The Contract

The relationship between Ray (John Cusack) and his son Chris (Jamie Anderson) is strained to the breaking point after the loss of their wife and mother to cancer two years ago. Ray said everything would be okay, at that time, but it was not. After Chris got caught smoking pot, Ray knew that some drastic action was needed. The solution was a camping trip that, hopefully, would create an atmosphere for both healing and bonding.

Ray is a school teacher, who was once a policeman. Chris had been on an Outward Bound trip in the same area they are now hiking to, so between the two of them they are somewhat prepared when they find themselves being chased by professional assassins.

Frank (Morgan Freeman) is a former assassin for the government, who now kills as an entrepreneur because he does not know how to make a living any other way. His mission now is to assassinate a wealthy businessman who may or may not have a connection with the President of the United States.

Frank is involved in a near fatal automobile accident. While in the hospital it’s discovered that he’s not the person his ID says he is. Fingerprints are run and Frank wakes up handcuffed to his hospital bed. While being transported back to authorities, his cohorts stage an escape that results in Frank floating down the river to be rescued by Ray and Chris.

Now, with the father and son in tow, Frank is being hunted by the police authorities on one hand and his killer friends on the other.  

Morgan Freeman’s Frank is somewhat like his villain role in The Shooter, except that here he has a conscience. There are subtle but key differences in why his character was not as effective a fit in this film. There are some good reasons why a movie with a top director, Bruce Beresford (Double Jeopardy, Driving Miss Daisy) and two major actors saw an extended delay in its theatrical release; seldom a good sign. 

The plot holes are too gaping for a good thriller and the tone of the film is too dark for it to be an action comedy like Live Free Or Die Hard. The police agencies are just too incompetent in their chases to find people. When someone key to the story was about to be shot, some unusual event would happen in just the knick of time so they would not be hit. Almost laughable was the shootout a few hundred yards from a funeral (by definition a quiet affair) that was not noticed by anyone. 

The film had its good moments with the expected excellent acting by Freeman and Cusack in an exciting outdoors environment, yet it almost becomes the definition of how to just miss the sweet spot between an excellent film and one that does not measure up. 

This may not be worth the big bucks at the local multiplex but it’s certainly worth renting to look at on your home theater system. 

 
No Reservations

 

      A near-exact remake of the 2001 German film “Bella Martha” (“Mostly Martha”) written and directed by Sandra Nettelback, “No Reservations” is an oddly unsatisfying romantic comedy. The blame for that lies largely in the glaring lack of chemistry between its two lead characters.  Catherine Zeta-Jones is Kate, a single, quick-tempered top chef in a New York restaurant who finds herself the sole guardian of her young niece and simultaneously at odds with a new sous-chef hired by her unbending boss.

   Zeta-Jones, who was electric in “Chicago” and a perfect match for Antonio Banderas in “The Legend of Zorro”, seems awkward and ill-matched with Aaron Eckhart—an unusual choice as the glib, larger-than-life chef Nick, given his past penchant for biting roles in such films as “Thank You for Smoking” and “In the Company of Men”.  His annoying perpetual good mood and his contagious charm with everyone he encounters are a sharp contrast to Zeta-Jones’ Kate, a sullen perfectionist who is territorial about her supreme role as top chef in a trendy Manhattan West Village restaurant. Sparks are supposed to fly when these two opposites clash—a la Hepburn and Tracy in “Woman of the Year” –but it fizzles. One longs for a re-pairing of Banderas with Zeta-Jones here or a Sandra Bullock-type to spar with Eckhart. Someone really goofed with the casting on this one.

   But, to be fair, there are some moments here. Abigal Breslin, who won audience’s hearts in “Little Miss Sunshine”, is amazing as Zoe, the newly orphaned niece to Kate. The contrast between Zoe’s mom, an effervescent, affectionate woman and her sister, the emotionally reserved Kate, are striking. Kate has not been in a relationship in four years and claims the restaurant is “her life”. Forced by her employer (Patricia Clarkson) to seek therapy, Kate uses these sessions (the funniest parts of the movie) to explain recipes and cook meals for her psychiatrist, played with perfect aplomb by the always-dependable Bob Balaban.  Never touching, kissing or hugging the wounded Zoe until the movie has reached its final climax, this woman is clearly drawn as a cold, repressed sort whose own childhood sorely needs exploring. Breslin’s sad reactions to all of this is played through her body language and tear-filled eyes—truly a touching performance.

   The predictability of this romantic tug-o-war is an unfortunate negative. There are no—and I mean zero—surprises here. No twists in the journey of boy-meets-girl. Everything is precisely as one would expect it---except perhaps the bizarre manner in which Patricia Clarkson’s nipples scream through her sweater.  This is a movie whose parts have been on display thousands of times before and that does make its 104 minutes length seem a lot longer. I glanced at my indiglo watch at least six times—not a good sign.

   Perhaps the silliest element to “No Reservations” is Eckhart’s shaggy, disheveled hair. No chef’s hat—just hair that begs for a trim and two-day beard stubble to boot. Of course this is not an all-important cinematic point, but I did find this lack of hygiene somewhat distracting in a movie about food preparation. When Eckhart plopped his butt on the counter amidst all the hubbub of the busy restaurant kitchen, I longed for some Lysol. A minor complaint, I agree, but an irritation that took away from the film’s credibility for me.

   Ho-hum lovers, an obvious plot and goofy hair—smells like bad fish to me.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

 

Apparently this crude comedy was originally rated “R” but--and I am just guessin--Universal Studios trimmed some nudity, language and sexual explicitness to earn the coveted PG-13 rating. It teeters so close to the “R” rating guidelines (as inexplicable as they are…) that this becomes another movie debate point in the MPAA’s mysterious rating system guidelines. No female frontal nudity but Sandler gropes and squeezes–for a pretty long time–Beil’s bra-clad breasts.  Go figure.  

Who are we kidding anyway?  The popularity of Sandler alone will urge children under 13 to coerce their parents, whose impression of the film is based on its benign TV ads, to drop them off at the multiplex in droves.  Protective parents who accompany their kids are in for an embarrassing squirmfest with a barrage of bawdy sexual humor, primarily directed toward gays.   

This is not a movie for the kids. Numerous scantily clad women run into Sandler’s bedroom suggesting group sex; a guys’ shower scene with sliding bars of soap and naked butts lands just shy of a gay sex orgy; talk of lubricants, “hot dog salads” and “butt pirates” are thrown rapid-fire throughout the movie. Adults may guffaw with embarrassment and get a good howl from this low brow comedy. Just don’t bring the children, please.  

These ratings complaints aside, this comedy deserves a fair discussion of its merits and flaws. Directed by actor Dennis Dugan (look for him as the scruffy cabby), the story centers on best buddies Brooklyn firefighters James and Sandler.

The Earrings of Madame De....

Countess Louise de…(Danielle Darrieux) and General Andre de…(Charles Boyer) are the Madame de… (of the title) and her husband, the General in this 1953 classic, directed by Max Ophuls. Their names seem not to be important. These two and their deeds represent a style of the period. They appear to have an amicably arranged marriage, the order of the day in 19^th century French society. He has a beautiful wife, admired by many other men, and she lives in wealth and splendor. Affairs are tolerated in their circle, as long as no one is embarrassed publicly, so the operative word is discretion.  

The Countess needs some cash, without her husband knowing, so she decides to sell a pair of earrings given to her by him as a wedding present. She doesn’t place as much value on them as she does on other pieces of jewelry or furs. She has so much that she decides that she can “misplace” the earrings and the General will never be the wiser. 

As it turns out, the Countess sells the earrings to the jeweler that sold them to the General some years earlier. The jeweler, hedging his bets, tells the General what has happened. The General buys them back, only to give them to his mistress. It’s a nice way to get even. His mistress has some gambling debts that need to be paid (and guess what?), she sells the earrings once again to the same broker. This near farcical exchange continues on between the husbands, lovers and Remy, the jeweler, until at one point Remy refers to his dealings with the General as “our usual business.” A gift that at one time meant nothing to the Countess is now her prized possession. What she does not know when she conveniently finds the earrings in a pair of gloves, is that she is fooling herself and not the General. 

Photographed with the lushness that conveys the surreal life of the rich and famous, one might think it would be hard to care about such self centered characters. Because the film is about playing within the rules, or not, what happens is something that a person of any class can relate to. Fall in love when you should not and the law of unintended consequences comes into play.   

Max Ophuls, the German director, epitomized the term auteur, used by the critic Andrew Sarris. Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948) and Lola Montes (1955) are two other Ophuls favorites. 

My Best Friend

 

Francois (Daniel Auteuil of Cache) and Catherine (Julie Gayet) are partners in an antique business, and while at an auction he pays far too much for a Greek vase because he gets caught up in the emotion of the piece. Catherine is angry that he has put their firm at financial risk with such a foolish purchase.  

Later at a birthday party for Francois, we learn just how out of touch he is with everyone. Francois thinks he has lots of friends, but it turns out that they’re only there as business associates. He even makes a pass at a woman only to discover that she’s his partner Catherine’s lover. Even though he considers himself a confidant of Catherine, he has no clue that she is gay. Even his daughter from his ruined marriage only tolerates him for short periods of time. 

Out of the birthday conversation about relationships comes a bet with Catherine. Unless Francois can produce a best friend in the next few weeks, he must give her the vase. 

Francois keeps running into a talkative though charming cab driver named Bruno (Dany Boon of The Valet). He’s friendly and outgoing and no one is a stranger for long with Bruno. His evenings are spent having dinner with his parents, who live just down the street from him. Bruno is also an expert on trivia and tries constantly to get on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire.” However, he’s such a bundle of nerves that he never makes the cut to get in front of the camera and a live audience. 

Of course, Francois persuades Bruno to help him learn the art of friendliness. How things play out between these two very different men is somewhat predictable but entertaining and thought provoking nonetheless. There’s even a tense thread that runs through this story as Francois and Bruno become lifelines for each other eventually. Interesting vignettes develop involving the people in Francois’ life, who are waiting for him to return their caring, including a lovely woman who is obviously in love with him. The smaller stories in this film allow us, as the audience, to see what Francois neglects in his life: his daughter Louise (Julie Durand of The Russian Dolls), Bruno and his parents, a lesbian relationship that is loving, ordinary and uneventful (which is the point). Most important, however, is that Francois does learn to love people as much as he does things. 

Director Patrice Leconte has a practiced eye for examining relationships that are at the same time close yet at odds (The Man on the Train, The Widow of St. Pierre, The Girl on the Bridge). 

 The Trials of Darryl Hunt

 

In 1984, Deborah Sykes, an attractive young white newspaper reporter was assaulted, raped, sodomized and stabbed to death near her work place in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 

Without any physical evidence at the time, and later even with DNA that would seem to clear the man convicted, Darryl Hunt, a 19-year-old black man, it took almost 20 years for the criminal justice system to set him free, fully exonerated. Even then his time in jail was worth less than $4,000 per year, which is what he was paid by the state. 

Only because of a journalist doing an exposé on why blacks and whites can witness the same event but reach totally opposite conclusions (e.g., O.J. Simpson trial results), was it determined, almost by accident, who the real killer was. If not for the work of that reporter, Darryl Hunt would likely still be in jail. If he had been convicted of the crime in Texas he would be dead, killed by the state. 

The film chronicles the events, which often seem to be beyond belief, of how it is impossible for justice to prevail for over 20 years, if you are young, black and poor. In too many instances in our society, the notion of “free, white and over 21” still applies.  

Were it not for the engaging smile of Darryl Hunt and the people that supported him for the 19 years he spent in prison for a crime he did not commit, the film would have the chill of a holocaust prison camp story. We can’t say if it examines racism or our criminal injustice system more closely. With respect to questions about either, the conclusion is not good. In some ways that’s excellent news. Only when we are an informed electorate can we make the changes needed to our system. 

To some degree racism is understood in that we know it’s hard to fight because it’s rooted in an emotion that lacks logical thought. Dealing with the criminal justice system can be like trying to ask a chicken with its head cut off to make all the right moves and stay on its feet. 

Just like our foreign policy needs fundamental change, so do many of our internal systems. Among them are how we maintain our infrastructure (e.g., bridges in Minneapolis and retaining walls in New Orleans) and the criminal justice system. Jailing an innocent person because prosecutors and others in political power want to convict someone for a heinous crime is a capital crime for which no one is held accountable.  

This is especially true when the resources of the state are pitted against those who must use public defenders or people of good will doing pro bono work. The criminal justice system in the US could be a whole lot worse, but it needs to be a significantly better. This case was not about justice but about convicting a “Nigger,” a word used to describe Hunt. That’s a scary reality in the 21^st century. 

Bratz

 

 Bratz: The Movie is a new live action film based on the popular dolls that look like 13 year old emaciated prostitutes. Thankfully, the actresses who play the characters are in their late teens or early 20s, so they look slightly less sleazy than the dolls. And the personalities of the Bratz in the film are only slightly more developed than the cartoon character versions of the dolls. 

This film version of the Bratz is not is not quite as disastrous as it could’ve been, but adult viewers should find it almost impossible to sit through.  

It’s less effective than Josie and the Pussycats (which wasn’t exactly A Touch of Evil either), but it’s not nearly as awful as the Britney Spears film, Crossroads. Ironically because it is less terrible than Crossroads, it’s not nearly as laugh out loud funny, so it’s a whole lot less enjoyable. 

The almost non-existent story begins when a group of fashion conscious friends enter a new high school, and their classmates later nickname them Bratz. They are alarmed to find that new students are immediately divided up and sent into cliques.   

They resist the cliques, but in a way they end up starting their own clique. The "bratz" are supposed to be more open minded than their peers, so I guess it’s only a coincidence that all the girls in their tight knit group look and dress like models. 

At the movie’s end a box is shown claiming that any similarity between the characters and real people are purely coincidental. Yet the main villain, Meredith, is a rich, blonde society girl who goes everywhere with her Chihuahua, which is named Paris.  I wonder who that character was supposed to remind us of. 

Meredith’s bumbling principal father is played by Jon Voight of all people, and most of the adults on screen seem to be either saints or idiots. The film must surely be the low point of his career. Voight, whose most memorable role was playing a troubled gay hustler in Midnight Cowboy, is reduced to playing a moronic, ineffectual administrator, who is so slow on the uptake he appears to suffer from brain damage. Perhaps Voight got roped into the role because he is the real-life godfather of Shyler Shaye, who plays one of the Bratz.  

It’s possible that some viewers will respond favorably to the film’s messages about female empowerment or the importance of friendship.  But Bratz is so painfully inept, predictable, and artless (it looks like a seventh rate MTV video) that its message of individuality will probably be lost on most viewers. 

I’m aware that as a forty-something male, I’m not in the film’s intended demographic, but I would hope that even young children would want to watch films that are a bit more substantial or clever than Bratz: The Movie.  

Strike

 

 “Strike “(not to be confused with the Russian silent classic with the

same name) is a socially conscious and inspiring German/Polish biopic.

Like Sojourner Truth’s story, it shows just how much one seemingly

insignificant person can accomplish.
 

It takes place in the ‘80s, when the Polish solidarity movement was

just starting. 

The film will have a short run at the Gene Siskel Center on August 3-9. It will show on Friday at 6 p.m., Saturday at 3:15 and 5:15 p.m. and Monday through Thursday at 6 and 8 p.m. 

The docudrama is extremely convincing and authentic looking. It was shot almost entirely on location in the Lenin Shipyards in Gdansk, Poland where the solidarity movement began. 

The film was directed by Volker Schlondorff, a skilled director who emerged from the German New Wave. He has shot films in English such as “Swann in Love”, but most acclaimed and influential work was the very disturbing and controversial, “The Tin Drum.” 

But Katharina Thalbach’s endearing performance is what makes the film really special. Thalbach won an award for best actress at the Bavarian Film Festival (the film also received an award there for best cinematography). 

Thalback plays the saintly Agnieszka (in real life her name was Anna Walentynowicz), who helped jump start the Polish solidarity movement, and watched as Lech Walesa got almost all the credit.  

At the film’s start, Agnieszka wins the latest of her awards for her assembly line work at a demoralizing manufacturing plant in Poland. She is proud of her awards, but some of the other employees resent her because she makes them look bad by producing too much. Their rationale is since the workers do not get paid much, it would only be fair for them not to produce much. 

The mousy and diminutive Agnieszka becomes a fiery mouthpiece for

disgruntled works after she sees the horrible abuses that take place at

the factory. Many men die in a fire and the management conspires to

rob the spouses of the workers of their just deserts until Agnieszka

intervenes.

It also turns out that the bosses are making workers put in

excruciating extra hours but they are stealing their overtime pay.

Her social activism causes problems in her family, and her son is

denied entrance to a good school because of his mom’s supposedly

counter revolutionary activities (by that time her husband was already

dead.)

 As history buffs may know, this little spark spread into a nation wide

movement which eventually led to the fall of Soviet communism. 

“Strike” captures a particular historical moment vividly, and it compares favorably to other pro-labor films such as “Norma Rae” and “North Country.” “Strike” is especially recommended to fans of those films.