Movie Review: LAND OF THE LOST

Boil It Down: Tawdry and shameless, Land of the Lost aspires to appeal to the lowest common denominator and wildly succeeds.  

The remake of the 1970's kiddie program Land of the Lost has potential for about three minutes.  As the movie opens, a man dressed in an astronaut-type suit runs through a dark jungle.  Some type of creature is hot on his tail and, after stumbling, finally catches up.  The camera focuses on this man's reflective visor, displaying a ferocious Tyranosaurus Rex bearing down on him.  And just as dinner is served, the screen cuts to black.  There's a palpable tension in this sequence, a deep foreboding which the rest of the film lacks.  It's not played for laughs, but as an illustration of how perilous this world really is.  Too bad it seems as though this sequence and the movie proper were written by completely different people with diametrically opposed points of view.  Had Land of the Lost managed to retain this tone, it might have stood a chance of not being laughed right off theater screens.

In this version of the story, Rick Marshall (Will Ferrell), Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel) and Will Stanton (Danny McBride) are transported to another time when a tachyon amplifier triggers an earthquake in a dilapidated amusement park.  The only way for them to return home is by opening another portal with the amplifier, which was lost on the trip.  Enik, a reptilian creature known as a Sleestak, also informs them of an evil plot by Zarn to use the amplifier to control the universe.

Land of the Lost has been labeled a spoof (a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation, according to Wikipedia) much like The Brady Bunch Movie or Spaceballs.  All three of these films can be classified as plain stupid, low-brow comedy, but there's something more in the latter two.  The Brady Bunch Movie asks how the clan would fare in contemporary society while Spaceballs is genius precisely because it mashes together any number of films to create its humor.  Land of the Lost takes an inherently dopey television concept executed with the skill of a third grader and morphs it into an even dopier film exhibiting no thought process or artistic merit of any kind.  Instead of stop-motion dinosaurs on the screen for the actors to "act" against, this iteration substitutes CGI dinosaurs which are clearly not on set, prompting little terror or genuine emotion from the leads.  Dinosaurs on screen can be effective, when done right.  Universal, the company behind this film, should have known that since they were also involved with the Jurassic Park films.  Whatever their relative merits, the creatures always looked menacingly real on the screen in that trilogy.  It's not so here.

The problem, more often than not, is everything is played as a joke.  Marshall pours dinosaur urine over himself in an effort to disguise their movements.  It stings his eyes, prompting him to cover himself in more, ostensibly to stop the burning.  A bug starts to suck the blood out of his neck, turning his face a ghastly white.  He doesn't see it and his companions don't say a word to him.  When the bug crawls onto his back and Rick falls backward, it splatters "blood" everywhere.  Land of the Lost can't contain it's stupidity for one moment.  Not when the plot lurches into motion around the 38-minute mark.  Not in any of the "climactic" fight scenes featuring stunt actors in clearly plastic Sleestak costumes.  Not in any of the hideous, fake sets.  And certainly not in a running joke about A Chorus Line.  The film expects the audience to be in on the joke.  Granted, the entire concept is more than a bit silly.  But that doesn't mean it has to demean the actors and the audience.

(A word about the sets: aside from some desert shots-clearly real-anything taking place in the Land of the Lost is cheap.  It's not a stretch to imagine rocks being made of styrofoam or backgrounds created on large canvases.  One of the worst sets in the film, and possibly in any big budget film ever, is a Pteranodon nest.  Looking like the top of a volcano with a floor made of liquid lava, the eggs are held up by rocky spires.  The fragile ground is something anyone in the audience can make at home while the dark blue skyscape-to simulate night-is permeated with wispy smoke.  This set would have been budget-breaking for the original show.  For a $100 million summer movie?  It's pathetic.)

Speaking of demeaning, there's the little matter of the plot.  And by "little," I mean it's little more than an excuse for Ferrell and company to run around, act like idiots and have something to do for 102-minutes.  At least this part is somewhat understandable.  The basic thrust of the film once the trio are stranded away from their world is to get back.  Absolutely fair enough.  When you add in the evil Sleestak mumbo-jumbo, it gets a bit hairier.  Somehow, Holly just stumbles upon the truth in a non-descript cave?  What, are the bad guys essentially keystone cops, leaving evidence of their misdeeds out in the open?  And when the real deal is uncovered, the main baddie is taken down in a stunningly inept confrontation where the characters might as well perform "Romeo & Juliet," considering just how hard their captive tries to escape.  Even in Spaceballs, the villains were halfway menacing, as ludicrous as their plot really was.  Here, everything rests on the hope Marshall, Will and Holly are numbskulls.  And they play right into it.

Everything a fan of the original series could want is included in the film, from Ferrell's rendition of the opening theme song to Chaka and a dino named Grumpy.  What's missing is the reality, the genuine emotion.  And most of that falls on Ferrell.  He is the star of the film, the reason the adventure exists in the first place.  But when neither he nor his character take the world seriously, neither can the audience.  When we, as the audience, can telegraph a joke before it even happens (the vault), something is seriously wrong with the production.  This is yet another indulgence by Ferrell to do what he wants to do without the slightest hint of craft or restraint.  Certainly not the way to headline a big budget tentpole.

Land of the Lost is available on DVD and Blu-ray.

DVD Review: MOVEON: THE MOVIE

Boil It Down: The history of MoveOn.org told quickly and efficiently, sometimes too much so.

THE FLICK
MoveOn: The Movie is named for the political action committee (PAC) MoveOn.org which got its start back in 1998.  Ironically, the group started with a simple petition urging Congress to "censure President Clinton and move on" after he has sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.  From that beginning-and 250,000 members-the group found its political voice, rallied voters across the country and began to be a force to be reckoned with in both the 2006 and 2008 national elections.  Writer/directors Alex Jordanov and Scott Stevenson document the rise of the organization through the use of interviews and newsreel footage.

By definition, a documentary is supposed to examine a topic with an impartial eye.  This may be the only place where MoveOn: The Movie actually falters.  While it does provide a quasi-counterpoint with soundbite-length interviews with The National Review, StopMoveOn.org and Pat Buchanan, none of MoveOn's opponents gets the chance to really voice their case.  In fact, Buchanan seems to be on the side of the PAC, especially after September 11, 2001, which he claims allowed a pre-arranged agenda to go forward within the Bush administration.  An argument can be made against the film that it is a propaganda piece for the progressive organization, touting its accomplishments while seemingly glossing over the controversies.  That would be a false argument, to be sure, considering Jordanov and Stevenson make sure to address the "General Petreaus or General Betray Us?" ad, in reference to the man charged with giving an on-the-ground account of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They also talk of the 2004 election, where President Bush defeated Senator Kerry for the presidency, one of the group's notable failures.

Otherwise, besides being too short to truly cover the entire organization and its history in depth, MoveOn: The Movie is a solid entrance point to understanding this particular group.  The film is broken down into sections based on the year, ranging from 1998 to 2008.  At the beginning of each segment is also a member count; as already mentioned, it starts with roughly 250,000 members and balloons to a staggering 5 million in 2008.  Even though the doc is somewhat limited in scope-it's really limited to the East Coast and New York City and Virginia in particular-NYC is undoubtedly one of the major political hubs in the country.  By allowing the cameras into victory parties, strategy sessions and the day-to-day work, MoveOn is able to show they're not the evil bogeyman PAC they've been made out to be.  As shown, they are people who believe very strongly in their views and felt government was getting away from the people, falling into the hands of corporations and the rich.  Because of the group being able to finance campaigns across the country, it is felt politicians are not longer dependent on corporations and the wealthy to get elected.  Which, in the end, makes them accountable to the people.

(MoveOn: The Movie suggests, at one point, the politicians are indebted to the group, which is just as bad as being indebted to the corporations.)

There are no shortage of shots fired toward the media, Congress and even at MoveOn itself.  Helen Thomas, the venerable White House reporter, speaks openly and honestly at various points in the film on behalf of President Clinton (the claim is he was the victim of the ultra-right wing), against her own media (she was the only one to ask the hard questions of the White House) and Congress (they and the media did not question anything after 9/11; she calls them "pliant" in the run up to Iraq and Afghanistan).  Later on, former Virginia Congresswoman Thelma Drake rails at MoveOn for being an out of state organization looking to sway politics within Virginia.  Current events, like the race for the New York 23rd Congressional District in which national leaders effectively removed the Republican nominee for the seat, can't be used as a defense or counterpoint since they are too fresh; the filmmakers similarly don't argue Proposition 8 in California was largely funded by groups from Utah.  That fact, at least, could have been used, since the film ends with the election of President Obama.

MoveOn: The Movie doesn't want, nor does it purport to, tell the entire story.  It hits the key facts, the major players, the highlights, if you will.  That in itself is slightly frustrating.  There has to be more to the story, more personalities, more events, more highs and more lows.  Running 94 minutes, the film could easily have gone on for another 45 without losing its punch.  How, exactly, did MoveOn get Bruce Springsteen to engage in his first political statement ever in 2004?  It's not enough to say he felt it was time or the country was at a tipping point.  Talk to the man, figure out what went through his head.  Include other entertainers who lent their voices to the cause like Moby or R.E.M.  That's the most crushing problem with the narrative.  It sucks the audience in, throws out thoughtful questions or topics and then simply moves on to the next thing.  As an introduction to MoveOn, this approach is just fine.  But for a truly in-depth doc?  It barely scratches the surface.

But maybe that's the point, in the end.  To draw a basic, thumbnail sketch of the group and what they do without overloading the piece with facts and figures and other political minutiae which would make most eyes glaze over.  This is a starting point, a place to give people the impetus to do their own research and form their own conclusions.  It's like the difference between The Wall Street Journal and local news.  One has the ability to scour an issue from all sides while the other is only able to give 90-seconds to the same story.  Like any good film, MoveOn: The Movie leaves you wanting more.  And that's a pretty good place to be.

THE LOOK
Presented largely in anamorphic widescreen video, MoveOn: The Movie looks just like a documentary should.  The non-archival material is a combination of sit-down interviews where conditions can be controlled and "on the go" video, such as following MoveOn members canvassing neighborhoods or Election Night 2008.  Therefore, it's not entirely accurate to make blanket statements about the film as a whole.  To put it quite simply, everything looks as it should; blacks aren't deep and textured in some scenes while in others they come off remarkably well.  Fleshtones, outside of Gore, are more than acceptable.  (He seems to have a redness to his face.  this certainly can be his natural look, but I don't think that's the case.) 

THE SOUND
The English 2.0 mix is on par with the video: acceptable for what it is but not revolutionary.  Dialogue and the music are clearly separated without much of an overlap.  In rare instances, the soundtrack does run over the spoken word, but not to any major detriment.  Sound elements occasionally distort as they reach higher or lower octaves while some of the indoor scenes exhibit various amounts of audio hiss.  It doesn't excite the audience or distinguish itself from any other documentary audio specs out there.  Spanish subtitles are included.

THE STUFF
MoveOn: The Movie comes packed in a normal black keepcase without an insert.  A trailer for Rethink Afghanistan plays before the feature and is also available from the Special Features menu.  The film is broken down into 11 chapters.

Full interviews with both Al Gore and John Kerry are included (11:51) in one Play All option.  Gore sticks to talking about the merits of organizations like MoveOn, saying when a group truly believes in their argument, it is good for that group.  He also extols the virtue of the internet, mentioning how people have had to adapt to a new way of getting information and a new group of well informed citizens.  Kerry, meanwhile, generally sticks to talking about government, the cumulative loss of political credibility and the ways in which government changes the people who serve in it.

The trailer for this film (2:19) rounds out the disc.

MoveOn: The Movie is available on DVD.

DVD Review: MAKE THE YULETIDE GAY

Boil It Down: A questionable video presentation threatens to derail an otherwise humorous and heartfelt holiday coming out story.

THE FLICK
The gay movie genre has covered a wide range of topics, from the ubiquitous coming out story to AIDS and marriage, crushes and politics.  It hasn't, though, made a dent in the Christmas sub-genre.  Sure, 1995's Jodie Foster-directed Home for the Holidays may be the most well-known of the gay holiday movies, but even there the homosexual storyline is a subplot, not the driving force.  Writer/director Rob Williams looks to correct this mistake in Make the Yuletide Gay, a combination of this year's New in Town and Will & Grace, with a little Desperate Housewives cattiness thrown in for good measure.  At college, Olaf aka Gunn (Keith Jordan) is proudly gay, wearing Human Rights Campaign t-shirts, fending off advances by professors and in love with flamboyant boyfriend Nathan (Adamo Ruggiero).  At home in Wisconsin with his parents Anya and Sven (Kelly Keaton, Derek Long), he goes back into the closet.  With his mother's persistent attempts to set him up with the daughter of a neighbor as a backdrop, Nathan drops in for a surprise visit at Christmas.

From top to bottom (no pun intended), Make the Yuletide Gay is a gay production.  That in and of itself should give a major clue as to how the movie is going to play out, especially the ending.  And, in the context of a film that doesn't try to be sneaky or reinvent the world, that's perfectly acceptable.  After all, the finale to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is a foregone conclusion three minutes into the film; the same goes with holiday favorite A Christmas Story or any one of the dozens of animated Christmas flicks produced every year.  Because it's made from a place of love and simple entertainment, there are no political speeches or monologues on the current state of gay rights.  In the commentary, it's mentioned the intention is for gay youth to watch Make the Yuletide Gay with their parents, to open up lines of communication and make the coming out experience easier.  Oh, and if every other line of dialogue has a second or third meaning, so much the better.

That may be the best thing the script manages to do: it doesn't beat a message over the audience's head time and again.  Gunn and Nathan are simply gays guys going through something most homosexuals do.  Aside from the outsized personalities and wink-wink humor, Make the Yuletide Gay could very well be a true story.  It doesn't jump through hoops to generate the comedy like the Griswold film.  If it had, the story would lose it's honesty, it's nobility, in a way.  That authenticity is seen in nearly every scene, from the way the characters act and speak to the mostly organic way the plot unfolds.  It's easy to picture any mother walking in on their child and significant other in the heat of passion.  The fact Anya is seemingly oblivious is of no consequence.  When she kneels down to examine Nathan's monkey underwear, she doesn't do it out of spite or sexuality.  She does it because it's in her nature to be bubbly and inquisitive.  Sven's pot habit or walking around the house with his robe wide open are meant to elicit chuckles, surely.  It's also designed to show just how silly Gunn's apprehensions are.

What may not be totally authentic are the layered meanings most of the dialogue has.  For example, Anya mentions getting her beaver ready for Christmas.  To a certain segment of the audience, that literally means an animal.  But to the intended audience and to Nathan (who's in the room with her), it means something completely different.  She doesn't notice.  A conversation about who is going to take which bunk (top or bottom) turns into a textured, running joke about those sexual positions.  Does a mother really want to know that kind of thing about her child?  I'm guessing not, though it makes for laugh out loud moments.  (And really, a bunk bed?  Gunn is 22-years-old.  Bunks are alright in college dorms, but at home?)  There's also a matter of Gunn and Nathan's relationship, specifically the things they haven't shared with one another.  While the movie doesn't give a time frame for their coupling, the back cover copy suggests this will be their first Christmas apart, meaning theirs is a new relationship.  Considering Nathan has shared a good deal of information about his parents with Gunn, wouldn't it stand to reason Gunn would have reciprocated?  A key revelation comes when Nathan realizes Gunn isn't out to his parents.  Wouldn't that be an early relationship conversation?  Or wouldn't Nathan have gotten the clue from the way Gunn talks to his mother on the phone?

Maybe I'm being too nitpicky.  After all, most of Make the Yuletide Gay is played as a joke with the serious elements sprinkled in to give the story a certain weight.  Paramount among those jokes are Keaton and, to a lesser extent, Long.  Keaton's Anya is a bubbly, outgoing, squeaky-laughing woman quick with the barbs.  Hers is a kind soul, the type of mother any kid would want.  Why Gunn thinks she'll shun him is never completely fleshed out.  His reservations about Sven, though, are more grounded in reality, especially when the deleted scenes are taken into account.  Long's performance is humorous if the audience is in on the joke about marijuana.  If they are, comments about having the munchies and Gunn asking why so early in the morning work like gangbusters.  (Doubly so when combined with the hazy, half-asleep performance.)  If not, then the character is likely to fall flat.  A slutty female neighbor (Alison Arngrim) is a take it or leave it character; daughter Abby (Hallee Hirsh) is used as the boy's fag hag of sorts and confidante.  Interestingly, the role's of gay men and straight women have morphed over the years.  At one point, either Nathan or Gunn would have been her confidante.  Here, it's the opposite.

(The New in Town reference comes in with Anya. She speaks in a stereotypically Minnesotan accent with phrases like "dont cha'know" or swearing on the Packers never winning another Super Bowl if she's lying.)

Something much be said for Gates McFadden (Martha) and Ian Buchanan (Peter) as Nathan's parents.  Though they are only in two scenes, they turn out to be relatively fully formed characters by the end of the film.  Their roles basically entail being stern, upper class white people (or WASP's) with Nathan, reminding him to do his chores or to be a good house guest.  We don't see any love between the three-or between Peter and Martha, really.  Not until a short epilogue after the credits have begun to roll.  A smile comes across Martha's face and she utters a few lines no one would have seen coming at the outset.  The character comes full circle at that moment, spring boarding off of something Anya says when Gunn announces he's gay.  A mother will always love her children, no matter what.  Sven mentions something else at the same time, about Gunn showing what kind of man he is by being honest with his parents.  Maybe that's exactly what Martha was waiting for to show her approval to Nathan.  After all, Peter walked in on him and a guy in bed, thereby negating the "I'm gay" conversation.

As the leads, both Ruggiero and Jordan are agreeable as Nathan and Gunn.  Ruggiero successfully combines both Italian and gay characteristics to create a short hand for the character, allowing the audience to know him without him being on the screen early on.  While there's no doubt Nathan is gay, Jordan goes between homosexual and heterosexual easily, even if there's not much difference between the two halves.  In fact, aside from clothing, the two sides of Gunn are basically the same with very minor differences.  Playing straight, Jordan sneaks in a stereotypically gay eye roll here or there, along with a "fabulous" or other trait which would identify him as homosexual. As silly as it might sound, Jordan makes his fears about coming out sound authentic and real as the actor completely buys into them at every turn. He doesn't see the forest for the trees or give his parents any credit; that's the norm for this kind of situation and well played by the actor.

THE LOOK
Oh my.  There's no shortage of issues with the anamorphic picture on Make the Yuletide Gay.  The most obvious-and the one most likely not a result of the transfer-is a general darkness in every single scene of the movie.  Outdoor sequences are overcast, as if a filter was put on the camera to achieve some sort of visual effect.  If Williams did this on purpose, he doesn't mention it in the bonus material.  Then there's a general softness permeating each scene, making the picture look as though it was shot through a haze.  Ironically, outdoor scenes look better than almost anything shot inside.  Pause the film on any given scene and you'll find a layer of static grain.  This in and of itself isn't a major problem if the look of the film was designed to look this way.  Because of it, though, the vibrant Christmas colors are somewhat muted, further adding to the issue.  Last up is a significant amount of black crush.

What's black crush?  When the color black appears on screen, it is possible to see blocking, with one "block" being black and another being a dark gray.  Sit far enough away from the screen and it shouldn't be a major problem.  It should be understood this is a rather low budget film and shouldn't be held to high definition standards.  It's also very current and shouldn't come off looking like this at all.  

THE SOUND
So the English 2.0 audio track isn't as disappointing as the video portion.  The mix conveys the dialogue easy enough, without the soundtrack or effects drowning it out.  Because this is a dialogue-driven production, there isn't a lot for the mix to actually do.  In turn, it ends up sounding more than a bit flat, without real dynamics.  ADR, or looping, is a noticeable problem in a few scenes; the balance between dialogue recorded on set and the re-recorded material is noticeable instantly.  I also noticed some background noise, almost as if an air conditioner was running near the set and the sound couldn't be separated out.  Its not terribly distracting, just noticeable.  Neither the dialogue nor the soundtrack become distorted at any octave.  No subtitles are included.

THE STUFF
Make the Yuletide Gay comes packed in a standard black keepcase without an insert.  A selection of trailers plays before the main feature and are also available from the Special Features menu: a generic TLA Releasing trailer, 3-Day Weekend, Back Soon, Chef's Special and The Houseboy.  The film is broken down into 12 chapters.

The marquee extra on the disc is a commentary track with Williams, Jordan and Ruggiero.  It's more of three friends getting together to watch the movie instead of a nuts and bolts behind-the-scenes piece.  There are numerous references to screenings and how certain lines are drowned out because of audience laughter, not to mention shout outs to the entire cast.  They mention multiple takes of certain scenes-or deleted footage-all of which found its way onto the disc.  Williams, to his credit, does fess up to being a total geek, providing a reason why he sought out McFadden and Buchanan for small roles.  None of the three gets on either a political or social soapbox, referencing Prop 8 in California only in passing.  Instead, they allow the film to do the talking for them.

Two deleted scenes (1:41), both of which involve the unseen character of Gun's uncle, are mentioned in the commentary.  Add to that three extended scenes (13:07, with a Play All option or accessible individually).  The "Christmas Dinner" scene incorporates information on the uncle and is the most noteworthy of the three.  "College Class Room," just as in the finished film, turns out to be "icky."  

A selection of outtakes (4:21) shows the cast and crew flubbing lines, missing marks and generally goofing off on set.  Three separate behind-the-scenes (28:15) pieces are also accessible through a Play All option.  Quite simply, they're raw footage from the set, showing various camera setups or rehearsals.  There's no spoken narrative to them, nor are they polished like the film.  Audio drops in and out while ambient sounds overpower the dialogue at times.  Jordan, Ruggiero, McFadden, Keaton and Buchanan are interviewed in the cast interviews (9:22).  As if to back up the director's assertion she can't keep from laughing until she cries in the commentary track, Keaton is holding a tissue throughout her interview segments. 

The Photo Gallery (1:15, 15 photos) froze up the VLC Media Player on my computer, but played on the PlayStation 3 flawlessly.  This film's trailer (1:22) is also included.  An Easter Egg can easily be found on the Special Features menu. 

Make the Yuletide Gay is available on DVD.

Movie Review: THE BOX

Boil It Down:  A bit of this, a touch of that and Richard Kelly makes a muddled, hodge podge of a film hoping to be a cult hit.

For the first 40 or so minutes of The Box, writer/director Richard Kelly (working off a short story by Richard Matheson) weaves an effective film, showcasing a couple in need of money and being presented with an offer.  Norma and Arthur (Cameron Diaz, James Marsden) find a box on their front porch one morning with a smaller, wooden box inside.  That box contains a red button they're later told will bring them one million dollars.  The only caveat is someone they do not know will die as a result of the button being pushed.  When Norma makes the decision to push the button and Arthur starts to follow a mysterious man (Frank Langella) with the side of his face missing, the rules of this particular game change, ultimately leading to places and explanations no one can be ready for.

It's not that the ethical and moral dilemma Norma and Arthur find themselves in is played intelligently.  It's not, basically rammed down the audience's throat in as few scenes as possible.  Nor is it accurate to say they cover all the territory they need to in their deliberations.  In reality, there's precious little of any of this in the finished film.  Why the first portion of The Box is so much...well, better...than the rest is because it sets up a fantastic potential plot.  How do people make this kind of decision, how do they live with it after it's been made and what do they do if they have second thoughts?

None of this is covered by Kelly.  That would make the picture too conventional for this filmmaker, I think.  No, he has to go so far out on a limb with the plot that it's hard not to see the entire production trying to scurry back to a thicker part of the tree before the branch completely breaks off.  Kelly puts all the pieces into place nicely: Norma is about to lose a faculty discount for their son's public school, Arthur doesn't get the astronaut gig he's been after, he's also a NASA engineer obsessed with Mars and the way things work.  All this helps The Box start off well enough.  Most of all, Langella makes this part of The Box work more than it has any right to.  His simple presence, the way he delivers his lines in monotone, sinister and serious but not completely so, lends gravity to the entire enterprise.  Oh yeah, there's also the rather unsightly hole in the side of his face, caused, we find out, by a lightning strike.

And then the movie gets stupid.  Okay, maybe not stupid like The Taking of Pelham 123 (stupid people doing stupid things), but stupid in another way.  It goes so far off track, throwing in hardcore science fiction, traditional thriller, reality-based science and religious overtones to the effect of making "movie soup," none of which tastes any good.  Evidently, Steward (Langella) has people who work for him and they report back on what the Lewis family is doing.  He has the National Security Agency on his side, along with parts of NASA, waiters, babysitters, truck drivers, cops...at one point, a group resembling pod people chase Arthur through a library.  Why?  So he can choose one of three paths layed out before him as pillars of water.

Yes, water.  No, it makes no sense.  At least in a reality we have any hope of understanding.  There is an argument that this entire scenario would work if you knew the rules.  As in, if you are overseeing everything going on, there is no doubt about what is actually going on.  But as the audience, we only have small pieces to work with.  It's more than the characters, but that's not the point.  Children are kidnapped, a white light is introduced, there's some sort of travel going on, all of which made me personally like I'd fallen asleep only to wake up at these parts, making me fit them all together.  Kelly doesn't bother connecting all the dots.  Not for us and not for the characters.  While the final explanation makes sense in the long run, the movie makes entirely too many side trips for it to hold together in any meaningful way.

The entire story eventually comes out in a way analogous to how James Bond villains would explain their nefarious plots in detail just as the agent is about to die.  Only he doesn't, allowing him to foil the plans and the evil-doer to look the fool.  There's not takeover plot to uncover and overthrow.  Rather, it's all exposition designed to give an ending to the story, an attempt to to get everything to make sense.  Does it?  More often than not, yes, in retrospect.  While engrossed in The Box-and it is engrossing, constantly engaging-we notice the story taking bizarre turns, but it's so much work to keep up with all of them, we can't take the time to connect all the pieces.  Logically speaking, it all makes absolutely perfect sense.  There are only one or two parts left a mystery.  I think we can all live with that.  The way Kelly puts the movie together is the problem, not the story itself for the most part.  (Sure, it's easy to laugh the picture right off the screen when the water element is introduced or cops allowing civilians into crime scenes...)

Though Diaz is the first name on the marquee, she is unquestionably the worst actor of any age or gender in The Box.  A faux Southern accent appears and disappears as she sees fit while she can't make any of her dialogue sound convincing.  There's almost a vacant look in her eyes; perhaps the actress is just as befuddled with the script as the audience.  Or maybe she's just the wrong person to play opposite Marsden and Langella.  Both men seem to constantly overshadow her, as if she's a shrinking violet afraid to make any real decision.  Heck, she should be afraid, considering how the one dominant action she takes turns out.

Movie Review: MAN OF THE YEAR

Per this post, the following is an old review being ported over to TMR.

When a political humorist gets elected president of the United States, the vote at first takes people by surprise.  But as Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) begins to show he may be up to the job, a revelation about the computerized voting machines is brought to his attention, forcing him to make a decision not only in his best interest, but also in the best interest of the country.

Ya know, there's a halfway decent movie sitting somewhere in Man of the Year.  The very concept of a candidate from neither of the two major parties being elected to the White House has a certain charm to it.  Had the film written and director by Barry Levinson remained focused on Dobbs' campaign and culminated in his eventual win, it would have been far more enjoyable.  The problem is the campaign and election are given relatively short thrift in the first half of the picture to make way for a convoluted plot from a computer company hellbent on keeping a former programmer quiet regarding potential voting errors.  Compounding the left turn in plot are the accompanying scenes of intrigue and corporate shenanigans, neither of which belong in this film.

Man of the Year wants to be a political satire.  And it succeeds, during a great deal of its running time.  From an impromptu monologue during a debate to his first unscheduled speech in front of Congress, Tom Dobbs seems to understand his place in history and on the world stage.  Even if he entered the election on a lark, who cares?  He is as sharp witted as anyone within the reality we're presented.  Moreso, when you look at the sitting president and his Republican challenger, neither of whom come off as anything but snake oil salesmen.  It's Dobbs with the charisma and personality to connect with the people.  However, we never get to see how he accomplishes that feat in anything but rock star-like montages.

Instead, Laura Linney's Eleanor Green is chased through very public shopping malls in broad daylight and nearly run over by pickup trucks, all because she harbors a secret which can bring down her former employer. And the stupidly obvious way Dobbs wins the election?  Green would have us believe it has to do with the double letters in the candidates names (Dobbs, Mills and Kellogg); apparently, KeLLoGG trumps MiLLs because of the two sets of doubles, yet DoBBs beats Kellogg based on the alphabet.  Whatever.  Maybe in a movie based where a comedian can become president, this thinking works.  But anywhere else?  Nah.  And as part of a satire, designed to be funny in at least one way?  Not even close.  It's the ending-the complete left turn in the tone-where Man of the Year completely falls apart.  Not even guest appearances by Tina Fey and Amy Poehler in the climax can help.  And that's saying something.

Man of the Year is available on DVD: Man of the Year (Widescreen Edition) and Man of the Year (Full Screen Edition)

Movie Review: DEATH OF A PRESIDENT

Per this post, the following is an old review being ported over to TMR.

Known more for its controversial subject than any detailed part of the plot, Death of a President focuses on a fictional assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago following a speech in 2007.  At least, that's what the movie bills itself as.  Instead, it is an attempt-a decent one at that-to bring the events of September 11 down to a more manageable level.  Instead of buildings being hit by airplanes, the president is shot.  Poor intelligence about terrorism is replaced by racial profiling and a rush to judgment.  All the while, in a documentary-style approach, the event is "examined" through interviews with key personnel...though no one we really want to hear from.

Director and co-writer Range seems a bit schizophrenic in executing the film.  The titular act doesn't happen until a half hour into the 90 minute production and, even then, never achieves the emotional punch it should.  President Bush dies in surgery, not on the rope line when he's greeting people.  Not in his motorcade.  In the hospital.  For us to feel the impact, there has to be something more, a better constructed narrative.  Because of all the eggs in the narrative basket, it never focuses on one and rides it to the end.  Is this the story of a nation grieving for a fallen president?  Or the story of people wrongly accused of a crime?  Racial profiling?  Rush to judgment?  Consequences of not listening to advisers?  What is the movie truly about?

Some credit has to be given to Range for constructing the film from reenactments and archival footage of the participants.  Since no government entity was involved in the production, hours of news footage had to be sifted through to find appropriate moments.  For instance, new President Cheney's eulogy is lifted from Ronald Regan's funeral, only with the name changed.  While we do see the moment on screen, we also know to watch his lips.  When they don't match up to the actual words, there is a problem.  (Every other instance of doctored archived footage is manipulated off screen.)

Critics have said Death of a President goes too far in the hatred people feel toward the current president.  To pretend he is dead and show a supposed aftermath is in poor taste.  Does the movie cross the line?  It may skirt it, but not cross.  Why?  There is a larger point Range is trying to make, I think, which gets lost in the shuffle.  This is supposed to be a "worst case scenario" prediction, possibly even a warning to the world.  Preachy and heavy handed?  At times, yes.  Well constructed from a visual perspective?  Sure.  A good film?  It's marginal.

Death of a President is available on DVD.

Movie Review: 3 NEEDLES

Per this post, the following is an old review being ported over to TMR.

A movie told in three acts, 3 Needles looks at the AIDS epidemic from the perspective of people trying to make a difference, yet failing. Act I takes place in China, where a woman (Lucy Liu) runs blood from villages to the cities, unknowingly passing contaminated blood to healthy people. The second story takes place in Montreal, following a young porn actor (Shawn Ashmore) and his quest to fool an AIDS test in order to keep working. And, at the end, three nuns in Africa try to help families ravaged by the disease, yet are horrified at how far they are willing to suspend their principles to do so.

Writing and directing this epic, spanning five different languages and three continents, is Thom Fitzgerald. He handles each story with care and conviction, never letting the action on screen become too violent, grotesque or graphic. That is perhaps the film's largest drawback: it sanitizes AIDS and what it does to people. When a pregnant Jin Ping (Liu) is raped by Chinese soldiers, the camera only shows the men exiting her van in extreme long shots. As people die of AIDS throughout the film, their symptoms and pain are glossed over with a very minimal amount of acknowledgment. Perhaps that is the idea behind the film, to be as unintrusive as possible in an attempt to get in front of as many people as possible.

One other minor quibble with the production comes in the length of each story. Running at 127-minutes, there is ample time for each act to receive an equal running time. Yet the arguably least compelling group of characters-the nuns-get more time than either of the other two stories. There is no need for us to see the nuns arriving at their monastery. Instead jump right into the middle of the existing story, following the death of a woman from AIDS and her family. Devote some more time to fleshing out the truth in Act II (keep reading).

Yet for all its faults, 3 Needles is an heartfelt production, armed with top notch actors (Ashmore, Liu, Stockard Channing, Olympia Dukakis, Sandra Oh, Chloe Sevigny and a cast of unnamed hundreds as background extras and in supporting parts) and exquisite location shooting. Fitzgerald refrains from preaching, opting instead to simply tell the stories he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell them. Is there ambiguity at the end? Of course, most notably in the second vignette. How does Olive (Stockard Channing), porn actor Denys' mother, actually get the virus? There are two possible routes, though in the end the how doesn't really matter, only the fact she tests as positive. What is her rationale when she cashes in the life insurance policy? To be a selfish and jealous woman? Or she is helping Denys in some way we never get to know about? These questions aren't critical to the main story and, thus, were most likely left out. Just loose strings to be tied up.

The finished product is epic, though retaining a sense of the people who make up each story. It's not nearly enough to understand the wide implications of actions (or inactions); to see how each act impacts the immediate vicinity and the world reminds us we aren't alone. Whatever the good intentions are, even one reused needle can potentially infect hundreds of people with contaminated blood, for example.

3 Needles is available on DVD.