We Are Marshall

Lots of football, lots of crying.

Oh boy, was this movie sad. Of course, I knew it would be sad but I thought it would be balanced with uplifting. It was, just barely. Many touching and funny moments and a bizarre, but I thought charming, performance by Matthew McConeghy. Wasted towering talents (yet again) of David Strathairn and the dude from Deadwood (Ian McShane). Matthew Fox was ok, not great, but I'm not crazy about him anyway. And the women...what women? This is a football movie.

The football part is pretty good. I liked that part a lot. And it was easier to take than in other sports films where the outcome of the game has to move the plot. In this case, "based on real life" meant they could tell the story and not have the chance event of a game outcome be the mover of the plot. That made me like it more.

Deja Vu (2006)

Deja Vu was entertaining, mindless fun. Well acted, easy to watch. Plot-driven, suspenseful, action packed--with a silly sci-fi, time-travel twist. What fun! It wasn't a great movie. Possibly not even a good movie. It had a few, mild pretensions to be something larger than it was but not enough to bother me. (Set in New Orleans, dedicated to Katrina victims--but the movie doesn't deal directly with those issues.) The female lead, Paula Patton, came off as a thin (as in not as good an actress as) Halle Berry, but I enjoyed Denzel.

(Note: There must be an extreme age difference between Patton and Washington (he's 52), but I can't find her age listed anywhere. I'd guess she's 30 +/- 3 years. However, their romance is completely unconsummated, so it's not a huge deal.)

This is the movie to see when you want to be entertained, not think too much, but not be infuriated or insulted by idiotic romantic tropes or completely ridiculous plots. Well, the plot is ridiculous, but it's sufficiently entertaining to make it a forgivable offense.

Blood Diamond (2006)

This movie was brutal; like a kick to the gut. It was like watching a movie about the Holocaust--it couldn't be too grim. When there was a humorous moment, it was hard to take. You almost felt guilty for laughing. But you were also relieved to have a chance to laugh. The civil war in Sierra Leone is one of the most horrifying events in recent history. The rebels chopped off hands, arms, feet...it was unbelievable, unimaginable...but it happened. That's not to mention the recruitment of child soldiers, the enslavement of civilians in the diamond "mines" and the destruction of many cities and villages.

The film tried to tell a particular story but had grander ambitions. The grand ambitions took away from the impact of the small-scale story. What do we care about UN meetings decrying "conflict" diamonds? Show us more of what it was actually like to be in Sierra Leone during the war. Those scenes were harrowing. People being shot right and left, with no rhyme or reason, no sense of why any of it was happening. The film also managed to convey the way people act when they know there is a war going on close by but not right there--the way they pretend it's not happening.

Probably the best thing about the film was Leonardo DiCaprio. He played a South African and he nailed the accent. Similar to his recent turn in The Departed, he played a completely sympathetic anti-hero. He's turning into one of the best actors of his generation. Versatile, creative and magnetic. I never liked him much before, but after these two most recent roles, I've changed my mind. Jennifer Connelly, while adequate, was wasted in a thankless role as a brash American reporter. She saves the day more than once, but her acting was flat. And it was annoying that a nice white lady ended up being the savior for a couple of Africans (DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou). The plot was compelling and not entirely believable. Also, it was one looong movie, running about 2.5 hours. I'm not sure what I think of Hounsou's performance--he played a naive village fisherman who loses his family, which may account for the stunned look on his face for most of the movie. The ending is satisfying--perhaps a tad too much--though not exactly happy. I can't whole-heartedly recommend this film, but if you have any doubt that the diamond industry is evil you should probably see it.

(Aside regarding my on-going issue with the age disparity between male and female leads: Jennifer Connelly is four years older than DiCaprio! Their relationship is romantic in the hopeless, impossible sense--as opposed to the sex sense.)

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

There were funny moments and there were offensive moments. Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat is astonishingly believable. My movie-going companion actually asked me, “Is he really from Kazakhstan?” (No, he’s an Oxford-educated Englishman--and he's Jewish.) The things that people said—thatBorat “got” them to say—were so outrageous, so racist, sexist and bigoted that I was more horrified than amused. It was not humor so much as a mirror held up to America reflecting the ugliness that we usually ignore.

Much as been written about the male nudity, which was an inspired bit of slapstick. Slapstick, when done well, can be as funny as anything out there. It also clarified to the audience that we were firmly entrenched in the theater of the absurd.

However, the moment I liked best was more silly than absurd. Let me set it up: in a quest to reach California, Borat and his companion buy a cheap car—an old ice cream truck. They also buy an animal for protection (yes, it's as odd as it sounds). That animal is a bear. In one scene, they can’t get the music for the ice cream truck to stop playing. A crowd of children starts running behind the truck thinking there is ice cream for sale. When the children get close, the bear sticks its head out the back window and ROARS. The children flee in terror. (I narrated this scene to my boyfriend and got so choked up with laughter, I could barely get the words out.)

It wasn't a great movie and certainly not a consistently funny one, but probably worth a look. It will not suffer from being viewed on DVD, either, given the purposeful low-quality look of the film.


WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER







And the last scene, where a busty celebrity was actually stuffed in a bag—I assume against her will—was very, very hard not to laugh at. It was the culmination of all the ridiculousness of what had gone before and I could hardly believe it was happening—that it could happen. Wild. I was simultaneously horrified, as I could imagine how scary it would be to be the person under attack, and hysterical, as I actually sawBorat manage, however briefly, to execute his bizarre plan. I'm not sure, even now, what to make of my reaction.

What did you think?

Casino Royale (2006)

I didn’t think I’d like it but I liked it. Call it the magic of lowered expectations. I also needed to see a movie where I could get out of my head, where I wouldn’t have to think, where I wouldn’t have to reflect on or evaluate my life. I thought a little about why I like James Bond—why anyone likes James Bond—or perhaps why any women like James Bond. Of course, he’s sexy and mysterious. He travels the world, is stylish, suave and masculine. All attractive qualities. But I identify with James Bond, not with the Bond girls. I want to be that sexy, stylish spy who travels the world and makes love without breaking hearts, leaving only satisfied, grateful partners in my wake. Ah, that’s the life.

Casino Royale is an origin story, which tend to be the best. It’s cold, brutal and action-packed. The titles were not the greatest but they were refreshingly free of naked ladies (sorry fellas). In fact, there’s damn little sex in this picture and more than enough violence. One of the first chase scenes is actually conducted on foot and is astonishing, exciting and completely held my attention. It contrasted the gymnastic agility of the “bad” guy with the brutish more direct approach of Bond. Perfect set up and was exceptionally fun to watch. In general, the action in this picture was more realistic than I’ve seen for a while—it’s more about the physicality of the actors (and stuntmen) and less about CGI effects.

Eva Green plays the female foil for James and I liked what she did. I did not buy her British accent (good reason for that: she’s French) but I did buy her repressed sexiness. (I would also like to air my on-going issue with casting: Eva Green is twelve years younger than Daniel Craig. What gives?)

I liked Craig as Bond. He was rugged and not too refined and very physical. He was cold and brutal, witty and sneering. His wisecracking fell a little flat—he is better on the move. Still, he is a Bond I could get used to.

The Prestige (2006)

You may feel like you've already seen this movie or read about it, but that is because there is a similarly-themed movie (The Illusionist) currently in release. Both are set at similar times (late 19th Century) but the locations are different and so are the characters and the plot lines. Of the two films, I preferred The Prestige (2006). Why? It's not that the acting is better or the writing is better or the cinematography is prettier. No, I preferred it because it is much less pretentious. The Illusionist was a seemingly meaningful story that actually had no substance. There is no particular substance to The Prestige either, but there is an entertaining puzzle, good performances and a truly creepy (though not surprising) ending that actually did provide food for thought, though it wasn't particularly deep or meaningful. If you like magic, Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, David Bowie (!) and creepy visuals, I recommend The Prestige. It's a good two hours spent and it won't leave you feeling cheated. All secrets are revealed.

The Departed (2006)

Good movie. It's true: Martin Scorsese is back to form. I was very surprised to find myself liking the Leonardo DiCaprio character better than the Matt Damon character--even though you're supposed to. I just like to look at Matt Damon so much more than Leo! I see it as a testament to good acting on both their parts that they were able to shift me my from my initial preferences. Also, (my boyfriend) Marky-Mark is fantastic in this film. It was almost a throwaway part, but boy does he chew it up! The hair? Awful! The dialog? Foul! The character? Hateful! But you completely respect him and buy him in this part. It does help if you like Boston (South Boston?) accents. The natives (Damon, Wahlberg) do it better than the rest of the cast, but they're all in there pitching. Last, but not least, the "old heads" in this picture are fun to watch, in particular, Jack Nicholson. I am crazy about Alec Baldwin these days and he is fine here. Martin Sheen? Perhaps dialing it in a little, but nothing too terrible. His accent is a weak point. I do like that EVERYONE in the picture is supposed to be from Boston and that local class differences turn the plot. This attention to detail makes us suspend our disbelieve enough to enjoy the preposterous stuff in this picture. Some gruesome violence, not for the faint of heart, and a little too much humor at the expense of corpses, but, still, a good ride. Oh, and, for once, a love story that is essential to the plot and pretty well done. I recommend it.

Aside: if we could have a picture with as many interesting roles for women of as many different ages and degrees of beauty...that would be something!

The Last King of Scotland (2006)

I did not like this movie. I only went because one of the folks in my group insisted. The acting was fine--Forest Whitaker, as always, was excellent and, chillingly, quite convincing as Idi Amin. I recalled him, dimly, from my childhood and that he was a very bad man. In at least the first half of the film there is quite a bit of humor. But, do we need another film about Africa from the perspective of a white guy? For the most part, while I didn't like the white guy hero very much, I bought the story. However, the end of the film, which hinges on the raid on Entebbe, was preposterous. Completely unbelievable! Argh. Also, even the humor is hard to enjoy because, knowing that this is Uganda, under Amin, nothing good is going to happen. In fact, only bad things are going to happen--to everyone except the white guy hero. (Note: the film features an almost unrecognizable Gillian Anderson in a substantial supporting role. She sports blond hair and a most convincing British accent. Turns out she's a natural blond and lived in England from age 2 to 11! Who knew?)

Idlewild

Before seeing Idlewild I read a review that said it was an interesting mess--which was quite correct. The music is good, the acting is wooden, the plot is nonsensical. The story is also melodramatic. I hate melodrama but can abide it in support of a good musical. There are good actors in this film but their performances are disappointing. And why, why, why is the BEST musical number playing under the closing credits? If the film had more numbers like that, it would be about 50% better. Probably best to wait for the DVD on this one--I bet the extras will be worth seeing.

Half Nelson (2006)

Half Nelson begs the question, "how fucked up can you be and still teach 8th grade history?" The answer? Very. On why he doesn't keep a copy of Mein Kampf out on the shelf, "'Cause it's just not cool to be a Nazi anymore, baby." No, he's not a Nazi. He is one fucked up individual. Perhaps a true tragic hero--but his tragic flaws are much more in evidence than any virtues. He dresses in anachronistic '80s style, including a digital calculator watch and pink power tie. A young girl, his student, befriends him and saves him…or does she? The end of the film doesn't advance you past where it started. The acting is fine--Ryan Gosling is fantastic. Shareeka Epps is astounding--tough, vulnerable and completely her own confused, conflicted person. The journey is fine, but since our (anti) hero learns nothing at the end, I wondered why we made the trip.

Snakes on a Plane

It delivers. Perfect balance of serious hard-ass attitude from SLJ, matched by complete idiocy of secondary characters and a sense of humor about the subject matter. Some poignant early scenes lead to tragi-comic mass death on an airplane that is beset by the twin horrors of an electrical storm and a cargo hold full of…well, I don't want to give it away. Not for the squeamish, the violence is cartoon-ish enough not to be terribly offensive and only occasionally shocking. I got one actual scare from this film, which is rare for me, and plenty of good laughs.

Invincible

A low-key, working class drama. Decent acting, no rah-rah hero worship. Only one unnecessary montage set to sappy music. Love interest is actually integral to plot. Needed more character development. Stupid Disney. I still liked it. Didn't cry as much as I expected. That is to say: not at all. Also, I'll pretty much watch anything with Marky Mark in it, but is it my imagination or is he looking a little rugged these days? I'm just sayin'…

The Illusionist

The film was pretty, charming, entertaining. Striving for substance, but never achieving it. Ultimately hollow. See it, but don't expect any deep meaning. It wants to be deep, it just isn't. Jessica Biel is surprisingly (and pleasantly) more watchable than anything I've seen her in before. Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti are pros, as usual. (Aside: why are we asked to believe that Ms. Biel (24) is the same age as Mr. Norton (37) (they are childhood sweethearts in the movie)? No wonder women are afraid to show their age. Men playing late 20's are actually in their late 30's, while women playing 30-somethings are invariably younger.)

Big Momma and Madea

Does it disturb anyone else that there are two movies out (Big Momma's House 2 and Madea's Family Reunion) featuring black men masquerading as heavyset older black women? What is this about?

I didn't see Big Momma's House (and I'm planning not to). I did see, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, which is where the character "Madea" (a bastardization of "My Dear") originated. The latter film was an adaptation of Tyler Perry's "chitlin' circuit" stage play. (Perry is a wonder--he's produced, written and directed several plays with Madea and made a ton of money doing it. HIs acting isn't bad either.)

There is a difference. In Big Momma's House, the masquerade is part of the plot. The man playing Big Momma knows he is a man. I'm assuming this is the less interesting film because such impersonations as plot devices are tiresome (Mrs. Doubtfire, anyone? In fact, I under stand that in the sequel, Big Momma poses as a nanny!)

The Madea character is a woman, not a man in drag. The actor playing Madea is a man. As far as the plot is concerned, Madea is a woman.

I'm just wondering why there are no black women who can play these parts--or at least Madea's part. And why are men originating the characters? Are they vaguely reminiscent of Hattie McDaniel's mammy from Gone with the Wind? Maybe. That character was subservient (but she was a servant), almost childlike creature--though she was superior to many of those around her. Madea, at least, is a confident, funny, self-reliant woman. She is a caretaker and she also knows her own mind. She was one of the best things about Diary of a Mad Black Woman, since the main plot was pure wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Now Madea gets her own movie. Good for her/him, I guess.

---

Here are my impressions of Diary of a Mad Black Woman, which I saw almost exactly a year ago today:

DMBW is an adaptation, by the original author, of a very popular play on the “chitlin’ circuit.” These are broad morality plays aimed at an African-American audience. Indeed, that is the audience that was drawn to the movie theater. Union Station has the only theater in NE DC, and usually has a high percentage of African-Americans in attendance, but for this film, I was the only white person in the audience. I’ve been the only white person on the bus in DC many times, but in the movie theater? This was a unique experience. I also did not seem to be the only solo viewer of the film. The audience had the full age range, and there were quite a few men, but there were also a large number of African-American women “of a certain age” on their own or in groups.

How was the film? It was maudlin and funny and sweet. The subplots were more compelling than the main story, whose characters and actions were cut out of cardboard. I can’t really recommend this picture, but it was entertaining. Some of it was very, very funny. The Christianity was heavy—but also realistic. The best outcome for heroine could only be achieved if she got divorced and forgave her ex-husband. (Guess what happened?) The audience was into it, yelling advice at the heroine, deriding some of her decisions and hollering approval at others. They laughed, they commented, they were part of the show. It is my understanding that the same thing happens at live performances on the chitlin’ circuit. Actually, the hootin’ and hollerin’ phenomenon is common at Union Station, and I have friends who refuse to go there for just that reason. As long as you are prepared for it, it’s fine. For DMBW, it was completely appropriate—perhaps it was the whole point.

Transamerica (2005)

Written and Directed by Duncan Tucker

Partial cast
Felicity Huffman......Bree Osbourne
Kevin Zegers.............Toby

I was planning to see something else, but ended up at Transamerica. I figured I'd be getting one more off of my Oscar ™hit list, so that was something. Felicity Huffman grabbed a best actress nomination for her portrayal of a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual. Given that Huffman has a kind of ugly/pretty face to begin with she's probably a good choice, looks-wise, for this part. She is also a good actress, Desperate Housewives notwithstanding.

Was it a good movie? I'm torn. A lot of it was forced and stilted. A lot of it was sweet and good natured. It didn't shy away from some real ugliness (drug addiction, sexual abuse). It didn't try to pretty things up. Yet, the mostly happy ending was perhaps a little too easy. The transformation, of the heroine, a literal and emotional one, came a little too easy.

I have no idea if Huffman's performance was believable. I haven't met any pre-op transsexuals (at least to my knowledge) so I have no frame of reference. I suppose I would cheer more if I saw a man take on this role, but it's a casting dilemma. I keep thinking of John Lithgow in The World According to Garp. He was a very masculine post-op transsexual. I don't remember if I found him convincing in the role, but it sure made a lot more sense.

Nevertheless, Huffman does a good job. And the costume designer was brilliant. Only a man would think that those outfits were something a woman would wear. Like with transvestites in show-girl-esque drag, Huffman's outfits are a hyper-feminized version of how even a prissy woman would dress. The only colors on display were violet, pink and purple. Oh my. And the shoes! Hilariously ridiculous.

Kevin Zegers, who plays her son, was good. Handsome, awkward and conniving. He was convincing too.

I don't know. This was a sweet bit of nothing built on a very ugly foundation. Guess you can turn anything into pap if you try hard enough. Ouch. I guess I didn't like it that much. Still, it was not boring and I enjoyed watching it. I give a lukewarm recommendation.

Something New (2006)

Directed by Sanaa Hamri

Writing credits
Kriss Turner

Partial cast
Sanaa Lathan....Kenya McQueen
Simon Baker.....Brian

While this is technically a romantic comedy, it takes serious aim at racial issues. Which is good. A good romance needs a little conflict, and while this conflict is easily resolved, it is real and interesting. Interesting because I think that it is not confronted very often in film.

A fellow blogger had a great post about why this movie is particularly meaningful for black women. I'd say it's just as important for the rest of us--the movie does a great job of showing why interracial romance is difficult. It's not just because family and friends aren't accepting and night club comedians take pot shots at you--though that doesn't help. The real problems is that it's almost impossible for a white person to understand the casual and overt racism a black person faces in her day-to-day life.

The story is a simple boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl plot. Simon Baker does a fine job despite some unforgivably stiff lines. The effort to make him seem artistic and sensitive as a contrast to Kenya's (Sanaa Lathan) buttoned-up accountant sometimes fell flat--his dialogue needed some work. But, it wasn't hard to buy. The falling in love happened rather too quickly, but it was a slow process in movie-time. It was in the believable realm.

The losing of the girl happens because the boy won't listen to her frustrated complaints about how hard it is for her to advance in the corporate world because she is black (though she does advance). He is tired and doesn't want to hear it. He accuses her of having an ideal man in mind (an "Ideal Black Man" or IBM as Kenya's friends refer to him) and points out that he will never measure up. And they are kaput--at least temporarily.

It is one of the most believable movie breakups I can remember. The substance of their argument is so real. It's not fun to watch (a tiny bit of humor is thrown in to ease the viewer), but you can't blame either one--they both have legitimate points and either one of them could have given. The resolution to their problem takes a little time to roll around, not that you don't see it coming a mile away. It's rather sweet that Kenya's friends and family are won over in the end--it's more important to them that she's happy than that she marry a black man. And they let her know that it's ok to choose love. It's really very sweet.

So, besides liking romantic comedies, I also really like the male lead in this film. At least I thought I did. I used to watch this little show called The Guardian starring Simon Baker. I loved Simon Baker. Now, I think I loved his character on that show. On the show, he was brooding, unhappy, unavailable, tormented. He was a bad man trying very hard to be good. Sometimes he succeeded, but often he backslid.

In Something New, Brian (Simon Baker) is sweet and open. He's rather more blonde and blue-eyed than I recalled. It's not that he's not loveable, but I didn't love him anymore. Who knew I preferred tortured, lost souls to contented, self-assured ones? Uh, me and everyone I know, that's who.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Directed by Ang Lee

Writing credits
Annie Proulx (short story)
Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana (screenplay)

Partial Cast
Heath Ledger....Ennis Del Mar
Jake Gyllenhaal....Jack Twist

I have to agree with everyone that this is a good movie, but I'm not sure I would recommend it.

It certainly was a well made movie. The photography is among the most gorgeous I've seen in recent memory. It almost touches the graceful vistas of Days of Heaven. The opening scene of a wind battered tiny, empty western town is so beautifully framed that it makes the ugliness--the rusted trucks and dumpy buildings--seem beautiful.

The pacing of the film is also excellent. One of the hardest things to do in a film is convey the passage of time. At least a third of the film is devoted to one summer. The rest of the movie spans almost 20 years. Yet you are always situated in time. It's not always subtle, but it's clear and believable. (Some may quibble with the make-up used to age the actors. I admit that in the scene where Jake Gyllenhaal appeared with an obviously fake moustache and a tiny gut, I couldn’t suppress a twitter. Heath Ledger's make up was much better.)

The acting is very good all around. Heath Ledger is so good that he almost made me cry before I even knew there was anything to be sad about. I didn't love Jake Gyllenhaal as much, but his character, Jack Twist, isn't as likeable--his acting was just as fine. The women in the supporting roles are also quite good. And the folks who play Jake's elderly parents are totally believable.

So how was the film? Sad. When it ended, I remarked to one of my companions that I thought I would just go ahead and kill myself now. It was all hopeless and completely believable. Those people were so stuck, not just because of society, but because of their own beliefs...I just found it incredibly disheartening. And sad, terribly sad.

The scenery is gorgeous, the filmmaking is high quality and the acting first rate. Should you see it? I don't know. Can you handle the saddest little movie in the world? I sure couldn't. And I don't know that I learned anything either--gay men face prejudice? I knew that. They sometimes cause their own problems by not coming out of the closet? Check. Sometimes the consequences of coming out of the closest are dire? Check. Sometimes coming out is not an option.

But the movie is not trying to teach you those lessons. You need to understand that stuff to know why these two star-crossed lovers are, in fact, star-crossed. But even in Romeo and Juliet there is a sense of "if only." If only Romeo waited a few minutes longer for Juliet to wake up, if only their families weren't so stupid...if only.

In Brokeback Mountain, there was no "if only." Well, if only those fellas had lived in New York City, they might have lived happily ever after. Except these were two cowboys who never would have been happy living in the city. Except they both wanted families. There wasn't that much "if only," which is why it made me so sad. I guess I need a little ray of hopefulness in my hopeless love stories or I'd rather not watch.

The moral? I can't handle sad movies anymore. Bring on the light, preferably romantic, comedy.

Match Point (2005)

Written and Directed by Woody Allen

Partial Cast
Jonathan Rhys Meyers......Chris Wilton
Brian Cox.............................Alec Hewett
Penelope Wilton.................Eleanor Hewett
Emily Mortimer..................Chloe Hewett Wilton
Scarlett Johansson..............Nola Rice

The second half of this review is FULL of spoilers. I'll warn you ahead of time though, but use caution if you haven't seen the film yet. It requires some suspense to be fully enjoyed.

I feared this movie would be a disappointment. It wasn't, not really. I didn't love it, though. I found it thoroughly mean spirited and lacking in human kindness. I'd heard some glowing one-line reviews, but I'd tried not to read anything about the picture. This is definitely "late" Woody Allen. It deals with issues of marriage and fidelity and the approach is close to humorless. Funny lines are spoken but the tone of the film is grave and dour.

The hero (later to become the anti-hero) is played by Jonathan Rhys Meyers, who I thought was supposed to be something of a fox. I whispered to my companion, "He's not very good looking." She agreed and said that he can be handsome or ugly depending on the film. That's probably true--he has one of those flexible faces. In this film, however, he was not handsome.

Early in the film he embarks on a mild campaign of self-improvement, reading Dostoevsky (foreshadowing) and listening to opera. You don't know whether his efforts are sincere or calculated. In fact, the answer to that question is never resolved though I think it's easy to lean towards calculated, both answers are possible.

Chris seems to be getting along swimmingly with an upper-class girlfriend and her family when he meets the woman who threatens to be his undoing, one Miss Scarlett Johansson. She is engaged to his girlfriend's brother. Their meeting is played nicely over a ping-pong table. Tennis pro that he is, he stomps her and she handles it...smoothly.

I expected not to like Nola, the character Johansson plays, because previews led me to believe she was a one-note seductress. That is not at all the case. Until she is transformed into a shrieking harpy at the end of the film she is probably the most sympathetic character. She is complicated, confused, strong and vulnerable. A rather more sympathetic female character than Allen usually lets into his later works.

But things spiral out of control in the second half of the picture.

SPOILER ALERT.






After the affair of Chris and Nola starts to go wrong, the film turns to one of Allen's favorite later tropes: murder and mystery. Though we have the inside knowledge, we don't know what the outcome will be--that is, will he get away with it.

Some viewers may find themselves rooting for the anti-hero as he commits a heinous crime. I found myself cringing and thinking, "No, no, no. Stop now. There is still time to stop." Later, when an Inspector (British style detective) sits straight up in bed inspired by the solution to the crime, I was cheering for him. But he is foiled by a very clever plot twist that looked like it would be Chris's undoing and turned out to be his salvation.

In this movie, the bad guy wins, the innocents suffer or remain ignorant and life goes on. It left me a little queasy.

Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Directed by Otto Preminger, starring Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney. I had never heard of it before, but it was showing at the AFI Silver, so I decided to check it out. It was a good film, though not a great film, which might be the reason. It was no Laura though. Tierney's performance is relatively tiny, though I lover her no matter what. She has almost perfect features, a perfect figure and that silly "Broadway British" diction. She is almost unreal in a way no modern star is. Maybe Faye Dunaway in years past comes closest.

The real draw for me, though, was Dana Andrews. I really love Dana Andrews. Is it because he's not quite as well known today as other stars of his era (1940's-50's)? I don't know how well he was known in his time. But I adore him. The Best Years of Our Lives? Great stuff, I tell you.

He was very good in this. Lots of close-ups and lots of showing. Except for the ending, which was satisfying, but whoever was in charge felt the need to make explicit a few things that were better left to the imagination.

Still, I enjoyed the film. The black and while was gritty and realistic looking, even though the plot was almost but not quite believable.

Definitely glad I saw it.

Last Holiday (2006)

This was not a good movie, not even close, but it was enjoyable, amusing and except for the pat ending, easy to watch (i.e. not cringe-inducing).

I will watch almost anything with Queen Latifa. Unfortunately most of her parts are crap, but she is one of the most commanding presences in contemporary film. I'm not kidding. She is so likeable that she brings joy to almost any role. She seems to be specializing in under appreciated these days, which is a tad absurd. You look at her and it's hard to imagine that this woman, even as a girl, was ever under appreciated. Maybe that's why it works. It's a little joke between her and the audience. You watch, knowing, that in the end she will be the most appreciated person on screen. She will get the man, make the money and fix everyone else's problems. She will never apologize for her color, her size or her gender. We know, she knows, but no one else in the movie does and we get to watch while they learn to appreciate her.

Oddly, her performance in Last Holiday was muted throughout. She begins the film as a painfully shy, sensible shoe wearing retail sales clerk. At the end, she is an international woman of mystery. Yet, she was so quite, so soft spoken, even after her transformation, that I wondered when she was going to shout, guffaw or burst into song. Her performance was an exercise in control and subtlety, which was completely unnecessary in this film. What is Ms. Latifah trying to prove? She is still likeable, though.

I hope she finds a worthier project soon. These lightweight, "feel-good" pictures of hers are killing me.