Avoid this 'Contract'

If you are browsing through a video store and come across “The Contract” keep walking. Don’t allow yourself to be taken in by the pair of A-listers (Morgan Freeman and John Cusack) on the cover, “The Contract” is a stinker through and through.

“The Contract” went straight to DVD, which is rarely a good sign. The world of direct to video filmmaking includes but is not limited to cheapie sequels, low budget horror and action films starring aging former genre stars like Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal. They are easy to stop and easy to avoid, but every once in a while a film that looks like it could be worthy gets a direct to video release.

Reading the premise of “The Contract” it seems like it has the potential to be exciting entertainment. Freeman plays an assassin that through a chain of events comes into the custody of Cusack and his son (Jamie Anderson) who are hiking in the Washington wilderness in hopes of bonding after the loss of their wife/mother. Cusack decides to take Freeman to the police, but Freeman’s men are also in the forest eager to rescue their leader.

It is a hardly a new story, the remake of “3:10 to Yuma,” which is currently playing in theaters covers similar ground, but with the excellent Freeman and the underrated Cusack you at least expect there to be a well acted mind game.

“The Contract” is the worst kind of bad movie, the sort of film that wastes its talent and teases the audience with glimpses of a good movie mired in the mangled collection of celluloid that is spooling out in front of you instead.

Every component of this film is flawed. The score is overwrought, the editing slack when it should be tight, the acting poor with only Freeman coming out unscathed and the writing clumsy and stiff. The dialogue is so stilted, obvious and forced that it is clear the actors can do little with it. At one point Cusack’s son has to shout at him “Just to listen me for once Dad!”

The characters are flat at best, mere archetypes and nothing more. There’s a throw away line explaining Cusack was a former cop that is there to justify some of things he does later in the film, but why he quit isn’t explored.

In the making of feature on the DVD, Freeman explains it is more fun for an actor to play a bad guy. There is some zeal in Freeman’s performance and he is clearly relishing the opportunity to play bad. Freeman manages to make some of the hackneyed dialogue shine, but most is so awful even velvet voiced Freeman can’t salvage it.

Cusack just looks embarrassed as if he knows there’s no reason to be in this film. Lately, Cusack seems to be drawn to playing characters grieving the loss of loved ones. In “1408” it was a daughter. In the forthcoming “Grace is Gone” and “Martian Child” it is a wife. What this has to say about Cusack’s state of mind could probably fill a psychiatrist’s notebook, but for my purposes it is merely a justification for why he appeared in something so below his talents.

The supporting cast is populated with uninteresting, annoying cookie cutter characters. The most infuriating of the bunch is the tired cliché of hick rural cops that don’t know anything about city things. At one point an FBI agent asks for a croissant and the sheriff replies they never heard of them in town. That’s the level this film is on. You have been warned.

A flawed, but interesting peak into Warhol's 'Factory'

Edie Sedgwick, the “Factory Girl” of the title, was the original party girl and the first to make fame a job. She became Andy Warhol’s muse in the mid-to-late sixties, with her short lived pop icon status eventually leading to a tragic death.

Edie’s story is a familiar one. She came to New York as a relatively innocent girl with aspirations to be an artist, but reinvented herself as a social butterfly. Warhol (Guy Pearce, “Memento") meets and becomes obsessed with Edie (Sienna Miller, “Casanova”). He decides to quit painting and focus on making her famous. Edie slowly loses herself to her own iconic status as she succumbs to the drugs, alcohol and various other excesses of fame.

The idea of fame, and everyone getting their 15 minutes of it, was one that fascinated Warhol, but the film doesn’t explore that too deeply. “Factory Girl” offers a peak inside Warhol’s Factory, the large studio where he did much of his art and films. The Factory is a world unto itself populated by oddballs and social rejects that are free to explore their art.

Warhol was an enigmatic figure with his pale skin, mousy voice and awkward social skills. Pearce nails the mannerism and vocal inflection in a performance that initially seems like nothing more than mimicry, but as the film progresses Pearce adds shading to his interpretation of Warhol.

When Edie begins an affair with a musician (Hayden Christensen, the new “Star Wars” trilogy) Warhol becomes jealous and cruel. Warhol’s self-proclaimed emotional detachment can’t completely hide his hurt which Pearce quietly registers in almost unnoticeable facial ticks.

Christensen is clearly playing Bob Dylan, but for legal reasons the character is listed as simply The Musician in the credits. He captures Dylan’s brooding cynicism and desire to challenge society. Christensen smolders with intensity that will surprise those who thought he single-handedly ruined “Star Wars.” He shines most in a scene in which he does a screen test for Warhol, blatantly mocking him the whole time.

Dylan and Warhol in many ways were doing the same thing, but Dylan’s art had depth where Warhol’s was seemingly more superficial. The film does a nice job of recreating the atmosphere of Warhol’s pop art world, but doesn’t delve beyond shallow interpretation. A case can be made that as it is shallow art it is unworthy of deep analysis.

Some would contend that Warhol was forcing pop culture to look at self with his work being a mirror of society. If that reflection is shallow that isn’t Warhol’s fault. The film seems to lean towards that view with Edie stating Warhol was throwing America back at people and “turning the assembly line into a punch line.”

But this isn’t a film about Warhol. It isn’t called “Factory Boy,” but you wish it was. Edie, at least as presented here, isn’t that interesting a figure. This is no fault of Miller who gives a strong performance. Miller knows how to do strung out women well as she already showcased in “Alfie.”

Edie was a damaged girl with a sexually abusive father and the weight of her gay brother’s death constantly plaguing her. Miller is forced to give numerous speeches rewording this information. The first time it is presented - in a flippant filmed conversation for Warhol - it is unsettling, but the film keeps playing the same emotional cards with no further exploration.

In the film’s most disturbing scene, Jimmy Fallon (“Fever Pitch”) coldly taunts Edie with her own sordid past while prodding a man to molest her as Warhol films it all. It is Warhol’s cruel punishment for leaving him.

Was Edie worthy of a bio-pic in her own right or are we merely fascinated because of her association with Warhol and Dylan? “Factory Girl” doesn’t quite make the case, but holds interest regardless for capturing the essence of the decadent sixties art scene.

'The Lookout': More than just a heist movie

Heist movies are rarely about anything other than the con, but Scott Frank’s “The Lookout” is a slightly different beast, a character driven piece where how the crime changes the lead character is far more interesting than the mechanics of the job itself.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Chris, a high school kid who had it all, until a car accident left him brain damaged. Chris has memory problems similar to, but not to the severity of Guy Pearce’s character in “Memento.”

Where Pearce couldn’t create new memories, Levitt’s Chris has difficulty sequencing them and gets easily confused. Chris also has difficulty controlling his anger and has lost his inhibitions, which leads him to say things like “I want to see you naked” to women.

Chris works alone as a night janitor at a bank something that small time hood Gary Spargo (Matthew Goode, “Match Point”) notices. Gary baits Chris with the attractive former striper Luvlee Lemons (Isla Fisher, “The Wedding Crashers”) and convinces him to help with a bank robber.

Frank, making his directorial debut from his own script, has adapted Elmore Leonard’s “Out of Sight” and “Get Shorty” for the screen and the unique rhythm and flavoring of Leonard’s dialogue and storytelling is captured here. But Frank’s film doesn’t feel like a rip-off and that’s largely due to the freshness of the central character.

There’s a quiet intensity permeating through the whole film but for the most part it is not driven by the plot. Too often films in the heist genre are overly focused on labyrinthine plots and a surprise twist, which is all fine and well, but Frank has admirably but his focus on character.

Gordon-Levitt, who in the 90s was more known for his comic skills on the show “3rd Rock from the Sun,” has developed into intense dramatic actor. Following his work in last year enigmatic thriller “Brick,” Gordon-Levitt is proving himself to be the go to man for dark, complicated protagonists.

Chris is a complex, conflicted character, a bundle of confused emotions trying to sort everything out and Gordon-Leavitt balances all these difficult emotions in a way that is believable. He never allows the character to become a gimmick or mere plot point and infuses him with a wealth of turmoil that is rarely directly addressed but always there.

Jeff Daniels’ Lewis, Chris’ blind roommate and best friend, gives the film some of its only levity. The character does spout wisdom, but Daniels and Frank keep him from being more than just a blind wiseman. Lewis playfully flirts with a waitress at the same time he offers warm, humor filled support to Chris.

It is a performance that reminds you how likable and charming a performer Daniels is. Chris and Lewis’ friendship has nice flow to it and their scene help deepen the film emotionally and thematically.

Goode, an English actor hiding his accent well, is appropriately hard and grungy as Gary, but as he’s conning Chris, Goode manages to add at least a flickering note of compassion. Gary is asthmatic, which gives him the oddly menacing crutch of taking hits from his inhaler. Although Gary is the film’s bad guy, Goode keeps it low key and avoids hammy villainy.

In terms of acting Fisher’s femme fatale is the only weak link. Fisher showed chaotic comedic energy in “The Wedding Crashers,” here she seems dull and uninteresting, but that could be due to the script, which drops her when she is no longer useful to the plot. In a script that is intelligent and clever without being glib, it is the only disappointing aspect.

Frank as a director isn’t showy and the pace is leisurely, but rewarding. It is 45 minutes before the robbery is even mentioned, but Frank takes that time to create a world that is more fully realized than most films of the genre. The ending may be a bit too neat, but satisfying stems from a natural progression of the story. Maybe that in itself is the film’s big twist.

Ferrell on autopilot

“
“Blades of Glory” is Will Ferrell on auto pilot. For people who appreciate his humor it is a decent time, for those who think he is terribly unfunny this will act as further evidence.

After showing depth and dialing down to a warm, believable, human level in “Stranger Than Fiction,” Ferrell is back flaunting his body and faux machismo in a one-joke comedy about the first male pairs figure skating team.

Ferrell seems to have a thing for sports comedies, first there was the flat soccer film “Kicking and Screaming,” followed by the more on target NASCAR satire “Talladega Nights” and up on deck is the basketball comedy, “Semi-Pro.” “Blades of Glory” falls somewhere between “Kicking and Screaming” and “Talladega Nights,” but how many times can one actor parody sports movie clichés?

Jon Heder, Ferrell’s partner in comedy and skating, became an overnight sensation following the tremendous success of “Napoleon Dynamite.” Heder is still trying to live down the performance that made him famous and many are quick to dismiss all of his performances as watered down versions of “Napoleon.” But Heder is a likeable performer with a light comic touch and with “School for Scoundrels” and “Blades of Glory” has shown he’s more that a one trick pony.

Ferrell’s Chazz Michael Michaels and Heder’s Jimmy MacElroy and skating rivals who get banned from singles competition after an on-ice fight gets out of hand. Years later they are reunited by Jimmy’s coach (Craig T. Nelson, star of the show “Coach,” get it?) to be a pairs team. Naturally, they are exact opposites who hate each other and then ultimately bond.
This material is incredibly familiar, both as straight drama or comedy and “Blades of Glory” seems to be content to just work within the formula and earn some modest laughs. Although the character grows tired by the end, the idea of Chazz a crass, sex addict in the world of figure skating, is a funny one. It is role that is easy for Ferrell and will appease his fans who like him best when he’s stumbling around half nude or shouting dialogue.

The film lacks the extra layer of satire that features in Ferrell’s best comedies, “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights.” Yes, both of those films are full of crude scatological humor, but there was also an undercurrent to the jokes that revealed the foolishness of American news and sports celebrity. In some ways “Talladega Nights” was just as effective as “Borat” at revealing the worst sides of Americans.

It is hard to review comedy. Humor hits each person differently. Some comedies hit the mark so well that just about everyone falls in love with them, but others are more hit and miss. “Blades of Glory” falls in the latter category.

One particularly gross scene is really the make or break for the film. In it Heder is handcuffed to a toilet. The key lies at the end of long strip of toilet paper. He can escape by using his tongue to pull the paper and key toward him. It is terribly unfunny scene, but if you can forgive the filmmakers for it then you are likely to accept the rest of the film.

Given the subject matter there are surprisingly and thankfully few gay jokes. The skating scenes are fairly amusing and there’s one hilarious chase scene with Ferrell running from a rival (Will Arnet, “Arrested Development”) while both are on skates. It is good as a distraction, but isn’t the sort of comedy you’ll be quoting with friends for months.

Vermont filmmaker brings latest film to the world

Independent filmmaker Jay Craven has been on the road with his latest film "Disappearances" for nearly a year and a half, crossing not only the country, but the globe. In the fall he will continue his national and international tour, but first is a stop off at the Claremont Opera House for a screening Friday Aug. 17 at 7:30 p.m.

"We are looking forward to it," said Craven who will be on-hand to introduce "Disappearances" and lead a post-screening discussion of the film. "The opera house is a great facility. It is a facility the community knows and embraces and for us it is one of the bigger dates on the tour because it is a big hall and a community where some of its audience spills into Vermont."

Tickets for the screening are $9 general admission and $8 for seniors.

The Claremont stop is part of a 50-town tour of Vermont and New Hampshire. The film, like all of Craven's films, was shot in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom and northern New Hampshire.

"The film comes from the region, so therefore it is important to go beyond the traditional distribution system to play it in the region," Craven said.

"Disappearances" is a North Country tale of high-stakes whiskey-running along the Vermont Canadian border during the Prohibition of the 1920s.

The film stars Kris Kristofferson, who told Craven the screenplay was the best he had ever read, as Quebec Bill, an impossible dreamer and schemer who turns to whiskey running after a freak lightning storm destroys his barn.

The picture also features Academy Award nominee Genevieve Bujold ("King of Hearts," "Anne of a Thousand Days"), Gary Farmer ("Smoke Signals"), William Sanderson ("Deadwood"), Lothaire Bluteau ("Black Robe"), Luis Guzman ("Traffic"), and 15-year-old Charlie McDermott in his debut role.

"This film has magic and mystery and ghosts and is a bit of a tall tale and is a bit of caper and the character of Quebec Bill is more fun than the character of Noel Lord in (my first film) 'Where the Rivers Flow North' and so it has struck a different chord (than my previous films), but it has struck a chord."

Craven has found that "Disappearances," which is the third in a trilogy of "Vermont frontier films," is the film that engages him the most of all his work.

"It certainly has an appeal that is unlike any of the other pictures (I've done) and it is also a film that has worked on me more than any of the other pictures. I can find layers of themeing and resonance and personal relevance to the picture."

"Disappearances" has not only played small towns throughout New England, but big cities across the country including New York, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, Minneapolis, Ithaca and Dallas.

"It is a big country, so you just keep it going," said Craven, who in the coming months will be taking the film to Baltimore, Denver, Portland, Maine and Portland, Ore.. For an independent film it is about giving a film time to find an audience Craven said.

Unlike a Hollywood film with a marketing budget of at least $50 million, an independent film is working "under the radar" and has to work much harder at getting exposure.

"There's no question for an independent filmmaker that keeping it out on the road and trying to bring it to life in various settings is how you give it life."

Craven's time on the road has paid off with the film getting rave reviews from Variety, the Boston Globe and New York Times. "Disappearances" is also Craven most successful film since his debut with "Where the Rivers Flow North."

"Of the films I've made those are the two films that have gone the furthest. 'Where the Rivers Flow North' in its first wave of video release sold 35,000 copies at a higher price than what currently is the market DVD. This film ('Disappearances') has sold 60,000 copies."

Craven and "Disappearances" were also selected to be part of the American Film Institute (AFI) 20/20 Project which is a cultural exchange program sending nine American filmmakers and 11 international filmmakers around the world to show their work.

"It grows out of a long held desire for cultural exchange and a recent understanding that the United States needs to stimulate more positive interaction with other countries," said Craven of the project which is sponsored by American cultural agencies including the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the President's Commission for the Arts and Humanities and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Craven believes that the strained international relations that have developed since the Iraq war made it clear to the current administration that something needed to be done to create common ground and understanding between countries again.

In the fall Craven and "Disappearances" will visit Israel and Palestinian territory, Venezuela and China. The film has already screened in South Africa and England where it was well received. Although the foreign rights for his other films have been sold and his work screened at international film festivals this is the first time Craven has traveled with his films.

"In South Africa the film played pretty well because the way South Africans responded to it was to say: 'we communicate with our ancestors, our ancestors are present and we see that as a theme in the film and we can relate to that.'"

Although still busy touring with "Disappearances" Craven is already looking toward his next project, but as an independent filmmaker it is always a struggle.

Independent is a buzz word right, with films like "Brokeback Mountain," "History of Violence" and "Capote" being slapped with the indie label, but according to Craven while these are well made films that challenge audiences to think outside the mainstream box they aren't true independents.

"The way that kind of filmmaking becomes the new independent - which is not really independent, it is studio money - makes the real independent at a disadvantage."

Studio independents, as Craven calls them, come from specialty production companies owned by the studios that have "many more resources available and more talent they can attract."

But Craven has been lucky so far at attracting big names for his films. Throughout the years he has secured the likes of Michael J. Fox, Rip Torn and Martin Sheen.

"I think for actors that work seriously and want to be challenged and want to remain active even when they may no longer be the hottest name in town, that those are the actors you can get to sometimes."

Still at the end of the day it is a lot of luck, who you know and good timing that helps land bigger names.

"In the case of Michael J. Fox in the first picture, it was a friend of mine restoring his old Vermont farm house in South Woodstock, Vt."

But now, looking ahead casting for the next project, Craven is stumped.

"I am trying to cast a new movie and in some ways it is like starting from scratch, I don't know exactly what to do. I'm researching which actors might be right for it and which actors because of their own circumstance may take an interest in it. You don't go about pitching Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. You're just not going to get through."

What this new project will hold is still unclear, but while the old project still has legs, Craven will keep traveling with it. After all, you never know who is watching.

"Part of the reason we go and fight very hard in distribution is to demonstrate to the actors that we will stand behind the picture and we'll get it out there. That helps us a bit because that means the films have been seen, they are known to a certain extent by the acting community."

'Zodiac' is an engrossing, intelligent thriller

“Director David Fincher made one of the darkest, most gruesome serial killer movies with “Seven.” With “Zodiac” he returns to the genre that put him on the map, but the second time around his approach is a bit different.

Fincher is one of the most stylish filmmakers working today. In “The Game” and “Fight Club” he concocted black humored mind-twisting thrillers where very little was what it seemed. For “Panic Room” he brought visual flair to a straight forward cat-and-mouse game. Some critics complained his style was showy simply for the sake of showing off.

For those expecting the flash of Fincher’s previous films, the feel of “Zodiac” may be disappointing, but Fincher makes the right choices. The film adopts the tone of gritty seventies films like “All the President’s Men” and “Serpico” and plays as well as the best films from the era. Fincher has created a film that is engrossing for the entirety of its nearly three-hour running time.

“Zodiac” tells the true story of the investigation of the unsolved case of the Zodiac killer who terrorized San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s. The killer toyed with the press and police by sending encoded messages to newspapers asking them to be published or he’d kill again.

The film opens with the Zodiac’s first murder. Set to Donovan’s “Hurdy Gurdy Man” the kill is shocking in its abruptness. Fincher only showcases a few encounters with the Zodiac killer. There is no gore or blood in the film. Unlike the “Saw” and “Hostel” franchises,” Fincher doesn’t rely on shock to scare, but builds a sense of menace and danger. This holds most true for a murder that occurs in broad daylight at a lake. Most thrillers play off our fears of danger lurking in the dark, but by flipping that convention, Fincher crafts a sequence that dries the mouth and gets the stomach butterflies fluttering.

In the wake of “Silence of the Lambs” most serial killer films have focused on getting into the head of the killer and psychoanalyzing their motives. The fictional killers of film have elaborate methods to their murders, but more often than not it all stems from being unloved as a child.

What makes “Zodiac” stand out in the crowd of generic serial killer movies is that it’s less about the killer and more about the obsession that grips his pursuers, which include San Francisco Chronicle reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), San Francisco Chronicle political cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) and inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo).

The film’s pacing while at times slow keeps things moving with a growing sense of anxiety as the film’s lead characters, especially Gyllenhaal become fixated on discovering the identity of the Zodiac killer.

The cast from the leads to the film’s smaller characters is astonishingly good especially Downey’s Avery, a scene stealer that tosses out cynical, caustic one-liners. He reluctantly takes Gyllenhaal’s Goldsmith under his wing before succumbing to drugs and alcohol.

We all know about Downey’s sordid drug laced past and that knowledge gives an extra weight to the performance. Following “A Scanner Darkly,” this is Downey’s second recent film playing a drug addict. Downey is clearly working through his demons. Where “Darkly” was a tongue-in-cheek comic turn, in “Zodiac” he taps into his own life to add to depth to the usual drugged out cliché.

The film really has two halves. The first focuses on the Downey and Gyllenhaal alliance to discover the Zodiac’s identity. The second half has Gyllenhaal form a new semi-partnership with Toschi. Ruffalo, a talented actor who has been stuck in fluff such as “13 Going on 30” and “Just Like Heaven” is excellent as the weary cop who inspired Steve McQueen’s “Bullitt.” The worn out cop is a tired archetype, but Ruffalo rises above it, but playing it with sincerity and understatement.

Brian Cox (“The Bourne Supremacy”) as a celebrity psychiatrist, Anthony Edwards (“E.R.”) as Toschi’s partner and John Carroll Lynch (“The Drew Carey Show”) as one of lead suspects all provide solid support. But Gyllenhaal is the film’s lead and it is up to him to carry the film.

Gyllenhaal portrayal of Goldsmith as he slowly and completely gives his life over to his pursuit of the Zodiac killer is nuanced and effective. His fixation grows from mere curiosity into a need to know the truth. Everything including his wife (the underused Chloë Sevigny) and kids falls to the wayside.

In a way obsession is the film’s ultimate villain and the film’s driving force. Many have fallen to the obsession of the Zodiac, reportedly, even Fincher whose own digging for information yielded new clues. Fincher captures how unhealthy fascination can consume someone and that’s what makes “Zodiac” more than just another serial killer movie.

The Wright/Pegg/Frost team is still 'hot'

““Hot Fuzz” is a very funny film. It is also unfortunately another example of a film falling victim to poor marketing. Commercials for the DVD focus on the frenzied humor of the film’s final 30 minutes, implying that the entire film features the same fast paced, in your face humor. It doesn’t. The slow build and dead pan humor of the majority of the film may turn off viewers hoping for the nonstop irreverence of the trailer.

“Hot Fuzz” is writer/director Edgar Wright, co-writer/star Simon Pegg and co-lead Nick Frost’s follow up to the zombie comedy “Shaun of the Dead.” As a creative team they are hard to beat when it comes to comedy that is a balanced mixture of smart and stupid with subtle and outrageous.

Their latest film takes on the action buddy comedy. In many ways it is bigger and harder target to lampoon than the zombie genre. There’s a danger in satirizing films that are already funny as has been proven in the latest crop of parody films such as “Date Movie” and “Epic Movie.” If the new film isn’t funnier than the original subject matter it renders itself useless.

Wright and Pegg don’t follow the current parody trend of directly lifting and altering scenes from recent films. Instead, much like Mel Brooks best films, “Hot Fuzz” features an original story that reduces all the worst aspects of the action comedy genre to a punch line.

The film’s set-up is inspired. Hot shot London cop Nicholas Angel (Pegg) is transferred to small town England, not because he’s reckless, but rather he does his job too well and he is making his colleagues (played by top Brit comedic actors Martin Freeman, Steve Coogan and Bill Nighy) look bad.

Angel is saddled with the town drunk Danny (Frost) as his partner in a town with seemingly no crime. Of course that isn’t the case and soon it becomes clear that a series of “accidents” are really a murder conspiracy. Naturally – as genre convention dictates – no one believes Angel even when it is absolutely ludicrous not to. The film mines some of its best humor from Angel’s fellow officers’ – including the wonderfully aloof Jim Broadbent – complete inability to listen to reason.

The middle section of the film actually plays more like a comedic homage to mystery thrillers a long the lines of “The Omen” and “The Wicker Man.” The film even features Edward Woodward the star of the original “Wicker Man.”

Of the film’s supporting cast ex-Bond Timothy Dalton is the easy stand out. It is a wonderfully goofy performance and it is clear Dalton is having fun and letting loose. Wright and Pegg give Dalton some of the best dialogue – cryptic exchanges that everyone except Angel ignores – that Dalton delivers with smirky glee.

As was true with “Shaun,” Pegg and Frost have great chemistry together. Pegg as the by the book cop gives a nearly flawless comedic performance and Frost’s loyal lap dog is the perfect balance. The way their dynamic gently mocks the male bonding of the action genre is one of the film’s best running gags.

Danny’s knowledge of being a cop comes from the very films “Hot Fuzz” is ultimately taking the piss out of. Angel insists the life of a cop is nothing like it is portrayed in movies. That is until the film becomes exactly like one of those films in a blaze of uproarious glory.

Jerry Bruckheimer productions such as “Bad Boys 2” are the films main target in the climatic conclusion and Wright gets all the over-the-top action right with Angel and Danny having to take on the whole town.

“Hot Fuzz” is long and takes it time, but in a way that is a part of the satire as Bruckheimer productions are notoriously bloated. The drawn out pacing of the film may not work for everyone, but makes the spectacular finale all the sweeter.

LeBeouf shines in 'Disturbia'

““Disturbia” is a derivative, but surprisingly effective thriller that is carried by the charm of Shia LeBeouf. He is perhaps the least likely rising star currently working in Hollywood and the best because of it.

LeBeouf has the same sort of off-beat charisma of young John Cusack and Tom Hanks. When “Disturbia” devolves into a genre pic, LeBeouf’s light comedic touch and low key persona makes the film seem smarter and stronger than it truly is. Much like his leading role in the summer blockbuster “Transformers,” he makes this material work better than it should. With these two films LeBeouf proves he is a star.

In “Disturbia,” LeBeouf’s Kale is an emotionally distraught teen, who gets into a long list of trouble following the death of his father. Kale finds himself under house arrest after he punches out an antagonizing teacher. When his mother (Carrie-Anne Moss, “The Matrix”) cuts him off from his video games and internet, Kale’s eyes begin to wander to the suburban windows that surround him. Soon he begins to suspect that one of his neighbors (David Morse, “16 Blocks”) is a murder.

“Disturbia” is essentially a teen version of “Rear Window,” but the film is better than that description. Despite the teen cast this rises above the dreaded teen movie branding and plays as a straight thriller. There are teen hijinx early on to help establish Kale as a likable protagonist before things turn dark, but the film is less pandering the average teen film.

The film is almost able to justify its update of the Hitchcock classic because of the advancement of technology. Where Jimmy Stewart only had a telephoto lens, Kale cleverly utilizes digital video cameras, cell phone cameras and his computer during his community watch.

Like “Rear Window,” the film is about voyeurism and its dangers. Before Kale’s binoculars start peering into the bloody garage of Morse’s Mr. Turner the object of Kale’s gaze is his sexy new neighbor Ashley (Sarah Roemer, “The Grudge 2”). When Kale is caught as a peeping Tom, Ashley doesn’t call the cops, but joins in on the spying.

There’s an interesting dynamic that could’ve been explored here: what happens when a voyeur’s subject crosses to the other side? But screenwriter Carl Ellsworth (“Red Eye”) misses the opportunity to explore this and the chance to create a strong female character in the process.

Instead he reduces Ashley – flatly played by Roemer – to nothing more than a male fantasy come true. She is a cookie cutter love interest there to make out with the hero and need rescuing. It is insulting to the viewer and the film’s only true false step, aside from a few stretches of credibility when the film kicks into full thriller mode.

Luckily Morse’s performance more than compensates for things. He is menacing without being over-the-top. Morse is soft spoken, even congenial and does a nice job throwing at least some ambiguity into whether he truly is a murderer. When he realizes he is being watched it is fun to watch Morse toy with LeBeouf, especially in scenes where he flirts with Kale’s mom.

The film’s final act turns to horror movie cliché and is a bit preposterous, but is so well executed that the ridiculousness doesn’t occur until the credits roll. Director D.J. Caruso (“Taking Lives”), who does a good job keeping things on edge throughout, lets the tension snap in the final third and earns some good jumps.

The best scenes of the last stretch involve Kale’s comedic sidekick Ronnie (the funny Aaron Yoo) sneaking into Turner’s garage. The sequence is seen through Ronnie’s shaky, grainy digital camera and earns some “Blair Witch”-esque scares.

“Disturbia” is certainly flawed, but in the end it entertains. If you are willing to suspend disbelief and go with the flow a good time can be had.

Grint trades wizard lessons for 'Driving Lessons'

“The stars of the “Harry Potter” franchise will be set for life once the series completes its seven film arc. They will never have to work again, but if they choose to they will first need to get out from underneath the large shadow cast by the very films that made them famous.

The actors playing Harry, Ron and Hermione (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson) will likely have difficulty avoiding type casting and forever being associated with their Hogwarts counterparts following the series’ conclusion. Radcliffe chose nudity on London’s West End in the play “Equus” to create distance from his screen wizardry. Grint has chosen something a bit tamer: the small coming of age film “Driving Lessons.”

Grint stars as Ben, a shy, repressed 17-year old stuck between a passive priest father (Nicholas Farrell) and a domineering, overzealous evangelical Christian mother (Laura Linney, “Breach”). Ben’s father has an open-minded, open-hearted view of faith and warns in a sermon that “the more someone parades their Christianity for the benefit of others the less I am inclined to trust the Christianity they claim.”

The comment is a subtle jab at his wife who uses her faith to manipulate others and justify her actions, even when those actions are pure hypocrisy. Linney, forcing a Brit accent, plays this well, with an ever joyous grin trying to mask and control other emotions.

Ben’s life has been so dominated by his mother’s will that he is almost afraid to develop an emotion beyond straight-faced apathy. He channels all his feeling and thoughts into brooding, visually rich poetry. When he tries to woo a girl with one of his poems he is shot down with a direct, “you’re just too weird.”

The film’s central plot and character thrust centers on Ben taking a job helping Evie (Julie Walters), a has-been actress with a slight drinking problem and a desire to go camping.

Walters, essentially playing a variation of her character from “Billy Elliot,” seems cursed to play foul mouthed over-the-top eccentrics. She does the role justice though chewing the scenery and giving speeches as if she were playing to the back of the theater. But she also downplays the flamboyant tendencies of a stage actress to show vulnerability and insecurity.

Ben becomes her only friend and the only person she can trust when a camping trip leads to a misadventure in Scotland where Evie is suppose to do a poetry reading. The trip marks Ben’s first deviance of his mother and the first time he allows himself to loosen up especially when a Scottish girl takes him dancing.

It could be easy to dismiss Grint’s performance as flat and lifeless, but Ben is someone who is learning to break out of his shell and trust himself. Ben never completely bursts out from his repressed nature, but Grint shines in the small moments of Ben letting go. Grint doesn’t show extraordinary range, but proves he can be more than a comedic sidekick.

There is a definite off-beat chemistry between Grint and Walters and he makes a good straight man to her antics. The screen dynamic that develops is that of friendship, but some will feel the need to compare the film to “Harold and Maude.”

All of this is well worn material and “Driving Lessons” doesn’t attempt to break new ground, but as far as light Brit comedy/drama goes it is a pleasant experience and for “Potter” fans it is the opportunity to see their beloved Ron in a different light.

Soderbergh's admirable disappointment

“Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney’s production company Section Eight (which is closing down this year as Clooney starts his own company, Smoke House) put out films that went against the Hollywood grain with subject matter or style that was often challenging or unique.

The most mainstream fare the company produced was the “Ocean’s” movies, which were more or less done on a whim to support the more experimental projects Soderbergh and Clooney wanted to take on.

Soderbergh is a filmmaker who balances Hollywood productions (“Traffic, “Erin Brockovich”) with smaller, risky projects that may have little appeal. “The Good German” falls into the latter category. It is a film authentically shot in the style of 1940s film noir using only cameras, sound and lighting equipment from that time period.

“The Good German” gets the look of the era down perfectly. Lighting, shot composition, editing and the beautiful black and white cinematography all come together to recreate a bygone time. In terms of sheer filmmaking gusto it is quite an achievement. It looks like it was made then not now.

It is wonderful to see the actors, Clooney, Cate Blanchett and Tobey Maguire, in this style of filmmaking. Blanchett and Clooney have a classic movie star quality that is captured here. Everyone plays the stylized acting of the time well, especially Blanchett who fits so well into this world she seems almost more suited for that time period than our own.

Maguire has a lot of fun getting in touch with his dark side playing a character who is scheming and cold. It is a small, but memorable role that is a nice counterpoint to his current big screen escapades in “Spider-Man 3.”

The film’s problem is by directly recreating a portion of film history, the movie collapses under the weight of that history. So much time was put into reconstructing a look and feel that the film doesn’t have much personality of its own.

The plot, which takes place in the chaotic weeks after Germany surrendered in World War II, centers on a war journalist (Clooney) trying to solve a murder that no one wants solved. He is also trying to rekindle a romance with a former lover (Blanchett), who is desperately trying to get out of Berlin.

The comparisons to “Casablanca” are unavoidable – Soderbergh even visually lifts the end nearly verbatim – and it only makes “The Good German’s” story and dialogue problems more glaring.

“Casablanca” was a film that was impeccably scripted, with colorful characters and snappy dialogue. “The Good German’s” dialogue on the other hand feels pieced together from 1940s espionage and noir films and lacks zest.

The screenplay by Paul Attanasio adds the profanity that the production code in place during the 1940s prohibited, but it doesn’t anything to the proceedings. Not being able to do or say certain things on screen forced writers and directors to develop creative ways to get what they wanted across. It is often why the dialogue of that era is so rich.

For fans of film history, “The Good German” is equal parts admirable and disappointing. The look, the feel, the acting is all there and it is watchable, but if all those element had been in the employ of sharper writing the film could’ve been great in its own right instead of being a reconfiguration of other great films of the past.

Kazan's 'Face in the Crowd' still relevant

“A Face in the Crowd,” a dark satire on media and politics, becomes timelier with each passing year. As we watch candidates begin their race for the presidency well before the gun has even been fired, its relevancy becomes all the more apparent.

The film stars Andy Griffith in his feature film role, but this isn’t Griffith we came to love as the good hearted sheriff of Mayberry in “The Andy Griffith Show” and later as the good hearted lawyer “Matlock.” In “A Face in the Crowd” Griffith was given the opportunity to show his darker side.

As the film opens Griffith seems to be in familiar territory as a sweet, but naïve country bumpkin, whose singing and charisma catch the attentions of a TV producer (Patricia Neal). Griffith become the star of a popular TV show and with the popularity comes power. Naturally his new found power corrupts. Soon Griffith’s clout in the world of television makes him a valuable asset to political candidates who see him as a way to the average man’s vote.

The corrupting influence of power is hardly a new concept, but Kazan (“On the Waterfront”) crafted an eerily prophetic film about the ever-blurring worlds of entertainment and politics. Made in the early years of television, the film saw that this new medium was, for better or quite possibly worse, the future.

“A Face in the Crowd” also features an early performance from Walter Matthau as one TV producers to make Griffith a star only to watch in horror at the monster he becomes. Matthau’s sardonic delivery is showcased well here and steals several scenes, but this is Griffth’s film.

Griffith, in a brilliant performance that he never matched, becomes a cold, calculating megalomaniac using his charm to manipulate all around him. Watching him switch from a man of the people when the camera is rolling to oozing contempt for his audience once the camera is off is chilling, perhaps all the more so since Griffith is forever associated with his nice guy personas.

In perhaps the film’s most powerful scene Griffith is shown couching politicians on how to play to the camera and win audiences. For modern viewers who know what television has done to the election process it is an unsettling scene that reveals a film that truly was ahead of its time. Still fresh and important today, “A Face Crowd” is an unseen classic, that isn’t easy to find, but worth seeking out.

Take a memo: 'Messengers' is all style, little substance

“The Messengers” is the latest film to attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Asian horror and while it isn’t a complete failure it lacks any personality of its own.

After the success of 2002’s “The Ring,” a remake of Japan’s “Ringu,” the floodgates were opened for more of the same. Remakes of other Asian horror films such as “The Grudge” and “Dark Water” followed.

In some cases the original directors were brought on board to direct these remakes. Are Americans so afraid of subtitles that we are reduced to hiring foreign directors to redo their own work in English?

“The Messengers” is the English language debut for Hong Kong directors the Pang Brothers. Their film “The Eye” is being remade – not by them – starring Jessica Alba. “The Messengers” is not a remake, but it matters well be because it doesn’t have a single original idea.

Initially entitled “Scarecrow,” the film focuses on a family leaving behind a troubled past in Chicago to become sunflower farmers at an isolated farmhouse in North Dakota. Nothing says family bonding like moving to the middle of nowhere, the Torrance family of Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining” learned that all too well. Yes, someone will go mad and chase the family around with an ax in “The Messengers.”

Early forms of screenwriter Mark Wheaton’s script were about a scarecrow that came to life because of dark forces from the house’s sordid past. The Pang Brothers thought it would be better to have various spirits throughout the house instead. At the end of the day, the film is just another haunted house film.

Wheaton took the Pangs’ various suggestions and the resulting script is a hodge-podge of Asian horror motifs. All the familiar elements are in place: vengeful spirits, pasty ghosts, icky dark water and a child connected to the spirit world. It is all cobbled together in a way that says nothing new or fresh.

Just for good measure, the film throws in a pesky group of ominous crows that hang around the farm and occasionally attack people. The obvious lift is Hitchcock’s “The Birds,” and the filmmakers admit as much. Even so lingering birds will also remain creepy and the film yields some of its best material from these spooky black birds.

Lack of originality doesn’t necessitate that the film is bereft of scares. The Pangs know how to compose atmospheric shots with eerie lighting and awkward angles. The movie is big on cheap scares that make you jump, but builds little prolonged tension. It is a movie best watched in the dark with a good sound system.

The film’s lead is rising teen-star Kristen Stewart in her first lead role. She showed talent playing Jodie Foster’s daughter in 2002’s “Panic Room” and has become an attractive young woman, but she isn’t given much to do in “The Messengers.”

Stewart spends the first part of the film looking sullen about her family’s move and then the rest of the film pouting because no one believes she sees and is being attacked by ghosts. She acts scared well enough and has a definite screen presence, but this is not the film to showcase her acting chops.

Dylan McDermott (“The Practice”) and Penelope Ann Miller as Stewart’s parents are sufficient, with McDermott leaving the stronger impression. McDermott and Stewart share a couple father/daughter scenes that hold weight, but they are out shined by similar thematic scenes that Stewart has with John Corbett (“My Big Fat Greek Wedding”) as a drifter that is hired as farm hand.

“The Messengers” isn’t a bad film, it is just a standard one. If you want quick, disposable scares you can do much worse, but if you want goosebumps that stick you will have to look elsewhere.

An uninspired 'ride' through comic book cliche

“Over the last decade “X-Men,” “Spider-Man” and “Batman Begins” raised the bar of what could be done in a comic book movie. These films placed as much importance on character and story as lavish special effect set pieces. The same can not be said of “Ghost Rider.”

With most of the bigger comic book titles already gracing the screen, studios are desperate for any book with brightly colored panels and people talking in bubbles. But for every “V for Vendetta” or “Sin City” there are numerous duds like “Ghost Rider.”

There is little to distinguish “Ghost Rider” from the flood of comic book adaptation on the market. Its story is predictable and dull. The love interest, in the form of curvy Eva Mendes, is stuck in a romantic subplot that is poorly inked in from other, more interesting movies. To top it off the effects are cheap looking and not even on par with standards from a decade ago.

Nicolas Cage stars as Johnny Blaze, a stunt bike rider who sells his soul to the devil (Peter Fonda) to heal his father’s cancer. Of course this being the devil, there is a dirty trick to the deal. With his soul signed over to the devil Johnny will become the Ghost Rider whenever the devil calls upon him. With the help of a mysterious caretaker (Sam Elliot in cowboy autopilot), Johnny rebels and goes hero instead of minion.

Fonda’s casting is a knowing nod to “Easy Rider,” Fonda’s best known film and probably the best biker movie ever made. The idea of Fonda as the film’s main villain is enticing and Fonda reads his dialogue with flare, but his screen time is limited.

"Ghost Rider" instead must do battle with Blackheart (Wes Bentley), the devil’s son, who has gathered some of hell’s demons to takeover for his old man and bring hell to earth. Bentley, who showed such promise in “American Beauty,” is a completely unthreatening villain and boring to watch.

The only thing that holds the thing together is Cage, in one of his more charismatic performances as far as this sort of fare goes. Cage is a hit or miss performer, a talented actor who has a tendency to appear in films beneath his abilities. As Johnny Blaze he brings some flavor to the film. His dialogue delivery walks the fine line of winking and sincerity and he does a nice job fleshing out the underdeveloped tortured soul aspect of Johnny.

The problem is once Johnny turns into Ghost Rider, Cage is replaced with a flaming skeleton special effect that is cool looking for about a minute and then sort of ho-hum the rest of the time. Cage’s voice is replaced with a garbled, demon voice that is at time incomprehensible.

The action scenes are not particularly exciting. Ghost Rider riding about on his flaming bike is fun, but the ghouls he must battle are pathetic looking. It is clear most of the money went to creating the visuals for the Ghost Rider character. The villains look like they were thrown in as an after thought and are poorly conceived CGI creations.

Writer/director Mark Steven Johnson adds some nice touches such as Johnny’s routine of listening to the Carpenters before one of his deadly jumps and his habit of drinking martini glasses full of jelly beans. These little details add a fleeting sense of character to the film, but they quickly become swallowed up in the routine of the story. Johnson is already promising another ride for “Ghost Rider.” Perhaps it is Johnson that made a pact with the devil.

A dark, beautiful fairy tale for grown ups

“Pan’s Labyrinth” is a fantasy film, but is by no means kid’s stuff. It is a graphic, violent film that is very much for adults.

Writer/director Guillermo Del Toro has crafted a fairy tale in the original tradition of such writers as the Brothers Grimm. After years of sanitizing such stories we have forgotten how often twisted and tormented fairy tales could be. They didn’t always leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling. Del Toro knows this and doesn’t pull back from going to dark, frightening places.

The film is set in fascist Spain in 1944. As the film opens, a captain (Sergi López) has just married a woman (Ariadna Gil) who is pregnant with his son. The Captain reluctantly takes in his new wife and her daughter Ofelia (Ivana Baquero), but there’s no sense of love or compassion. He cares only for his unborn son.

Ofelia meets a fairy that leads her to a labyrinth on the captain’s property. There she is told by a faun that she is the long lost re-incarnation of the princess of a magical kingdom who can only return by completing three tasks.

The film recalls numerous stories, books and films including “Alice and Wonderland,” “The Chronicles of Narnia,” “The Shining,” “Beetlejuice” and numerous others. Its story is familiar, but its tone is unique.

Where most fantasy films spend most of their time in the fantasy land, much of “Pan’s Labyrinth” is rooted in a bleak reality. The captain is a sadist who takes cold pleasure in using a plethora of tools to slowly torture people.

There are bursts of sudden violence that are shocking, even for a country desensitized by the gruesome horror of films such as the “Saw” franchise. The captain’s comeuppance and its aftermath are particularly disturbing.

If the fantasy world Ofelia enters is an escape it is only marginally so. An encounter with a creature with eyes in his hands and a hunger for blood is the stuff of nightmares and even the intentions of her guide the faun are ambiguous at best. And yet this world offers Ofelia something that war torn Spain cannot: hope.

Del Toro, who has worked within Hollywood on films such as “Blade 2” and “Hellboy”, says he never could’ve made this film in Hollywood. It is a fairy tale for grown ups that creates a genuine sense of menace and dread. You fear the worst for the young heroine. It isn’t clear that a happy ending is guaranteed.

The film is astonishing on the level of visuals and deserved its Academy Awards for art direction, cinematography and make up. The creature effects and make up on the faun, eye-hands monster, fairies and a giant frog are nothing short of amazing.

In this post-CGI era of filmmaking it is nice to see effects that haven’t come from a computer. There is an immediacy and physicality to the visuals in the film that is often lacking from effects that are too obviously computer generated. There is real beauty in the film. Del Toro’s camera, in both real and fantasy worlds, takes its time with slow, tracking shots that absorb the details.

Del Toro drains reality of color, where the fantasy land bursts with color, but in both cases there is a slight other worldly quality. You are reminded that both worlds are seen through the eyes of a child and that it is probable that one of the worlds could by entirely of her own creation. The film doesn’t offer answers in that regard and leaves it the viewer to decide if the fantasy is real.

'Music and Lyrics' is an amusing diversion

“Music and Lyrics” is the sort of lightweight, fluff you expect from a movie starring Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore. For romantic comedy fans this will go down easy, but it lacks the crossover appeal of some of Grant’s other films, most notably, “About a Boy.”

The premise – or the excuse to have two seemingly opposite personalities fall in love – centers on a former 80s pop icon, Alex Fletcher (Grant) getting a lucky break when he is commissioned to write a song in less than a week for teen pop star Cora Corman (newcomer Haley Bennett). The only problem is he needs a lyrist; enter Sophie (Barrymore) his quirky plant waterer with a way with rhyming.

Grant has grown well into his romantic persona. Gone is the awkward, nebbish, man-boy, replaced with a more confident model. Few living actors can toss a barbed one-liner or a charming phrase with equal aplomb. Grant makes it look easy.

Barrymore’s sunny, slightly offbeat personality plays well off of Grant. They have a pleasant chemistry and banter well with each other. The film is at its strongest when it focuses on the creative process between Grant and Barrymore which yields some real laughs. There is a sense of a rapport and attraction developing as the songwriting progresses. Their professional relationship segues nicely into a romantic one.

But the film plays its cards too early and the song is finished with 45 minutes left in the film. The film goes into autopilot and let’s formula set in with a fight breaking our lovers apart only to have them reunite in the end.

Audiences expect this inevitable development from this sort of film, but the dispute feels like a mere a plot device rather than a natural progression of the story and as a result the final stretch of the film sags badly. The film regains the viewer’s goodwill with a strong finish at the big concert presentation of the song.

The song, “A Way Back into Love,” is a catchy, lyrically strong ballad and Grant, who does all of his own singing, has a surprisingly good voice. All this is important to the success of the film. If you’re making a movie set in the music world the music better hold up to repeat listenings. One of the factors that killed the music industry satire, “Be Cool” was all of the supposedly amazing music being produced in the film was rubbish.

That isn’t a problem here. All the music, with the exception of the intentionally bad Cora Corman material, is solid pop music. The film opens with a hilarious and spot-on parody of 80s music videos with “Pop Goes My Heart.” From the hair, to the dress to the music to the dancing, it is all so accurate it could have genuinely been from that era. The song itself is the sort of cheesy fun you expect from a 80s song.

Current pop is skewered with “Welcome to Bootytown.” The song is an all too accurate reflection of today’s pop. Bennett as Cora Corman nails the ditsy pop star persona. In a possible jab at Madonna, Cora has discovered Eastern mysticism, which guides her life and gives her sitar beats to gyrate her body to.

Music and Lyrics,” which also features solid supporting performances from Brad Garrett (“Everybody Loves Raymond”) as Grant’s manager and Kristen Johnston (“3rd Rock from the Sun”) as Barrymore’s sister, is a better than average romantic comedy that will satisfy its core audience.

'Alpha Dog' has bite

Writer/director Nick Cassavettes’ “Alpha Dog” shows a world of privileged suburban teens and twentysomethings playing at thug life. We’ve been shown this world before and told of its dangers, but “Alpha Dog” runs deep by exploring the line between pretending to be a tough guy and really being one.

With little to no supervision or responsibility the characters in “Alpha Dog” live a life of partying with a steady stream of drugs and alcohol and breathe in an atmosphere of testosterone, homophobia and machismo.

“Alpha Dog” chronicles the true story of the escalating beef between a would-be drug dealer, Johnny Truelove (Emile Hirsh, “Lords of Dogtown”) and Jake Mazursky (Ben Foster, “X-Men 3”). When Jake comes up short on a deal Johnny kidnaps Jake’s 15-year old brother Zach (Anton Yelchin).

Zach is perfectly content being a hostage as he is tired of his overbearing mother (Sharon Stone) and wants the escape. It is left to Justin Timberlake’s Frankie to watch after Zach. He likes the kid and invites Zach to join in the party life. Things are light, fun and it all feels more like hanging out than anything dangerous, but there’s underlining menace to the whole affair.

Timberlake gives a surprisingly strong performance as a nice guy who doesn’t necessarily believe the thug life he plays at. Some will pounce at the fact that pop star Timberlake isn’t entirely believable as a gangster, but that’s the point.

Frankie wears the uniform and lives the lifestyle, but is more a goofball than a hard ass. Timberlake gives a likable performance and develops a good chemistry with Yelchin, which yields emotional payoff when things turn dark.

As the title suggests, Johnny is trying to be the top dog in his circle of faux-tough guys. He walks the walk well and has a group of loyal minions. He drinks, smokes, fights and talks hard. Hirsh gets the surface toughness down, but knows that to a degree it is only act. He gives Johnny an undercurrent of insecurity that doesn’t materialize in dialogue, but in quiet gestures and actions.

Johnny is a phony when compared to Jake, whose violent outbursts reveal a sociopath in the making. Foster, a former child actor who is making his mark as an adult by playing intense, often frightening men, gives a dynamic performance here by making Jake more than just a psycho. Jake loves his brother and isn’t necessarily a bad person, he has just started down the wrong path and can’t turn around.

“Alpha Dog” is the kind of film that blurs the line between independent and mainstream cinema. While it features big names like Stone, Timberlake and Bruce Willis as Johnny’s father, it is not as glossy or neat as the typical Hollywood film. It is commendable that Cassavettes made it. After the success of his previous film, “The Notebook” he could’ve gone on to make cookie cutter romances for the rest of his career.

Even so, Cassavettes’ direction is at times questionable. Large portions of the film are so frustratingly dark that you can barely make out what’s happening. It is clear he is attempting to distance himself from the polished sheen “The Notebook,” but he is trying too hard for indie cred.

That being said, he has pulled powerful performances from everyone involved, even Stone who is heartbreaking in one scene as a mother who has hit bottom. As a writer, Cassavettes has crafted a strong cautionary drama of weight and substance.

'Prada' sends the wrong message to girls

On the surface, I enjoyed “The Devil Wears Prada,” a comedic, but not quite satiric take on the cutthroat fashion world. Meryl Streep’s fast-talking, demanding, fashion magazine editor is played to near perfection. It is a sharp characterization that adds substance to what could’ve been broad caricature. Streep even manages to elicit sympathy for her supposed she-devil.

Emily Blunt as Streep’s acid tongued second hand person also scores laughs, as does Stanley Tucci as a gay fashion expert that works at the magazine. That he doesn’t fall entirely into stereotype is commendable. Anne Hathaway is a likable enough, but an unremarkable lead.

While I admired the work of Streep, Blunt and Tucci, the film left me uneasy, but I shrugged it off until a friend told me she thought the film was anti-feminist and in some regards anti-human.

The film is working within a formula, one usually told with men, but the arc is the same. A cold, cynical, powerful, but charismatic business mogul takes a young protégé under their wing, the newbie begins to change and sacrifice their own identity to succeed, but ultimately sees the error in their ways and sets things right.

This story has been told numerous times, but almost always from the male prospective. Does the fact that the audience doesn’t question the gender switch to the formula show the progress women have made? Typically, in this type of film women are regulated to the one-dimensional role of the sidetracked girlfriend. In the case of “Prada” it is Adrian Garner in the equally flat boyfriend role.

Despite the gender switch, “Prada” doesn’t diverge from its formula and that is the problem. With women in the lead roles, there is more at risk, more of a struggle, but this is largely glossed over.

In the male version of this story, when the guy goes back to his girlfriend after forsaking the soul eating job there’s a sense that he has priorities straight. This is a trite Hollywood ending no matter the gender, but the same develop in “Prada” feels even more so because of its presentation.

Hathaway’s character doesn’t want to work in fashion. She wants to be a serious journalist, and turns down her fashion magazine job in spite of the fact that she is very good at it. That she reverts to her true self and original dream is an admirable message, but as presented in the film it is done for the wrong reasons.

It is only after Hathaway is told she will become like Streep, powerful, but without love, friends or any true family that Hathaway runs back to her boyfriend and to the career in serious journalism, if you can call a job at the New York Post serious journalism.

The heavy implication of this scene is that all women that achieve the level of success that Streep does have lives that are bereft of love and meaningful relationships.

Are there women like Meryl Streep’s character in the real business world? I don’t doubt it, but there must also be examples of women who are successful both professionally and personally. Perhaps if “Prada” had offered a successful woman with a rich personal life as a counterbalance to Streep the ending wouldn’t feel so condescending.

On the flip side, it would’ve been refreshing to see Hathaway not have to go back to her estranged boyfriend. It has been done. At the end of “In Good Company,” a film that follows the same archetype, Topher Grace learns his life lesson, but doesn’t get the girl, in this case Scarlett Johansson. And he’s okay. It is still a happy ending, just not in the traditional sense.

If “Prada” had taken a similar approach it not only would have broken from the conventional ending, but it would have shown that it is possible to be alone and happy and would represent a message of a strong independent woman.

Instead, Streep’s character is unhappy as a successful, independent woman because she always put work before her relationships. This is a fairly timeless message, but once again there is an inference that all successful women are alone and unhappy. It leaves a nasty aftertaste.

That isn’t the most off-putting aspect of the film though. The way “Prada” presents weight is dangerous, especially for a film targeted at the teenage girl demographic. Throughout the film, Hathaway is referred to as fat. The film even says what the “bad” size is.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 90 percent of those who have eating disorders are women between the ages of 12 and 25. There is enough pressure for girls to be thin, there doesn’t need to be an Oscar nominated film telling girls the “good” and “bad” sizes.

Hathaway is an attractive, healthy looking woman that she’d take a role like this is disheartening. She must have been blinded by the opportunity to work with Streep. For that matter, you have to wonder why Streep was involved in the first place. She clearly has having fun in the role, but at what cost?

The film plays Hathaway’s “fatness” off as a joke, but it is hardly funny and the film never addresses the dangers of telling a healthy person they are fat. The consequences are not shown and everything winds up fine.

Is “Prada” an accurate reflection of the fashion world? Would a woman start to conform and lose weight to try to fit in? Sadly, that is probably all too true, but the film isn’t a hard hitting expose. If the tone of the film was more clearly satiric it might have been able to get away with this sort of irresponsibility. “Prada” borders on satirizing the fashion world, but pulls back, plays it soft and instead relies on formula.

Hathaway could’ve been shown finding success at her job without losing weight, maybe it would’ve been dishonest to the reality of that world, but it would’ve been more responsible filmmaking. At the very least, the subject matter should’ve been handled with more sensitivity.

Some might argue it is asking too much of a “light comedy” to be socially conscious, but it wouldn’t have taken much tweaking to the script to make it so. There’s an idea that comedies like “Prada” are harmless fluff that aren’t meant to be taken serious. That’s a dangerous train of thought if the film is sending the wrong message.

Unfortunately, there are numerous reality shows currently showcasing the worlds of modeling, hair styling and fashion that are putting across the same message. There is definitely the sense of needing to conform on all these shows. You do see people sacrificing their true identities. Original thinkers are often tossed aside for not following current trends. What are we telling kids? What are we telling ourselves?

Despite the advances regarding gender roles, films like “Prada” are still perpetuating the same tired ideas regarding the female body. We need to look around, be attentive and not let those feelings of unease slip away. Sometimes dangerous ideas come in the form of Oscar nominated comedies.

'Alfie' is more universal than you may think

“Alfie” would seem like the least likely candidate for a 21st century update and certainly not one with the gloss of Hollywood. The original is usually found in the romance or romantic comedy section of video stores, but doesn’t really follow the conventions of either, although it does have elements of both.

In truth, both versions are less genre films than they are character studies of a man who realizes his different-girl-a-night lifestyle, may leave him rather sad and lonely. At times his story is harrowing, at moments amusing and occasionally even perceptive. It was a hit in 1966, but only did modestly well in 2004 because, like so many films, it was a victim of mis-marketing.

The new “Alfie,” like its predecessor, isn’t a romantic comedy, but naturally was sold as one. It doesn’t deliver on the expectations of the genre and those hoping for the comfort of a pretty boy and girl getting together will be let down. Those who appreciate a film that breaks from the norm will be pleasantly surprised by the new “Alfie,” which in its own way is a daring little film.

Alfie as personified by Michael Caine in 1966 was a limo driver living it up in swinging London. Every night was a different woman, all relatively lifeless and uninteresting, merely prey to fall under Alfie’s charms. The story is so deeply rooted in the sixties, how could this work in a modern, post-feminism, post-AIDS era?

The 2004 model of Alfie comes in the form of Jude Law, who is now a limo driver in New York, which almost excuses Alfie’s sexual exploits. At one point Alfie is referred to as Euro trash, and yet women always fall for his accent.

Director and co-writer Charles Shyer does the rare feat of creating a remake that isn’t a mere retread. Shyer’s direction blends a fun mix of sixties styles and modern techniques to create a feel that is unique and fresh.

On the level of content, the film is relevant and has much to say about modern love and life. It has more depth than you expect from a film about a man interested in shallow sexual encounters. The film manages to find unexpected truths and does so with a lot of honesty and heart.

As an audience we shouldn’t like Alfie. He is a sexist, insensitive, sexual predator, who loves them and leaves them once things start getting too close. In the original, he is a father that doesn’t do the right thing; the new version softens that detail away.

In both films we get a guided tour of Alfie’s life in the form of casual, candid to the camera monologues. Maybe because we are seeing it all from his perspective we can accept his more deplorable actions. Or maybe because he is in the form of Caine, and Law we are just as taken in by his charms as the women in each of the films.

By the nature of Alfie’s lifestyle, the female characters don’t have substantial screen time. The women in the new version come and go just as quickly as they did in the original. Even so, as played by the likes of Marisa Tomei, Nia Long, Sienna Miller and Susan Sarandon, they are stronger and a bit more independent than their predecessors. They are given enough time to be more than mere cookie cutters.

Tomei, sadly, is given the least to do as Alfie’s single-mom sort of girlfriend. She is sweet and thankful isn’t written to be a nag trying to rope Alfie into a relationship. She does the dumping because she knows Alfie is no good for her or her son. Tomei is convincing in what little screen time she has.

Long is Alfie’s best mate’s ex-girlfriend that he has a fling with, which results in a pregnancy. The original Alfie’s most heartbreaking scene was an illegal abortion that still packs a wallop today. The new film can’t go down that path and have the same controversial emotional impact, but even though this parallel plotline doesn’t have the same weight as the original, writers Elaine Pope and Shyer, find a new way to explore similar emotions that is believable and valid in this modern age.

Miller’s character, a train wreck of a woman with bipolar tendencies, is given a bit more time to develop her role. It would be easy for this character to come off as nothing more than a maniac stereotype, but Miller keeps the character from going completely over-the-top. There’s a real sense of sadness when she tries to make amends for her mood swings only to be dumped.

Sarandon (like Shelley Winters before her) plays the older woman with a taste for younger men, who gets under Alfie’s skin. They are kindred spirits. Sarandon is a female version of Alfie, but she has a thicker skin than Alfie and has been at the game longer. In both films Alfie let’s his guard down only to be hurt the exact way he hurt so many himself.

This is what ultimately makes Alfie more than just a letch and allows the audience to empathize with him. As both films progress, Alfie begins to regret his lifestyle, he wants to change, but can’t break his habits. It is this development that lets the character transcend his sixties roots and become a universal character.

Alfie develops into a tragic figure as he begins to realize how empty his life is. The original ends on a down note with Alfie accepting that he can’t change and will have a lonely, loveless existence.

It is so rare in modern filmmaking that a Hollywood film doesn’t go for the ending that bares its name, so the remake of “Alfie” is sort of remarkable that it retains the spirit of original’s ending.

Alfie doesn’t go through a 180 transform. He isn’t welcomed back with open arms by one of his many lovers. The new version dares to be ambiguous and leave its conclusion open ended, in fact the film takes the gamble of concluding with the sort of question that is usually a start point not an end note. For some viewers this may frustrate, but for those seeking something different it is oh so satisfying.

A pleasant, but unremarkable 'museum'

In trying to sell “A Night at the Museum,” ads for the DVD have dubbed the film “the biggest comedy adventure in history.” Despite a game all-star cast, that is hardly the case.

A movie starring Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan (“24 Hour Party People”), Ricky Gervais (the UK’s “The Office”), Dick Van Dyke and Mickey Rooney could be a comedy smash, but instead it is only an amusing distraction for a lazy afternoon.

Movies with large comedy casts almost always disappoint because expectations are so high. Having a lot of comedy talent isn’t enough if the material isn’t sharp. “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” had practically every comic alive in 1963 and even that film wasn’t the greatest comedy adventure in history.

“Night at the Museum” is pitched at children and compared to a lot of what Hollywood tries to pass off as family entertainment, it is a vast improvement. Too often family fare panders to children and wallows in gross out humor. Movies for kids can and should be intelligent and clever.

Thankfully, “Night at the Museum” has moments of smart writing and even glimpses of wit, but unfortunately they are stuck in a plot that is formulaic and tiresome. Formula filmmaking can work if done well with a wink and knowing nod. Movies like “Elf” and “School of Rock” follow timeless templates, but do so in fun, fresh ways. “Night at the Museum” frequently allows its plot to get in the way of the comedy instead of nourishing it.

Stiller plays a deadbeat father who loves his son, but can’t seem to do anything right. He starts a new job as a night guard at New York’s Museum of Natural History only to find that the museum’s exhibits come alive at night. It goes without saying that through his new job Stiller will redeem himself and become a better person. He’ll also manage to get the girl, a pretty tour guide played by Carla Gugino (“Spy Kids”), in a tagged on romantic subplot.

Although the film’s inspired premise is never quite explored to its full potential, the film does have its fair share of funny moments. After a slow start it eventually finds its rhythm and ends brightly.

There are some great set pieces spread through out the lulls. A T-Rex skeleton that likes to play fetch with one of its rip bones is a reoccurring joke that stays funny. Wilson and Coogan as rival model miniatures, a cowboy and Roman respectively, are the highlight of the film and steal every scene they are in. Slapstick hijinks involving a troublesome monkey, cavemen and Atilla the Hun also earn a few grins and giggles.

Williams as Theodore Roosevelt isn't as funny as it sounds. Williams is naturally funny and therefore has moments that are amusing, even laugh-out-loud funny, but he’s hampered by a barely sketched subplot that has him in love with Sacajawea. Again, not as funny as it reads.

It is nice to see veterans Van Dyke and Rooney as Stiller’s night guard predecessors. They are clearly having a lot of fun and relishing the chance to let loose in a comedy again. Gervais as the museum manager plays a variation of his “Office” persona, but is largely wasted.

Stiller is fine, he can do this sort of performance in his sleep. This is basically a different shading of the characters he played in “There’s Something About Mary” and the “Meet the Parents” films. Stiller is a likable performer and he remains so here, but he has more range than this.

“Night at the Museum” isn’t a bad film. You’ll laugh, but the overall experience is underwhelming. It is like eating a fast food meal. You may leave feeling satisfied, but you know you could’ve gotten a better meal somewhere else.

'Live Free or Die' has first Claremont screening

Following the screening Monday night of "Live Free or Die," the film shot in Claremont in November 2004, co-writers/co-directors Gregg Kavet Andy Robin were asked when the sequel was coming. Robin jokingly replied Bruce Willis was working on one.

More than two years after Robin and Kavet came to Claremont to film their offbeat crime comedy, the film is getting its theatrical release across New England Friday. But first the filmmakers brought the film to the Claremont Cinema 6 for a private screening for those who helped out on the production.

"It feels very satisfying, we're very proud of it, so it is nice to be able to show it off to the people that helped us make it," Robin said in an interview before the screening.

Nick Koloski, who found all the locations for the film, was eager to see the reaction of Claremont residents.

"I enjoy the people around town getting to see the movie and hear their reaction and see what people think," Koloski said before the screening.

Robin and Kavet were also excited to see the audience response to the film from the locals.

"We are going to get a weird mix of laughs tonight," Robin said. "We're going to get laughs at scenery."

As Robin predicted, the film earned knowing laughs as audience members spotted familiar locations around town, but the story of a small-time scam artist earned laughs in its own right as well.

The film earned a round of applause as the credits rolled and loud cheers when Claremont, N.H. appeared on the screen with a list of thank yous to all the businesses that helped the production.

After the screening, Kavet, Robin and actor Paul Schneider fielded audience questions. One audience member asked how wide the film's release would actually get. Kavet and Robin stressed that it all depends on what happens this weekend.

"This first weekend is really key," Kavet said. "If you like the film tell your friends, if didn't like the film tell your enemies to go see the film."

"Live Free or Die," which won top awards at the South-by-Southwest Film Festival and Seattle International Film Festival, is a small film, but Kavet and Robin cited the success of "Napoleon Dynamite" and "Garden State," which got their starts in about 10 theaters.

"If we get a good turn out this weekend we can build from there," Robin said in an interview before the screening. "We've done well at festivals. We do super well with college kids, so if we get the critical mass it'll just keep rolling."

The film opens in Claremont, Portsmouth, Manchester, Lebanon, Boston and Providence on Friday and in Keene April 6. Where it goes from there is still unclear, but Kavet and Robin are hopeful.

"It we get to New York that would be pretty sweet," Kavet said.

'Seinfeld' writers go indie in New Hampshire

There is at least one thing to be learned from “Live Free or Die,” the film shot in Claremont in November 2004, and it may shock locals. Rutland, Vt. police vehicles are used to investigate New Hampshire crime.

Yes, clear as crystal, in the second shot of the movie is a New Hampshire officer operating a Rutland police car. It is a minor detail perhaps, but one that could amuse Granite State residents.

“It became an unfortunate theme choice,” co-writer/co-director Gregg Kavet said of the car seen throughout “Live Free or Die,” which was originally going to be shot in Rutland before Kavet and co-writer/co-director Andy Robin discovered Claremont. “It was really a fictional New Hampshire town we were trying to do.”

Locals will get to see Claremont on the big screen when “Live Free or Die” opens at the Claremont Cinema 6 March 30. The film will also be playing in other cities throughout New Hampshire including Lebanon, Manchester, Portsmouth and Keene as well as in Boston and Providence.

Kavet and Robin, two of the writers of “Seinfeld,” originally developed “Live Free or Die,” which won top awards at the 2006 South By Southwest Film Festival and the 2006 Seattle International Film Festival, as a sitcom.

“We were working on “Seinfeld” and we came off feeling that these revolutionary comedies like “Seinfeld” got on the air all the time,” Kavet said.

CBS executives told the writing team that their script for the pilot episode was funny, but that it would never get on TV because as Kavet put it, “it was too far out of the realm of what a sitcom is.”

After working on other projects, Kavet and Robin found themselves going back to the material that would become “Live Free or Die,” a film focused on the exploits of a wannabe tough guy (Aaron Stanford, Pyro in the “X-Men” movies).

“With this project we just tried to do something different, something that we didn’t have to pitch to a network and something that we could finance independently,” Kavet said.

Like most independent films, “Live Free or Die” has a tone and style that is more laid back than the average Hollywood movie. Kavet and Robin were working within a well-worn genre and crime movies, even comedic ones, come with audience expectations.

Viewers have been feeding on “CSI,” “Law and Order” and Quentin Tarantino movies for years now. We want our crime fast, hip, detailed and with a dark sense of humor. However, Kavet and Robin’s approach is closer in spirit to Wes Anderson’s “Bottle Rocket,” which Kavet cites as an influence. They have crafted a crime comedy that is quiet, low key and surprisingly melancholy.

“We kind of wanted to make a movie we wanted to see,” Robin said. “There are a lot of comedies out now that just scream comedy at you and part of that is Hollywood has this formula that works pretty well where they spend a shit load of money marketing something that is really easy to grab on to and that they can describe in 10 seconds in a TV commercial.”

The duo wanted to make a film that was more realistic than the typical Hollywood fare. Their main source of inspiration in doing this was the Coen Brother’s “Fargo.”

“I think the original pilot was written as if the two guys from “Fargo” (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) were hanging out,” Robin said.

That basic concept morphed into the odd pairing of Rugged (Stanford) and Lagrand (Paul Schneider, “Elizabethtown.”)

Rugged is a small-time scam artist, who talks a bigger game than the one he actually plays. He thinks he’s latched onto a good thing when he runs into Lagrand, an old friend who has inherited his father’s storage business. Lagrand is a simpleton and Rugged takes advantage of this by trying to convince Lagrand to hire him as security.

“We didn’t want our lead to be super likable,” Robin said. “That was something we liked about “Seinfeld,” that the characters weren’t especially likable, they weren’t doing admirable sorts of things. They were a pretty selfish bunch.”

If Rugged isn’t necessarily likable, it doesn’t mean you can’t empathize with him. Rugged is a nobody, who desperately wants to be someone, but when he feebly attempts to impress Lagrand with his gangster abilities all he manages to do is set off a Murphy’s Law chain of events. Soon a series of misunderstandings has the local police pinning serious crimes on Rugged and Lagrand.

“The character we enjoyed writing the most in “Seinfeld” was George, who was constantly getting dumped on,” Kavet said. “I think we have a natural affinity to characters who have a tough go at things. Our humor sort of lends itself to that sort of situation.”

The dynamic between Rugged and Lagrand is the heart of the film. Their relationship goes deeper than the typical buddy film. They are both hungry for acceptance and respect and can only find it from each other. There’s an underlining sadness to that, which adds weight to the film.

“It is really just a horrible coincidence that each one has found attention and admiration in the other. Rugged’s stuck with the idiot and the idiot’s stuck with Rugged,” Robin said.

At its core, the film is about the importance and meaning of the legends that surround our every day life. Rugged’s tough guy act is merely a façade to hide the fact that he knows he’s going nowhere and yet maybe if he believes enough in his own myth, he can convince others he is everything he claims to be.

“We’ve always liked the idea that if you look too deeply at anything that is cool it really falls apart,” Robin said. “What everyone clings onto is not real or is random or accidental or fake.”

The film does a good job of capturing the anxiety of feeling trapped in a small town. Kavet and Robin deserve credit for sidestepping the redneck stereotype that New England is often slapped with in films.

“Andy had lived in New Hampshire and I spent a ton of time there,” Kavet said. “We certainly used a lot of experiences from growing up in Massachusetts and Connecticut and translated them a little bit to New Hampshire.”

Coppola's latest lonely girl

Writer/director Sophia Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette” was infamously booed at the Cannes Film Festival (this is the same festival that gave an eight-minute standing ovation to “Clerks 2”), but the film, in its own way, is something to cheer.

The blurb on the DVD describes the title character as history’s favorite villainess, but Coppola sees her as a tragic figure. The film fits nicely along side Coppola’s previous work “The Virgin Suicides” and “Lost in Translation,” films about lonely girls who feel trapped. Marie Antoinette may have led a pampered life, but the halls of Versailles were isolating ones.

Marie Antoinette (Kristen Dunst, “Spiderman”) was married off to Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman (“Shopgirl,” “Rushmore”) at 15 as an attempt to build an alliance between France and Austria. At 19 when King Louis XV (Rip Torn, “Men in Black,” “Dodgeball”) died she became the Queen of France.

Much of the first part of the film focuses on Marie’s culture clash. Initially, she is taken aback by the lavish life, numerous servants and rules of court. This is best portrayed in an amusingly awkward scene in which Marie is left standing nude as she learns the long process of her dressing from Comtesse de Noailles (the excellent Judy Davis).

Versailles is portrayed like an aristocratic form of high school. Gossip about Marie’s inability to consummate her marriage is constantly on the lips of members of court, which include “Saturday Night Live” alum Molly Shannon and Shirley Henderson (Moaning Mertle in the “Harry Potter” series).

Marie gets no support from her mother Maria Teresa (Marianne Faithful), who blames Louis’ lack of interest solely on Marie and constantly pressures her to consummate the marriage or the union of France and Austria will crumble. That’s a lot of pressure for anyone, let alone a teenage girl in a foreign country. Dunst takes it all with a quiet dignity that makes the scene when she finally does breakdown all the more effective.

Dunst during these scenes does a nice job portraying the loneliness and naïveté of a girl living in unfamiliar surroundings with a man who is indifferent towards her. During these early scenes Dunst barely speaks and instead relies on silent stares, one of Coppola’s trademarks. There’s a wonderful shot in which Dunst stands alone on a balcony as the camera tracks back. It beautifully captures the isolation of Versailles.

Schwartzman’s Louis is a hilarious characterization. He plays him as completely aloof. Coppola crafts several amusing scenes at the dinner table and in the bed that Schwartzman plays to perfection. Louis’ only hobby is keys and locks. His reaction to a book he is reading about wooden locks is priceless.

The film shifts gears when Marie simply accepts her new life and embraces the overindulgence of her new existence. She parties long and hard and this is when we see the bubblier Dunst that we know and love (or hate as the case may be).

“Marie Antoinette” takes the “Amadeus” approach of using modern English instead of period dialogue or native tongue. For historical purists this may be unacceptable, but it is less controversial than the film’s soundtrack, which like “A Knight’s Tale” uses rock music throughout the film.

For some, the use of new wave and post-punk music will be completely intolerable, especially a montage of clothing and food set to Bow Wow Wow’s “I Want Candy.” Yet, once you accept it for what it is, it works well at capturing a certain mood and atmosphere.

The “I Want Candy” montage is something that wouldn’t feel out of place in a teen movie, but that is the point. Marie was a teen girl thrust into a position beyond her years. She did what anyone at her age would do: she partied. But the first half of the film does a good job of showing her as more than just the Paris Hilton of her time.

Most of the songs that appear in the film are from the eighties, a time known for excess. The pop songs on the soundtrack are paired with a sparse score and compliment each other nicely. Together the help give the film a unique feel.

The film looks great. Coppola shot on location in Versailles, which she captures in long, well-composed shots. The hair, make-up and Oscar-winning costumes are all excellent.

Those hoping for a detailed look at the time will be disappointed. The film rarely leaves Versailles and there is little sense of a timeline. The film centers mostly on Marie’s early years at Versailles, but does span Louis XVI’s entire rule.

Louis and Marie were cut off and living in their own world. Coppola’s approach is to leave the audience just as cut off from the historical context in which the film takes place. This may make the film seem frivolous and shallow, but the film’s intent is more about capturing a feeling than chronicling the tumultuous history of the time.

Most of film is light and funny, but since we all know what is coming there’s an underlining dread. The mood switches quickly as the film approaches its abrupt ending. Coppola chooses to leave the French Revolution off-camera. Instead of showing Louis and Marie gruesome demise Coppola comes up with a poetic final shot that is deeply affecting and poignant.

It's good to be the 'king'

If you have ever seen Forest Whitaker in an interview, than you knows how truly amazing his performance in “The Last King of Scotland” is. Whitaker in real life comes across as soft-spoken, shy and passive. As 1970s Ugandan dictator Idi Amin he is the exact opposite: magnetic, charismatic, boisterous and ultimately terrifying.

Whitaker’s central performance, which deserves all the praise and awards it has received, anchors and elevates a good, but flawed film.

The film’s approach is to tell the story from the perspective of Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy, “The Lion the Witch and Wardrobe”), a fictional Scottish physician, who through a chance encounter with Amin becomes his personal physician and most trusted advisor.

Nicholas is meant to be the audience’s point of entry into a world that we are unfamiliar with. He is taken in by Amin’s charm, dynamic personality and the luxurious life that he is thrust into. McAvoy has a likable screen presence and when things take a turn for the worst you are concerned for him. The film occasionally sags though when it becomes too focused on Nicholas. A love affair with one of Amin’s wives feels forced and formulaic.

Whitaker’s performance is so overwhelmingly powerful that it overshadows everyone around him, but McAvoy’s performance is strong and puts him on the map as an up-and-coming actor to watch.

Nicholas is an interesting character because it isn’t that he knows what is happening and chooses to ignore it, but rather he doesn’t allow himself to see it because he wants to believe Amin is everything he says he is. McAvoy makes Nicholas’ descent from naïve and jovial to fearful and increasingly desperate to escape believable. He holds his own against Whitaker, which is no easy feat given the size of Whitaker’s performance.

Saying Whitaker’s performance is large doesn’t mean it is over-the-top, at least no more than it needs to be. Whitaker is playing an over-the-top figure, but what makes the performance so extraordinary is that doesn’t become broad or campy. Buried within the booming performance is subtleties, a look or a gesture, that go deeper. Whitaker’s performance doesn’t necessarily make Amin a sympathetic figure or excuse his horrific actions, but does reveal a man consumed by delusions and paranoia.

The structure of seeing and being taken into Amin’s world from an outside perspective is fine, but there’s a certain amount of pandering. At times it feels like it was assumed audiences would only accept this story if seen through the eyes of an Anglo, but this is a flaw of the source material, the novel by Giles Foden, not the film.

Foden moved from England to Africa with his parents when he was five, so it makes sense that his fictionalized account of Amin would take the approach it does. Amin really did have a close white advisor, a former British soldier, who according to a Bold Type interview with Foden “became part of his (Amin’s) apparatus of repression.”

The fictional Nicholas does not directly become part of the mechanism of death and destruction under Amin, but by choosing not to see it, he allows it to happen. When he can no longer remain blind and he finally begins to see Amin’s murderous, darker side he is in far too deep.

Director Kevin McDonald’s (“Touching the Void”) previous work is documentary based, but the style he employs here isn’t that of the currently popular pseudo-documentary. This is solid narrative based filmmaking featuring some beautiful cinematography of Africa.

The film’s pace is slow, and while Nicholas is in his bubble, relatively light, but once his eyes are open the film becomes increasingly tense. The final third is a literal palm-sweater. I soaked through my jeans.

Those expecting a detailed account of this time period will be disappointed. This is not a history lesson, but certainly does prompt the desire to look further into this dark chapter of recent history. Most of the Amin’s horrors happen off camera. The glimpses that are shown, particularly a torture scene, are gruesome, hard to watch and leave a lasting impression.