Joey Guitar: Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten

An overlong, weird, and messy take on a punk rock legend that this movie made me a lot less fond of. The movie is a mess, and that has to be what director Julien Temple ("Glastonbury", "Earth Girls Are Easy") is attempting. The beginning is jammed with random images from movies (e.g. "If...", "Animal Farm", "1984"), which make telling Strummer's story harder. As in, the audience has a limited attention span. I could not keep track of what was going on onscreen. Plus, another problem was that the interviews were not subtitled, that is to say, I could recognize Bono, Johnny Depp, and Matt Dillon, but I could not pick out some of the people. Surely Temple has watched enough documentaries to know that you subtitle interviews with information about the person giving the interview. Also, the interview sequences were actually quite strange, including a huge campfire with slowed down flames for the most part. Beneath all this is a pretty engrossing story, about how a guy wanted success, which he got with The Clash (which is one of my favorite bands) and how he fell from glory not only with losing bandmembers and selling out, but having his music played as a victory tune as bombs were dropped in Iraq in the early 90's. Also, he appeared in a few movies ("Walker", "Mystery Train", "Straight to Hell") on his way to obscurity. He is a very interesting guy, but also a jerk. He kicked out two of the key bandmembers out of the Clash and then put in some fill-ins who were less than stellar. Which sucked, because it brought upon the downfall of the band. By the end of the movie, though, you could care less about Joe and the campfires and the interviewees and all the bands he was in and who went to college with him and when they appeared on "South Park." To sum it up in a short, sweet manor, the movie is a mess (however intentional), it is hard to review, Temple needed help editing it, and though it was good, it wasn't worthy of Joe Strummer. C+

The Factory: Schindler's List

After such summer smashes as Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., and Jurassic Park, and the success of his primitive but utterly fun TV movie Duel, Steven Spielberg finally makes a serious and gratifying movie that still stands to this day as his magnum opus. This may not be the 8th greatest American film of all time (as said by the AFI), but it deserves a spot in at least the Top 50, as it is fearless in taking on one of history's most difficult subjects, the Holocaust. (As a friend said) save Liam Neeson's emotional "I should've saved one more" breakdown towards the end, this film is note-perfect. Neeson plays Oskar Schindler, a industrial member of the Nazi party who is focused on one thing: money. He decides to hire an accountant (Ben Kingsley) and start a business of assembling pots and pans that Jews can work in. We see early on that Schindler is not at all caring about his workers. But this all changes with a new mindset later. Another factor: Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes), a faux-enigmatic Nazi who snipes Jews in his spare time from just killing them on the streets of Krakow. Why do I say faux-enigmatic? Well, how do you explain the fact that after hearing a thought from Schindler about pardoning Jews he releases a Jewish servant and then momentarily kills him after a change of mind? The straight truth is that he is a devoted killer of Jewish people, but he is also helping Schindler out a bit in his cause of freeing some Jews. The similarities that these two very different men bare are strange and eery. Anyways, between the folds of the main quest are mini-stories about Jews who are on the run from the Nazis. These are extremely compelling, and within minutes you are familiarized and acquainted with these people. Also, beneath the lead idea are some of the most violent scenes of all time, in which many Jews are executed and it is very disturbing. There are also other very memorable but disturbing scenes scattered through the movie as well. Speaking of memorable, this movie is unforgettable and is a cinematic wonderland, filled with sparing amounts of color in the majority of black and white, such as the red dress that a girl is wearing which Schindler sees in the stages of running through the streets and dying. Also, a final scene shows the real life survivors alongside the actors, in a brilliant and great touch. Now, to the acting: Neeson is pretty good, but is memorable for his stern and heroic presence. Fiennes, though, plays Goeth with flare and does a great job. All the minor performances are also spectacular. Bottom line: a near-flawless, no-nonsense movie that is flat-out outstanding. A

Auto Body: Chop Shop

The most realistic film I have seen for a long time features a cast of amateur actors and is extremely compelling, to such a point it has you on the edge of your seat in worry for the young hero (Alejandro Polanco, who is top-notch in his debut). He lives above an auto shop in Queens (near Shea Stadium) where he works hard for Rob (Rob Sowulski), who runs it. He has a sister named Isamar (Isamar Gonzales) who he accidentally finds out is a prostitute and who is less in control of things than he is. The plan: to take a van ride down to Florida and for Ale to get tuition there, as he has never gone to school and she didn't make it past tenth grade. Anyways, this movie is basically his life and times in the shady neighborhood where he toils day after day. He is an expert mechanic at a young age, but he sometimes uses his expertise in the black market of chop shops and other shady joints. He makes a lot of money, but he depends on his sister for a lot of it. He might need to watch the same money hiding tutorial that Jim Sturgess' gambling idiot from 21 has to watch. He is, at one point, driven to steal the handbag of an unsuspecting woman at the US Open, because he has to pay for more work on his van. He also steals from his sister, too. So life in his area has driven the smart Ale to steal tons of cash from a lot of people. I guess what you would call the climax is when he finds his sister prostituting and she is mad that she embarrassed herself in front of him. Then the film ends on a strange note, as the two are treated to a pigeon show outside their dwelling as tons of pigeons flock to get seed and are scared away by Isamar. Anyways, simple plot, complicated story. Ramin Bahrani, director previously of "Man Push Cart", another film like this one. That one pushed itself onto the 2006 Top Ten list of Roger Ebert. This one may not have gotten the same honors, but it more than definitely deserved them. This film is definitively and outrightly amazing. It does so much with so little, using 10 sets or less (estimating). It features fantastic acting, cinematography, and directing, and is deserved of many awards. No tune-ups necessary. A

Chop Shop has violence, and might be disturbing because of its very realistic nature.

Riding Shotgun: The Passenger

Antonioni's first english language film, Blow-Up, was for the most part successful, but was overall trying too hard to be artistic. This film, about an identity switch, works in many ways while not even really trying to be artsy. The film's subject is David Locke (Jack Nicholson), a journalist who is renowned but depressed. "I prefer men to landscapes" Locke admits, revealing his personality, but also setting an ironic tone. How? This movie really is more about the blending in to the surroundings then the man itself. Anyways, on assignment in Africa, Locke finds a man dead in his hotel room, and, because he feels like it, decides to assume the man's identity. With a switch of a passport photo, he is David Robinson, and David Locke is pronounced dead. At this point, the newly appointed Robinson finds out his occupation: gun running. Also, he finds the TV producer who produced his journalist interviews (Ian Hendry) on his tail for a talk about Locke. Also involved, Nicholson's character's wife, Rachel Locke (Jenny Runacre), who is after him on personal accounts. So, Locke/Robinson is being pursued by the producer when he meets a young woman (Maria Schneider, famously of Last Tango in Paris) who he asks to get his bags from his hotel in order to avoid the TV guy. So these two team up on the run as Locke/Robinson makes his travels in and around Barcelona, Munich, and London. In the end, everyone is against Locke/Robinson (pretty obvious) and he suffers the real Robinson's fate: a heart attack. Anyways, this movie for the most part is deceptive, as at the beginning it leads you to believe it is a desert-set story, then switches into high gear, and converts into a Euro drama/thriller. All the while, it is intertwined between Locke's interviews of foreign presidents, witch doctors, and execution footage. But it is the settings that move the movie along. Nicholson is great in a well-done performance that ranks up with Five Easy Pieces, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (which was released simultaneously), and Chinatown. Schneider provides good support, as a predictable but memorable girl on the edge. I can't say the same for Hendry and Runacre, though, who turn in run-of-the-mill performances. One other thing: the movie is finished off with a penultimate take that is very long, including a dolly from the inside of Locke's hotel room into the outdoors, courtesy of a professional gate parting that proves amazing. Bottom line: Antonioni proves he can hold an entire movie together, adding this time not useless scenes (remember the Yardbird's scene in Blow-Up?), but polished landscapes, to supplement a great plot. A-

Mr. Roboto: Wall-E

Pixar's CGI films are critically acclaimed, but many of them don't deserve so much praise. Toy Story was good, Toy Story 2 was fine, A Bug's Life was pretty good, Finding Nemo was light and cute, but wasn't very substantial, Cars was mediocre, and Ratatouille was above average. Up to now, the only films I liked from Pixar were Monsters, Inc. and The Incredibles. But now, the animation giant has actually come to and made a film that was great. It is most definitely the studio's least accessible flick, as it uses dialogue sparingly and when it does, it is actually well done. Plus, the plot is driven by something few animation films are: love. You could argue that Finding Nemo was, but it wasn't well done. This film, though, works, and it works on all levels. Wall-E (voiced by Ben Burtt, sound designer great) is a robot living in a dystopian Earth which humans have abandoned to live on a giant spaceship where they pretty much slack and eat and sleep and are overweight. Wall-E lives a sad existence, though: his only friend is a small bug, his only enjoyment is from watching musicals and listening to baritone sentiments, and all he does is roam around, gathering chunks of wasted materials and depositing them as blocks. All that changes with a routine inspection of the Earth by the spaceship. One robot, named Eve (voiced by Elissa Knight of Cars) comes down and Wall-E falls head over heels in love. She is amused by him at first, but soon the love is mutual. Then, Wall-E offers her a plant, which makes her freak out and shuts her off. This is because the Earth was deemed unlivable. This plant proves this wrong. So when the ship sucks her back in, with Wall-E on her tail, the inspector robots start going nuts and alarms go off and stuff. This disturbs the routine Eat-Sleep-Eat-Sleep existence, run by the Captain (Jeff Garlin) who is lax and has depended on technology so much, he has lost his reading ability, and needs to learn the definitions of words again. As I said before, although Eve is being dragged through many corridors and up and down passages and everything, Wall-E follows faithfully, as he is driven by love to pursue her. Anyways, there has really never been a dystopian movie for children, but this movie paves new ground for such masterpieces to be made. This film is beautiful, which many other animated features (with the exception of the master Miyazaki) have missed by a mile, and smart and funny. Pixar actually works around the clock, using their resources (for example, Apple affiliations), and ideas from past Sci-fi classics (2001, Blade Runner) to construct a great, amazing, and wowing blast from the past. No longer is Pixar a five-letter word. A-

The Man on the Bike: The Bicycle Thief

A great Italian film, and one of the most manipulative movies I've ever seen. It's one of the greatest films about work of all time. It triggers your desperate side as you relate with the main character within minutes. That man is Antonio Ricci (Lamberto Maggiorani), who has been selected for a high-paying job where it is required that the person in the position (which is poster applier) own and use a bike. His first day on the job, his bicycle, which he had paid 6,500 lira to repair, is stolen by a mystery man, who blends into the wide expanse of Rome. This sets up the main tension: find that bike or your in deep trouble. He goes after the thief with his son Bruno (Enzo Staiola) and a few others. This involves tracking down an old man who made a deal with the young guy and chasing him through a mass, plus the fact that the bike could have been taken apart. They also go to an unhelpful soothsayer who tells them the irrelevant advice "you must find it today or you will never find it." She charges fifteen lira, so that's basically fraud, except people trust her so much that they won't bust her. Anyways, the dynamic duo actually finds the thief, but the bike has been disassembled. When they go to get the help of a cop, he states the simple truth: it's you vs. them. They refuse to press charges. Now the law is not the same. Justice has not been done, so Antonio decides to steal a bike himself, his own kid watching. But again his luck runs dry. The owner is just coming out of his apartment when Antonio is swiping. He then gets the entire neighborhood to pursue him and the bike stealing attempt is thwarted. He is let off, but he and his son blend into the crowd in one of the most depressing endings of all time. No wonder the film was given an honorary Oscar: it has power that few films have ever channeled. The choice by director Vittorio De Sica to cast amateur actors pays off big time and it really paints a portrait of 1940's, post-war Italy. Maggiorani is a great actor, as is Staiola, who proves to be amazing as the confused and saddened son. This film shows that you don't need a complicated plot or famous actors to do a great job. Bottom line: De Sica creates a cinematic masterpiece in every way possible, managing to blow minds on every level. He does not miss a beat. Enough said. A

Video Saved the Video Store: Be Kind Rewind

Jack Black always plays an annoying guy, but in almost every film he is in he is actually is very funny. In this film, he manages to be annoying while not providing us with any real humor. He does not fit into a movie about re-shooting movies, because he is not that type of guy. Mos Def is fine in this role, but Black makes the movie unsuccessful. You would think with a director like Michel Gondry (who pieced together Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which is one of the most creative films of the last twenty years), who is witty, visionary, and artistic, that this film would be a success.

But let me sum it up for you: it really isn't. The premise is good, about remaking famous movies, but the execution is off. Be Kind Rewind is a video store not unlike your local movie rental business. It sells the same movies that any place sells. But it violates building codes and is in a zone that the city (Passaic, New Jersey, to be exact) wants to make it some sort of housing complex or something. But if the store, run by Elroy Fletcher (Danny Glover), can raise a high amount of money (like $60,000) so it can be renovated, the city I guess will have mercy. Fletcher, at this time, is just about to embark on a train ride to go to some sort of Fats Waller memorial (he's his hero) and leaves the store over to assistant Mike (Def).

Fletcher also tells Mike not to let Mike's kooky friend Jerry (Black) into the store, because Jerry means trouble. Jerry, meanwhile, is planning to sabotage his local power plant, and, in the process, is magnetized. So when Jerry comes into the store, he erases all the tapes. So people get mad and demand their money back. Miss Falewicz (Mia Farrow) gives them another chance, as she wants to see "Ghostbusters." She doesn't know what it's about, so that gives Mike and Jerry some leeway. Mike decides to re-shoot the movie. This is two of three sequences that charmed me. They do the works: ominous file cabinets moving in and out (courtesy of Jerry), a lit-on-fire Marshmallow Man, a negative night sequence, on and on. It actually is a job well done. It fools her, I guess.

Meanwhile, another guy wants "Rush Hour 2." This goes smoothly, until Wilson (Irv Gooch), Jerry's mechanic who is doubling as Ziyi Zhang's villain, quits. They have to find a replacement, and they go to the laundromat. They find Alma (Melonie Diaz), who fills the void and completes the film. She becomes the third part of the Be Kind Rewind video machine, and together, they go on to film many films (including "Robocop", "The Lion King", "King Kong", and "2001: A Space Odyssey"). Then, they start to include other people and they make films. Among these films is "2010: The Year We Make Contact", a censored "Boogie Nights", and "The Cell"? What? No wonder it's just listed in the montage sequence (like in a Time hits commercial) then actually shown. CRAPPY SPOILER WARNING: Then, the copyright people come in and ruin everything by destroying all the tapes and making a fool out of the guys. Then, the town and the store unite to make a fictional biography of Fats Waller's life (because, he was born in the same building as Be Kind Rewind!). The making of the film is odd, because it allows the people to have equipment that studios use, while still trying to maintain that low-budget feel that has been long lost. In the end, the guy from the superstore (West Coast Video) lends them the projector and the film is viewed and even Mr. Demolition Head is charmed. That's the end that it all comes crashing to. END OF THAT

Anyways, the acting, on the most part, is a travesty. Black, Glover, Farrow, and Diaz turn in really mediocre performances that are not Gondry standard. Def is good as Mike, though. The scenes in between the amateur shoots were soapy and irrelevant. They brought this movie to its knees. The timing, as with almost every film these days, is way off. And the humor is too. This movie fails to be amusing. The movie is so desperate to be amusing I wouldn't have been surprised if Mike's character was named Ben. Black isn't funny, at all. His "Sweded" joke turns out to be very dumb. And that's what the whole advertising campaign is based on. Bottom line: this movie compares with its' rival Son of Rambow, and that's not a compliment. This movie begs to be re-shot itself. C

Love Game: Match Point

A perfectly sinister guilt drama from Woody Allen, whose peak seems to have actually hit right now. He introduces a new type of character into his complex affair: a sort of slick but ultimately extremely guilty guy. He is Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys Meyers of Bend it Like Beckham) a tennis pro turned instructor, who has just accepted his teaching job when Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode) takes lessons with him. He is part of a rich, high class family. Chris then meets Chloe (Emily Mortimer of Dear Frankie), who is Tom's sister. She falls head over heels in love with him, and he loves her, until he becomes entranced by the struggling but feisty actress Nola (Scarlett Johanson), who is Tom's fiancee. Their first scene is perfect: she is playing ping-pong and he steps in and their proverbial ping-pong/tennis match begins with a bang as they go back and forth. The two leave lasting impressions on each other, and they fall in love. Then, Chris and Chloe marry. And just after, the bomb drops: Tom and Nola are calling it off. So Chris is tempted, and thinks that Chloe is getting boring, so he starts seeing Nola and soon she is pregnant. This is the major source of tension, as Chris must choose between his rich life, pampering family, and guaranteed job, and his lust. Chloe, meanwhile, does kind of suspect something is up, but Allen's formula rules that out. About that: Allen's ideas have been the same lately. He focuses in on murder and guilt. He does his directing extremely well in this film, while providing a great, innuendo-filled, Oscar-nominated script. (SPOILER ALERT) The film does sort to drive to the same end like his others, as Chris, feeling guilty about his situation and not being able to bring himself to tell his wife, goes to Nola's apartment, and not only fakes a break-in and kills her neighbor but kills her too. And he feels like crap and all, but he believes it is the only way to go. He gets called in by a detective and is heavily suggested as the murderer, but one of his actions saves him. When he was casting off Nola's elderly neighbor's jewelry into the waters of London, Chris accidentally tosses her ring towards the depths, but the ring hits the barrier and stays on land (recalling thoughts of the opening tennis monologue). A murder in the area shows that this ring was being carried by the drug-addled killer (Chris' break-in was classified as a drug murder). Anyways, this elaborates things and makes the detective (who woke up with a hunch that Chris was the one) look like a dreamer, setting Chris free and intertwining Allen's famous getting away endings with the movie itself. Great stuff. Also, Meyers turns in a spectacular performance, one that makes a movie and takes it to great heights. Johanson isn't quite so, but is good as the actress, with personality and a drive, unlike Hayley Atwell in Cassandra's Dream, which really is eerily similar. Anyways, the tennis theme and the double entendres set this movie apart. Bottom line: Allen may be known for such movies as Annie Hall and Manhattan, but this one is really up there. Game, set, and match. A

The Big Picture: Blowup

A classic and iconic film from Michelangelo Antonioni, about photography, murder, and life itself. I believe that this film is very good and gets its elusive point across ultimately. But it is not one of the greatest films of all-time, not by a long shot. David Hemmings plays Thomas, a photographer who is a veteran snapper. He takes strange shots: some of factory workers in their sad life, some of women in weird, garish costumes, and a few snaps of a couple (Vanessa Redgrave and an uncredited Ronan O'Casey). The ones of the park duo upset Jane (Redgrave) who doesn't want him to keep them. He eventually tricks her out of them. And he discovers that Jane's beau was murdered.

So while this is happening, two women (credited as The Blonde and The Brunette, Jane Birkin and Gillian Hills respectively) keep wanting them to help them by taking pictures or something. He gets mad at them. And, while this is happening, he is assembling a book of pictures of the factory workers and of the couple with this guy named Ron (Peter Bowles). In the last 30 minutes, it seems like it is building up to a climax, but no. Thomas goes to a strange Yardbirds concert where Keith Reif is lip-synching to himself, and there is no Eric Clapton to be seen. I guess the "highlight" of the scene is when the bassist (I'm not a hardcore fan of the Yardbirds) smashes his bass and Thomas keeps the neck and then throws it out while walking on the street. The scene has no relevance to the movie. Maybe Antonioni felt obliged to add some random pop culture into the movie. I don't know, but it really doesn't help the movie's cause.

Then, Thomas goes to Ron's party where people are rolling joints and just chilling. He then realizes that he must take a picture of the body. He didn't take the chance the night before when he saw the body. But when he goes, the body is gone, and he is just standing around watching mimes play air tennis. Not very fulfilling.So the lesson here is you don't mix art and 60's pop culture together. I mean, the movie was good up until the last 30 minutes. I won't talk about the acting, because it is not important. The movie is beautiful and is extremely artistic and symbolic, but the greatness is broken by the "needs" of the times. It's the same thing I always grimace about when I go to pop cinema: directors try to be hip and impressive, instead of just creating something halfway artistic, and wind up coming out embarrassing. I didn't find Blowup embarrassing, but I wonder what would have happened if Antonioni had not tried to be more hip than the movie needed to be. B+

Man Alive: The Third Man

Film noir at its absolute best. This is a poster movie for the genre and it is the perfect mystery flick, rivaling the likes of Orson Welles' great work Touch of Evil. Which is to say that Carol Reed is an outstanding director and can make a spectacular film. His film is a story of murder unlike most noir flicks, as it involves an American who is not a detective but actually an author of many westerns. This man is Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton), and he comes to Vienna to see Harry Lime. When he arrives, he finds that Lime has been accidentally run over by a car. He hears this from a porter in Lime's building. He also meets a friend of Lime's, Kurtz (Ernst Deutsch), but he has a totally different story. When Martins hears this, he starts to become suspicious. He decides to dig deeper and meets Anna Schmidt (Valli), Lime's lover. At this point, most noirs tend to fall into romance, but this movie doesn't, as the relationship between Martins and Schmidt seems pretty business only. Anyways, the two interact and sort of flirt and go to see the porter again. How is this significant? Well, a little boy sees the porter and Martins arguing. When the porter ends up murdered the next day, he tells the police to go after Martins as he thinks he's the one. This ends up not really mattering, as the police are not really concerned with Martins. Meanwhile, Schmidt's passport is being checked and it is found that the passport is foraged and she must go back to Czechoslovakia. At this point, the movie is falling into the realm of a typical film noir, as it is just kind of only a whodunit. Enter Lime (Orson Welles), who steps out of the shadows and shakes things up. Significance? Lime has been giving out bad penicillin to hospital patients and deeply damaging their health conditions. So the police are after him. The only person Lime can trust is his good friend Holly, and this is the way that Major Calloway (Trevor Howard) wants to catch him. So Lime is chased into the sewers and is pursued in one of the best scenes in cinema history. Let me sum it up. The camerawork is masterful, the setting is priceless, and the possibilities are endless. Best of all, it actually makes Lime look human, as he is, in the end, defeated, as he is trying to crawl up through a sewer grate and is executed by his good friend Holly (in a nice Hitchcockian shot). Peter Bogdanovich said in a Criterion introduction for this film that color distracts the viewers from the beauty of a film. It especially applies to this scene. This long section in the sewers needs black and white to reveal its full potential. The rest of the film after this is a set of beautiful shots, especially a long shot of Schmidt walking briskly past Martins, rather than even say a word. It is totally priceless. Now to the technicalities: the acting is great. Cotton is not the most interesting of actors, but he does his job nicely. Anyways, he has Valli and Welles to help him. They both turn in great performances. The script is sharp, adapted by Graham Greene from his own novel. The cinematography is stellar, especially in the sewer sequence. And finally, the music ("The Third Man Theme", which plays throughout the movie, with Anton Karas on zither) is what it's all about. It is a genius composition and is perfect for this film. Bottom line: most film noir films fall into the same drowsy structure. But this great is alive, amplified, and one for the ages. A