Posts Tagged ‘movie’

by Brendan Wahl

Nicole Kidman as… Anna
Cameron Bright as… Sean
Danny Huston as… Joseph
Anne Heche as… Clara

Wow, it’s been a while since I did one of these. Instead of focusing on a more recent film or a big Hollywood blockbuster, I decided to take a look at a little independant film that caused quite a stir in the media about six years ago and even enraged some festival attendees. The film I’m speaking of is Birth, a film which stars Nicole Kidman, Danny Huston, Lauren Bacall, Peter Stormare, Anne Heche, and most importantly… a 10-year old actor named Cameron Bright. What inspired such controversy and, in some cases, hatred from the most liberal of viewers? Maybe a further explanation of the plot will bring this to light.

The film involves a young widowed woman (Kidman) who, after ten years of being without her husband, has moved on and gotten engaged to a handsome young wealthy man named Joseph (Huston). As her life has seemingly changed for the better, an odd thing occurs. At her engagement party, she is approached by a young boy (Bright) claiming to be her long-dead husband Sean reincarnated as a child. At first, Kidman is hesitant and thinks the whole thing to be ludicrous but it appears increasingly so that this boy knows way too much information than would be possible for him to know. This inspires Nicole to become suspicious of the whole situation and as she investigates the matter further, it affects the people around her as they attempt to understand the situation.

When I discovered the film and heard of the plot, I had wanted to see it but I suppose it was just lost in the must-watch shuffle for the past six years. The controversy surrounding the film should be apparent now. People feared the worst when they found out that Kidman’s character would have to end up sharing very tender scenes with a young actor on-screen. There is one “bath scene” and a kiss that they share that really ramped up the controversy and caused the film to receive a wave of boos at the Venice Film Festival, where it debuted. These scenes are blown way out of proportion. The director has asserted that both Kidman and Bright were never naked together on-screen during the bath scene and that the kiss they had was ever so brief that it’s a wonder people found it objectionable.

But rather than just discuss the controversial nature of the film for the entire review, I’d like to focus this REVIEW on… well, you know… whether the movie is good or not. It’s rare for a director to have such a strong debut like Jonathan Glazer did with Sexy Beast (2000), but he managed to show some great promise with that film and it allowed him to explore some darker territory with his second movie. In my opinion, he succeeds.

The acting is a good place to start. I have always liked Nicole Kidman. She’s an actress who can take a nothing role and really inject some life into it no matter how boring the part may look on paper. This is not to say that this role is nothing on paper, but Nicole Kidman is wonderful and perfectly cast in the title role of Anna. She exudes a certain kind of vulnerability but strength at the same time that is rarely seen in a lot of working actresses today and this film gives her a very good opportunity to do so. As far as the acting in the film goes though, Cameron Bright is also quite good as a possible reincarnated version of Anna’s late husband. Cameron is a child actor who doesn’t use cuteness as a replacement for acting and is amazingly versatile for his age. As far as the rest of the actors go, they are generally pretty good but Anne Heche makes the biggest impression out of the supporting cast.

The script itself is also quite wonderful and doesn’t feel heavy-handed or hammy in the least. This film tells its story with intrigue and class and doesn’t build to stupid plot points and have the characters act in unconvicing ways in reaction to the events occurring around them. The direction also helps the story in a huge way, particularly in one haunting yet revealing scene taking place in the audience at an opera where the camera rests on a close-up of Kidman’s face for a good 2-3 minutes while she weighs in on the young boy’s revelation.

Overall, this film was much more than I expected it to be. It’s a good example of not believing critics’ opinions before actually witnessing a film for yourself. This film is definitely worth peepin’.


by Brendan Wahl

Jon Heder as…Jeffrey Mannus

Diane Keaton as…Jan Mannus

Jeff Daniels as…Mert Rosenbloom

Anna Faris as…Nora Flannigan

Is this a trend now? After watching “Away We Go” last night and quite enjoying it, I flipped the channel to IFC today and caught a little independant dramedy starring Jon Heder called “Mama’s Boy.” While I’ve enjoyed Heder’s comedic performances in films like Napoleon Dynamite, Blades of Glory, and School for Scoundrels I thought it would be interesting to check out what he could do with this type of role geared more towards drama.

The plot is, much like “Away We Go”, a very simple one. 29-year old aspiring astronomer Jeffrey Mannus (Heder) still lives at home with his mother Jan (Keaton) despite having a job at a book store and not really ever being apart from his mother. When she begins to date a self-help guru named Mert (Jeff Daniels), the neurotic and repressed Jeffrey immediately rejects the notion and attempts to rid the house of the home-wrecker Mert so that he may continue on with his cushy life-situation.

Unfortunately, unlike many independant films, the characters are the weakest part of the movie. Jeffrey, for one, is one of the most unlikeable “heros” I have ever bared witness to in a motion picture. He is neurotic, yet something of a hypocrite and an insecure, pessimistic, narcissistic plebian. He is so god damn unlikeable that in a scene where he finally engages in a physical fight with Mert (Daniels), I just wanted him to shoot Jeffrey in the chest and the credits to start rolling. I can blame Heder for his lack of emotion that he put into the character, but the writing is mostly to blame for not giving him a single redeeming quality. I’ve seen good films where none of the characters are truly likeable, but in this type of movie it’s not acceptable. Jeffrey needs to be at least slightly appealing and we need to understand his plight, but we only think of him as a pathetic man-child who looks down on everyone around him.

Now that thee main character is out of the way, we have the supporters. Diane Keaton is not given much to do as Jeffrey’s mother as she coasts through several different emotions that don’t really make sense in the context of the film. Keaton tries but can’t really bring her character to life. Anna Faris is another one that tries hard, but succeeds slightly more than Keaton. Faris plays an aspiring songstress and potential love interest for Jeffrey (because we “reeeeeally” want to see him happy….sigh) but her attraction to him is very hard to believe as it would be unimaginable for anyone to even remotely like him.

Jeff Daniels comes out of the film looking the best as a self-help guru there to woo Jan (Keaton) and woo her into an eventual engagement. Daniels’ character on paper could appear to be a vindictive person hell-bent on tearing Jan away from her son, but he is a much better actor than that. Indeed, he injects a healthy dose of charisma and humanity into the character and makes him into the character in the film that most closely resembles a real human being.

Aside from the acting, the directing is admittedly not so terrible. Relative unknown Tim Hamilton does alright with the sequencing of the film, but his skill with actors is not as accomplished. Admittedly, that has a lot more to do with the writing, but the directing is really there to hone their craft as accurately as possible and it feels like that was never really accomplished with the film.

Any highlights? Well, Faris’ character has a few moments such as the lyrics to some of her anti-corporate songs that seethe with such hatred and loathing that it impedes another portion of the film. If she is so anti-establishment, how is she so attracted to the law-abiding, clean-cut Hader? Other highlights include Daniels’ attempts to bond with Jeffrey, but really the good parts of this movie are very few and far between.

Cute ending aside, I would say this film is barely worth peepin’. Maybe if one is really bored on a lazy afternoon or something. On a real quick side note though, if you DO watch the film, Eli Wallach’s character’s attitude towards Jeffrey throughout the film can basically be said to represent the viewer’s feelings towards him through much of the film.


by Brendan Wahl

“From Paris With Love”

Jonathan Rhys Meyers as…James Reece

John Travolta as…Charlie Wax

Kasia Smutniak as…Caroline

Just like “The Wolfman”, this was a film that I did not expect to be the cure for world hunger or poverty, but I thought it had the potential to be entertaining enough and I enjoy John Travolta for the most part (there are exceptions. I’m looking at you, Battlefield Earth).

The plot of the film seems pretty simple to begin with. Low-level CIA operative James Reece (Meyers) is sent on his first major assignment because of the lack of agents (I guess the CIA has those problems, huh?). The only downside to that is that he is paired with an insane American agent, Charlie Wax (Travolta), who compliments Reece at being an absolute opposite to how the young lead operates within this world.

I should also mention that before watching this movie, I heard a lot of reviews talking about how big, stupid, and dumb a lot of this movie was and that it was all brawn and no brain. Well…

What’s wrong with that?!

I guess the first thing to discuss would be the balls-to-the-wall level of the action in this flick. I mean, it barely let up for a second. After taking about 10-15 minutes to really get going, the film sucked me in for its entire 95-minute run-time. The action set pieces range from exhilarating and fun to quite simply: ludicrous. But you know what? It’s all in good fun. A good example of the ridiculous nature of some of the action in the film is to note how Wax disposes of several thugs as they escape a building. He figures out in his head how long the thugs will take to travel down each floor of the building, times their escape into the getaway car and then uses that time to set a bomb and drops it at the perfect time to dispatch of said villains.

That’s another thing. Charlie Wax is somewhat of a revelation for John Travolta. Just look at that bald bad-ass with a wicked beard and tell me he doesn’t look like one of the cooler anti-heroes Travolta has ever played (in fact, I can’t really think of any terrific anti-heroes he HAS played — no, Pulp Fiction doesn’t count, he was a villain!).

Charlie Wax is a brash, rude, crude, possibly racist, violent sumbitch. Upon first meeting Wax, he is yelling at a French customs officer for taking his energy drinks from him at the airport. After Reece saves the day, we learn that it wasn’t just about the cans and Wax wasn’t being a whiny bitch. I am a firm believer in the fact that this man would’ve capped the customs officer if Reece hadn’t been there to cool things down and let better heads prevail.

Not to say that James Reece isn’t one cool-ass character as well helped in great deal by Meyers’ fun performance. But seriously…



I think the choice is obvious.

So aside from the acting and the ridiculous set pieces, the story is about as good as you can expect from a film like this with a decent twist that I actually didn’t see coming (rare for this kind of film!) and an ending that didn’t suck either. What was especially great was that Wax never changed to fit the story. He remains a bad-ass for the whole thing and doesn’t hold back when it comes to the F-bombs or shooting Asian gangsters.

For a popcorn-crunching, soda-slurping great time at the movies, this is definitely worth peepin’ and I give it a:


PS: It should be noted that Polish actress Kasia Smutniak is absolutely gorgeous. Her acting? It was aight.

“The Wolfman” (2010)

Benicio Del Toro as…Lawrence Talbot/The Wolfman

Anthony Hopkins as…Sir John Talbot

Emily Blunt as…Gwen Conliffe

Hugo Weaving as…Abberline

When I first heard they were making a remake of the 1941 classic The Wolf Man, my feelings weren’t really strong one way or another. I have actually never seen the original film from start-to-finish and despite its high praise, have never really had any strong desire to view it either. It would probably come off as very dated and I wouldn’t want to tarnish the possible quality of a film like that. Despite no strong feelings that this remake would “destroy the original” or anything, I still walked into this film with somewhat of a doubt in my mind.

If you don’t know the plot, well it’s pretty straight-forward. Lawrence Talbot (Del Toro), a Broadway actor, returns to his ancestral homeland after his brother has been mysteriously killed (of course, we know it was by a wolf). Emily Blunt plays the brother’s widow, the great Anthony Hopkins is Talbot’s old man, and Hugo Weaving is an inspector in search of the mysterious beast.

With a film like this, I guess it could’ve gone either way. One style could have been to take an ultra-serious approach to the story and make it in the style of a macabre tale of a man wrestling with his own emotions and struggling to deal with his condition. Another way would be to “camp it up” and just deliver the film as a whiz-bang, slam-dunk, action-packed ridiculous-but-great piece of cinema. The film seems to have found its place somewhere between those two styles and somehow, it works.

Many, many times a film will try to tell a story like this in a very heavy-handed way and it ultimately tanks because of some ridiculous CGI or some terrible overacting. I don’t know why this works well though, as occasionally the film will try to handle certain topics in a more heavy-handed way (the whole back-story between father and son Talbot), but then a lot of the actual ‘wolf attack’ scenes are cheesy fun for the most part and the CGI actually enhances (yes, I know) those scenes.

The good thing about these types of big-budget monster movies is that the acting doesn’t really have to be amazing for everyone involved to pull it off. Fortunately though, the film has four very strong actors in the major roles in the form of Del Toro, Blunt, Hopkins, and Weaving. UNfortunately, they don’t all deliver a home run in their performances.

Benicio Del Toro was someone that I was behind 100% when it came to casting the title role in The Wolfman. Del Toro is a fantastic actor (if you want examples, watch Traffic or The Usual Suspects) and seems to always shine in even small roles. That’s why it was so strange that I found Del Toro’s performance somewhat underwhelming. He wasn’t terrible or anything, but he seemed to lack the intensity that his role required in order to make it really work. Emily Blunt was another performer in the film that didn’t seem to be doing as well as she usually does (she was the best thing about The Devil Wears Prada).

However, Anthony Hopkins and especially Hugo Weaving steal the show. Sir Anthony delivers one of his trademark performances just seething with quiet intensity, while Weaving delivers a unique performance, really making the inspector his own character. So with the acting working for about 50% of the main cast, you would think it would damper the film quite a bit that the two main leads were not all that great. Surprisingly, it doesn’t hurt it though thanks to, like I said earlier, the style of film not requiring that much in the way of terrific performances.

Overall, the film was good enough for a fun time at the movies with lots of blood and gore to be had and some really slick action sequences.


Has Denzel Washington ever disappointed? After looking through his filmography on IMDB, it is obvious that not all his movies were raving successes (The Bone Collector or Virtuosity, anyone?) but it seems that Denzel almost always manages to rise above the material and deliver strong, subtle performances that make him one of the strongest actors of this generation. When he was finally awarded the Oscar for his performance in Training Day, I felt relieved that the man can at least retire with one golden statue in his inventory.

Now this film is not one I expected to like one little bit. I’ll be quite honest with you. If this film had anyone else instead of Denzel in the title role, I probably wouldn’t have even given it a second glance. It doesn’t hurt to have a terrific actor cast as the villain either and that’s where Gary Oldman comes in.

Gary is another actor who seems to rise above whatever he has to do but unlike Denzel, you’re never really watching “Gary Oldman” per se, but rather whatever character he’s portraying as he often immerses himself deep into the roles. In this film, for instance, I never would have know it was Oldman if I had no clue that he was in the film to begin with and that he played the villain. More importantly than the two great leads, was the film any good?

Well, here’s the plot: A man named Eli (Washington) travels across a post-apocalyptic world carrying a book with him that a particularly nasty individual named Carnegie (Oldman) wants to get his hands on for some reason or another.

At the risk of sounding vague, I don’t want to give too much away as I think some of the surprises will be more fun if I don’t ruin anything for you here. Going into this film with barely any knowledge of it outside of the actors and the post-apocalyptic setting, that might have helped me enjoy it more. With no pre-conceived notions and low expectations, I walked out of the theatre with a general feeling of satisfaction.

For one, the CGI in this film is amazing and at times, stunningly beautiful. At least I’m assuming that it is CGI that makes some of the backgrounds look as gorgeous as they do in different parts of the film. Related to that, the fight scenes are well-choreographed and it’s about time that I can see everyone that’s fighting instead of having to guess who’s throwing what punch in movies like the Bourne trilogy (which I still love, nonetheless). Keep a special look out for a particularly great scene featuring Eli slicing and dicing several hijackers done completely in silhouette.

The minor quibbles I have with the film comes with the writing. Overall, the story was fairly straight-forward and the dialogue was adequate for the most part but there were a few times here and there when I was reminded of the dialogue in Legion (not that I’m saying it’s anywhere near as bad as that movie!). Mila Kunis also shows up in a bit role and while she was decent, she didn’t really pull out any major acting chops and blow me away or anything. But, damn, she is fine.

So while this didn’t end up being my favourite Denzel Washington flick, it was very watchable and provided for some good entertainment for the most part, but don’t expect life-changing dialogue or amazing religious analogies or anything.


Just curious: What was your favourite Denzel Washington performance (not necessarily best movie)?

Spider-Man is…TWILIGHT?!

Posted: January 19, 2010 by Brendan Wahl in Entertainment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Yes, folks, you read that right. As I’m sure most of you have heard by now, Sam Raimi has decided to no longer continue with the Spider-Man franchise and thus, it is getting a reboot ala Hulk and Batman. Okay, I have to admit that both of those movie franchises desperately needed a refresh. But does Spider-Man really need one already? I might be in the minority, but I didn’t find the third one was actively offensive enough that it destroyed the entire series or anything like that.

Oh, and the rumored choice for Spider-Man? Robert Pattinson. You’ve been warned.