Moon Over Broadway: Movie Review (2008)

The pro sticks it out

Directed by D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus, 98 minutes, no rating.  

Editor's Note:  Another from the archives...

At the opening of “Moon Over Broadway,” Tom Moore, the director of the Broadway show “Moon Over Buffalo,” leans back against the plush interior of a stretch limousine and sighs, his face a pinched mask caught in the throes of frustration.  “People have very little appreciation of just what it takes to structure a farce,” he says, and then proceeds to talk with meaning about the merits of Feydeau farce.

He does this without hesitation or irony, which is amusing since, after seeing “Moon Over Broadway,” the spirited documentary that showcases “Buffalo’s” long and painful limp into New York theater, one wonders how much Moore himself knew about the structure of Feydeau farce.

The film, directed by the husband-and-wife team D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus, is astonishingly candid, offering audiences a rare, behind-the-scenes glimpse into all of the pettiness and ugliness, contained temper-tantrums and quiet triumphs that went into the making of “Buffalo.”

Initially, the producers’ instincts were right:  Pair Carol Burnett, queen of shtick, with Philip Bosco and others in a farce that would find all members of the cast slamming through doors and shrieking at the tops of their lungs in an effort to divert attention from dialogue that was mildly funny at best.  The play, written and rewritten by Ken Ludwig, needed Burnett’s presence badly; only her star power, comic timing and shtick could make it work.  But shtick is what everyone involved in “Buffalo” says they don’t want--which proves to be a major problem for the play and, ultimately, for Burnett.

Burnett, you see, is treated as a faded star by Moore and Ludwig; she is television, not theater, and thus not their equal.  Her suggestions to improve the play are routinely dismissed by each, and while their criticism of her performance is sugarcoated, it nevertheless stings with a condescension that is difficult to watch.

All of this, of course, makes for an engrossing film.  Burnett, who is the most exposed, emerges as the consummate professional--she takes Moore and Ludwig’s criticism in stride, rising above their pettiness.  She is the Carol we remember--warm and funny in the face of chaos.  At the Boston premiere, she literally saves the show when the curtain falls midway through and technicians cannot get it to rise.  Ever the trouper, Burnett crawls under the curtain to entertain the crowd while Moore, stunned and grateful, stands at her side, watching the real genius at work.

Finally, just days before the show’s premiere at the Martin Beck Theater in New York, Burnett’s worries surface as massive, last-minute rewrites of the script suddenly appear.  Knowing that Moore and Ludwig demand she learn the words exactly and never improvise as she did on her CBS show, tension mounts.  Does Burnett pull it off and see the show through to a successful run?  Or does the show fold in a blizzard of negative reviews?

Don’t miss your chance to find out.

Grade:  A-

All You Need is Love: DVD Review (2008)

“All You Need is Love”

That’s a nice thought, but truth be told, Tony Palmer’s sweeping television series about the history of popular music also suggests it might be good to have a measure of talent, a bit of luck, some rhythm, a voice and the right people behind you so you can share that love with the masses.  

This 17 episode, 5-disc set originally aired between 1976 and 1980, and it covers everything from vaudeville, country and ragtime to swing, rock and blues.

And there’s more, with Palmer predictably exploring such pop-music greats as Elvis, Louis Armstrong and Frank Sinatra to The Supremes, The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix.

If there’s a caveat, it’s in all that’s missing after 1980 and how what came before it influences what we hear now. Since Palmer is still actively working, an overview of what has occurred in pop music in the interim could have made this already terrific collection outstanding.

Grade: A-

David Attenborough: Wildlife Specials DVD Review (2008)

“David Attenborough: Wildlife Specials”

A terrific collection of six wildlife specials from the BBC, with Sir David Attenborough narrating each with his typical reservoirs of controlled wonderment.

Whether weaving audiences through the ocean deep in ways that raise questions (and awe) about how the filmmakers captured certain shots of the humpback whale in its natural habitat, or laying low with leopards and crocodiles in their own habitats, Attenborough and his team reveal just how little we still know about the wild and its inhabitants.

The photography is crisp, often stunning. After seeing this, for instance, it’s unlikely that viewers ever will look at polar bears or the Arctic the same way again.

Grade: A

Sicko: DVD Review (2007)

"Sicko"

Michael Moore's documentary wants you to know that the No. 1 health crisis facing Americans today aren't the usual suspects--heart disease and cancer--but the state of our health care system, which is in a state of disaster.

Considering that nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured and millions more hold policies designed to screw them out of their benefits, it is, at the very least, a productive system in that it defeats plenty.

When it works, it also successfully saves millions. But since Moore believes that everyone in the United States deserves access to health care, the focus here is on all those who have been undone by the system, which is no small number to consider.

While there are laughs to be had in "Sicko," the movie mostly is dead serious in attacking our government's failure to depart from a system designed for profit--which is the American way.

The film isn't about bashing our doctors or nurses--Moore knows we have among the best in the world. Instead, it's a movie about raising awareness about a broken system, with the director questioning whether other countries with socialized medicine have it better.

Why, he wonders, does socialism remain so feared here? Education is socialized. So is Medicare and Social Security. For the most part, those efforts seem to work--why not health care?

Though he errs in not showing the downside of those systems in other countries and he doesn't allow the insurance companies to respond directly to his concerns, which is a mistake since it could have been their undoing, what he does generate is a provocative, persuasive argument that can't go ignored.

Rated PG-13. Grade: A-

Standing in the Shadows of Motown: Movie Review, DVD Review (2002)

Emerging into the light

(Originally published 2002)

Directed by Paul Justman, written by Walter Dallas and Ntozake Shange, 108 minutes, rated PG.

It goes without saying that Diana Ross and the Supremes, the Four Tops, Gladys Knight and the Pips, the Temptations, Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson and Stevie Wonder--among so many others--wouldn't have had their string of hits with Motown if it weren't for that defining Motown sound.

But who were the musicians behind that sound? Berry Gordy might see it otherwise, but he didn’t pull it off alone. Indeed, Paul Justman's new documentary, "Standing in the Shadows of Motown," based on Allan Slutsky’s book, is betting that few know how much a handful of others were instrumental in creating that sound.

He might be right. Since it’s generally the voice behind a song that gets the attention and not those in the band, chances are many haven't heard of the Funk Brothers, a group of black and white artists who, between the late ‘50s and the early ‘70s, cranked out more No. 1 hits than the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis and the Beach Boys combined.

That’s 58 No. 1 hits. Songs like "Heat Wave," "My Girl," "I Heard it Through the Grapevine," "Ain’t No Mountain High Enough" and "What’s Going On?," to name a few.The film, from a script by Walter Dallas and Ntozake Shange, reaches back to the early years of the Detroit jazz musicians Gordy snapped up for a song, so to speak, and hired to create music for his new label, Motown.

Those musicians, some of whom are alive--Jack Ashford, Uriel Jones, Eddie Willis, Joe Hunter, Robert White, Bob Babbitt and Joe Messina—and some of whom have died--Johnny Griffith, Benny Benjamin, Eddie Brown, James Jamerson, Richard Allen, Robert White and Earl Van Dyke—are finally given their due in a film that dramatizes their early years, interviews the living and gathers together for a final concert all of the surviving members.

Joining them on stage are such singers as Chaka Khan, Bootsy Collins, Joan Osborne, Gerald Levert, Ben Harper and Meshell Ndegeocello, all of whom spark the film with rousing performances of Funk Brothers’ hits.

While the film’s dramatizations are sometimes cheesy, not unlike something you’d find on the History Channel, and the film lacks the completeness of an interview with Gordy himself, which would have given the movie added depth and lifted it to the level of "The Buena Vista Social Club," "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" is nevertheless entertaining and important.
It puts these men squarely in the spotlight that has eluded them for years.

Grade: B+

Technorati tags:

movie reviewsmovie-reviewsmoviesfilmfilm reviewsdvddvd reviews

The Last Days: Movie Review, DVD Review (1998)

The last days?

(Originally published 1998)

Directed by James Moll, 88 minutes, rated PG-13.

To fully grasp the importance of “The Last Days,” James Moll’s Academy Award-winning documentary of the Holocaust, audiences need only to cast an eye toward Kosovo.

The film mirrors the ethnic cleansing and genocide currently raging in that region, while also transcending time and place in its stark images of people being forced from--or murdered in--their homeland, loaded onto trains and buses against their will, or made to walk long distances across foreign borders to fates unknown.

The film asks us to reflect not only on man’s inhumanity to man, but also on the lessons we’ve learned as a result of the Holocaust. But if the crisis in Kosovo--and, in recent years, Northern Ireland, Cambodia and Africa--are any indication, parts of the world have learned nothing, which surfaces as one of the film’s most powerful statements.

Focusing on five Hungarian Jews who lived through the horrors of the Nazi death camps, “The Last Days” may not be as broad in scope as Claude Landesmann's relentless, 503-minute documentary “Shoah,” or as gripping as Steven Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List,” but it nevertheless is a cinematic achievement whose hallmark is its simplicity.

Produced by Spielberg’s Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, the film is a series of graphic moments stacked to present the unthinkable: During the last days of World War II, Hitler knew the war was lost, yet in a genocidal fury he nevertheless ordered hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews to be rounded up and deported to the death camps in Dachau, Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

There, as Tom Lantos, Renee Firestone, Alice Lok Cahana, Irene Zisblatt and Bill Basch recall in haunting, heartbreaking detail, some 620,000 were slaughtered, gassed, gunned down or bludgeoned to death.

They share their stories, how Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to the U.S. Congress, lost his entire family to the death camps. As a gift, his two daughters gave him and his wife 17 grandchildren.

They share their triumphs, how Cahana protected her mother’s diamonds by repeatedly swallowing and retrieving them in an effort to keep them from the Nazis’ hands. Today, the diamonds are arranged in a glimmering pendant Cahana keeps close. “They are the only thing I have left that my mother touched,” she says, and unwittingly reveals in those few words the unfathomable depth of pain felt by all five.

With bombs still raining on Kosovo and scores of ethnic Albanians still being driven out, “The Last Days” emerges as a harrowing, cinematic necessity that confronts us with our past, forces us to question our present, and demands that we reconsider our future. It is not to be missed.

Grade: A-

Technorati tags:

movie reviewsmovie-reviewsmoviesfilmfilm reviewsdvddvd reviews

Shut Up & Sing: Movie Review, DVD Review (2006)

Torch song

(Originally published 2007)

Directed by Barbara Kopple and Cecilia Peck, 93 minutes, rated R.

Free speech and its ramifications are at the heart of the new Dixie Chicks documentary “Shut Up & Sing,” which recognizes that for the celebrity, engaging in a public exchange of ideas and opinions isn't always without its costs.

The price can be dire.

Just ask Gwyneth Paltrow, who came under fire this week when she reportedly noted that the British are more intelligent and civilized than Americans, especially at, well, dinner parties. Or Madonna, whose poorest-selling CD, "American Life," features songs that criticize American culture. Or Tom Cruise, whose stinging public backlash was fueled when he famously took on Brooke Shields about the subject of antidepressants.

For the Dixie Chicks, an all-female group from Texas that includes bandmates Natalie Maines, Emily Robison and Martie Maguire, the backlash began in 2003. It was March, American troupes were preparing to invade Iraq, Bush's popularity was high, and outspoken lead singer Maines, in the heat of a sold-out London performance, unwittingly tossed a verbal grenade into the audience: "Just so you know, we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas," she said.

Overseas, the crowd went wild. But here at home, the far right suddenly had an unlikely target in their sights--a hugely successful, beloved country group best known for their songs of broken hearts and infidelity than for creating a political scandal.

Directors Barbara Kopple and Cecilia Peck deftly chronicle the tumultuous fallout that ensued, with Chicks' manager Simon Renshaw initially believing that it would all blow over in a matter of days. It didn't.

Soon, country radio had banned the Chicks from their play lists, death threats started to roll in, fans began smashing their CDs in amusing public gatherings (such anger!) and ticket sales for their concerts started to tank. On camera, one southern fan remarked, "I like their songs, but I wish they'd just shut up and sing." Others chose to brandish the American flag and waive it in protest while they stood in line for Dixie Chicks concerts. Apparently, tickets to the concerts weren't refundable and few appeared willing to back their phony convictions if it meant losing money and missing out on a good show.

What's so compelling about "Shut Up & Sing" isn't just how it exposes some of the Chicks' fans as frauds, but how it captures the Chicks themselves in a difficult time of transition. Here is a tight group of friends who literally had to regroup and rethink who they were as performers and as people. If country radio wasn’t going to play them and their fans allegedly weren’t going to listen to them, then who was their audience? And how would all this affect not only the music they made, but their relationships with themselves and their families? The film’s considerable tension comes from the worry, anger and frustration that seizes them.

In the end, as we now know, the experience made the Dixie Chicks better, more accomplished artists and performers, with their music turning inward in an effort to comment on the controversy. For the first time, they began writing all of their own material, with the result of that effort being the defiant CD “Taking the Long Way,” which was released last May in a rather different political climate and, in a valentine from free speech itself, quickly sold more than 1 million copies in a matter of weeks.

Grade: A-

Technorati tags:

movie reviewsmovie-reviewsmoviesfilmfilm reviewsdvddvd reviews

The Trials of Henry Kissinger: Movie & DVD Review (2002)

Who's on the other end?

(Originally published 2002)

Directed by Eugene Jarecki, written by Alex Gibney, based on the book "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" by Christopher Hitchens, 80 minutes, not rated.

Of all the questions raised in Eugene Jarecki's stinging documentary "The Trials of Henry Kissinger," the most damning against Kissinger are those that condemn him as a war criminal.

Directly charging him with mass murder, the film colors Kissinger, winner of the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, as a secretive, paranoid, duplicitous megalomaniac whose quest for power was put before our country's best interests and who rose to political superstardom while literally--the movie claims--getting away with decisions that left hundreds of thousands dead in Vietnam, Chile, Cambodia and East Timor.

The film, which screenwriter Alex Gibney based on Christopher Hitchens' book, presents both sides of the case against Kissinger, using a series of interviews with such Kissinger supporters as Gen. Alexander Haig and such detractors as William Safire and Brent Scowcroft, there's no denying that it’s slanted against the former secretary of state, that the undercurrent is ugly and that the atmosphere is akin to a lynching.

Bolstering its blistering tone are facts culled from archival footage and government documents declassified by Clinton in 1998, when Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London for his involvement in the 1973 assassination of Chilean president Salvador Allende.

As the film painstakingly points out, it was Kissinger who formally approved of the coup that led to Allende's death and, in turn, to Pinochet's rise to power. Also revealed and documented are Kissinger’s involvement in the secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and how he made certain in 1975 that Indonesia had all the U.S. weapons it needed to carry out its invasion of East Timor, which resulted in thousands of civilian deaths.

As narrated by an icily detached Brian Cox--who, it must be said, likely got the job because he’s best known for his portrayal of serial killer Hannibal Lecter in 1986's "Manhunter"--the film demands that its audience be fully up to speed on all of the events it covers.

Unlike the recent documentary "Bowling for Columbine," it has no patience for those who aren't intimately familiar with its subject. Instead, it immediately launches audiences into the heart of Kissinger's bloody mine fields, which some will likely appreciate but which others, such as younger viewers coming to the film without any concrete understanding of the times or the events that clouded them, might find isolating and confusing.

Peppered with a handful of breezy pop tunes that add a weird buoyancy to what's otherwise a dark tale of evil, the film’s treatment of Kissinger is unbalanced, for sure, but there's no denying its timeliness or, for that matter, Kissinger’s own enduring relevance.

Last November, President Bush appointed the former diplomat to head an independent commission to investigate what went wrong with U.S. intelligence in the months and days preceding Sept. 11.

It was a decision that ignited a media firestorm and found such critics as David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, blasting Bush and Kissinger in his November 27 Capital Games column. “Asking Henry Kissinger to investigate government malfeasance or nonfeasance is akin to asking Slobodan Milosevic to investigate war crimes,” Corn wrote. “This is a sick, black-is-white, war-is-peace joke--a cruel insult to the memory of those killed on 9/11 and a screw-you affront to any American who believes the public deserves a full accounting of government actions or lack thereof.”

A month later--in spite of vowing he wouldn’t bow to political pressure--Kissinger, looking frail, stepped down from the post.

Grade: B

Technorati tags:

movie reviewsmovie-reviewsmoviesfilmfilm reviewsdvddvd reviews

Inside Deep Throat: Movie & DVD Review (2005)

A pop-culture devil

(Originally published 2005)

Forget "Titanic." According to the entertaining documentary "Inside Deep Throat," the most financially successful movie of all time turns out to be the 1972 porn film "Deep Throat," in which Linda Lovelace became a star for reasons she’d sooner like to forget.

The production was financed by the mafia, always there when you need them most, which makes this one of the most defining and corrupt of American success stories.

From Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato, this provocative documentary comes from Universal Studios and it wears its NC-17 rating like a badge. It makes Chloe Sevigny’s performance in "The Brown Bunny" look like kiddie time. Sort of.

Moments are just as graphic as you might expect, but if put into a historical context — the movie pushed porn into the mainstream, with suburban couples attending screenings of the film in droves — it’s nevertheless a worthwhile subject.

There will be the temptation to dismiss "Deep Throat" as trash, which it certainly is on one level, but trash has always been pop culture’s gem; here, it shines. Gore Vidal, Camille Paglia, Norman Mailer, Dr. Ruth, John Waters, Hugh Hefner and Helen Gurley Brown, among a host of others, go to sound lengths to illustrate and defend a film whose storied history continues to deepen. Rated NC-17.

Grade: B+

Super Size Me: Movie & DVD Review (2004)

One man, one belching gimmick

(Originally published 2004)

The documentary, “Super Size Me,” features a bit of shocking news. It attests that as a society, Americans don’t get enough exercise, we eat too much of the wrong food and we’re becoming fat as a result.

Apparently, we stuff ourselves with too much junk, we’re carb addicts, we consume too much sugar, we’re too dependant on our cars for transportation, a large percentage of us are just plain fat and getting fatter, and we don’t have the willpower to turn it around.

As a result, tens of millions have become morbidly obese, so much so that you can’t escape the daily media deluge of what can only be termed as a growing epidemic--one that is igniting a sharp spike in Type 2 diabetes, among a long list of other ailments.

The finger pointing that takes place in Morgan Spurlock’s documentary isn’t directed at personal responsibility--which is almost completely, absurdly overlooked here--but at McDonald’s, the fast food giant whose fat-laden burgers and salads, fries and desserts, are apparently a major contributor to the burgeoning American waistline.

In an effort to prove his point that junk food is bad for you--as if we needed proof, as if it were somehow a surprise--Spurlock, a 33-year-old male in “superb shape” (three doctors say so), decided to eat nothing but McDonald’s food for 30 days straight--breakfast, lunch and dinner. If he was asked by a clerk whether he’d like to super size his meal, the game plan was that he would gamely agree.

As such, Spurlock gained 25 pounds during this experiment of his, while in the process losing his libido, throwing up once on camera, having chest pains, waking up with night sweats, looking pasty and wan, whining about feeling winded and sick, and essentially turning his liver into pate.

Winner of the director’s prize at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, “Super Size Me” has caused a sensation, for sure, but really, long before the expanding Spurlock chokes down his last triple cheeseburger, the film has exposed itself as softcore science built around a sophomoric stunt.

Sorry to be cynical about Spurlock’s flawed methodology, but having lost 50 pounds myself 20 years ago, I know what everyone else knows who has ever struggled with their weight, tried to lose it and then worked to maintain it once it’s off. It’s hell doing so, it takes discipline and exercise, deprivation is involved regardless of what some might attest, and yet sometimes you slip back into old patterns that pack on the pounds. You know, like choosing to have that Big Mac and large fry, which most of us know are no good for us in the first place.

The best part of the movie--and what saves it from being 96 minutes of self-serving, attention-getting hokum--has nothing to do with Spurlock’s new found flab. Instead, the movie works best when Spurlock pulls a Michael Moore and exposes what people don’t want you to know--such as the embarrassing state of our school-lunch programs.

Because of limited budgets and resources, school administrators around the country have allowed fast food chains like McDonald’s into their schools. It’s cheap to do so, the kids get used to eating the food, some get fat as a result, and a vicious cycle is born as they blossom into ballooning adults.

Spurlock’s achievement is that he sheds light on this and other cultural shifts that have allowed fast food to put the screws to our arteries.

Much attention is paid to the brilliant marketing minds behind McDonald’s, with the Happy Meal, the famous Big Mac jingle and Ronald McDonald himself all getting flame broiled in the process. The Happy Meal, for instance, is responsible for luring millions of unsuspecting youngsters and their parents into the restaurant. The Big Mac jingle is better known by some than the national anthem. And that old devil Ronald McDonald is smiling for good reason. To some children, he’s more recognizable than Jesus.

It’s information like this that gives “Super Size Me” its comedic edge and which allows it to strike its intended chord. The film is best enjoyed when Spurlock does his homework--not when he turns himself into a lab rat by recklessly consuming 5,000 calories a day.

In fact, if Spurlock had only removed himself from the equation and focused on the real issues surrounding fast food--as Eric Schlosser did in his excellent book, “Fast Food Nation,” which explores in detail the very real dangers inherent in the fast food trade--“Super Size Me” would have left audiences with something to consider, certainly something more substantial than the whiff of gimmickry left here.

By the end of the movie, some will wonder what point Spurlock was trying to make by making a pig out of himself on camera. We all know that when you eat too much, you gain weight, so what was he trying to prove? When it occurs to you that he may have done this for an easy shot at fame, the movie throws a clot from which it never recovers.

Grade: C-

Sound and Fury: Movie & DVD Review (2000)

An explosive subject, unearthed

(Originally published 2000)

Josh Aronson’s provocative, Academy Award-nominated documentary, “Sound and Fury,” offers an intense, heated debate on the pros and cons of the cochlear ear implant--a device that has the controversial ability to allow a deaf person to hear.

To those who can hear, it might come as a surprise to learn that there would be any controversy or debate over giving someone the ability to hear. But as this powerful, emotionally devastating film shows, there are two staunchly opposed sides to the issue, each of which is passionate in explaining either why the implant is crucial--or how it has the ability to wipe out a culture all together.

The film follows two related families from Long Island, N.Y: Chris Artinian and his wife, Mari, each of whom can hear, and their twin infant sons, one of whom was born deaf; and Chris’ brother, Peter, his wife, Nita, and their three children, including 6-year-old Heather, all of whom were born deaf.

Chris and Peter’s mother and father can hear, but Mari’s mother and father cannot. As the film opens, the entire Artinian family is about to come to terms with what it means to be deaf when the merits of the cochlear implant are weighed and exhaustively considered in kitchens, backyard barbecues, living rooms and centers for the deaf.

Fear underscores everything here, but to Aronson’s credit, his cameras never get in the way of the drama as it builds or the rage as it flows.Some might feel a documentary about the issues surrounding ear implants wouldn’t be gripping, but Aronson has mined a subject so explosive and unearthed emotions so raw, his film is riveting. What does it mean to be deaf in a world that’s so technologically advanced deafness might one day be eradicated? Rent this excellent film to find out.

Grade: A

Rise: Movie & DVD Review (2005)

An unusual movie whose energy lingers

(Originally published 2005)

From David LaChapelle, a terrific documentary about a subset of hip-hop culture born out of the Rodney King riots of 1992.

Set in present-day South Central Los Angeles, the movie exposes a thrilling, underground dance form called “krumping," which finds its soul steeped in African dance, a clown act devised by Tommy Johnson, and the need for self-expression that uses the body as a weapon far deadlier (and sexier) than any gun.

The movie and the young people within it are in the moment, with the latter pressing against their oppression by tapping into something akin to a religious experience.

An unusual movie whose energy lingers.

Grade: A-

The Break-Up: Movie & DVD Review (2006)

Coming together...and falling apart

(Originally published 2006)

The new comedy about falling out of love, "The Break-Up," is concerned with opposites coming together and falling apart.

Nobody should come expecting much of the former, which is hastily glossed over during the opening credits when Brooke (Jennifer Aniston) and Gary (Vince Vaughn) meet cute at a Chicago Cubs baseball game. He hustles her with hot dogs, she's smitten beyond reason, and so is born the potential for a new summer trend at the ballpark. Ladies, either beware or enjoy.

Moments later, while the credits roll, the couple is shown canoodling and kissing in a photo slideshow meant to underscore their love, which is so sweet, you'd know it was doomed even without the assistance of the film's title.

Preventing the film from being socked with too much saccharine is the falling apart part, which becomes substantial the moment their relationship implodes.

Brooke, an art gallery assistant, is home putting together the finishing touches for a dinner party when in strolls Gary, a bearish tour bus guide who would rather crack open a beer and watch the game than help Brooke with the incidentals. It occurs to her that this is always how they have lived their lives together--she's a doer, he's a taker. By the end of the night, they have charged through one mother of a fight, their two-year relationship is dead, though not as neatly as either would like.

Each own one half of their pricey condominium. With neither party willing to move out, the movie becomes a showdown between them, with the possibility for a second chance pinned to whether they sell their condo. After all, if they do, they've essentially sold whatever is left of their relationship.

From director Peyton Reed ("Bring it On"), "The Break-Up" is being billed as an "anti-romantic comedy," which suggests that it plans to skewer anything warm and fuzzy while slaying the typical romantic comedy cliches.

While neither is true for the movie--it's too cute and too commercial to really get down and dirty when it comes to how ugly relationships can get when the ax is thrown down ("Husband and Wives," "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" and "The War of the Roses" did all of this much better)--this light, derivative take does generate more heat than some might expect. The escalation of the first fight, in particular, is impressively well-choreographed, with Aniston and Vaughn believably tearing each other down.

Cutting the drama with comedy is the film's fine supporting cast (Jon Favreau, Vincent D'Onofrio, Cole Hauser, Joey Lauren Adams, Jason Bateman, a scene-stealing John Michael Higgins and Judy Davis), all of whom are so good, they join Aniston and Vaughn in creating this summer's real mission impossible--a movie that might open well even in Namibia.

Grade: B

This Film is Not Yet Rated: Movie & DVD Review (2006)

The trouble with anonymity--and accountability

(Originally published 2006)

Kirby Dick's documentary, “This Film is Not Yet Rated,” takes on the Motion Picture Association of America, exposes its inherent weirdness, secretiveness and hypocrisies, and has a good time doing so.

Perhaps too much a good time.

Throughout, the movie weaves in and out of focus, with Dick veering in directions that detract from his point--the MPAA, which Jack Valenti created in 1968 and which has since been responsible for rating most of the movies we see, is a broken system comprised of a mysterious group of parents unqualified for the job.

For anyone who has ever questioned the inconsistencies inherent in movie ratings (and why not when they're so blatant?), this is a tempting subject to explore, so the good news is that when the movie does stay on track, it asks the right questions.

Dick believes the American public deserves to know those whose moral judgments directly influence what comes (or what doesn't come) to a theater near you. He believes it’s unfair--and more than a little odd--that the MPAA demands to work within an environment of strict anonymity, presumably because they don't want their employees to feel pressured or, worse, to be questioned as to how they arrived at a certain rating.

But why shouldn’t they be questioned? And what's the trouble with accountability? When a group’s standards are as shaky as those embraced by the MPAA, which routinely favors big studios over independents and which gives liberal leeway to graphic violence and gore over sex and sexuality, shouldn’t filmmakers and the public have the right to know who these people are?

Determined to put a face to them, Dick, who fancies himself as something of a Michael Moore (though he doesn't come close to achieving Moore's intelligence or his calculating sense of humor), hires a private investigator to root out the group while also making the mistake of dipping into her personal life (who cares?). Meanwhile, he talks to such directors as John Waters, Matt Stone, Kimberly Peirce and Mary Harron, as well as actress Maria Bello, about their personal experiences with the MPAA and how each of their films was given the undesirable--and unmarketable--NC-17 rating.

Since many theater chains and retailers won't go near such a movie, the filmmakers are forced to make a choice--either release the film as is and take a substantial financial loss or compromise their vision and remove the offensive material. The problem with this? Incredibly, the MPAA refuses to tell them which scenes are offensive, so the filmmakers are left to wonder exactly how they offended.

All of this makes for a compelling case in favor of reforming the MPAA, but Dick, who is having too much fun pulling his share of hair here, errs in that he isn't interested in offering alternative ways to fix the organization he's criticizing. This is the film's weakness. Instead of getting on his soap box, pointing his finger at injustice and having something instructive to say about it, he just gets on his box and points. As a result, his movie is entertaining and revealing, but in the end, it’s also slight.

Grade: B-

Spellbound: Movie & DVD Review

Darjeeling, banns, palimpsest--pass out

(Originally published 2002)

Jeff Blitz’s Academy Award-nominated documentary, "Spellbound," follows the lives of eight students from different corners of the country, all of whom won their regional spelling bees and now are about to launch into the final event that binds them: The Scripps-Howard National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C.

If the idea of watching a movie about teens competing in the mother of all spelling bees sounds dull, then know that the execution of that idea is far from dull.

It is, in fact, often exhilarating and suspenseful, an insightful, powerful glimpse into the kind of preparation, drive and backbone it takes not just to master the roots of the English language, which is tough enough, but also to appear in front of a live audience on national television while a panel of judges dish out the sort of words that might send even the most gifted wordsmiths into exile.

Winning a spot at the competition is a major achievement, to be sure, but some might question at what cost. Through the collection of mini-biographies that opens the film, Blitz introduces us to the kids willing to pay the price.

They come from a wide cross-section of socioeconomic, racial and cultural backgrounds. All are standouts, but some resonate more than others.

There’s Angela, the daughter of Mexican immigrants whose parents barely speak a word of English yet who look upon Angela in awe at what she’s able to do with a language they themselves don’t fully understand. There’s Ashley, a fresh face from one of D.C.’s toughest neighborhoods whose mother wonders aloud whether Ashley’s relatives will be able to watch her compete from their televisions in prison.

There’s Neil, whose wealthy father has coached his son relentlessly, hired 1,000 people in their native India to pray around the clock for his success, and who has agreed to feed 5,000 more in Bangladesh should Neil actually win. And then there’s the hyperactive Harry, the joker of the bunch, whose rubbery face becomes a carnival of worry and despair as the movie unfolds and the pressure builds.

Whether the competition is worth the pressure it inflicts and the sacrifice it presents is up for debate; winning means something different for everyone involved. Still, backed by the unflagging support of their families, their friends and especially their communities, these remarkable eight kids--along with the 241 other hopefuls who join them in D.C.--give it their best shot in what amounts to a tense showdown of words.

For some people, realizing their first major, public accomplishment comes from throwing a touchdown, getting on base, landing a difficult jump or finishing a marathon. But for these kids, correctly spelling words like “Darjeeling,” “banns” and “palimpsest” prove the early zenith of their young lives.

Like any athlete--and these kids are orthographical athletes--they’ve paid their dues through hard work, dedication and training. It’s impossible not to root for all of them. What’s special about “Spellbound”--and what’s ultimately so gratifying about the movie--is that these kids, bonded by their uniqueness, also find it impossible not to stand up and cheer for each other.

Grade: A

Fahrenheit 911: DVD & Movie Review (2004)

One burning Bush

(Originally published 2004)

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is one burning bush. Currently the number one film in America--and the first-ever documentary to claim such a coup-the film is divisive, outrageous, important, and troubling. It's also funny and insightful, dark and misleading--a zeitgeist that has polarized audiences, leaving some cheering in the aisles and others crying foul in their seats.

As such, the movie has done exactly what it was intended to do-it has launched a national discussion about the state of the world as influenced by the Bush administration. Some will agree with it, other's will vilify it as propaganda. Bring on the debate.

Winner of the Palme d'Or at this year's Cannes Film Festival, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a Michael Moore movie, with all that implies. It's slanted and it's biased, clearly aimed at hanging Bush by carefully assembling news reports from CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS, as well as from newspaper reports and on-the-street interviews conducted by Moore himself.

Fair enough. Though conservatives might not want to admit it, Moore and his movies aren't so far removed from, say, the tone of Rush Limbaugh's radio show, which daily slams the Left by presenting facts in such a way that neatly fit Limbaugh's right wing agenda. Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox uses the same methodology. As such, "Fahrenheit" is what it unflinchingly is--pointedly never objective.

It also can't be dismissed.

What no sensitive, thinking person can deny is that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is filled with indelible, haunting images, with the Bush administration legitimately at the root of many of them.The most troubling include documented footage of the Bush family's indisputable ties to the Saudis, who like our president so much they have a friendly nickname for him-- Bandar Bush--and to the bin Ladens, who once also called the Bushes their friends.

Other chilling moments include the seven minutes on Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush sat frozen in an elementary school in spite of being told twice by his staff that America was "under attack"; an elderly Baghdad woman crying for the dead and damning Americans for destroying her city; a dead baby tossed onto a pile of rotting corpses; a beheading shown at a distance; and one Lila Lipscomb, mother of Michael Pederson, a soldier killed in Karbala who entered the service at his mother's urging. She thought it would offer her son more opportunities and a better life, when in fact it lead him to his death.

The grief Lipscomb expresses onscreen is unshakable, particularly during her pilgrimage to Washington, with her deep sense of guilt, frustration and loss overcoming her. It's a scene that gives "Fahrenheit 9/11" the authentic dramatic punch it needs.

Perhaps because Moore feels the weight of his material, his film is less biting and jovial than what we've come to expect from the rabble-rousing director of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Roger & Me," with Moore's sobering narration growing increasingly spare as the movie unfolds.

Since fair play isn't considered here, what's missing are Bush's accomplishments, particularly his shining hour in the sun, when the World Trade Center and a portion of the Pentagon lay beneath his feet after three airplanes plowed them down.

Finally rising to the occasion, he was indeed presidential when he mounted the ruins, gathered the troupes around him and movingly bonded with a country still in shock. Fueled by the momentum, Bush essentially realized his greatest triumph in mass murder, only to squander it by going to war with Iraq, a country Moore argues posed no real threat to us. After all, as Moore legitimately asks throughout the movie, where are Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Bush? Where are the nuclear and chemical warheads we were told time and again were our reason for going to war? Where are the weapons that were never found yet have ironically, without ever being detonated, cost thousands of people their lives?

As serious as it can be, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is hardly above taking cheap shots at Bush. For Moore, our president is a caricature, an easy individual to poke fun at, but then so are his chums Cheney, Rumsfeld and especially John Ashcroft, who actually breaks into song at one point and belts out a ballad he wrote himself, "Let the Eagle Soar." It's an astonishing moment of comedy.

The rich are to be scorned in Moore's movie, but never more so than Bush, whose vacant expressions, trite soundbites, squirrelly eyes and utter lack of eloquence are constant sources of ridicule. He's a man more at home on his Texas ranch than he is leading the Free World, as Moore points out in one especially damning piece of information. During his first year in office, Bush spent almost half his time on vacation.

What I admire about "Fahrenheit" is the furor it's causing. The movie abolishes apathy. No one who sees it will accuse it of leaving them without one hell of a conversation on the drive home.

As Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" proved, when the right movie comes along, when it finds its niche and hits its chord, the power of the medium is fully revealed and the importance of movies as an artform goes unparalleled. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a captivating, entertaining movie that's more factual than it is questionable. It's not a documentary, per se, though it is a blistering opinion piece worthy of consideration.

The question now is this: With Bush at his lowest point in the polls--and John Kerry not exactly gaining momentum--will a movie be responsible for helping to unseat a president?

Time will tell.

Grade: A-

(Note: My, and didn't time tell.)