Movie Review: Stop-Loss

Does anything good ever come of war? I guess a cinephile's answer might be a few outstanding war movies. While "Stop-Loss" doesn't fall into the category of outstanding, it's an involving look at the latest wrinkle in war games. Beginning with a home movie recording of a routine check point in Iraq, the film unfortunately uses many of the standard issue elements of wartime stories: a small group of military buddies in jeopardy, a bittersweet homecoming with the young veterans almost immediately coming unglued as they try to adjust to civilian life, visits to injured comrades and parents of those who didn't make it back alive. The one difference here is stop-loss, a procedure by which soldiers who think they've completed their tour of duty are returned to service in Iraq. According to statistics shown before the end credits roll, this horrifying plan has been enforced on tens of thousands of soldiers since the Iraq war began.

Ryan Phillippe stars as Sgt. Brandon King, a decorated young soldier who returns to his hometown in Texas only to find he is the latest victim of stop-loss. Things are bad enough for King even before he's informed of his enforced second tour of duty. His hometown buddies Steve (Channing Tatum) and Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are self destructing before his eyes as they drink, pick fights, punch girlfriends and seem incapable of leaving the war behind. King isn't immune to post traumatic stress himself. His constant nightmares and guilt about the loss of several troop members in an Iraqi ambush are causing him to hallucinate even while he struggles to keep his friends from going over the edge. Complicating things further is a strange love triangle that develops between King, Steve and Steve's fiancee (Abbie Cornish). Performances are uniformly excellent (pardon the pun). Philippe, Cornish and Tatum are particularly good, along with a wonderful supporting turn by Victor Rasuk as one of King's troop members who returns from the war blind and permanently maimed. Ciaran Hands and Linda Emond are fine in small roles as King's supportive parents and Gordon-Levitt does what he can with a rather difficult character.

Writer/director Kimberly Peirce ("Boys Don't Cry") does a pretty good job of showing King's struggle with his two options: return to Iraq despite his serious burnout and trauma or leave his home and loved ones by taking a new identity and crossing the border to Canada or Mexico. There aren't enough fresh elements to the story, however, to make this film truly stand out. The ending was provocative and not entirely expected, though I'm still trying to work out how I feel about it. As evidenced by my surprise listings below, this resolution was both a pleasant and an unpleasant surprise. Perhaps that's one of my favorite things about "Stop-Loss", since it's increasingly rare when a movie can be pondered long after leaving the theater.

Things to love about this movie: Strong performances; putting a human face on the terrible toll of war and the stop-loss procedure
Things to hate about this movie: Too much fighting and meltdown in too short a time for the returned veterans; all those Texas accents bug after awhile (must the hometown always be a small one that's south of Kentucky)
Pleasant surprises: The attraction between Phillippe and Cornish plays out in a realistic way; fun seeing wonderful actor Ciaran Hands playing a Texan (a good year for Hands so far with some new types of characters, including his turn in "Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day"); the film's ending (see also unpleasant surprises)
Unpleasant surprises: The film's ending (see also pleasant surprises)

Movie Review: Priceless

It's a silly, slightly romantic time in the south of France with delightful Audrey Tautou starring as Irene, a professional gold digger working her way through luxury hotels and aging sugar daddies in "Priceless" (original French title "Hors de prix"). It seems that Irene has done pretty well for herself, acquiring a fabulous wardrobe, jewelry, entry to some of the most palatial hostleries in Nice and Monaco. Everything except the one thing she's looking for: a rich husband who will put an end to her increasingly tiresome quest for the good life. Her counterpart, Jean (played with low key charm by Gad Elmaleh), works as a barman and dog walker in the same hotels inhabited by Irene. He's honest but weary, patiently dealing with the wealth dowager owners of his canine charges but clearly longing for something more. When Jean and Irene meet cute in a hotel bar area, she mistakes him for one of the rich guests and he, instantly smitten, allows the charade to continue. As the unlikely pair embark on a series of wacky encounters, it becomes clear they are a perfectly matched combo, though Irene refuses to acknowledge it once she learns the truth about who Jean really is. Taking a page from Irene's book, Jean falls in with a wealthy widow (an excellent performance by Marie-Christine Adam) in order to remain in the elite circles to which Irene is addicted, still hoping to win her love.

Tautou is always fun to watch, showing a little more range as the money grubbing, lonely Irene (a far cry from her famous Amelie character) and Elmaleh provides a good foil for her with enough comic flare to make his character work. There's also a nice performance by Vernon Dobtcheff as Jacques, one of Irene's more serious suitors. Some of the situations seem forced, even repetitious, making the humor fall flat, but there's enough of that breezy, madcap French funniness to compensate for the misfires. These characters aren't very complicated so it hardly matters that the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Things to love about this movie: The delicious locales (Nice, Monaco, ooh la la); an interesting soundtrack; French flavored humor; sweet little details (food, place settings, glorious hotel suites)
Things to hate about this movie: The movie can't decide if it's only a light hearted romp or is trying to say something about creature comforts and tries to have it both ways; predictable storyline and situations
Pleasant surprises: A little bit of edge as we're reminded, along with the two lead characters, just how cold the rich can be; more charm than expected; a corny ending that somehow works; Elmaleh's strange appeal
Unpleasant surprises: While Tautou looks lovely in her expensive wardrobe, she's terribly skinny

Movie Review: Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day

Frothy, frantic, fairly entertaining. These are the words that spring to mind after seeing "Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day", a comedy in the madcap '30s style with period details galore. The divine Frances McDormand stars as Guinevere Pettigrew, a down-on-her-luck governess trying to survive in pre-WWII London who tricks her way into a position as social secretary to the ditzy, ambitious actress/singer Delysia Lafosse (Amy Adams). Of course there's romance: three men for Delysia and a rich designer of lingerie (Ciaran Hands) for Guinevere. Of course there's slapstick silliness and amazingly convenient happy endings (and I'm not giving anything away here since there's never a moment's doubt). Of course there's the nasty guy we don't want our silly actress to end up with and the wonderful guy on whose arm we do want our governess to stroll into the sunset.

The movie starts off at a desperate pace, with everyone talking too fast, dashing pointlessly about and playing to the back of the house, giving the audience the feeling of watching a stage play. Perhaps this is the way zany '30s films are supposed to go, but never having seen many I can only assume this pacing is deliberate to the period, however it does become annoying rather quickly. Once things settle down a little (maybe 20 minutes into the movie) we're given some slightly entertaining characters and predicaments, though certainly nothing to rejoice over.

While there's the barest of character development and the storyline couldn't be more predictable, there are some things to like about this wacky movie. Despite the prerequisite dowdy clothes and drab, sensible shoes of her character, McDormand shines, as usual, whether radiating amazement and pride while watching her boss perform in a nightclub or allowing the slightest hint of a thrill to light up her eyes when she's asked to dance by her handsome suitor. Amy Adams and the sexy Lee Pace (as the ex-convict who charms Delysia) have great chemistry, as do McDormand and Hands. The late '30s feel of the film is excellent with appropriate details, including an amusing lingerie show featuring truly horrible underwear items and the lurking threat of the war that seems to be desperately ignored by many of the characters.

Things to love about this movie: Period music, costumes and interiors; a wonderful duet by Adams and Pace on "If I Didn't Care"
Things to hate about this movie: Predictable plot; clunky slapstick humor
Pleasant surprises: Ciaran Hands as a romantic lead; interesting relationship development between the two lead female characters
Unpleasant surprises: Not enough screen time for the charismatic Pace

Movie Review: Funny Games

Call it a guilty pleasure, but I actually enjoyed this sick, twisted thriller about two preppy psychopaths in white who torture a nice little nuclear family while drawing the audience into the action as voyeuristic accomplices. I'd decided this movie looked too icky even for me after seeing the trailer, but since the cast was strong I gave it a go anyway. "Funny Games" is really not funny in any way, but it is quite a game in which the viewer either decides to play along or might as well walk out of the theater in disgust. If you do buy into this exercise in how to finesse violence, be aware that it's fierce, uncompromising, cold blooded and almost mundane in its depiction of a strangely every day kind of horror. As we watch Tim Roth (husband George), Naomi Watts (wife Ann) and Devon Gearhart (young son Georgie) terrorized, humiliated and physically injured it's almost impossible not to feel slightly squeamish, not only because of the horror of what's happening to these innocent people but for simply continuing to watch. Yet that's part of the movie's effectiveness for me.

We couldn't wish for two more polite, well dressed and appealing psychos as Michael Pitt (Paul) and Brady Corbet (Peter) when we first meet them. All in white (including short white gloves which will, of course, prevent any messy fingerprints from showing up later), Peter appears at the door of the family's beautiful vacation home, innocently asking to borrow some eggs. In a few minutes of screen time, however, the innocuous scene has gone from pleasantness to surreal torment, in the same way that the soundtrack in the movie's opening scene switches from an operatic aria to a noisy, chaotic song by Marilyn Manson. Like the family in the film, the audience is in for a bumpy night as the intruders place a terrible bet that their 3 victims will be dead within 12 hours and proceed to demonstrate how fearsome those 12 hours can be.

The movie is actually a remake by writer/director Michael Haneke, who originally did an Austrian film by the same title in 1997. It's unclear why he wanted to recreate this story a second time, although its themes of unrelenting violence and the growing immunity to it seems particularly relevant in today's world. The acting is excellent, the writing and direction pitch perfect and there are some truly frightening and deeply disturbing images and scenes in this movie. There is also surprising discretion, such as a scene where Ann is forced to strip naked but only shown from the neck up with the director wisely allowing the upsetting part of the scene to be her reactions to this humiliation. I thought about this movie a great deal after seeing it, not only because of its provocative qualities but because of its strengths as a basic horror film.

Things to love about this movie: No heroes, no explanations, no happy endings and no holds barred
Things to hate about this movie: Its terrible violence is uncompromising to the point of discomfort; even the family dog gets done in
Pleasant surprises: The worst violence takes place off screen; one final punch at the end (and the last shot is a chiller)
Unpleasant surprises: I liked it more than I wanted to

Movie Review: The Other Boleyn Girl

It's a tricky road from book to film. In the case of "The Other Boleyn Girl" the road hasn't been navigated all that well, although the filmmakers haven't completely lost their way. I was a fan of the book on which this film is based, but never sure of the historical accuracy of the story. It hardly matters, however, when you have two outstanding young actresses (Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman) perfectly cast as sisters who vie for the affections of a king (as in King Henry VIII, played by Eric Bana). It seems that the fortunes of the Boleyn family rest on the ability of these young girls to attract and hold the king when the inability of his wife to provide a male heir causes him to seek solace elsewhere. Mary (Johansson) is the obedient sister who reluctantly goes to the king's bed at the command of her scheming father and uncle. Anne (Portman), the more ambitious and troublesome sister, eventually usurps Mary's place in the king's favor and will stop at nothing short of becoming queen. It's a potboiler of a tale with a strong element of melodrama that overwhelms the more human aspects in the story. One of the major downfalls of the film is the loss of many of the book's details which made things more interesting: the politics of life in the king's court, the damage caused by the king's decision to separate from the church in order to rid himself of his first wife, the devious maneuvering surrounding Anne's trial. At times important plot points are completely ignored, such as the death of Mary's first husband or the resentment the king's subjects felt towards Anne when Queen Katherine is banished to a nunnery. In light of so many omissions, it's difficult to understand some of the story developments and the characters' reactions.

Luckily, there's good chemistry between the two leading actresses, but Eric Bana seems a bit lost as King Henry. We're not given enough time with him to get any sense of his complicated personality, which also detracts from the story. Ana Torrent gives an outstanding performance as the ill fated Queen Katherine of Aragon, though her screen time is limited, and Jim Sturgess is rather silly as the Boleyn brother George, who had a more central role in the book. Director Justin Chadwick has chosen to borrow a few tricks from Shekhar Kapur (who directed the far superior film "Elizabeth"), such as aerial views that are ineffective along with some annoying ideas of his own that clutter up the action. Kristin Scott Thomas, playing the mother of the Boleyn girls, serves as a conscience in the movie, even though she was every bit as ruthlessly ambitious as the Boleyn men in the book.

"The Other Boleyn Girl" is entertaining enough, but it's also uneven, incomplete and slightly campy, an opportunity wasted to capture some of the historical intrigue and background that made the book worthwhile. Like Anne Boleyn, the filmmakers' ambitions have exceeded their grasp, though with a less tragic outcome.

Things to love about this movie: The exquisite costumes; excellent performances from the two leading actresses
Things to hate about this movie: Overblown soundtrack; annoying similarities to "Elizabeth" (a much better film); two scenes of screaming childbirth (one was quite enough)
Pleasant surprises: Johansson and Portman acquit themselves admirably and are believable for the period
Unpleasant surprises: Entire plot points have been left out; Bana seems miscast and looks a bit silly lumbering around in those puffy sleeves and elaborate outfits

Movie Review: Diary of the Dead

Let me just say that I love zombies, any and all zombies. From the charming, well dressed zombie in the indie "Fido" to those vicious, intense zombies in "30 Days of Night", I've never met a zombie or a zombie movie I didn't like. So of course I was thrilled to see a new movie written and directed by George A. Romero, the original grandfather of zombie movies and creator of "Night of the Living Dead". His latest, "Diary of the Dead", takes aim at our society's media obsession while giving us plenty of those classic, slow moving zombies at which he excels. A group of film students from the University of Pittsburgh are forced to navigate the ever increasing horror of a world gone crazy when dead people nationwide begin coming back to life as flesh eating zombies. There's nothing new about the zombie storyline, but Romero has a unique way of creating the perfect atmosphere of paranoia, fear and vulnerability to make the audience feel just as terrified as the hapless college students in his film. An excellent cast of newcomers does a good job of bringing a bit of life to the rather under developed characters. There's a sly connection between the student film being made in the beginning of the movie and the new world of zombies. Romero's delightfully sick sense of humor is prevalent throughout, making up for some of his script's deficiencies. Despite the films shortcomings, I still enjoyed this welcome foray into zombie land, though not as much as I did his previous zombie films.

Things to love about this movie: Romero's pointed comments about media spin and influence; some scary moments; zombies in a swimming pool (a new one on me); the ending line (my favorite of the year so far); all those zombies!
Things to hate about this movie: Some heavy handed social commentary; somewhat stereotypical characters
Pleasant surprises: No miracle cure or control for zombies; no heroes in the National Guard; brief appearance by Romero make-up genius Tom Savini as a vicious zombie in one scene
Unpleasant surprises: Nothing really makes this movie pop; not enough zombie attacks