THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE

Written by Bruce Joel Rubin
Directed by Robert Schwentke
Starring Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams and Ron Livingston


Time travel is certainly not an easy concept to buy. There are a number of theories that can make some plausible sense if explained and backed up thoroughly but it is, for now, a romanticized notion designed by the human mind to free ourselves from having to commit to anything. Oddly enough, over-romanticizing time travel does nothing to further its argument, at least not on screen. I’ve not read it but I feel THE TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE would have done time travel itself a little more justice as a novel than it does in Robert Schwentke’s film. On the page, one can use their imagination; in fact, one must. On screen, all the imagining is done for you and in this case, it is not a pretty picture.


Eric Bana plays Henry, the time traveler and Rachel McAdams plays Clare, the wife. When he is in his forties, Henry travels back in time and meets Clare as a young girl in a field. She grows up knowing all the while that her destiny is predetermined and with him. When Henry meets her in the present, he hasn’t gone back to the past yet so he must love without the certainty she has that it will all work out. While this is ripe with possibly new perspectives on love and what it would mean if we knew it was all worth it, it amounts to very little more than a lot of explanation and a bunch of sappy looks exchanged between Bana and McAdams.


As facile as this sounds, I wish I could travel back in time so that I could stop myself from seeing this movie. At least Bana is constantly naked throughout because he can’t bring his clothes with him when he travels. I guess that makes it not a total waste of time.

FUNNY PEOPLE

Written and Directed by Judd Apatow
Starring Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, Leslie Mann and Eric Bana


Ira: Do you like music?
Daisy: Did you just ask me if I like music? That’s like asking if I like food.

You’ve got your funny, you’ve got your people. And FUNNY PEOPLE, the third film by Judd Apatow, the reigning God of all things supposedly funny at the movies, only has room for one of these things. Which one, you ask. Let’s just that's an awfully big cast he's got there. Apatow has set himself apart in the last few years by making stylish comedies that speak directly to an audience that isn’t often engaged when it comes to comedy. It isn’t slapstick; it isn’t stupid. It is smart comedy with real people who have relatable problems but who don’t mind getting dirty with their humour. A comedian who has joked his way through life and is now facing his own mortality is certainly a real problem, just like a forty-year-old who has yet to lose his virginity or a one night stand that resulted in a pregnancy (Apatow’s two previous features, THE FORTY-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN and KNOCKED UP, respectively) are real problems, but FUNNY PEOPLE forgets to be exactly what got Apatow and all his regulars there in the first place – funny.


Apatow has certainly stepped up his game. In many ways, he didn’t have much of a choice. His name has been built up so high at this stage for all of his producing gigs that when one of his own movies drops, it has to lead by example. Casting Adam Sandler as the aforementioned dying comedian was the perfect start to a project brimming with potential. George is not so much unlike Sandler, at least when it comes to his career. Both started out in standup and both went on to make movie after crappy movie to appease the masses. More importantly, both are now in need of redemption for their regrets. (I can’t imagine Sandler is too proud of YOU DON’T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN; I could be wrong, but that’s doubtful.) The art imitating life doesn’t stop there either with Seth Rogen playing Ira, George’s assistant, as Rogen looks destined to follow in Sandler’s footsteps in Hollywood. While it is clear that both are pushing their dramatic acting abilities in this picture, well, it is also clear that they’re trying so it isn’t exactly a resounding success.


People are funny and Apatow knows this. FUNNY PEOPLE definitely refers to the vast cast of people who are all undeniably funny (Jason Schwartzman and Jonah Hill play their own brand of comedians as Ira’s roommates in a subplot that is essentially useless) but it could just as easily refer to the funny things we do as people. Whether that is Ira cussing out a girl he has yet to even have a date with for sleeping with one of his friends or George naively thinking that he can get back with the girl who got away (and who got married and got herself two kids, all played by Apatow’s real-life family, wife, Leslie Mann, and his two daughters, Maude and Iris Apatow) just because time was running out and sympathy was on his side. Hollywood works that way but life just doesn’t and fortunately, Apatow has earned himself enough clout in Hollywood to play against convention, as long as he isn’t making, “Sad People.” He might as well have made the sad one here though; at least then people would know what they were in for.


There is a scene early on in the film where George makes an impromptu appearance at a comedy club the same day he finds out he is dying. He doesn’t want to tell the audience about it; he just doesn’t know what to do with himself. Understandably, his jokes fall flatter than a flat line, and he pauses while on stage to listen to the sound of the cars on the nearby freeway, audible to everyone inside as no one is laughing. It is a touching moment but it also sums up what it is like to watch FUNNY PEOPLE. There is hilarity surrounding you but the delivery only inspires discomfort and a couple of chuckles. Your heart goes out but you wish your gut was hurting just a little too.

STAR TREK

Written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg and Leonard Nimoy


James T. Kirk: Who was that pointy-eared bastard?

How long has it been now? It seems like the last star date was light years ago, that a franchise that had been a cultural mainstay for decades had finally drifted into its final frontier. As the leagues of Trekkies grew older, it seemed that the obsession and admiration for Gene Roddenberry’s benchmark science fiction work would soon die out but one Trekkie would not hear of it. J.J. Abrams, the man responsible for creating a new faction of avid followers with his twisted series, “Lost”, stepped up to bring STAR TREK to this generation. The trick then became how to sell these classic characters to an audience that may widely know them solely as punch lines or wax statues while not shunning those who watched religiously and have had to wait seven years for a new installment. Abrams must be a master trickster then because his reboot feels alive and energized from start to finish. While making a movie to appease particular crowds, both new and old, Abrams has instead made a STAR TREK film everyone can get into.


I never cared much for the original “Star Trek” series and I was only a casual viewer of “The Next Generation”. I have nothing against Trekkies but I most certainly am not one. And I also admit that the thing I was most curious about this film was how Abrams could make STAR TREK relevant again. He did it by owning it. From the very beginning, STAR TREK dives into intense drama. A Starfleet ship is under attack by a rogue Romulan ship that appears out of nowhere and looks like a tentacled mechanical monster. People are dying all around and the situation is grim but the result is instant immersement in an alternate reality that is unfathomable and yet entirely convincing. We proceed to bounce back and forth between Iowa and the planet, Vulcan, as if they were mere minutes apart. Beings, both human and alien, exist in both plains seamlessly and it suddenly isn’t so difficult to relate. Even Michael Giacchino’s score is triumphantly, boldly proclaiming a resounding pride for the project as a whole. STAR TREK makes no apologies for what it is and no concessions to be here now.


Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman’s screenplay is surprisingly concise given their studio background. They were faced with the challenge of reintroducing characters that are cultural icons without desecrating their origins. The truth is that bringing the whole cast of characters from the original Enterprise as is could never work today. They are simply too dated to keep up with today’s pace. And while their new incarnations are much more limber, they also have their original values (and a few hilarious catchphrases) in tact. And Abrams did a fine job weaving the old and new into his fresh cast. Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) is a cocky self-assured womanizer but Pine plays him with a well-hidden insecurity in the back of his head as to what he truly can accomplish. Ohura (Zoe Saldana) is a beautiful and fiercely intelligent woman on a mission to succeed. And Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), the child of a Vulcan father and a human mother, is the most fascinating of them all. Quinto strikes the perfect balance of internal turmoil between honouring his Vulcan roots and indulging his human emotions. Perhaps most important though, the cast just seems to be enjoying every second of their time on deck.


Maybe I should just have a little more faith in reappropriating the past. This is the age of the geek after all so it shouldn’t be so surprising to see this resurgence now. I haven’t discussed the plot because it simply isn’t necessary. Suffice it to say, it is intricate and tight and a lot more fun not to know where anything is going at any point in time. It is such a smooth ride that you can just sit back and enjoy the comfortable warp cruising speed. I didn’t think he could do it but J.J. Abrams has boldly brought STAR TREK where no STAR TREK film has ever gone before … past the niche and to the masses.



(ps. is it wrong to think mr. spock is hot?)

Black Sheep @ TRIBECA

My time at the Tribeca Film Festival is coming to an end now. For the most part, it was an incredible experience. It was light on sleep but it was certainly plentiful when it came to seeing films. All the volunteers were extremely helpful, especially the crew at the Direct TV Tribeca press center. If it weren't for these people at this great space, I would not have had the chance to meet as many filmmakers as I did. There was one day where I didn't know how I was going to make it actually. I caught the latest from XXY director, Lucia Puenza, entitled THE FISH CHILD, first thing in the morning before scurrying over to the aforementioned press center for an interview with Puenza (who is breathtaking, I must say). From there, I hopped in a cab to go uptown to the Regency Hotel on Park and 61st for an interview with one of my favorite directors, Steven Soderbergh and the star of his latest film, THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE, adult film star, Sasha Gray. They were running late so I got to relax for a bit and enjoy the catered set up before doing the interview and rushing down to another interview in an alternate universe - a quaint midtown apartment that had no air conditioning, let alone snacks. After that, I hopped on the subway and ventured back to my friend's apartment, where I have been staying. I took a well deserved nap but that ended up being my downfall. I woke up later to realize that I had completely missed my scheduled time on the red carpet with Eric Bana for his directorial debut, LOVE THE BEAST. Right, I am awesome.


It could have been a blessing in disguise. Perhaps I would have been so blinded by Bana's beauty that I would have just stood there, stupefied when it came my turn to speak. Who knows really? What I do know is that I certainly enjoyed his film more than I had anticipated. The beast referred to in the title, LOVE THE BEAST, is Bana's race car, a Falcon Coop he has had since he was 15 years old and the film is a documentary about how holding on to that car and fixing it up with his longtime buddies has kept him real through all his years and time in Hollywood. To hear the synopsis, one might think that the concept inherently takes away from its intention. How can one create a film that centers around yourself when the point is to demonstrate how your ego has remained in check despite your celebrity? And in actuality, LOVE THE BEAST does come off at first as a big budgeted equivalent of a home made movie posted on YouTube, just another film put out to the world that begs to question as to wether the subject matter is relevant to anyone other than those involved in making it. But something sneaks up on you while watching Bana and friends partake in a five day race in Australia; you suddenly begin to care about this car and the connection it has with its owner and those who have worked on it all these years. Apparently, what people who aren't car people, of which I can be counted among, don't get, is that cars, for people who are car people, can become living entities, that you can develop a relationship with. This is exactly what Bana achieves somewhere among the racing laps and then he successfully drives the appreciation across the finish line.


Now, ordinarily I would not review a film I walked out of but this one is way too good to pass up. After a morning interview, I rushed to catch DON MCKAY, starring Thomas Haden Church and Elizabeth Shue, only to end up walking out twenty minutes or so after it started. When I tell people this, they look at me and ask how I could do that. And so I tell it to them just like this ... Church plays the title character, a high school janitor that has worked at his job for over 20 unhappy years. He gets a letter at the school, reads it, and then stares off into space. He packs a bag and goes back home to some small town I can't recall, the same unaffected, almost dead look still plastered on his face. A peculiar taxi driver drops him off at a home, where he is greeted by an even more peculiar woman. He is shown up to a room and this is where he finds Sonny (Shue). She is sprawled out on her bed in a satin nightgown, her hair perfectly placed on her pillows and her body positioned as though she were waiting for hours for her lover to come through that door. Sonny looks incredible but she is actually dying and wants Don to spend his time with her before she goes. The two were high school sweethearts and apparently never got over each other. It is all painfully awkward and even more so when her doctor arrives the next morning. He startles Don, who has just been stung by a bee. For no reason whatsoever, the two begin to struggle and the doctor attempts to kill Don while he is in the midst of having an allergic reaction to the bee sting. Sonny and her nurse are out but Don manages to save himself despite slipping into anaphylactic shock. When he wakes up, it is like nothing has happened. When he and Sonny find themselves on the floor appreciating the view from there, I walked out. Most people I tell this premise to stop me long before that point.


One of the films I was most looking forward to seeing at the festival was SERIOUS MOONLIGHT. This film has a very special back story as it was written by Adrienne Shelley, the writer/director of the surprisingly scrumptious film, WAITRESS. The film won great praise but Shelley sadly did not live to see this, as she was murdered before the film was released. Before she died (obviously), she wrote the script for SERIOUS MOONLIGHT, a story about a husband (Timothy Hutton) who is leaving his longtime wife (Meg Ryan) and how she subsequently holds him hostage in their country home to force him to see that he is making a giant mistake. The film was directed by WAITRESS co-star and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" star, Cheryl Hines. While the premise might seem contrived, it is exactly the kind of thin line between the implausible and the unexpectedly relatable that Shelley towed so delicately in WAITRESS and Hines does a beautiful job honouring Shelley's last words. In addition to this success, the film also boasts the first time Meg Ryan has shined in years. She gets to play on all her strengths, from her frantic neurosis to quick wit and adorable charm. The only question that looms over the film and threatens to unravel it at any time is why anyone would fight so hard for someone who doesn't want to be there. Luckily, Shelley exceeds at understanding love in trying times and exposing it for all its flaws in order to see its might, right there shining down in the moonlight - which is exactly where Hines allows Shelley to look down in approval throughout the film.

The remainder of my Tribeca coverage will follow when the films find their theatrical releases. As for now, I will proceed to nap again. That said, I was sure to check my schedule first and it is all clear. Thank you New York and thank you Tribeca for a great stay.

THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL

Written by Peter Morgan
Directed by Justin Chadwick
Starring Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Eric Bana, Jim Sturgess, Kristen Scott Thomas


Lady Elizabeth: Our daughters are being traded like cattle for the advancement of men.

Historically speaking, Anne Boleyn was the second wife of England’s King Henry VIII. She was instrumental in England’s political and religious upheaval that saw England ultimately break away from the Catholic Church. When Henry’s first wife was unable to produce a male heir, he began to look elsewhere. His advances toward Anne were not returned, as she did not want to chance pregnancy. Any child born before the King could annul his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon would be a bastard child and therefore not a potential heir to the throne. As if this weren’t enough drama for the Boleyn family, Anne’s sister, Mary, was also involved with the King and rumoured to have had a child he fathered prior to his involvement with Anne. Regardless of how sordid the whole affair might have been, it altered England’s history dramatically and Anne went on to become both a martyr and a feminist icon. You would think that a screenplay about both sisters’ involvement with the King by the Oscar nominated writer of THE QUEEN would be an impartial account of the period but instead, THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL is nothing but a sexist farce that reduces both the male and female players to tired platitudes before robbing the story of all its humanity.


Men crave power and status. Women crave powerful men that they can manipulate to do their bidding. Men will essentially do anything to get into the skirt of a woman they desire and will lose their minds and capacity for rational thinking if she denies him. Women will in turn step over anyone, including their own sister, in order to bag a supposedly good man. Not only are all of these statements borderline offensive but they are also inane. There is always so much more to it than simply that. These clichés are the stuff great teen movies are made of and perhaps it was unfair of me to expect more from a costume film than insipid, nonsensical melodrama. What most undermines first time feature film director Justin Chadwick’s work is that it is amateurish and not at all convincing. Anne and Mary Boleyn (Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson) are introduced as loving, caring sisters. They protect each other, respect each other and love each other. Why then would I believe that either would hurt the other so maliciously? I guess because they’re girls and that’s what girls do when there is a man involved, right? Sure to stereotype both sexes fairly, the men do not escape Chadwick’s narrow view of gender definition. Am I to seriously believe the King of England (Eric Bana) would risk his throne and country’s well being just because a girl he lusts over refuses his royal wanting?


As Anne, Portman is a natural for the period but as she gets caught up in her father’s plans to have her bed the King as a means to better position her family’s standing at court, the inherent intelligence she brings to most of her roles makes it seem entirely unnatural that she would be naïve enough to play along with Daddy’s game. Johansson has never looked more drab as she stands amidst an always-overcast English countryside, her long, golden locks lying limp on her shoulders, her eyebrows almost invisible against her pale face. Though she seems to be playing catch-up to Portman’s supposed ease with the material at first, it is her poise and restraint that make for a more believable and sympathetic Boleyn. While Portman certainly masters the pain, remorse and paranoid fear necessary to convey Anne’s arch, she is incapable of escaping the same trap the entire cast falls into. Perhaps from having seen too many period pieces prior, the ensemble acts as though the events taking place are not actually happening to them as characters. Instead, they come off as amateur theatre actors caught up in the lore that comes with corsets and faked British accents.


THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL is not all that horrible. I too find myself getting lost in the barrage of bodices. Still, marrying off your children as commodities should not be taken lightly and the knowing twinkle in these girls’ eyes gives away their modern feminist thinking, making their wily behaviour seem all the more implausible. The only thing that makes this all worse is that all this trouble comes about to please the patriarch of the Boleyn family who is nothing more than a pathetic, insecure coward.

MUNICH

Written by Tony Kushner & Eric Roth
Directed by Steven Spielberg

Writer's Note: This first paragraph talks about the final scene of the film. I do not discuss anything that will ruin the ending for you but you have been warned.

It is a gray day. Avner (Eric Bana) meets with his former employer from the Israeli government in a park in Brooklyn, New York. He has nearly lost his mind to paranoia, always wondering when someone will end the hunt and finally find him. During his unofficial employment with the Mossad, Avner headed a team of five men whose mission was to track down the members of Palestinian terrorist group, Black September. This group was behind the tragedy at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, Germany, where 11 Israeli athletes were murdered after being held hostage. It has become abundantly clear that he can and likely will suffer the same fate as the men on his hit list and he needs reassurance that he can at the very least trust the people of his homeland, the people that trusted this mission to him in the first place. His former liaison, Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), dismisses his concerns, allowing Avner a moment to breathe. Ephraim then declines Avner’s invitation to break bread and two large buildings in the background of the frame catch your eye while Avner stands still and puzzled. These two buildings are the twin towers destroyed on September 11, 2001 in what has been described as one of the most devastating terrorist attacks ever to take place on American soil. This moment, I apologize, comes at the very end of the film and stretches the issue of justification past the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, finding Spielberg asking his audience if there is ever any true resolution to any ongoing violent conflict between nations or between peoples.

Spielberg’s film interpretation is not specifically about the Munich killings but more so about what came afterwards, while always paying mind to what came before and led up to the event. In telling this story, he is walking a fine line trying not to offend while remaining authentic. I don’t doubt Spielberg’s genuine interest in remaining objective here. In fact, it was imperative he do so to successfully force his audience to question the usage of violence as a means to resolve conflict. Had he shown the Jewish retaliators as nothing more than a beaten people unquestionably right in their quest for revenge, than he would have created nothing more than a sympathy inducing manipulation. Of course there is something of a sympathetic element for these assassins who see themselves as soldiers but that’s inevitable as their people were undeniably wronged in Munich at the hands of murderers. Only these five men are not your typical soldiers. They’re toy-makers, antiques dealers, expecting fathers. They are regular men with one common dedication among them, Israel. Their convictions can only take them so far as when it comes time to actually pull the trigger or detonate the bomb, the awareness that they are about to take someone’s life becomes a painful curse they hadn’t realized their beliefs might not be able to carry them through. The lack of experience as well as the naïve approach become visible as Avner corners the first name on the list. He fumbles as he pulls his gun from his pants and almost lowers it while the condemned begs for his life. Is this really going to help change the future for the better? No. However, the alternative is to take the Munich injustice sitting down.

MUNICH is not just a moral conflict story about the nature of right and wrong despite watching heroes become detached from the brutality of their lives. It is also an energetic thriller. Spielberg has delivered so many solid, enjoyable popcorn movies in the past and here he brings his knowledge and applies it to the tragic underbelly of humanity. The unofficial Mossad kill team are natural underdogs because of their small, humble lives and not because they’re Jewish. They travel from one European city to the next, gathering information on the locations of the names on their list and carrying out their duty to kill these men. Spielberg brings so much humanity to these hunts. Innocent bystanders’ lives are often threatened or ended and even the men they are meant to kill have families and fragility. The heroes also make small, potentially disastrous errors on their missions. This all leads to the paranoia and confusion over whether they’re making these mistakes or are outsiders setting them up to make them. In some, the paranoia leads to guilt while in others, the guilt leads to insanity. And as if the viewer weren’t in enough despair already, Spielberg doesn’t show the Munich massacre at the beginning of the film to charge the audience behind the Israelis. Instead he reveals the developing details at different intervals throughout the film to remind the viewer how this particular mission began. And as we are wrapped up in the intrigue and morality of this mission, these violent flashbacks serve also as reminders to the team of a reality they had long left behind out of necessity.

Of course the Israel/Palestine conflict did not begin with the Munich Olympics killings. And Spielberg does not tell the story of the mindset behind the men who carried out that mission. If he did though, I would imagine there would be just as much torment in the minds of those killers as the killers who are this film’s heroes. MUNICH does not pass judgment on nations but on mankind, asking us to find the better way. As the Israel/Palestine conflict is not over, nor the numerous other needlessly violent world conflicts, and though MUNICH takes a rather violent approach to advocate peace, it still makes a powerful and intelligent argument for immediate change.