THE DARJEELING LIMITED
Written by Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola, & Jason Schwartzman
Directed by Wes Anderson
***1/2
The Darjeeling Limited is the tale of three overbearing brothers who reunite after a year of not seeing each other, and decide to embark on a spiritual journey throughout the religious temples of India. That plot summary in itself is a pretty good display of how off-kilter this film is for it’s entire 91 minutes. That said, this film is a very heartfelt, very funny movie about three people who want to be good people, and want to understand the things that happen in life. Unfortunately, they weren’t built that way.
When Francis (Owen Wilson) crashes his motorcycle into a mountain, his face is left covered in heavy bandages, looking like a low-budget Halloween costume. This life-altering experience leaves him to call upon his two brothers: Peter (Adrien Brody), a brooding fellow who seems destined to divorce his wife until he finds out she is pregnant, and Jack (Jason Schwartzman) an articulate writer, who’s been recently crushed by an ex-girlfriend, and occasionally calls her messaging service to check her messages. These three need help, and we find that out soon, as we watch them gobble down various amounts of muscle relaxers and cough medicine.
Francis wants the brothers to reconvene on a train, called The Darjeeling Limited, where Francis, along with his assistant Brendan (Walace Wolodarsky) make daily laminated itineraries with the planned trips and stops during the day. Francis seems controlling, constantly asking the brothers to settle on “agreements” such as Jack not being allowed to call his ex’s messaging service without letting the other two know first. Peter is openly resentful to Francis’ authoritative manner, even going as far as to steal his belt. Jack writes short stories documenting their half-baked plans to pick up their father’s car from a dealership the day of his funeral.
The movie’s plot cannot be explained much more than that, because that’s all it is. They run into little adventures--Jack has a small affair with the train’s stewardess, Rita (Amara Karan); Peter buys a poisonous snake--but essentially the movie does not move in any one, organized direction. There was a smart, deadpan style Wes Anderson created in his two great films Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, and then he sort of bent it with his film The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. The Darjeeling Limited seems to bend, then fix itself, and then shatter into a million pieces. The movie noodles around ideas of a plot, but all we are left with are three disallusioned boys in the bodies of men.
In a way, that is what makes this film so good. There is no target that needs to be hit. Take the make of train. Much like the mansion-home in Tenenbaums or the submarine/shrimping ship in Life Aquatic, the train is a piece of setting that is so colorful, but disjointed-- in a way, like the characters of the films, themselves. There’s no reason for any place to mismatch so many colors, but it seems like the brothers could not have ridden on any other train. That said, halfway through the film, the three are kicked off the train when they find Peter’s snake. The train leaves, and it is no longer part of the movie. The brothers are left to walk endlessly throughout the exotic country with their mountain of Louis-Vutton luggage.
Francis throws one surprise into the trip for the other two brothers: the trip will end with them meeting their mother whom they haven’t seen in years. Their mother (Anjelica Huston) has since become a missionary in an impoverished area of India. This is probably the most important, searching moment of the film. We see what the brothers have been looking for their entire lives. She can’t leave this place which is thousands of miles away from home, because the people need her. “What about us?” Jack asks hopelessly, in response. She doesn’t have an answer for them, and she disappears from them the next morning.
Many might get confused and say something along the lines of “this film doesn’t have a plot” or a “point”, but I think that is what makes the film magical. There are no amazing revelations, just many moments of various meanderings. Even the way the brothers approach the vast land of India, they are essentially tourists, but it doesn’t stop them from having long, confessing conversations in front of a stranger reading a newspaper next to them, or calling young Indian kids playing on the dangerous riverbank “assholes”. “I love the smell of this country,” Peter says, “It’s kind of spicy”. Nothing is meant to connect. There are times when we ask ourselves what exactly is going on, but we feel safe in the company of the actors and filmmakers.
Wilson and Schwartzman are experts within Wes Anderson’s broad dialogue and comedic timing, and Brody fits in nicely as well. There's something exceptionally piercing about the characters in Anderson films. They seem to stand there, doing nothing, but blurting out statements in monotone voices. Then suddenly, they have an explosion. The three actors especially embody Anderson’s tactic, and have no problems indulging in the “noodling” that is required for the roles.
The movie is an adventure--sometimes we feel like we’re the ones who are chugging down the cough syrup and pain medicine. It is a brave movie. With a shipload of young filmmakers trying so hard to be politically incorrect, I guess this is what it takes to be anti-establishment: just take the system and twist and turn until you have a story so convoluted and deceptive, maybe someone someday will call it art. I’ll give it a shot: This film is art.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Gone Baby Gone (***)
GONE BABY GONE
Directed by Ben Affleck
***
Ben Affleck has spent his entire career heading huge pictures, and consistently getting pounded by most critics for lackluster performances. For the most part, he seemed not much more than a figure of “handsome man” with nothing but “boyish charm”. This is, though, what makes his turn as director with Gone Baby Gone that much more impressive. An actor, who’s weaved his way in out of the public’s heart more times than he’d like to imagine, has made a film so filled with heart and power, we wonder why he hasn’t been making films before.
The film stars Affleck’s little brother, Casey Affleck as Patrick Kenzie, a private detective who works with his girlfriend Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan). The two are hired by a worried middle-aged woman (Amy Madigan) who wants them to help find her young niece who’d been kidnapped three days before. The child’s mother Helene (Amy Ryan), is a strung-out troublemaker, into drugs and pornography, who does little to help find the child, though occasionally breaking down to say how much she misses her.
Patrick and Angie meet Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman), the officer in charge of the investigation, and the leader of the Crimes Against Children task force. He once had a child who was kidnapped and murdered, he mentions, and he doesn’t want other parents to feel the pain he felt. They also meet Det. Remy Bressant (Ed Harris), a tough-as-nails cop who’s not afraid to take illegal measures to imprison criminals he knows are innocent. Criminals who abuse children, he feels, are the worst kind of people. With all the people that Patrick must work around, it is inevitable that there will come mistakes in the police works, with people stumbling over each other’s findings. That, though, is where most of the fun of the film comes from, and it shouldn’t be revealed here.
The film’s setting is rooted in Boston, the hometown of the Affleck brothers. This film, much like Mystic River (both are based on novels by Dennis Lehane) really show the deep, dark underbelly of that town. Pain seems to strike deep, and the bad guys are much more colorful and harmful. The films are similar in style, but this film is much more ingrained into it’s setting. Affleck is said to have used a technique of filming many people around the Boston area without there knowledge. Nothing is known of whether or not the people gave their consent to be in the film, but what is accomplished is a feeling of supreme realism. All the characters are elevated by this technique, because everyone is just as spotty as everyone else.
The story itself is based on a novel Affleck once publicly christened as “His favorite”. Again, though, like Mystic River, the strength does not lie within the chase, but the chasers. These men become so enthralled in their search, it seems almost manic. As crime movies go, there are characters with hidden, darker motives, and they are revealed very skillfully. The film’s ability to give us the clues without us even realizing it is uncanny. Unfortunately, the film stalls toward the conclusion, and tries to play cheap tricks. The morals of the film, and the established beliefs tell us that the film should go in another direction. We hope that the ending can be as strong, and powerful as the rest of the film. That is not the case.
That said, what we are given is a troupe of actors so akin to their roles and motivations, it doesn’t seem to matter that it concludes unsatisfactorily. Casey Affleck solidifies his maturation as an actor, carrying this film without a beat. Patrick Kenzie seems to make choices the audience doesn’t agree with (sometimes he doesn’t agree with them himself), but that’s what makes the character so intriguing. His choices and mistakes surround him, till he wants to collapse, and many times his baby face is questioned about his age. Affleck’s performance is something coming-of-age, and you tend to wonder if the real acting talent in the family actually went to someone else.
Morgan Freeman’s Jack Doyle is not a character outside his range; meaning, this is the kind of part Freeman has been playing a lot the last couple of years: wise, authoritative and probably well-worn. Sure, he is not being challenged, but why challenge a man when he plays a kind of role so perfectly? The same can be said for Ed Harris. He seems to be yelling in movies now more than Al Pacino, but his brooding resentfulness creates one of the most colorful, dynamic characters in the film, and Harris has lived off of his dynamics for some time now. Michelle Monaghan is the closest thing we have to the “heart” of the film. She’s a caring woman, despises the scum she encounters, but overall, holds herself in high esteem. Monaghan doesn’t shy away from Angie’s self-sufficient personality. Amy Ryan’s portrait of disastrous parenting in Helene is probably the best performance in the movie. If anything, the film suffers from not having her on the screen more. She encompasses all the sloppy clothes and averted attention that we’ve come to know all to well in so many parents today.
When I think of this film, the adjective that I seem to think of the most is impressive. The film’s lead and the film’s director impressed me immensely, to the point that I wonder why I ever questioned their talent. The film is not perfect, but a lot of films aren’t. What matters is that the movie works. Affleck gets great performances from a great cast, and gets the most out of his dreary hometown of Boston. What else does he need?
Directed by Ben Affleck
***
Ben Affleck has spent his entire career heading huge pictures, and consistently getting pounded by most critics for lackluster performances. For the most part, he seemed not much more than a figure of “handsome man” with nothing but “boyish charm”. This is, though, what makes his turn as director with Gone Baby Gone that much more impressive. An actor, who’s weaved his way in out of the public’s heart more times than he’d like to imagine, has made a film so filled with heart and power, we wonder why he hasn’t been making films before.
The film stars Affleck’s little brother, Casey Affleck as Patrick Kenzie, a private detective who works with his girlfriend Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan). The two are hired by a worried middle-aged woman (Amy Madigan) who wants them to help find her young niece who’d been kidnapped three days before. The child’s mother Helene (Amy Ryan), is a strung-out troublemaker, into drugs and pornography, who does little to help find the child, though occasionally breaking down to say how much she misses her.
Patrick and Angie meet Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman), the officer in charge of the investigation, and the leader of the Crimes Against Children task force. He once had a child who was kidnapped and murdered, he mentions, and he doesn’t want other parents to feel the pain he felt. They also meet Det. Remy Bressant (Ed Harris), a tough-as-nails cop who’s not afraid to take illegal measures to imprison criminals he knows are innocent. Criminals who abuse children, he feels, are the worst kind of people. With all the people that Patrick must work around, it is inevitable that there will come mistakes in the police works, with people stumbling over each other’s findings. That, though, is where most of the fun of the film comes from, and it shouldn’t be revealed here.
The film’s setting is rooted in Boston, the hometown of the Affleck brothers. This film, much like Mystic River (both are based on novels by Dennis Lehane) really show the deep, dark underbelly of that town. Pain seems to strike deep, and the bad guys are much more colorful and harmful. The films are similar in style, but this film is much more ingrained into it’s setting. Affleck is said to have used a technique of filming many people around the Boston area without there knowledge. Nothing is known of whether or not the people gave their consent to be in the film, but what is accomplished is a feeling of supreme realism. All the characters are elevated by this technique, because everyone is just as spotty as everyone else.
The story itself is based on a novel Affleck once publicly christened as “His favorite”. Again, though, like Mystic River, the strength does not lie within the chase, but the chasers. These men become so enthralled in their search, it seems almost manic. As crime movies go, there are characters with hidden, darker motives, and they are revealed very skillfully. The film’s ability to give us the clues without us even realizing it is uncanny. Unfortunately, the film stalls toward the conclusion, and tries to play cheap tricks. The morals of the film, and the established beliefs tell us that the film should go in another direction. We hope that the ending can be as strong, and powerful as the rest of the film. That is not the case.
That said, what we are given is a troupe of actors so akin to their roles and motivations, it doesn’t seem to matter that it concludes unsatisfactorily. Casey Affleck solidifies his maturation as an actor, carrying this film without a beat. Patrick Kenzie seems to make choices the audience doesn’t agree with (sometimes he doesn’t agree with them himself), but that’s what makes the character so intriguing. His choices and mistakes surround him, till he wants to collapse, and many times his baby face is questioned about his age. Affleck’s performance is something coming-of-age, and you tend to wonder if the real acting talent in the family actually went to someone else.
Morgan Freeman’s Jack Doyle is not a character outside his range; meaning, this is the kind of part Freeman has been playing a lot the last couple of years: wise, authoritative and probably well-worn. Sure, he is not being challenged, but why challenge a man when he plays a kind of role so perfectly? The same can be said for Ed Harris. He seems to be yelling in movies now more than Al Pacino, but his brooding resentfulness creates one of the most colorful, dynamic characters in the film, and Harris has lived off of his dynamics for some time now. Michelle Monaghan is the closest thing we have to the “heart” of the film. She’s a caring woman, despises the scum she encounters, but overall, holds herself in high esteem. Monaghan doesn’t shy away from Angie’s self-sufficient personality. Amy Ryan’s portrait of disastrous parenting in Helene is probably the best performance in the movie. If anything, the film suffers from not having her on the screen more. She encompasses all the sloppy clothes and averted attention that we’ve come to know all to well in so many parents today.
When I think of this film, the adjective that I seem to think of the most is impressive. The film’s lead and the film’s director impressed me immensely, to the point that I wonder why I ever questioned their talent. The film is not perfect, but a lot of films aren’t. What matters is that the movie works. Affleck gets great performances from a great cast, and gets the most out of his dreary hometown of Boston. What else does he need?
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (**)
ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE
Directed by Shekhar Kapur
**
When watching 1998’s Elizabeth, there is always the sneaking suspiscion that what you are watching is not incredibly close to history. You tend not to notice or care, because you are so enthralled by what was one of the greatest studies of character that decade. Nine years later, we watch Elizabeth: The Golden Age and we do not walk away with that same impression. This film is less intelligent, less elegant, and without all the charm that was present in the first one. Not that a sequel should be expected to be anything spectacular, but there seems to be an element of disappointment with this film. They could have done much better.
The three main people of the original film come back for this one: director Shekhar Kapur, and actors Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush reprise their roles as Queen Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Walsingham, respectively. The film begins proclaiming the power of the Spanish Armada, and the fears of death threats toward the queen. On the other hand, Elizabeth still has to deal with the issues of being without a male suitor, and being the “virgin queen”. During a series of suitors that sweep in and out of the palace (a scene which seems like something out of a bad romantic comedy) in strolls Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen).
We have to dispel the fact the Queen would have been well into her 50’s at the time this film is set (circa 1585), and Raleigh would’ve been around 32. Instead, Elizabeth is made to be young and glowing, creating the intrigue between her and Raleigh that takes up most of the plot. The film revisits a theme that was in the first film: that the supreme and authoritative job of being queen England can be quite a drag on your sex life. That seems like a crude statement to say, but this film is so robust, and lacking of humanity, it leaves it victim to that kind of remark.
Anyway, the film chronicles the Queen’s struggle with death threats and attempts of murder at the hands of the fanatically Catholic Spanish who see her as a husband-less leader of a godless country (AKA protestant), and then also having to deal with Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton). And all the while, she has to deal with the pain that she’ll never be able to be with Raleigh, no matter how much she yearns for him (though he loses no sleep going after her patron). And who wouldn’t love the Raleigh who’s pictured in this film, as a swashbuckling, manly gentleman, who even has a seen where he swings on ropes during naval battle.
All that aside, what is so disappointing about this movie, is the lack of substance. This film is filled with such vast, sparkling sets and flawless costumes, it’s no wonder there seemed to be no substance within the humanity of the characters. How can you portray a character appropriately when you’re busy worried about scuffing the ruffles around your neck? The movie is pretty beautiful to look at, but a film with such talent in it’s cast could afford to add more depth to the story. The director Shekhar Kapur takes the elaborate art direction that he had in his first film and compounds on it so much, that all we are left with is a spectacle of great cinematography and empty humanity.
That being said, the film is not unwatchable. The brightest star within this movie is Blanchett. While watching this movie, I came to realize that she has separated herself as the most prolific and skilled actress in the movies today (knowing that she is spot-on here playing Elizabeth, and is already getting honored for a performance as Bob Dylan in I’m Not There is astonishing in it’s own right). Like she did in the first film, she commands the screen. She delivers the lines with power. Her yearning after Raleigh seems sincere, even if the concept of the love between them doesn’t. Nothing that happens in the movie makes you doubt that she is the authority, even as you see her lost in the inches of Elizabethan make-up.
Rush’s return to the role of the devilish, conniving Welsingham is one met with great nuance. He’s the Al Neri, so to speak, to Elizabeth I’s Don Chorleone. The role is so shrouded, and violent it’s impossible to believe that he spent these two films on the protagonist’s side. Morton’s portrayal of Mary “Queen of Scots” is also very commanding, though she is much less demonstrative than Elizabeth (perhaps because she doesn’t have to deal with the hackneyed Hollywood love triangle). What Morton shows is something a lot of film lovers already know about her, that she is probably the greatest actress of today that nobody ever talks about.
The Golden Age’s downfall is in it’s misguided filmmaking. It’s amazing that so many people were able to take part in this project without seeing the holes left behind in almost every scene. It’s disappointing to see a film filled with such acting talent essentially twist in the wind of creativity. The power is in the performances, and the weakness is in it’s human story. When you end up with that kind of lop-sided result, you end with a sloppy, so-so film.
Directed by Shekhar Kapur
**
When watching 1998’s Elizabeth, there is always the sneaking suspiscion that what you are watching is not incredibly close to history. You tend not to notice or care, because you are so enthralled by what was one of the greatest studies of character that decade. Nine years later, we watch Elizabeth: The Golden Age and we do not walk away with that same impression. This film is less intelligent, less elegant, and without all the charm that was present in the first one. Not that a sequel should be expected to be anything spectacular, but there seems to be an element of disappointment with this film. They could have done much better.
The three main people of the original film come back for this one: director Shekhar Kapur, and actors Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush reprise their roles as Queen Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Walsingham, respectively. The film begins proclaiming the power of the Spanish Armada, and the fears of death threats toward the queen. On the other hand, Elizabeth still has to deal with the issues of being without a male suitor, and being the “virgin queen”. During a series of suitors that sweep in and out of the palace (a scene which seems like something out of a bad romantic comedy) in strolls Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen).
We have to dispel the fact the Queen would have been well into her 50’s at the time this film is set (circa 1585), and Raleigh would’ve been around 32. Instead, Elizabeth is made to be young and glowing, creating the intrigue between her and Raleigh that takes up most of the plot. The film revisits a theme that was in the first film: that the supreme and authoritative job of being queen England can be quite a drag on your sex life. That seems like a crude statement to say, but this film is so robust, and lacking of humanity, it leaves it victim to that kind of remark.
Anyway, the film chronicles the Queen’s struggle with death threats and attempts of murder at the hands of the fanatically Catholic Spanish who see her as a husband-less leader of a godless country (AKA protestant), and then also having to deal with Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton). And all the while, she has to deal with the pain that she’ll never be able to be with Raleigh, no matter how much she yearns for him (though he loses no sleep going after her patron). And who wouldn’t love the Raleigh who’s pictured in this film, as a swashbuckling, manly gentleman, who even has a seen where he swings on ropes during naval battle.
All that aside, what is so disappointing about this movie, is the lack of substance. This film is filled with such vast, sparkling sets and flawless costumes, it’s no wonder there seemed to be no substance within the humanity of the characters. How can you portray a character appropriately when you’re busy worried about scuffing the ruffles around your neck? The movie is pretty beautiful to look at, but a film with such talent in it’s cast could afford to add more depth to the story. The director Shekhar Kapur takes the elaborate art direction that he had in his first film and compounds on it so much, that all we are left with is a spectacle of great cinematography and empty humanity.
That being said, the film is not unwatchable. The brightest star within this movie is Blanchett. While watching this movie, I came to realize that she has separated herself as the most prolific and skilled actress in the movies today (knowing that she is spot-on here playing Elizabeth, and is already getting honored for a performance as Bob Dylan in I’m Not There is astonishing in it’s own right). Like she did in the first film, she commands the screen. She delivers the lines with power. Her yearning after Raleigh seems sincere, even if the concept of the love between them doesn’t. Nothing that happens in the movie makes you doubt that she is the authority, even as you see her lost in the inches of Elizabethan make-up.
Rush’s return to the role of the devilish, conniving Welsingham is one met with great nuance. He’s the Al Neri, so to speak, to Elizabeth I’s Don Chorleone. The role is so shrouded, and violent it’s impossible to believe that he spent these two films on the protagonist’s side. Morton’s portrayal of Mary “Queen of Scots” is also very commanding, though she is much less demonstrative than Elizabeth (perhaps because she doesn’t have to deal with the hackneyed Hollywood love triangle). What Morton shows is something a lot of film lovers already know about her, that she is probably the greatest actress of today that nobody ever talks about.
The Golden Age’s downfall is in it’s misguided filmmaking. It’s amazing that so many people were able to take part in this project without seeing the holes left behind in almost every scene. It’s disappointing to see a film filled with such acting talent essentially twist in the wind of creativity. The power is in the performances, and the weakness is in it’s human story. When you end up with that kind of lop-sided result, you end with a sloppy, so-so film.
Michael Clayton (****)
MICHAEL CLAYTON
Written and directed by Tony Gilroy
****
Michael Clayton is a “fixer” at one of the biggest law firms in the country. Got a big-time client who just ran someone over with their car? Clayton’s your man. “I’m not a miracle worker,” he tells a troubled client, “I’m a janitor.” He’s lauded consistently as the best guy for the job--and then his Mercedes bursts into flames in the middle of a forrest road. Michael Clayton, a masterful film by Tony Gilroy, is the best made, most thrilling film made so far this year. The suspense is pulsating, but the human element of the story is dealt with so grandly, that we are strapped in for a great piece of filmmaking.
Michael Clayton (played by George Clooney) is the best in the “fixing” business, but he holds other demons. When he takes his son to school, he has to face the facts that he really doesn’t know his son at all; and he’s becoming increasingly indebted by a bar business he adopted in case the role as “fixer” didn’t work out. This is all expository on the character of Clayton, the action of the story starts when Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) sabotages one of the law firms biggest cases, a class action lawsuit against the corporation U/North, and Clayton is forced into the most challenging “cleanup” of his career.
When Edens discovers the damage U/North pollution has done to farmers (including deaths), he kicks his manic-depressive medication and strips naked inside the deposition room. From this point on, Edens is frantically building a case against U/North using evidence only he has. The only person who seems able to pierce Edens’s core is Clayton. Clayton and Edens are friends, but Arthur has grown tired of being the “fixer” he’s been his whole career, he wants to do the right thing. As Clayton attempts to control Arthur before the firm and U/North find their own ways of controlling him, Clayton uncovers a dangerous world of deceit and murder, and is faced with some powerful decisions.
This is the directorial debut for Tony Gilroy, who has had much success as a screenwriter (the Bourne films, Armageddon). This is a polished film, and produced with much skill unlike that of a debut. Gilroy understands that this is a story where the characters are complex, not so much the story itself. He allows the film to piece itself together, and what we end up with is an incredible mosaic of intrigue and suspense, building to a satisfying climax. It is about as perfect an execution as you can have in the “legal thriller” genre.
Cinematographer Robert Elswit (Good Night, and Good Luck) makes much beauty out of the simplicity in the shots. Everyone is shrouded in some shadow. The film is edited by Gilroy’s little brother, John Gilroy, who is able to cut the film so smoothly, pushing the conversations to the forefront, but not ignoring the stylised quick cuts that make the film run at rapid pace. John Newton Howard’s score is one of brooding mystery. It is my favorite kind of score: a score which is constantly displaying the feelings and thoughts within the central character.
George Clooney seems to be at the peak of his acting career with Clayton. Clayton is seen driving his Mercedes, wearing a perfect, unwrinkled suit, and every hair in place. That is, until things are going wrong, and then everything becomes disheveled and unkempt. Clooney takes his time showing Clayton’s disintegration, wearing a face of discouragement and disappointment. Clayton doesn’t want to do what he does, but it is what he does best. He’d rather have a mundane life as a prosecutor, but the constant pressure from the heads of the firm, as well as bookies, keep him stuck in it. Clooney is excellent at showing all the emotions within Clayton, but he is best at showing his loss of integrity.
The film’s strength is in it’s cast, and Clooney is buoyed by a number of great supporting performances. Tom Wilkinson’s Arthur Eden is deranged and dangerous, but the heart of the character to do what is right probably makes the most poignant element within the movie. Tilda Swinton plays Karen Crowder, the cheif legal executive for U/North, who thinks she knows what it takes to be in charge of a cut-throat business, but may go a little too far. Swinton’s portrayal as the bewildered Crowder is another example of Swinton’s regal talent. Sydney Pollack plays Marty Bach, one of the partners within the law firm--Clayton performs his “fix jobs” at Bach’s behest. Pollack shows Bach as a kind-hearted man, but he knows the ins and outs and displays absolute authority.
Michael Clayton may be the best made film to come out this year, and is a masterful exercise within a genre made popular in the 1970’s. Clayton has no true moments of overwhelming idealism, nor is it a film with a specific significance, but as a film that executes, as well as entertains, you can get no better than this film.
Written and directed by Tony Gilroy
****
Michael Clayton is a “fixer” at one of the biggest law firms in the country. Got a big-time client who just ran someone over with their car? Clayton’s your man. “I’m not a miracle worker,” he tells a troubled client, “I’m a janitor.” He’s lauded consistently as the best guy for the job--and then his Mercedes bursts into flames in the middle of a forrest road. Michael Clayton, a masterful film by Tony Gilroy, is the best made, most thrilling film made so far this year. The suspense is pulsating, but the human element of the story is dealt with so grandly, that we are strapped in for a great piece of filmmaking.
Michael Clayton (played by George Clooney) is the best in the “fixing” business, but he holds other demons. When he takes his son to school, he has to face the facts that he really doesn’t know his son at all; and he’s becoming increasingly indebted by a bar business he adopted in case the role as “fixer” didn’t work out. This is all expository on the character of Clayton, the action of the story starts when Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) sabotages one of the law firms biggest cases, a class action lawsuit against the corporation U/North, and Clayton is forced into the most challenging “cleanup” of his career.
When Edens discovers the damage U/North pollution has done to farmers (including deaths), he kicks his manic-depressive medication and strips naked inside the deposition room. From this point on, Edens is frantically building a case against U/North using evidence only he has. The only person who seems able to pierce Edens’s core is Clayton. Clayton and Edens are friends, but Arthur has grown tired of being the “fixer” he’s been his whole career, he wants to do the right thing. As Clayton attempts to control Arthur before the firm and U/North find their own ways of controlling him, Clayton uncovers a dangerous world of deceit and murder, and is faced with some powerful decisions.
This is the directorial debut for Tony Gilroy, who has had much success as a screenwriter (the Bourne films, Armageddon). This is a polished film, and produced with much skill unlike that of a debut. Gilroy understands that this is a story where the characters are complex, not so much the story itself. He allows the film to piece itself together, and what we end up with is an incredible mosaic of intrigue and suspense, building to a satisfying climax. It is about as perfect an execution as you can have in the “legal thriller” genre.
Cinematographer Robert Elswit (Good Night, and Good Luck) makes much beauty out of the simplicity in the shots. Everyone is shrouded in some shadow. The film is edited by Gilroy’s little brother, John Gilroy, who is able to cut the film so smoothly, pushing the conversations to the forefront, but not ignoring the stylised quick cuts that make the film run at rapid pace. John Newton Howard’s score is one of brooding mystery. It is my favorite kind of score: a score which is constantly displaying the feelings and thoughts within the central character.
George Clooney seems to be at the peak of his acting career with Clayton. Clayton is seen driving his Mercedes, wearing a perfect, unwrinkled suit, and every hair in place. That is, until things are going wrong, and then everything becomes disheveled and unkempt. Clooney takes his time showing Clayton’s disintegration, wearing a face of discouragement and disappointment. Clayton doesn’t want to do what he does, but it is what he does best. He’d rather have a mundane life as a prosecutor, but the constant pressure from the heads of the firm, as well as bookies, keep him stuck in it. Clooney is excellent at showing all the emotions within Clayton, but he is best at showing his loss of integrity.
The film’s strength is in it’s cast, and Clooney is buoyed by a number of great supporting performances. Tom Wilkinson’s Arthur Eden is deranged and dangerous, but the heart of the character to do what is right probably makes the most poignant element within the movie. Tilda Swinton plays Karen Crowder, the cheif legal executive for U/North, who thinks she knows what it takes to be in charge of a cut-throat business, but may go a little too far. Swinton’s portrayal as the bewildered Crowder is another example of Swinton’s regal talent. Sydney Pollack plays Marty Bach, one of the partners within the law firm--Clayton performs his “fix jobs” at Bach’s behest. Pollack shows Bach as a kind-hearted man, but he knows the ins and outs and displays absolute authority.
Michael Clayton may be the best made film to come out this year, and is a masterful exercise within a genre made popular in the 1970’s. Clayton has no true moments of overwhelming idealism, nor is it a film with a specific significance, but as a film that executes, as well as entertains, you can get no better than this film.
Across The Universe (***1/2)
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
Directed by Julie Taymor
***1/2
I must admit, before writing this review, that I’ve been a stringent Beatles fan since about age four. I’ll also admit that when brought forth the idea of a musical film, staged totally around the performances of popular Beatles songs, I sort of cringed. The film, expertly made by Julie Taymor exceeded my expectations though, making what may very well be the most beautiful film of the year.
The film centers on a young, Liverpool laborer named Jude (Jim Sturgess) who impulsively grabs a ship to America in search of his father. His father, rather unclimactically is a janitor at Princeton University. He soon meets the rambunctious Maxwell (Joe Anderson), and his sister Lucy (an angelic Evan Rachel Wood). When Maxwell drops out of college, him and Jude move to New York and shack up in an overwhelmingly communal apartment owned by the Janis Joplin-like singer Sadie (Dana Fuchs). Also, living in the quarters is the Hendrixian Jo-Jo (Martin Luther McCoy), the heartbroken lesbian Prudence (T.V. Carpio; she comes in through the bathroom window), and eventually Lucy.
Jude and Lucy fall for each other, Jo-Jo and Sadie have a steamy, but vile love affair, Prudence mopes cause she knows she will never have Sadie’s heart, and Maxwell is drafted into the Vietnam War. These are all basic plot points, and not what makes this film as enjoyable as it is. What I enjoyed so much about this film was such a successful execution in making such an enchanting movie with stories and songs that we are so familiar with.
This is a movie about the Turbulent Years of the 1960’s, illustrated by what I assume the filmmakers feel is the best pieces of music from that time. The Vietnam War is documented and protested, but not so much that you feel hit over the head with it (like so many Oliver Stone films). We see the antiwar movement, but more of how it affects the characters, than actually accounting it. Other than marijuana and Jack Daniel’s, we don’t see the characters really experiment with hard drugs, but the visuals within the film definitely suggest it. Basically, it has the images of any film about 60’s, but seems to keep a comfortable distance so we can get to know the characters.
It amazes me that I’ve gotten this far into the review without talking about the music. Which is inarguably great. The films spins the songs into meanings I would have never figured, when I danced to them as a toddler in my living room. Prudence sings “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” with such painful yearning, watching the hands of women she knows she will probably never hold. Rows and rows of plastic-looking soldiers strip down Maxwell for basic army training stating the ever popular Army phrase (and equally popular Beatles song) “I Want You” and the sequence evolves into Maxwell and other hopeless draftees carrying the Statue of Liberty exclaiming “She’s So Heavy”.
The movie has moments where it doesn’t work though. The defiant performance of “Revolution” comes off more as campy than rebellious, for instance. Eddie Izzard makes an appearance as Mr. Kite, in the film’s most creatively questionable sequence. It’s the only moment in the film where the song itself seems to be performed inappropriately. These minor flaws, though, are redeemed by sequences that both sound beautiful and are visual experiences. The constant splitting of Jude’s Pollack-like artistry with strawberries mirrored by Maxwell’s horrors in battle are played wonderfully over “Strawberry Fields Forever”.
There are cute little cameos throughout the film, such as Bono playing the shrewd Doctor Robert who sings “I Am The Walrus” while he takes his followers on a tie-dye ride on his Magical Mystery tour bus. Joe Cocker pops up as multiple characters including a stylish pimp, and a raggedy bum as he sings “Come Together”. Multiple Salma Hayeks seem to sprout out of each other, as she plays the Bang Bang Shoot Shoot nurses during a dreamy, but dreary sequence of “Happiness Is A Warm Gun” as Maxwell sits in a retro hospital, recovering from war injuries. There is also the affore mentioned Izzard.
I should mention that there is one spectacular sequence that is underwater. The characters float (most of them naked) as if caught in the absolute rapture in the moment as they sing “Because”. During this sequence, a group of teenagers got up in the theater I was in, and walked out. So to be forewarned, the film takes it’s time, and is made on an epic scale. The visuals are languid, and they can be obscure in terms of meaning, but as I think I stated earlier, most of this film is a visual experience. It’s a glorious mix of ubbeat, satisfying performances, and glorious dedication to arguably the greatest Rock & Roll band of all time. So don’t get caught up on how unclear the message may be, just enjoy the ride. Don’t Let Me Down (repeat three times).
Directed by Julie Taymor
***1/2
I must admit, before writing this review, that I’ve been a stringent Beatles fan since about age four. I’ll also admit that when brought forth the idea of a musical film, staged totally around the performances of popular Beatles songs, I sort of cringed. The film, expertly made by Julie Taymor exceeded my expectations though, making what may very well be the most beautiful film of the year.
The film centers on a young, Liverpool laborer named Jude (Jim Sturgess) who impulsively grabs a ship to America in search of his father. His father, rather unclimactically is a janitor at Princeton University. He soon meets the rambunctious Maxwell (Joe Anderson), and his sister Lucy (an angelic Evan Rachel Wood). When Maxwell drops out of college, him and Jude move to New York and shack up in an overwhelmingly communal apartment owned by the Janis Joplin-like singer Sadie (Dana Fuchs). Also, living in the quarters is the Hendrixian Jo-Jo (Martin Luther McCoy), the heartbroken lesbian Prudence (T.V. Carpio; she comes in through the bathroom window), and eventually Lucy.
Jude and Lucy fall for each other, Jo-Jo and Sadie have a steamy, but vile love affair, Prudence mopes cause she knows she will never have Sadie’s heart, and Maxwell is drafted into the Vietnam War. These are all basic plot points, and not what makes this film as enjoyable as it is. What I enjoyed so much about this film was such a successful execution in making such an enchanting movie with stories and songs that we are so familiar with.
This is a movie about the Turbulent Years of the 1960’s, illustrated by what I assume the filmmakers feel is the best pieces of music from that time. The Vietnam War is documented and protested, but not so much that you feel hit over the head with it (like so many Oliver Stone films). We see the antiwar movement, but more of how it affects the characters, than actually accounting it. Other than marijuana and Jack Daniel’s, we don’t see the characters really experiment with hard drugs, but the visuals within the film definitely suggest it. Basically, it has the images of any film about 60’s, but seems to keep a comfortable distance so we can get to know the characters.
It amazes me that I’ve gotten this far into the review without talking about the music. Which is inarguably great. The films spins the songs into meanings I would have never figured, when I danced to them as a toddler in my living room. Prudence sings “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” with such painful yearning, watching the hands of women she knows she will probably never hold. Rows and rows of plastic-looking soldiers strip down Maxwell for basic army training stating the ever popular Army phrase (and equally popular Beatles song) “I Want You” and the sequence evolves into Maxwell and other hopeless draftees carrying the Statue of Liberty exclaiming “She’s So Heavy”.
The movie has moments where it doesn’t work though. The defiant performance of “Revolution” comes off more as campy than rebellious, for instance. Eddie Izzard makes an appearance as Mr. Kite, in the film’s most creatively questionable sequence. It’s the only moment in the film where the song itself seems to be performed inappropriately. These minor flaws, though, are redeemed by sequences that both sound beautiful and are visual experiences. The constant splitting of Jude’s Pollack-like artistry with strawberries mirrored by Maxwell’s horrors in battle are played wonderfully over “Strawberry Fields Forever”.
There are cute little cameos throughout the film, such as Bono playing the shrewd Doctor Robert who sings “I Am The Walrus” while he takes his followers on a tie-dye ride on his Magical Mystery tour bus. Joe Cocker pops up as multiple characters including a stylish pimp, and a raggedy bum as he sings “Come Together”. Multiple Salma Hayeks seem to sprout out of each other, as she plays the Bang Bang Shoot Shoot nurses during a dreamy, but dreary sequence of “Happiness Is A Warm Gun” as Maxwell sits in a retro hospital, recovering from war injuries. There is also the affore mentioned Izzard.
I should mention that there is one spectacular sequence that is underwater. The characters float (most of them naked) as if caught in the absolute rapture in the moment as they sing “Because”. During this sequence, a group of teenagers got up in the theater I was in, and walked out. So to be forewarned, the film takes it’s time, and is made on an epic scale. The visuals are languid, and they can be obscure in terms of meaning, but as I think I stated earlier, most of this film is a visual experience. It’s a glorious mix of ubbeat, satisfying performances, and glorious dedication to arguably the greatest Rock & Roll band of all time. So don’t get caught up on how unclear the message may be, just enjoy the ride. Don’t Let Me Down (repeat three times).
Hello
Hi, my name is James, and this is more of a way to see if this will work, than an actual post. Thanks for visiting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
