Retro Review: Vanilla Sky

Smooth operator director and writer extraordinaire Cameron Crowe expands his repertoire with a new romantic thriller that centers upon David Aames (Tom Cruise), a rich socialite who isn’t sure if he is dreaming or living his life. Aames is tortured by the thought that his true love, Sofia Serrano (Penelope Cruz), may not be real but the creation of his imagination during his photorealistic dreams. Aames’ friends, Brian (Jason Lee) and Julie (Cameron Diaz), seem to be a part of his dreams as well. Julie harbors a secret desire to make David her soul mate and that luscious desire will prove to be the event that spins David’s world into disaster.

“Vanilla Sky” is the kind of film that audiences will find subtly interesting or extremely annoying. “Sky” is no where near the caliber of a film that the indie hit, Memento was. I would compare it more to the 80’s film “Total Recall” with Arnold Schwarzenegger except substitute the bullets for kisses and flirting.

The film starts out wonderfully as we see inside Aames’ inherited publishing empire and see a fracture of his future. The future scenes with psychiatrist Kurt Russell give us introspective into where David’s life is going and where his threats from within are coming from. I liked how the film releases a hint of where the film is going.

The center of the film will be what audiences will find is the most trying to sit through. If you aren’t pulling your hair out, stamping your feet and screaming at the screen then you are probably one of the few who will find this film subtly interesting.

The amazing aspect of the center part of the film is the performance by Cruise. We probably haven’t seen a performance this engrossing since “Born on the 4th of July”, but it’s just a shame that the film doesn’t support such a performance. If it wasn’t for the disastrous event in David’s life, Cruise wouldn’t have been very interesting to watch.

What is it about Penelope Cruz? I am not fond of her as a solid actress but there is this natural allure about her that is so very captivating. Her demeanor and pure charisma make us fall in love with her with every project she is in. It truly is amazing.

There are events, dialogue and happenings in “Vanilla Sky” that are hokey, science fiction like that will probably bug a lot of people. I love science fiction and I know they bugged me.

The film’s ending is surrounded in this hokey stuff and how can one really immerse himself in doubt if the film makes up our minds for us. This was one aspect that was so clever with “Total Recall” and “Memento”. In those films we made up our own minds but in “Vanilla Sky” it’s in black-and-white and explained.

“Vanilla Sky” was a very trying experience for me and the film definitely isn’t for everyone. There is some interesting dialogue, a couple interesting scenes, it’s nicely directed and Cruise is very good, but the film isn’t cohesive enough to recommend.

(3 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Zodiac

David Fincher is one of those directors that if you are a movie fan you always want to see his latest project. Fincher achieved this movie geek praise and critical acclaim when he made movies such as “Fight Club”, “The Game” and “Panic Room”.

The last time that Fincher tackled the serial killer murder-mystery genre it was with the legendary “Se7en”, which starred Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow and Kevin Spacey, which is still regarded as one of the greatest serial killer films of all time.

In his latest film, Fincher returns to the genre that made him famous but this time it is the real serial killer known only as the Zodiac.

“Zodiac” stars Robert Downey Jr. as reporter Paul Avery and Jake Gyllenhaal as cartoonist Robert Graysmith who both worked at the San Francisco Chronicle the day the infamous letters from The Zodiac first started arriving.

The film follows accounts that were detailed in the novels written by the real Graysmith many years after the murders. The film also details the police investigation spearheaded by Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Inspector William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) which suffered from many hang-ups, botching of evidence and eventual abandonment.

Who was the Zodiac well you will have to see the film and make your own conclusions and the evidence is all-consuming and compelling.

At a running time of 165 minutes, Fincher’s Zodiac at times feels quite long. The film bombards you with so many facts and figures, side investigations and very little character development. The characters in the film just feel like “Law & Order” clones or “CSI” automatons who spit out useful information when it is deemed appropriate. Like both of those series we don’t get to know the people behind the case all that well but they are just there just to deliver relevant information.

Gyllenhaal’s character is really the only one who showcases more of who the character is and I guess that makes sense since the film is based on his character’s book. I think what would have made the film better is if the film just focused on Graysmith’s own investigation instead of going over the case twice. But maybe that is just me.

I really enjoyed all the performances from Downey Jr., Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo who did their best to be memorable even if their roles didn’t call for it.

There are some really nice camera shots and pans throughout the film but the film just lacks a drive of intrigue or intensity that is so desperately needed in films like these.

(3.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer

Retro Review: Holy Smoke!

Harvey Keitel re-teams with feminist director Jane Campion for another journey back to the land down under. This time Keitel is the world’s best “cult deprogrammer” and his subject is a religiously confused Kate Winslet.

Holy Smoke is one of those art films that probably won’t appeal to the biggest of audiences because of its tone and harsh storyline. Kate Winslet continues to grow as an actress with this risky and risqué venture. But it’s her spirit and screen presence which brought me in. As her emotions and beliefs crossed with her parents, we began to actually see the two worlds at war for this young girl.

These were magical scenes which Campion did a wonderful job with. But as Campion delivers a generous telling of the story and makes it very compassionate and direct for us, we are shocked when Keitel’s man’s drops his pants in a comfort scene. And you begin to wonder if this guy is a professional and if he should be looking after a vulnerable young woman.

Both in 1996’s “Portrait of a Lady” and in 1993’s “The Piano”, we saw this destruction of a man. And Campion continues her escapade here as Keitel delivers quotes of morals but never really believes a word. He self-destructs and delivers his own fiery flight into the flesh of an innocent woman.

What made me really cringe was the running time on Keitel’s destruction. Campion would never let up and this reminded me a lot of the Piano as well. Is Campion saying that women destroy men or that men destroy themselves with sex?

Another begging question is why did a fully nude Winslet have to deliver a “golden shower” before they could embrace and seal his eminent fate? Is this a symbolism of a lost vulnerability and innocence?

A cross-dressing Keitel screams after a shoeless Winslet as they stumble through the Australian outback this results in his final undoing and her final deliverance from him. A lot of clouded symbolism and half truths had me scratching my head. Or maybe “Holy Smoke” just goes up in a puff of smoke.

(2.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Four Brothers

It’s all about family, well, sort of.

Four foster brothers reunite on a cold snowy day when their foster mother (Fionnula Flanagan) is killed during a convenience store robbery. She was the only good thing to happen to these four social misfits and she was the only one who really cared.

After the funeral, Bobby (Mark Wahlberg), Angel (Tyrese) and Jack (Garrett Hedlund) decide that they need to look closer at the holdup because something just doesn’t fit. Meanwhile Jeremiah (Andre 3000) has second thoughts about getting involved since he is now a devoted family man.

The more leaves the brothers peal back on the mystery of their foster mother the more demons jump out of the closet. But it all seems to lead to a ruthless gangster named Victor Sweet (Chiwetel Ejiofor). How could the sweetest old woman in the world be involved with the mob?

Director John Singleton has had a lot of hits and misses throughout his career but he has never been able to capture the critical and commercial success that was his debut film, 1991’s “Boyz n the Hood”. But we have seen a lot of Singleton’s vision from that film in some of his films since then. “Poetic Justice”, “Higher Learning” and “Baby Boy” come to mind.

With his latest film, Singleton seems to be revisiting the 1970s yet again like he did a lot with his remake of “Shaft” in 2000. There seems to be a lot of homage to gritty crime films of the 1970s. The atmosphere, the snowy weather and the villains all feel very much like a Charles Bronson film.

Sure this film is basically just a revenge flick but it’s the way it’s presented and the characterizations of the brothers that makes this film probably the best film Singleton has made in five years. In some ways it’s a return to what he does best.

By far the best parts of this film are the eloquently, jump-out-of-your-seat action sequences. There is so much raw emotion, disorientation and intensity that they are sure to make any action fan salivate.

Mark Wahlberg is solid as the patriarch of the brothers. Andre 3000 is surprisingly effective in his role as the more reluctant brother. After starring in disasters like “Be Cool” and “Hollywood Homicide” it is no wonder Andre shines here. Chiwetel Ejiofor is the perfect villain and does an amazing job at balancing slimy, ruthless and suave.

I have to admit I wasn’t sure what to think when Singleton decided to start shepherding Tyrese in a lot of his films. But after “Baby Boy” and now “Four Brothers” I am starting to see that the man has a lot to bring to the screen. Tyrese does a lot of scene-stealing from Wahlberg in this film and it’s great to see.

Singleton’s next flick will put Tyrese front and center as he tackles the role of “Luke Cage” from Marvel Comics fame. Singleton is definitely the right director for the project and now it seems that Tyrese seems to be the right star. So, bring it on!

Singleton’s back on his “A-game” and “Four Brothers” is a reminder to how good Singleton can be when he is in his element.

(4 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Small Time Crooks

Woody Allen’s first film for Dreamworks. Will it bring the magic back to the film veteran?

Woody Allen’s “Small Time Crooks” tells the story about ex-con dishwasher Ray Winkler (Woody Allen), who has dreams of taking his ex-stripper wife, Frenchie (Tracey Ullman) to Florida and escape their dismal New York life. His dream lies in a bank heist where the plan is to burrow into the bank from their cookie shop. What Ray doesn’t realize is that his wife’s cookies are the biggest thing to hit New York since Starbuck’s. Thus making them rich beyond their wildest dreams.

Woody Allen has always been famous for his brilliant delivery of intelligent scripts and dialogue. He is sought after by a lot of Hollywood’s elite as their dream to work with. “Small Time Crooks” to put it plainly isn’t an example to his brilliance. Its pretty straight forward and predictable as the film takes its course.

The set-up building up to their cookie empire is vintage Allen but it seems as soon as they are covered with riches we don’t care for the characters of the mindless banters they have. Many scenes for me were bland and never really delivered the comedy I have so loved in other Allen pictures. I would have liked to have seen these characters struggle through the bank heist and cleverly found a way to make it all work.

As soon as the ultra-dumb character played by Michael Rappaort left the scene and was replaced by British schemer Hugh Grant, the film dropped its comedic edge. Hugh Grant’s shrewdness covered by his unique grin was reminiscent of the scoundrel he played in the “Awfully Big Adventure” and were his most memorable villains. Also what happened to Jon Lovitz?

Allen’s crook buddies were what made the film funny. The whole heist and the water main eruption were the funniest moments of the film and it was never fully used.

“Crooks” desperately needed a hilarious third act but instead left us with a somber note. That’s a real shame.

(2.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer

Retro Review: The Dish

A delightful little Aussie comedy that is sure to make you giggle.

After seeing Crocodile Dundee 3 in the same week, I wasn’t sure if I was ready for another Australian comedy. But the film starred Sam Neill of “Jurassic Park” and Patrick Warburton of “Seinfeld” and the underrated live-action “Tick” television series. I have always loved Sam Neill from the time I saw him in “Omen III: The Final Conflict” from back in 1981. As for Warburton, he’s always been a comedic force of nature.

“The Dish” is set in 1969 as man is quickly trying to get a man on the moon. A lot of us here in North America probably don’t realize that Australia played a huge part in the actual moon landing.

This film’s solitary mission is to show the world that Australia was the country responsible for capturing those magic moments when Neil Armstrong stepped out of Apollo 11 and descended down onto the moon surface.

How this event was covered was that a huge dish in the middle of nowhere grasped onto the single sent from the moon lander and was able to broadcast it around the world. Cliff Buxton (Sam Neill), Ross Mitchell (Kevin Harrington), Glenn Latham (Tom Long) and Al Burnett (Patrick Warburton) were the crew who manned the mighty Parkes Dish to capture that historical event.

With such a serious topic to grasp it was so very delightful to see the
Australians bring innocence, humor, and reluctance to these historical figures. Through their humorous element we are able to understand and relate to these characters more.

The subtlety of the whole film is what makes this film a pure gem. The slow revelation of Buxton’s tortured soul, the shy innocence of Latham as he tries to get enough courage to ask out Janine, the town sweetheart, and the conflict between Mitchell and Burnett is all handled beautifully. I could really relate to Latham the most and his struggle as the youngest of the crew.

The apple of Latham’s eye, Janine, isn’t the perfect town sweetheart as she always crashes into the posts in the front of the facility. That aspect was great in fleshing her out. A lot of other films, the perfect girl always has a sour side and is portrayed as a trophy. Janine is handled here more like a Marcia Brady or Sandra Dee. It was nice to see that kind of side of this often miss-used character.

I also really liked the Dish security guard who is the brother of Janine. He is always going overboard with his job and the others wonder if he should be carrying a gun.

The humorous laid back humor of Australia is what Croc Dundee 3 really lacked and in this film it is plentiful. What a pure delight. I liked how the filmmakers made these characters funny but not buffoons. Compare this once more to Dundee 3 and you can see what makes a comedy work and what doesn’t.

This is one of the most original films about the space program and should be enjoyed by everyone. It’s a giggle-fest with a strong historical message. Well Done, Australia.

(4 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Robots

It seems that PIXAR animation is the titan among the leading studios to produced 3D-animated films. But the bridge between PIXAR and the rest of the animation leaders is narrowing.

With the success of Shrek and its sequel and Fox’s Ice Age, other animators seem to be chipping away at PIXAR’s lead in the field.

Fox’s ROBOTS is probably the first example of how slim that gap is getting. From the same studio who conjured up Fox’s surprise hit, Ice Age, the animators at Blue Sky Studios seem to have hit it out of the park with their latest project.

ROBOTS tells the story of an ambitious robot named Rodney Copperbottom (Ewan McGregor), who embarks on a once in a lifetime journey to the big city to fulfill his dreams and get his invention seen by his idol, Big Weld (Mel Brooks), the father of robot society.

Upon his arrival in the Robot City, Rodney meets a down-on-his-luck robot named Fender (Robin Williams) who helps Rodney fit into his new environment.

As Rodney begins to learn the ropes he learns that his idol has disappeared and that a new robot is in charge named Ratchet (Greg Kinnear). Ratchet has a new goal in mind for the people of Robot City, upgrade or face the smelting pot. This makes him lock horns with Rodney who believes the way to save his world is through repairs because most of his compatriots can’t afford the pricey upgrades

Rodney’s only hope is to find Big Weld and stop Ratchet from changing the face of robot society, forever.

What probably makes ROBOTS so different than other 3D-animated films is that housed with in its walls still beats the soul a good old fashioned cartoon. The new breed of 3D-animated films try so hard to overcome the cartoon feel and become pseudo-real. I don’t think that for one moment ROBOTS attempts that feat because its feels firmly planted in a fantasy world.

The perfect example of this is the spectacular and craziness of the Robot City transit system. The transit system is basically a huge pinball machine and it is truly a sight to behold. It is imaginative genius.

The attention to detail and production design is rich and magical. The robots look a million versions of the Tin Woodsman from the “Wizard of Oz” and even the story has some things in common with that benchmark of a film.

I have always enjoyed films that emphasize the quest to fulfill ones dreams no matter what the cost. Sure the story has been told a million times before but I have always enjoyed that message especially in films aimed at children.

One of the low points of ROBOTS is the inclusion of so many celebrity voices. I really only recognized the voices of Robin Williams, Mel Brooks and Stanley Tucci. That is pretty sad when so many celebrities contributed voices.

This does beg the question do animated films really thrive from having celebrities attached to them?

I really think that ROBOTS is a great film that all families should go to. It is as much fun for adults as it is for the kids.

(4 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Domestic Disturbance

Absorbed by divorce, pulled into a new marriage and sometimes a new career, we put our children through a lot of adjustments. Through these unforeseen circumstances new people come into our lives.

Can we ever trust the people who become involved in our children’s lives?

In the new film “Domestic Disturbance”, Hollywood revisits this impending question. John Travolta stars as Frank Morrison, a recently divorced father, who is witnessing his son, Danny, (Mathew O’Leary) becoming involved in his ex-wife, Susan’s (Teri Polo) new marriage to Rick Barnes (Vince Vaughn).

Danny has had his run-ins with the law and really has never been the ideal preteen son. His credibility comes into question when he claims to have seen Rick kill an unarmed man in his SUV. The only one who seems to believe him is Frank. What exactly did happen?

“Domestic Disturbance” is a very straightforward and almost “domesticated” thriller. Domesticated in that it delivers no real twists or gray areas to keep the suspense alive. This film delivers the story and it couldn’t be any more obvious unless Travolta wore a “white hat” and Vaughn wore a “black-hat”.

Vaughn reverts back to his eerie presence he had in 1998’s “Psycho”. He is blatantly evil in this film and does an excellent job. Travolta is the pure “holier-than-now” father figure who you can tell is obviously bored. Travolta really must like the villain roles better.

There are no surprises, which make the film quite dull in the thriller department. There is tension, suspense music, and character torment but you know where this film is going and in some circumstances it takes a while to get there. What is rather uncanny is the film is less than 92 minutes.

Probably the most disturbing aspect of the film was how brutal Vaughn’s character was with Danny. Hog-tying him, slamming him up against a wall, punching him and the obvious threats are a little over the top and do really push the child-violence threshold.

I have always been an advocate against films that portray children in these kinds of situations and this film is no exception. I cringed every time harm came to Danny and I was saddened to see it. Maybe I am to sensitive but if I had these thoughts, wouldn’t others have it too?

(2 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Shark Tale

Where has all the heart and humor gone?

In the latest computer-animated extravaganza from DreamWorks Pictures, Will Smith lends his voice to a fish named Oscar, who happens to be a fast-talking fish who dreams of bigger and brighter things. When Oscar’s mouth gets him into trouble and he ends up being sent up river by the “shark-mob”, he starts to learn his lesson until fate intervenes.

Oscar watches as an anchor from the surface above crashes down killing one of the “shark” mobsters. Then the whole reef starts to celebrate dubbing Oscar a “shark killer”. Oscar doesn’t allow his fellow fish to think anything more than that and it eventually builds him a fortune.

For Oscar to maintain his mirage of fame, he must befriend a rather reluctant shark named Lenny. Together Oscar and Lenny maintain Oscar’s new infamy but it will eventually come at a price.

As I sat back and watched all the beautiful colors of the gorgeous animation and tried to recognize some celebrity voices, I couldn’t help but notice that there was no soul in this animated piece.

The film relied heavily on the casting of the voices, goofy advertisements with fishy names, pop culture references and every mobster pun or joke you can think of. It just felt, pardon the pun, shallow.

I am not sure if anyone out there will remember this reference but in a lot of ways the film reminded a lot of the short-lived 1992 TV series, “Fish Police”. The series followed a gritty detective named Gil (voiced by the late John Ritter) who in the fourth episode of the series investigates a fishy version of the mob. “Shark Tale” felt like they took the whole concept and feel of “Fish Police” injected it full of “pop-culture” LSD, CGI animation and force fed it “Godfather” tuna. Because I remembered this little misunderstood TV series kind of made me dislike the film more than I probably should have.

I liked a lot of the film’s casting but the jokes, the script and the rudimentary situations really made for a waste of all the talent involved. Are kids going to really know that some of the stars of the “Sopranos” or the infamous “Godfather” films did some of the fish voices? Furthermore are they recognizable? That was another thing that really bugged me that about 80% of the all-star cast are unrecognizable as the voices they provide. They could have been anybody.

To top it all off, did we really need a Christina Aguilera fish?

(2 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.

Retro Review: Double Jeopardy

Will she shoot him? Will she get away with it if she does?

Double Jeopardy is the name of a law where a person can not be convicted twice for the same crime.

Ashley Judd is a woman convicted of killing her husband. She is sentenced to 6 years of prison and taken away from her child. After a year she finds out that her husband is alive. Thus setting up the question, “Will she shoot him?”

Double Jeopardy is one of those Hollywood ventures where the commercial ruins any suspense or intrigue the film has. As we meander through this tale there isn’t any shockers or brilliant acting.

Academy award winner Tommy Lee Jones has never looked so bored. His character is an almost carbon-copy of the character he has played in two Fugitive movies. Bruce Greenwood plays a jerk as he has always played on the big screen. And as for Ashley Judd, she does the best she can with this two dimensional character as she tries desperately to bring credibility to it.

This poor, poor woman needs a juicy role where we can see her act like I know she can. Anyone remember “Normal Life” and “Norma Jean and Marilyn”?

(2.5 out of 5)

So Says the Soothsayer.