CleverDonkey.com …Musings, Commentary, Opinions, and Drivel

******************** THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS ********************

I am not particularly geeked out by art-house flicks, nor do I have any particular fondness for foreign-language films. Nowhere in Africa is both, and I still loved it. The film is not a stereotypical art-house flick, in that it is not avant-garde, film noir, experimental, hyper-sexual, nor stupid. What it is, is a very real story about real people trying to live their lives during extraordinary circumstances.

The film is set around the time of the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. The story follows a married couple and their daughter, who are Jewish, as they try to adapt and survive in a changing world. When the story begins the mother, Jettel, and daughter, Regina, are living the last few precious days of their privileged lives in Germany. The husband, Walter, is off in Kenya (where there is a nascent Jewish community) attempting to create a livelihood and homestead for his family, and bring them out of Germany to escape what he senses is the upcoming devastation of the lives of Jews in Germany.

As we all know, his guess turns out to be correct, but at the time and place of this story it’s still not clear exactly what, if anything, might befall Jewish people, other than some more overt, but not catastrophic, anti-Semitism. But he finds work in Kenya as the bwana (manager) of a farm, working for an unsympathetic-but-not-evil landowner. Walter sees the drastic changes to their lives in crystal clear terms, and implores his wife to leave their fancy china behind in order to make room to bring a refrigerator. They will be living hard lives in an unknown land and won’t have the resources for frivolities. The wife, either not understanding this or refusing to accept it, brings the china, spends their last few marks on a ball gown, and unapologetically shows up refrigerator-less.

This begins one of the primary plot themes, as Walter expects his wife to quickly let go of her old world view and accept the new reality, and Jettel refuses to accept that everything that had defined her up until this point in her life was gone, and that all she has left is life as the wife of a poor farm manager in Kenya. Caught up in the middle of all this is Regina, who is five years old when they move to Kenya. She immediately bonds with their cook Owuor, who is a tall, good-natured, middle-aged Masai tribesman who is more than happy to work in the house of a bwana. Regina and Owuor develop a spiritual kinship despite the difference in their ages and backgrounds.

The story is told primarily from Regina’s point of view, as she explores the new world and new reality with the open mind, open heart, and resilience of a child. The story spans many years, from their emigration to escape the Nazis, to the end of WWII and their agonizing struggle to figure out what to do in the *new* new world. In between these bookends the film tells the story of their lives in Kenya, trying to make a living, keep their family together, educate their child, understand what’s happening to their families back home, and understand their adopted country.

This doesn’t sound very exciting, and it isn’t, but it is engrossing and meaningful, as their day-to-day struggles are the same as ours, only magnified by their bizarre circumstances. Should they be happy to still be alive, or should they be grieving for the loss of the life they once had and the peril of their families back home? Or both? Should they be raising their daughter to be a Kenyan, a German, or a Jew?

The Kenya they live in is hard and beautiful, and the native Kenyans benevolently/bemusedly tolerate these strange residents of their land. There is just a touch too much of the “noble savage” stereotype for my tastes, but it is subtly done and the viewer is not clonked over the head with it. The locations are both breathtakingly beautiful while also feeling real and not staged for the film. The cinematography does justice to the natural beauty.

The acting is virtually flawless. Regina is played by two different actresses, one as the young Regina, one is the adolescent Regina, and both capture the same spirit and tone so that the transition is smooth. The adult characters are very deeply drawn and well-acted, even those with small roles. The film is over two hours long, and the pacing is deliberate, but the story spans multiple years and kept me totally engaged throughout. The main characters all speak German in the film, with English subtitles, but this is not as distracting as it may sound. There are multiple languages being spoken by many of the characters, so almost any viewer would need at least some subtitles in order to understand. After the first few language changes I stopped noticing the subtitles.

Refreshingly, the film does not depict the Nazis, WWII, or the Holocaust, but instead tells the smaller story of real people caught up the larger events of the world. World events occur elsewhere and only impact our characters via letters and radio broadcasts. I find this refreshing because while there are many films made about WWII, there are very few that are made about such a remote but oddly fascinating facet of that period. This film told a story about real characters who felt like real people to me. I laughed with them and agonized with them and was confused by the unfolding events, just as they were. I believed what was happening on the screen, and I cared about the characters and about what happened to them. What more can you ask from a film?

• Leave a comment... (0)

This movie came up randomly on cable last night, and it’s ridiculous and almost so silly you want to turn it off. But we just couldn’t! First of all, it’s hard to resist such a cast:

• Sir Alec Guinness
• David Niven
• Maggie Smith
• Peter Falk
• Peter Sellers
• Truman Capote
• … and VERY young James Cromwell

The premise of the movie (which is a Neil Simon, by the way) is spoofy in the extreme: a psychotic and eccentric millionaire has invited the world’s greatest sleuths to his rambling, creaky English country house for a planned murder that they must all solve. The sleuths include:

• Inspector Sidney Wang, a very toothy and hilariously un-PC Chinaman Peter Sellers
• Dick and Dora Charleston, an upper-crust British crimefighting couple (Niven and Smith)
• Sam Diamond, a hard-boiled San Francisco private eye (Falk, doing his best Bogart)
• Jane Marbles, a tweedy old English sleuthing bird
• Monsieur Perrier, an uptight and constantly ravenous crime-solving Belgian

The targets to be spoofed can hardly be mistaken. Having grown up on Agatha Christie novels (I literally read every single one and every play by the time I was 12), this was too hilarious to pass up. Although the premise hasn’t aged that well (what with the Clue movie, Austin Powers, and the like), the actors were so great in their adopted personae. Alec Guiness is especially hilarious as the blind butler; he looks like he’s just having the best time. Truman Capote is perfect as the effete marionette-master eccentric millionaire.

Of course, the murder occurs and the sleuths band together to try and solve the crime. There’s much silliness and slapstick, but some of the dialog is truly hilarious. To wit: Dick Charleston (David Niven) is inspecting the naked body of the dead butler (Guiness) for signs of a gunshot wound. “Wait, I think I found one… oh, nevermind, not a bullet hole.” It’s delivered so deadpan you almost miss it.
The movie has enough of these type of treasures to make it truly worth it. It’s a trifle, an old movie spoofing an even older literary genre, but it’s pretty darn funny. Set a Wish List on your TiVo, and check it out if you’re ever in the mood to watch something but you’re not sure what. This would be perfect.

• Leave a comment... (0)

******************** Caution: May contain spoilers ********************

Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle is a good, solid, entertaining, escapist summer film. In addition to the stunts, explosions, prurience, humor, and action you would expect from this movie, there is also a dash of drama and a pinch of…well…tragedy. Nothing heavy-handed, mind you, but integrated well into the story and a bit unexpected.

Sadly, my first thought after leaving the theater was that seeing this film has caused me to like the Matrix films even less than I already do. The Angels director, McG, and company have of course included the requisite big-budget, CGI driven stunts that the movie studios expect that summer audiences expect from this type of film. I’m okay with that, in theory. However, my understanding is that the Angels, while being quite good at what they do (solving cases, kicking asses, titillating), are not superheroes, and they do not have any superhuman capabilities, nor do their adversaries. How, then, are they able to regularly violate the laws of physics? I’m not talking about a kung-fu move that seems implausible, I’m talking about the ability to change direction in mid-air, the ability to dodge bullets, and the ability to fly (or at least glide) by virtue of the aerodynamic properties of a lace blouse. I mean, I’ve never seen Stevie Nicks get airborne, and she’s spent most of her career spinning around in lace tops.

The blame is shared by the popularity of the Matrix films and the herd mentality of Hollywood. Even though I don’t care for the Matrix films, I will freely admit that the superhuman activities of their characters makes perfect sense within the logic of the story. Those same activities are ridiculous in a film like Full Throttle. Seeing McG insert these slavishly-wannabe-Matrix segments into his film was disheartening, as my opinion after the first Angels film was that he was developing a unique voice as a filmmaker. He still might, but I hope if there’s another film in this franchise that he remembers that there are a lot of folks in the audience like me, who will buy (and have probably come to see) the implausible, but who find themselves completely jolted out of the enjoyment of the film by seeing the impossible.

With the exception of this bad case of Matrix-pox, I enjoyed Full Throttle. The girls are very cute, Demi Moore is sufficiently menacing as the bad gal, the cameos are well done, and the soundtrack is nearly perfect. And the special effects, even if inappropriate, are also well done and state of the art. Bernie Mac is pretty funny as the new Bosley, and they handle the transition from Bill Murray fairly smoothly. The story revolves around the Federal Witness Protection program, and the various underworld syndicates (Japanese, Italian, Irish, etc) who want to get their hands on the list of hidden witnesses. The film even delves deeper into the back-story of one particular Angel, but I won’t spoil it by telling you which one. In a totally unrelated note, Drew Barrymore is one of the producers of the film.

So now there are two Charlie’s Angels films, and I hope they make more. Given the ensemble nature of the cast, I could see this turning into a Bond-like franchise, with the Angel’s roles being passed down to each successive generation of new, young, upwardly mobile stars. As long as they keep the mix of humor, action, and drama I’ll be looking forward to it.

• Leave a comment... (0)

We saw The Italian Job last night, and it was a very enjoyable movie-going experience. I went in with lowwwww expectations, as the previews seemed to depict a movie that was The Fast and the Furious meets The Truth About Charlie, with a dash of Cooper Mini autos added for that “Do the Dew” cred. In other words, really not my cup of tea.

However, the movie was much better than I expected. Yes, the story is fairly predictable, but the action sequences are well-done, and there are some genuinely funny parts. There is also a wonderfully refreshing lack of forehead-slapping stupidity and triteness. That may sound like damning with faint praise, but the truth is that so many of the movies being made today are just slipshod repitition of ideas from other currently popular films. This one is different because it isn’t slipshod, and it has just enough originality to stand on its own merits.

If you’re looking for an entertaining, summer action flick check out The Italian Job.

• Leave a comment... (0)

******************** This Review May Contain Spoilers ********************
This is an intelligent, hardcore thrill ride of a movie. It’s part social  commentary and part philosophical exploration of the innate nature of humanity,  wrapped up and presented to the audience in the guise of an extraordinarily  well-done horror film. Actually, “horror” may be a mis-characterization of the  movie, depending on your definition. Suffice it to say that while nothing  supernatural happens, many horrible things do, so see it and decide the  semantics for yourself. I was pleasantly surprised to find a refreshing lack of preachiness or  over-explanation of the apocalyptic-ish events in this film. In fact, the events  are presented with almost no explanation, and the viewer is left to interpret  things based on what they (and the characters) experience. Also, the movie does  not resort to any sort of trickery, misdirection, or intentional ambiguity  designed to deceive the viewer, and instead tells a most extraordinary tale in a  most direct and unembellished fashion, as if a documentary film crew had  followed our protagonists during their adventure. 
******************** Okay, Definite Spoilers Here ******************** The movie starts at a primate testing lab, where some well-intentioned activists  have set out to free some chimpanzees that are being used for experiments.  Before they can open the cages, a hapless lab assistant stumbles upon them and  pleads with them not to release the chimps because they are infected with a  virus called “Rage”. They ignore him, open the first cage, are viciously  attacked by the chimp, and then the story jumps to 28 days later (hence the  title).  We now meet Jim, who is just waking up from a 4 week coma in a London hospital.  There are no doctors or nurses around, and Jim eventually wanders out of the  hospital and into the empty streets of London.
What has happened is that nearly  everyone in the city has either left, died, or become one of the “Infected”. The  Infected have the Rage virus, which gives them a sensitivity to light (so they  mostly come out at night), removes any semblance of humanity or abstract  thought, and seems to fill them with no instinct or feeling other than to spread  the Rage virus to any and all non-infected humans they can find. This transfer  is made via the blood, so you can imagine the carnage. Once the virus has been  transferred to a person, they transmogrify into one of the Infected within 10-20  seconds. 
As we follow Jim through the story, he meets up with a few non-infected humans,  some who live, some who die, and some who are more monstrous than the Infected.  Jim and his companions are on a quest – to stay alive, to keep from becoming  infected (because if you do your companions will instantly terminate you with  extreme prejudice, not to mention extreme haste), and to figure out what the  hell to do next. Our characters don’t really *know* anything. They don’t know  how long the Infected “live”. They don’t know the origins of the virus. They  don’t even know what’s going on in the rest of the UK, much less the rest of the  world, but before all the media stopped broadcasting they reported that Rage had  spread to Paris and New York. They do know that the Infected are still mortal, and can be killed just like any  other human. And once dead they stay dead, so we don’t have to deal with the  ultimate director’s cheap shot of the undead rising from their undeadness at the  most inconvenient times. In fact, one of the great strengths of this movie is that while the premise is  extreme and (one hopes) unthinkable, it *is* highly logical. The film lays out  the basic groundrules, and then extrapolates them in ways that are surprising  but still plausible and logical within those groundrules.
This makes the movie  almost feel more like hard science fiction than horror. Another strength of the  movie is that all of our characters seem like astonishingly normal people placed  into an unimaginably horrific situation. Our band can be plucky and determined,  ruthless and intelligent, unselfish and supportive, but none are mythically  heroic or larger than life. The story, however, speaks to some very large philosophical issues. For example,  the conflict of good vs. evil in this film is not uninfected vs. Infected, but  uninfected vs. uninfected. Yes, the Infected are key to the story, but while  they are dangerous and scary, they are not evil, as they have no intent. They  are simply carriers of a virus, and that virus turns them into the necessary  delivery mechanism. But that’s what the Infected are, a survival mechanism of an  unthinking virus. And while they wreak havoc, they are no more evil than a burr  that sticks to your clothes in hopes of spreading clover to a new plot of land  somewhere. In the end we find that while our cast of characters have determined that what  they have to do next is to preserve and restart the human race, they certainly  have some different ideas on how to go about it. As a viewing experience, this movie grabbed hold of me from the opening scene  and didn’t let go until the end. In fact, on the drive home from the theater 
Marie asked me what I was going to say in my review, and I told her that I  really had no clue, as I hadn’t once stopped to make any critical mental notes.  I was completely swept up in the story, which is very rare for me.  In fact, I didn’t even have any popcorn during the movie, which might be a first  for me, as popcorn is one of my favorite snacks. The theater complex was crowded  and our sneak preview theater was jam-packed, so I was going to wait until the  movie started then try to sneak out to the snack bar when it was less crowded.  But I didn’t. Just as a frame of reference, I’ve actually walked out of films  (and gotten a refund) when I found the snack bar didn’t have any “butter” for  the popcorn, so me not leaving the theater to get some says a whole lot about  how riveting this film was for me. Also, our sneak preview theater was filled with teenagers (despite the “R”  rating), and it appears that this film is being targeted to that demographic.  However, this film is not some campy “I Know The Wrong Turn You Screamed Last  Friday the 13th”, even if that’s how it’s being marketed. So don’t judge this  one by the marketing or the youthfulness of the patrons, as there are layers  that can be appreciated by thoughtful viewers of all ages.

• Leave a comment... (0)

We just got back from seeing The Matrix Reloaded. It was exactly what I expected, which was all the lamest elements of the first one, magnified. To put this review in context, I was singularly unimpressed by the first Matrix movie. The effects were certainly interesting, and some elements of the story were mildly non-stupid. But the movie, as a whole, didn’t do much for me. But you could see the budget on the screen, and there’s a certain amount of entertainment value in that. The same is true with Matrix 2. There’s more (much more, numbingly more) fantasy fighting and other various effects. The cast members seem to understand that they don’t need to “act” in this movie, only pose, posture, and pontificate pretentiously.

The movie takes place in two “places”. The first place is the matrix, which is a computer generated world into which most of humanity is plugged, where they assume the identity of themselves and interact the way we do, in a world that resembles our world. But in reality their physical bodies are kept sedated and are connected to some massive energy production/storage system, and the machines have created the computer world in order to give their minds something to do, so that the bodies stay healthier. The world of the matrix is policed by “agents”, which are programs that work for the machines and ensure that the denizens of the matrix keep doing things the way the machines want them done. I’m sure I’ve got some of that wrong, and I urge all of you who wish to correct my errors in Matrix mythology to feel free to just keep it to yourselves.

The second “place” is the real world (apparently) which is peopled by humans who have been awakened/freed from the matrix. In this installment there are 250,000 free humans, and they live in an undergound city called Zion. The city of Zion looks like it was conceived by a collaboration between the production designers of The Jetsons, The Flintstones, Mad Max, and Survivor: Spelunking. Also, apparently, in this reality there is no such thing as stainless steel, Comet, paint, or needles and thread, as everything is dull, dingy, rusted, and/or artfully frayed.

The plot of the film is…irrelevent, as far as I can tell. Something about robotic octopi digging down to destroy Zion, and Neo (Keanu Reeves) trying to get into a really secure computer room. I know that sounds dismissive, but the plot just isn’t the point of a movie like this. If it were, I probably wouldn’t have these questions:

1. If machines are smart enough to take over the world, then why aren’t they smart enough to know there are far more efficient ways to store energy than in the horribly inefficient bodies of humans?
2. How did the guy who is the commander of the human defense forces get to be in charge if he’s such an ineffectual, whiney loser?
3. Humans can’t find a better way to zip into and out of the matrix than the telephone?
4. Why is it that whenever our plucky band of humans enters the matrix, they all wear sunglasses and choose to dress like rejects from Who Wants To Be an Art-Rock Star?
5. If Neo can fly at will, why does he spend so much time standing and fighting when what he really needs to do is get going?
6. Can…Laurence….Fishburne…..speak……any……..more…………ponderously?
7. Why do the humans/avatars/agents/programs insist on having so many fights, when, with the exception of one bullet (out of thousands) and one minor flesh wound no one in this movie seems to be able to inflict the slightest damage on anyone else?
8. During the striving-to-be-deep-but-laughably-shallow attempts at intellectualism, morality, and mysticism, did anyone else keep waiting for Neo to say, “Philosophize with him, dude!”.

But seeing the Matrix 2 was not a complete waste of time. For instance, it’s nice to see Edgar and Johnny Winter getting some work. Also, when my attention wandered during the movie, it was fun thinking up alternate, more accurate titles for the film, like:

The Matrix Regurgitated
The Matrix Rebloated
The Matrix Reloathed
The Matrix Real Odious

Now, I know there are those who will love this film, and who loved the first one, and more power to you. There are also those that will point out the impressive box-office numbers as an indicator of the popularity of this movie. I’ll be the first to say that this movie is very popular. After reading the paragraphs above you might conclude that I was disappointed by the movie, but I wasn’t. It was exactly what I expected, which was an overblown, campy film that is a fun shared cultural experience. But impressive numbers at the box office and popular popularity do not a great film make. Take a look at this list of movies and see if you can figure out what they have in common:

Home Alone 2
Twister
Mrs. Doubtfire
The Mummy Returns
Planet of the Apes (the *new* one)
Three Men and a Baby
What Lies Beneath

They all have at least two things in common. First, they are all in the list of top 100 grossing films of all time. And secondly, they all outgrossed little films such as the Godfather, Schindler’s List, Silence of the Lambs, Seven, and Alien, among many other widely acknowledged classics. We all know that Matrix 2 will soon outgross these classics as well. And I don’t begrudge this film its due. It *should* make money, not because it’s a good film, but because it is an *event*. And that just about sums it up…this movie sucks, and I recommend that you go see it.

• Leave a comment... (0)

First, let me put those stars in context. From what I know about him from his public persona (which, granted, may not be entirely accurate), I do not like Colin Farrell. If you care to judge for yourself, check out these news stories about him on IMDB:

http://us.imdb.com/NNews?Farrell,%20Colin%20(I)

To sum up my disdain, he recently split with his wife, he also has a pregnant girlfriend, and he’s currently stepping out with a steady stream of new ladies, and sums this all up by saying:

“I’ve been in love three times and that’s enough for a 26-year-old. It really is. So, literally, I come into town and bang whoever I can – but I’m not mean and egotistical about it.” – Colin Farrell

Reportedly, he also is known to regularly frequent Scores, the famous New York strip club, and spend hours in private rooms with multiple dancers. He is, by all appearances, a sad and pathetic bad-boy Hollywood lothario.

But Colin Farrell fits into a very thinly populated category for me. And that category is the cross-section of “Celebrities I Find Repugnant” and “People Whose Work I Respect”. Both of those categories are small for me. Oh sure, there are a lot of celebrities I don’t necessarily care for, but there are only a few that are actually revolting. Also, there are a lot of artists whose work I enjoy and admire, but only a very few that I respect (artistically).

And then there is the category of Repugnant Artistes. That is one thin category. Colin Farrell joins the likes of Woody Allen, Eminem, Roman Polanski, the Artist Formerly Known as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince, and Russell Crowe. Can you picture that dinner party? Oy.

But what does all this have to do with the review of “Phone Booth”? I presented all of the above information so you could put those 3 stars in perspective, because I’m sure the movie lost at least a half a star because of it.

******************** SPOILERS AHEAD ********************

I mean, Colin Farrell is in virtually every, single scene of this movie. And several times during the movie I was taken out of the story by the discordance of seeing someone I had no respect for doing such great work. But, in the end, I have to say that Colin Farrell did a fantastic job. So did Forest Whitaker as the logical cop, and Kiefer Sutherland as the mysterious, unnamed caller.

For those unfamiliar, the story revolves around Colin Farrell’s character (Stu), a sleazy publicist, who gets trapped in a phone booth in dowtown Manhattan by a vengeful/liberating sniper. Other than the first 5-10 minutes, the entire movie takes place on location with Stu in the phone booth, the cops outside, and the sniper unseen. It’s very tense, gripping stuff, and the writing, acting, directing, and photography are all top-notch.

• Leave a comment... (0)

First of all, after seeing this movie I think that it would be great for its two stars (Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler) to make more movies together. This movie has an interesting story, an uneven script, workmanlike direction, and solid lead performances. In fact, Sandler and Nicholson fully inhabit their roles and play off one another with humorous edginess.

Without revealing too much, the storyline progresses a bit differently than I expected given what was shown in the trailers, but it’s not wildly different. Plus, this is a light comedy, so the story is just the framework for the humor, for the most part. The script ranges from hilarious and witty to juvenile and weak, but there’s a touch more hilarious wittiness than there is juvenile weakness, and overall I enjoyed the film.

But the weak, juvenile parts of the script make me want to know which of these is true:

1. Artless studio executives force crude, tasteless “humor” into otherwise witty, intelligent scripts because they think it adds an “edge” that will bring in some highly coveted demographic.

2. Pragmatic screenwriters know that their script won’t sell (or will be butchered by artless studio executives) if it doesn’t contain some crudeness, so they add it themselves in an attempt to control the awfulness of it.

3. Times and tastes have changed, and I’m now entering my “cantankerous old fart” phase.

My guess is that it’s a combination of all three. From my viewpoint, if you were to take out the anatomical and bodily-function “humor”, and were to make the ending just a bit more believable (I’m not asking for realistic, just as believable as the rest of the movie), this movie would have rated 3 to 3.5 stars. As it stands, though, it’s sort of a Frankenstein’s monster with parts from Waterboy, Happy Gilmore, The Wedding Singer, and As Good As It Gets. And not just the good parts.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Where to begin with this one. First of all, I was a faithful viewer of The Gong Show, created by Chuck Barris. I thought it was hilarious. For those of you who don’t know the show, the shtick was that rather ordinary people of (usually) limited talent would come onstage and perform their act, which could be anything from eating a popsicle in a lascivious manner to performing some (quite good) jug band music, and anything in between (and beyond) that you can think of. Picture Letterman’s Stupid Human Tricks extended to a half-hour show (coincidentally Letterman was a Gong Show judge at one point). Chuck Barris (Chuckie Baby) was the emcee, and there was a panel of three minor celebrities who would either a) “gong” the contestant, which indicated that their act was no longer bearable or b) give the act a score. At the end of the show the contestant with the most points won a few bucks.

There are those who felt that The Gong Show mocked or humiliated the contestants, but unless you lived under a rock you knew that it was quid pro quo…you did your stupid/embarrassing/pathetic “act” and Chuckie Baby would put you on the air for your 37 seconds of fame. It was win-win and was done with such enthusiasm and self-awareness that it reached surreal comedic proportions. I’ll stop talking about The Gong Show after you read this quote which sums up everything I loved about the show and Chuck Barris…this is Chuckie Baby introducing some random act:

“And our next act says he’s only semi-professional…which is great…because we’re only quasi-interested.”

Now to the movie — Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is George Clooney’s directorial debut. Yes, *that* George Clooney. The George Clooney. My respect for his talent and intelligence keeps growing. Selecting this movie for his first shot at directing was dangerous and brilliant. This concept is NOT a guaranteed winner. Chuck Barris and The Gong Show are, at best, a distant memory to today’s movie viewers, remembered with fondness by some and disdain by others, if even remembered. The script is adapted from Barris’ autobiography, in which…

********** SPOILERS AHEAD **********

…he claims that, along with being the inventor/producer of The Dating Game, The Newlywed Game, and The Gong Show, he was also a hitman for the CIA, and killed 33 people, using his trips around the world as ‘chaperone’ to show winners as cover. Well, that’s just bizarre. Whether or not it’s true, it’s just weird and bizarre and absurd. And unbelievable. Sort of. But, why did they send their contestants to places like West Berlin and Helsinki as prizes? Why would Barris, the high-powered producer of multiple TV shows, take time out of his schedule to chaperone these schlubs on their trips? I do not know the answers to these questions but I do find them interesting.

And so, apparently, did Clooney. His first great move as a director was insisting that Sam Rockwell play Chuck Barris. I first saw Rockwell as Guy Fleegman, the unknown, hilarious, and constantly-imperiled crew member in Galaxy Quest, and next saw him as the head bad guy in Charlie’s Angels, where his chameleon-like shift from good guy to bad guy was astonishing. In COADM he plays Barris to perfection. The recreated scenes on the set of The Gong Show are uncannily and excruciatingly realistic representations of the real show. Rockwell also conveys the emotions of a semi-reluctant hitman in a moving and plausible way.

Drew Barrymore does an excellent job as Barris’ ongoing love interest, and Clooney plays his role (as Barris’ CIA handler) with understated non-George-Clooney-ness, and does not detract from Rockwell/Barris as the star and focus of the movie.

The story is as described above – one thread of the movie chronicles the well-known and true story of Chuckie Baby’s beginnings as a network page, through the creation of his game shows and on to their ultimate cancellations. A separate thread chronicles the possibly true/possibly fictional/definitely strange story of his recruitment and activities as a globe-trotting CIA hitman. Both stories are dramatic, funny, well-told, and well acted.

I struggled with myself about writing this next part, because it seems self-serving, but it is nonetheless accurate. When I used to watch The Gong Show, I noticed that there were times when Barris seemed transfixed as if having an out-of-body experience. And times when he would look down at the floor and stare with a look of such sadness that I remember it to this day. And times when he would stare out at the camera with what can only be described as a thousand-yard-stare. These would be momentary flashes, and then his face would light up with his trademark grin, and the band would signal a flourish, and the show would go on. But I always remembered these aspects of his hosting persona, and had always harbored a minor curiosity about the man, and a curiosity about these un-game-show-host-like behaviors. I’m not implying that these remembered behaviors support his being a hit man, but they were certainly noteworthy and possibly relevant.

All in all, this is a solid debut for Clooney, and a very entertaining movie. I attended the film with three other people, none of whom were Gong Show enthusiasts, and they all also loved the film. It is surreal and funny, well acted and well directed. I can’t wait to see what Clooney and/or Rockwell and/or Barris do next.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Narc has all the ingredients of a four star movie. As it stands, it’s almost a three star movie, but not quite. Ray Liotta is pitch perfect as the large, menacing cop, and Jason Patric is solid as his partner-come-lately. The story was compelling, and I did not see the ending coming at all, even though it flowed and fit perfectly with the storyline (it wasn’t some jarring twist out of left field). It is difficult to find movies where the ending is unforeseen and satisfying, but not ridiculous nor done for shock value, but this one was smoothly and skillfully done. Joe Carnahan, the writer/director, definitely seems to have a future, and I’ll be very interested to see his next film.

But there were some parts of this film that didn’t work for me. There one or two overlong declamations, one or two too many flashbacks/flashforwards/flashsideways/flashthroughblurrylenses, and one or two too many dilapidated tenements peopled with one or two too many drug addicts/dealers.

But there is also some good stuff here. Carnahan does not underestimate the audience, and you have to pay attention to pick up on certain things. If you wait for the movie to go back and explain what just happened, well, you’re out of luck if you missed it or didn’t get it the first time. I like that in a movie – don’t hide stuff from the audience, but also don’t zoom in on it with the melodramatic music playing to make sure we know “this is important”. Play it the way it should play within the story and let the audience figure out what’s important. I love that. And this movie does it right.

Also, the scenes of family and home life ring painfully true, and the interactions of Liotta’s and Patric’s characters don’t blindly follow the cop/partner/gritty/action/buddy script that we all know so well.

Overall this movie was very close to 3 stars for me, but not quite. Still, Narc is a very solid 2.5 stars, and I feel it was worth the price of admission and investment of time.

• Leave a comment... (0)