos to the music supervisor) and offers a combination of film techniques that one might expect to be treated to in Annie Hall: actors addressing the camera, a song and dance number with a brief splash of animation, fantasy sequences including one with a very clever use of the split screen, a use of time-shifts that might give Pulp Fiction a ran for its money. Although they all add a bit of spice to an already flavorful film, some of them miss the mark and I'm left wondering if a few sequences were used but for the sake of being unique and not for furthering the development of the story or characters.

Which brings me to the only thing I found disappointing in the film: the characters. Some of them were completely unnecessary, particularly Tom's little sister who shows up a couple of times to offer advice but plays no significant point beyond that (her lines could have been given to any one of his guy pals and it would have just sufficed). The guy pals, themselves, seemed to provide nothing more than comical relief to the character of Tom. And then there's Summer, or, at least, the vague outline of her. We never really get to know much about her beyond what Tom wishes she was. She's a modern woman: independent, witty, self-assured. But the film focuses mostly on Tom and his angst. I only wish the story would have been a more bi-partisan story.

But like Tom, what you want out of something is not necessarily what you get or what you need. If you excuse your expectations of what a film (or a relationship) ought to do or where it ought to go, you're more likely to enjoy it. If only Tom had seen this film before he met Summer and if only we had met Summer before she first saw Tom, we would all be a little happier. But by the end of the film, you're left feeling like everything will turn out all right even if what you wanted isn't what you got.

****(out of five)

Watchmen

Based on the beloved and critically acclaimed graphic novel by Alan Moore (who shares the current spotlight with Frank Miller as the go-to guy for comic-to-film adaptations), Watchmen is a dark satiric look at society and the super hero genre.

The film is a rather straight forward adaptation of the book, following Rorschach as he enlists the help of fellow heroes to investigate the death of one of their own. As the mystery of the murder unravels for the characters, the audience learns the truth about what it means not only to live the life of a hero (or in the case of Dr. Manhattan, a superhero) but also realize the perverted rationalizations in the name of peace and harmony. Forget Superman, forget Spiderman; these are idealized and kid-friendly versions of the hero genre. In Watchmen, the men and women who protect us are debased, sometimes sadistic, on-the-fringe type folk with enough ego and mental instability to keep any Freudian employed for a lifetime.

The graphic novel is an absolute modern masterpiece and Moore deserves the same accolades prescribed to 20th century literary greats such as Vonnegut, Heller and Camus. Many thought that Watchmen was unfilmable due simply to the complex nature of the novel. It was a similar response to the idea of The Lord of the Rings being adapted which, as it turned out, ended up becoming a huge success. I expect that the producers, given this knowledge, given Snyder's reputation and given the popularity of comic-book movies, decided to go ahead with the endeavor. However, Snyder, known for his lush computer-enhanced visuals, relies too much on appeasing the fans of the book and not paying enough attention to the needs of the film.

The film is relatively easy to follow and shot by Larry Fong (who also takes credit for the cinematography in 300). The problem is that the characters never really come to life. For characters with such three dimensionality, they come off in the film as rather flat. Subplots that weave in and out of the lives of these heroes seem to go nowhere or, when they actually do go somewhere, feel rushed. For a comic book, the scenes make sense; for a movie, they don't seem to add up. And by the end of the film, the climax doesn't seem to have been born of the story leading up to it. Instead we have a film that implies it has great depth but glosses over it entirely, which is ironic, since the novel went into great depth about glossed-over heroes.

Who will watch the Watchmen? Well, fans will probably appreciate seeing their favorite characters come-to-life but I suspect they will not replace Snyder's vision of the Watchmen with Moore's.

*** (out of five)

Blood: The Last Vampire

Based on the animated film, TV series and manga books, Blood: The Last Vampire tells the story of Saya, the alleged last living vampire whose been hired by a secret organization to defeat evil creatures. Depending on which version of the story your invested in, the details vary slightly from medium to medium. The film version opens with Saya hunting down a "bloodsucker" for The Council, which appears to be a secret department of the CIA. She infiltrates a US Air Force base to discover the whereabouts of several more bloodsuckers. From there, she meets an American teenager who witnesses Saya's attack on two bloodsucking classmates and the two join causes to defeat the evil chiropteran creatures.

Now, I have never seen the animated film or the TV series or read the manga books or played the video game. I came at this film with virgin eyes and so it's terribly possible that elements of the characters and story were lost through my ignorance. Although I cannot say for sure, the film producers have either assumed the audience is well versed in the mythology or that they have simply overlooked basic plot points to create a sensible film. Either way, it does not make for a good film and I left the theater feeling completely unsure about what I had seen.

Why does the film take place in the 1970s? Why is Saya battling these creatures? What are these creatures? How did she become a vampire? Why is she the last vampire? Where are her fangs or fear of the sunlight? Why are the CIA involved? How did they come to know Saya? Are they even CIA? Why was the American girl attacked? How did Saya know that her attackers were the evil creatures she was looking for? These are but a handful of questions that I had and if anyone can answer them for me, I'd be much obliged.

On top of the awful story, the dialogue had about as much flavor as wet cardboard. The acting was rather flat, the special effects were distracting and felt rather dated, the quick editing would make even the most accustomed viewer feel a little nauseous. The only thing the film may have had going for it was its subtle 70s set design and Hang-Sang Poon's cinematography (Kung Fu Hustle) that offered the film a sense of desperately needed gravitas.

As this was my first introduction to the character of Saya, I know nothing about what a live-action film about her should look and feel like. That being said, I cannot recommend the film one way or another to fans of the books, games and TV series. I certainly cannot recommend it to the casual viewer who, I can only imagine, would be just as confused and disappointed in the film.

With vampire's all the rage these days, there's bound to be a few that should have never left the casket. For fans of Saya, see it at your own risk. For the rest of us, stick with Buffy.

** (out of five)

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

I feel as if I'll be writing this review for a select few people since it seems that the majority of America saw The Half Blood Prince last night. At least enough to record a $22.2 million Wednesday opening. My wife & I were one such couple who found themselves in a line that stretched over a quarter mile out the theater. Harry Potter is the current cultural phenomenon that seems to defy all classes: rich and poor, young and old, black and white, men and women. Only a fringe constituency of religious conservatives seem not to be enraptured by the series of films and books. Harry Potter is The Wizard of Oz and Star Wars of our times rolled up in one.

That being said, such a phenomenon makes it hard to criticize the film , as if this story and these characters are our children putting on a school play and no matter how dreadful the production, we're overjoyed that our kid's up on that stage! Before anyone gets the wrong idea, the film is great. But it's not perfect. And I'll get to that in a second.

First off, for the two people who know nothing about Harry Potter or his adventures in the Half Blood Prince, Harry Potter is a teenager in wizardry school who, with the help of an ever growing cast of allies, is slowly unraveling the mystery of how to defeat the dark Lord Voldemort, who killed Harry's parents when he was but a baby and is out to take control of the world. That's the story in a nutshell. The Half Blood Prince, as but one cog in the wheel of this epic tale, has Harry and Professor Dumbledore exploring the origins of Voldemort through various memories pulled from Dumbledore's mind which had been literally bottled up for future investigation. Through these memories, the two learn the truth of how Voldemort has risen from the dead and how he plans to avoid kicking the bucket again. There's a sizable sub-story about teenage love and angst as magnified by magic and potions.

That's about as much as I'm willing to divulge of the story (mostly because so many of you already know the plot, it would just waste bandwidth) but for those who require a more detailed plot summary, I suggest you pick up the novel.

So, what are the goods? Well, just about all the elements of cinematography, set design, lighting, costumes, special effects, sound and every other production department is wonderfully created and/or rendered. Bruno Delbonnel's cinematography alone, shot in amazing high definition, is outstanding. The special effects department must be commended for some spectacular visuals. It is, to date, the best looking Potter film. Per usual, the acting is spot on and the teenager cast members have really grown each film with their acting chops. Radcliffe, although his range is a bit stilted, nonetheless holds us captured. David Yates' direction is exceptional. Beyond exceptional. His ability to structure a scene or a moment is, well, pardon the pun, absolutely spellbinding and outdoes his previous work in Order of the Phoenix.

The problem, however, with the Harry Potter films is that, while each of the books got progressively longer, more complex and more complicated, the films, guided by a financial necessity and by an expectation of audiences, must conform to certain standards. Even though The Half Blood Prince is twice as long as the first book, the latest film is only a minute longer than the first film. I think the producers are doing right by splitting the last book into two films but they should have used Prince as precedent for, as the film stands, it seems at once bloated and lacking. Steve Kloves is an extremely talented writer and anyone who has seen the previous films can attest to his ability to weave a narrative arc. But he has too much story and not enough time to give it justice. The development of Tom Riddle, Slughorn and Malfoy in this film seems almost as if it were a passing thought in the eyes of Kloves & the producers even though their narratives really push the story forward. Instead, Kloves lends too much time to the teenage love stories & Quidditch matches and not enough time developing the major plot. Granted, the scenes between Harry, Ginny, Hermione and Ron are lovely & wonderfully crafted but could have been editted to leave more room for exploring the larger themes and plots in the series.

As I mentioned, Yates has great control over Kloves screenplay but the individual scenes, as lovely as they are, do not add up to a fully realized film and, by the end of the film, you feel as if you've seen a the visualization of chapter in a book, rather than the visualization of a book in a series. Perhaps this feeling of wanting more from the film was the intention of the producers who are well aware of that the audience has two more films to see before finishing the story. Be that as it may, I left the theater feeling as if I had taken part in a great five course meal but was saddened not to find room for dessert.

**** (out of five)

The Films of Nicholas Cox

Today's viral films come courtesy of StudentFilms.com, a great portal for film students and budding directors to not only showcase their work but receive immediate feedback from peers and regular joes, like me.

Sick, written, directed and produced by Nick Cox of Columbia College in Chicago, tells the tale of a young boy who's forced by his parents to live a completely sterile life. He wears a surgical mask at all times, his father tucks him to bed with a pair of elongated tongs, and he's fed from a stainless steel tray which is washed after every use with a cloth decontaminated in what looks to be a pot of boiling water. His mother becomes frantic at the smallest sign that her boy might have becomes susceptible to some disease or illness. They seem to live quite an agoraphobic lifestyle although how they pay their bills or receive their groceries is never made clear. The son becomes taken with the girl next door who he watches silently from his bedroom window which, as you might expect, becomes the catalyst for which the drama unfolds.

The film however is billed as a comedy and I can't quite picture myself referring to it as such. The characters are played with a certain lightness and a jovial jazz standard keeps the mood relatively upbeat, but their doesn't seem to be any true humor in the story, none that I connected with, at least. Perhaps humor a la Eraserhead might be a good way to describe the film's mood, albeit without the deformed monstrosity of a child.

The acting is rather poor, although this could be attributed to the melodramatic screenplay which provides characters with little dimension, development or even much to say and do. But underneath the narrative is the vague recognition of morality tale about parents who are forced to accept that they cannot protect their child forever from the horrors of the world and that he'll soon grow up and eventually leave home.

On the flip side, Mr. Cox has Doggy Style. For those who might stumble upon this late at night and think they may have stumbled across a Girls Gone Wild film will be sorely disappointed. The film, instead, is a sweet and somewhat sadistic story centering on a couple renting a country home for some rest and relaxation only to find that they're neighbors to a constantly barking dog. Claire, (Nadia Van de Ven), refuses affection from Adam (the comical Timothy Cole) until he finds a way to shut the dog up. Driven to despair, Adam is forced to take desperate measures, which may or may not upset members of PETA, depending on how you interpret Adam's ultimate intentions. As in Sick, the film lacks originality and there's no sign of any real character development that even a short film ought to reveal. Granted, overall, the two actors add enough charm to their characters to keep the story interesting which makes Doggy Style the better of the two shorts.

Two view either of the two films, click on the images above to be linked to the appropriate Quicktime file located at StudentFilms.com.

The General

This recommendation was originally profiled by me on WILDsound, a great site that mixes film festivals & competitions with film reviews & news. You can find the original review at their site here.

By the time Buster Keaton directed and starred in The General, he had completed over 44 feature and short films, 27 of these he had directed, 22 he had written, 7 he had edited, and 6 he had produced. Mind you, he had just turned 31 by the February premiere of this slapstick comedy. By the time he died of lung cancer in 1966 he would work on over 100 more features and short films. On top of all this, Keaton handled most of the dangerous stunts seen throughout his career. He was the Jackie Chan of his day. In fact, this is essentially an insult. Take the stunts of Chan, the physical humor of Jacques Tati and the wit of Woody Allen and you just might have created a man equal to Keaton's genius. "The Great Stone Face," as he was often referred to (in reference to the straight face his character's retained even in the gravest of situations), was a champion of physical comedy. Of the great silent era comedians, including Harold Lloyd and Fatty Arbuckle, his popularity is second only to that of the estimable Charlie Chaplin.

If Chaplin was the heart of the silent comedy, Keaton was the brains. The sight gags and stunts were clever, complex, captivating and novel. Take, for instance, one of his better known stunts. In Steamboat Bill, Jr., a film which would grace the screens a couple years after The General, Keaton is standing in front of a home after a tornado has run through town. The side of the building comes crashing down upon him. Keaton is miraculously standing directly where the second story window falls and slips through unscathed. What's more amazing is that he did this in one take with no test set-up. This is the courage and temerity that Keaton graces nearly every silent film he has done. Film after film found him in a situation where he was placed (voluntarily) into dangerous conditions with (as the example above proves) potentially fatal results. During one such film, Keaton broke his neck not realizing the severity of the situation until years later.

The General was no different when it came to acts fraught with danger, spending most of the 75-minute film on a moving steam locomotive. Whether he finds himself sitting on a train siding rod as it disappears into a tunnel, riding the cow catcher to remove objects from the track ahead of him or jumping from car to car, Keaton risked his life for the sake of comedy. And it pays off in dividends. Watching Keaton perform is like watching a magician perform acrobatics without a net. It's not surprising, then, to learn that he grew up in vaudeville with family friend, Harry Houdini (who, legend goes, gave him the name "Buster" after seeing him fall down a stairwell without harm).

The film's title is derived from the name of the steam locomotive that Buster's character, Johnny Gray, engineers and is based loosely on a true story. An early title card spells out Gray's motivation for all future actions in the movie; his love is divided between his train and his sweetheart, Annabelle Lee (played superbly by Marion Mack). Civil war is upon the nation and Annabelle's brother dutifully enlists. Johnny, recognizing the pride Annabelle has in her brother, attempts to enlist, too. But the recruiters feel that Johnny's services as an engineer would better serve the war efforts and they promptly dismiss him. Severely disappointed, Annabelle refuses to speak to him again until he becomes a soldier.

Years later, while breaking for lunch during a routine trip, the enemy steal his train as part of a scheme to destroy the railroads. To his dismay, Johnny learns that Annabelle was on the train and has been taken hostage. He borrows a nearby train and pursues his rivals. In chase, both he and his enemy devise plot after plot to stop the other, almost all of them unsuccessful in one manner or another. One hilarious attempt involves a cannon and its unintentional trajectory. Another involves a train car that seems, to Johnny at least, to appear and re-appear out of thin air (Keaton's reaction is priceless).

Johnny eventually makes his way to the enemies quarters where he rescues his maiden in distress and manages to overhear the plans of an impending attack. Ever vigilant, Johnny concocts a plan with the help of Annabelle to warn their unsuspecting allies of the enemies intentions. The enemy, as it would naturally seem expected, learn of his plan and chase after him. Johnny, a master of the railroad, still has a few tricks up his sleeve and employs them with humorous aplomb. He finds a soldiers uniform hidden in the train and upon arriving at camp quarters, he happens across a gun holster. Informing the army of the pending attack, he joins their ranks and helps defeat the enemy, redeeming himself in the eyes of Annabelle.

The General, considered a classic by nearly every major critic, is probably Keaton's best work, culminating as the apex to several prior brilliant films (including Our Hospitality, The Navigator & Sherlock Jr.). It was unfortunate for Keaton that audiences and critics of the day were not so impressed. Many walked into the movie with assumptions that the tone was pure slapstick comedy and were surprised (and disappointed) to find the humor was wrapped up in an action-oriented adventure. Audiences may have been equally turned off by the fact that Keaton's protagonist was a Southern gentleman and sided against the Union. Box office totals suffered and, respectively, Keaton suffered, too. As it had been a rather expensive flop, distributors lost confidence in his ability to produce and eventually he would relinquish all control over his production status to maintain an acting career with MGM.

Like many films and, consequently, their creators, their talent is often ahead of their times and their worth unrecognized. Modern audiences now appreciate the ingenuity of Keaton's masterpiece: his comedic timing; his deadpan face; his incredible pacing; the cinematography even for today's standards is outstanding.