Inkheart

Don't you hate it when movie trailers make the film look so much more interesting then it actually is? Isn't it even worse when what is promised in the trailer is, in fact, not even what the film is about?

Take "Inkheart" for example. In rewatching the trailer and listening to the "movie guy's" lines, he says of the film: "What if you had the power to bring a book to life simply by reading it aloud? But what if one book you brought to life took you to another world? Now to get back home they must escape from the book."

Um, actually... they didn't have to escape anything. Just a bunch of bad guys that came from a book.

After sitting through this movie I found that, while I enjoyed myself thoroughly, not only was I witness to a very different story than I had anticipated having not read the book, but there were some serious writing flaws that I certainly hope were not the fault of the original author.

"Inkheart" is indeed about a man named Mo (Brendan Fraser) who has a special power when it comes to reading books aloud. But it's not "bringing books to life" per se. He actually transports characters from the book's world into ours in return for a person in our world. Well... maybe not just characters... inanimate objects, animals and weather as well. And the person in our world that gets transported into their world has to be in the presence of Mo at the time of reading it... but not really, considering how many nameless lackeys get swept off to Dorothy's Kansas or the deserts of "Arabian Nights"... and it's not even necessarily people that need to be traded from world to world... it could be a bird instead maybe... and Mo apparently can bring people back to the book's world all along by reading from the book anyway... which kind of makes Paul Bettany's character kind of redundant.....

You see what I mean? In theory, it all makes sense. There are just so many holes when it comes to the rules of this world that it was very difficult to follow, let alone remain interested in these characters' fates. This film also suffers from an identity crisis: who's bloody story is it anyway? Is it Mo's, who's desperately trying to bring his lost wife back from the world of Inkheart? Is it young Eliza's, who's trying to find her mother and fill in the blanks of her past? Is it Dustfinger's, who's trying to find his way back to his own world while battling his cowardly nature? We get to experience each story, but none of them are ever fully realized to allow for complete emotional connection.

That all being said, there were some fantastic performances in "Inkheart" that almost helped you forget about trying to keep track of the rules. Helen Mirren plays a deliciously stuffy and eccentric great Aunt to Eliza, who is skillfully played by newcomer Eliza Bennett (someone who, if she could perfect an American accent, could have played Bella in "Twilight" with much more insight and interest than Kristen Stewart). Andy Serkis gleefully plays Capricorn, a villain from the world of Inkheart who desires to reign supreme in ours. His sarcastic British wit lends itself perfectly for this role, although sometimes tended to be a bit repetitive. The hero of the film is definitely Paul Bettany as Dustfinger, who is able to play every nuance of a character as tortured, indecisive and humourous as this one.

And Brendan Fraser? Well as far as I'm concerned he can battle mummies for the rest of his career and I'd be happy.

Doubt

There's nothing I love more than a well written film that gives you just enough information to make your own judgement calls, then plants the seeds of doubt in your mind. Once you've made up your mind who's side you're on, you realize you never fully know the truth and you're just as lost as the characters you're watching.

Meet Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), middle age priest, mentor, head of St. Nicholas Church and School, and befriender of young Donald Miller (Joseph Foster), the lone black student in the school and social outcast. On the opposite end is Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep), principal, keeper of tradition, moral fibre and general fear throughout the school. After a few suspicious events, Sister Aloysius is lead to believe that Father Flynn engaged in an "inappropriate relationship" with poor Donald, though she has no specific evidence except her convictions to back her story up. In the middle of it all is Sister James (Amy Adams), who wants to believe in a new kind of church that can extend love and acceptance, but also yearns for approval from her fellow Sister. She is the instigator of the initial suspicions and jumps from side to side throughout the events that occur, never fully sure of herself or Father Flynn.

I have not seen John Patrick Shanley's play on which this film is based so I have no basis for comparison. But if his film adaptation of Doubt is any reflection of the play, it needs to be mounted more often than not. Not only does Shanley pit you against the films two antagonists, making you wonder who's right (and who has rights, in fact), but he asks such difficult questions as "Who can anyone trust" and "How does one know when he/she is right?" without shame or fear. One moment you can't help but know that Father Flynn couldn't have possibly committed these atrocities, but with a slight look away and a moment of weakness, Hoffman makes you wonder. You begin the film cringing at the viciousness of Sister Aloysius, but by the end you question if she the one who is in the right for doing what she did.

The leading trio of Doubt is undoubtedly one of the best casting choices I've seen in awhile - two of my absolute favourite actors pitted against each other, with an amazing Amy Adams flitting between the two. This film needs to be part of an actor's curriculum. The slightest looks and gestures from both Streep and Hoffman mean something; there are no choices by these actors that haven't been made without the deepest thought and distinction. They were absolutely riveting to watch and, as far as I'm concerned, should win every award possible for their portrayals.

In the end, the brilliance of this piece is that no answers are ever given. You're meant to leave the theatre knowing about as much as Sister Aloysius as she sits with her young protege crying, "I have such doubts!" But all you can do is question and wonder.

Slumdog Millionaire

As one who is not versed or experienced in the realm of Indian films yet, I was initially curious but distanced when beginning to watch this film. However, as a fan of Mr. Danny Boyle's work I was very excited to see how he fared in this new genre.

He blew me away.

At first, Slumdog Millionaire appears to be about a young call centre assistant named Jamal who is accused of cheating on the Mumbai version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire". As the film progresses, however, we are taken on flashbacks through his childhood and teen years to learn how each and every one of his correct answers is, in fact, remembered truthfully because of distinct moments in his life. What we are treated to is, in fact, a lush and intense love story about an orphaned boy, Jamal (Dev Patel), who falls in love with an orphaned girl, Latika (Freida Pinto), and continually loses and re-rescues her at different points in their lives.

After reading over my brief synopsis I've realized that I simply cannot do this film justice in talking about it; it must be seen to be experienced. There is so much that I could write about - the realistic depictions of slum life in Mumbai, the strength of brotherhood, the terrors of manipulation, the hope in true love, the coming together of a nation to support one of its own - but I simply must leave it to you, the reader, to see this film for yourself.

I have yet to be disappointed with Danny Boyle's work (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Sunshine etc). The man knows how to tell a story and tell it the most intriguing and satisfying way possible through the medium of film. Instead of laying out a story for us, he intersects the pieces of Jamal's life throughout the entirety of the "Millionaire" show, each question becoming more and more suspenseful, each life event tugging harder and harder at our heartstrings.

Now that I have seen this film, I completely understand why it just won Best Picture at the Golden Globes. And boy is it wonderful to get wrapped in a love story where you actually care if the lovers get together or not in the end. Congratulations, Mr. Boyle. You're still up there in my books.

Gran Torino

Who would have thought that Grandpa Clint could still be so tough-as-nails and have that big of a heart?

There comes a time in every actor's career when he/she has to start making fun of himself to keep the audience on his/her side. Take William Shatner, for instance. He made his career on his dramatic overacting in the Star Trek franchise. And what is he doing now? Making a killing playing characters (including himself) that make fun of himself and his style of acting.

The same applies here. Clint Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a Korean War vet and retired Ford factory worker who has no patience for his family, disrespect, foreign cars and Asian immigrants. When we meet him he is attending his wife's funeral, snarling at his granddaughter's choice of apparel. And when I say snarling, I literally mean he grits his teeth and grunts.

At first it appears he's trying to channel his Dirty Harry past and be all macho again. But very quickly we see that Dirty Harry has become a grumpy old man, and Eastwood pulls out all the stops to make him as grumpy, grunty, and politically incorrect as possible. And we love him for it. We simply can't help it.

While Walt's spoiled and annoying family attempts to win his favour in order to inherit the family heirlooms (whilst also attempting to convince him to move to a home for the elderly), enter the Lor family who move in next door from the Hmong regions of southeast Asia. Frustrated that his neighbourhood is being taken over by Asians (and calling them by every ethnic slur in the book), Walt tries his best to avoid the neighbours by staying at home with his golden retriever, his beer, and his '72 Gran Torino. He becomes the unlikely hero, however, after rescuing the shy boy next door from one of the many local gangs. What follows is an unlikely friendship with the boy, Thao (whom he affectionately called Toad) and his sister, Sue.

I would venture to say that this film is one of the best of 2008. It is simply and superbly written, allowing the audience to think and feel and make up their own minds. You can't help but love this old man, set in his all-American ways, trying desperately not to be moved by his new neighbours. What's refreshing is that this isn't a moral piece that Eastwood is trying to preach to his audience. What he presents is a man who's gone through a lot of shit, doesn't have all the answers, and in the end becomes a hero because he finally comes to terms with life and death.

This is the real theme of Gran Torino. After Walt berates a young priest for having the gall to talk about life and death with such authority by going on a rant about what it's like to live with having killed people in Korea, the priest retorts with, "Sounds to me like you know more about death than you do about living life." Walt's journey becomes about discovering what life still has to offer after dealing with death, finding truth and joy in others amidst the horrors of his past. And in the film's finale, we get to see the full size of Walt's heart in an act of sacrifice that defies all expectations. Refreshing and rewarding. Highly recommended.

The Unborn

Gary Oldman, what are you doing? I mean really.

This movie could have been fantastic. It had all the right ingredients for a stellar revamp of the possession/supernatural thriller. But instead we got... well... look at the movie poster. Don't get me wrong, Odette Yustman is absolutely gorgeous, but sell a movie with her ass she can't.

I had high hopes for this film ever since I saw the first preview way back when it was released in the fall. I mean, Gary Oldman as a modern day exorcist, how could that be a bad thing? He's Sirius Black for God's sake. He's fucking Dracula. But when your film's only hope for any level of credibility comes in two thirds of the way through as an underplayed, underused almost stock character, you know that someone somewhere screwed up.

And here's where "The Unborn" went wrong (said God, who can fix all bad movies but chooses not to). A) The film opens with a dream sequence, introducing the viewer to demonic images that make no sense and are never given a reason for being there. If you start your film without a comfortable sense of reality, you have nowhere to go. The audience needs to feel that they are safe before they are thrust into the world of the supernatural with nowhere to run. B) Someone did a hell of a hack job trying to paste together dialogue for our heroines. You want us to feel sympathy for these girls, right? Then don't make them sound like brainless twits. C) Even though there were a lot of amazing creature designs and images, the film didn't use them to their fullest potential and instead relied on old cliche horror tricks to get jumps instead of a deep rooted fear. When the power goes out, as it's bound to do, why is it still so light inside? Why does there have to be this atmospheric ambiance? Ever think of using actual darkness as a useful tool? And what about silence? When was the last time anybody decided to take a break from the predictable music and put the audience right in the thick of the horror with sheer silence?

Such a shame. I was so disappointed this couldn't have been better, especially with the co-writers of "The Dark Knight" and the use of one of Hollywood's best actors. One day... one day I swear there will be a film that will rival "The Exorcist" for sheer terror. Whether I'm at the helm remains to be seen...