Hollywoodland

I was hoping, deeply hoping, that the hype surrounding Ben Affleck's performance in Hollywoodland was earned rather than the product of the a comeback-hungry press. It turns out it was the latter. All the performances are sub par, including the capable stars (Adrien Brody, Ben Affleck, Diane Lane). The film takes place in the late 50's-era Hollywood. It seems as though the actors watched a couple movies, checked out TV shows, and read a couple books from the era that were supposed to teach them how to sound authentic. Instead, they ended up so concerned with their characters accents and posturing that they neglected to invest themselves in what is not readily seen in the mannerisms and voice inflections. The performances are not above the acting we would see in a TV movie of the week depicting the same story. Certainly, this is not the kind of work I expect from the stars of this film. I can say that Bob Hoskins was good in a small role.

This is a bit cold, but the film didn't make me care about George Reeves death, the mysteries of which the movie revolves around. Even if I didn't care about George Reeves, a basic demand for justice and truth should have been awakened by the film. It wasn't. The performances distanced me from the characters. I didn't want to know about them. I just wanted Ben Affleck and Diane Lane to tone it down, to look at each other like they meant what they were saying to each other. The only character I developed any sort of positive feelings for was the private investigator looking for answers concerning the Reeves death. Brody sort of coasts by on typical down and out P.I. charm, tricks, and dialogue. There wasn't really anything about the character as it was written or the performance that made me root for the guy. I was more on board with the guy because I liked the actor playing him.

The acting must have taken a cue from the writing because it too has all the markings of an impersonation of the time rather than an act of bringing it to life. The dialogue is awkward at times, especially when somebody tries to be tough or angry.

Don't watch this movie.

**

Ed Wood

I saw Plan 9 From Outer Space. I saw Glen or Glenda. They begged the question: how could someone be so stupid to make films such as these?

Ed Wood takes a different approach: Ed Wood was not stupid (at least not completely), but actually a man who was too confident in the fruits of his labors. He was a man so in love with his words, the people he made movies with, and the hope of making something someone could remember him for that he was blind to the futility of his pursuit of quality. I hate the man's movies, but I admire the man. He was in love with filmmaking and wouldn't let anything get in his way of making what he considered his art. A foolish man perhaps, but not the buffoon I assumed he must have been prior to seeing this movie.

To be fair, the reality of Ed Wood's life in the Tim Burton film that bears his name is heightened and exaggerated. I know the writers of Ed Wood are merely interpreting his life, but I never doubted the reality of the film. I believed it completely. The actors (Depp, Landau, Murray, Parker, Arquette, and others), Tim Burton, and the writers helped create characters that are somehow acutely absurd and utterly authentic at the same time.It's played for laughs. They're zany.

So zany...even more so because I have seen the director's films whose productions are depicted in the film. I recommend seeing Plan 9 and Glen or Glenda and Bride of the Atom before seeing Ed Wood. It's hilarious to see the film's writers' reasons for why Wood's films ended up as they did. Sometimes the reasons are oddly poignant, which is strange for such a zany film. When Ed puts his friend and father figure, Bela Lugosi, in his films with a speech about how the actor is still relevant (and making an atomic master race) or a simple moment of smelling a flower in a film where it makes no sense to smell a flower, my heart swelled a bit. The scenes in the context of their respective films are ludicrous. However, in the context of the film Ed Wood, they are priceless proclamations of the maligned director's love for his favorite actor and best friend.

I love this movie. I think anyone who loves movies, want to make movies, or likes to learn about interesting people (even people who make awful movies) should give this movie a watch.

*****

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints

This is pretty much your standard coming of age film set in Queens during the 1980's. The film's writer and director tells his real life story. The film starts off aimless and confusing. I kept asking myself what I was supposed to take from it. But as the film went on, the drama increased and the confusion settled down. The further the film progressed, the clearer the vision became. At first, when I didn't like it, I likened the film's attempt at realism to be a kin to David Gordon Green's films, although his films are set in forgotten burgs and southern podunks (and are great whereas AGTRYS is merely good). The fact that Montiel's (the writer/director) film was set in the city gave the two filmmakers a stark contrast. Both filmmakers are content to capture bare bones drama - overlapping dialogue, seemingly meaningless moments to elaborate characters, and acting that strives for realism (although the realism in AGTRYS is clearly more stylized/heightened). I ended up liking AGTRYS quite a bit. The acting was very good. I didn't expect much from Channing Tatum because he's a former model whose success as an actor thus far was limited to the dancing romance Step Up. He ended up really creating a volatile character that polarizes and moves your loyalty back and forth. The guy's kind of a jerk. But he's also mixed up and looking for a place in this world (cue Michael W. Smith). He's doomed to be a thug, a charismatic thug, but a thug none the less. And he'll drag Dito down if Dito doesn't make a break away from Queens. That works. That was communicated very well. Shia Labeouf (as Dito) is great. He's the main character, filling the part of a younger version of the writer/director (Robert Downey Jr. plays an older versioN). He, like Tatum, takes an attempt at realism. Like Tatum, the results can be bothersome. We really don't get to know Dito Montiel unitl the introductions are over and problems start happening. Ultimately, his performance rings true. His scenes with Tatum and Chazz Palminteri as Dito's dad are particularly well acted. In truth, not a lot actually happens in AGTRYS until the end, but the characters are so richly presented that it makes a viewing worth while. The film succeeds at creating a sense of gritty realism and jerk cool. Antonio (Tatum's character) is a jerk, but he's cool. It's Dito's story, but you'll be more likely to remember Antonio when all is said and done.

***

Catch a Fire

The only real complaint I have is that this movie is too short. There seems to be so much more to the main character's story that is left out. His time in prison is presented more as a footnote. What happened in all those years? That was a question I felt that needed to be answered. The performances are good. Derek Luke is an actor I'd like to see more of. Check him out in Spartan if you get the chance. Tim Robbins is good as always. He's a brutal monester, but the film grants him the complexity of real conviction that wah he's doing is not only necessary, but also right. I feel guilty watching all the horror of what people went through (and still do go through) in Africa that I have largely been ignorant of for the majority of my life. And once I know, I am given the ability to turn the movie off when it is finished and eat some ice cream or start a dark comedy about growing up in the suburbs. And I forget. I remember and I want to forget. I see depiction of horrible things that people do to other people and I think "how is that possible? How does one person do that to a human being?" And I realize the movie's only PG-13 and what we don't see is far worse that anything we do. I like that the movie ends on the words of the actual person the story focuses on. We see his face and it's more real than we could ever want it to be. It's at that moment that the film becomes real. Real events. Real tragedy. And I can't forget it now.

***

Munich

I had seen this movie three or four times prior to tonight's viewing and I had always favored the film. This most recent viewing (as is common with 4th or fifth viewings) revealed flaws I had either missed or glossed over in previous viewings. The writing is wonderful in its quiet conversations and big speeches, but offers tomatoes for Eric Bana to throw at times. Eric Bana is great. This is his best role. He is very talented. For the first time, though, I felt like I was watching him act. I could feel the effort in his words, his accent. Still a fine performance. His hollowed out brokeness shown in his eyes and echoed in his emotionless words. His duty to protect and serve had taken something from him.

I loved the supporting players. They don't get the spotlight scenes and lines that Bana gets, but they all shine. Daniel Craig, Geoffrey Rush, Ciarian Hinds, and Mathieu Kassovitz each infuse their characters with emotion and urgency appropriate to the story.

The film deals with themes of home: loyalty to where you came from, the duty to protect your home, and the get back the one you lost. Everyone is looking for home, or rather to keep it safe and theirs. And to keep it safe, people are killed. The story tries to cover all its bases. It brings light to every end of the terror people cause other people to endure. We do awful things. Sometimes those awful things are right. Sometimes they are necessary. But Munich brings up a valid question: can it stop? Will it ever stop? When does it quit? And that's when I feel heavy and beaten.

I found myself marveling at Spielberg's direction this time. His camera moves with such precise movement that I hadn't really noticed prior to this most recent viewing. He builds suspense with an expert eye. The movie is gritty and bleak, washed down colors and dark city streets abound. All these and more created a sense of dread in me every time someone stood up to move forward. The sex scene intercut with the killing of the Munich hostages bothered me for the first time this past viewing. I get what Spielberg and his writer's were doing. Avner (Bana) couldn't get what had happened and what he had done out of his head. He was a slave to all these overwhelming ghosts. I guess I just don't know why it had to be part of the sex scene. It's the most forced scene of the movie. Second to that is the music drenched, "intense" moment where Avner senses he and his daughter are the targets of a dark car with tinted windows. Bum Bum Bum! Still, the film's action is very intense with real stakes always rising. The men risk their lives, and, though it may sound corny or trite, their souls.

Still the best film of 2005.

****

Marie Antoinette

This is not for history buffs. The inaccuracies will bug the hell out of them. But, you know what? Get over it. It's a character piece. It captures feelings of real people during real events. I don't think Coppola has ever claimed that she was trying to tell it like it was. I think she was aiming for what it could have been. And that's fine. That's good even. Because it works on that account. Kirsten Dunst has never been my favorite actress, but I think she breaks a bit of ground with this film. In between her usual Dunstisms, she believably portrays a teenager obsessed with "things" (i.e. - owning them) and the pressures of fulfilling the expectations of an entire country (which she doesn't). Jason Schwartzman steals the show with his understated humor. He's hilariously awkward, a teenager that happens to be king. Complaints could be made about the contemporary music being inserted into the period film, but you just have to get over it. Toss yourself in and submerse until you're breathing the movie like air. It's a fun time. It's a good film.

***1/2