Best Picture Reviews

In two weeks time, the guys from PriceWaterhouseCoopers with the sealed briefcases will walk into the Kodak theatre to deliver the envelopes that contain the winners of the 78th annual Oscars. This year's nominees all offer tales about the human condition. They explore the moments, the relationships, the losses, the desires and the consequences that can only occur between people.
And they are the things that make movies grand.



Brokeback Mountain
There is an inherent danger in seeing a film late in its release. What happens is you tend to hear too much about that film that can skew your view and hinder your experience. So, if you're just reading this review cause you haven't seen Brokeback Mountain yet, I feel for you! For me, the issue was the constant commentary about Brokeback as a great love story. That was not my experience. But that doesn't mean that the film is not good.

Brokeback is, to me, a story of tragedy. It is romantic in the same way that many of Shakespeare's "romances" are - that is tragic! Brokeback is a study of suppression and of desperately unhappy survival. Neither of these things is romantic or lovely. Both however, do create ample acting fodder for the lead actors.

Brokeback is truly Heath Ledger's movie. As Ennis del Mar he carves out a character that is fully realized and incredible to watch. There are few young actors out there who could portray the inner turmoil that centers Ennis. Heath makes it look natural and easy. On the other hand, Jack Twist is a less-challenging character but he is still ably brought to life by Jake Gyllenhal - emerging finally from his boyish coccoon to be a man. The relationship between the two begins as the young men are stationed alone on the titular mountain for a summer of herding sheep. They fall into an intimate affair that becomes both their oxygen and suffocation for the rest of their lives.

The film is framed around the "inappropriateness" of their attraction. Over 20 years we follow the men as they do the expected: get married, have children, work and fight to find moments together free from threat. My one issue is that the relationship is portrayed as more aggressive than I would expect. The sexual moments between the men all occur early in the movie and possess a solid combative edge to the passion. What we never see is tender intimacy between the men as their relationship matures later in life. This directive choice hurt my feelings for the relationship as it sensationlized rather than personalized the male love concept.

I also found the relationship unbalanced. And I am, perhaps, the only viewer who felt this way. There is one moment in the film when Jack is confessing his sexual history and anticipating the consequences of his sins. Ennis' response is that he hasn't had such opportunities to sin which suggested to me that he was inexperienced. Thus, as the film progresses, it felt to me that Jack was, in truth, a homosexual man but Ennis was tortured by his desire for his first love - the man who took his virginity. From this angle, the entire story becomes even more painful to endure. Then again - I may have imagined the whole thing!

Beyond these issues, Brokeback succeeds as a well-crafted film. Ang Lee has built a beautiful marriage of story and scenery. He has coaxed an incredible supporting performance from Michelle Williams - who holds her own opposite the aforementioned amazing Heath. He has incorporated a musical score that is intoxicating. In the end he has sculpted a short-story into a deliberate exploration of longing. And, he has done so while leaving the audience with topics to discuss. That's what great film-making is all about.

Crash
Don Cheadle's character opens the film with a commentary that includes the line "have to crash into each other" to sum up the nature of isolation and violence inherrent to life in Los Angeles. And his words set the stage for a series of crashes within the film. I'm sure this idea sounded fantastic in the pitch!

Crash is written and directed by Paul Haggis - a good ole Canadian boy. It's likely his distance from the American way-of-life that allowed him to pen a tale that is so direct. He's also the guy that wrote last year's Million Dollar Baby so it's clear that he understands solid writing and dramatic flair. The downside is that he's not much of a director. The film is full of unnecessary touches (melodramatic slow-mos, the use of pop music to distraction) and easy-to-see-coming connections. Still, it has its moments.

The best of these moments are the ones you DON'T see coming. The moment when the two black youths are lamenting the "threat" they represent and then they ARE car jackers. The moment when Thandie Newton recognizes Matt Dillon's cop and freaks out. The moment when Ryan Phillipe becomes what he depises. The constructed moments are less inspirational and will fall flat to anyone who has seen enough movies to foretell filmic contrivances.

Crash has made an impact on many viewers. It puts racial viewpoints clearly on the table and doesn't get squeamish about the potential consequences. I think the harshness of the movie will hit those who have experienced the influence and results of race first hand. For myself, with a life free of racial conflict or fear or rampant gun possession, the story remains within the frames of the film. But maybe, if I lived in L.A. it would be a different story and I would feel the impact of the crash.

Capote
I saw Capote in an almost-full theatre on a Friday afternoon - that's what a bit of Oscar buzz does for a movie. Capote is one of those kinds of movies that "cinema" people like alot. It is deliberate, built on character, and feels like a play. If you like those things alot than I've already given it a solid endorsement for you. But those attributes can also mean it moves slow, uses alot of close-ups, and doesn't need the big screen to be effective. Good for Capote that it nails the positives and is a worthwhile viewing experience.

My first concern before seeing the film was that Philip Seymour Hoffman's affected accent would drive me nuts. I'd seen the previews and was not amused. But in the context of the film it is brilliant. I know nothing about Truman Capote, but PSH performance gives him life on screen. Initially, the title of the film feels misleading as the story follows Capote's experiences in writing his book "In Cold Blood" rather than being an actual autobiography. But the title becomes perfect as the story is truly about the character of Capote and how he managed to coax his monumental novel out of the situation and himself. If the tact of the film is to be believed than the book's title can also apply to Capote's behaviour in the ordeal. His self-satisfying drive to write his book and his complete disregard for those involved that he needed. At times, PSH makes the manipulation palpable. It's a triumph of a performance.

Then again, Capote may play better as a play. Capote's monologues are ideally suited to the stage but do not translate as effectively to the screen format. The truly secondary nature of the supporting characters is also felt more strongly in a film than it would be on stage. I am amazed at Catherine Keener's Oscar nomination as her role offers little to enhance or alter the film. As well, other solid actors (Chris Cooper, Bruce Greenwood) are essentially side-lined. The only stand-out is Clifton Collins Jr. as the criminal Perry who imbues his role with a wonderful mix of vulnerability and menace. He is someone who was gravely over-looked in the nomination race as his performance is the counter-balance to PSH. I believe that Collins is on his way to becoming the next Sam Rockwell - and that's a compliment.

In the end, Capote is intoxicating. It is easy to get caught up in wanting to know the ending as much as Capote himself needs to know. As well, the film creates a a fascinating portrait of the man who changed novels in America without glorifying him. If you're looking for a sound tale about touching the edge of human decency, you can do a lot worse than Capote.

Good Night & Good LuckI once got a comment on this site about not reviewing any "good" movies. The comment was aimed at my preference for Hollywood gloss over "indie/alternative/serious" cinema. Well, I was very interested in seeing this George Clooney-directed flick about McCarthy-ism for two reasons:
1) I am fascinated by stories of Americans infringing on each other's rights
2) The casting couldn't have been better
In the end, it was the second point that proved to be most fulfilled and the former to fall a little flat.
Good Night is a solid piece of film-making. It is cleanly shot in the black and white of its time period (mid-1950s). The characters are introduced through work and life as the two become intertwined. What is personal and what is professional becomes a constant question in the film. The direction focuses on the details and generates an "in the room" feeling for the viewer. Strathairn is such an absolute standout in his portrayal of Edward R. Murrow that it was eerie. Still, the film feels a bit long and ends unceremoniously in a way that leaves a tinge of dissatisfaction on an otherwise intriguing experience.

Munich
My first thought upon leaving the theatre after Munich is that it was long. I was actually relieved that it was, finally, over when the credits appeared. After two separate incidents of throwing my hands in the air over the fact that the film was STILL GOING ON, it was over. I found the denouement to be particularly long-winded and that Spielberg pushed his conclusion too far into the distance in order to squeeze in "moments" that would not have been missed (the scenes at the airport excluded - but these could have been placed earlier). So, as I left the film, it was my frustration over this mishandled ending that was on my mind. But before you think that I didn't like Munich keep reading.

For the most part, Munich is an incredibly well-crafted film. It makes sense that Spielberg is getting directing awards nominations for his work because the movie is all about direction. Although the performances are strong (in particular the actress portraying the prime minister) and the story is captivating, the triumph is in how it is constructed. Most (effective) films work on the story arc structure of a short story or a three act play. Munich feels much more like a novel. It is a full-bodied story that is driven by the evolution of character rather than plot points and action. It is deliberate in its study of the Israeli team assembled to avenge their fallen countrymen and explores issues of guilt, nationalism, humanity, destruction, loss and renewal (just to name the obvious). Although Eric Bana "leads" the team he is neither the star nor the hero of the film. The film makes it clear that "hero" is a relative and personal term and stars are in the eye of the beholder.

The thing that most impressed me about Munich were the visuals - again, a solid product of the film's overall conception. Spielberg has left many of his tricksy moves off the screen and the audience is rewarded for their omission. Instead, we get the powerful images of slaughter, an assassination that ends in a vibrant pool of blood and milk, a sticky victim dragging himself across the street, and the realism of rivers of red running down a naked chest. The film excellently portrays these moments with a horror, one that is felt first hand by the characters themselves. Violence begets violence in a visual style that doesn't cheat or insult the viewer.

In the end, Munich will leave most viewers in awe and will (hopefully) stimulate conversation over vengeance, violence and visuals. I just wish it had ended 20 minutes earlier.

NOW... for something a little different!
Upon my comments post-viewing that the film was too long, Greg expressed that maybe I shouldn't have the ultimate opinion! Normally, Greg likes my reviews but this time he was ready to put out some opinions of his own! My only caveat was that he actually had to WRITE something! So here is his review to counter my own (which I had to write BEFORE I could read his!) ... enjoy!

Munich is an interesting and thoughtful film worth viewing at the movies. I was very surprised with the scope of this movie. I was expecting this film to be a retelling of the Munich Olympic massacre, but the film quickly deviates and expands from this horrible event. The film’s basic premise is what happens after the massacre.

The film delivers lots to think about but it doesn’t hit you over the head with the message. You are clearly left to think that violence leads to violence, you can’t achieve peace through violence (see George Bush), the CIA have their fingers in everything (George Bush again), and that the Palestinians need their own country. It is ironic that Israel was born out of violence, and now the Palestinians are trying the same method (violence) to get their own country at the expense of the Israelis. All great messages. One message that I would add is one mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It is all in your view point. The Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) steals all the scenes she is in. She should be nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Geoffery Rush is great, as always.

A few things that I didn’t like about the film:
1. It wasn’t clearly shown that the German’s freed the three Palestinian terrorists to protect their own citizens.

2. The Israel retribution squad’s moral dilemma. I don’t buy it at all. In real life they were likely hardened assassins relishing the chance for revenge.

The film isn’t not for everyone. But it should appeal to politic-minded people who would like to see into the secret world of assassins and terrorists. So if you are keen feel free to Google Operation Spring of Youth about the Lebanon mission, or Black September. This movie is an amazing and serious story, vividly portrayed by Spielberg.

-Greg