Monday, March 26, 2012

"J. EDGAR" (2011) Review




"J. EDGAR" (2011) Review

Actor/director Clint Eastwood directed his third - or possibly fourth - biopic film, during his career, with "J. EDGAR", an examination of the career and private life of F.B.I. director, J. Edgar Hoover. The movie starred Leonard Di Caprio as the infamous lawman.

"J. EDGAR" is a 137 minute movie that spanned Hoover's career in a series of flashbacks. The movie begins in the early 1960s, when the famed F.B.I. director is recounting his forty-to-fifty years as a Federal lawman. Hoover's recollections span from his participation in the Palmer Raids - a series of attempts by the U.S. Department of Justice to arrest and deport radical leftists, especially anarchists, from the United States, his appointment as director of the Bureau of Investigations in the 1920s, his "War on Crime" campaign in the 1930s, the Lindbergh Baby kidnapping during the same decade and his investigation of civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr.. The movie also focuses on his use of blackmail to retain his position with the F.B.I., and his relationships with both his mother and Clyde Tolson, his assistant director for the Bureau.

I do not think I would ever regard "J. EDGAR" as one of Eastwood's best work. It had the potential to be a top-notch film. But a slightly incoherent script written by Dustin Lance Black prevented the movie from reaching its potential. One, the movie's use of flashbacks started fine. But somewhere in the movie's second half, this use fell flat. I suspect that my problem with the flashbacks was that Black's script and Eastwood's direction seemed inconsistent and slightly confusing.

Another problem I had with "J. EDGAR" was its focus on the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case. It was simply too much. Hoover reached the heights of his fame as the Bureau's director, because of the manhunt for Midwestern criminals such as John Dillinger, Alvin Karpis and Charles Floyd. I realize that this topic was also covered in Michael Mann's 2009 crime drama, "PUBLIC ENEMIES". But Eastwood and Black seemed determined to ignore the topic, aside from Hoover's bouts of jealousy toward the agent that hunted down many of these criminals - Melvin Purvis. Instead, Eastwood and Black decided to focus a great deal on the Bureau's participation in the Lindbergh case. Too much, if you want my opinion. The film never touched on the Bureau's dealings or lack of with organized crime. I find this a pity, because one of the most memorable moments in Hoover's career was his so-called "arrest" of gangster Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, a publicity stunt supported by columnist Walter Winchell.

Fortunately, "J. EDGAR" was not a complete loss. I must admit that despite its flaws, it was a solid and entertaining movie. Eastwood's direction seemed to be at its best in scenes that featured anarchist Luigi Galleani's attempted to assassinate Hoover's boss, Mitchell Palmer with a mail bomb; Hoover's meeting with Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf and Charles Lindbergh; a highly charged scene between Hoover and his mother regarding his sexual preference; and especially the scenes featuring Hoover's relationship with Tolson. Most movie or television productions tend to portray the relationship between the two men with a slight tawdriness. Eastwood and Black's portrayal of the Hoover-Tolson relationship struck me as surprisingly tasteful and compassionate - especially since other aspects of Hoover's life and character was portrayed with less sympathy.

I must admit that Tom Stern's cinematography was a solid piece of work, but it did not exactly blow my mind. And if I must be frank, I was not exactly enamored of the film's slightly gray tone. I also felt slightly leery of the makeup created for Di Caprio, Arnie Hammer and Naomi Watts. The makeup did not seem effective in aging the three leads in the 1960s and 70s sequences. However, I was impressed by James J. Murakami's production designs that conveyed the years between 1919 and 1972. I believe the re-creation of the early and mid 20th century would not have been complete without Deborah Hopper's superb costume designs.

The biggest virtue of "J. EDGAR" turned out to be its cast. Once again, Leonardo Di Caprio rose to the occasion and gave a superb portrayal of a complex and some would say, difficult personality. As usual, Di Caprio managed to inject a good deal of sympathy and poignancy into a historical figure that has a negative reputation over the years. I had been impressed by Arnie Hammer's solid portrayal of the Winklevoss twins in last year's "THE SOCIAL NETWORK". But he really outdid himself as Hoover's right hand man, Clyde Tolson - especially in the scenes featuring the pair's relationship. Judi Dench gave her usual solid performance as Hoover's strong-willed mother, Anna Marie Hoover. But in the scene featuring Mrs. Hoover's disapproval of her son's sexual lifestyle, she was brilliant and slightly scary. Naomi Watts gave a solid and slightly melancholic performance as Hoover's faithful secretary, Helen Gandy. "J. EDGAR" also featured solid support from the likes Josh Lucas as the introverted Charles Lindbergh, Dermot Mulroney as the ineffectual New Jersey State Police superintendent Herbert N. Schwarzkopf, Lea Thompson as Lela Rogers (Ginger's mother) Geoff Pierson as the intense Mitchell Palmer and Jeffrey Donovan as Attorney General Robert Kennedy. However, I was a little confused by Donovan's slightly exaggerated take on Kennedy's Boston accent, considering that Donovan is also a native of Massachusetts.

I noticed that "J. EDGAR" did not earn enough to make a profit at the box office. In a way, I can see why. I feel that it was a solid movie that failed to live up to any potential it could have achieved - especially at the hands of a first-rate director like Clint Eastwood. But thanks to his direction, the movie's production designs and a first-rate cast led by the superb Leonardo Di Caprio, "J. EDGAR" still proved to be a somewhat entertaining and solid film.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

"HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT" (2004) Photo Gallery



Here is a gallery featuring images from the 2004 BBC miniseries, "HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT". Adapted from Anthony Trollope's 1869 novel by Andrew Davies and directed by Tom Vaughn, the miniseries starred Oliver Dimsdale and Laura Fraser:


"HE KNEW HE WAS RIGHT" (2004) Photo Gallery











































Tuesday, March 20, 2012

"Different Paths in Brotherhood"




"DIFFERENT PATHS OF BROTHERHOOD"

While reading an old review by someone named Tchaikovsky about the Season Five ”ANGEL” episode, (5.08) “Destiny”, I noticed that the reviewer discussed a lot about Angel and Spike’s relationship as ”brothers”, whether they were in their souled or unsouled states. When I first viewed that particular season, I noticed one particular thing about it. There seemed to be a great deal of focus upon brotherhood.

In the relationship between Angel and Spike, viewers had two vampires with the potential to be close ”brothers” when they first met in 1880. However, their feelings for one female vampire – namely Drusilla – fragmented that sense of brotherhood. After his disappointments with his former object of desire, an English debutante named Cecily and his mother Anne, whom he had transformed into a vampire; Spike (or .should I say, William) saw the female vampire as his destiny, someone to love and worship.

I am not sure what Angel (aka Angelus) saw in Drusilla. Perhaps he viewed her as something or someone to completely control, perhaps? As the son of an Irish merchant, Liam never really had any control in his relationship with his father until the moment he killed the latter after becoming a vampire. Despite his rejection of his grandsire, the Master, Angelus found himself controlled by Darla, via her usual subtle way by making him believe that he was in control. And perhaps, deep down, Angelus knew this. Perhaps this is why he had decided to betray William by having sex with Drusilla. Perhaps he wanted to make the other male vampire realize that he was in control and that William’s idea of Drusilla being his destiny was nothing more than an illusion.

Due to Drusilla’s mental state, Angelus was not only Spike’s grandsire, but also acted as the latter’s sire and mentor. Yet . . . the night Angelus slept with Drusilla also marked the beginning of an antagonistic relationship and rivalry between the two. That antagonism intensified when Angel lost his soul in 1998 and became Angelus again; their antagonism deepened. Not only did Angelus resume a sexual relationship with Drusilla; Spike, in a crippled state, found himself unable to do anything about it. Until he healed and formed a partnership with the blond Slayer, Buffy Summers. Spike and Angel’s antagonistic relationship lasted over 120 years.

And yet, after Spike had reappeared in Los Angeles in Season Five of ”ANGEL”, the two vampires slowly began to form another bond. Before that could happen, the two vampires had to deal with another rivalry for the heart of Buffy Summers. After all, Spike had witnessed Buffy and Angel’s reunion kiss in the second to last episode of ”BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER”, (7.21) “End of Days”. And in the following episode, (7.22) “Chosen”, Angel learned several things – namely that Buffy and Spike had formed some kind of relationship, Spike had a soul and that Buffy had chosen the blond vampire as her personal champion. The two vampires’ resentment over Buffy spilled over when Spike’s non-corporeal form appeared at the end of (5.01) “Convictions”. Yet, from the moment following their fight over the Cup of Destiny in ”Destiny”, to their bonding over shared experiences in (5.11) “Damage”, and finally to their partnership in episodes like (5.20) “The Girl in Question” and (5.22) “Not Fade Away”; the pair managed to reconnect as ”brothers”. They finally realized that they need each other in their fight against Evil. Besides, with the Fang Gang slowly disintegrating, perhaps Spike became the only person that Angel could truly depend upon.






In contrast to Angel and Spike’s relationship, Season Five marked the final destruction of Charles Gunn and Wesley Wyndham-Price’s friendship. It is interesting that back in the series’ Season Two, they were close friends and partners in a detective agency with Cordelia Chase. Many of the series’ fans would remember the secret handshakes and the ”I got your back” declarations, and the manner in which they had fought together against demons.

But in the end the relationship was destroyed by Wesley’s kidnapping of Angel’s son; and a woman – namely one Winifred “Fred” Burkle. I am not saying that she is to blame for their past or present estrangement. But their views of Fred, along with their personal demons - Charles’ insecurity (which was fed by Fred’s comment about him being the gang’s muscle) and Wesley’s secretive nature and a whore/Madonna view of women eventually brought about a complete destruction of their relationship. Fred and Connor’s kidnapping turned out to be two reasons for their first break-up.

Yet, their friendship resurrected when both men finally decided to forgo a romantic pursuit of said female in late Season Four. But Angel’s decision to allow the Senior Partners, the evil overlords of the Wolfram and Hart law firm erase their memories of Connor and any other memories linking to the vampire’s son. This decision also led to the gang becoming employees of the law firm, Charles’ decision to become an attorney by supernatural means and resurrected Wesley’s desires for Fred. The two eventually began a romantic relationship. All of this culminated in disaster when Charles makes a pact to revive his diminishing legal abilities in exchange for signing the release of an ancient curio stuck in Customs. When this curio resulted in the death of Fred and the resurrection of a demon called Illyia in Fred’s body. A grieving Wesley decided to seek revenge by the attempted murder of Charles. Although both men assisted Angel in the latter’s battle against the Senior Partners and the Circle of Thorn in the Season Five finale, (5.22) “Not Fade Away”, their friendship never returned to the state it had been during Season Two and the second half of Season Four.

I find it amazing that two different male relationships ended on divisive paths. Angel and Spike’s relationship – which began on a rocky foundation saturated with resentment, rivalry over two females- managed to reconnect into a strong brotherly bond. On the other hand, Charles and Wes’ friendship began on a strong note and ended in complete ruin before the series ended. And to think that this all happened during Season Five.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

"TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" (2006) Review



If you have never read Agatha Christie's novel, "Taken at the Flood" or seen the 2006 television adaptation, I suggest you read no futher. This review contains major spoilers.


"TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" (2006) Review

Written in 1948, Agatha Christie's novel called "Taken at the Flood" told the story of the Cloade family in post-war Britian, who depends upon the good will of their cousin-in-law, Rosaleen Hunter Cloade; after her husband and their cousin is killed in an air raid during World War II. When her controlling brother, David, refuses to share Gordon Cloade’s fortunate, the family enlists Poirot’s help to prove that Rosaleen’s missing first husband, Robert Underhay, might not be dead. Although the novel received mixed reviews when it was first published, it now seems highly regarded by many of Christie’s modern day fans.

Nearly sixty years later, screenwriter Guy Andrews adapted the novel for ITV’s "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" series. However, Andrews set the novel in the 1930s, which has been the traditional setting for the novel. In doing so, Andrews changed the aspect of Gordon Cloade's death, making it an act of murder, instead of a wartime casualty. This change also removed the ennui that a few of the characters experienced in a post-war world. Other changes were made in the screenplay. The character of Rosaleen Cloade became a morphine addict. She also survived a morphine overdose. Also, Andrews changed the fate of the story's leading female character, Lynn Marchmont.

I really wish that Andrews and director Andy Wilson had maintained the novel's original setting of post-war Britain. It would not have hurt if "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" broke away from its usual mid-1930s setting to air a story set ten years later. Most adaptations of the Jane Marple novels have always been set in the 1950s. Yet, both adaptations of Christie's novel, "A Murder Is Announced" managed to break away from that decade and set the story in its proper setting - mid-to-late 1940s. By changing the setting and making Gordon Cloade a murder victim, Andrews and Wilson transformed the original novel's theme, which centered on how some of the characters took advantage of a certain situation to "make their own fortune". This theme brings to mind the story's title and its origin - a quotation from William Shakespeare's novel, "Julius Caesar". The movie also established a friendship between the Cloade family and Hercule Poirot. And if I must be honest, I find this friendship implausible. The Cloade family struck me as arrogant, greedy, corrupt, and a slightly poisonous bunch. I find it hard to believe Poirot would befriend any member of that family - with the exception of the leading female character, Lynn Marchmont.

Despite my misgivings over the movie's setting and some of the changes, I must admit that most of it was very intriguing. Despite being an unpleasant bunch, the Cloade family provided the story with some very colorful characters that include a telephone harasser and a drug addict. Lynn is engaged to her cousin Rowley Cloade and it is clear that she does not harbor any real love for him . . . even before meeting Rosaleen's brother David. And instead of being a war veteran and former member of the Women’s Royal Naval Service, Lynn is merely a returnee from one of Britain’s colonies in Africa Actress Amanda Douge portrayed Lynn and she portrayed the character with great warmth and style.

But David Hunter proved to be the most interesting and well-written character in the story. I would go further and state that he might be one of the most complex characters that Christie ever created. David is blunt to a fault, arrogant and has no problems in expressing his dislike and contempt toward the Cloades. He does not make an effort to hide some of his less than pleasant personality traits and is a borderline bully, who is controlling toward his sister. The character provided actor Elliot Cowan with probably one of his better roles . . . and he made the most of it with great skill. When David Hunter and Lynn Marchmont become romantically involved, Cowan ended up creating great screen chemistry with Douge.

The mystery over Rosaleen Cloade's marital state proved to be rather engaging. One is inclined to believe both Rosaleen and David that she was widowed before marrying Gordon Cloade. But when a man named Enoch Arden appeared and claimed that Rosaleen's first husband is still alive, the audience's belief in the Hunter siblings is shaken. But when Arden is killed violently, David becomes suspect Number One with the police and Poirot.

I have already commented upon Elliot Cowan and Amanda Douge's performances in "TAKEN AT THE FLOOD". I was also impressed by Patrick Baladi's portrayal of Lynn's obsessive fiancé, Rowley Cloade. Eva Birthistle was subtle and unforgettable as David's nervous and very reserved sister, the wealthy widow Rosaleen Cloade. And veteran performers such as Jenny Agutter, Penny Downie, Tim Pigott-Smith, Pip Torrens and a deliciously over-the-top Celia Imrie provided great support. I also have to commend David Suchet, who gave his usual first-rate performance as detective Hercule Poirot. If there is one virtue that "TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" possessed, it was a first-rate cast.

"TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" could have been a first-rate movie. But I believe that both Andrews and Wilson dropped the ball in the movie's last thirty minutes. Their biggest mistake was adhering closely to Christie's original novel. I am aware of some of the changes they made. I had no problem with some of the changes. Other changes really turned me off. But despite these changes, they managed to somewhat remain faithful to the novel. As as far as I am concerned, this was a major mistake.

In the novel, David Hunter ended up murdering Rosaleen Cloade by giving her a drug overdose. Poirot managed to reveal that Rosaleen was merely his sister's former housemaid, who became an accomplice in a scam to assume control of the Cloade fortune. Andrews' script changed this by allowing Rosaleen to attempt suicide and survive. Instead, they had David guilty of murdering his sister and brother-in-law in a house bombing featured at the beginning of the movie. Worse, Poirot claimed that David had deliberately impregnated the false Rosaleen and forced her to get an abortion in order to control her. Poirot also hinted he was behind Rosaleen's suicide attempt. How he came to this conclusion is beyond me. In other words, Andrews' script transformed David Hunter from a swindler and killer of his accomplice to an out-and-out monster. In the end, he was hanged for his crimes.

Both Christie and Andrews' handling of the Cloade family proved to be even more incredible. Mrs. Frances Cloade had recruited a relation to call himself as Enoch Arden and claim that Robert Underhay was still alive. Another member of the Cloade family recruited a Major Porter to lie on the stand and make the same claim. Later, Major Porter committed suicide.

The murder of Enoch Arden proved to be an accident. In other words, Rowley Cloade discovered that Arden was the relation of his cousin-in-law, Mrs. Frances Cloade, reacted with anger and attacked the man. Rowley's attack led to Arden's fall and his death. Then Rowley proceeded to frame David by deliberately smashing in Arden's head in order to make it resemble murder. Upon Lynn's revelation that she was in love with David Hunter, Rowley lost his temper and tried to strangle her. Poirot and a police officer managed to stop him. One, Rowley was guilty of manslaughter, when he caused Enoch Arden's death. Two, he was guilty of interfering with a police investigation, when he tried to frame David for murder. And three, he was also guilty of assault and attempted murder of Lynn Marchmont. Once Poirot discovered that Arden's death was an accident caused by Rowley, he immediately dismissed the incident and focused his attention on David Hunter's crimes.

In the end, Rowley was never arrested, prosecuted or punished for his crimes. Frances Cloade was never questioned by the police for producing the phony Enoch Arden in an attempt to commit fraud. And the member of the Cloade family who had recruited Major Porter was never prosecuted for attempting to perpetrate a fraud against the courts. The only positive change that Andrews made to Christie's novel was allowing Lynn's rejection of Rowley to remain permanent. In the novel, Lynn decided that she loved Rowley after all, following his attempt to kill her. She found his violent behavior appealing and romantic.

I sometimes wonder if Christie became aware of her negative portrayal of the upper-class Cloades, while writing "Taken at the Flood", and became determined to maintain the social status quo in the novel. And she achieved this by ensuring that the lower-class David Hunter proved to be the real criminal and no member of the Cloade family end up arrested or prosecuted for their crimes. In other words, Christie allowed her conservative sensibilities to really get the best of her. Aside from the permanent separation between Lynn and Rowley, Andrews and Wilson embraced Christie's conservatism to the extreme. And it left a bitter taste in my mouth. No wonder "TAKEN AT THE FLOOD" proved to be one of the most disappointing Christie stories I have ever come across.


Thursday, March 15, 2012

"TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY" (2011) Photo Gallery



Below are images from "TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY", the new adaptation of John le Carré's 1974 novel. Directed by Tomas Alfredson, the movie stars Gary Oldman as George Smiley:


"TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY" (2011) Photo Gallery


























































Wednesday, March 14, 2012

"THE PACIFIC" (Episode Four) Commentary



I wrote this commentary on the fourth episode of "THE PACIFIC":


"THE PACIFIC" (Episode Four) Commentary

When I first saw the featurettes about "THE PACIFIC" on HBO, I noticed that the filmmakers and screenwriters had made a big deal about the miniseries’ ninth episode, which featured the battle on Okinawa. From what I had gathered, this particular episode might serve as the miniseries’ darkest. Then I saw Episode Four, which featured the U.S. Marines First Division’s experiences during the Battle of Cape Gloucester. And I realized that I had been wrong.

Very little combat played a role in Episode Four. One scene featured Robert Leckie’s brief confrontation with a Japanese scout patrol near the beginning of the episode. And another scene featured Company "H" repelling an intense banzai attack by the Japanese, a few minutes later. But as the documentary had hinted around the beginning of the episode, the Marines’ main conflict during the Cape Gloucester campaign seemed to be the environment – the thick jungle and the rain. And because of this environment, Leckie and his fellow Marines suffered a drop in morale.

Before watching this episode, I had no idea how depressing it would be. So much about this episode struck me as depressing . . . especially from Leckie’s point of view. One, both he and Sidney Phillips had the bad luck to witness Gibson’s murder of the Japanese soldier. Judging from the slightly demented expression on Gibson’s face, I suspect that neither Leckie nor Phillips was willing to interrupt the murder. But they both obviously found the experience disturbing. Eventually, the rain, the mud and the jungles of Cape Gloucester on New Britain got to Leckie and he eventually found himself begging for someone to shoot him after he lost his shoes in the mud and fell down a slope. It got worse. Leckie found his confiscated Japanese chest stolen by a Marine officer. And instead of dismissing the chest lost, he stubbornly tried to get his chest back during a hostile confrontation. Leckie never got the chest back. Instead, the Marine officer transferred him from his duties as an intelligence scout to kitchen and latrine duties. The Marine officer also humiliated Leckie for wetting his trousers. But that was nothing in compare to Leckie witnessing the suicide of a Canadian-born Marine.

Company "H" of the First Marines Division was eventually sent to the island of Pavuvu for some rest and relaxation. Only, the island proved to be nothing like Melbourne. The Marines had to deal with pests like rats and crabs. Leckie’s sense of humor became increasingly irritating to Hoosier. And his bedwetting (enuresis) became even worse. At one point, "Chuckler" Juergens found Leckie lying on his cot, pissing uncontrollably and staring into space. Leckie had finally reached the nadir of his existence. The company’s doctor shipped Leckie to a Naval hospital located on Banika. Leckie discovered that the wing he had been assigned to was for psychiatric patients. Fortunately for him, the Naval doctor assigned to him – a Dr. Grant – realized that Leckie was simply suffering from enuresis and a case of exhaustion. By the end of the episode, he allowed the Marine to return to his company. Before that happened, Leckie made another discovery . . . Ronnie Gibson was also a patient at the hospital. Leckie learned from Dr. Grant that Gibson tried to steal a plane and later commit suicide, while Company "H" were on Pavuvu.

I doubt very much that Episode Four will ever be considered a personal favorite of mine. I simply found it too depressing. But I must admit that I also found it fascinating. And it is a credit to screenwriters Robert Schenkkan and Graham Yost, along with Yost’s direction that I managed to remain fascinated by it all. While watching Episode Four, it occurred to me that in some ways, it reminded me of the 2005 movie, "JARHEAD". The Marines in Sam Mendes’ movie were suffering psychological stress, due to their inability to relieve their built-up aggression via combat. The Marines in Episode Four were suffering from a number of factors – no combat against the Japanese, who had decamped to Rabaul on the other side of New Britain.

For the umpteenth time, actor James Badge Dale managed to knock it out of the ballpark with his portrayal of Robert Leckie. In fact, I would say that this episode marked his best performance in the miniseries to date. He did a superb job in portraying Leckie’s emotional descent without any heavy-handed acting. I especially enjoyed his performance during a scene that featured Leckie’s confrontation with the officer who had stolen the Japanese chest. Badge Dale’s performance conveyed a delicious mixture of aggression, sarcasm and subtlety. I also have to give kudos to Tom Budge’s portrayal of the demented Gibson. Mind you, his performance was not as subtle as Badge Dale’s, but it was just as convincing. And I believe I will never forget that expression on his face, after his character had strangled that Japanese soldier. I also found Leckie’s stay at that Naval hospital equally depressing. It reminded me of a line that the Bill Guernere character had said about military hospitals in one of the episodes of "BAND OF BROTHERS". Thanks to this episode, I finally understand what he was trying to say. The Banika sequence also featured Matt Craven, who gave a wonderfully subtle performance as Leckie’s doctor, the slightly sarcastic Dr. Grant. Thinking about this episode, it occurred to me that the one character who managed to remain steady throughout the entire mess was Chuckler, thanks to Josh Helman’s solid performance. It is easy to see why Lieutenant Corrigan had promoted him to corporal following the Alligator Creek action on Guadalcanal in Episode One.

After watching Episode Four, I found myself dubbing it "Heart of Darkness – Part One". Considering that the entire episode featured a little combat, a murder, a suicide, illness, rodents and crabs and a stay for Leckie at a Naval psych ward. And I had no idea I would be watching this before it aired. The reason I had dubbed it "Part One" is that I suspect that the Okinawa episode will proved to be just as depressing . . . or perhaps a little more.


Next . . . Leckie and Sledge experience their beach landings at Peleliu.

Friday, March 9, 2012

"TOWER HEIST" (2011) Review




"TOWER HEIST" (2011) Review

Six years ago, Eddie Murphy had an idea about him and a group of comedians starring in a movie about a group planning to rob Trump Tower. The script developed and changed into an "OCEAN'S ELEVEN"-style caper, leading Murphy to leave the project. When director Brett Ratner continued to develop the idea into the movie's present story, Murphy eventually rejoined the production.

"TOWER HEIST" told the story about three employees of an exclusive apartment building called The Tower, who lose their pensions in the Ponzi scheme of a Wall Street businessman, who also lives in the building. The group enlist the aid of criminal, a bankrupt businessman that also lives in the building, and another building employee to break into the businessman's apartment and steal back their money, while avoiding the FBI Agent in charge of his case.

One of my favorite types of movies has always been the heist comedy. This is why I am a fan of such movies like "LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS", "A FISH CALLED WANDA" and the "OCEAN'S ELEVEN" series. I do not know if I would place "TOWER HEIST" on the same level as the previously mentioned films. I would not regard it as one of the best heist films I have ever seen, or even one of the best comedies. But I cannot deny that I found it entertaining.

I must admit that I did not believe Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy would ever generate a strong screen chemistry. But in a rather odd way, they seemed to click. I suppose this was due to the fact that Stiller's more subdued performance perfectly balanced Murphy's more extroverted one. And they had solid support from the likes of Casey Affleck, Téa Leoni, Alan Alda, Michael Peña, Matthew Broderick and Gabourey Sidibe. I was especially impressed by Alda's insidious performance as the scheming businessman Arthur Shaw and Sidibe's portrayal of the sharp-tongued maid Odessa, whose savy proved to be the group's godsend on at least two occasions.

Another aspect of "TOWER HEIST" that I admired was the movie's script written by Ted Griffin and Jeff Nathanson. It was not the most spectacular story I have seen on the movie screen. I had a problem with the movie's last five or ten minutes. I would reveal what I found troubling about the ending. But if I did, I would give away the story. I suspect Griffin and Nathanson ended it this way to put a little bite in the movie's ending. It just did not work for me.

However, I did enjoy most of the story. I also liked that one of the main aspects that injected a good deal of suspense into the story was the possibility of one or more of the robbers betraying the others - especially in the case of both Murphy and Affleck's characters. This is something that is usually common in a heist drama. But I have yet to see such a thing in a comedy, until I saw "TOWER HEIST".

In the end, "TOWER HEIST" proved to be a solid and entertaining comedy with a slightly weak ending. The movie was also blessed with a first-rate cast led by Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy. And director Brett Ratner did a good job in utilizing both the story and the cast to make a pretty solid film.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

"THE MALTESE FALCON" (1931) Photo Gallery



Below are photos from the 1931 adaptation of Dashiell Hammett's 1930 novel, "THE MALTESE FALCON". Directed by Roy Del Ruth, the movie starred Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels:


"THE MALTESE FALCON" (1931) Photo Gallery