You Kill Me, He Said

As an alcoholic, I appreciate the subject being handled realistically in any type of media presentation. The focus of most drama involving an alcoholic protagonist is "the meeting".
I think by now the twelve steps of Alcoholic Anonymous, or AA re known by most people just because of their use in the presentation of alcoholism in media.

The worst are the TV disease of the week type movie. The formula puts the victim at or arriving at the "bottom" or a low point in their use of the drug of choice. The drunk is losing their family, friends and career because of their uncontrolled drinking. If you throw in a squeaky clean trophy wife, a couple of tearful blond kids, you've got the Sunday night movie of the week. In the formula the drunk goes to an AA meeting. First they resist the people and the process. Than they experience a revelation, usually brought on by their sponsor and than they embrace the group and salivation prevails, usually after one more relapse

Better films have been made and in them you see vestiges of the many faces of the problems alcoholic. Understanding that Alcoholism is different for different people and as a result the meeting you go to may have as much to do with your success as the realization that you have a problem and only you can do anything about it.

The comedy "You Kill Me" is he one of the best I've ever seen. One of the things you want as a film maker is a sympathetic or at least likable protagonist. When we meet Frank Falenczyk, he is shoveling snow at his Buffalo, New York home. His incentive for finishing the job is throwing a bottle of vodka a few feet in front of his path. In order to get the bottle he has to shovel the snow. When he gets to the street, he greets his cousin. His cousin has a message from his uncle. Frank is suppose to kill a rival gang leader so that Frank's family gang can retain control of their illegal enterprises in the Buffalo. Frank doesn't get the job done, because he's drinks himself into a stupor as he stakes out the mark.

The family "intervention" is a little unusual in that while they do profess their love for Frank and they express their concern for his ability to function as a family member and employee, they are really pissed off because he is not killing their enemies.

Frank is sent to San Francisco to dry out. The problem is that Frank doesn't want to quit drinking. The only reason he does is because he doesn't have a choice. He gets a job as an assistant at a funeral home, the irony of this is inescapable. The obligatory scene at the meeting is interesting to me because it's so funny. The reason it's funny is because it probably is more realistic than most depictions. The participants are pathetic and self absorbed. As Franks sponsor Tom says, "Some of these people like to wallow in it". Franks bond with the group begins when he admits, not that he's and alcoholic, but that he is a hired assassin. The amazing thing about this film is that Frank's life completely changes not when he faces his drinking problem, but admits how he made his living. He finds friends and of course experiences the life changing moment of falling in love.

This film is so quirky and off beat that it easily could have been a disaster, but because of the direction of John Dahl and the able acting ability of Ben Kingsley, Bill Pullman, Luke Wilson and Tea Leoni, it works wonderfully. Wilson plays something other than a man stuck in a middle school kids body. Tea Leoni exhibits breadth in her ability to play different characters. And Kingsley, well he is one of the worlds greatest actors and taking a role like this shows confidence and ability of an actor who carries that label . This is a must see film for anyone who wants an enjoyable evening out or wants to see a good film about a drunk who wants to reform.

Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, He Said

They are older, but than children do grow and change when they are attending high school. The teachers are relatively the same. Hogworts, the school that the young wizards attend still rests sternly on the hill side overlooking the river that flows... Well, we aren't sure where it flows but the it evokes a promise of a future.

The Harry Potter Series both book and film is about the future. It is in essence a coming of age tale that includes a compelling facet of magic. I ask you who hasn't wished that they couldn't solve their problems with a little bit of magic. Harry Potter, like Star Wars Luke Skywalker, is living with the memory and legacy of his father. Harry is the reluctant hero in the battle of forces that have been warring for power for all time. It is, as all good stories are, a battle between good and evil.

In this edition of the saga, Harry is inducted into the The Order of the Phoenix, a group that supports the good Wizards, the organization that refuses to go the dark side. Complicating this situation is in intractable bureaucracy that doesn't want to admit that Lord Voldemort, the leader of those on the dark side has indeed returned to overthrow the good wizards.
Pretty predictable stuff, Eh!

No one will ever argue that J K Rowling can't write a good story. She can indeed. Her books have reintroduced reading to millions of TV, Nintendo, and You Tube addicted teenagers. While the author has strung along her readers through six novels and is releasing the final one in close proximity to the release of this film, she has successfully established a Disney like franchise that will no doubt hook future generations. It's easy to see today's readers introducing their children to Harry just like my folks wanted me to read the "Black Stallion" books and my sister was urged to read Nancy Drew.

But what I'm suppose to write about here is my opinion of the movie. The Harry Potter films have always suffered from poor casting and it starts with Daniel Radcliffe. Radcliffe's range is insufficient to play the morose and brooding Potter. Even as a young Potter, Radcliffe couldn't portray the innocent and vulnerable Harry. As a now enlightened and supposedly wiser young wizard, Radcliffe can't pull it off.

Emma Watson didn't have enough of a role in this film to judge her worth to the effort and the same must be said of the usually reliable Rupert Grint, in the role of Ron Weasley. The star studded cast does make the film notable in it's performance, but you can't build a strong performance on a star that gets as much screen time as Radcliffe does and who can't shoulder the load. I've always wondered how the film's would fare if Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley was cast as Potter and the limited Radcliffe was playing the buddy role. It couldn't be worse and it would have a chance of being better, Grint can act.

Jindabyne, He Said

Four guys go on a weekend fishing trip. something happens out there, but they don't want to talk about it. A description of the classic movie "Deliverance"? No, but the comparison could be made. In the case of Jindabyne, the guys didn't really do anything other than ignore the commission of a crime while they continued with their fishing. But tying the naked body of a dead aboriginal girl to a tree root while they continued to fish did not sit well with the people from the small town they lived in and in particular the

In the early part of this film a great deal is made about the importance and the tradition of this fishing trip. Enhancing the significance is the addition of a new young recruit to the group. Each of the participants in this foray have issues that are unique and play into the plot, but the main focus is put on the Kane's, Claire and Stewart. Their relationship is clouded by Claire's desertion of the family following the birth of their son. She's back and they are trying to put their lives together again, but there is much that is not settled. Claire is aware of the scrutiny she is under and Stewart still doesn't understand why she left in the first place

When are merry band of fishermen get into the barely accessible stretch of the river, they discover the dead body of an aboriginal girl floating down the river. We saw her abducted and disposed of in the opening of the film. They decide to concoct a story that blames their tardiness on the sprained ankle of one of them.

This lame story (excuse me I couldn't pass that up) didn't fare well with the townspeople and in particular the aboriginal people in the community. They are taken to task for their heartlessness and racism. No one seems to understand their callousness including one member of their own party.

The latter part of the film sees Claire reaching out, seemingly to no avail, to the native people. It's apparent she is doing this to deal with her own issues as well as the greater problems of misunderstanding and mistrust built between the native people and the white people.

This film takes place in a colorless town in Australia. My guess is that the director wanted that pallet to indicate the drabness of life and to focus n the racial tension in the community. Laura Linny is wonderful as the conflicted Claire. Garbriel Byrne equals her as her husband Stewart.

The problem I had was with the continuity of the script. It seems to me some editorial cuts were made that paid little attention to sequence of facts we needed to know to get us from one place to the next. I remember very little of the discussion, the all important discussion, the men had in deciding to tether the body to a tree root while they continued to fish. And I haven't clue how the town suddenly and unanimously decided the story they told was flawed. I think this was a valiant effort to tell an important story that was lost on the cutting room floor

Ferris Bueller's Day Off, He Said

I've said for years this film is the finest example of it's genre. It's a story about coming of age, the last fling before adulthood and giving the status quo the finger on your way out the door on the road to becoming part of the status quo, film. It also is John Hughes homage to his home town, Chicago.

Hughes cast a young Mathew Broderick as Ferris Bueller, the wise guy pain in the ass to the high school principle. Ed Roony. Ferris has charmed his parents, friends and most everyone except Rooney. Ferris quilts his best friend Cameron Frye into stealing his dad's vintage sports car, mimicking his girls friends father so they can spring her from school and facing up to the rest of his life. Cautionary note here. If you're looking for a character arc, the character that changes in this story is Cameron.

The hi-jinks of this trio are legendary. If you've never seen this film in it's entirety, you probably are aware of some of the scenes, because of their out take and situational value. The most famous is the improbable but enjoyable scene, where Ferris hi jacks a float in a Chicago downtown parade and leads the crowd in a Broadway style version of the Beatle's "Twist and Shout". The most creative is a MTV type montage of shots inside the The Chicago Art Institute.

The battle between the stuffy irate principle and the always ahead of the situation Bueller, comes to a head when in a final confrontation Ferris has to depend on his sister, a character who has been setup as an unlikely ally. Her conversion to the Ferris Bueller fan club is handled in such a way that we never see it coming.

All in all this film is just fun. I label it a classic simply because, while the costumes and the pop culture references are somewhat dated, the film is still relevant. Kid's are always rebelling against authority. We could only hope they express that dissatisfaction by skipping school to go to Wriggly Field, The Chicago Institute of Art and attend a Parade

Evening, He Said

I've always hated the segregation of films into guy films and chick flix's. When you term a film like "Field of Dreams" as a man's film, you deny women the chance to see how men can feel about their relationship with their fathers. This would be true of the film "Evening", if men chose not to see it because some critic or the marketing department shortcut their responsibilities and hung the Gal film label on the it.

It is true that the main theme of this film is the relationship between mothers and their daughters and I for one can't learn enough about this subject, as every women I know and care about has a mother and these relationships fairly teem with nuances and issues I have no clue about.

In addition to the need to understand more about the subject, men would deny themselves the opportunity to see some fine performances by some of our finest actresses. The unique situation here is the film features two mother daughter teams. Vanessa Redgrave and Natasha Richardson play a mother and daughter. Meyrl Streep and Mamie Gummer play one character at different ages.

In this magnificent use of the flashback technique Michael Cunningham and Susan Minot, who wrote the novel the script is based on, combine to write a script that allows us to go back in time and return to present day seamlessly and intelligently to understand how things of the past affect the way we are today.

In this story, two daughters are trying to make sense of their lives and their relationship as their mother lays dying in the room above them. The mothers dreams and ravings, assisted by the painkilling drugs she is getting to make her comfortable, are suggesting to her daughters a part of her life that they are unaware.

We see the past through the dreams of the mother, played by Vanessa Redgrave. Her younger self, Ann, played wonderfully by Claire Danes, is the off beat New York friend of socialite, Lila, played by Mamie Gummer. Ann has traveled to Rhode Island to be the maid of honor in Lila's wedding. Lila's brother, played by Hugh Dancy, is eager to stop his sister's marriage to the family's approved spouse in favor the their friend Harris. Harris is the son of an old housekeeper, who has become a part of the family.

Harris has returned for the wedding from his medical practice in a small town where he serves a mainly poor clientele. it is obvious that he is welcome, but he would not be if he were to try and elevate himself above his status in the eyes of Lila and Buddy Wttenborn's Parents, played by Glenn Close and Barry Bostwick. In the story of the past Harris's relationship with Lila, Buddy and Ann hold the key to the mystery of why Ann is reliving this time in her life as she prepares to die.

In the present her daughter Nina, played by Toni Collette, is unsure of her future. she has been bounding from one career to another and duplicating that pattern in her love life for years. At this point however there is a unanticipated defining moment in her life occurring. she is pregnant with the child of a man who truly loves her and wants to marry her. She is afraid of making a mistake, which is why she has lived her whole life in a series of failures to commitment.

Her sister Constance, played by Natasha Richardson is the 'good daughter", who has the career, the husband and kids. her success hides and equally frustrating suspicion that somehow by committing she's missed something.

What we learn in the end is that by committing we do pass up opportunities and we will never know what might have been and we can't help but wonder but grieving over lost opportunities that might have been is a wast of time. This is brought home in a scene where Lila , played at this age by Meyrl Streep, comes to spend one last visit with the dying Ann. Reminiscent of an earlier scene where they lay together in Lila's bed on the the morning of her wedding a discussed her commitment to her marriage that day, this time they talked about Harris and what he meant to both of them and how their lives turned out because both of them turned down the chance to build a future with him when in truth they both wanted to do that and turned their back on the chance.

In the end, that scene summed it up for us, but one more scene between Nina and the older Lila summed it up for the girls. In the end, it's not the life we could have had that counts, it's what we do with the life we got.