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

The Bourne Supremacy is a solid, well-made, easily forgotten spy/action film. I did not notice any forehead-slap-inducing plot holes, weak dialogue, or bad effects. That immediately separates this film from virtually every single recent spy/action film that I have seen. I’m not trying to damn Bourne with faint praise, because it *is* entertaining, but it is an example of good film craftsmanship, not of artistry. Today’s standard Hollywood release is as flimsy, trendy, gimmicky, and veneered as cheap furniture from Target. Bourne, in contrast, is more solid, well-made, and substantial, like, say something from the higher end of the IKEA price spectrum. Nothing permanent or enduring, but good enough to get the job done.

The story, the sequel to The Bourne Identity, follows the continuing adventures of brainwashed-former-super-assasin-turned-amnesiac-gentle-loving-hunk Jason Bourne as he is wronged, wrongfully accused, and pulled back out into the cold. Jason doesn’t remember much about his former life, but he does know that he’s a former modern-day gunslinger who is trying to hang up his pistols and have a normal life, but the forces of evil force him to strap them on and head out for another gunfight. There’s nothing like the thirst for revenge to motivate a calculating, efficient killing machine.

The film is well acted, and I appreciated the little humanizing touches like showing Bourne sitting in his car perusing a map as he plans a getaway, something one never sees James Bond do. Overall, however, the plot just wasn’t interesting enough to involve me, and although the action sequences were intelligently done (rather than just being a series of staged set pieces and explosions), most were shot in a hyper-frenetic, blurry, way-too-close-up manner that made them nothing more than blurs of color punctuated by flashes of barely discernible detail.

So, The Bourne Supremacy is an entertaining film, well worth a standard evening ticket price, but also quickly forgotten by me with no desire to ever see it again. This puts it in the top third of recent films, but I’m grading on a big curve.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a very solid and entertaining film, with a sort of throwaway storyline, solid acting, and some eye-poppingly amazing special effects. The three main characters (Harry, Ron, and Hermione) are getting older and entering their teen years, and the film depicts this in an understated but effective way, including the subtle touch (pointed out by Mynagirl) of having them spend much less time in wizard robes and much more time in casual, everyday garb. Some new characters are introduced, some old friends make cursory appearances, and this film property is moved safely to the next installment without any missteps.

The basic storyline is that Harry and the gang are starting another new year at Hogwart’s, which is a much grayer and more forebidding place than in previous installments. You see, a crazed, murderous, lunatic wizard (Sirius Black) has escaped from Azkaban prison and is apparently headed towards Hogwart’s to deal with unfinished business involving Harry. Black’s is the first ever successful escape from Azkaban, and he is being pursued by the creepy Dementors, who are the wraith-like creatures that serve as guards at Azkaban. The Dementors set up a perimeter around Hogwart’s, knowing that sooner or later Sirius Black will make a play for Harry. The Dementors are sort of a necessary evil, as they are not exactly good guys, and their presence around Hogwart’s places a sort of deathly pall over everything. Suffice it to say that once the stage is set and the characters are introduced, everything ends up not as it seems, which has become the expectation for Harry Potter films.

Also expected are effects that are so good that you begin to lose sight of the fact that they are effects. As usual, the broom-riding and Quidditch playing are so smooth that you forget to remember that it isn’t actually happening. But this installment also introduces the Dementors, which are sort of like these silent, flying Grim Reapers that have a tendency to start sucking the soul out of anybody who happens to cross their path, and they seem to have developed a taste for Harry’s soul, for some reason.

But the most jaw-dropping effects involve another creature that’s new to this story, named Buckbeak. Buckbeak is a hippogriff, which is a half-horse, half-bird. Picture a creature the size of a horse, with the front half being a bird (including wings) and the back half being horse and you’ll begin to get the idea. Buckbeak is animated with such smooth, realistic details and movements that he really transcends the whole “special effects” classification and begins to approach magic. Buckbeak is a bit ill-tempered, but he takes a shine to Harry and gives him quite a wild flying ride.

All-in-all this is a very entertaining movie, but it also feels very much like a middle chapter. The most important things that happen are the introductions of new, key characters, and the uncovering of their apparent motivations. Having someone new as Dumbledore (Michael Gambon takes over for the late, great Richard Harris) is a bit off-putting, but Mr. Gambon does a servicable job with a reduced role. Also reduced, role-wise, is Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, who only has one line by my count.

Still, the movie held my attention all the way through, and I appreciated the darker, more foreboding tone of this film. I can’t wait for the next installment, but I’m also curious how they’re going to keep using the same three actors for the kid’s roles, as the films are taking longer to make than the time that is elapsing in the books. Well, maybe the special-effects wizards will figure out how to do away with the actual actors and replace them with digital magic. Abracadabra.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Cafe Le Jadeite

1952 West Gray

Houston Texas 77019

713 528 4288

After work the other Friday night, Engineerboy and I each craved Chinese food. There are, of course, several Chinese and Vietnamese food destinations within striking distance of our office and home. However, I have many non-food requirements for a chill-out-after-work dinner destination, especially after the end of a grueling work week. I especially like cushy seating (you’ll notice that as a theme in many of my restaurant reviews), and I like a little “see and be seen” atmosphere somewhat on a Friday, especially if I like my outfit :-). So some of the corner Chinese food joints, even if they have good food, just don’t quite cut it for the “indulge yourself” attitude at the end of the work week.

But we didn’t know where to go that fit both our culinary jones and my ambiance requirements. We drove aimlessly through River Oaks and I spotted Cafe Le Jadeite. “Wait! Isn’t that Chinese?” I exclaimed. “Um, I don’t think so,” said Engineerboy. “I think it’s French.” “No, no. Jadeite. That’s Chinese. Plus, look at those horses,” I said, referring to the Asian sculptures outside the glass doors. We decided to give it a try. The management had even helped us out by posting their menu outside the restaurant in glass (which is actually a quite French thing to do) and it was decidedly Chinese in flavor, but not exclusively so.

As soon as we were inside, I knew we’d made the right choice, at least from the non-food aspect of what I was looking for. The interior was unbelievable, truly River Oaks fabulous: custom etched glass panels, more giant horse sculptures, other unreal decor I don’t have a language to properly describe. Absolutely beautiful. The staff was formal but not stuffy, and led us to the perfect booth with wonderfully cushy seats, crisp linens, and hand polished flatware. We ordered a pair of drinks from their custom drink menu; they were shortly delivered by two folks who shook them up and poured them from individual shakers into chilled glasses right there at the table. I knew I was at the right restaurant, alright.

Well, if you’re wondering about the food quality after the promise made by the décor and service, it actually surpassed them. It was amazing. Our meal consisted of:

Appetizer:

Duck crèpes with hoisin sauce and fresh scallion (shared). We snarfed these down. They were so fresh tasting and light. The duck was so tender, Engineerboy said he was wishing he’d ordered the duck as a main course.

Soup course:

Asparagus lobster soup. Engineerboy says he loved it.

Pumpkin seafood soup. Unbelievably light, with just a little cream. So tasty!!

Main course:

Shrimp with garlic and mushrooms. Very tasty and delicate.

Lightly fried shrimp on apple ginger sauce (house specialty). Unreal, so good I could not believe it. The sauce was sweet but not overpowering at all, and it was the perfect complement to the shrimp.

We skipped dessert (we were stuffed), and the whole bill, drinks included, only set us back $80 before tip. I’ve had meals that weren’t 1/4 that good for that much money (Ragazza comes to mind). The service was so amazing (one Diet Coke was delivered so quickly I thought maybe they were using ESP): the word that I keep thinking about is effortless. They knew how often to come by, when we needed everything, and they were friendly but not overbearing. The whole experience was fabulous and exactly what we needed. Cafe Le Jadeite is definitely the recipe for what ails at the end of a long work week!

• Leave a comment... (0)

This is 2004’s American Idol page. Click here to see the American Idol 2006 Dashboard!! This week:

The impressively sized Kodak theatre may have gotten the better of Diana DeGarmo. Both divas got to sing three songs — two of their own choosing, and one written by former Idol contestant Tamyra Gray. I was disappointed that both sang songs they’d previously sung in prior competitions, however. I was really looking forward to something new and different that I hadn’t seen and heard before. Was this something the producers enforced for some odd reason? If so, boo hiss. I wanted something fresh!

Diana:

Her songs were okay but not great. She led off with the Tamyra Gray song, and she did a good job with it. Her other two songs, No More Tears (the Donna Summers tune) and another torchy number, were good and shaky, respectively. I think she really got rattled, either by the pressure of the event itself, by the size of the auditorium, or both. Her last song she went terribly off key for a few notes, and I’ve never heard her do that in any performance before. She didn’t really bring it the way she’s done in the past three or four weeks, however.

Fantasia:

Her first song, which I didn’t recognize, was really awkward and choppy. She sang it well, I guess, but it didn’t ‘gel’. As Randy would say, it was just ahight for me. Her second song was a repeat performance of Summertime, from Porgy and Bess, right down to starting her performance sitting side-saddle on the floor. Boring.. didn’t we see this about 7 weeks ago?! Her performance was unreal, however. She really is a riveting singer. She finished off with the Tamyra Gray song. I intially thought Fantasia might’ve made a strategic error, choosing to go second, especially since she and Diana were going to have to sing the same song. I should’ve had more faith in her decision. She did a phenomenal job with that song, and singing it second only highlighted how much style she brings to her performances, as well as what a great voice she has.

Prediction

Fantasia.

The Results

Fantasia.

Unfortunatly, for the first time this whole year, I did not get to watch the show (alas, my TiVo and I were parted and I haven’t watched it yet). I, of course, did finally get the results via CNN and was relieved to see that the better performer won. I myself had voted for Fantasia, although I didn’t go into the final competition with preconceived notions of who I was going to vote for. I truly was going to vote for whoever gave the best performance, although truth be told if you look over the course of the entire comptetion, Fantasia is a better overall singer, performer, and artist. Diana is wonderful, and I think she can sing the heck out of stuff, but Fantasia puts some real guts into what she sings. It’s hard to believe there are only three years separating the two. Maybe it’s motherhood, but Fantasia seems like she’s got 15 years on Miss DeGarmo. Plus, I would really rather buy a record put out by Fantasia, I think — she’s more my style of singer.

So, ultimately, I think the right decision was made, and I think a star was recognized. I’m very happy for Fantasia and I can’t wait for her album to come out. I’ll buy it. Congrats to Bobo.

American Idol 2004 Who’s Been Voted Off So Far:

• Leave a comment... (0)

Troy tells the story of the siege of Troy by the Greeks, sparked by the romantic defection of Helen, wife of the king’s brother. I hope I didn’t just give too much of the plot away, but since the story has been around for thousands of years I won’t feel bad if this is the first time you’ve heard it (but you should…what do they teach in schools nowadays, anyway??). Although the story on which it is based is an incredible epic, this film version is light on substance and depth, but deep on action and melodrama. It’s not a bad film, but not really great, either, and when a film strives to tell a great story, but is not itself great, the effort rings hollow and leaves the viewer unfulfilled.

Er, unless the viewer has come to see the un-CGI-enhanced, god-like display of Brad Pitt’s new physical form. Speaking from a staunch record of unblemished heterosexuality, I still have to say…wow. The combination of Pitt’s looks, physique, and smoldering charisma make him very believable as Achilles, the greatest warrior of his day. I was heartened to hear that Mr. Pitt gave up smoking in order to be able to undertake the grueling training that was necessary for his transformation, and then equally disappointed to hear that he had taken that nasty habit back up. I will never understand smoking.

Anyway, that’s not why you called. The film contains some very good performances. As mentioned above, Brad Pitt easily embodies the role of the fearless, undefeatable mercenary Achilles. I was equally impressed with Eric Bana as Hector, one of the princes of Troy, who is also a great warrior, but also a great leader and a great (and therefore tragic) man. Brian Cox portrays Agamemnon, the king of Greece, with ferocious kingliness and believable world-domination abilities. Peter O’Toole plays Priam, the fading but still great king of Troy. Orlando Bloom sort of fades into the background as Hector’s weaker brother Paris, giving a lackluster, translucent performance (I don’t know what that means, but it sounds right).

There are also a couple of chicks in the movie, but they seem simply to be props for imperilment and/or lust, and none of the female characters have much to do, unfortunately.

The majority of the film has to do with the siege of Troy, and includes many battle scenes. While grand in scale these scenes aren’t very moving, as it is apparent that 90% of the actors, horses, boats, and chariots in each scene are CGI, which immediately takes me out of the flow of the film and into a sort of dispassionate observer role. I would have preferred the combination of a couple of hundred extras and the skill of the director to make them feel like much more, rather than this overblown pseudo-real-cartoon-ish display. The actual face-to-face confrontations are quite compelling, with everybody obeying the laws of physics (thank ye Gods) and none of the Greeks or Trojans anachronistically whipping out any kung-fu moves on anybody (thank ye Gods yet again).

All in all, Troy is an enjoyable film, but it is a trifle, and manages to tell a great and timeless tale in an unengaging and uninvolving manner. At nearly three hours you get your money’s worth, but there are some spots where things just seem to drag for no discernable reason.

For those of you interested in how the story turns out, at the end Bedevere, Launcelot, and Galahad leap out of a giant, wooden rabbit and take the French castle by surprise…

• Leave a comment... (0)

Zydeco Diner

1119 Pease Street

Houston, Texas 77002

713 759 2001

http://www.zydecodiner.com

I can’t say enough wonderful things about this place. I’d driven by it for years as I worked at various buildings downtown, but it wasn’t until I starting working at my current building about five blocks away that I finally gave this place a try. Its unassuming brick structure belies the wondrous culinary treasures that await within.

Offerings include ettoufée, red beans and rice, smothered pork chops, and (my personal favorite) a heavenly basket of fried shrimp on french fries with the most divine mayonaise tartar sauce ever created. Side dishes are wonderful — fluffy cornbread (you have to pester the guy at the window for some butter, however, I’ve learned), great broccoli with cheese sauce — everything you might love at a traditional cafeteria “meat and three” but with true New Orleans flavor. You can see back into where they freshly hand-prepare each order with the proper type of breading (cornmeal, flour, etc) for the fried items. It definitely shows in how tasty and fresh the food is.

Not to be missed is dessert stacked up at the checkout stand, however. Although there’s a chocolate cake that looks quite tempting, I’ve never tried it because the bread pudding with cream sauce is absolutely irresistable. (I get it every single time I go and I’m not in general a huge dessert eater). It’s one of the most amazing cinnamon-infused tasty treats I’ve ever had, and it’s worth a trip there all by itself.

Also worth the trip is how friendly the place is. The proprietess, Gail, is always so cheery and happy to see you when you’re in there to eat, and she’s done wonders for me when I needed to reserve a big table for an office lunch or baby shower. (Plus, the pay-as-you-get-your-food cafeteria checkout is perfect for an office get-together, so there’s no awkward math when the check gets delivered at the end of the meal). Often during lunchtime there’s a guy playing some live zydeco music, which provides some nice background noise; he’s really quite excellent, actually. An added bonus is that both dining rooms are non-smoking, which I really like, especially since it’s a fairly smallish restaurant.

All in all, it’s one of my favorite spots. The place tends to get packed by 11:30, however, so if you head there, I recommend you go early. And definitely get the bread pudding.

• Leave a comment... (0)

The Shield

F/X, Tuesdays, 9 pm Central

Ok, this show rocks. I finally put it on TiVo Season Pass (amazingly, it didn’t conflict with any other shows we normally record) after reading probably the 50th review of how great it was. Boy, were the critics right. Boy, do I wish I’d found this show earlier. It goes right up at the top of my list.

I love the show’s many characters and the storylines that arc over multiple episodes. It takes you a while to get into the rhythm of the show but I like that. “Wait… is he the same guy who was accused of excessive force?” “Why was she getting her job back? Why did she lose it before?” They do the obligatory “previously on…” at the beginning of each episode but it really does pay to be a regular watcher. The writers don’t pander to you about understanding bad blood between characters; you either get the subtexts or you don’t.

I know people either like or dislike that the show’s main characters aren’t all 100% good guys; to wit they have stolen a bunch of money from the Armenian mob that they are sitting on until they can figure out how to successfully launder it. I personally have always loved moral ambiguity in my protagonists, so The Shield works out just fine for me. It makes for a more interesting storyline at all times because not all members of the strike team are in on the “money train” deal and our main guys juggle doing their regular cop duty with doing it within their ability to recover some of their money that’s been lost without tipping their hand to a guy not in on the deal.

I have to say, a couple years ago when Michael Chiklis won the Emmy for Best Actor, I (along with much of America, I’m sure) went, “Who? What show?” All I can say now, is “Effing yeah, buddy!” He is fabulous! In this recent episode Chiklis is watching via closed circuit as the Feds tell a local gang member that his money is actually from the aforementioned Armenians and they know this because some of the money (the same money our “heroes” have stashed in a warehouse) has been marked. The scene is amazing because Chiklis does such a great job — you can see the instant that the adrenaline and ice hits his gut as his character realizes not only that the money that they’ve stolen might be worthless but that the Feds might actually shortly have some of it with his fingerprints on it.

Overall, I didn’t realize being on F/X meant you could be quite so… gritty! Not being an HBO subscriber, I’m not used to too much swearing and nudity on cable, but the Shield manages to work it in there after they put more warning letters in the top left than you could shake a keyboard at. Not that I require nudity and swearing to enjoy a show, but it does give them some more latitude to make their storylines interesting and realistic, and I think they put it to good use. You can hardly have characters breaking into whorehouses and posing as street hookers without dropping a few choice words or showing a little skin. It makes the show kind of a guilty pleasure — so often when a show like this is on a network it has to compromise too much or it goes the NYPD Blue route of trying to do the “shock for shock’s sake” and the storylines just aren’t interesting enough to hold up the show without the T or A. Or the network doesn’t give enough latitude for 12+ main characters and storylines that go across 4 or 5 episodes like the one with the serial rapist / cuddler who targets women over 65 (one of the most interesting storylines, both from the police procedure perspective, and for the relationship that might be developing between Dutch and Colette).

This show is everything I love about good TV. It’s so interesting that I don’t even notice an hour has passed when the show is up. It’s uncomfortable enough to make me squirm sometimes. I don’t see plotlines coming (although Engineerboy did once). I care about the characters, and I believe that they could be real people, because they have good aspects and bad aspects. The police stuff (procedure, political b.s., language, environment) seems real enough, at least as far as I can tell. I’m interested enough to be awaiting the next episode, even to the point of (and this is the highest compliment I could possibly pay) being willing to use my VCR if there’s a conflict on TiVo. Now, that’s saying something.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Click here to see the review of Kill Bill: Vol 1.

I have a love-hate relationship with the films and public persona of Quentin Tarantino. Part of me is overjoyed that a trumped-up, slacker video store clerk could rise to the position of big-budget, kid-in-a-candy-store auteur. For the most part, I love his writing and directing styles, and even enjoyed his acting in From Dusk Till Dawn. He sometimes edges a bit too much into self-indulgent, homage-heavy, comic-book-styled extravagance for my tastes, and he seems to revel in his celebrity a bit more than will prove healthy in the long-term, in my opinion.

However, I can’t argue with the results demonstrated in Kill Bill: Vol. 2, and its predecessor Kill Bill: Vol. 1. In both installments he takes the action and violence to a point that is not just over-the-top, but transcendent. But in Vol. 2 we also get much more of the back-story and gain a deeper understanding of the characters and their actions. In fact, there are extended moments of quietly spoken dialogue that had me on the edge of my seat as much as, and in some cases even more than, the fight/action sequences.

And the cast all give incredible performances. Uma Thurman continues her Terminatrix-like rampage, but still manages to remain a vulnerable human being. Daryl Hannah makes a brief but explosive reappearance. Michael Madsen should only work on Tarantino films, as here he shows amazing depth as Bill’s shallow brother who also has more layers than we expect. Only Quentin Tarantino would think to cast Bo Svenson (yes, *that* Bo Svenson) as a small-town, West Texas preacher. For those of you who are asking, “Who the hell is Bo Svenson??!?”……..exactly my point.

And then there’s the quirky casting of Michael Parks. If you’ve seen From Dusk Till Dawn, Parks played the Texas Ranger at the convenience store near the beginning of the film. In Kill Bill: Vol. 1 he played the small-town Texas sheriff that investigates the chapel murders. And in Kill Bill: Vol. 2 he appears, effectively but almost unrecognizably, as Bill’s 80-year-old, Mexican, adopted, pimp, daddy-figure. Where in the world did Tarantino find him, and what compelled him (rightfully) to cast him in these films? Parks’ resume reads like a history of episodic television, including roles in The Real McCoys, Gunsmoke, Perry Mason, The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, Ben Casey, Wagon Train, Route 66, Medical Center, McCloud, Get Christie Love, Police Woman, Police Story, Baretta, The Rookies, Ellery Queen, Fantasy Island, The Equalizer, Murder She Wrote, Twin Peaks, and Walker Texas Ranger. I have to hand it to Tarantino for finding and casting Parks perfectly in his roles, although I think I have just answered my own question, knowing that Tarantino was an avid TV-viewer growing up.

Which brings us to David Carradine, who plays Bill. Yes, *that* David Carradine…most famously known as the peace-loving, wisdom-imparting, ass-kicking Kwai Chang Caine from the TV series Kung Fu. The David Carradine who has (sadly, and unbeknownst to me or anyone else I know) been making one or two unheralded, unseen, unknown, low-budget films a year for the last decade or so. The David Carradine who, had you asked me before seeing him in this movie, I would have said had a career that was over and that he was hanging onto the bottom rung. The David Carradine who, given his pedigree as a former kung fu star, seemed tritely cast as the leader of a gang of martial-arts assassins in this film.

But Mr. Carradine gives a career-saving performance here. His Bill is smart, funny, wise, lucid, dangerous, powerful, and sad. In fact, even though on the surface this appears to be the story of Uma Thurman’s character, it is the nearly omnipresent, nearly omnipotent Bill who is equally the focus of the movie, even when he’s not onscreen (such as during the entire running time of Vol. 1). Although I don’t think it will happen, and I’m not even sure it should, I will not be outraged if David Carradine receives an Oscar nomination for his performance, and I will be outraged if this does not resuscitate his career.

Carradine brings just the right amount of humanity and inhumanity to the character of Bill. So much so, in fact, that at the end, after all that he has done to Beatrix (Thurman’s character, who is finally named in this installment), I was still not sure if I wanted her to kill him, leave him alive, or stay with him. Any and all of the choices are grossly imperfect, which makes The Compleat Kill Bill the perfect tragedy. This may sound overblown, but there is a near-Shakespearian feel to the inevitable-ness of the story, in retrospect.

And so, Quentin Tarantino has done it again. This movie, even though it is an homage to kung fu and spaghetti western movies, is unlike anything you’ve seen on the screen. It is original and brash, but it isn’t avant-garde or stupid (or is that redundant?). Yes, it is very violent and gross, but there are very few films where a character will get the contents of a dip cup thrown in their face (ask your redneck cousin) or have their eyeball plucked out and squashed between toes, and it doesn’t seem gratuitous. Well, this is one of those films. Make sure you see Vol. 1 before seeing this one, though, because even though Vol. 2 could stand on its own as a film, it is much more powerful if you know the goings-on from Vol. 1. Moviegoers are also in an interesting position, because you should already know if you’re going to like this film, based on the first one. If you liked Kill Bill: Vol. 1 you’ll almost assuredly like Vol. 2 as well. If you hated Vol. 1, then I doubt Vol. 2 will do much for you. If you were unsure about Vol. 1, I urge you to see Vol. 2 and then judge the whole thing together as The Compleat Kill Bill.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I went into Starsky & Hutch with lowwwwwww expectations, as I generally find myself being annoyed by Ben Stiller, I’ve been disappointed with Owen Wilson’s recent role choices, I don’t think I’ve ever liked anything that Snoop Dogg has done, and although I haven’t seen Old School, I was pretty sure I wouldn’t like it (and S&H is directed by the same guy). So, put it all together and I was sure this would be a toilet-humor-intensive schlock-fest of the worst magnitude.

Boy, was I wrong. The movie is very, very funny. Stiller and Wilson have great chemistry, Snoop makes a good Huggy Bear, and there’s even some halfway decent cop-action sequences. As a kid I watched the original TV series regularly, but I couldn’t tell you one single plot line or catch phrase from the show. However, I did remember some strange tidbits, such as how perfectly Ben Stiller captured the akimbo-ness of Starsky’s running style when chasing a suspect.

The movie also captures the gestalt of the ’70s very well, with bevies of glossy-lipped, Farrah-haired, free-love-embracing foxes, pimp daddies, muscle cars, cocaine, leisure suits, discos, and the music…man, does the movie get the music right. I shudder to think what the music budget was for this film, because they got all the good stuff, like:

Dazz – Brick

Folsom Prison Blues – Johnny Cash

Right Back Where We Started From – Maxine Nightingale

Use Me – Bill Withers

Dancing Machine – Jackson 5

That’s The Way I Like It – KC & The Sunshine Band

Don’t Give Up On Us – Owen Wilson (originally by David Soul, the original Hutch!)

Afternoon Delight – Starland Vocal Band

The story revolves around a drug lord (Vince Vaughn) who is introducing a type of cocaine that is not detectable by drug-sniffing dogs. The drug is extracted from a genetically altered coca plant, gets you just as high, and tastes like artificial sweetener. The name of this concoction? It is, of course, called “New Coke”, in a funny nod to one of the great shared cultural experiences of the 80’s.

Starsky and Hutch are paired together in that old tradition of the straight-laced, by-the-book cop (Starsky) being paired with the laid-back, rule-bending partner (Hutch) by their always angry, always shouting boss. The film also portrays Starsky and Hutch as a sort of ambiguously gay duo…not that there’s anything wrong with that…but also has the boys chasing the ladies, and even includes Hutch involved in a cocaine-fueled menage-a-trois with two cheerleaders (it’s not as seedy as it sounds).

There’s also a stunningly funny, excrutiatingly discomforting, mind-numbingly absurd cameo by Will Ferrell, where he…no, I just can’t explain it. You have to see it for yourself. I’m not a big Will Ferrell fan, so believe me when I say that his scenes alone are worth the price of admission and are, by themselves, funnier than most of the “comedies” being released by Hollywood these days.

Also watch for the nearly unrecognizable Juliette Lewis as the drug lord’s girlfriend, Chris Penn as another cop, Jason Bateman as a Gordon Gecko-ish consigliere, and Amy Smart and Carmen Electra as the aforementioned cheerleaders.

Put it all together and you have a funny, entertaining film that doesn’t stoop to cheap shots or toilet humor, and that manages to catch the feel of the 70’s and the original series while still feeling fresh and new. Kudos to all involved – this film has raised my opinion of all of you, and I can’t wait to see what you do next.

• Leave a comment... (0)

We knew next-to-nothing about this movie, except that it was written and directed by David Mamet and starred Val Kilmer. That was good enough for us, so we headed down to take in an early-evening show after work.

The film starts with no ado, and no explanation of the characters or the setting or the plot or anything. In fact, Mamet structures the story in such a way that there is almost zero exposition by any of the characters, and you have to really pay attention to understand what is going on, who the characters are, and why they are doing what they’re doing. It’s not deliberately obtuse, or anything, but you, as the viewer, are responsible for staying with the story, and what’s there is there, so if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Normally I don’t hesitate to talk about plot, since the marketing people behind most movies seem to delight in telling most of the story in the trailer. However, in Spartan the plot unfolds in little, begrudging steps, and a large part of my enjoyment of this film was the pleasant feeling as each new piece of the jigsaw puzzle snicked into place. But below I am going to talk about the plot, so I recommend that if you haven’t seen the film, but think you might see it, go ahead and see it, then come back here to read the rest.

************************************************************

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

************************************************************

**************************************************

As the movie opens, we see Val Kilmer as a vaguely military-type guy, and he appears to be observing some sort of pursuit training in a forest area. A young male recruit is chasing/tracking a young female recruit and Kilmer’s character is providing advice/encouragement/criticism. In a wonderfully unexpected turn of events, there are no romantic entanglements between any of our primary characters. It’s not that I’m anti-romance, or anything, it’s just that in virtually every other movie where a character is a young, female military recruit (or just a young female), there is an inevitable subplot involving love (or at least lust). It was refreshing here to see people able to interact without falling into bed with each other for a change.

Once the training sessions are complete, Kilmer’s character packs his duffle and climbs in his truck to head out, but instead he’s stopped, handed a message, and climbs aboard a chopper that speeds him to a situation room where it’s apparent that something bad (and big) has happened. If you haven’t already seen the film, please don’t read this part because it’s wonderful to experience the arc of the story as it is told on the screen. What’s happened is that a girl is missing, presumably an important girl given all the hubbub.

It turns out that the president’s daughter has been kidnapped, and Kilmer’s character has been brought in to find her and bring her back. It becomes clear during the film that things like Constitutional rights, the Geneva convention, and human compassion do not apply to Kilmer’s character, and he is not only licensed to kill, but to maim and torture as well. It’s not that he’s sadistic, or even out of control, but he is very driven and effective in his work.

The rest of the story will be left as an exercise for the viewer. Suffice it to say that the story twists and turns in directions that I didn’t expect, and in fact wouldn’t have even have conceived of until after I saw the film. And I love that. I love when a film (or a book, or TV show, or anything) tells a story that continues to feel realistic while it bends and twists into directions that at first seem impossible, but then makes a lightning jump from inconceivable to inevitable. And the foundation for that jump is that the story, although certainly not mundane, feels real and possible.

The script is crisp, and Val Kilmer does an excellent job embodying the character of the ruthless and effective problem solver (for the good guys [maybe!]). The direction is tight, the locations are realistic, the cinematography imparts the correct mood, and the entire package is a thoroughly enjoyable, unexpected piece of entertainment. Forget that you aren’t seeing ads for this on television, or hearing about it from your friends. Go out and find it and watch it as it is more than worth the price of admission.

• Leave a comment... (0)