http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:48:49 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/16/034849.php Mike CullinanWith a release date delayed by its studio for several months last year, it's clear that Paramount executives weren't really sure about what to make of The Weather Man. The movie's trailer and ads make it look like an unconventional comedy about a dysfunctional family, when in fact it's much more of a drama with comedic elements about a man struggling to find his true identity amidst a series of family crises.Nicolas Cage captures just the right amount of inner turmoil as Dave Spritz, a Chicago weather man, who sees his professional star rise, even as the star in his personal life is sinking rapidly. Dave desperately wants the potential career high of the former (a weatherman job on a New York morning show, hosted by Bryant Gumbel) to turn things around in what's failing in the latter.However, what's failing is something that a new job can do little to fix, what with a failed marriage and two troubled children to contend with. Misery just seems to follow Dave around, and is occasionally hurled at him, as passersby pelt the poor sap with a variety of fast foods -- presumably because they're upset about his forecasts.Dave's father Robert (Michael Caine) meets his son right after one such drive-by incident and questions why anyone would want to do this. After all, Dave just tells the weather and doesn't even have a degree in meteorology, Robert not-so-helpfully points out.Little character jabs like that from his father are also dealt with on a regular basis from Dave, who desperately wants the admiration and respect from Robert, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author. Caine gives a very good performance by capturing the essence of a disappointed father in just a few scenes. He doesn't inherently see his son as a failure (although Dave has a way of feeding into that possible perception), just as someone who needs to "knuckle down" to improve his life.While he also gets good supporting performances from Hope Davis as his frustrated ex-wife, and Gemmenne de la Pena and Nicholas Hoult as his sullen, yet likable children, the majority of the film rests on Cage's shoulders. Cage has shown the ability to carry pictures playing characters that are difficult to like, such as his Oscar-winning turn in Leaving Las Vegas. His portrayal as Dave captures some of that same vibe, as he carries a sad hangdog look through much of the film. Moments where he seems happy come across almost as a force of will, such as his smile as he gets ready for work at the movie's start. The smile he gives for the mirror simply can't last for long, before his more natural propensity for sadness overtakes him.Having such a character as the movie's center provides a challenge for director Gore Verbinski, as audiences are asked to spend time with a man that few in the movie itself even seem to like or respect. There are certainly moments when you might feel like chucking some food at him yourself, or glove slapping him, as he embarrassingly does to a character in one scene.But for those who can hang with the movie through some of its more turbulent moments and tonal shifts might just find a man discovering the warm sunshine lies just behind those storm clouds in the sky. Grade: B (Rated R for for strong language and sexual content.) Video45044@blogcritics.org Thu, 16 Mar 2006 03:48:49 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/07/081117.php Mike CullinanHollywood's annual gala to celebrate the finest in film concluded Sunday night as the Oscars went off with little surprise, until the final award in the broadcast. Crash upset Brokeback Mountain for best picture, taking home its third Academy Award of the night.Brokeback Mountain, generally considered the front-runner for the Oscar, based on its strong showing at other award shows leading up to the Oscars, received a total of three awards.In fact, three seemed to be a popular number during the solid, but unspectacular broadcast, as King Kong and Memoirs of a Geisha also took home three Oscars each - all in technical categories. Neither of those films managed nominations in any of the major categories.Among the acting categories, all four were first-time winners. Phillip Seymour Hoffman won for his portrayal of author Truman Capote in Capote, while Reese Witherspoon received a best actress Oscar for her performance as June Carter Cash in Walk the Line. Supporting actor and actress nods went to George Clooney for Syriana and Rachel Weisz for The Constant Gardener.Crash and Brokeback Mountain each garnered screenplay Oscars, while Ang Lee was honored as best director. However, other best picture hopefuls, Good Night, and Good Luck and Munich both were shut out in the five categories for which they received nominations.Jon Stewart from TV's The Daily Show made his debut as Oscar host, with middling results. The popular comedian had his moments, but the telecast was missing much of the irreverent humor that he and his staff bring to the typical Daily Show episode. Perhaps the show's producers restricted Stewart's freedom, but where were any reports from his show's correspondents? Plus, a golden opportunity to have Stewart reunite with former correspondent Steve Carell was lost, as he appeared as a presenter with Will Ferrell.One segment that featured a humorous faux negative campaign ad from one of the nominees for sound editing hinted at the funnier direction the show could have gone.Among the more interesting portions of the evening was the performance from Three 6 Mafia for best original song for the hip-hop number "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" from Hustle & Flow. The song won the Oscar, but was a real departure from the normally stoic and generally boring performances trotted out on stage in that category. Still, Stewart made a funny, yet pointed observation shortly after the group grabbed their Oscar - noting that for those keeping score, it's Three 6 Mafia - 1, Martin Scorsese - 0.Other observations from the 3-hour and 33-minute broadcast:• Was it just me or did Charlize Theron's bow on the shoulder of her dress look to be getting bigger as the evening went on?• It's starting to feel like only the host of the show gets more screen time than Jack Nicholson these days. I mean, he hasn't even been in a movie since 2003. And was that just coincidental seating, or was Keira Knightley Jack's date?• It's good to encourage award winners to keep their acceptance speeches short, but having the band practically playing the people off the stage the moment they got up there seemed a bit rash. Not to mention it had to be a bit distracting for the winners.• Two categories that were weakened for their lack of nominees were best visual effects (where was Star Wars: Episode III?) and best makeup (how does Sin City miss out here?). For that matter, Star Wars only got one nomination total, while Sin City was shut out entirely. Regardless of what you thought of those films' overall quality, they were pretty amazing on the technical level.• George Clooney's acceptance speech that mentions his pride at being a part of the Academy seemed to be a bit self-congratulatory - especially for mentioning the 1939 Oscar going to Hattie McDaniel for Gone with the Wind. He referenced how bold that was of the Academy, as blacks were still forced to sit in the back at the time.Yeah, but George, how long did it take for the Academy to honor a black woman for best actress? Answer: 2002, when Halle Berry won. That's pretty slow progress. To my knowledge, no black woman has even been nominated in that category since then.Don't get me wrong - I like George Clooney. But let's face it: The Academy has a long ways to go to seem truly progressive. Maybe finding a way to break up the predictability of the annual broadcast would be a good step. Then again, giving an Oscar for a song about a pimp doesn't happen every year. Video44581@blogcritics.org Tue, 7 Mar 2006 08:11:17 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/27/052703.php Mike CullinanWith popular, early literary works such as The Grass Harp and Breakfast at Tiffany's to his credit, Truman Capote stumbled upon an article in The New York Times in 1959 that would lead to writing In Cold Blood, considered one of the great pieces of non-fiction in the 20th century. It would also forever change his life - for the worse.Focused on the several years that would go into researching, writing and finally finishing the book, Capote is powered by a sensational and detailed lead performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. His portrayal of Capote is less of an exact duplication of the diminutive author (Hoffman stands nearly six inches taller), but an uncanny channeling of his spirit. The mannerisms, flamboyance and lisp are all there, to be sure, but Hoffman takes care to avoid the temptation of making the man a caricature. His confident take on Capote is evident from his opening scene, as he holds court in the New York social scene, by enrapturing a group of friends with his storytelling prowess.One morning, he sees an article about a Kansas farm family brutally killed in their home. While one would have to imagine that murders were not that unusual in New York, Capote took a particular fascination with the death of the Clutter family. After selling William Shawn (Bob Balaban), editor of the New Yorker, on doing a story of his own about how the small town of Holcomb, Kan., was dealing with the tragedy, he quickly finds himself in a completely different world from the Big Apple. To help him in the jarring transition, he enlists the aid of longtime friend Nelle Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), who would go onto success of her own upon writing To Kill a Mockingbird. Lee proves to be invaluable during his early research, as she is much more approachable and less of an outside presence than Capote.Eventually making headway with many of the town's residents, including the case's chief investigator, Alvin Dewey, Capote soon realizes he has material beyond just a magazine story. Instead, he decides to approach the story as a reporter would, with the intent of crafting his material into a full-fledged book, "a non-fiction novel," as he repeatedly tells people. His story truly comes into focus once Perry Smith and Dick Hickok, the two killers, are apprehended. He quickly takes a strong, some would say unhealthy, interest in Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.), a quiet, sullen young man, who shows more of an interest in doodling on a notepad than paying attention to his trial.When both men are found guilty and sentenced to death, Capote almost recklessly intercedes on their behalf to find them better lawyers. They didn't get sufficient representation, he reasons, managing to help draw out the legal process. But, as the film makes perfectly clear, Capote has ulterior motives for his early involvement in their case. After all, he needs them to stay alive long enough for him to get the full story of the case.Through his repeated visits in Smith's jail cell, Capote begins to understand what makes the young criminal tick. In doing so, he realizes that he and Smith aren't too different. Both came from broken homes with neglectful mothers, and Capote soon feels empathy for how Smith's life has turned out. "It's as if Perry and I grew up in the same house. And one day he went out the back door and I went out the front," he tells Lee.Of course, even as he learns more about Smith, he grows frustrated at the man's unwillingness to share with him what happened that fateful night in 1959. Gaining confidence from Capote's involvement in the case, the two criminals begin a long appeal process that is a form of torture for the author. Without their execution, he has no end to his book.Always a regular social drinker, Capote begins drinking more, falling into a deep depression over his inability to finish his book. In the process, he keeps Smith at bay by claiming he's not even come up with its name, let alone made any real progress in writing it. The scenes between Hoffman and Collins (who gives a very effective performance of his own) are pretty riveting stuff, with each character seemingly opening up his heart, even as both hold back pertinent information from each other.Obviously, Capote eventually got his ending and finished his book. But the experience, which included being a witness to the execution, left him a shell of his former self. At the end of his five and a half year journey to create a great literary work, it would seem that the Clutters weren't the only victims. In his desire to craft a masterful piece of non-fiction, Capote (who never took notes during his interviews, claiming to have a 94 percent retention rate) disregarded an important and generally followed rule of journalism: don't get too close. Grade: A- (Rated R for some violent images and brief strong language.) Video44194@blogcritics.org Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:27:03 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/23/000958.php Mike CullinanTom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) would seem to be your average, everyday soul residing in Small Town, USA. With two kids, his lawyer wife Edie (Maria Bello), a house out in the country, and a respectable job running a coffee shop in the heart of quiet Millbrook, Ind., life's good for Tom.Still, this is a David Cronenberg film, so you just know things aren't quite what they seem. Having helmed dark movies such as the 1986 remake of The Fly and Dead Ringers, Cronenberg has never been one to shy away from a little violence. After all, violence is in this film's title.But with many of his movies also skewing towards the bizarre, A History of Violence is probably Cronenberg's most conventional and accessible movie yet. Clearly, some of that credit has to go to Josh Olsen's Oscar-nominated screenplay, an adaptation of a graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke.The cast also helps considerably at drawing in the viewer, by carving out memorable performances, some in very limited screen time (Oscar nominee William Hurt dazzles in a true departure from previous roles in his mere 10 minutes on camera).Mortensen gives a quietly intense, but understated performance as Tom, a man who would seemingly love nothing more than his life to maintain status quo. That hope is swiftly interrupted as a couple of gun toting thugs come riding into town looking for money and target Tom's diner. But when Tom realizes they also intend to do harm to the employees and customers, he takes matters into his own hands and makes quick work of the criminals.Recognized as a hero, Tom quickly becomes a media darling, bringing a whole lot of attention he could care less about. Shortly thereafter, mobster Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris, appropriately creepy) comes to town, convinced that Tom is a very familiar and disliked face from his past.Despite warnings from the law to get out of town, Fogarty expands his harassment of Tom by following his family around. Fogarty's confrontation in a shopping mall with Edie is unsettling for her, yet plants a seed of just how far he is willing to go with his strong conviction. "You should ask Tom how come he's so good at killing people," Fogarty suggests.Edie and Tom begin to fear how this volatile scenario will play out, with Fogarty continuing to press the issue by paying a visit to the family's home. Where the story goes from there is best left to be revealed upon viewing, so I'll say no more about it.While the actors do a good job at showing different shades of their characters, as well as the impact of violence on this particular family, the movie suffers from a sluggish pace at times. Plus, the realization that violence begets violence is hardly a revelation. That's not to say that the violence in the film isn't occasionally shocking in its swiftness. It's just that some of the scenes lack an underlying credibility.Still, carrying a number of violent confrontations during the movie's running time, Cronenberg strikes just the right chord with its concluding scene. It also ranks as the film's quietest, as nary a word is spoken. But what it says in silence speaks volumes. Grade: B (Rated R for brutal violence, graphic sexuality, nudity, language and some drug use.) Video44003@blogcritics.org Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:09:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/08/225502.php Mike CullinanLong considered a great visual director with films such as 12 Monkeys, The Fisher King and Brazil among his credits, Terry Gilliam's movies often walk the line between creativity and chaos. Unfortunately, his latest concoction, The Brothers Grimm, falls closer to the latter.There's certainly plenty to admire in this interesting spin on the early lives of the Brothers Grimm, who would go on to great notoriety for their twisted takes on fairy tales. But so many ideas and visuals on are display here that the narrative thrust of the movie never fully takes hold. Numerous scenes work on their own, but just as many seemingly go nowhere.The story's concept is a clever idea, as brothers Will (Matt Damon) and Jacob (Heath Ledger) are 19th-century con artists who are able to "eliminate" evil spooks and spirits from German villages - for the right price. Never mind the fact that they are also responsible for the hauntings in the first place. Problems arise when General Delatombe (Jonathan Pryce), a egotistical head of the French military during his country's occupation of Germany, discovers the brothers' ruse. Having received reports of disappearing children from Marbaden, Delatombe dispatches them to flush out the people he believes are now conning that village. Accompanying them is Cavaldi (Peter Stormare, hamming it up without mercy), an Italian torture expert who is also a notable coward.With the assistance of Angelika (Lena Headey), an attractive huntress with a sour disposition, the brothers discover an enchanted forest that is by no means the work of con artists. Rather, it's the work of a 500-year-old queen (Monica Bellucci) looking to break a curse and the aging process. Jacob, a believer in magic from childhood, is eager to finally get the chance to be a hero for real. Will, a longtime skeptic, is more interested in self-preservation, but feels compelled to help his brother.The cast is very much game for the proceedings (one could argue too much so, in the case of Pryce and Stormare), but the screenplay by Ehren Kruger doesn't seem to settle on what kind of a movie it should be. As with most Gilliam movies, there's an undercurrent of dark humor present along with wild visuals, but seemingly too much reliance on inconsistent CG effects. Despite authentic recreations of early 19th-century life (shot entirely on location in the Czech Republic), the movie doesn't seem to follow much of a realistic outline for the characters themselves. In the lead parts, you have an American (Damon) and an Australian (Ledger) playing Germans with English accents. Still, even with their wavering accents, Damon and Ledger give amiable performances as the heroes, leaving the overacting to the villains.This is an example where the individual pieces don't quite add up to a satisfying whole. But as far as scattershot films go, a Terry Gilliam one is worth more than most. Grade: C+ (Rated PG-13 for violence, frightening sequences and brief suggestive material.) Video43391@blogcritics.org Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:55:02 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/31/011618.php Mike CullinanMaking terrific use of on location shooting in Kenya and the surrounding area, The Constant Gardener achieves a gritty realism to its story involving the murder of a British diplomat's wife and the husband's persistent efforts to discover whodunit.That said, the plot isn't based on fact, but a John le Carré novel that tracks the amateur sleuthing of Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes), a relatively low-level diplomat sent to work for the British government in Africa. His wife Tessa, (Golden Globe winner Rachel Weisz) a headstrong and outspoken political activist, has been found murdered in the African countryside. Early thoughts are perhaps bandits are responsible for the murder, but Justin suspects otherwise, and rightfully so.Director Fernando Meirelles (a previous Oscar-nominee for the outstanding drama City of God) proves to be a great match for the material, by keeping the story and its underlying mystery moving at a steady pace. Yet, he's not afraid to use a wide variety of color schemes and camera angles to keep things just left of conventional.Not that the story itself can be considered conventional, although it does incorporate some standard elements of thrillers, such as government conspiracies and hidden agendas of characters. But while the movie works very well on the thriller level, at its heart beats a love story about a husband falling even more in love with his wife after her death.The couple's relationship is effectively weaved into the story through a series of flashbacks, choosing to depend on the audience to pick up some of the details of their live along the way. The well structured and intelligent screenplay by Jeffrey Caine allows the audience to make its own discoveries right along with Justin, instead of choosing to spell everything out.On the surface, Justin and Tessa would appear to be complete opposites. He's a quiet, mild-mannered person, more at ease in his garden than at social and business functions. She's brash and doggedly persistent, yet big-hearted and passionate. In short, they are both attracted to those character traits that the other possesses. As Justin begins to dig deeper into Tessa's death, he realizes she had uncovered a pharmaceutical company involved in testing products on African residents. She had chosen to keep her findings secret from him, a fact he struggles to understand. Still, he feels compelled to finish the investigation she started, even though he is well aware of the risks involved.Fiennes is a dependably good actor, and gives his best performance since Schindler's List. He has to play two diverse sides to his character and serve as the film's centerpiece. Though she has much less screen time, Weisz also does great work here, crafting a lively performance that resonates through the entire movie.Some of the supporting parts, while probably more fleshed out in le Carré's book, are rather undercooked here, but still mostly serve their purpose.With its topical storyline portraying influence and possible corruption in the world of pharmaceuticals, The Constant Gardener shows the power such an industry can have. But it also demonstrates that the power of love can be even stronger. Grade: A- (Rated R for language, some violent images and sexual content/nudity.) Video42972@blogcritics.org Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:16:18 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/23/201212.php Mike CullinanMore often than not, big-budget thrillers tend to play it dumb and predictable, undermining the very thrills they're supposed to provide audiences. Then again, most thrillers don't have the pleasure of a two-time Oscar winner at its disposal.But that's exactly the genre that Jodie Foster has chosen for her last two starring roles, in 2002 for director David Fincher in Panic Room and now Flightplan, helmed by Robert Schwentke, making his major film debut. In both, she plays a protective mother who finds herself in nerve-wracking situations involving her daughter, with most of the action taking place in one location.In Flightplan, Foster portrays Kyle Pratt, a jet propulsion engineer who boards a huge double decker plane (one that she helped design) on a flight from Germany to New York. She's newly widowed and is almost numb with grief, while still trying to maintain a calm exterior for her young daughter Julia (Marlene Lawston). On the flight, the two decide to take a nap, but when Kyle wakes up, Julia is gone.Concerned about her daughter's well-being from the get go, Kyle quickly enlists the aid of the plane's crew to help find her. However, after initial attempts fail to produce results, Kyle demands that the captain (Sean Bean) order a more thorough search of the plane. The main problem he sees with the idea is that no one remembers seeing the girl in the first place, nor was she counted among the passenger list. This is clearly not welcome news for Kyle, who becomes increasingly frustrated and anxious to understand how someone can simply disappear from a plane at 37,000 feet. Meanwhile, some of the crew harbors skepticism of her mental state, enlisting the aid of an onboard air marshal (Peter Sarsgaard) to keep her under control.Going into Flightplan knowing as little as possible can only enhance the enjoyment of the remainder of the film, so I'll say no more about the story. Just be aware that there are at least two main paths the film could travel down, and while it's disappointing that it chooses the more well traveled one, the film is still fairly effective. Much of the credit has to go to Foster, who has made a career of playing women with steely resolve that are in stark contrast to her relatively petite physical appearance. She brings an intense presence to her role that likely exceeds what the script by Peter A. Dowling and Billy Ray calls for, but the film is better for it, as it helps better ground the story in realism. Well, at least until the third act, which doesn't really provide the payoff it had been laying the foundation for up until then. While Flightplan is a solid, heavily Hitchcock-influenced thriller that makes very good use of its seemingly limited space, don't ask too many questions about it afterwards. Otherwise, you might come upon plot holes big enough to fly a plane through.Grade: B (Rated PG-13 for violence and some intense plot material.) Video42665@blogcritics.org Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:12:12 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/14/231042.php Mike CullinanPortraying a pair of divorce mediators who aren't related, but just appear to be, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn make the most of their likeable nature in Wedding Crashers, a funny, yet inconsistent variation on the raunchy R-rated movies that were so prevalent in the 1980s.John Beckwith (Wilson) and Jeremy Klein (Vaughn) are fun-loving, good-natured guys who have a desire to treat the summertime season of weddings as a kind of sport, where they show up uninvited to the events and proceed to enjoy themselves at the expense of others. Oh yeah, and they also use the occasions as a chance to sleep with as many horny bridesmaids as possible. A well-edited montage in the movie displays the wide range of weddings the two are willing to crash in order to have a good time.In the hands of lesser actors, these characters would be insufferable louts that you could scarcely stand to spend five minutes with, let alone two hours. But both Wilson and Vaughn have experience playing these kind of immature characters, who seem content to put off true adulthood as long as possible. They make John and Jeremy at least not quite as sleazy as they maybe read on the page.But a wedding involving the daughter of U.S. Treasury Secretary Cleary (Christopher Walken) proves a turning point for both of the men, involving the pursuit of his two other daughters. John becomes smitten with Claire (Rachel McAdams), while Jeremy, after a sexual encounter on the beach with Gloria (Isla Fisher), finds himself desperate to get away from her."I've got a stage five clinger," Jeremy desperately tells John, who responds by having the two accept an invitation to the Cleary family summer home. John sees this as a chance to get to know Claire better, only to discover her testosterone-fueled boyfriend (Bradley Cooper) waiting for them at the house. Jeremy simply believes he's going to have to suffer a little to help out his friend. Just how much Jeremy has to go through at the home provides most of the laughs in the film's second act.Scenes involving the boyfriend, written as a completely unlikable jerk, tend to have an unnecessary cruelty behind them that don't add to the humor. That's not to say Cooper doesn't perform the part well. It's just that the script by Steve Faber and Bob Fisher wants us to believe that a seemingly sweet-natured person such as Claire would have actually been dating this guy for more than three years. A comedy such as this needs a villain who's more of a dolt than an aggressive, cruel character.The movie also misses out on making better use of Walken and Jane Seymour as his wife, who has the hots for John. Walken, in particular, has proven with his many stints on Saturday Night Live that he's got a knack for comedy. But here he's left generally playing the straight man to Wilson and Vaughn.Wedding Crashers is at its strongest when it throws Wilson and Vaughn into scenes together and lets the longtime friends cut loose. Vaughn has seemingly cornered the market on the fast-talking best friend role, starting back in 1996 with Swingers. Here, he gets most of the big laughs, some of them seemingly the result of improvisation. The fact that he's used the line "I like where your head's at" in two different movies in 2005 (the other being Mr. and Mrs. Smith) leads me to that conclusion. Regardless, Vaughn is working the charm in this movie and is the best reason to see it.Taking it in with tempered expectations, Wedding Crashers is good fun while it lasts - even managing to find a small part for Will Ferrell. It's good to see that guy get a role thrown his way every once in a while. Grade: B- (Rated R for sexual content/nudity and language.) Video42290@blogcritics.org Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:10:42 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/10/223624.php Mike CullinanPoking fun at some of the action movie conventions that he helped create with his scripts for Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout, writer Shane Black has returned to the Hollywood scene in a rousing way, with the fast-paced confection, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.In doing so, he also manages to give Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer, both among their generation's best actors, their meatiest role in years.Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang is a movie that asks (and practically encourages) audiences to not take the proceedings too seriously. Downey stars as Harry Lockhart, a two-bit criminal and the movie's admittedly inconsistent narrator. Early on, it becomes clear that the movie is willing to jump all over the map, as Harry recounts the tale of how he got to Hollywood, only to struggle to remain on a single train of thought. He's not a particularly good narrator, he says, but he's the only one we've got.When a store break-in goes bad, Harry hides from the police where an acting audition is taking place. The producers are impressed by Harry's intensity and cast him in the role of a private eye. Next thing he knows, he's rubbing elbows with the bold and the beautiful at parties and clubs in Los Angeles. It's at these locations that he meets the story's other main characters, including private investigator Perry van Shrike, better known as Gay Perry, and Harmony Faith Lane (Michelle Monaghan), a childhood friend of his and down-on-her-luck actress.Perry, who casually mentions that he's not gay (he is), but just likes the nickname he was given, also acts as a movie consultant and is employed to teach Harry about private eyes. In doing so, the pair stumble on an apparent murder, which may or may not be connected to another dead body that is later discovered. Harmony enlists the aid of Harry, who she believes to be a private eye. Harry, thrilled to find a familiar face in L.A., plays along and eventually manages to pull a reluctant Perry into the mystery.As the characters struggle to wrap their heads around the quickly developing plot, audiences will be tempted to do the same. But make no mistake, this is a story built on style and attitude, with the seeming intent of trying to stay a couple of steps ahead of viewers at all time. The fast pace of the movie, Black's first as director, definitely works in its favor as you're much less inclined during slower periods to think just how illogical some of the situations seem to be.The movie, which throws in accidental killings, an unfortunate end to a severed finger, and more witty dialogue than can be followed in a single viewing, works best if you simply give in to the sometimes frustrating machinations of the plot and just sit back and enjoy the ride.Downey brings just the right spark of wit and attitude to his role as a guy who's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. He's matched by Kilmer as the stylish Perry, who's clearly annoyed by Harry's frequent screw-ups, yet feels compelled to get to the bottom of the developing mystery. They're a truly odd couple that ultimately work great together in this environment.Anyone who has seen Downey and Kilmer in '80s comedies such as Back to School and Real Genius know the two are capable of producing laughs. So after years of the two tackling much more serious roles, it's a real joy to see them actually having fun on screen. Monaghan, who has only had small roles in movies up until now, makes the most of her screen time here, producing a sexy, yet vulnerable performance as an actress whose only claim to fame is co-starring with a bear in a beer commercial. Monaghan would seem to be one to watch for in future roles, one of which includes next summer's Mission: Impossible 3.Even accounting for the energetic performances, it's a credit to Black that the whole enterprise holds itself together, as it careens towards a big violent finale. But leave it to these characters to even find a clever way to make fun of that genre's cliché. By its conclusion, the movie's probably a bit too pleased with itself. However, in a genre that nowadays shows sparse amounts of imagination, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang feels like a breath of fresh air. Grade: B+ (Rated R for language, violence and sexuality/nudity.) Video42108@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:36:24 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/07/221754.php Mike CullinanOffering various moments of pensive examination into the worth of retribution as well as the violence associated with its pursuit, Munich is a brutal yet conscientious movie. After assaulting the senses with last summer's box-office hit War of the Worlds, director Steven Spielberg puts his serious artiste cap back on with this dramatization of the killing of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich and the violent response from Israel.Wasting no time with a buildup, Spielberg opens the film in Munich, as the Palestinian terrorist faction that calls itself Black September gains entry into the Olympic village and proceeds to take the Israeli athletes hostage. With merely a handful of scenes, weaving in actual and recreated moments from the tragedy, Spielberg is able to quickly build tension and uneasiness about the series of events that unfold. But he also makes it clear that the incident itself will not be a primary focus of the film, as he swiftly gets to the ABC footage of when broadcaster Jim McKay relays the tragic information that "they're all gone." The tragedy is revisited through flashback at various points in the movie, as a series of harrowing and at times, shockingly violent scenes.Israel's decision for retribution is what makes up the nucleus of the screenplay, written by Eric Roth and noted playwright Tony Kushner (Angels in America). (To get a much more thorough examination of the 1972 incident, see the excellent and enlightening documentary, One Day in September.)The story specifically focuses on the creation of a covert squad given one central purpose: kill those responsible for Black September. A total of 11 people are targeted by the group's handler, Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush, giving a strong, focused performance), with Avner (Eric Bana), an ex-Mossad agent, serving as the leader of the group of five. Rounding out the squad is a driver (Daniel Craig), a cleanup man (Ciaran Hinds), a bomb maker (Mathieu Kassovitz) and a document forger (Hanns Zischler). Ephraim explains to Avner that bombs are the preferred killing method, as they are likely to generate publicity in the press. He also makes it clear that while the group will be receiving financial assistance in their mission, for all intents and purposes, they don't exist. Thus, the stage is set, as the group begins to track down and attempt to eliminate their list of targets. The squad, far from ice-cold killers, finds their early efforts a bit of a struggle, as various unexpected developments crop up. One particularly great scene involves the realization that the young daughter of one of their targets is in the very apartment they are moments away from blowing up. It's in scenes like this that Munich works not only as a strong historical drama, but an effective and tightly wound thriller.In between targets, some of the squad members begin to be weighed down by their conscience and uncertainty of the effectiveness of their mission. Avner, the only character whose private life is developed in the movie, also begins to be plagued by nightmares and fear for the safety of his wife and newborn child. Although he is Jewish and sympathizes with Israelis, Spielberg doesn't aim for Munich to choose sides in the conflict. But it does effectively question the worthiness of revenge. Is killing people responsible for terrorism, as Israel chooses to do in this film, a morally acceptable response? After all, as some of the characters point out in the film, those terrorists killed will only be replaced by someone else - and possibly someone even more ruthless. In one of the movie's best scenes, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) finds what she believes to be justification for violence, by stating, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values."On those grounds, Munich plays out as a film that would seem to be headed towards the literal result of "an eye for an eye" - leaving both sides blind. The debate over such actions and their acceptability rages on today. Grade: A (Rated R for strong graphic violence, some sexual content, nudity and language.) Video41961@blogcritics.org Sat, 7 Jan 2006 22:17:54 EST