Deadly China Doll (not nominated for any Oscars)

Poor production issues combined to make it a painful ceremony.  Poor audio leveling and some bad direction were incomprehensible for the most prestigious awards show in entertainment.  There were a couple of high points; I enjoyed Robert Downey Jr.’s bit with Tina Fey, and Ben Stiller’s Na’vi ensemble was entertaining (though it would have been vastly superior with Sacha Baron Cohen as a pregnant Na’vi).

The Flaming Teen-Age

And now for a couple more program notes:

• There were very few surprises throughout the entire ceremony.  All of the top categories were picked correctly by just about everyone, including me.  The major categories I missed were both screenplays.  Inglourious Basterds’ [review here] loss to The Hurt Locker [review here] was understandable once it became clear that The Hurt Locker was going to nearly sweep the table.  Up in the Air’s [review here] loss was the most spectacular.  That was the one true surprise of the evening for me, and the biggest disappointment.  As the best film of the year it was sad to see it lose out on the only award it had a chance of winning.

• Another weird announcement was Avatar [review here] for Best Cinematography.  I had picked this one on my personal ballot, thinking that the film would win most of the technical awards (except for The Hurt Locker, which richly deserved Best Editing), but couldn’t imagine that it would actually deserve it.  I suppose someone had to frame the Na’vi in the computers, even if it’s not a traditional cinematographer’s work.

• Sandra Bullock’s acceptance speech was rather endearing.  She managed to be heartfelt with wet eyes while cracking some of the more amusing jokes of the evening.  Referencing her lover was rather enjoyable as well.  Even if she perhaps didn’t deserve the award, her speech made her a worthy choice.

• The short subject choices were interesting, particularly Logorama over Nick Park’s Oscar steamroller.  I would have preferred The Lady and the Reaper to win, as it was my favorite animated short, but it’s still nice to see something controversial and somewhat original take home the prize.  The most talked about moment of the show happened to be the speech for Best Documentary, Short Subject, when a purple lady suddenly exploded at the microphone.  The story behind the incident is also rather hilarious.

Future Cop (Trancers)

On my official Oscar predictions post the only categories I missed were the aforementioned screenwriting categories.  I flubbed some of the technical awards on my personal ballot, though they were mostly guesses.  My wife managed to beat me handily, correctly guessing 17 of the 24 categories to my measly 14.  All things considered, though, it wasn’t a bad year.  I was impressed with the quality of the ten Best Picture nominees, and am satisfied that The Hurt Locker and Kathryn Bigelow were the big winners.  Now there is nothing to do but look forward to next year’s awards and attempt to predict the winners as early as possible.  In the meantime we shall have to content ourselves with more obscure and hilarious movie posters.

Rated PG by the MPAA – contains violence, some grisly images, and some scary moments.  The smoking caterpillar is incidental

It has been plain, from the moment initial word of this project landed, that Tim Burton would add something unique and twisted to Wonderland.  He has not disappointed visually, with a rich and vibrant world featuring all manner of Lewis Carroll’s original creatures.  What is, perhaps, slightly disappointing is that the film never transcends Wonderland and the odd assortment of creatures and behaviors therein.  Nevertheless, Alice in Wonderland is not a bad film, and is in fact rather good and fairly enjoyable.

There is a story to accompany Alice and her adventures.  Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland purists need not be worried, as the film acts as a sort of sequel to any previous events.  It is set as Alice (Mia Wasikowska) approaches her twentieth birthday.  Her father, a great businessman and explorer, has died some years prior, and she and her mother are on their way to a grand party thrown by nearby aristocrats.

There are strict rules and regulations regarding her behavior at such events, but Alice’s mind often wanders off and becomes distracted.  During a particularly painful point in the social gathering Alice wanders off, following a white rabbit in a waistcoat.  She soon finds herself tumbling down a rabbit hole, landing in a strange land that she determines must be a dream.

There exist, in this land, a variety of odd fauna and animals.  There are some human-like creatures too, like Tweedledum and his twin, Tweedledee (both Matt Lucas).  There is also the aforementioned white rabbit, a strange cat, a small but feisty mouse, and a bizarre gentleman who happens to be a hatter (Johnny Depp).  As Alice learns more about this strange world she comes to realize there is a war on, pitting the evil Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) against her sister, the White Queen (Anne Hathaway).  Also, it appears that Alice has been predestined to lead the fight against the ferocious Jabberwocky (Christopher Lee), however reluctant she may be to take up arms.

There are some thrilling moments in Alice in Wonderland, and some moments of awe and wonder as Alice descends into the mad world of her adventures.  There are a great deal of visual treats, the majority of them coming from the Red Queen’s castle.  The Queen herself, with Helena Bonham Carter’s head gigantically imposed upon a diminutive form, steals every scene in which she appears.  Her shrieks of “Off with his head!” continually amuse, and are varied and sparse enough to not be overly repetitive.  The rest of the characters seem a bit bland, even (I know this is blasphemous to suggest) the Mad Hatter.  The actors are sufficient, and it is nice to see a relatively unknown face like Wasikowksa playing the lead.

The visuals themselves are generally eye-popping, and perhaps even more so in 2D.  I saw the movie in 3D, and while the format added some depth, rarely stood out as being necessary.  But this is a gonzo movie, with every aspect overplayed and over-the-top, so perhaps it is understandable.  However, a few obvious moments involving spears being jabbed at the camera come off as contrived and unnecessary, mere gimmicks to justify the 3D version.  Perhaps the 2D version will be more impressive, with more vibrant colors and sharper contrast.  If given a choice I would suggest the 2D version for an initial viewing.

Alice in Wonderland is, in essence, candy.  It is entertaining and eye-catching, with a serviceable story and characters, but rarely fully engaged me, emotionally or otherwise.  I was glad to see some rather twisted moments in the film, though nothing as twisted as Lewis Carroll’s original stories.  Some scenes are rather frightening and violent or gory; this film might upset children old enough to understand what beheading entails.  Throughout the film I continually hoped for something more, something deeper, though I consistently chuckled whenever the Red Queen appeared.  It is not a bad film, and (as evidenced by a $116 million opening weekend) sure to please the crowds.  But too much time spent in this Wonderland might lead to a sugar rush, especially with as little substance as the film offers.

• The first is the casual moviegoer, a person who is most likely to see the blockbuster Hollywood hits, the films that everybody sees and discusses around the water cooler.  They are interested in being entertained, and that is their sole concern.

• Secondly, there are those cinema lovers who regularly go to the nearest theater, hoping to see a variety of films.  They check out the blockbusters but aren’t always impressed with pure entertainment.  But they also see smaller films, niche and independent movies, and whatever foreign films happen to be playing nearby.  They tend to have a fairly deep understanding of the history of cinema and enjoy comparing new films to classics.

• Finally, there are the serious film critics.  For this elite group film language is more than a theory.  Every aspect of a film is picked apart and dissected.  Their tastes often do not follow any portion of mainstream cinema-goers.  They think philosophically and psychologically about films, and are not afraid to share their disdain for anything not showing significant thematic or linguistic depth.

Click to enlarge: from right to left The Human Vapor, Dear Dead Delilah, The House With Laughing Windows

• With an expanded field of ten Best Picture nominees this year, the Academy was able to include a few films for each of the above groups of people.  A select number of blockbusters made the field.  Avatar [review here] would most likely have been nominated solely on its critical reviews, but the enormous box office take made sure that viewers would tune in to see if it would win.  The Blind Side falls securely into this category.  It is not great cinema, but it is a crowd-pleaser, more in line with some of the early nominees for Best Picture back in the 1930’s.  Up [review here] was a commercial and critical success, but one that casual filmgoers would recognize.  District 9 [review here] might fall in this category for fans of sci-fi films.

• Film lovers will most likely have seen all or most of the nominees, but their tastes might lean farther from The Blind Side and Avatar, instead appreciating the art involved with creating films like Up or Up in the Air [review here].  They might have seen and enjoyed Inglourious Basterds [review here], and perhaps been confused but appreciative of A Serious Man [review here].  The thematic depth of District 9 might appeal to some members of this group, as might the emotional impact of Precious (the only one of the ten that I did not review, though I have seen it).  An Education [review here], too, will be appreciated and enjoyed.

• The third group is the most difficult to predict.  They might shy away from Precious and dislike District 9 for its commercially violent climax.  Avatar will not enter the equation, nor will The Blind Side.  They will perhaps appreciate the composure of An Education and the humanity of Up, particularly the heart rending opening sequence.  Most of all, I suspect, they will support the complexity of A Serious Man, the technical skill involved and the immense thought that went into every shot and theme.  They will enjoy the many layers, perhaps watching it several times to fully digest the themes and meta-themes.  The latter will be most interesting, especially considering the film’s appreciation of the unknowability of life and how unknowable the film itself appears.

But this is a serious discussion, full of broad strokes generalizing mass groups of people into small categories.  The above consists of a few thoughts on the topic, nothing more, and probably much less.  I do not know the things of which I write, I merely extrapolate from my limited knowledge, but this, too, can be interesting to discuss.  And since it all is, inevitably, meaningless, I will leave you with a few movie posters as companions to the ones stuck purposelessly in the middle of this article.

Click to enlarge: from right to left Death Smiled at Murder, The Horseman and the Samurai, Death Curse of Tartu and Sting of Death

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains mature themes, and some bad language

There are a number of things that make the first half of The Blind Side so interesting.  There’s the vast cultural divide that is honestly portrayed, a divide rarely looked at in mainstream American cinema.  The fact that this divide exists within American cities across the country only makes it more powerful.  And then there’s Sandra Bullock’s performance as Leigh Anne Tuohy (for which she will most likely be awarded an Academy Award the day after this review is posted).  Leigh Anne is a fiery, sprightly woman, surprisingly attractive and decidedly determined.  Her vim and vigor is what makes the first portion of the film so engaging.

But then the football is introduced and the movie can hardly help descending into standard sports-movie mode.  This is where the cliches and cheese abound.  This section is not bad, as far as sports movies go, but it is a letdown.  And then there is the ending, as a variety of last-minute obstacles pop up to extend the movie and “heighten” the drama.

Fortunately the first hour and a quarter of the film gives the audience some characters worth knowing and rooting for.  It takes its time introducing Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron), a large, homeless black boy on the streets of Memphis.  After a private Christian school enrolls him, the film moves on to introducing the Tuohy family.  Father and husband Sean (Tim McGraw) is a successful fast food restaurant owner (Yum! Brands, with its fleet of Taco Hut’s and mainstay Pepsi, surely enjoyed being part of the film).  Leigh Anne is an interior designer, and she treats her clients as forcefully as she treats everyone else.  Daughter Collins (Lily Collins) is the most under-used character, though she is sweet and cute.  Son S.J. (Jae Head) rounds out the family, in an annoying and overplayed role.

The opening section also introduces how the Tuohy family becomes involved with Michael’s life.  The change is slow and honest, and Sean and Leigh Anne even tackle some of the difficult questions, such as “Will Michael steal everything if we let him sleep on the couch?”  The film doesn’t mind tackling some of the more truthful yet politically incorrect thoughts going through the Tuohy’s minds.

The hope is always that Michael will play football.  He is enormous, both height-wise and girth-wise, and looks born to play the game.  The initial struggles are getting his grades high enough to be eligible.  He turns out to be a dedicated student, and manages to pass.  But his football skills are lacking; his coach calls him a marshmallow on the field.  Here is where The Blind Side takes its first wrong turn.  Leigh Anne’s speech to Michael as the team practices is the sort of cliched moment that appears inspiring but ultimately feels dishonest and forced, particularly given how the first part of the film deliberately and slowly showed each step of the story.

Michael’s leaps and bounds up the football ranks come in spurts of montage.  So do his academic skills, headed up by a private tutor (Kathy Bates).  These are the worst moments of the entire movie; they are too easy and whitewashed, and do not contain the same emotional impact as the earlier scenes.  As Michael continues to excel athletically and academically, Leigh Anne starts to fade into the background.  This is unfortunate because she is the emotional heart of the film and the most engaging character.  Some of the later scenes allow her to shine once again, but the end as a whole is not as convincing as the beginning.

The first part of The Blind Side is surprisingly enjoyable.  I was not expecting to appreciate it as much as I did and become so engaged in the story.  The second half falls closer to the cheesy story that I expected from the plot summary, though it is not terrible; it is merely disappointing following the strong opening.  The movie is inspiring, particularly as it is based on a true story (though I was not sad to see my Indianapolis Colts beat up on Oher’s Ravens during this year’s playoffs), and the movie is well-enough crafted to become truly inspiring.  It is sad to think that there are many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of young men in America’s large cities who might be able to escape a life of violence if only granted the opportunity.  But thanks to The Blind Side, perhaps, this issue will be discussed in many households across the country.

Rated PG-13 by the MPAA – contains some sexual content and mature themes

In many ways An Education’s heroine, Jenny (Carey Mulligan), reminds me of a more mature Juno [review here].  But this is Great Britain in the early 1960’s, and it is not boredom that might lead to “being in the family way.”  There is a rebelliousness about Jenny, but a clever and intelligent rebelliousness.  Perhaps she should have run off with Rebel Without a Cause’s James Dean or The Wild One’s Marlon Brando.  But again, this is Great Britain, so perhaps she would be more suited for À bout de souffle’s Jean-Paul Belmondo, a rebel whose greatest attribute is being French.

Jenny is a complicated character.  Her father wishes for her an Oxford education so that she can be successful in life.  Her teachers wish her the same, so that she will be a liberated, self-sufficient woman.  But she wants to study English and play her cello, listen to classical music and French swooners, peruse art collections and enjoy jazz clubs.  There is a world of enjoyment that she desires to experience, but even attaining this might not grant her the titular education.

One day she meets a handsome young man who understands music and offers her a lift in the rain.  His name is David (Peter Sarsgaard) and as their relationship grows Jenny realizes that there is another life she can pursue, away from the prudery and dullness of her parents and teachers.  As a bonus, David is able to greatly influence her father (Alfred Molina) and flatter her mother (Cara Seymour), granting Jenny permission to accompany him on a variety of excursions.  Away from her parents and her school Jenny has the opportunity to have fun and enjoy life, accompanied by David’s business partner (Dominic Cooper) and his girlfriend (Rosamund Pike).

But this is not a fairy tale wherein a young rebel leaves kith and kin to partake in the debauchery of a bacchanal existence.  As in real life, there are serious consequences for one’s actions, and this, perhaps, is just a part of Jenny’s education.  Jenny’s story takes some serious turns, but the film handles them delicately and properly.  One of the film’s strongest elements is that the supporting cast has depth; Jenny’s father is not merely an uptight prude, as it becomes clear that he has enjoyed life before marriage and Jenny’s birth.  Likewise, her mother states that they had a life of fun before Jenny came along.  Molina is particularly effective, and an important monologue late in the film becomes solely his.

Mulligan, too, is impressive.  She looks like a cute, normal schoolgirl of sixteen, but when dolled up could easily pass for the daughter of Audrey Tautou and Audrey Hepburn.  As the film progresses she becomes a great deal wiser as a result of her education, and convincingly looks older.  Sarsgaard, too, is great simultaneously as an awkwardly creepy older gentleman and a sympathetic romantic soul.  A brief appearance by Sally Hawkins shows that she has range beyond her Happy-Go-Lucky alter ego, and Olivia Williams (Mrs. Darling from Peter Pan [review here]) has trouble not being beautiful as Jenny’s austere teacher.  As a whole the cast effectively helps tell the story, blending into the background quite nicely.

The production is impressive, but has a couple of serious problems.  The main flaws with An Education could both have been avoided.  Some of the editing is a little choppy (but not choppy enough to be a pastiche of À bout de souffle), particularly in a scene involving Jenny talking with a couple of her school chums.  Such faults are easy to correct, though they may be time-consuming, and it is disappointing to see them in an otherwise stand-out production.

Another problem lies with the ending.  It is a fitting conclusion to the story, but the film does not take time to show the steps involved in Jenny’s ultimate education.  A quick montage that whitewashes over the difficulty involved does a disservice to how the rest of the film carefully portrays Jenny’s various situations.  Regardless, I enjoyed the film and found it to contain an interesting story and characters with depth.  Truth be told, I have been vacillating over how many stars to award An Education.  I was impressed with how it maturely deals with some difficult topics, but some construction and production flaws barely keep it from receiving three-and-a-half stars.

Rated R by the MPAA – contains strong language, brief and distant nudity, drug use, and mature themes

The end credits proclaim, “No Jews were harmed in the making of this motion picture” and it may be true that none were physically injured, but it sure appears that many were emotionally tortured.  In fact, the poor, luckless hero of the film seems to be a modern Job, with most of his wealth, family, and friends taken from him, and the people he turns to for advice prove useless.

The hero in the Coen brothers most recent blacker-than-pitch comedy is Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a physics professor at a university in a small town.  He is Jewish, his family is Jewish, and most of his friends and acquaintances are Jewish.  Almost everyone in the film is Jewish, besides the South Korean student that attempts to bribe Larry in an attempt to have his grade changed, and Larry’s anti-Semitic neighbors.  But everyone else is Jewish, include Larry’s wife’s soon-to-be new husband, Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed).

The first scenes with Larry involve a check-up at the doctor’s office, intercut with his son sitting in Hebrew school with a portable radio stuck in his ear.  The camera performs a visual examination on both characters, checking out their ears and eyes as the doctor checks out Larry.  Larry’s son, Danny (Aaron Wolff), gets in trouble with the teacher and has his radio confiscated.  Larry receives a clean bill of health and goes on his way.

Larry’s life goes downhill quickly.  His wife Judith (Sari Lennick) abruptly informs him that she needs a divorce, and a ritual divorce at that, because Sy won’t marry her in the faith without it.  Larry is surprised.  To compound issues, Larry’s brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is staying with the family and occupying the couch, forcing Larry to pull the cot into the living room.  Larry’s daughter, Sarah (Jessica McManus) is rarely present, either physically or emotionally, while Danny is in trouble with the local pot dealer, a large kid who lives down the road.

The movie doesn’t have a story arc as much as consist of a series of unfortunate events.  Larry gets into a car accident, people unexpectedly die, and even the three rabbis to whom Larry turns prove useless.  The first is young and inexperienced, the second tells pointless stories, while the third is too busy thinking to grant Larry an audience.  The movie lags during certain of these sections, but picks up again at the end, providing a climax reminiscent of Magnolia [review here].

The production is generally gorgeous, with Roger Deakins returning to the Coen Brothers side as cinematographer.  The time period is fully realized, complete with lustrously wooden kitchen cabinets.  A variety of interesting angles and focus effects help create a slightly surreal atmosphere at times, as the Coen Brothers are wont to do.  Great acting helps complete the illusion, with a cast of nobodies and newbies rounding out the Jewish community.  The opening credit sequence rams home this fact with humorous effect as the actors’ names are slammed onto the screen with increasing rapidity, much like huge Hollywood ensembles do with their A-list casts.

In spite of the black comedy and the gorgeous look I never felt fully engaged with A Serious Man.  I was sympathetic toward Larry, but was never able to empathize with him, perhaps because my knowledge of Jewish culture is lacking.  I have the feeling that there is a great deal to the film that I missed; perhaps multiple viewings will produce a different reaction.  There appears to be a great deal involving academia, Jewish traditions, and Old Testament theology, including the obvious parallels to the story of Job.  An opening Jewish folktale probably holds more secrets than an initial viewing could yield to a viewer of my intellect.  I am sure that some people will be able to take a great more from A Serious Man, and I suspect others will be utterly lost in the misery of Larry’s life.  Nonetheless, I enjoyed and appreciated the film, although I do not believe it belongs in the upper echelons of the Coen Brothers oeuvre.

• The Best Picture category is one of the few that isn’t set in stone.  While Avatar [review here] appears to be a strong favorite (with over $700 million at the domestic box office backing it up), there is a very good chance that The Hurt Locker [review here] will steal away the little golden man.  Add in Harvey Weinstein’s recent push for Inglourious Basterds [review here] and the race becomes even more interesting.  But I doubt that even Harvey will be able to stop the monetary juggernaut or the darling of the awards season.  I say the award goes to The Hurt Locker, though I would love it if my favorite film of the year, Up in the Air [review here], could pull off a massive upset.

• All four acting categories are all but announced.  Best Actor will go to Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart, and I cannot harbor any grudges against him.  It is nice to see George Clooney nominated for Up in the Air, but The Dude will finally be awarded his dues.

• Best Actress will go to Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side.  It will be in honor of her resurgent career and incredible draw at the box office as a middle-aged woman, and for her contributions to romantic comedies throughout the past two decades, including the odious While You Were Sleeping [review here].  I have not seen The Blind Side so cannot comment on her performance.  Gabourey Sidibe and Meryl Streep were both very good, and at opposite ends of the acting-career spectrum, but I have no strong feelings in this category.

• Christoph Waltz has been the front runner for Best Supporting Actor since audiences first witnessed him slithering his way through Jewish victims.  Stanley Tucci may have been the best part of The Lovely Bones [review here] but that isn’t saying much.  Additionally, he was equally good in Julie and Julia [review here], but Waltz is the crowd favorite, my favorite, and a lock for Best Supporting Actor.

• Mo’Nique is as strong a lock for Best Supporting Actress as Waltz is for Supporting Actor.  Her performance in Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire is terrifying, horrible, and sympathetic.  It doesn’t hurt that her acceptance speeches have been increasingly popular as awards season has rolled on.  I would prefer one of the ladies from Up in the Air to win, either Anna Kendrick or Vera Farmiga, but this won’t happen.

• Best Director will be an interesting category.  If Avatar wins Best Picture, James Cameron will have a chance to snag a second Best Director statuette.  If Avatar doesn’t win Best Picture, Kathryn Bigelow will almost certainly win, as The Hurt Locker will have taken Best Picture.  Either way Bigelow has the momentum going in and I feel quite certain she will win.  I wouldn’t mind seeing Jason Reitman take home the gold for Up in the Air but that simply isn’t going to happen.

• Best Original Screenplay seems to have a clear winner, but there might be a surprise here.  I expect that Quentin Tarantino will win for Inglourious Basterds, but if The Hurt Locker steamrolls it might take this category also.  It’s great to see Up [review here] nominated, though it has already won simply by being nominated for Best Picture.

• Best Adapted Screenplay belongs to Up in the Air.  The writing makes the film, and Reitman crafted believable and honest characters.  It’s great to see District 9 [review here] nominated, though its greatest glory will be its nominations.

• 2009 was a landmark year for animated features, with the likes of Up, Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox [review here], and Avatar all being released to theaters.  But the Best Animated Feature Film will be awarded to Up. This was decided months ago; any year that Pixar releases a film will be a sure win for them.  The fact that Up is also nominated for Best Picture only seals the deal.

• I have not seen any of the films nominated for Best Documentary Feature, but I will be surprised if either The Cove or Food, Inc. doesn’t win.  My official prediction is that The Cove will walk away victorious.

The majority of the technical categories will go to Avatar.  This is not a great stretch of the imagination; the visuals are by far its most impressive and groundbreaking element.  The short subject categories are difficult to predict, as the majority of the campaigning flies below the radar.  I have seen one of the Animated Shorts, Logorama, and it was visually and conceptually impressive though the content is less than cohesive.  I have also seen one of the Live Action Shorts, Kavi.  I met the director, Gregg Helvey, at the Heartland Film Festival last October, and it was clear that he was very interested in expanding his fledgling career in films.  I would not be surprised if his campaigning and networking skills earn him an Oscar, even though Kavi itself is a bit predictable and overt, even with an engaging setting and a quality production.

That is all the predicting I will do this year.  I look forward to the ceremony and am sure Ricky Gervais’s presence will be sorely missed.

Rated R by the MPAA – contains strong violence and gore, pervasive profanity, disturbing content

I’m not entirely sure that The Hurt Locker is a message movie.  I’m not convinced that it has groundbreaking truths about humanity to reveal, or that it delves into the warped psyche of war.  It does not seem to have an agenda; it is not overtly anti-war or pro-violence, but rather in favor of living over dying.  On the most basic level the film is a character study of an interesting, disturbing, and possibly disturbed individual.

The film opens with an intense scene of bomb defusal that might make even Hitchcock proud.  A small squad is on the ground in Iraq, charged with examining a pile of refuse with some protruding wires.  There is danger on all sides, the possibility of snipers in the surrounding buildings, and trip wires or traps that might detonate the explosive.

After this first scenario ends poorly, a new bomb expert is assigned to Bravo Company: Sergeant Will James (Jeremy Renner).  His fellow squadmates include Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty).  It becomes clear from their first assignment that James is not a normal bomb specialist.  His methods are unorthodox.  He doesn’t communicate well and prefers to tend to matters on his own.  It becomes readily apparent that he has an almost personal bone to pick with each successive assignment, as the days count down to the end of Bravo’s rotation.

There are a few incidents involving more than a call to defuse an explosive situation.  An encounter in the desert with a group of contractors (led by Ralph Fiennes, the only recognizable cast member as the dust and grind renders everyone equal) yields a sniper situation that lasts the majority of a day.  A raid on a suspected militant hideout uncovers more than just explosives and armaments.  The movie does not have a strong story arc, instead it focuses on the situations that Bravo Company must survive in order to go home alive.

The characters are what drive the film.  Sanborn plays by the book, which is how he has survived seven years of specialized service.  Eldridge is disturbed by his failure in the first assignment, failure that cost a soldier’s life.  He talks to a field psychiatrist, Col. Cambridge (“Dexter’s” best villain, Christian Camargo), and their ongoing relationship provides another interesting element to the film.  James is the most complex.  He seems to enjoy the danger and thrill of defusing bombs, and in doing his job he does not seem to care for the lives of his squadmates.  He loves disarming munitions; he’s almost addicted to it.  Indeed, a title screen prior to the film indicates that war is a drug, and it is plain that James’ drug is the adrenaline rush associated with his work.  He has a softer side that seems perfectly natural and unforced.  He befriends a young merchant boy (Christopher Sayegh) who peddles bootleg DVD’s to the troops and begins to take their relationship very personally.

The most striking quality of the film are its visuals and intensity.  The sand is dusty and gold, both in the desert and on the streets of Baghdad.  The directing and editing are superb, as Kathryn Bigelow weaves close-up handheld shots with long, static establishing shots.  The effect is remarkable, portraying both the immediacy and intensity of being in combat while providing a solid grounding point in time and space.  It is interesting to see all the bystanders on the streets of Baghdad, a reminder that people live in the city and can do nothing but stand by and watch as powerful explosives lie undetonated outside their windows.

The Hurt Locker is perhaps difficult to enjoy on an entertainment level.  James is generally not a sympathetic character, and while he is fascinating it is hard to like him.  There are a few other minor faults with the film.  It is a bit too long to be continually engrossing, and the level of intensity slows as the film progresses.  For a viewer expecting a film with a great moral purpose or objective, prepare to be disappointed.  As I mentioned above, the movie prefers to be a character study, showing how these men live out their jobs daily.  This is not necessarily a bad approach, but might leave some viewers empty.

I appreciated the movie, both the production and its viewpoint on a controversial and interesting subject.  It is hard to watch, as some of the scenes are rather graphic while others are disturbingly intense.  I would also say that I liked The Hurt Locker, although it contains characters with whom I am happy to only spend two hours and ten minutes.  I will not be surprised or terribly disappointed if it wins the Academy Award for Best Picture.

Safety Last! (1923): United States – directed by Sam Taylor and Fred C. Newmeyer

Not rated by the MPAA – contains some crazy stunts

Note:  A couple nights ago we had the rare privilege to see Safety Last! alongside Buster Keaton’s One Week at the Indianapolis Museum of Art’s Toby Theater, accompanied by the Indianapolis Chamber Orchestra.  Watching silent classics as they were originally seen, but with a more competent soundtrack, was phenomenal.

Safety Last! is often hailed as Harold Lloyd’s most remarkable achievement, granted the same status in his oeuvre as The General [review here] is for Buster Keaton and City Lights is for Charlie Chaplin.  Lloyd’s style in Safety Last! is distinct, containing neither the frenetic action of some of Keaton’s films nor the heartwarming scenes of some of Chaplin’s work.  He instead relies on meticulous setups, gags requiring precision planning, and intricately woven physical sequences.

Safety Last! revolves around a young man, called the boy (Lloyd), as he attempts to work hard enough to earn the hand of his girl (Mildred Davis) in marriage.  He moves to the big city hoping to work his way up the financial ladder while she stays behind in her small hometown.  He finds a job at a department store, selling fabric to well-to-do city women.  He works hard, eager to prove to his girl that he is successful.  He shares a small room with his pal (Bill Strother), but often spends the rent on jewelry for his girl.

A problem arises when the girl shows up in the city unexpectedly, thinking that her man is wealthy and successful.  This is not the case, sending the boy on a crazy mission to keep his true position a secret while pretending to be an important figure for the department store.  He also needs to find a great deal of money, quickly, to marry her and buy her the house she already believes that he owns.

He overhears the store manager offering $1000 to anyone who can promote the store in a big way.  He quickly takes up the offer, enlisting his pal to climb the outside of the tall building.  The news agent does his job and a large crowd gathers, but a meddlesome cop prohibits the pal from performing the stunt, forcing the boy to take it up on his own.  His clamoring to the top of the building yields some of early cinemas most enduring images.

Safety Last! is not a constant laugh riot; it instead builds to Lloyd’s most important scenes carefully and meticulously.  There are only glimpses of his incredible physical prowess before his climb to the top of the building, made more remarkable by the fact that Lloyd had lost a thumb and finger several years earlier in an on-set accident.  Even as he crawls up the building he makes the task look as if it is performed by an amateur, and he does it convincingly enough to be all the more impressive.

The final scene, which occupies a great deal of the running time, is phenomenal.  Note how the editing shifts slowly as the scene builds; at first there are a great deal of reaction shots of the crowd below, but as he attains greater heights the camera only occasionally shifts from Lloyd’s ascent to his pal’s problems with the police.  The scene is crafted from editing, careful and perfect, to create the illusion of an immense feat of athleticism.  A careful viewer will notice that the background buildings change at one point, indicating that there is no single, actual building that Lloyd climbs.  That the scene is so thrilling is a credit to Lloyd and the editing (T.J. Crizer), and the use of clever trick shots should not detract from Lloyd’s feat.  His ability to pull himself up each successive ledge and dance precariously on a small lip of the building, is incredible and daring.

Some of the smaller shots are similarly impressive, particularly a sequence showing the point of view of an ambulance barreling down a street crowded with pedestrians, automobiles, and streetcars.  The massive crowds involved in some shots, and the ability to make them act as one (especially in a scene where a floorful of women simultaneously duck) is amazing.  Regardless of your view of silent films, Safety Last! is an impressive and wonderful movie.  It may not contain Keaton’s freneticism or Chaplin’s heart, but it earns its stripes via meticulous planning and incredibly complex stunts.  Safety Last! is truly a classic of silent cinema, and any opportunity to view it should be grabbed.

Not rated by the MPAA – contains violence and gore, campiness and strange science, and cosmo amphetamine

Battle Girl: The Living Dead in Tokyo Bay is not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination.  It is campy, gruesome fun, and interesting as a predecessor to the shock films that Japan has been producing recently, ranging from Tokyo Gore Police [review here] and The Machine Girl to Vampire Girl vs. Frankenstein Girl, but it is not a good film.  And honestly, who would expect a film with this title to be good?  And would anyone seek it out if they weren’t anticipating gory, campy, science fiction?

The story combines elements of post-apocalyptic films, zombie infection, and a singular female hero who is a war machine.  As the movie opens there is a large meteor heading toward earth, where it proceeds to collide with Tokyo Bay.  The heat from the impact creates a vast cloud of steam that forms a shield around Tokyo, bathing the city in an eerie fog.  There are other effects, too, as the shield cloud seems to contain a strange element named cosmo amphetamine.  This cosmo amphetamine acts as a zombie creator, causing dead people to wake up and stalk the living, hoping to chew on some fresh flesh.

Amidst the confusion of a city quarantined and beset by hordes of living dead there are small pockets of humans and a squad of military men led by the evil General Hugioka (Kenji Otsuki).  He has declared martial law, and commands his soldiers as he performs perverse experiments with the cosmo amphetamine.  But there is a rogue warrior on the loose, the titular Battle Girl (Cutey Suzuki).  Her name is Keiko Kirihara and she is the daughter of the ranking army commander.  He has been lost in the shuffle, leaving behind only an instructional video and a battle suit for his daughter.  Donning the odd-looking black outfit Keiko teams up with a roaming squad of ammunition hawkers to fight through hordes of undead, a squad of Human Hunters, and some of the General’s monstrous beasts, enormous women who have been exposed to cosmo amphetamine.

The plot sounds silly, is silly, and doesn’t really matter.  Any exposition serves to create battlefields for humans to face off against either the zombies or other humans.  There are a number of violent sequences, many of them involving bullets riddling undead corpses.  There are a variety of heads that explode and even a fantastic plastic head that becomes the home of a lobbed grenade, caving in gently under the weight of the projectile before exploding.  Keiko is the science fiction version of Japanese heroines like Lady Snowblood (or any of Meiko Kaji’s roles), and the spiritual ancestor of The Machine Girl’s Ami, though she is not as cool as either of those two heroines.

It would be unfair to expect Battle Girl: The Living Dead in Tokyo Bay to be a good-looking film; it was initially made for video, in the vein of the Guinea Pig [review here] movies and other Japanese horror films from the 1980’s and early 1990’s.  The films were cheap to produce but don’t end up looking fantastic, much like how the modern shock films rely heavily on CG to look acceptable while never achieving greatness.  In spite of the low video quality the production is generally acceptable.  There are large sets, including some huge industrial areas, and sometimes a couple dozen zombies on screen at once.  The battle suits look as though a fair amount of consideration went into their construction, if not their design.

The primary draw will be the promise of cheesy camp, and audiences expecting pure campiness will not be disappointed.  From the opening green-and-black graphics to the exploding heads and mediocre fight scenes, the film screams low-budget schlock.  The violence and gore are generally pulled off with aplomb, and the actors take their roles seriously, further enhancing the camp value.  This is a perfect movie to watch with a group of friends; the subtitles make it possible to talk loudly while still following the story sufficiently.  Anyone attracted by the title will not be disappointed, and I, for one, was also interested in Battle Girl: The Living Dead in Tokyo Bay’s connection to both the past and present of violent Japanese cinema.