Reservation Road

Based on the book by John Burnham Schwartz

Writer: John Burnham Schwartz, Terry George
Director: Terry George
Director of Photography: John Lindley
Editor: Naomi Geraghty
Composer: Mark Isham
Lead Actor: Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Connelly
Year: 2007

Reservation Road is a serious and sad drama about a family tragedy. A young boy is killed in a hit and run accident by Dwight Arno, played by Mark Ruffalo. The movie follows the family of the boy as they grieve and seek revenge, while almost just as much following the one that is sought. This tragic story is driven mostly by the performance of the cast, so we will look at each of the main character’s roles.

Jennifer Connelly is superb in this film. Better than in “A Beautiful Mind” I thought. She was rarely seen without teary eyes and a bed-head, which she tries to hide for the sake of her daughter. (As a side note, the make-up department wisely understood the restraint needed here and was careful not to glamorize things. Although that was a very good call, it was perhaps overly intentional). In the early stages of grappling with the death, Grace, Connelly’s character, desperately searches to see if she could be responsible for this in any way. This of course sends her deeper into grief. But soon her husband comes along side her, and assures her that she is not to blame. Then who is to blame? Well, that’s when Joaquin’s character starts to pulsate.

Ethan Learner, Joaquin’s character, is a strong father and husband who his obviously devastated by the loss of his son. He resorts to putting a lot of energy into finding who he views as “the killer”. This obsession does not help to heal him or his family. Through ‘happenstance’, or rather ‘dramatic effect’, the suspect becomes Learner’s attorney in the case. The suspense builds as Ethan gets little clues that lead to a pointblank confrontation of Dwight. This moment is obviously the climax. All through the movie we’ve seen both sides as people; with their own lives and relationships. Will the man who had this terrible thing happen take it out on the man who did it? Will he see any value worth saving in a broken down life that has little to live for, but that is nonetheless trying?

Mark Ruffalo is caught in a desperate pickle. He knows he’s done wrong, but for the sake of his son, he doesn’t own up immediately. He also knows what the consequences will be if found out. For that reason he puts it off, wanting a little more time with his son, one more chance to redeem the last thing he has (which he now only has half of). We understand Dwight’s battle and Ruffalo portrays the insecurity well.

From a script point of view, I wonder if all the “happenstance” went a little overboard. Not only was the suspect the attorney on his own case, but his ex-wife was the piano teacher of the sister of the lost boy. Is all that a little bit contrived? I wouldn’t say flat out that it doesn’t work. As a dramatic story, I think having it makes for suspense. It puts these two people so close together they get the opportunity to see each other for who they are. And then you get to feel the nakedness the character of Dwight feels when he looks Ethan in the eye. You get to feel Ethan’s suspicion and his journey to discovering the truth.

The score in Reservation Road, composed by Mark Isham, is at the same time thematic and restrained. It undertones and yet let’s you know it’s there. It insulates the emotional thrust of the story. I thought it was quite good. The song by Papercranes at the end credits is good as well.

Although there was a little bit of predictability (which isn’t necessarily bad), I think Reservation Road’s script and direction was fine. The movie is mostly a simple and meaningful story that was brought to life with a very talented cast.

Is Tarantino's latest concoction worth more than it's rough edges?

Ni! ni! ni! ni! ni! ni! ni!

Oh yes, yes, yes, yes. I do believe so.

Here's a few scattered thoughts...

No one should argue Quentin's way with visual storytelling. And way with dialog, it would seem from Inglourious Bastards (indeed there is plenty of chit chat throughout). The script is as well written as anything and better written than most. If you tried to pin this film's genre down, you may find a bit of difficulty.

In some ways it’s a comedy, maybe more precisely a black comedy. Which makes it the twisted thing that it is when mixed with the violence. The elements of performance, gore, and humor are controlled yet really over-the-top.

I liked how I didn’t recognize everyone who showed up in this film. I think it contributed to its authenticity. I did wonder whether “Brad Pitt” got in the way at times. He was great though. More like a scary pitt than a cherry pitt though. And one should watch their back because he's not an all-live pitt either. (Sorry, I'll stop).

I probably got the biggest kick out of the "Italian" trio at the premiere, if you know what I'm saying. Hysterical. I rarely laugh out loud watching a film, but I did there.

As mentioned above, the screenplay for this thing was very well written, although I do have one small complaint. Christhoph Waltz pulled an amazing performance and he has my bet for the Oscar. The problem lies in where his character goes at the very end. The reason it doesn’t completely work for me is because people were playing dress-up and pulling false identities through the whole movie. So by the time it came for Waltz to reveal himself, it wasn’t anything new. It almost seems like a cheap way out the situation in that part of the movie.

I will say though that this is a unique WW2 piece. Unlike any I’ve seen to be sure.

Yeah, peace bro. Right on. Peace.

By the way, I don't recommend Inglourious Bastards :P. Not all Rs are the same I suppose. Meaning, it apparently doesn't matter if you show it or not. Eeck.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence

Writer: Steven Spielberg, Ian Watson
Director: Steven Spielberg
Editor: Michael Kahn
Director of Photography: Janusz Kaminski
Composer: John Williams
Lead Actor: Haley Joel Osment
Year: 2002

A.I. is a personal film with epic proportions. Look no further than “Steven Spielberg” and we know something special is going to come to life in a big way. That something special in this film is a robot. In the sophistication of a futuristic world there has been created another civilization that requires no resources to sustain itself. Its primary responsibility was to perform tasks which otherwise would need human intelligence to accomplish. But an inevitable question is raised: are we giving the robots too much responsibility? Has it come to a point where humans are having difficulty taking responsibility?

What would be the merit and usefulness of an artificial being that could feel and convey love? That is the question asked by an inventive professor (William Hurt) at the opening of the film. It is this professor’s fascination and industrialism that tempts him to pursue making this dream a reality.

David is the experiment.

David is created to love and his entire purpose hinges on that. If his love is lost, all he can (and wants to) do is try and retrieve it. But David is at a disadvantage because he’s not real and people know that. While it is the professor’s dream to make a realistic robot, it is David’s dream to become a reality in order to ‘find his love,’ so to speak. David overhears the story of Pinocchio and from then on relentlessly pursues the Blue Fairy, hoping that she can make him real. This quest takes him to the end of the world and back again.

What would this world be like if robots loved and we were to love them back? We can let Steven Spielberg take a whack at giving us a visual idea. And he certainly does a pretty compelling job with it. But I do wonder if he concludes without coming back to an interesting question…a question that would have fit very nicely into his framework. The oldest question in the book, so to speak. Is love genuine if flesh and blood doesn’t desire it? A love out of freedom has to be much more meaningful than an obligatory love. Yes, God made mankind to love him, but that doesn’t mean we have to. I do think that it pleases God more when his children com eto Him out of genuine love rather than duty.

Spielberg certainly doesn’t sell himself cheap, and A.I. is in no way an exception. And yet, I don’t see any ego he might have getting in the way. Same goes for the actors. I think you can tell when they’re trying to show off. Here they are simply trying to actually and vividly tell the story. Although I have the same problem with William Hurt as I did in The Village. He is just way to much of a theater actor.

I owned John William’s score for several months prior to watching the film and had come to really appreciate it. It may well me my favorite William’s score in my collection (9 total, and that’s not including any Star Wars or Jones). Intimate might be the best way to describe his music for A.I.. Their really aren’t any epic themes, and not a lot of huge, swelling orchestras, although I think you can still tell it is John Williams behind the music. His sensibilities definitely come through. The main theme of the soundtrack is Monica’s Theme (as heard in “Where Dreams are Born”), which I have yet to tire of. Lovely in both its piano and voice forms.

The power of story and cinema has made me sympathetic for something I should never be sympathetic about. A.I. is a heartfelt journey that almost takes you beyond artificiality without hardly knowing. I thought real life and fake life (Orga and Mecha) were balanced quite flawlessly. The capacity of realism the Mecha existed in suited the story well, even leaving an impression on you. I suppose I was surprised by the amount of care I had for the talking and loving robot. Certainly the film was designed to have that affect.

I still would hope society doesn’t go so far as to manufacture substitute children, we’ve gone quite far enough.

Actress picks - Behind the scenes

I thought I will give a short explaination for each of my favorites on the sidebar. I'll start with the actresses.

I don’t base my favorites on the quantity of films I’ve seen them in, but rather their qualities in the film(s) I have. I look at how interesting they can make a character. I also like to see unique qualities in their features…something that sets them apart from the rest. (Note that my favorites list is suspect to change).

Saoirse Ronan is obviously a very young actress, yet she was even younger when she started her acting “career”. At the age of only 12 she received significant recognition with an Oscar nomination for Briony in Paul Wright’s 2007 “Atonement”. Then 2 years later she appeared as Susie Salmon in The Lovely Bones, which is primarily what I base my choosing of her.

Some actresses you wish would never grow up, and Saoirse is one. She has a bright future for success, but Hollywood can so easily snuff one’s light (and purity, in many senses of the word). At this point though, she is putting her brilliant, bright eyes to good use. She has lovely expressions and a great natural posture.

Romola Garai is not yet a household name, and has had few leading roles. You might mostly know her from Wilberforce’s wife in “Amazing Grace”. Although she can generate a genuine smile, I think she has really mastered the smug look, which I think may work better on her than say…Keira Knightley?

No one stands in for Bryce Dallas Howard...she’s one-of-a-kind. As hinted at before, “The Village” is the film responsible for her being on my favorites list. The plays flawlessly the complex character of Ivy Walker. She has good interpretation and delivery of dialog.

I suppose I hesitated putting Jennifer Connelly on here. No doubt people like her looks, but I can’t help but think her distinctness is getting lost in her stardom. I find her approach slightly high-heeled for my taste, which may be just as much her director’s fault. All that aside, she can be a very good actress, no doubt about it. Her roles are often difficult emotionally, so I think with all the practice, she excels in that area.

Who in the world is Mira Sorvino? An Academy Award winner for one thing. But I haven’t seen her in the role, so I suppose that doesn’t mean much to me. I’ve actually seen her in very little, and never in a leading role. And yet there is a gem of a film in which she shines. Wipe away the polish and discover “Like Dandelion Dust”. She doesn’t let us down in this meaningful role as Wendy Porter. At every turn she delivers just what her character needs, without trying to show off. She’s real. I mean, she acts real.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Writer: Andrew Dominik
Director: Andrew Dominik
Director of Photography: Roger Deakins
Editor: Curtiss Clayton, Dylan Tichenor
Composer: Nick Cave, Warren Ellis
Lead Actors: Brad Pitt, Casey Afflek
Year: 2007

Here we have a lengthy title for a lengthy movie. It takes it’s time, developing characters, narrating transitions, establishing settings. It’s a film that meant to be experienced. I haven’t seen one to compare it to, but this doesn’t seem to be your typical western. It’s a slow character drama (which is what drew me to it in the first place, along with the visuals and music). It documents the ups and downs of the life of an outlaw, which seems to have more downs than ups.

The movie established the people surrounding Jesse James. It tracked them, what they were doing, where they were going. The film focuses on the assassination, yet there’s a good deal of development in the characters leading up to that. We see a lot of ill feelings between people. Everyone seemed to work together to pull of the train robbery in the beginning, but then things seemed to go downhill from there. It seemed to be an ever intensifying cycle of revenge.

Perhaps the most interesting of the characters, portrayed by a talented Casey Afflek, was the ‘bad guy’ who shot Jesse. This Robert Ford, went from an admirer to a jealous schemer looking for attention. He was initially obsessed by Jesse James, his hero. He was always trying to show himself capable, yet was never respected and was always either ignored or chewed out. He was insecure and his mannerisms seemed to mask a sort of envy. In a bit of dialog between Jesse and Bob, Jesse says, “I can’t figure it out. Do want to be like me? Or do you want to be me?”, which seems to foretell, or at least hint at, what their fate will be.

Jesse James lived by the sword and eventually died by the sword, which doesn’t really surprise me. It says Jesse never had any remorse for the crimes he committed, yet before he died, he was having cases of depression and spontaneous mood swings. I can’t help but think that state had something to do with his sneaky, homicidal lifestyle.

As alluded to before, Casey Afflek’s performance was stellar. He pulled of the conceited smirks very well. Brad Pitt didn’t let us down with his portrayal of the legend. The others were quite good as well. Pretty much all the main players, a total of eight guys, had their own face and personality. One thing I liked was that their performances were very organic. The dialog was far from reading from a script.

The photography, settings, and lighting gave a number of the sequences in the film a melancholy elegance. The palette of colors was consistent, giving the film a unique feel of its own. Adding to the sense of reminiscence, a blurred edge effect was used occasionally. This effect often occurred at image sequences overlaid with narration. These sequences showed and told a transition of time and/or character development. The music was rather sparse, except underlying these ‘transitions’, where it contributed its melancholy, minimalist goodness. The instrument pallet was sparse and present and it was slightly reminiscent to that of traditional folk. The piece “Song for Bob”, which can be heard towards the end of the movie, is an absolutely elegant piece. Fits what is happening on screen very well too. Way to go Nick Cave and Warren Ellis, keep cranking out those cinematic tunes!

This film puts this legend of Jesse James and his infamous ‘follower’ on the screen, effectively bringing the story to life with rich visuals and organic performances. We witness in a visual, and sometimes poetic, way, the transitional arch of frail humans who struggle with life and death, reputation and betrayal. The movie does have its rough edges, and there are certain parts I avoided.

Rather Lovely Thing - Warren E...

Great interview with Peter Jackson

Some interesting stuff covered here...I like his openness.

Children of Men

Based on the book by P.D. James

Writer: Alfonso Cuarón, Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Director of Photography: Emmanuel Lubezki
Editor: Alex Rodriguez, Alfonso Cuarón
Lead Actor: Clive Owen
Year: 2006

Children of Men is a film I can’t really decide if I like or not. It’s a film that does away with the glitz and glamor of movies to tell its story. In one way it’s a gripping quest, and in another way, it’s a tense thriller. It is a gritty film indeed, in a powerful way. It’s not the music, the rapidity of cuts, there is actually very little of that. The strength and impact of this film is what the filmmakers did with the images.

A guy named Theo (played by Clive Owen) has sort of emotionally distanced himself from a fallen world set in 2027. It’s a world that is sliding to its death. There is disaster and conflict all around. But the most dire tragedy is that women everywhere have been infertile for 18 years.

Then a pregnant girl shows up and the rest of the movie revolves around saving the baby. The woman with the baby is a Fuji, an illegal immigrant who would be hunted down by the government (a flourish put there by the writers for sure). She is taken under the “care” of a group called the “Fishes”, who swim around fighting for the rights of immigrants. Then we find that the Fishes' intentions are not entirely pure. We find out that the baby is yet another one of their agendas.

Ain’t no way that will happen so, through circumstances of fate, the depressed Theo Faron ends up being this young woman’s escort to safety. Their destination is the coast, where a boat called the “Tomorrow” waits just off the shore. Theo and the girl’s journey is by no means smooth. They sometimes find themselves in the middle of just where they don’t want to be.

The baby is a smoldering flicker of hope. The sound of whose crying voice causes a momentary ceasefire among the warring peoples. As one man said it had been so long he “forgot what they looked like”. In a scene at the end when the baby is crying, Theo instructs the mother to put the baby on her shoulder and “tap her back”. “Gently” he says. What a wonderful piece of writing for the end of the film.

I thought this film was very well casted. Clive Owen had enough apathy for his part, which he later turned into enough concern as the baby’s plight surfaced. Julianne Moore was mysterious and yet direct, and not too plastic. Michael Caine fit in his role like a slipper. He was humorous and generous. You know from the moment you meet him that he and his abode re a haven. Clare-Hope Ashitey is still young and learning her acting chops, but she did well as the laboring mother of the child. And for some reason I liked the fact she is black. Before I go I want to mention Charlie Hunnam, who played the Fish Patric. What an intense actor! Although he has a bad mouth, his presence and posture is powerful. “Children of Men” has an eclectic cast from the start. And I won’t even get into Milenka. Or the Fascist PIG!

The director, Alfonso Cuarón, pulled of a few impressively choreographed sequences in Children of Men. One of these incredible achievements takes place in a vehicle. For 4 uncut minutes a camera moves around the inside of this car, filming dialog, an attack outside, and people’s reactions. Everything had to be cued up to happen in frame right when it needed to. The same had to be set in order for later in the film. A 6:16 shot follows characters as they run, pursue ,and are pursued. Gunfire, explosions, reactions, and dialog all had to happen in their appropriate, and safe, order. These accomplishments are indeed impressive from a technical perspective, but in the end, I’m not sure if it really does much for me. It may serve to more effectively immerse one in the action. In fact, I didn’t even notice that there weren’t cuts, or that it was odd to have a camera move around a car like that. So you might say I was sufficiently immersed. But would I have been less involved if there were cuts? Sure would have made it easier on the filmmakers (except maybe the editor ;).

The actual original music in the film is very minimal. Usually what you hear is the ambient music coming from radios and stereos. Music in film is often used to manipulate people’s emotions. Cuarón somehow managed to get away from that. I’m not sure all the music choices were entirely effective for me (maybe the songs used have special significance). Although there is that wonderful theme you might call the “Humanity Theme”. It is an operatic woman’s voice with a bed of stings and it usually appears in the context of the baby. In a way, it is beautiful juxtaposed with the images. It kind of grows on you.

Ok, well, I’ll give Children of Men an 8 out of 10. The 8 stars are for the world the film created and transported us to. And for the special style of filmmaking, that is rare. The 2 stars it lacks are for the meaning that I think the script should have packed more of. There’s a baby for crying out loud! I don’t know. Not sure if I could have done better with what there was to work with. Probably not.