Wanted

English/110 Minutes/2008/Rated R

“Wanted” is a great summer action flick that triumphs more in style than in depth. The story follows Wesley Gibson who is miserable as a cog in the work-a-day world. His girlfriend cheats on him with his best friend, his boss abuses him and he constantly frets over his extraordinary insignificance. One day that all changes when he learns that the father he never knew, one of the greatest assassins that has ever lived, was recently murdered.

He is then recruited by The Fraternity, a group of assassins of whom his father was a part. We follow Wesley through the inevitable training sequence (that manages not to fall into the montage trap) and on his early missions as he builds up his skills to tackle his father's killer. The Fraternity itself is a fascinating hodgepodge of characters with standouts being Fox, (Angelina Jolie in a role she is born to play) and Morgan Freeman cast against type as the leader of this gang of assassins. Wesley is played by one of my favorite actors, James McAvoy (Atonement, Last King of Scotland) and he does a spectacular job at selling Wesley's insignificance while equally well portraying his powerful side.

Visually the film is great and while being utterly over the top never falls into the realm of self-parody that was the undoing of “Shoot 'Em Up.” It helps that it is directed by the great visual stylist Timur Bekmambetov (Nightwatch, Daywatch) in his English language debut. Timur fills the screen with impossible action that somehow remains feasible and all the more pleasurable for it. A close comparison would be “Live Free or Die Hard” another over-the-top action film that never quite crosses the line of credulity. A great example from “Wanted” is the scene where an assassin flips his car over another vehicle to fire down through an open sunroof. Completely ridiculous, absolute pleasure.

“Wanted” is easily the most visually exciting movie I've seen this year. It's use of slow motion is stellar including long reverses (a bullet going through someone's head is traced back through time to the gun that fired it) and the visual representation of Wesley's different abilities is handled in such a way that the viewer immediately knows which sense he's using. There are other great visuals that I don't want to ruin by giving away. Suffice to say that the film is a visual treat and is Timur's best film to date.

Narratively the film is fairly pedestrian with the action set pieces really setting it apart. This is not to say that the film has no distinguishing and original ideas. The method of target selection for The Fraternity is interesting if a little bizarre, yet it is believable and interesting. Of course it helps that you have Morgan Freeman selling it to you (providing the gravity that he also gives in the recent Batman films). The film has some other great conceits that I won't ruin here and is great fun. I think it's safe to say that while there has been some criticism of the film's similarity to both Fight Club and The Matrix (nobodies who discover great power), “Wanted” is enough its own man that viewers who enjoyed those films won't mind the similarities.

In closing, the story of “Wanted” is familiar but it manages to overcome its familiarity with great style and a stellar cast. You'll be hard pressed to find a more exciting and fun summer movie than this. Highly Recommended.

Rated R for Strong Bloody Violence Throughout, Pervasive Language, and Some Sexuality

Rambo

English/91 Minutes/2008/Rated R

Those not wishing to read the entirety of this review will hopefully find the following summary satisfactory. Rambo is a good action film that finds its roots in a real life tragedy. It is not exploitative even though it is very graphic. It is recommended. For those interested in a more full-bodied defense, read on...

“Rambo” is a film that contains much that is unpleasant but I hardly feel that it is morally indefensible or disgustingly pro-violence. My contention is that the film brings a satisfactory end to Rambo's story while staying true to the underlying elements of the character. It is ironic that a film star who made the right-wing uncomfortable with his first film seems to make the left-wing uncomfortable with his latest film. I think, however, that this film is just as effective at starting discussion as any Oscar-worthy film on the subject and in this review I will tell you why.

The story of the latest “Rambo” installment is fairly simple. John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) has once again gone into hiding, this time in Thailand where he spends his time in purgatory and exile, wrangling poisonous snakes. Into his world come a group of missionaries, including Sara (Julie Benz), who want to cross the border into Burma (Myanmar). There has been a genocidal campaign by the ruling government for the last 30 years to drive out an ethnic people called the Karen (pronounced KAH-rin) to take over their land. These missionaries are going to help. Rambo asks, “are you bringing any weapons.” No they say, they are not. “Then you aren't changing anything,” he says. He has no interest in helping these people. Yet in a rain-soaked confrontation Sara is able to convince Rambo to take them up river and he does so grudgingly. When the missionaries don't return their Pastor hires a group of mercenaries to get them back and Rambo must take them up the river as well.

What follows is a no-holds barred assault on the senses and perhaps the sensibilities of some viewers. Unlike other critics I don't think the film exploits the real life tragedy of Myanmar for the sake of a film, at least no more so than a “Hotel Rwanda” or “Blood Diamond.” Rather it takes the opportunity of a summer action flick to shine a light on a little discussed subject. I'm sure I am like many other viewers who, after seeing the film, decided to look up what was really going on in Myanmar and see how people are helping.

For the film itself, while it is as graphic as you have been led to believe, is a great opportunity for Rambo to use his fighting skills to purge himself of his demons. I personally feel that a level of reality has finally been brought to a series known for a high body count. For example in “First Blood Part II,” Rambo kills at least a hundred people but its done in a stylized way; all fun and no consequences. The new film is not squeamish in showing what happens when violence really occurs. If we find that distasteful then the film has, in some ways, done its job. If we also find it exhilarating it says something about us as humans and as viewers.

“Rambo” does harken back to a time of simpler moralities where bad guys wore black hats and the good guys were good. Yet it's simple story is sometimes at odds with its realistic depiction. It comes closer in its realism and its desire to depict violence as nasty and unpleasant but it does not make a full demythologization like we saw in Clint Eastwood's “Unforgiven.” Instead the movie engages us viscerally in the simplistic rah-rah pleasure of great 80s action films of which this franchise is a pillar. This is what I feel many critics and viewers have had issue with.

As I have said of other war, holocaust, genocide movies, anyone who wishes to bring to the screen stories of these tragedies has a choice to make. They can go totally abstract with the depictions of violence like the scene in “Schindler's List” where people are marching into the crematoria or they can try for some level of verisimilitude. At the far end of that scale is essentially a document of atrocities in all their vile detail to the point that any message you have is drowned out by the desensitization of the viewer. Essentially we turn off and zone out.

There is also the accusation that any film who opts for more realistic portrayal of horrific deeds is somehow exploiting the tragedy for the purpose of entertainment. Then there are those who say that nothing less than the full monty is acceptable. There are of course downsides to both ends. Anything less than documentary is considered sacrilege and any graphic depiction less than that is exploitation. Thus Rambo finds itself in the camp of films that take their stories from real tragedies and make from them 90 minutes of entertainment with a serious face. That is the great criticism of the film.

And this is the major theme that must be addressed by any critic who recommends the film as technically the film is well made. The acting is better than previous installments (save the first) and the story is tight and engaging. Stallone shows a sure hand when it comes to filming action set-pieces and this installment should be praised for the increased realism.

For example, Rambo no longer takes on a whole battalion alone, and not always in face to face combat. Many of his successes focus on surprising the enemy or outwitting them instead of merely outrunning-and-gunning them. In fact much of his success is based on a mixture of luck and the involvement of others. He still gets his hands plenty bloody but the feeling of the film is different. John Rambo as portrayed by Stallone is no longer the lost boy of First Blood or the steroidal invulnerable badass of the later flicks. Rather this Rambo is utterly familiar with himself and hates what he is. In his mind he only brings death.

Consider if you will Rambo's place in time. John Rambo was a veteran who was cast out by his country. He did his best to help POWs still unaccounted for in Vietnam. One could only imagine how he would feel about veterans these days getting poor treatment at Walter Reed. He was over in Afghanistan in the 80s helping the Mujuhadeen finish off the Russians. But when the Russians left the Taliban came to power. We now live in a world where 9/11 has taken place and we find ourselvse again in an unpopular war. Wherever Rambo goes trouble is waiting and in his world nothing ever really does change.

At the same time, Rambo is not conflicted about his personal use of violence. Rambo says that killing is easy for him and it is hinted that he enjoys it. He has long since given up any pretense to fighting a good fight or doing a greater good. I think he may even realize the futility of violence in the long run. This is not to say that “Rambo” is a work of quiet philosophy. There is still the expected body count and the simplistic villains.

Rambo himself doesn't have much dialogue and what there is mostly imperative “go here, do this.” The brief moments of philosophy can fit on a poster (and they do): “live for nothing, die for something.” However, Rambo has not aligned himself with some greater good. Rather, John Rambo has been looking for a good reason to die, because he doesn't have a good reason to go on living. The scene where he is prepared to give his life for someone else (literally) is a far cry from the old Rambo.

I think it is also significant that this is the first time that Rambo is not sent on a mission by a government or on behalf of one. He doesn't do it for money or even for love (Benz is easily half his age and the character isn't exactly a lover). Instead he takes on this mission because he has learned to care about people again. He also realizes that killing is what he does and that no one is as good at it as he is. And he has plenty of people to kill.

The villains in the piece are rather one dimensional and are portrayed as utterly, irredeemably evil (one is even a pedophile) and to their credit all the villains perform admirably in rather thankless roles. The supporting cast fairs a little better with a group of mercenaries who, while also rather one-dimensional, make their presence felt and we care about what happens to them. In a great turn, Graham McTavish plays a surly former SAS man who ends up being surprisingly sympathetic. The missionaries are fairly expendable and are for the most part interchangeable, with the exception of Benz and Paul Schulze as their leader.

In fact Rambo has been criticized for showing the missionaries as weak and naïve. Benz's character is particularly singled out for supposedly being a throwback to the damsel in distress. However, in this case I found it to be a little more realistic. With a lack of training and days tied up in a hog pen with little food, I'm sure we would all find it difficult to be more proactive.

As a film, “Rambo” does what it sets out to do which is revamp and revitalize a forgotten series, entertaining while shedding light on an important topic. Topical films have a habit of being incredibly dated and falling prey to the passage of time. Such was the fate of “Rambo III” and may be of this new Rambo as well. The new Rambo just happened to be made at a time where many in the critical establishment do not want to see endorsements of violence and the heedless portrayal of bloodletting of the type featured in the film.

The great sin of Rambo is that it addresses an important topic in a politically incorrect fashion. If, for example, Stallone had paid for a documentary about Myanmar, no one would have gone to see it. If this film were a drama starring a white woman as a heroic doctor who is killed for helping the Burmese people, it would critically lauded. Finally if this were a foreign language film about a Burmese woman who must use her wits and her sexuality to survive being in a prison camp until she is liberated by fellow rebels, it would win an Oscar. The issue with Rambo is not that it is a bad film. Rather it is pilloried for making a good film in a politically incorrect way and thus it cannot be appreciated either as entertainment or serious commentary.

Personally I find that the film is a good conclusion for the character and if none other was ever made I would consider the franchise well ended. Rambo finds his peace at last and we are given hope that while he may have been a man of violence, that is not all that he is. Recommended.

Rated R for Strong Graphic Bloody Violence, Sexual Assaults, Grisly Images and Language

Cortex

French/105 Minutes/2008/Not Rated

The French thriller “Cortex” has an interesting concept that could have turned into a gimmick but thankfully delivers a crisp whodunit instead. In “Cortex,” Charles Boyer (named like the film actor from the 50s) is a retired police detective that is suffering from Alzheimer's. He is no longer able to live by himself and his son and he have agreed that he needs to enter a retirement home.

Boyer (Andre Dussollier) is a widower who is slowly losing control of his memory and faculties due to the disease. When he arrives at “La Residence” he finds that patients are dying from mysterious circumstances. He suspects there may be a murderer loose in La Residence. The question is can he overcome the growing instability of his own memory to find the murderer in time?

Directed by Nicholas Boukhrief, “Cortex” teases us. Are there really murders occuring or has Boyer become paranoid? Who could the murderer be and why would they kill? The storytelling is handled in a fairly straightforward manner as Boyer sneaks around the hospital trying to gather evidence. What makes the film unique is that we are unsure if we are seeing Boyer from the inside or the outside. We rarely leave his perspective in a shot and when we do he is either entering or leaving the scene. The viewer is thus left to question if perhaps there are no murders or that Boyer may be the killer himself.

His condition is used to great effect narratively. In one scene he desperately scrawls notes in a little notebook he keeps only to look down and see that he has written notes on top of notes leaving an almost indecipherable scrawl. Even when he discovers who the killer is and writes it down, he forgets again leaving his note in a place he has forgotten. In another scene at the beginning of the film he reaches into his desk to get his pistol. He finds the paper it was wrapped in and the pistol in the waste can.

Of course no one believes Charles accusations and he constantly has to trick the hospital staff, particularly with faking taking his medication. In these scenes I found the film to be a little less realistic. Anyone who has been in a hospital like that will tell you that nurses know how to check and see if you have taken your medication. Also being able to hide a gun would be a difficult task. How he finally determines the solution feels a bit contrived but allows the viewer some extra suspense. Finally I don't believe that a real hospital or retirement home would have corridors that were unwatched.

Those criticisms aside the film is well acted and well written. It uses its plot conceit (Alzheimer's patient solves logic puzzle) to the full dramatic effect without feeling exploitative. This is an easy recommend for people who like brain puzzles. A classic whodunit with a great twist.

Not Rated: Mature Audiences, contains Some Language and a Scene of Violence

Happiness

English/139 Minutes/1998/Not Rated

In the movie “Happiness” no one is happy. They all see the sunny sides of other lives and wish they were their own. But as Solondz is pleased to remind us the happier we pretend to be the more depressed we really are.

The movie follows three sisters as their lives intertwine in small town New Jersey. Joy (a fragile Jane Adams) is a struggling artist, almost thirty and living at home with her parents. Her opening scene with Jon Lovitz (the finest bit he's ever done) sets the stage for what will be the theme in Joy's joyless life: punishment of hope.

Sister Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle) seems to have it all. She's a successful single writer but is completely facile and vapid at one point saying she wished she'd been raped so her work could be more authentic. She finds a weird connection with an obscene caller, Alan (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) who is also her neighbor.

The third sister, Trish (Cynthia Stevenson) is “happily” married to Dr. Maplewood (Dylan Baker) and has three children, the oldest of which is their 11 year old son, Billy (Rufus Read). They live a fairly conventional life with the exception of the good doctor's secret. He is a pedophile, masturbating to teen pop magazines and staring longingly at his son's little league teammates. Dr. Maplewood also happens to be a psychiatrist whose patient is none other than Allan.

Each story presents a facet of what might make us happy. Whether it's happiness in success, happiness in others, or happiness in a situation. Solondz seems to say that happiness is an ideal but isn't found in real life, at least not in the ways we expect. Often we look beyond ourselves for happiness and love only to find that the only unconditional love is self love.

This is illustrated literally by the use of masturbation as a narrative tool. In three cases characters masturbate. One character does so to release frustration, the other to hold his demons at bay and the third as a right of passage that proves that there is hope. This is not happiness either.

Another theme is that the things that make us happy aren't always good things. Many times they hurt others or give us pleasure at their expense. At best people realize they are being used and don't mind because they get something out of it too. In many cases things that make us happy (or think will make us happy) are self-destructive. On the other than if we enslave ourselves to what society says are “good things” they don't necessarily lead to happiness. Only when we surrender our chase of happiness and learn to be content in our situation do we find happiness. In this film happy is the enemy of content just as perfect is the enemy of good.

I would be remiss in this interview if I did not single out for comment Dylan Baker for his performance as Dr. Bill Maplewood. Baker plays Bill as a man who has a desire that he knows is inappropriate but he feels helpless to stop. We never see his molestations on screen but they are discussed in the film in rather explicit terms. It is difficult to watch (as it should be) but Solondz refuses to portray Bill in arch or vile terms, instead showing what a real pedophile would be like. It is a performance that cannot be topped by an actor who probably can't get work anymore because of it.
The highlight of the film is a conversation between father and son. Bill is brutally honest with his son and the scene is heartbreaking. He has lost everything and he knows it. Bill does not justify himself, he knows what he has done is evil and inexcusable. Why does he tell his son these things? He is not seeking forgiveness or even understanding. Perhaps it is his way of saying goodbye, of pushing his son away. The scene brought tears to my eyes and that is not an easy task.

Many people misinterpret Solondz's films as misanthropic which is untrue. Rather he refuses to make his characters one dimensional. They all want to be happy, they're all selfish and self-absorbed. On the other hand they are capable of love and sympathy and evoke in us a sense of pity and perhaps self-identification. Every Solondz film challenges us to not identify with these characters. Everyone has some part that we can empathize with and a part we have a knee-jerk negative reaction to. The question is, are we brave enough to identify with these characters.

In “Happiness” the characters are all damaged in their own way and sometimes they find a moment of pleasure or happiness only to find that the consequences outweigh the pleasure. There is no guaranteed happiness for the characters in the film, but as one of them observes in a toast, “Where there's life, there's hope.” Highly Recommended

Not Rated: Mature Audiences, contains Sex/Nudity, Graphic Language, Mature Thematic Elements Involving Child Molestation and a Scene of Violence

Palindromes

English/100 Minutes/2004/Not Rated

In “Palindromes” Todd Solondz has perhaps finally found a way to tell the story he's been struggling with all these years. From “Welcome to the Dollhouse” through “Storytelling” he has been trying to convey that people do not change but that they are more than their circumstances. At least I think that's the story. It's the one I like best.

Palindromes is the story of Aviva who from a young age decides that she wants to be a mother. When she gets pregnant though, she learns that love is not unconditional and that life is much more complicated than she expected. I should tell more of the story but I don't want to spoil it. Suffice to say that, after a tough decision, she leaves home to find better fortune.

What makes the movie interesting and vital to it's core message is the fact that Aviva is played by 8 different actors of varying ages, race, (and in a brief segment) gender. The movie is roughly episodic with actors changing out at breaks in the story (usually titled by a character name) and sometimes within the same segment (especially near the end). While it may sound like an arthouse stunt the complexity provided by so many different actors provides an intriguing perspective.

Each actor has their moment to shine but there are a couple that really stand out. Sharon Wilkins as “Henrietta Aviva” shines in the role of a lifetime. She is an overweight black actress, a group not unlike middle-aged women who are too young to be lovers and too old to be moms, for whom Hollywood rarely has room. Solondz and Wilkins bring to Henrietta a beautiful innocence and openness that is refreshing. Far from a stunt she is one of the highlights of the film (no coincidence, I think, she's on the cover).

In another turn Valerie Shusterov plays the sexual side of Aviva in a bold role. She occupies an odd middle ground. She may be over 18, maybe not (it is implied she is a minor). She is mature and open about her sexuality and craving that connection. In a typical Solondz trend she finds love with a pedophile named Bob (Stephen Adly Guirgis) who is tortured by his desires.

Finally an unrecognizable Jennifer Jason Leigh turns in a portrait of an older, wiser Aviva who still clings to hope. She has learned to assert herself in a new way, expressing control over her circumstances. It is this Aviva that encounters Mark Weiner, the devil's mouthpiece of the film. He tells her that people do not change, that the depressives will always be depressed, that he has no control over whether he gets married and has children because its completely dependent on his “programming.” Mark has given up control of his life and hidden behind a mask of "rationality” while Aviva still holds out hope. Mark may be Solondz voice, but Aviva is his heart.

Solondz may be saying that we do not change, that we end the way we begin, but that what lies between those areas is complex and beautiful. Each Aviva is a shard of a soul, a facet of her. Even though she does not change she has so many parts. She has a child part, a guy part, an older woman part, each different but adhering to the same unchanging core. Aviva is played by many actors but remains a singular entity. One actor alone would have made a decent dramatic film, but Solondz is not interested in narrative as much as looking so intensely at one character that she actually fractures into pieces.

That's why “Palindromes” works so well as a film but also as a bookend to “Welcome to the Dollhouse.” It finally shows what Solondz' intentions have always been, why his stories are so fractured his characters so tormented. Perhaps I read too much hope into the film, but I think Solondz has said something life-affirming in this film and I think he has finally told his story.

We may never change, but there are so many parts to us that come to the fore in different times that we do not need to “change” we just need to learn to love all our parts. Highly Recommended.

Not Rated: Mature Audiences, contains Language and Sexual Situations, some involving Teens

Welcome To The Dollhouse

English/88 Minutes/1995/Rated R

“Who ever told you to fight back?” - Mrs. Weiner

“Welcome to the Dollhouse” was Todd Solondz first movie and while it is well made and earnest it never achieves the emotionally devastating power of his later works. Having seen some of Solondz's other films (Happiness and Storytelling) I found this one to be his least engaging and most readily digestible. There are themes he would later revisit (hatred of younger siblings, child abuse and kidnapping) but here they are in a much more reserved form.

In “Dollhouse” we find young Dawn Weiner (Heather Matarazzo) who is going through the hell which is junior high. She is neither popular nor attractive and is subject to some pretty far out abuse (a girl demands she take a shit while she watches, a boy threatens to rape her). The tone seems to be mixed, trying to be blackly comic but not always getting the tone right. For the most part though Solndz film is spot on.

The family dynamic shows Dawn stuck between an overachieving older brother, Mark (Matthew Faber), and sickeningly sweet baby sister Missy (played by Daria Kalinina in eternal tutu). Her father is a non-entity in the house wanting only peace and quiet while her mother is manipulative and domineering. She is estranged from her elder daughter, praising instead her brother and doting on her little sister. Dawn is supposed to play the silent middle role, always acquiescing to everyone else's needs.

Dawn is reaching an age where she is beginning to express herself and each time she attempts to carve out a place to stand she finds that she is pushed away. Solndz reminds us of what it was like to be 12 or 13 and through Dawn we can experience it all again, for better and worse. It is to both Matarazzo and Solndz's credit that we feel a bittersweet knowing. For we know what the results of many of Dawn's experiments will be.

We see Dawn in what is probably her first crush on an older man (Eric Mabius) and we share her disappointment when she finds he already has a girlfriend. We see her fumbling romance with a boy who is a different kind of outcast as they find a common ground. We see the moments when she learns, as we all did, the painful truths of life and what it means to know yourself.

I am reminded of one particular scene where Dawn is asked to write an essay on dignity after an embarrassing debacle in detention. Her essay shows she has no understanding of the word means but throughout the film in her little rebellions and assertions of self (even where they are passive-aggressive), we find that she has a stubbornness, a quiet dignity that she does not know she has.

Her life changes when she has a run in with one of the school's bullies, Brandon (Brenden Sexton Jr.). After Dawn makes fun of him one day he tells her that he will rape her after school. She shows up, he has a knife, and we are not sure where this will lead. This is, I think, Solndz only real mistake as the shift in subject matter without a shift in tone makes for a sort of cognitive dissonance. Once we learn more about Brandon it makes sense but it is a jarring way to introduce someone.

The surprising thing is that Brandon is not a beast. In a performance that rival's Matarazzo's, Sexton makes Brandon a frightening aggressor only to have our sympathy once he opens himself to Dawn. As with most bullies, we find that he is just as sad as those he abuses. He comes close to stealing the show with his honesty and vulnerability.

But the story belongs to Dawn and how she deals with the difficulty of being a young girl. By the end we see that she has lost some of her shine, a little tarnish on her tiara. Even as she is the protagonist (in the literal sense) her forays into the world and into identity are spurned and ground down at every turn. In what could have been a turning point scene for Dawn in different film she does not assert herself, merely stands there quietly crying. I so wanted her to stand up and say how she really felt. But this is not that kind of movie.

In the end, Dawn realizes that she will never be first in her family's affection, she has learned a little of what a broken heart will be. The closing shot implies to me that nothing has changed for Dawn except that she has found she can bear more suffering than she thought. For Dawn wants desperately to be loved and praised. She doesn't just want to be popular or “normal (which is the worst word in any language),” she wants to be noticed by boys, by her family, by her peers. She wants to find her place in the world as we all do and like the rest of us she is still looking. Recommended.

Rated R for Language

Fat Girl (aka A Mo Soeur)

French/86 Minutes/2001/Not Rated

First let me say that I hate the American title of this film “Fat Girl.” It engenders every sentiment that this film is opposed to, at lest in my interpretation. The literal title is “For My Sister” which makes much more sense and is a more appropriate title for this touching, realistic depiction of adolescent sexuality, the definitions of womanhood, and the relationship of siblings.

The story is an old and simple one. Anais (Anais Reboux) and Elena (Roxane Mesquida) are two high-school age sisters on a summer vacation. Anais is overweight and plain while Elena is sleek and sexual. Elena is always smiling and bubbling, unconcerned. Anais is withdrawn and somber, living in an interior world. She sings to herself tragic songs of love lost and birds picking at her corpse. In once scene she moves between a wooden diving board and a metal ladder in a swimming pool treating each like a lover, saying things like “of course you're the only one” and asking the diving board if he is jealous. It is a beautiful and heartbreaking scene that is captured with tenderness and that is what makes “Fat Girl” one of my favorite films.

While on vacation Elena meets a handsome college boy, Fernando (Libero De Rienzo), who is also on vacation (from Italy) and they fall quickly into that awkward young love that is so poorly portrayed in cinema. Anais is both suspicious of and jealous of her sister's relationship. She shares a room with her sister and is privy to all her sister's secrets. When Elena has Fernando over Anais can't sleep for the noise. At times she watches curiously and at other times she is crying. Each of the characters are emotionally complex and treated with respect by director Catherine Breillat.

When Fernando is lying in bed with Elena trying to convincer her to make love, he says the things that all men are guilty of saying, “of course I'll respect you” and “you can show your love for me.” As corny or malicious as it may sound on paper, Fernando is not imbued with any ill intentions by the actor or director. He is infatuated with Elena and (like most men) would say anything to have her. His scenes with Elena are filled with mixed emotions and trepidation. She cries, she is unsure and is so totally human. She is young and a virgin and like all people (who are honest with themselves) she is afraid of sex and life after it. Part of the film's strength comes from exploring emotions of a child turned lover and the complexities that it entails.

Anais on the other hand manages to be both more cynical and more sensitive than her older sister. Her scenes alone are heartbreaking as she sits in familiar isolation living out her dreams while realizing how pitiful she is. She does not like her body (as many kids her age do not) but Breillat does not show her as disgusting or treat her as somehow less worthy of love and attraction than her sister. That is partly why I'm confounded by the English title. It is so utterly American where the film is most certainly not. In fact the film goes to emotional depths that are rare in cinema, especially between the sisters.

Anais and Elena fight like sisters but they also love like sisters. There relationship is complex. They yell at each other and call names. They slap one another and wound deeply with words as only a sibling can. But for every scene of violence and anger there are scenes of solidarity and love. There are tender scenes where they talk to each other like sisters, but more importantly like little girls. They recall their childhood and in one scene they talk about looking into one anothers' eyes and feeling complete. It is in these times that we realize that Anais isn't truly jealous or hateful, she loves her sister so much and her sister loves her that they have the explosive element only found among siblings. Perhaps what is saddest is Anais' fear that Fernando will replace her, that her sister will no longer need her around. Elena, after all, is her window to the world.

Anais in fact says she does not want to know her first lover well, that way they won't have to fall out of love and feel foolish, or the boy brag about his conquest. She seems already burned by love having never had it, carrying around the dark weight of someone twice her age. It may be “better to have loved and lost” but for Anais the thought of the loss overwhelms the desire for love, so she daydreams of loneliness and love forsaken. The resolution of her story is both terrifying and understandable and we realize that she has lost the only thing of importance to her as well as the thing she hates most.

The film turns tragic in the last half, with real adult consequences coming for the youths. Breillat deftly captures the shame that outsiders can bring to a sexual relationship, somehow implying that such simple love, such foolish innocence, are things for which we should feel embarrassed. In one confrontation with her mother Elena asks “I suppose you never had a first (lover)?” to which mother replies “this is not about me,” at once denying her own shame and the right to sexuality of her daughter. Breillat sets this up dispassionately as we look through the eyes of Anais. When she hears that her father wants to have Elena examined (to see if she is still a virgin) Anais says “I don't see why others think it is their business.”

The final scenes are quite a shock and I'm not sure that I like the “deus ex machina” approach to the resolution. It feels like Breillat may have said everything she wanted to say and needed a way to resolve one final thread. It is a case where something in real life would feel like grand and random misfortune but in the context of a film seems merely convenient. Whether this is a deficiency in storytelling or just a limitation of the medium I cannot yet decide. The film makes a strong statement I'm just not sure what exactly it is.

The power and uniqueness of Breillat's film is that it treats the girls honestly, never making them young adults (like Ellen Page in “Hard Candy”) or innocent children preyed upon by older men. They are autonomous, capable of love and being loved and expressing their sexuality. Granted, in many cases they do not realize the possible consequences of their actions but how many lovers begin just so. Part of growing up is experiencing and learning from those tentative steps into sexual independence and the worst thing that can happen is for someone else to come in and say “this is wrong, you should be ashamed.”

Perhaps I see in this film a lot of myself and that may sway my perspective. However, I do not think this is completely the case. The sensitive subject is handled in a reverent and respectful manner. It does not skimp on showing sexuality but never feels prurient or for titillation (an excellent contrast would be to the work of Larry Clark). Breillat may be better known for her “pornographic” depictions but that is yet another exertion of an outside morality that does not seek to understand but to judge. While the film is graphic it focuses on the emotions surrounding these decisions and their consequences rather than beautiful people necking for our pleasure. This film is highly recommended.

Not Rated: Mature Audiences, contains Graphic Nudity, Sexuality, and Brief Strong Violence Including a Rape, all involving teens

Snow Angels

English/107 Minutes/2007/Rated R

Snow Angels is a surprisingly positive film about a very dark subject. David Gordon Green (Undertow) directs a ensemble cast in the story of several couples as they try to work out their relationships in times of great change and unrest.

Glenn and Annie Marchand (Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale) are a couple who are separated and have a small daughter, Tara (an amazing and heartbreaking Gracie Hudson). For unspecified reasons connected to Glenn's drinking and a suicide attempt the two are estranged emotionally and physically. It doesn't help that Annie is having an affair with her friend Barb's (Amy Sedaris) husband Nate (Nicky Katt).

Louise and Don Parkinson (Jeanetta Arnette and Griffin Dunne) have a teenage son and are separating after years of marriage because Don says he isn't happy anymore. Their son, Arthur (Michael Angarano) is at the same time finding his first love in Lila (Oliva Thrilby).

Rounding out the couples are Glenn's parents, of whom we see very little but what we see speaks volumes about them. They are an elderly couple who feel like they have decided to stay in a marriage regardless of how they feel about each other. Glenn lives at home with them as he tries to straighten himself out and reconnect with Annie.

All these couples are bound together by Arthur. Annie was his babysitter when he was younger and she is still a friend of the family. He and Annie and Barb all work in a little Chinese restaurant that is run by a man who isn't Chinese (perhaps this is only appreciated by people in small towns like myself where such oddities are common). It is here that we return at the start of every act, touching base with all the characters before the film once again branches out. Green is very deft at keeping all the storylines straight and engaging and doesn't let the camera's eye exploit the subject matter even at its most sensitive.

Snow Angels is first and foremost about film about people who are stuck. They are frozen emotionally and their lives are at a standstill. Annie looks for love in Nate who is just looking for a good time. Glenn is trying to reconnect with Annie and neither are able to accept that they are not the people they once were. The only thing still tying them together is 4 year old Tara, who, like any 4 year old, is oblivious to the complexities in adult relationships (which is refreshing considering most film children act like little adults) and easily bruised emotionally.

Each of the other couples are similarly in complicated situations whether it's the end of love or the beginning. In fact it's safe to say that none of the characters in “Snow Angels” really love one another as they are so caught up in themselves that they can't see. At the same time life continues to move and only goes faster as the problems pile up. Green does an excellent job of conveying this as in many important shots characters will stop moving and continue talking while the camera continues to move, eventually leaving the characters behind.

The subtleties of the camera and composition do much to convey the story independent of the actual drama giving the proceedings all the qualities of a inexorable date with tragedy.

If there is any great flaw in the film, it is that the inevitable tragedy is rather predictable. From the opening scene we hear two gunshots, then the time is wound back “a couple of weeks” and we are left to figure out what those shots will mean. Of course by the end I saw what was coming and the tragedy that touched off the gunfire was just as obvious.

The acting on the other hand is great. Beckinsale plays Annie as a person who feels like her circumstances are beyond her control. Rockwell turns in a great performance with Green's guiding hand reeling him back so that his intensity rarely crosses the line into scenery chewing. The show is stolen by Angarano though, as young Arthur, who is discovering love and trying to deal with the self-destruction of the adults around him. We are given hope that perhaps he will not suffer the same fate.

Indeed, by the end, all of the relationships have moved on, some for better and some for worse. While the movie contains many dark and intense scenes (reminiscent of films like Affliction or The Gift) its message is ultimately hopeful, refusing to go out on the dark final note. This does effect the tone of the film as we see a few scenes of town life at the beginning that are replayed as a coda to the film. The second time through we realize that life has always been moving and nothing has changed in the character's external circumstances. Rather the people have changed and so their perceptions have changed. Thus the ending is perhaps more positive than the tragedies of the plot would seem to permit.

Highly recommended, especially for fans of other dark dramas such as Affliction or The Gift.

Reviewer's Note: there are intense scenes involving children that may be disturbing to some viewers.

Rated R for Language, Some Violent Content, Brief Sexuality and Drug Use

Death Racers

English/85 Minutes/2008/Not Rated

“Three years from now, war began.” - Narrator (sic)

Death Racers is not a good movie. The acting consists of broad stereotypes, the cars are street models with aluminum pipes stuffed with plastic rockets fixed to the roofs for weapons. In short, Death Racers looks like something your nutty cousin would make, with a few exceptions. But they are important exceptions.

This film is released by The Asylum which is a production company that specializes in knockoffs. For example when a movie like Transformers is released Asylum brings out “Transmorphers” and with “Death Race” hitting stores, “Death Racers” is the inevitable knock off. Generally the films are excreable and hilariously bad and range from “so bad its good” to just bad. In the case of “Death Racers” the knockoff is better than the real deal. Although that may be damning with faint praise.

The story of “Death Racers” is fairly straightforward. In a post-apocalyptic future (think "The Running Man") a large section of an unnamed state has been cordoned off as a prison (think "Escape From New York") where the worst of the worst are sent. An evil genius (played by WWE's Raven) prisoner has learned that the prison just happens to be over the state water supply (talk about poor city planning). The villain's plan is to use liquid Sarin he has synthesized to poison the water.

The only way to stop him, apparently, is to give some inmates cars tricked out with weapons and have them go hunt the villain down. On the way they can score points by killing other criminals, 10 for each, with 400 points for the evil genius. The first party to 1000 points gets to go free. Of course this will all be televised (on basic, no pay-per-view).

Our cast includes former wrestlers/recording artists Insane Clown Posse (Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope), a white guy pretending to be Hispanic (Jason Ellefson), and two lipstick lesbian black-widows (Jennifer Keith and Therese). The stage is set for offensive humor, offensive language, and bloody kills. In this regard “Death Racers” definitely delivers.

The film makes me think of some Troma releases (like "Maniac Nurses Find Ecstasy") but without the craft that made for some of their better films ("Toxic Avenger," "Bloodsucking Freaks"). The acting is better than you might expect from an Asylum release and the plotting (and some of the dialogue) is also above average. This is a case where a pretty good movie is handicapped by its budget. If the guys who made this had access to the cast and material that Paul Anderson did for “Death Race” this might have been a decent film, at least from a technical perspective.

It must be said that standards are typically lower for this kind of release and some rough edges (if not total mess) are to be expected. The main characters (I.C.P.) benefit from playing essentially outgrowths of their public personas. If you are unfamiliar with their work their performance probably won't make a lot of sense, but think of them as the Troma of rap music. They make offensive, gory, over the top rap music playing as maniacal clowns. The rest of the cast is actually pretty good (even if a having a wrestler as an evil genius is about as credible as Tara Reid in “Alone In The Dark”) with some standout performances by Jennifer Keith (Double-Dee Struction) and pseudo-Latino Jason Ellefson (Fred “The Hammer”), although his performance includes some racial humor that might be a bit much for people and is genuinely offensive (which is rare in films these days).

The camera work mixes a high contrast flat look for some outdoor scenes, bizarre video effects (mirror images), running moments back and forth, and having a lot of victim POV shots. Most of the blood effects are pretty limp, showing their lack of budget (and perhaps lack of imagination). With a limited supply of extras and stunt people most of the cars drive at a leisurely 5 or 10 miles an hour while "victims" throw themselves into the cars. There are some exceptions where the lack of blood or blood in the right places actually feels more realistic and makes for some genuinely disturbing moments of violence. On the upside, since we're dealing with wrestlers, a lot of the hand to hand action actually looks pretty good. There is even a scene of animal violence (not real).

It is the genuine moments that make the movie worth watching. There's even subtle social commentary about “Homeland Security” and the use of military forces for less than noble reasons as well as the manipulation of the media surrounding those moments. All of this was missing from the major release "Death Race." It's safe to say that this movie is closer to the black exploitative heart of the original "Death Race 2000."

At its best "Death Racers" recalls better movies such as "Robocop," "The Running Man," and Takashi Miike's "Full Metal Yakuza" (that metal penis). At its worse it is a technical failure with some questionable acting. If you can look past the budget limitations though this movie is worth watching. The plot is better and the resolution more satisfying (and surprisingly dark) than the Paul Anderson film and is recommended.

This movie is perfect for late night parties and for having a good laugh with friends. It also comes ready for drinking games! Just take a shot every time the TV announcer says “DEATH RAAAAACE!” You'll pass out before the ending.

Not Rated: (im)Mature Audiences, Bloody Violence, Pervasive Language, and Some Sexual Content

Burn After Reading

English/96 Minutes/2008/Rated R

"Report back to me when things make sense." - CIA Superior

That line could be a mantra for our own CIA and “Burn After Reading,” the new Coen Brothers film is a darkly comic take on that world.

In the film, two bumbling gym workers, Chad and Linda (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt), in need of money, stumble across the memoirs of failed CIA analyst Ozborne Cox (John Malkovich). Not knowing that what they have is essentially junk they attempt to blackmail Cox. Far in over their heads they set in motion a course of events that lead to violence and hilarity, sometimes in the same scene. Throw into this a philandering Treasury agent (George Clooney) who is sleeping with Cox's wife (Tilda Swinton) and you have a strange blend of musical beds and black comedy as only the Coens can do.

The performances are all great, but most of the characters are unlikeable. Mcdormand's Linda is an incredibly egotistical and shallow person. Her desire for plastic surgery leads her to do things she mightn't otherwise. She is so obsessed with “reinventing herself” that she is unable to see herself as lovable and is therefore unable to see the love of one of her coworkers.

Brad Pitt as Chad, her bumbling assistant, plays braindead (almost to the point of farce). There is not much for Pitt to do here but he makes the most of his screen time. Clooney as Harry is a philandering, pathological liar, but he manages to portray the character as a sort of stunted child who never suspects that what he's doing could have serious consequences. Tilda Swinton is almost wasted in an ice-queen performance that, while memorable, is not something we haven't seen before. Capping the cast is John Malkovich as Cox. He is a man who has been marginalized and abused by people he perceives to be his lessers and we watch as he slowly comes unhinged.

The film is very much about the failure of people to communicate at both the personal and the governmental level. People talk at each other, evasive and sometimes oblivious to the other party. A great example is the scene where Chad calls Cox to offer to return his memoir files. Chad is expecting a reward but Cox thinks he is attempting blackmail. Another example is a great scene where Cox confronts a man in his basement and they discuss what he represents.

At the national level we have Cox's superiors (JK Simmons and David Rasche) who act as a sort of Greek chorus to the goings on. When it is mentioned that someone has been murdered in Cox's house the superiors say “burn the body.” As things escalate the priorities continue to be the reduction of headaches.

Behind all of this is a great dramatic irony in which no one gets what they want or deserve but suffer the consequences of decisions made in haste. This is a recurring theme in many of the Coen's films, from Llewelyn Moss in “No Country for Old Men” to the McDunnoughs in “Raising Arizona” there is the recurring theme of unintended consequences. In “Burn After Reading” we see that governments, like people are always trying to minimize the consequences, even at the risk of doing greater harm. Recommended.

Rated R for Pervasive Language, Some Sexual Content and Violence

Mongol

Mongolian/120 Minutes/2007/Rated R

Mongol is a fascinating melting pot. Written and Directed by a Russian (Sergei Bodrov) with a Japanese main actor and all the dialog in Mongolian this 2007 Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Film was a triumph of multicultural filmmaking. Unfortunately the film doesn't quite live up to its promise.

Mongol follows the rise of lowly Temudgin who grows from a son of a tribal leader into a slave and finally ruler of all the Mongolian hordes. We know him today as Genghis Kahn. As interesting as this story may be, in the movie it isn't told all that effectively. The story feels episodic and tends to spend long stretches of film focusing on parts of Temudgin's life that are rather bland (he spends twenty minutes in the film sitting in a cage) and skips over ones that would be fascinating (instead of showing him building his army he just shows up in a sequence with his horde ready to go).

The acting is great. Temudgin is played by one of my favorite Asian actors, Tadanobu Asano (Ichi the Killer), and is instantly believable. His long suffering crafty wife, Borte (Khulan Chuluun), and blood brother Jamukha (Honglei Sun) all turn in great performances.

The cinematography and direction are some of the best I've seen in a while. The open fields, cracked deserts and rocky wastelands bring to mind John Ford and his use of Monument Valley. The environment is truly a spectacle and is alone worth the price of admission. There are some really unique camera angles too such as a POV shot from a sword and well assembled large scale battles.

The downside to all of this is that the writing is somewhat lacking. The script feels episodic and a majority of the movie features Temudgin being captured, running away and being captured again. The film frequently infers that he is watched over and favored by the gods with some inexplicable happenings (he falls into an icy pool and doesn't freeze, his chains mysteriously come off) but this feels like excessive mythologizing and smells of bad writing.

Once Temudgin decides to become the great leader of the Mongol people his army just appears with no explanation of how he convinced a band of men to join him. What are the roots of his dread-inspiring hooded troops with dual swords? The final scroll talks about a battle where a whole kingdom is laid to waste but we are never shown what happens. Add to all of this an anti-climactic final battle and you have a film that never comes together as more than the sum of its parts.

In the film's defense it was made on a relatively low budget ($20 Million) and Bodrov squeezes every dime out of the money and puts it on screen. As this is the first of a supposed trilogy perhaps the sequels will be a little more meaty, but as a standalone feature Mongol fails to live up to its potential. Grudgingly recommended for some great cinematography and acting.

Rated R for Sequences of Bloody Warfare

The Strangers

English/86Minutes/2008/Unrated

I did not like this movie. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't pretty good at what it sets out to do. The film is about a couple on the rocks (Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler) who are terrorized by a group of faceless teenagers.

The first 10 minutes of the film are great drama as both Speedman and Tyler are able to play this disintegrating relationship and the complexities of adult romance. In fact they should just take the first 10 minutes and extend it a little bit as it would make a great short film. Unfortunately the film takes a horror film turn about 20 minutes in and things fall apart.

There are plenty of cliché moments here and characters do the characteristically stupid things that horror movie characters do. There are the loud screeches when a villain appears, lots of screaming and crying. The movie does have a certain intensity but upon reflection its weaknesses become manifest.

Hollywood horror these days has an affinity for downbeat torturous films where villains win and heroes die horrible deaths. Films like this have nothing to offer the viewer unless they are trying to say something more. For example, “Seven” has a downbeat ending but there is closure and a sense of a greater message. Unfortunately for viewers this movie has nothing more to offer us.

Even the film's closest cousin, “Last House on the Left” had a sense of catharsis by the end. The Strangers just offers us up a story without hope and characters who lack a will to live. I know if someone were trying to kill me I'd be a lot more desperate and dangerous than the victims in this film.

I can't say I recommend the film, but I can't say it's not well done. The film is decently made and Bertino definitely has a good eye for composition. The acting is above average for a horror film and is really impressive in the first act. It's just a shame that this is all squandered in favor of a dismal and nihilistic vision.

Unrated: Mature Audiences, contains Violence/Terror, Sensuality and Language

Bent

English/104 Minutes/1997/Rated NC-17

“Queer is out, queer is dead. Ra-ta-tat-tat,” says Greta (Mick Jagger) in “Bent,” a film based on a London play by Martin Sherman. The film is about gay playboy, Max (Clive Owen) who is caught up in the purging of homosexuals by Nazis in 1930s Germany.

Too save himself from worse persecution Max pretends to be Jewish instead of gay (which he has to prove in a rather grisly scene) and uses his family's money and his own wits to live a slightly better life than other prisoners in Dachau.

It is here that he meets and makes friends with prisoner Horst (Lothaire Bluteau) whom he corrals into the same work detail. Every day they move rocks from one pile to another and then back.

The two men try to find love and friendship even though they are not allowed to touch each other. This leads to some interesting scenes of verbal intercourse that are provocative but not all together sold by the players.

There are some wonderful images (the opening orgy in Berlin, a hat on an electrified fence) and some great performance moments (Jagger in drag is devilish), but these moments just make the ones that don't work more obvious. The writing is obviously meant for a small troop to perform on stage with limited props and personnel and the film suffers from this restriction.

Once the film leaves Berlin and moves into Dachau (played in the film by an abandoned cement factory, complete with ductwork) the level of believability plummets significantly. Also, as much as I love Clive Owen, this is not one of his best performances as he never reaches the intensity or honesty of Bluteau. In fact, it is Bluteau's turn as Horst that makes for the most memorable character, even though he doesn't appear until nearly halfway through the film.

The honesty, integrity and desperation of Horst are what ground the movie and push it into moments of brilliance. In one scene where the two men stand at attention, unable to face each other, Horst cries when Max's verbal love play turns aggressive. He doesn't come off as a preening queen, but as a lonely man who wants the comfort of love.

It is a testament to the players that these characters don't come off as farcical or one dimensional. Say what you will about the acting, but at least they are portraying homosexuals in a way other than the "queer eye" flavor we're all used to these days. I think what makes the movie engaging for us straight folk is that the humanity is stressed over the sexuality. We get to know these men as people, not just "gays." The best films about sexuality are this way, whether it's the dysfunction of "Closer" or the true-crime tragedy of "Boys Don't Cry."

Unfortunately the film is handicapped by its budget and its focused writing. With few extras and a less than believable concentration camp the story doesn't hold up. Also the idea that these two men would be left alone to work seems to stretch the credibility. I understand this film was low budget but if you can't effectively sell the drama on film, perhaps your story is best left on the stage.

The play, first shown in 1979 (with a young Ian McKellan as Max), was among the first to openly discuss the treatment of homosexuals during the Holocaust. It asks the important question “what's wrong with being homosexual?” and has lead to such projects as the documentary “Paragraph 175” about survivors of this persecution.

In this age of saturation of stories about the Holocaust and World War II in Europe, it is refreshing to see a different perspective. The Holocaust story has been told many times on film and it is becoming difficult for filmmakers to tell the story in new and engaging ways. Many either make a showcase of horrors (The Grey Zone), or decide not to show the atrocity (The Counterfeiters). “Bent” is a fresh perspective that is honest and non-exploitative and should be applauded as such.

I recommended the film but only as there aren't many of its type. There are better holocaust films and better films about sexual identity, but “Bent” does try and for that it should be credited.

On a more sinister note, while the film is NC-17 there is not much here to warrant it. What sex there is takes place in the opening orgy scene and nary a penis in sight. The offending scene is two men having anal sex, which we see from behind and there is some thrusting. You've seen much worse in R-Rated films. The rating is sad proof that there is still “something wrong” with being gay. Recommended with reservations.

Rated NC-17 for a strong scene of graphic sexuality, explicit sexual dialogue, some brutal violence, language and drug use

Metallica: Some Kind of Monster

English/141 Minutes/2004/Not Rated

The most difficult part of watching “Some Kind of Monster” and the greatest obstacle to enjoying it is separating the Metallica on film from our preconceptions about the band. If this were a documentary about a nobody band poised to break through or working on their sophomore album then we could perhaps appreciate better the tensions and revelations that come from the members.

A good example of this would be the feuding bands in the documentary “Dig” which covers two bands from the same scene over 10 years as one breaks through and the other implodes. Since we as an audience are less familiar with these bands we don't have to overcome our preconceived notions of what they should be. That and no one likes to see gods with wrinkles and flaws.

In fact a great deal of the negative criticism that this documentary has received comes less from the film world than from the music world where fans of Metallica did not care to see the gods of metal essentially having a breakdown on camera. These criticisms only touch the surface and miss the jewel beneath.

IMDB relates the trivia that this documentary was to be a miniseries for VH1 in the vein of “The Osbournes.” During the course of filming, Metallica thought better of it and purchased the footage and constructed a feature length documentary. But the secret to why this doesn't come across as another reality TV puff piece has as much to do with who's behind the camera as it does with the band itself.

The footage is shot by one of my favorite teams, Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky. They are perhaps best known for the failed Blair Witch sequel “Book of Shadows.” But prior to that they made a pair of documentaries about the West Memphis Three (google it) titled “Paradise Lost.” It was here that they first had their contact with Metallica when the band gave them permission to use a track for the Paradise Lost documentaries.

The current film essentially covers the 700+ day journey toward the creation of Metallica's first album in five years, “St. Anger.” At the beginning we find the band at an all time low. Their bassist Jason Newstead has left, they haven't made an album in 5 years and have not played together in almost a year. The band does what any big organization does when they have trouble: they call a professional.

The band hires Dr. Phil (not that Phil) who does therapy for baseball teams and other big money, big ego operations. His job, and the band's challenge, is to find a way back to each other after such a long period of estrangement. In the course of the journey they band and the viewers will learn that, as with any long term relationship, making up is messy.

Much has been made of the supposed “whining” of multimillionaires and how weak it is to get a therapist. But being one who suffers from mental illness I can safely say that sometimes material wealth or pleasant life circumstances don't automatically translate into happiness and contentment. I for one admire Metallica for seeking help and not being afraid to show it to the world, especially when mental health treatment is still stigmatized.

What ultimately makes the film interesting is that it charts the journey of the three core members: Hetfield, Ulrich, and Hammet. Each is given his moment, Hammet riding his surfboard, Ulrich facing his father to play his latest music (a fascinating scene as we see Ulrich the boy who so wants to please his father), and Hetfield as he implodes which makes for the major through-line of the film.

Hetfield suddenly leaves in the middle of recording, without warning, to go into rehab, effectively disappearing for nearly a year. When he returns he has a limited schedule (he can only work from noon to 4 PM) and brings a catalogue of old issues that have to be resolved. Can these men find closure and compromise or will they fold? Can old friends heal old wounds?

What is fascinating about the film is that these characters have all these hidden and repressed feelings about each and slowly they are forced to confront the monster of their own making. The result is messy, as all real adult relationships are and the ending isn't perfect.

In a particularly telling scene when the band plays at San Quentin Prison, Hetfield says to a group in the prison yard, “we all have the same size soul, and that's what we're trying to reach (with our music).” Communication, it would seem, is the real theme of the movie.

It's just unfortunate that many viewers won't be able to see past their preconceptions of the band to hear the message.

This is another great documentary from Berlinger/Sinofsky and a brave move by the band. Recommended.

Not Rated: Strong Language Throughout, Use of Alcohol and Brief Nudity

The Last Deadly Mission (AKA MR 37)

French/125 Minutes/Not Rated

I happened to find this little gem on the shelf of my local Blockbuster and admittedly I was struck by the cover. It's a profile shot of Daniel Auteuil with a sharp pointed font shouting “The Last Deadly Mission.” I liked that the guy on the cover didn't look like an airbrushed big named 30 something. When I figured out it was a French film, everything made sense.

I'm going to take part of this review to rail against Blockbuster's marketing of their Exclusive films like this one. The front cover you see implies a dangerous thriller or action film. The back cover says:

“Where Justice Ends... Vengeance Begins. An out of control cop dangerously close to the edge is the only one who can protect a young woman from the murderous insanity of a serial killer. Destroyed by the death of his wife and child, Detective Louis Schneider (Daniel Auteuil) is lost until he agrees to protect Justine (Olivia Bonamy) from the madman who forced her to watch him kill her mother and father. Tough, gritty, and violent, this dark, exciting, true crime story is based on writer and director Olivier Marchal's real-life experiences as a street cop.”

Normally I wouldn't quote something so long but I do so to say this: the back cover does not describe the movie accurately AT ALL. In fact it barely describes the last act, ignoring the preceeding 100 minutes all together and his wife is NOT DEAD! There is no agreement to protect the “damsel in distress” and it's a true crime story in the same way that any Law and Order episode is, which is to say, crime happens, so it's based on a true story.

You would think from the cover and the description that this is a cop/victim thriller in the vein of Blink or maybe Jagged Edge, etc. Maybe it will be another titillating bit of exploitation, some T&A and some good gore effects, right? Nothing could be further from the truth. What Marchal provides here is not a thriller but a character study of a cop who is slowly dying on the inside and the slimy world he inhabits. It's closest analogue in American cinema (or any recent cinema) would be Abel Ferrera's Bad Lieutenant or perhaps Takashi Kitano's Fireworks (Hana-Bi).

Much like Keitel in Bad Lieutenant, Daniel Auteiul plays Louis as a man who has been beaten up by the world and is content to just wallow in his misery, going through the motions of life. But Louis is not a man in search of redemption or even considering it. In the films opening lines he says “God is a son of a bitch. Some day I will kill him.” This is as close as we get to his true interior life.

Marchal's characters are enigmas to us, but not to themselves. Gazes between characters are filled with knowledge and history, most of which is left for us to infer. Flashbacks are disjointed, shown in brief glimpses, ever longer, but never revealing all there is to see. We are never allowed the details or to be inside the character's head or motivations.

Just as we are never allowed to experience the interior lives of the characters, Marchal's directing choices seem determined to keep us at a distance (with a few rare exceptions). Even with such lurid material as a serial killer, dirty cops, and sexual misdeeds, the shots are reserved but not hesitant. Nothing is stylized and the sex and violence aren't used for titillation. If anything this respectful treatment of death and the human condition is what makes the violence that much more real.

For example, the first crime scene is presented with little lead up. The men walk in the room and see an older woman, naked and covered in blood laying on a bed. There is no shock, no longing shots of a nude body. Rather it all has a rather stark feel to it, much like anyone else. Go to work, check out the in box (ah, dead body number 5), get started. The film is striking in its unwillingness to engage us on a visceral level and instead lets us think about the characters and their actions.

The story is essentially about incredibly damaged and beaten down people who have given up trying to make a difference. The cops are nearly all dirty and the clean ones are portrayed as slaves to the bureaucracy. The victims are all shattered, if not paralyzed by the evil that has exploded into their lives. Then there are the villains themselves who are just as evil as you might expect (or not expect).

Even in the final reel when the inevitable occurs it is not tinged with rage or catharsis but is shown rather matter-of-factly without extra fanfare, quick cuts or loud music. There is no monologuing. The characters never justify themselves to us or in many cases even to each other. The final showdown features no dialogue at all, just a brief action which is not dwelt upon.

This is a rare film that denies us the visceral catharsis but in doing so gives us something more. We are given ample time to observe and reflect, seeing the tragedies that unfold at a distance. The sympathy we have for Louis is born out of his commitment to doing the right thing. In the end it is his sense that the scales can be balanced, but at a high price, that leads his character's arc. Louis does not justify what he is does and neither does the director. Is what he doing futile? Does he care? That's for us to decide. Recommended.

NOT RATED: Mature Audiences, contains Strong Language, Sex/Nudity, Bloody Violence and Thematic Elements.