On Watchmen...How This Fan Watches the Watchmen by A. Gates

About a half hour into Watchmen, as the rude and crude Comedian was being laid to rest with Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sounds of Silence" playing sweetly in the background I thought to myself, "Oh, no. This is self-important pretentious posturing." Then, fairly, I thought back to the source graphic novel - the comic geek's War and Peace if you will. "Was that self-important pretentious posturing as well?"

The truth is, these concerns quickly subsided as I again surrendered myself to the story and, in this oddest of cases for this comic geek. the incredibly reverent storytelling. Watchmen, the graphic novel and the film, are self-important pieces of fiction stemming from the arrogance of the brillant weirdo Alan Moore. But, as anyone who really works through the deconstruction of the superhero myth that Alan Moore laid out 20+ years ago, it is objectively important. A social commentary, epically told superhero story with heroes afflicted with the human condition in all its debilitating glory.

Rorshach, easily my favorite character in both mediums, is a psychopathic sleuth with a brutal, uncompromising sense of justice. He's a jarring character, an socially inept weirdo in a costume who is also a mentally and emotionally scarred deviant working outside the law. On the page, his words are put in scratchy, sketchy balloons and we as readers are left to imagine what sort of unusual voice would deliver such oddly drawn speech patterns. And perhaps that's where the gift of the film begins. Jackie Earle Haley, that newly rediscovered talent from the 70s, was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2006 for his work in Little Children. I thought the whole performance was overrated. After seeing his work as Rorshach, I reconsider. You see, his characters, although both scarred social outcasts, are on opposite ends of the performance spectrum. His brutality, his growl, his stiff anger as Rorshach is the foil for his Little Children's character's weakness, sadness, and quiet anger. And that growl(!), I am more than pleased to say, is exactly how I imagined Rorshach would sound even if it never occurred to me until I heard Haley's first words in the trailer.

But each of these performers in the movie playing these characters firmly placed in my memory is for better or for worse the perfect person to play their part (save maybe Carla Gugino as Sally Jupiter, playing it campy). I say for better or for worse because naturally some of these characters work better on the page than on the screen. Laurie Jupiter (aka Silk Spekter II), is one of those characters. And I won't fault Malin Akerman for any of it, though many reviews I have read turn quickly on her. She fits the part to a tee and executes it wholley reverently. But something about Laurie fits within comic panels better than the confines of the silver screen. As the naive and sweetly sexy ingenue heroine acting as knowing commentary on the comic book medium, Laurie Jupiter works. But that role in a film, that medium where we haven't seen that obligatory gal in spandex to the same effect, the character seems an odd fit. And to see her and her mother as the transition from the Golden Age to whatever the geeks are calling this age makes eerie sense in the comics and very little on film where the Golden Age has all but been ignored completely.

Kudos to Patrick Wilson, Haley, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Matthew Goode for their insight into bringing the pages and characters to life. Each is an uncanny fit for their character counterparts and whomever cast this film has to be pat on the back. Haley and Crudup are the standouts receiving all scant critical praise, and deservedly so. Crudup, in particular, delivers a performance of tremendous subtlety and restraint (albeit through a CGI avatar). His character is more than a comment on superheroes. Dr. Manhattan is a comment on religion and on God seen through a glass darkly. The insights, while not my own on this subject, are fascinating and bracing. It's a difficult character to bring to life, but Crudup and Snyder's team of special effects wizards more than conquer the challenge. Crudup's Dr. Manhattan, perhaps even more so than in his graphic novel incarnation, is an indelible film creation.

Zach Snyder and his screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse are aware of how to tell the story in this medium. The unnecessary parts of the graphic novel (or, for the fanboys who just gasped at the hint of anything in Watchmen being unnecessary, "medium-specific") are left out and the good stuff is left in. The big change to the ending pleased me the most. The crux of the graphic novel is perfect for that medium - a ugly monster spelling possible doom for the world and our heroes. But that doesn't work on the big screen where even the most outlandish of villains (I'm looking at you, Willem Dafoe as Green Goblin, and you, Colin Farrell as Bullseye) are more real than what is depicted in the last fourth of the graphic novel. So, bravo for the change. There's the fact that it is minor yet still makes the whole calamity at end actually work. The Black Freighter allergorical interludes and newstand gang on that iconic corner are largely absent from the big screen version. Good. These were my least favorite parts of the graphic novel and have no place in the big screen story. After all, we're watching the story of the Watchmen and there's enough of that story to adequately fill its runtime and more.

I like Zach Snyder. With Dawn of the Dead and now Watchmen, he has proven to be a visually savvy storyteller with a leaning towards the sensational. But anyone who has seen 300, fans and non-fans alike, can tell you he knows nothing of subtlety. His fetishizing of slo-motion and violence in 300 isn't at full-throttle in Watchmen, but he certainly isn't afraid to push the limits. The violence is brutal and graphic, but he eases up on his slo-mo habit enough to keep Watchmen watchable.

I was worried after I finished reading Watchmen for the first time last Spring. "How can they make this movie? No one will want to see it?" I say this knowing that, like me, there were leagues of fanboys frothing at the mouth at the mere prospect of a big screen adaptation. The "no one" in question is the general public, the ones who go to see the Spider-man, Batman, or (Heaven forbid) the Fantastic Four movies but more than likely would not care to see their heroes deconstructed. There was talk of this public being ready for a movie like Watchmen after the success of The Dark Knight, but I knew and you will know that this is a hasty comparison. Bruce Wayne as Batman is haunted and conflicted, but he is not the deranged Rorshach. If you could love the Joker (and some of us really did), then maybe you'd like Rorshach, but not as hero. In the end of the Dark Knight, after all the darkness and despair, Batman rides off as the "hero" in every sense of the word. In Watchmen, "hero" takes on its own meaning and the term "anti-hero" doesn't fully capture the complexity of its characters. Watchmen is not The Dark Knight, and I expect to see a sharp drop off in box office after all the marketing hoopla and hype dies down and that general public tells their general public pals it wasn't what they wanted.

This calls into question the audience. Who is this movie for? Zach Snyder has said that the movie is for fans first. I believe him. An editor for Rottentomatoes.com, after being told by another reviewer that non-fans won't be able to follow the epic story and mythology, said something along the lines that they, like she, won't care to. That's probably the case. So, what do we have? We have Warner Brothers thinking a $150 million dollar (reportedly) production budget (along with anywhere from 20-35+ million dollars for marketing) for a film taken from a cult comic book with critical acclaim will appeal to its targeting ticket paying audience. And they're wrong. The movie is good for me. I love the movie. And Warner Brothers will likely make enough money through box office receipts and DVD sales and countless special editions to make a profit. But in today's Hollywood, making $100 million dollars domestically isn't enough. Time will tell if Watchmen is viewed as a success for Warner Brothers. My question is what happens when they want to make something faithfully for us fanboys next time? I don't think it'll happen so easily (a joke if you consider Watchmen's 20 year production hell).

Let's just say for now, for me, I love it. I got chills several times. The kind where you see something imagined realized for the first time. And that's a special feeling Watchmen offers me and my geek brethren that we might have to wait another 20to feel again. Watchmen has always been something you finish with your emotions deflated and exhausted and your head spinning around the implications of it ending. Hopefully, not every one will leave the theater talking about what's in the movie and what isn't or what they wish it would have been like, but rather discussing that ending. After all the hoopla and hype are gone, that ending resonates over even the harshest of critics.

****


Joe Morgenstern Wall Street Journal Watchmen Review 3/6/09
Roger Ebert Watchmen Review 3/4/09
Box Office Mojo Weekend Report 3/8/09

In Bruges

This movie was a very pleasant surprise. The trailers try to pass In Bruges as a madcap, dark, edgy, action picture a la Pulp Fiction or Snatch, but it turns out In Bruges is quite melancholy. It's a character piece, with the two hitmen (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson in excellent performances each) being the chief draw. What makes these men tick? How do they handle conflict? These aren't the questions most hitmen movie even bother asking themselves. Bullets, pizazz, and edgy editing are the norm. In Bruges is anything but.

Sure, all the stuff in the trailer is in the film and it can be quite un-PC and irreverent quite often (sometimes strangely and offensively), but that doesn't distract from an interesting story about two men and the drama that comes in the form of regret, grace, vengeance, honor, and ambiguity.

The film can be a mess at times, but it's a organized mess. Things add up.

There's a doozy of an ending. A surprise without a twist. The kind of ending that leaves you a bit hobbled, stuck considering many things after the credits abruptly begin rolling and the theater lights come up. How many hitman movies can you honestly say leave you really thinking after they're done?

****

No Country for Old Men

No Old Country for Old Men is a brand new example of deserved critical hype. It's a damn good movie. It too is cynical about violence, about men, about the state of the world and the wages of sin. Evil takes a licking and keeps on ticking. And how often do we hear about awful things happening and think "what is this world coming to?" The answer is "no country for old men". Although, I guess this world's been effed up for as long as it's been turning, eh?

But as long as there's Tommy Lee Jones riding horses through my deserts, I'll feel alright about the mysterious, twisted, hell-bent Anton Chigurh's (a great performance deserving of awards by Javier Bardem).

But the kings are Coens. Two brothers still making interesting, entertaining, dark, oddly funny, and challenging movies after all these years.

It didn't move me as much as other films from 07 did, but I can only name a few that were better executed. And F.Y.I. - one of the best film adaptations of a book I can personally remember.

****

Snow Angels

This film had moments of real truth and others that rang false. When it was on, it was devastating. When it was off, the reality of the film is broken - odd given my next statements.

This film features broken people trying to do right, to be happy, to pick themselves up again, and then failing miserably. Then there are glimpses of hope, happiness, and simple pleasures before we are again reminded for the last time the effects of brokenness, mistakes, regret, and the like. That is the last thing we see before black and it is the feeling we leave the theater with. Life goes on, but it slows down and hurts for some of us. At first I thought the film had a cynical outlook, but now I'm thinking it's a realist film. Bitter and sweet at the same time.

It's not David Gordon Green's best film, but certainly nothing to be ashamed of. I was entertained and provoked into thought. I laughed. I didn't cry, but wouldn't not have felt manipulated if I had. This movie is honest even when the acting and the dialogue feel fabricated. Kate Beckinsale (who I like) is miscast. She doesn't fit in with the location, her co-stars, etc. She can cry, but the dramatic dialogue is case-in-point for the awkwardness that rubbed off on others (Nicky Katt especially).

I did love Sam Rockwell in the movie. He makes interesting acting choices. Even when he dangles over the unbelievable line, he keeps one foot rooted in reality. And the two young actors are case-in-point of the truth the film always finds its way back to.

***1/2

Days of Heaven "Trying to understand why (Days of Heaven's) characters said "yes" is where the unique interest lies."

Watching Days of Heaven was an experience unlike any I have had before. I think I about threw up from all the gut-wrenching drama - a distressing nausea I embraced.

I got to watch the wonderful mind of writer-director Terrence Malick (The New World, The Thin Red Line) at work and finally see what all those David Gordon Green comparisons were about. There is a splendid and awe-inspiring poetry to Malick's films. While his films follow a narrative structure, they pause for the beauty of nature, stolen moments in the characters' lives, and alternatively plain-spoken and poetic or philosophical voice overs.

For the first time, I saw a Malick film in which there was a singular narrative voice-over. Bill (Richard Gere) and Abby's (Brooke Adams) daughter ( tells the story of how they left Chicago and headed out west to work the fields of a wealthy, lonely farmer (Sam Shephard). The farmer is dying. He begins to fall for Abby. Soon, Bill is urging Abby to wed him so they can become rich off of his money once he passes. But he lives longer than anyone expected and the growing tensions between the three create the gut-wrenching drama I mentioned earlier.

Brooke Adams is not very attractive to me (I think it's her mouth line that does it for me), so I had to look through the eyes of the men in the movie. And I began to see some of that indescribable "somethin'" she possessed. I still wouldn't have married the woman, but that's mostly because I knew the scheme.

Because I knew the scheme, I felt pain for the farmer that he could not yet understand. Here was this supporting character that's only shortcoming was that he fell for the wrong woman. I liked Bill and Abby in spite of their awful sins, but I really pulled for the farmer. What a great guy! What a raw deal!

A dramatic question was posed by the film (would you push you lover into a new marriage for money?) that reminded me of another dramatic question that still rushes through my mind every so often (The Big Chill asked if you would push your husband into impregnating a friend). These questions wielded much different results in their respective movies. I can assuredly answer "no" to both, but trying to understand why each film's characters said "yes" is where the unique interest lies.

****

Jarhead "When things threaten to happen, I admit I felt what the soldiers in the film felt: a sick anticipation and longing for battle. "

I liked this movie, but it was an overwhelming like when all the elements were in place for a love. I wasn't blown away by this movie. I've seen it twice. The first time I saw it I had high expectations. It didn't meet those expectations. The second time I saw it, I had lowered expectations, but again I was disappointed. But not to the point where I disliked the film. A second viewing only solidified my opinion of the movie.

On the surface, I cannot identify at all with the soldiers in this film. They are young men thirsty for war, for action. When they go to war and it is nothing like the films they saw (an interesting scene takes place during a frenzy at a showing of Apocalypse Now), they feel empty. There is pride in what they are, but a lack of doing what they were trained to do leaves a sour taste in their mouths.

I strongly related once the film took shape. The movie creates an uneasy atmosphere of waiting...waiting to do anything. Things happen, but none of them fit in with the expectations I had from every war film I had ever seen. Jarhead is unlike any war film I have ever seen. The Gulf War is unlike any other war I have seen in film (forget the murder mystery Courage Under Fire). It began and ended in a blur, but the time for the soldiers (at least the soldiers depicted in the film) was slow and tiring. Again, things happen, but they're only stale representations of training, ritualistic lining up and dehydrating, restlessness and bonding for better or for worse. When things threaten to happen, I admit I felt what the soldiers in the film felt: a sick anticipation and longing for battle. Instead, they get showboating officials, men with murdered camels, and the remains of a bombing. It seems they are doomed to narrowly miss the thrill of battle and it makes them stir crazy. And I related watching the film. Like a trained baboon I wished for them to "shoot somebody already".

The performances reflect that restlessness, but the freak outs that occur in opposition to the waiting and disappointments mostly rang false. It was as though the actors didn't know how to get past all that listlessness when they were called to. They tried admirably, but could not raise my attentiveness. Again, I equaled their disappointments.

As a document of that war at that time for those people, it does manage a real sense of authenticity without fully achieving utter truth. A decent film that could have ruled my world if only I wasn't ruined as the soldiers were by the expectations of our popular (and military) culture.

***

A Simple Plan

If movies have taught me anything, it is that keeping a big bag of money will only make things worse (unless you're the English boy in Millions). That is the lesson learned from A Simple Plan, a movie where problems arise and only get worse at every turn.

1) Don't trust anyone. 2) Don't think you're smarter than everybody else. 3) Don't get anyone else involved. 4) Don't pretend no one will get hurt. And 5) never ever make a plan. Or, if you want to make a nail-biter of a movie, do the opposite. It worked in A Simple Plan.

Hank Mitchell (Bill Paxton in his only good performance...ever) and his brother Jacob (Billy Bob Thorton in a time when he wasn't typecast as the disgruntled, mean a-hole in buffoonish comedies) and Jacob's drinking buddy find a crashed plane with a bag containing millions of dollars in cash. They conspire to keep it, though Hank has to do the thinking for the others who are greedy and dream big immediately. Soon, Hank can't think fast enough to avoid the schemes, mischief, and mistakes his co-conspirators make on the path to financial heaven.

Money changes people. Or, sometimes it just plain ruins them. The path to ruin is where the film is particularly engaging. I found a strange fascination with watching the plan spin hopelessly out of control. It was like slowing down to look at a car wreck as you pass by. Only in this case, I got to see every misstep along the way. These are not bad people, per say. They are just people who keep digging their own graves by making stupid decisions and not following my list at the beginning of the review.

I actually loved the writing of the film. Even as the characters did horrible things, I rooted for them to pull out of the film with some hope even though it went against my conscience and logic. That's part of the dilemma the characters face: to try to be logical about an act/plan that will never submit itself to logic. Or maybe the lesson is that logic doesn't bend to the whims of men. Or maybe the lesson is don't take what isn't yours. Billy Bob Thorton creates a dim-witted, kind-hearted, drunk, social disappointment who I couldn't help but let my heart break for. There're layers to the character. His loyalties, intelligence, will, and love are tested. And all along it is clear that he isn't up to the task.

And Bill Paxton...Bill Paxton...Bill. Well, he's ruined many a fine film. He's even ruined many a bad film. But he doesn't do anything in A Simple Plan that ruins the quality of the film. Actually, my heart pounded every time I saw his look of distress. And that look abounded. I can't say that a different actor couldn't have done just as well or better, but he did well. Let it be known that Bill Paxton is capable of something better than the crap he usually turns in.

And scrappy little Bridget Fonda...what a good time. Her sudden turn into the scheming, conniving, Lady Macbeth was stunning. The very model of sweetness with a belly big with child switches into a would-be mastermind funneling ideas and dreams into her husband every time he loses faith.

The film struggles in its climax to keep the same quality of acting that it carried throughout, but it's a true diamond in the rough. It's also nice to see Sam Raimi do something other than his horror/comedies and superhero flicks. He can do all sorts of good.

***1/2

The Cell

The Cell often gets criticized by reviewers for utilizing the style over substance method. There is certainly style. The film is visually stunning. It never fixes to a look that it can't change whenever it feels like it. It is also terrifying, chiefly because I have never before seen things like I saw in this movie.

But there is substance too. Do I like that substance? That is the question reviewers should be asking themselves. I'm not sure I do, but I think I don't. There are good things about the movie. It explores the mind of a serial killer and offers ideas of what makes men do terrible things.

I didn't like what I saw. It was well constructed visually and well acted by the crazy D'Onofrio and sweet Lopez. But it's horrible stuff that passes before the eyes during the trip inside D'Onofrio's killer's mind.

The film's action climazes when the killer's mind is placed inside Lopez's mind. To comfort him, she chooses to be dressed and presented as the Virgin Mary. Now, I'm all for religious imagery in film, but it must work in the context of the film. Presenting herself as Mary to the killer is a terrible idea. Sure, it's interesting visually, but it doesn't fit with what we've learned about the killer prior to the reveal. He had suffered a very traumatic baptism at a young age, and it seems that he hasn't carried positive feelings about Christianity into adulthood. So, why oh why is it a good idea to comfort him as the Virgin Mary?

Then there's the crucifixion that takes place. No cross, just bolt arrows shot from a crossbow through the killers feet and hands leaving laying out in a Jesus pose. I'm not sure what the filmmakers are trying to say here, and I'm left only to guess. My guess is that the killer must be sacrificed to save the young version he sometimes presents in his mind. But this is a stretch and the film certainly didn't have to include that kind of imagery to convey this to the audience. And I don't think I've ever been more uncomfortable with religious imagery before. Likening the killer to Jesus, even abstractly, is too much for me.

While this is the second-best performance I have seen from Lopez (Out of Sight soaring above and beyond anything else), I am confused why she was paired up (albeit non-romantically) with co-star Vince Vaughn. He is utterly out of place in this movie. Vaughn is talented. I believe he could work in a drama, but not this thriller. Every line he utters (that may be a bit harsh - maybe it's every other line) rings false when it falls from his mouth. That may be because of some awkwardness in the script, but Vaughn certainly doesn't help matters.

I remember really being impressed by this movie when I saw it as a Senior in high school, but it doesn't hold up well to time. It's a decent one-watcher, but revisitng the film will only reveal new flaws to viewers. It is consistently shocking however. That much has not changed.

**1/2

A Perfect World

I must say that I loved parts of this film. The majority of the scenes between Costner and the young boy were very interesting and unique. The strange dynamic of the ole Stockholm's syndrome takes effect, but the reasons behind it are what make it so interesting. It's also interesting because it takes place with a criminal on the lam and the young boy he took from his house for the ride.

Costner has that reputation for being a bland actor, but I enjoy the guy. I love Field of Dreams. I enjoy Dances with Wolves and so on. I've seen him in bad movies. I've seen him be bad in bad movies. But seeing him as a good/bad guy in A Perfect World gave me new respect for the man as a performer. It's a very good performance, perhaps his best. I marveled how the writer, director Clint Eastwood, and Costner pushed and pulled the audience in relation to Costner's character. He's frightening at first, being a criminal with a gun and all. However, the audience can see he's not all bad as he keeps his accomplice in check from committing the mayhem that character seems destined to commit. Then he takes the kid under his wing, playing the father and the friend when it seems his character never had one before, never a good one anyway. I warmed up to the guy. He seemed good enough. Then, as soon as my comfort with the character had been cemented, the filmmakers choose to make me frightened again and wary of how easily I had been charmed. That choice ends up getting out of hand a bit, but I was impressed with the skill it took to make and start to execute it. I'll get to that moment later.

I like the way the movie incorporated a lost boys type attitude to the main characters - Costner's Butch and Phillip the boy. Each was a man lacking in a father's loving touch. Something that seems so obvious, so straight-forward ended up constructing such interesting characters. You cannot say otherwise when it comes to Butch and Phillip.

There were things that bothered me, namely Clint Eastwood's character and his law enforcement gang's pursuit of Costner's character. I never found that storyline interesting. It was full of Clint Eastwoodiness. He just was so grizzled, cranky, old and wise, tough, but sweet natured under it all that I got a little bored in his scenes. I've seen him do it before. It seems that for the last fifteen years or so, that's all the veteran actor does. I understood the storyline as being a key way of revealing things about Costner's character and his past in a naturally occurring way, but I didn't really get involved in it. I didn't really invest myself in any of those characters that included Laura Dern's.

Another thing that bothered me was the hijinks moments. Some interactions were funny, good-humored bits of time. Others were too light to be in this kind of movie. I half expected for the old The O.C. hijinks music to start pouring through my speakers. That's not a good thing. Clint Eastwood's storyline gets the bulk of the hijinks that allow him to show off his typical aforementioned character traits.

And that ending. That's what I mentioned earlier. It goes on too long. It starts out with a bang - great tension, higher stakes, a bit of exciting character twists, and so on. But then it keeps going. Clint Eastwood shows up with his law enforcement gang and they get to muck it up. The somewhat overly dramatic catalyst at the end in what seemed justifiably dramatic is a head scratcher. The scene was set up for a big finish that would propel the film into memory and provocation of emotions, but Eastwood punches it too much. I never really pegged him as a subtle actor or director (and I like him as both in most) but I don't think I expected him to let it get so out of hand. It goes on too long, it involves a punch line from his character in a moment utterly lacking in humor, and so on.

But I would watch it again, if for no other reason than to spend time with Costner and the boy on their trip to friendship together. It sounds corny, but it was a thoroughly entertaining one.

***

Fail Safe (2000)

I imagine that the LIVE factor of the broadcast was meant to add excitement and gain viewers who were eager to see if their favorite stars would mess up right before their eyes. It didn't work. Even with a premise that lends itself to great human drama and emotion, the film is lifeless. Exposition early in the film is necessary but dull and awkward. The film incorporates interesting camera work, providing a technical acheivement for a LIVE telecast. But remarkable technical achievements can't save the actors from muddling through their lines. Wonderful actors like Don Cheadle, Harvey Keitel, and James Cromwell among others don't seem to take well to the confines of LIVE television. Particularly Keitel has trouble making his lines feel alive and of the moment.

The story is interesting enough. I could use a little less of the right-on-the-nose dialogue explaining the situation over and over. Subtlety is thrown to the wolves. Emotion would have been welcome, but it is largely absent from the production. I must admit that I was bored for most of the film's duration.

*1/2

Requiem for a Dream

I felt like I needed to see this film, like I was supposed to see it. So I did. And it was good. Almost great. Maybe great. I don't know. I'm still turning the film around in my head. And that's a very good thing. I felt like I discovered talent: one from long ago but new to me (Ellen Burstyn), some I've seen before but never better (Jennifer Connelly), some who I don't have too much respect for as performers but did admirable work (Marlon Wayans, Jared Leto), and one visionary talent learning magic and pathos (Darren Aronofsky).

I loved The Fountain, but I can't really say it's an important film. But there is no denying Requiem for a Dream is. I can't say it'll transform lives. I can say that it not only means something, but gets it across somehow with a subtlety tempered with what at times can be like a shovel to the face. But unlike other shovels to the face, Requiem is calculated, it is constructed like a work of art that is supposed to convey meaning to all those who see it. And I got it. I don't know that I can explain to you or myself, but I got the movie the way I got that the sky is blue and the grass is green. It just works out that way.

I must admit, it seemed like a little too much hocus pocus visually at first, until the action onscreen truly melded with the meaning, the feeling, and the story. And the performances always grounded the visuals. There was reality in the surreality all around it. It helped me believe and experience a taste of something I haven't actually experienced: drugs and the depravity of man trying to do right, but always messing up because something worse always seems so much better.

I loved Burstyn in the movie. There was a bit of hoopla surrounding her performance in 2000, but she lost the Oscar to Julia Roberts for Erin Brockovich (in which she was good). I used to prefer Laura Linney for You can Count on Me, but I have to say Burstyn was a revelation. That word gets thrown around a lot in movie reviews, and I'm reluctant to use it here, but Burstyn was like a profound discovery to me. She was new. I had never seen what she did on the screen from anyone before. Not that I can remember. She somehow found a way to make a character that could have been too-over-the-top real in a harsh way. It hurt to see her hurt herself in the way that she did. I can say the same for all of the other characters. They earned (or deserved) their fates, but I couldn't help wishing for something better than the disasters of the lives they made.

****1/2

Babel

A slow moving character piece, Babel is not for everyone. I questioned my involvement in the film several times, but was captured fully when Rinko Kikuchi and Inarritu brought me along on her drug induced parade. The film is at times alternately beautiful and bleak. The film does not instill gladness on the viewer (or I believe it does not intend to do so). What it does intend, I think, is to demonstrate the gulfs we've built between us and our cultures and how language is connects and separates us. Misunderstandings abound and people cry. The emotion is real and wrenching. The plight of Rinko's character left me speechless, struggling to find the words to describe how I felt. where the film had taken me. And that sums up the movie: the emotions it stirs are confusing and confounding. And that is wonderful.

****