"Taken"

I wrote a blog a few months ago concerning things I feel like I should hate but find it hard to do so. The entry centered namely around Justin Timberlake, whom I feel I should hate with the fire of a thousand suns but find it impossible to do. And so it is with “Taken.”

So many things about this film stand for the many things I am so fervently against in the movie industry. The plot is lacking, the holes in the story gigantic, and much of the acting is atrocious. And I mean, seriously atrocious. It is a movie that is completely and totally action driven, something I generally hate in a movie. Yet I cannot keep myself from loving what I just saw.

There’s almost no plot to sum up here. If you’ve seen the trailer, you know what this movie is about. Former FBI/CIA/CTU/Something Government Related agent Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) has retired from said Government Related Agency job and is trying to be a civilian in an attempt to get closer to his 17 year old daughter Kim (Maggie Grace). When Kim is offered the opportunity to spend the summer abroad, Bryan reluctantly relents, on the condition that she stay in contact with him through the use of an international phone he buys her. Upon arriving in Paris, Kim and her friend immediately make all the dumb mistakes you hear about in kidnapping stories. Soon after, while on the phone with Bryan, Kim realizes there are intruders in the house and she is about to be abducted. Bryan promises to come for her and promptly jumps back into Government Related Agent mode. The rest of the film follows Bryan as he burns France to the ground in an effort to find his daughter.

If you’re looking for complex plot points, this isn’t the movie for you. The entire film is one attack-on-bad-guy after another. There is very little concern for international law or “conscience questions.” In most action movies, these things are at least mentioned or thought about, even if only for a moment or two. In “Taken” these things are discussed in about one sentence and then kicked to the curb where they belong. Bryan Mills has far too many Albanians to take down to think about things such as laws. His ONLY concern in life is finding his daughter and he will do anything and everything to make that happen. This includes, but is not limited to, breaking and entering, torture, impersonating a foreign official, and leaving anyone behind who is not his daughter. This is not “Dark Knight” or any other action movie in which the hero struggles to find the line between wrong and right. There is no gray in this film. Bryan Mills is RIGHT, everyone else is WRONG, and it is as simple as that, collateral damage be darned. “Taken” is very unapologetic in this stance and it works.

Here is why “Taken” works where other films fail. Too often, action movies try to bridge the gap between reality and fantasy and in doing so fall flat. Our hero cannot take out 37 bad guys with a single pistol clip then stop to reload a moment later. If you’re going to allow him to not reload for an entire battle, then go full out and toss out the reloading all together. Another one of the more tired clichés in action movies is for the hero to take somewhere between 2 and 41 bullets during the course of the film yet still manages to get by. “Taken” throws out the notion that the hero ever has to even be winged by an enemy’s bullet. The shooting displayed by everyone in this film who is not Liam Neeson would make a Stormtrooper proud. Bryan Mills seemingly walks through gun fire the way Wyatt Earp does to take down Curley Bill in “Tombstone.” And when a bullet won’t do the job, he’s more than capable of delivering a karate chop to the neck that immediately knocks a would-be attacker out.

On the flip side of that coin, too many action films take absolutely preposterous ideas and turn the whole thing into a special effects collage surrounded by the “Oh yeah, this is supposed to have some sort of story” plot line. A wonderful example of this would be “Crank 2: High Voltage” which I was so lucky to see a trailer for prior to “Taken.” (If you can’t tell that this sentence is OOZING sarcasm please stop reading now.) This movie selects a subject (the abduction of a family member) that audiences can relate to or at least imagine what they would do in the situation and then seemingly allows the imagination to run free. It’s a brilliant mix because while the on screen happenings are often ridiculous, the story in which it happens is very real and easily related to. When the fairly predictable final scene comes into reality, it is less anti-climatic and more justifying.

It should be noted once more that the acting (outside of Neeson) in this movie is absolutely horrendous. Maggie Grace, in particular, is laughable as a 26 year old trying desperately to cling to the ideas of what a 17 year old should behave like. My comment to those sitting near me was that it felt like Neeson was acting in a major motion picture and the rest of the cast was participating in a drama class at Santa Monica Junior College. (Very similar, in fact, to “The Phantom Menace.”) But in a way this seems to work for “Taken” as crazy as this may sound. While Mills has no time to mess with the intricacies of diplomacy, neither does director Pierre Morel have time to mess with the motivation of his actors. I would be very skeptical of any future Morel films. But in the end, “Taken” is a highly enjoyable “man’s movie” and Mills is a subtly clever and witty “man’s man.” In the spirit of “Die Hard” I was able to revel in the absurdity rather than be turned off by it and that is where this film hits its mark.

GRADE: A-

"The Wrestler"

Since I’m not a professional film critic, I often don’t get to see the Award Caliber movies until long after they’ve been reviewed a million times. Most movies that are shooting for Oscars aren’t released until just before the end of the year and many of them don’t go into wide release until the middle of January. This has positive and negative effects. For one thing, if a movie is bad and falls far short of its Oscar goals, I hear it in advance and can avoid wasting my time. But the flip side of that is if a film is getting a lot of critical praise, there’s always a chance that I’m going to expect far too much by the time I get the opportunity to see it. I confess that, going in, I was concerned that “The Wrestler” was going to fall into the latter category.

“The Wrestler” is the story of Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke), a former WWF wrestling superstar who’s hanging on to the glory days by the thinnest of threads. Living in a trailer that he can’t always pay the rent for and working as a stocker at a grocery store, Randy is 20 years removed from his prime. His body bears the marks of years and years of abuse. “The Ram” lived fast and loose, snorting coke and injecting insane amounts of steroids while taking a beating each night in the ring. He is broken, bruised, and scarred.

Unlike many of his compatriots, Randy hasn’t given up on The Ring. His weekends are spent competing in the lower levels of “professional” wrestling, fighting up and down the Northeast coast. These matches are often held in veteran’s halls and elementary school gyms and feature alarming violence and equipment. While the fights are planned out ahead of time, the stunts are painful and many of the fights involve very real weapons. One fighter uses a staple gun to subdue and intimidate his opponent. Another litters the mat with barbed wire. Randy himself cuts his forehead with a razorblade to sell a stunt to the crowd. It’s a very brutal, desperate world that “The Ram” finds himself in. Yet the crowds love him and for however short the moment lasts, Randy needs the spotlight.

Whatever money Randy has, he spends on Cassidy, an aging stripper (Marisa Tomei) whose time he craves far more than her services. Cassidy will not allow Randy to get any closer than her other customers but it’s clear that part of her wants to. Randy would probably like to take Cassidy out of the situation she’s in but knows he wouldn’t be able to offer her much. The film takes us through a few months in Randy’s life as he struggles with becoming an average person, his health, and his severely strained relationship with a daughter he left behind.

“The Wrestler” isn’t an easy movie to take in. But some of the best movies in history aren’t easy to watch. Mickey Rourke is brilliant in what is almost a semi-autobiographical role. Director Darren Aronofsky had to fight tooth and nail with the studio to get Rourke in the film but in hindsight there isn’t anyone better suited to play “The Ram.” Rourke has in many ways lived the life of Randy “The Ram” and has the scars to prove it. He destroyed his career with drugs, steroids, and hard living and without this role would almost certainly be un-hirable, a waste of one of the more talented actors in his generation. This is more than his comeback film, this is his legacy, the role which will define his career no matter what great things may come his way in the future.

This film is not about professional wrestling, nor is it truly about Randy “The Ram” Robinson. Rather, it is a film about MAN and his eternal struggles. Everyone knows the man who can’t let go of the past. Whether it’s the former high school quarterback, the guy who’s paid the price for not finishing college, or a professional wrestler far past his prime, this is a familiar story, only highlighted with barbed wire and steroids. How does a man so used to being a superstar adapt to working a deli counter? And what does a man do when a doctor tells him he isn’t physically capable of doing the one thing that he finds affirmation in? These are the types of questions Aranofsky attempts to ask. He simply chooses professional wrestling to be his platform.

My one complaint about this film is the way it has been promoted. “The Wrestler” is being sold as tale of redemption or a comeback story but I think that’s misleading and the critics that have reviewed it so have missed the mark. This isn’t “Rocky Balboa” or any other sports movie in which the hero is getting one last shot at glory. Leading up to the inevitable “Last Big Fight” no one, including Randy, realistically believes that this is his chance to get back into the Big Time. Even if that were to happen and the movie were to end with “The Ram” jumping back into the ring with WWF (or WWE, or whatever it’s called these days), this movie wouldn’t be about that. Randy isn’t so much interested in a comeback as he is in going out on his terms. He wants to be Michael Jordan hitting the championship winning shot for the Bulls, not Patrick Ewing wearing number 6 for the Orlando Magic, barely making it up and down the floor. As he says toward the end of the film, this is where he belongs and he doesn’t want to let anyone or anything force him away from his place in life.

From a humanistic perspective, “The Wrestler” is heartbreaking because despite its over-the-top action, it is shockingly real. Yet despite the fact that there isn’t a traditional happy ending, it is a film that is more than worthwhile for its phenomenal study of LIFE, if not for the spectacular performance of its star.

Grade: A

"Slumdog Millionaire"

It always drives me crazy when a human, be they movie critic or just a lay movie lover like myself, discredits a film by citing the “already been done” clause. Meaning, if the movie resembles another film in writing, acting, directing, storyline, cinematography, music, catering crew, or anything else, it is essentially worthless should the reviewer decide to deem it so. I myself fall into the trap from time to time but at least in most of these cases I follow up the “already been done” clause with the “and it was awful the first time” clause.

The truth is, after 100 something years of major motion pictures, just about everything has been covered. Every movie is borrowing something in some way from some movie from the past. The better movies twist the ground which has already been covered or offer fresh perspectives. But just because a given topic has already been covered doesn’t mean it can’t be covered again. It’s all entertainment. So what if one movie of today borrows from a movie of the 70s? The truth is, the latter movie probably borrowed from a movie of the 60s and that one a movie of the 40s and that one a book from the 19th century.

I say all that to say this: when a movie comes along that IS truly unique, it sticks out. In a sense the film emblazons itself on your memory and you never quite let go of it. A filmmaker that can come up with this unique concept is ahead of the game because it will be favorably compared to any movie that resembles it for the next 30 years. “Slumdog Millionaire” is that movie.

“Slumdog” follows the life of Jamal Malik, a boy who comes from the worst part of India. The footage of life in these slums is sobering and far worse than anything you will ever see in the States. The tiny box homes covered with tin roofs are literally stacked on top of each other and the squalor is painfully obvious in every way. Jamal has come within one correct answer of winning 20 million rupees on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” but is now in custody of the Mumbai police on suspicion of cheating to get to this point. After torture, the investigator goes over each question with Jamal and asks him to explain how he knew the answer. Each question results in a flashback to a period of Jamal’s life as a “slumdog” and brings together a snapshot of his life through ten different stories.

I’m not going to say another word about the content of the film. Because this is such a unique film it should be experienced by the viewer with the minimal amount of information possible going in. It is a refreshing and sobering piece that should be a “must-see” for any movie lover.

The acting, done by an entirely Indian cast, is phenomenal. From Dev Patel who plays the role of Jamal as a young man, to the work of game show host Anil Kapoor (think an Indian Regis Philbin), the actors display the type of discipline and dedication to the profession that is sometimes lacking in Hollywood. Even the children who play the youngest versions of Jamal and his brother are engaging, talented, and endearing while giving the kind of work that most directors would kill to have from their American child actors. Despite the spectacular filmmaking it has produced over the last few years, Bollywood (the Indian film industry) has been fairly unsuccessful in its attempts to breakthrough into the consciousness of the mainstream public. “Slumdog” is, in a sense, a proclamation of arrival. If the public won’t come to Bollywood, perhaps Bollywood will just come to us.

Danny Boyle, one of the most underrated and brilliant directors in Hollywood today, has crafted a magnificent film that manages to touch just about every emotion within the spectrum. It is funny at times, touching at others, poignant for a moment and then heartbreaking, but thoroughly entertaining and genuine throughout. Boyle made a name for himself in the early 90s with “Trainspotting” and became a big name with 2002’s “28 Days Later” but has never quite gotten the respect he deserves until now. This is his masterpiece, his shining moment. And if the success of his film brings new audiences to his work the whole of “Movieland” has been bettered.

“Slumdog” is not for the faint of heart. There are some tough, gruesome scenes and this movie is, after all, primarily about the life of abject poverty in a foreign country. But the viewer who can handle a few hard moments will be rewarded with an extremely good and genuinely powerful film that is sure to be copied a hundred times over the next 30 years.

Grade: A+

"Marley and Me"

Let me preface this by telling you I am one of the biggest babies in America. There were four or five major male influences in my life growing up and all of them were big babies so I really didn’t stand a chance. I’m apt to cry during all of the appropriate guy (aka war and sports) movies, such as the final scene of “Saving Private Ryan” and the moment that Mike Winchell narrowly misses the end zone at the end of “Friday Night Lights.” But beyond these themes, the one thing that is guaranteed to force me to cry is that of a person and his/her dog.

I read John Grogan’s “Marley and Me” last year, some time after it had already reached “Bestseller” status on just about every list imaginable. Sitting in an airport, I begrudgingly pulled this book from my collection of reading material and began reading to pass the time of my seven hour layover. Six hours later the book was finished and the people sitting around me must have been wondering if I had some sort of emotional disorder due to all the ridiculous weeping I had done. I looked like death to be sure. Mothers were shooing their children away from me and a hobo, sensing I might be in distress, offered me a sip of his whiskey (I made that last part up).

I’m typically a bit skeptical of the movie based on a book. This is true partially because if it’s popular enough to spawn a book it’s too popular for me to handle and partially because if I actually like the book, the movie usually falls short. So when I heard that “Marley and Me” was being turned into a major motion picture I was somewhat short of optimistic. The additions of Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston, as well as my natural curiosity concerning how well the book could be translated to screen eventually won me over.

“Marley and Me” is the story of a young couple (Owen and Aniston), their careers, their children, and the dog that comes along for the ride. As the story begins, the Grogans have just moved to Miami. One is a reporter, the other a columnist for rival newspapers. In order to keep Jennifer’s (Aniston) maternal instinct at bay, the un-ready-for-parenthood John (Owen) buys her a yellow lab, a runt puppy named Marley who turns out to be the “world’s worst dog.”

Marley is a pain, a nuisance, a hassle to deal with. He destroys the garage when a thunderstorm rolls in. He eats the couch cushions. He humps legs. He swallows a brand new necklace, resulting in the inevitable Poop Exploration known all too well to dog lovers everywhere. Marley disrupts a dog obedience class. He tries to climb out a car window. He causes mayhem in a variety of ways only believable because they did in fact actually happen.

Marley becomes notorious as John transitions from full time reporter to part time columnist and finds it hard to write about anything but the world’s worst dog. As Marley’s exploits become more outrageous, John’s column becomes more popular and soon he finds himself with a daily column. At the same time, his family is going from a young couple with dreams to a family of five (plus a monstrous dog) while his closest friend Sebastian, the eternal bachelor, travels the world writing the pieces John wishes he could. A prevailing theme within this film is the sacrifices both John and Jennifer make as they realize the importance of family over that of career.

“Marley and Me” follows the path of the Grogans for some fifteen years and truly captures the essence of real life. There’s very little sugarcoating here, though the film manages to keep its “family movie” tag. Both of the main characters go through ups and downs, both separately and together. They experience the issues that come with trying to start a family and then trying to manage the family you did start. Through it all their lives are shadowed by the ever-present Marley and the shenanigans he pulls along the way.

Director David Frankel does a wonderful job of allowing the movie to be about the dog without allowing the dog to become the all-encompassing focus of the movie. Too often a Family Pet movie falls into the trap of ignoring the human characters and forcing emotion upon the viewer. Not so with “Marley.” Marley is very much a part of the family rather than having the family revolve around him. This seems simple enough and yet I can scarcely remember a movie that manages to show family life with the dog as well as this one. You never forget that this movie is about a dog and his family but what we have here is enough strong material to support a good movie even without the dog. That is a rare quality. In addition, Wilson and Aniston, along with Eric Dane (Sebastian) and Alan Arkin (editor Arnie Klein) are near perfect casting choices and all deliver strong performances. But make no mistake, the true stars are all the dogs who take turns as Marley in his various times of life.

I’d like to tell you I held it together, manned up, and didn’t shed a tear during the inevitable end of this film. But the truth is I was lucky to make it half way through before the sniffles began. It has never ceased to amaze me the impact that a terrible dog can have on one’s life, whether it is over the course of fifteen years or that of a two hour movie. “Marley” sums up what it’s like to have a dog as part of one’s family, even if he is the “world’s worst dog.”

Grade: A

"I Am Legend"

I am a sucker for an action movie. I mean, I REALLY like action movies. Every guy likes action movies. “Live Free or Die Hard,” “Transformers,” and “300” were all huge hits this summer, not to mention “The Bourne Ultimatum.” All four of those movies, by the way, made it into my top 15 of the year. But my love of action movies goes even deeper than the average American male. (Somewhere some snooty French dude is sipping a vanilla laced, watered down coffee and making a witty remark about how ridiculous Americans are.) I really liked “Shooter,” a movie that at best elicited a halfhearted “Eh” from most movie critics. I am the only person in the world who thought “Ghost Rider” wasn’t that bad, including Nicholas Cage who apparently wept during the screening of this film. I own a copy of “The Island” and I actually do not regret purchasing it. Basically, if it has a half interesting plot, some explosions and/or firefighting, and actors who can sort of make me believe they are in fact paid, professional actors, I will probably enjoy it on some level.

Seldom, however, do I see a true, certifiable action movie that is worthy of not only a top notch review, but also award consideration. Very rarely has an action film come along that is riveting in its drama and its character development in addition to the obligatory action sequences. “I Am Legend” is that film.

The story, based on a Richard Matheson novella of the same title, has been modernized and set in New York City, circa 2012. A virus that initiated as a cure for cancer has mutated and turned the world’s population (those who lived through the outbreak) into a species of cave dwelling zombies. Matheson’s work portrayed the creatures as vampires but the film stops short of this declaration, though they exhibit classic vampire like characteristics. Dr. Robert Neville (Will Smith), at one time the world’s best hope for survival, is, for all intents and purposes, the last man on earth. He is isolated on Manhattan Island with only his dog and the infected for company. Neville spends his days hunting deer in the streets, alphabetically working his way through every DVD in the electronic store, and meticulously searching for a cure for the virus. At night, however, he locks metal shutters on every door and window and hunkers down with Sam (the dog) as the infected roam the night.

As Neville comes closer and closer to a cure, he also comes closer and closer to the edge. He experiences breaks from reality and flashes back to memories of the night his family died while trying to flee the island. He is driven to the point of breaking by his desire, his need to cure the virus. During an uncharacteristic moment of sloppiness he comes within an inch of his life at the hands of the infected, and loses his companion in the process. The loss nearly pushes him to assisted suicide, so to speak, before he is pulled from the brink of death by a pair of survivors. The arrival of survivors, the first he has seen in 3 years, is a shock to Neville and he has a difficult time adjusting to his new found allies. During a particularly dramatic scene, Neville screams at Anna about the absence of God, as she attempts to talk him into leaving with her for a supposed safe haven in Vermont. The argument ends abruptly, however, when the house is stormed by the infected who have finally traced Neville back to his lair.

While making what will be his last stand, Neville discovers he has finally found the cure he devoted his life to. The final confrontation culminates in Neville’s self sacrifice to save Anna and Ethan, but only after passing on the cure and rediscovering his faith. It is a fairly poignant moment that could have been that much more with a little more development. The point still hits home, however and we are allowed to catch a brief glimpse of the colony Neville’s work made possible.

There are elements of “Legend” that are cliché. Plenty of films have focused on viral outbreaks and zombie filled streets. This film could have easily slipped into the usual post-apocalyptic world that so many of its predecessors have created before it. But the stroke of genius here is that the infected and the fight against them take a back seat to the isolation, the lonely and haunting world in which Neville finds himself. What would you do if you were the only person on earth? What measures would you take to stay sane? Neville sets up mannequins at his usual visits. He watches Tivoed recordings of “Good Morning America.” He talks to and treats Sam like a child, methodically bathing her and forcing her to eat her vegetables. In effect, he does anything that seems “normal” in an effort to remain normal.

Will Smith delivers what is without question the best performance of his spectacular career. In the minds of many, Smith has long been a summer blockbuster kind of actor: a guy who could deliver big money for entertaining yet less than thought provoking films that are never talked about during award season. (See: “Men in Black” and “Independence Day.”) This role could and should push him into the very rare category of actors who can earn both big money and golden statues. It takes a very, VERY talented and versatile actor to stand alone on the screen for the majority of a film and not become annoying or boring. Tom Hanks was nominated for an Oscar for doing just this in “Castaway” though quite frankly, I and many other were both annoyed and bored by Hanks. Smith strikes the perfect chord between vulnerability and strength, both bordering on the breaking point and remaining steadfast in his quest. He is less a flawed hero and more a broken one, a man who expects to succeed, to be the hero he knows the world needs him to be, and yet his loss and his loneliness weighs on him heavily. Smith plays the role perfectly and it is hard to imagine many other actors who could have done the job as effectively.

The direction of Francis Lawrence deserves mention as well. His work to avoid falling into the traps of making an average zombie movie is quite apparent throughout, to the point that I felt he was almost reluctant to move away from Neville’s story of solidarity and into his fight with the infected. It is a social commentary as much as it is an action movie. There are several brilliantly shot scenes, none so powerful as the moment in which Neville must put down his only companion after she is infected. “Old Yeller” has nothing on this scene which is almost too tough to watch for a dog lover like myself. Nonetheless, it firmly drives home the point once more that Neville is completely and utterly alone and further illustrates his brokenness. If I had to complain, I would point out that I was unimpressed by the CGI infected. They are less than inspired and painfully brought back memories of Mr. Hyde in “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” (*Shutter*) I do believe, however, this may have been done in an effort to avoid an “R” rating. A more intense creature would have very likely ensured this. In addition, the film runs short at 100 minutes and there is clearly room for further development. I hope to see a “Director’s Cut” on DVD before too long.

I am in no way insinuating that “Legend” will receive any mention come Oscar season. Film critics have proven that they take themselves far too seriously to truly consider the merits of a comedy or action movie, no matter how deserving they might be. I am insinuating, however, that “Legend” and Smith in particular deserve consideration, if not nomination when the Academy get together in a few months. It is, without question, the best film I have seen this year and far more significant than the average action film.

Grade: A.

"Dan in Real Life"

A note to all you Steve Carell fans out there, especially the large group of 14 year olds who happened to be in the same theater as I was: “Dan in Real Life” does not contain the raunchy humor of “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” the outrageous, laugh-out-loud humor of “Anchorman,” or the over the top yet subtle humor of “The Office.” If you want to see Steve Carell at his wacky best, go rent “Bruce Almighty” or set your Tivo for Thursday, 9/8 Central and enjoy the greatness of Michael Scott. If, however, you can handle Steve Carell in a serious role, “Dan” is the film for you.

“Dan” is the story of a parenting advice columnist Dan Burns and his three girls, ranging in age from 6 to 16. The Burns have a meager lifestyle, a cluttered house, an old station wagon, and a great deal of conflict and turmoil. Dan’s wife and mother of his children died three years previously which lends itself to a number of problems. At first glance the most glaring issue is the difficulty Dan has in dealing with his daughters, particularly the middle child Cara, perfectly played by Brittany Robertson. Understandably, Dan is a bit over protective and seems to have difficulty allowing for the growth of his children. Below the surface and beautifully illustrated with care and precision throughout the movie, Dan also struggles with moving on with his life and ultimately, missing his wife.

The film centers around a family reunion of sorts which Dan and his girls attend, along with Dan’s parents, his three siblings, and their families. The house is packed and because Mitch, his younger brother (Dane Cook), is expecting his girlfriend to stay with the family, Dan is relegated to sleeping in the laundry room, running dryer and all. This may seem a small point of contention but the sleeping arrangement serves to illustrate Dan’s loneliness and awkwardness within the family in a “subtle, no obvious, no subtle” kind of way.

On a morning trip into town, Dan runs into Marie (Juliette Binoche) and the two immediately hit it off. In this scene the audience gets a true feel for how Dan might have been in a past life: shy but charming, unsure but carefree. Upon returning home he begins to tell his brothers about the mysterious woman in the book shop in a boyish, giggly way until he is interrupted by the introduction of his brother’s girlfriend, Marie. An awkward exchange follows and Dan immediately shrinks back into his shell. Throughout the weekend Dan and Marie come only closer to each other all the while attempting to not only keep their secret but also, for Dan in particular, to ignore the new found feelings. This tension culminates in Dan singing during the family talent show, something he has not done since the death of his wife. Confrontations ensue and after a truly touching meeting with his kids, Dan is able to grasp hold of the happy ending he so badly deserves.

Most of the humor of the film is based in sadness and loss and as such, “Dan In Real Life” is not a true romantic comedy it may be perceived as. There are a few “laugh out loud” moments but even these, I believe, hold a deeper meaning than a cheap laugh (though the “murder of love” scene is “slap your knee” hilarious). Even a dance scene that would be sure to break the audience into hysterics in most films comes across as awkward, even sad. Yet just as “Dan” is not an inherently funny movie, neither is it inherently sad. The film, and more importantly its characters, never dwell on the loss for long enough to drift into the dismal, depressing affair that so many dramas of the same ilk often become.

Steve Carell gives (are you ready for this?) an Oscar caliber performance, though it will undoubtedly be dismissed as insignificant by the idiots of the Academy. As big a fan of his as I am, I could have never imagined Carell could nail this role as well as he did. The viewer can see the fear and the hurt in Dan’s eyes but that he doesn’t want to allow the loss to control him. He neither ignores the past nor dwells on it. The love that Dan and his wife shared for each other is vividly displayed throughout the film despite the fact that she never once appears on screen. I challenge anyone to watch the talent show scene without FEELING the loss in Dan’s voice and mannerisms. There are other fine performances in this film. Binoche is excellent as always and Dane Cook is rapidly becoming a legitimate supporting actor of note with his work here and in this summer’s “Mr. Brooks.” But this film belongs to Steve Carell and should serve as a showcase of ability for anyone paying attention.

“Dan” is one of the more real and authentic films which I have ever seen. Dan’s (and his children’s) vulnerability allows the film to display loss, humor, hurt, love, and heartache in ways that are rarely shown. It is less a work of art and more a work of LIFE that makes a far stronger impression than most of the “touching” or “real” movies that Hollywood has put out recently. I hope that the Academy gives “Dan” the opportunity it deserves and before it gets bumped out of theaters, I would encourage anyone to see this film. (Anyone, that is, except the group of 14 year olds that were in my theater. You should probably go see “Fred Claus” instead. Trust me, many more fart jokes in that one.)

"American Gangster"

Denzel Washington. Russell Crowe. Ridley Scott. November. “Based on a true story.” Yep, that sounds like the recipe for a couple of Academy Awards.

It’s that time of year again. Every major film production and distribution company will be releasing its top notch drama in hopes of capturing the attention of the award show gurus. This is the first real “Oscar Hopeful” I’ve seen this season and I must say, I hope the rest of the field lives up to the standard set here.

“American Gangster” is the story of 1970’s drug pusher Frank Lucas (Washington) and Richie Roberts (Crowe), the cop who eventually brought him down. Lucas is an interesting figure in that up until this point, at least to white America, his story is mostly unknown. For a crime figure as big as he was, very few people knew much about his story until this film began making the rounds. Lucas imported heroin, and strong heroin at that, directly from Asia and sold it at such a low price anyone and everyone could (and did) buy it, turning Lucas into one of the richest men in the world. This was all done under the radar because, as pointed out in the film, the authorities could hardly believe that some “negro” could be making that much money; he was thought to be a middle man at best. Truth was, however, while the Feds chased the Italian Mafia, Lucas was busy putting the Mafia out of business.

Eventually, and really quite shortly when you consider his reign lasted only about 8 years, Lucas got too big to go unnoticed and was brought to justice through the work of Richie Roberts and his “Untouchable” like team. In the end, Lucas turned on just about every buyer, seller, and partner he ever had, most notably the corrupt cops of the day. According to the film, Lucas’ finger pointing led to approximately 80 percent of the NYPD’s Special Forces Unit, those most directly responsible for stomping out the drug trade, being convicted of some sort of charge related to Lucas’ operation.

“American Gangster” is a very strong film, if a bit too long. There are portions of the film that could have been cut without missing much but then again, whom I to question Mr. Scott? The movie flows without much bogging down and while it flirts with the boring side at times, it never quite jumps over that razor thin line.

This is one of Scott’s finer works and most certainly his best since “Gladiator.” Many directors might have been tempted to show the background for the inevitable clash between Lucas and Roberts in flashback and in my opinion that would have been a mistake. Rather, starting the story from the beginning and leading up to fore mentioned clash leaves the viewer feeling as if he has something invested in the movie and in the characters and builds the drama as we draw closer and closer to the moment when Lucas is finally stopped. That Washington and Crowe do not share the screen until the final 15 minutes is a stroke of genius. Because “American Gangster” moves so well, the viewer never really realizes this fact until the moment that they do meet and it makes the final confrontation that much more fresh and important.

Great credit for the success of “AG” should go to the actors, both acclaimed and lesser known. Denzel is Denzel. He is always strong and always COMMANDS the attention anytime he comes on screen. I believe you could have 20 naked, burning clowns riding unicorns on screen with Denzel only watching in the background and the audience’s attention would still be drawn to Denzel. He is a truly magnificent actor and films such as “Training Day” and “American Gangster” allow him to show off his depth and his presence. He is certainly worthy of the Oscar nod that will undoubtedly come his way.

Crowe is equally impressive, though for me, his stage presence doesn’t quite match that of Washington (but truthfully, not many can). Roberts is, of course, an imperfect hero. A womanizer, a drinker, and a bad father, his only real virtue is in the fact that he is not a dirty cop in an era devoid of honest police work. He refuses to take a bribe or file a false report even when these actions result in the death of his partner and his own exile from the rest of his department. But that which alienates him is what eventually leads him to his role as head of a team specifically designed for bringing down the drug trade. Crowe plays the vulnerable and afflicted Roberts well and could very well earn an Oscar nod himself.

Three other performances deserve special mention. Josh Brolin is spectacular as the dirtiest of dirty cops, Detective Trupo. Trupo wages war against Lucas because Lucas refuses to pay him off and the result is a battle that provides the upfront action the audience wants while distracting from the battle to come between Lucas and Roberts. Brolin is an excellent actor and between this film and the upcoming “No Country For Old Men,” he will hopefully have the opportunity to gain some well deserved respect in Hollywood.

Chiwetel Ejiofor, as always, gives a strong performance as one of Lucas’ brothers who is essentially the second in command. Ejiofor is a fantastic actor who never seems to get the credit he deserves. Whether it’s “Children of Men,” “Serenity,” or (cringe) “Melinda and Melinda,” Ejiofor seems to always steal the screen yet never reaps the benefit when it’s all said and done. Maybe casting directors are just unable to pronounce his name and so choose not to call him rather than risk the embarrassment of stumbling through “Chew-it-tell Edge-oh-for.” Regardless, Ejiofor is fantastic in this role and every other role he’s ever played and I hope that “American Gangster” will vault him to bigger things.

Lastly, I would like to point out the work of Ruby Dee, who plays Frank Lucas’ mother. According to imdb.com, Ms. Dee has 93 credits to her name and I’d be lying if I said I had ever noticed her before. I noticed her in “American Gangster.” Her lines are few, her screen time is sparse, but in one short monologue in which she rages against the ways of her drug pushing son, Ms. Dee owns the screen. She shows great power and desperation mixed with a little guilt at having profited off her sons’ illicit work. Ms. Dee may only have been on screen for 9 or 10 minutes but she, as much as Washington or Crowe, deserves a nomination as she made an impression on this writer and anyone else who was paying attention.

I would stop short of calling “American Gangster” a great movie. However, it is a very good, well structured movie that is deserving of the attention it garnered before its release and barring some serious surprises, I expect to see its contributors name’s mentioned once Oscar season rolls around.