Very Short Takes: Sci-fi and Rachel and Abs! (Oh My!)

Daniel Craig seems to be having the time of his life in Jon Favreau's Cowboys and Aliens an awkwardly titled nod to B movies, trashy sci-fi and the sexiness of the rugged male hero. Craig plays the lead opposite the aging, but still fantastically charming Harrison Ford (who plays a villain!). The movie lingers too much on character details that eventually make no difference - nobody came to this movie for John Ford melancholy - and by the time we get to the showdown between the title characters, our interest might've drifted elsewhere. Mostly meant for fans of the Western, the film takes too long to figure out exactly what it wants to be and other than Daniel Craig's ass in leather chaps, it offers nothing new, or exciting under the sun.
Grade: **

Out of all the comic book movies that have come out in recent years, none have been less spectacular, thrilling or fun than Green Lantern. Martin Campbell's film is an ode to how wrong CGI can go when used for the wrong reasons (a respectable superhero message if that's what he was truly going for). Ryan Reynolds tries to hold the movie together as the title superhero, even if the effects that make up his suit often make us think his head will move in the opposite direction of his body and you have to respect him for not relying on his abs so much this time around. Blake Lively gives rocks a run for their money in the dull department (all of her lines elicit laughter) and poor Peter Sarsgaard is relegated to playing a giant bugger. Then again, what can you expect of a movie that features a character who looks like a devil, is named Siniestro (Mark Strong) and still thinks we'll be shocked upon realizing he's a villain...
Grade: *

Rachel Weisz means business in The Whistleblower a real life story where she plays an American police officer who becomes part of a peace keeping committee in war ravaged Bosnia. Once there she realizes there's a huge human trafficking ring that involves UN members, army officers and even diplomats. Weisz remains a beacon of serenity and morality throughout the film and infuses her character with some rich ambiguities, reminding us of her brilliant portrayal in The Constant Gardener. The film however doesn't know what to do when she's not in the scene and makes a waste out of perfectly good actors like Vanessa Redgrave and David Strathairn. For a movie that tries to paint a time appropriate tale of corruption, the villains and heroes are too clearly divided most of the time and for those inclined to a good old fashioned social heroine tale, the lead never feels under actual danger, the cause in the end feeling like something she does out of an ulterior motive, in the very same way the movie feels made to get its leading lady some awards.
Grade: **½

If Alfred Hitchcock and Chris Marker decided to have a baby, it would be something like Source Code, this sci-fi thriller feels like a hybrid of Strangers on a Train and la Jetée. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a time traveling soldier sent to prevent a mission not even he's aware of. Revealing too much about this movie's plot is to deny the audience of the rich writing in Duncan Jones' sophomore feature. After the breathtaking Moon it's perhaps safe to say that the genre is in good hands with David Bowie's son. With moving performances, an unexpected climax and one of the most sincere romances portrayed in recent cinema, Source Code sends you away with a feeling of utter exhilaration. Like one of its major plot twists all you want to do is revisit it the minute it's over.

Grade: ***½

Short Takes: "Love and Other Drugs" and "Hereafter".

More than the "Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhall Naked Variety Show", this movie is a sadly overdone ode to complicated love. Sure, Anne and Jake are naked a lot and as good a marketing angle as that might've been, the truth is that they are remarkable not because of their bubble butts and perfect stomachs but because of the nakedness of their performances (corny to say it but true...).

Gyllenhaal plays womanizing Pfizer medical representative Jamie. Hathaway plays Maggie, the cynical, early onset Parkinson's disease, patient he falls for.

They try to make it all about sex but movie conventions have showed us that before soon they'll be entangled in some messy emotional issues.

When this happens the movie gives its lead actors a chance to shine, the rest however is a confused mess that makes it seem as if the editor and the director were on some weird emotion altering pill.

The film alternates between moods in such an uneven way that it's impossible for the filmmakers to say they were doing a cute postmodernist take on the drug experience through editing. The whole thing is jut muddled filmmaking.

It's nice then to see Gyllenhaal stretching his limited chops to explore a more aggressive character, someone unafraid to come off as a total jerk and win our hearts by the end (George Clooney would've played him in the 90's...).

And it obviously comes as no surprise that Anne Hathaway is all sorts of magnificent. The little things she gives Maggie are stunningly detailed without being show-offs. She could've played this woman with pity and gone over the top to deliver her message, however she does quite the opposite and slowly lets Maggie become who she is.

Watching Hathaway go from sexiness to raw pain is the one truly addictive thing about this movie.

Clint Eastwood has got to be one of the most overrated working directors, yet at the same time some of his films are so subtle and misunderstood that he seems to be slightly underrated.

Such is the case with Hereafter, a haunting romantic drama that fails to ignite the tragic passion The Bridges of Madison County did but is still able to steer off the preachy stubbornness of Changeling.

The script (written by Peter Morgan) seems to be getting its line from the Iñárritu school of "connecting random dots to achieve universal catharsis" and as such, we see how the lives of former psychic George (Damon), French tsunami survivor Marie (de France) and British boy Marcus (Frankie McLaren) are united by death and then brought together by the magic of the movies.

Eastwood however directs taking his cue from the school of Clint and turns the film into a meditative examination of life in times of chaos. Hereafter takes its time to make its point but it's never a slow movie. In fact Clint plays with the story so well that for a moment we doubt it's leading to the place where it eventually takes us to.

This makes it a curious experiment and the film often feels as moody as the characters are tragic. Damon gives a superbly restrained performance but the film perhaps belongs to the stunning de France. Her bittersweet portrayal of Marie is infused with a cruel tenderness that gives her such rich layers. Her story is often at risk of becoming the most convoluted and corny, yet she handles it with such class that you really don't care when the movie tries to turn her into a paperback romance heroine.

The ending of Hereafter might turn off some who feel Clint's gone senile, surrendered to love and just teased us for 130 minutes with the promise of turning on his darkness and delivering one of his intense takes on justice.

However those willing to look past the sensationalism the movie deals with, will be rewarded with a heartbreaking tale that tells us to stop worrying about what's to come when all we really have is today.

Love and Other Drugs **

Hereafter ***

Sheet-y Saturday.

Where we take a look at posters for upcoming features.


Anne Hathaway is getting all sorts of awards buzz for a performance people haven't even seen but with each passing day Love and Other Drugs looks more promising.
If not just take a look at this delightful poster that puts any recent rom-com sheet to shame. The color palette is delicious and even it makes no secret of the fact people are dying to see this because Jake Gyllenhaal and Annie are rumored to be naked all the freaking time.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex and it's refreshing to see a studio sell a movie based on purely carnal desires.
Some might complain we aren't seeing too much and the poster could've been somewhat bolder but anything featuring Annie's million dollar smile makes me a happy camper and did you see the size of Gyllenhaal's foot?


Apparently our previous complaints were heard and someone went and fixed the Fair Game poster. The results are not entirely better but at least this time Sean Penn seems to know what movie he's in.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time *

Director: Mike Newell
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton
Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina, Toby Kebbell, Reece Ritchie
Richard Coyle, Steve Toussaint

At first glance Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is yet another shallow video game adaptation meant to entertain youngsters with its giant set pieces, special effects and numbing loudness; but look closer and you will find a distasteful "oh well" approach to American foreign policy and media brainwashing.
Set in ancient Persia, it centers on Dastan (Gyllenhaal) an orphan of humble origins adopted by the king (Ronald Pickup) and raised like a prince.
As the movie begins, Dastan and his brothers (Kebbell and Coyle) prepare to invade the scared city of Alamut on the grounds that they have been manufacturing weapons for Persia's enemies.
Not long after they have invaded the city, Dastan figures out it was all a trick devised by the story's actual villain (quite easy to discover considering the makeup artists all but put a "villain" sign on his face). He also discovers the actual reason for the invasion was to find an ancient dagger that has the power of turning back time; but before he can become a hero, he's been framed for murder, becomes a fugitive and finds himself traveling with Princess Tamina of Alamut (Arterton) to reclaim his rightful place.
The problem with the movie isn't how miscast it is (Gyllenhaal has absolutely no hero potential despite the bigger muscles) or how badly it uses its good actors (Arterton could've been iconic and Molina just remind us that a brilliant actor can make almost anything seem better than it is). The problem isn't the action sequences either, although their Aladdin with ADD aesthetics continue to highlight the same brand of flashy, quick editing Jerry Bruckheimer's productions have become known for, which shows even less than it says.
The biggest problem with the film is how it uses all these elements to thinly disguise it's "let's move on" views on the Iraq invasion.
At first, the story seems to be taking a critical aim at how the Bush government (and its allies) handled a situation that quickly got out of their hands. We are presented with facts that almost entirely resemble the search for weapons of mass destruction led by the American army on Iraqi soil and how a few government people quickly created an entire war as diversion from their real aim (the dagger in the movie, oil in real life).
It's not even necessary to mention nepotism and the similarities between powerful political families and royalty to see how much the main plot drew from history.
But once the central dagger comes up, viewers are provided with the sort of device that could work in two ways.
Its ability to go back in time enables the audience to fantasize about a world where things can be undone and evil is quickly fixed. In a way this could provide some sort of escapism from the already brutal reality raging outside the theater.
But why then, introduce this element of correction into an allegory that had such recent effects? If it doesn't want to deal with reality why then remind us of it?
It's only then when the movie's real intention seems to come out and by suggesting mystical artifacts can fix our wrongs it's empowering the video game generation to think of technology as their own way of escaping reality and consciously grant themselves absolution.
What's the difference between the dagger and digital video recording or personalized online content? In the same way that Prince Dastan can simply rewind and fix the past, we now have the power to control the information we get and simply fast forward through the news or ignore a disturbing article and conceal the world from our already limited perception.
Prince of Persia isn't about entertaining as much as it's about creating a false idea of our involvement in the world.
The only magical thing about this movie is that very few seem to notice it's essentially propaganda.

Brothers **

Director: Jim Sheridan
Cast: Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman
Sam Shepard, Mare Winningham, Bailee Madison, Taylor Geare
Clifton Collins, Jr., Carey Mulligan

If you have seen the Danish film "Brothers", you will have a hard time swallowing the sweetened American remake. Story's the same: Sam Cahill (Maguire) is deployed to Afghanistan days after his brother Tommy (Gyllenhaal) is released from jail.
His wife Grace (Portman) is left behind taking care of daughters Isabelle (Madison) and Maggie (Geare), when news arrive that Sam has been killed, Grace begins to get close to Tommy until
Sam returns from the dead.
Sheridan tries to emulate the humanity he created beautifully in "In America" (and he does get splendid performance from his young actresses) but "Brothers" mostly feel like it's pretty actors playing house.
Portman, whose quiet sensitivity isn't enough to muster motherhood gravitas, underacts her way through every scene reaching a point of indifference.
Gyllenhaal, who has the most interesting character in the movie, suffers from lack of nuance. This might not be his fault because the screenplay has shaped Tommy into the archetypal "bad seed" who has visible tattoos (Sam has one on his chest meant to be only seen by Grace we can assume), gets drunk, smokes and changes Thomas Newman's score whenever he appears from tranquil piano motifs to rockier tunes.
Maguire also has trouble conveying the moral dilemma that plagues Sam in the film's second half. One would assume that the actor's barely there look would serve him to evoke loss, but it only makes him seem like he forgot his dialogues.
In all the major problem with "Brothers" is that it suffers greatly from its change of setting. The Danish version inspired encountered feelings as the soldiers were participating in a war they never even started and are serving as proxies from their army's previous commitments.
When translating this to a nondescript American town (when one character is asked where did they grow the answer is "twenty miles from here" keeping the anonymity of the town as ways to inspire a feeling of-it could happen to you- universality) the plot looses its ability to question the system and is reduced to what almost all Afghanistan/Iraq films have come to in the last decade: a politically correct tale that empowers the army while trying to grasp the pain people in the outside world go through.
If not why then should Sheridan linger more on the death of an American soldier than the equally brutal killing of an Afghan?
And why is it only the death of said American that traumatizes Sam?
What director Susanne Bier achieved with the original movie was a raw evaluation of where the world stood when a global power sucks the rest of the countries into its sinkhole, what this "Brothers" offers us is a simplistic tale of Oedipal complexes (at the service of Shepard who plays the Cahill's patriarch) set to a U2 song, because if Bono sings about it, then it must be true.