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)

Brüno

As I have many conservative friends and families, my respect for them would deny me the generalization that right-wingers, as a whole, believe that Brüno represents everything that is wrong with the "homosexual agenda." But I suspect that there is a small crowd of Americans who view this character as a symbol of gay culture and that all gay men are self-centered, materialistic, perverted and godless. Brüno, the film, takes a certain delight in knowing these people exist and mocks them with the most outrageous, stereotypical caricature of the queer community ever to hit the big screen.

Brüno is one of three over-the-top characters created by the English comedian Sacha Baron Cohen from his hit series, Da Ali G Show, and the last character to make his debut in theaters (after 2002's Ali G Indahouse and 2006's Borat). The TV series followed Brüno as he traveled the world, interviewing anyone willing to sit down with him to discuss celebrities, fashion and gossip for his alleged hit Austrian TV show, Funkyzeit. The movie picks up after his East European fan base disavows him for a fashion faux pas and he subsequently loses his hosting gig. He heads to America to become famous with his assistant's assistant, a simple gofer who idolizes Brüno without shame.

Like its predecessor, Borat, the film is one part Spinal Tap and one part Jackass, weaving a mockumentary-style narrative around the pranks and sight gags for which Cohen is infamous. It's hard to tell sometimes what is staged and what is improvised. When Brüno attempts to seduce politician Ron Paul (mistaking him for drag queen entertainer RuPaul) in his pursuit to create a "celebrity sex tape" this is undoubtedly unscripted. But one would hope that when a representative from the Child Protective Services takes away Brüno's adopted African baby, OJ, that she was somehow in on the joke.

This question of reality pervades the entire film, even beyond the narrative of Brüno. When two ditzy PR consultants discuss the merits of supporting a social cause like Darfur or environmentalism as if it were a Gucci handbag, I suspect that the impact of their activism is no more influential than an episode of The Hills. But when a mother agrees to do a photo shoot with her child dressed as a Nazi pushing into an oven another child dressed as a Jew, you have to hope beyond measure that you accidentally stumbled upon a lost episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Because if it's the latter, the scenario is hilarious; but to think that this woman really exists out in the world, well, that's a little unnerving.

That nervous laughter is what makes Brüno ingenious. No where else in the civilized world would this rampant materialism and marked homophobia be so amusing. Although the satire is a little subtler than Borat or the TV series, it's all still sitting there naked under the guise of slapstick and shock comedy. There are some moments of perfection, especially when Brüno sits down to discuss the war tactics with a known terrorist or the joys of women with Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute. There are a few scenes, however, that seem to exist only for the purposes of creating an awkward situation (re: the hotel bondage scene) that really makes no commentary on the world or society. Granted, on a basic level, the bondage scene is funny but we expect better from Cohen than this type of blatancy.

The film's finale is absolutely perfect and those last 10 minutes are worth your entire admission price. Without giving away too much, I'll simply say that I have never seen the face of a pro-wrestling fan more devastated by the results of a cage match than I did in this movie. I'd bet that if the fan thought he was being put on, he would not have found it so revolting. But, then again, that is the beauty of Brüno.

**** (out of five)