Movie Review: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

This is a movie made famous because its star, Heath Ledger, died tragically mid-shoot. One is tempted to blame its fractured storytelling on his death, but director Terry Gilliam has already built a reputation for himself of sumptuous visual delights unequally yoked with weak narratives and failed emotional connections. In ‘The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus’ he only serves to prove why this reputation is so fully deserved.

Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) trundles around in a massive caravan filled with contraptions with his beautiful daughter (Lily Cole), a dwarf (Verne Troyer) and a hanger-on (Andrew Garfield). Like Parnassus himself, the caravan has seen better days and they struggle to gain audiences for their ‘carnival’ show – which is a magic mirror that can actually transport people to fantastic realms.

Parnassus looks old and beat up in the movie but it appears he has been living far longer than anyone could give him credit for. A thousand years ago he won a bet against the devil (Tom Waits) and won immortality. It appears he now believes the devil lost the bet on purpose because his immortality seems more of a curse when he meets his one true love. So he trades it all in for youth and a normal aging process with Mr. Nick (the devil) but only if he promises his daughter’s soul to the Mr. Nick when he she reaches 16.

Now with barely three days to go before the devil arrives to collect, Parnassus is desperately trying to think of ways to save her. This is when we run into Tony Shepherd (Heath Ledger), an amnesiac with a murky past who they find hanging from a bridge. The scenes Ledger failed to complete because of his untimely death are filled by three famous friends of his in Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. The change of his appearance in certain scenes is neatly worked into the story. Tony is rescued and quickly becomes an invaluable member of their troupe, thinking of ways to modernise the show and make it more appealing to people. This becomes especially important when the devil agrees to yet another deal with Parnassus. If he manages to collect five souls before the devil can, his daughter will go free.

The story never becomes any clearer than that. We never quite understand why and how souls are collected through the mirror, or why and how Parnassus does not make better use of his amazing power to bring people’s imaginations to life. We also never are able to connect with any of the characters because they seem as confused by the jumbled story line as we are. The rush of stimulating images and CGI vistas only serve to further distract from what could have been an absorbing and meaningful morality tale.

This is the films major weakness because for an avowed morality tale, you certainly don’t walk away with any solid moral lesson. In the words of Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes: “Live and DON’T learn, that’s us.” And that certainly seems true of Parnassus and the rest of his sorry crew. Life seems so dreary in this movie that it hardly seems worth living, unless it is in the realm of your own imagination. And perhaps that is how the director Gilliam feels about life but it hardly seems worthy of 2 hours worth of moralizing. Don’t make deals with the devil is perhaps another lesson the movie tries to teach, but this lesson doesn’t have any real depth to it because quite frankly, only someone who is seriously stupid would make deals with this particular devil. In other words, the temptations are so surreal that they just cannot be connected to real life events. By experience of my own life mistakes, evil works so much more subtly and inwardly – it is hardly ever as obvious as the difference between two black and white choices. If Gilliam put as much thought into story depth and character development as he does wild and fantastic visuals, then the overall product would be a whole lot more enjoyable.

Be warned that the movie fully earns its PG13 rating with strong language and a fair amount of sexual content. Two out of five for ‘The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus’.

Movie Review: The Killers

The Killers asks a lot of its audience. Unfortunately, none of these big asks are in any way or form in the intellectual or emotional arenas. No, the kinds of things asked of us are more the ‘suspend all credible belief’ and ‘let’s charge you money while we waste your time’ departments. If you can let go of the need to be treated as a functional grown-up you will really like this movie. Otherwise, it is nothing more than confetti and candyfloss.

A basic plot synopsis will prove my point. A boy (Ashton Kutcher) who just happens to be an international superspy (yes, we are still talking about Kutcher) meets a girl (Katherine Heigl) who just happens to be a boring, stay-at-home control freak. They fall in love and the boy, tiring of murdering others in the name of national profit, decides to turn his back on superspy-dom and become a designer. Well, of course, that’s what superspies do when they retire.

Three years later, Kutcher is somehow outed resulting in a bounty price placed on his head and what follows is a very poor man’s version of Mr. and Mrs Smith – very poor and very unfunny. There are plenty of fistfights, gun battles and car chases with all of the above convincingly won by the boy (yes, I am still talking about Kutcher). In between they find time for enough sexual innuendo type jokes to amuse a whole class of thirteen year olds, and also to fight like cats and dogs. In fairness, the tension between the couple in the movie is at least somewhat realistic. That’s how couples often treat each other in moments of stress, and it is a good reminder how we can fight over ridiculous things while missing what is really troubling us.

Anyhow, plenty of people are violently slain and the movie ties up at the end with more holes than your average golf course. Somehow, the wild car chases though peaceful suburbs, the shootouts in public places, and the mounting count of dead bodies are not noticed by anyone in authority. No questions asked. Even more bizarrely, at the end you are not quite sure whether the assassins after Kutcher are actually government employees, meaning that seriously, someone should be in trouble for killing them all.

Tom Selleck is in the movie which is the only reason I went to see it, but even he is not enough to save the day and I am a HUGE Mangum P.I fan (ah, the days when we had credible action heroes).Let me save you time and money and urge you to go see something else. Neither Kutcher nor Heigl have the talent or charisma to pull this one out of the bag. They look good but that’s about all.

One star out of five. Enough said? Move along here people, nothing to see.

Movie Review: The Green Zone

A couple of weeks ago I promised myself that I would never, ever review another American war movie. That was before I realised that my choices for this week would be limited between ‘Sex and the City 2’, ‘The Prince of Persia’, and ‘The Green Zone.’ Hence, the Green Zone! Yes, another American war movie with a message intertwined in the overall cathartic ‘help America let go of our guilt’ process, and yet still, sadly, infinitely preferable to a couple of hours in the company of the Sex and the City girls.

The Green Zone plays as a thriller-type action movie with a documentary message. The director of two of the Bourne movies, Paul Greengrass, is reunited with his main lead from those two movies, Matt Damon, and together they deliver action and thrills worthy of the Bourne trilogy. Damon’s character – Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller – is not exactly another Jason Bourne since he actually gets beaten up in a fight, but he is pretty darn close. Miller is in charge of a WMD unit that is sent into combat situations to seek out the infamous ‘weapons of mass destruction’ which Bush and Blair had used as justification for the war in Iraq. Miller becomes increasingly disturbed when intelligence reports lead them to ‘WMD’ sites that have clearly never been used to store weapons of any sort (unless one counts pigeon poop as a weapon). Since his squad are taking great personal risks in these searches, he begins to question both the reports and his superiors. Although he is told to back off, his suspicions only grow as he meets up with a grizzled CIA operative, Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson), and a New York journalist Lawrie Dayne (Amy Ryan) who are also questioning whether the existence of the WMD’s.

Miller’s dissatisfaction sets him up against a U.S. intelligence agent named Poundstone (Greg Kinnear) who is backed by his own personal team of special-forces operatives. Despite considerable opposition from his own side, Miller discovers that the ‘Jack of Clubs’, a high-ranking general under Saddam Hussein by the name of Gen. Al Rawi (Igal Naor), might hold the secret to the reality of the WMD’s, and in competition with Poundstone, Miller begins a desperate search to track the General down. Miller is further supported by an ‘insider’, a local Iraqi man by the name of Freddy (Khalid Abdalla), who is a true-blue ‘good guy’ and is desperate to do the best thing for his homeland.

The Green Zone is shot in what has become known as the ‘queasy-cam’ style, basically lots of quick cuts between hand-held ground level shots with gritty ‘home-cam’ textures. It is known as the ‘queasy-cam’ because it normally leaves viewers feeling a little sea sick, but in my opinion it was used in such a manner that really worked for this particular movie. You felt close the soldiers in the hectic fire-fights, you experienced their own confusion and also the necessity of being highly-trained just to survive. As a thriller action-movie, The Green Zone is more than entertaining. Although, some difficult-to-believe plot leaps means that the second half of the movie is not as good as the first.

However, The Green Zone also has a firm, documentary-style message. It argues, as many have, that the U.S. made a fatal mistake in dissolving the Iraqi army and thereby marginalising them. Many believe that because the army had no great affection for Saddam, they might well have played an effective stabilising role, instead of being left on the outside, armed and frustrated. This point is impossible to prove, but nevertheless still pertinent.

Secondly, The Green Zone asserts what almost every nation other than the States now sees as fact, that the WMD’s were fabricated by U.S. intelligence to back up their desire to invade Iraq. In my own honest opinion, if this world was a just place, then both George W. Bush and Tony Blair would be facing trials in the War Court to prove their innocence or guilt in this regard. What I did not really enjoy about The Green Zone’s message was that it rewrote history a little, and fabricated events in a kind of ‘we-wish-this-had-really-happened’ kind of way. In this sense, it comes across as more than a little naive and wishy-washy.

All in all, The Green Zone does not excel as a thriller nor is its docu-message absolutely compelling, but it still comes across as a solid and enjoyable package. Somehow it manages to combine the two contrasting styles fairly effectively, and I would recommend it way above other recent war movies such as ‘The Messenger’.

3 stars out of 5 for The Green Zone.

Review of The Ghost Writer

The Ghost Writer is a return to those ‘old-style’ thrillers where tension is heightened through off-camera threats, moody landscapes, evocative music and suspicious characters rather than special effects and fast-paced action. Ewan McGregor plays ‘The Ghost,’ purposely never named throughout the movie as a method of emphasizing his particular role. He is a man without a past and true identity who is paid to write about the lives of others who have too much past and overpowering, self-absorbed identities.

The Ghost is hired to rewrite the autobiography of Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), a former British Prime Minister who is holed up in Martha’s Vineyard as part of a lecture tour with his politically smart and somewhat bitter wife, Ruth. The Lang’s are so obviously based upon Tony and Cherie Blair that it almost bores me to have to mention it. The Ghost has been hired to take over the work of the former ghost writer who washed up dead on a beach near Martha’s Vineyard through apparent alcohol abuse and subsequent drowning. Just as the new Ghost starts his work, Lang is accused by his former foreign minister of ordering the kidnapping and torture of ‘terror’ suspects. The World Court in Haig prepares to place Lang on trial meaning his presence anywhere other than on U.S. soil would be risky. Due to the immense pressure his client is placed under, the Ghost is left to his own devices much of the time, where he becomes increasingly suspicious about the manner of his predecessors death: did the first ghost die for discovering too much about Adam Lang?

I won’t give away too much of the plot other than that, but I will say that director Roman Polanski did a first rate job on the atmospherics. He works with a striking palette of inky blacks and wintry grays. The rain-washed landscapes evoke a world with sinister undertones and much to hide. The same is done with some of the characters where Brosnan’s Adam Lang is charmingly scary, and away from the public glare it is all too obvious he has a dark side. Olivia Williams as Ruth Lang is difficult to get a handle on, but is obviously intertwined with her husband in some of the murkier details of their past. Tom Wilkinson as Professor Paul Emmett does not have much screen time, but manages to create a character this is almost Hitchcock-ian in his palpable menace hidden behind an affable veneer. Even minor characters such as the housekeeper and gardener manage to contribute to the overall tension of the movie by looking so dangerously suspicious. In fact, this kind of attention to detail along with the slow-burning tension, off-camera suggestive violence, moody colour palette, strong acting, and subtle humour are all vintage Alfred Hitchcock.

Whereas the film (based on the book by Robert Harris) is all-too obviously a dig at the Blairs, it also seems somewhat self-introspective for Polanski who is similarly limited to being able to visit certain countries, and is awaiting news on whether he will be extradited to the United States for allegedly sleeping with a 13 year old girl in 1977. You cannot help but feel at least some of this movie is addressing Polanski’s own personal 'ghosts', and I hope for his own sake that he manages to grasp his own moral.

However, all the excellent work of the film is somewhat undone by a few major flaws. The plot itself has several leaps of credibility (nothing which I can give away without spoiling it for you), as well as a serious miscasting in placing Kim Cattrell as Emelia Bligh, who is a long-term member of Lang’s admin team and apparently 'very' close to her boss, yet unable to consistently effect a British accent.

In terms of meaning, this movie has much to say about personal identity. It seems that not one of the main protagonists has an identity that has not been somewhat engineered by society and circumstances beyond themselves. It is a sharp reminder of how easily we can lose ourselves and be swept away by forces beyond our control unless we more firmly understand exactly who it is that we are, and who it is that we have been created to be.

The flaws in an otherwise excellent movie mean that I cannot award it more than 3 (and a half) stars out of 5. It is, however, entirely worth watching. Be warned that there is some adult content, including brief nudity, strong language and some violence.

Review of Robin Hood

Robin Hood is the kind of movie that you walk out of feeling a little dumber than you were before, and a little less entertained.

A lot of effort went into making this reworking of the Robin Hood legend as gritty and gloomy as possible. Historians cannot seem to agree whether a real Robin Hood actually existed or not, but what is known is that the stories and poems of his exploits and adventures go back as far as the 14th century. One of the common themes in the numerous retellings of this story is that they are essentially light hearted in nature – they are after all stories of how the poor and downtrodden win over the oppressive powers-that-be by being shrewder; quicker of thought and of hand. The whole point of stories like this is that they are told and retold by people in other times and places who also feel downtrodden as a form of social release. By laughing at these tales they somehow share in its victories and gain hope for their own situations.

While in this movie, Robin Hood’s men do their best to be ‘merry’ and bring some levity to the tale, Russell Crowe seems as if he is suffering severe toothache. Seriously, what do they have to pay the guy to actually smile on camera? To be honest, this revisionist retelling of the Robin Hood origins story feels far more like a reworking of Gladiator than it does Robin Hood. Well, surprise, surprise because both the director and lead actor of Gladiator (Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe respectively) take on the exact same roles in this offering.

While Gladiator’s General Maximus had every reason to be gloomy, with his wife and son being savagely murdered while the nation he had served for so long and with such success coldly betrayed him. The character Crowe plays in this movie has no such motivation because Robin Hood actually enjoys tremendous fortune throughout most of the movie, where several twists of fate result in him becoming rich, riding the kings own horse and winning the heart of a noble lady several rungs above him in the social ladder. Yet, still Crowe mopes his way through scene after scene, all the while taking himself far too seriously in a role that for centuries has been far more light-hearted and adventurous.

But wait, I am not finished moping myself because I have a few more complaints to outline. The movies promoters made a big deal about historical accuracy. It is almost as if they thought: “right let’s make the towns as muddy and dirty as possible – check; let’s make King Richard I die at the beginning instead of appearing at the end – check; let’s give the characters awful ‘medieval-type’ teeth – check! Right then, our nod to history is done so let’s move on.”

C’mon how dumb do they think we are? What about the pagan style cremation done without a priest in sight? In an age where people’s religious imaginations were entirely dominated by the church? In an age where the Pope strode the political stage like a colossus, and whole kings and nations trembled in their boots in fear of him. (The antagonist in this story, King John, was himself forced to back down over in a dispute with the Pope when he was threatened with excommunication).

And what about the proto-feminist Marion (Cate Blanchett) who rides into battle wearing armour and commanding legions of orphan outlaws? Seriously? While, Blanchett played her role quite well, it must also be said that the romance between her and Robin was utterly lacking in chemistry. Finally, did you know that apparently Robin (well his father actually) was the originator of the Freedom Charter, or the Magna Carta? - a document which limited kingly power in England which King John was eventually forced to stamp his seal on in 1215. Not only that, but Robin ends up leading the English army to victory over the French with hordes of soldiers chanting his name, and then when King John declares him outlawed, we are expected to believe he meekly disbands his massive militia only to hide out in the forest with a couple of mates and a bunch of orphans. Yeah, right.

Look, I know I am being harsh because this is just a movie, a story after all? Well, perhaps my irritation is because I grew up loving these tales and feel this ‘revision’ is more of a remaking in the image and ego of the director and lead actor, than it is an attempt to locate it in its likeliest historical context.

In terms of meaning, I suppose one could pull out stuff about loyalty, commitment to the truth and support for the oppressed. These are all worthy topics that deserve time and space, it is just that many other movies have done them far better. I would not waste my time and money going to see this if I was you. Be warned that there is some sexual content, and also some rather gruesome violence. One out of five for this Robin Hood origins tale which takes itself far too seriously.

Review of Mother and Child

The wife double-whammied me for this movie. An unbeatable combo of Mother’s day and her birthday meant there was no way I could successfully argue for a second viewing of Iron Man 2 over going to see Mother and Child. I have to confess that the blanket objection I have to all intensely serious dramas is not for the normal manly reasons, but frankly, because I cry so easily and it gets embarrassing walking out of a movie theatre with red-rimmed eyes (plus it makes my popcorn all soggy).

Director Rodrigo García has made a name for himself by producing work that focuses on the innate strengths and qualities of women, and he continues this trend in Mother and Child. All too rarely are Hollywood’s actresses given an opportunity to command centre stage in films, as they are normally left to play out supporting roles. Mother and Child lends an opportunity to three remarkable actresses to strut their stuff which they do with considerable aplomb. The story focuses on three different women whose lives have been challenged and shaped by the loss and grief associated with maternal relationships.

The film begins with Karen (Annette Bening) writing a letter to her daughter, who is essentially an imaginary figure to her because she was forced by her own mother to give up her child after an accidental teen pregnancy. Her life has been deeply marked by this loss, meaning she has never been able to forgive her mother and the resulting bitterness has made her virtually unapproachable and impossible to relate to.

While Karen can only dream about who her daughter has grown up to become, the viewer is privileged to be given an insight into Elizabeth (Naomi Watts) as we follow her storyline as well. She is now 37 and because she was given up for adoption and then did not have a close relationship with her adoptive parents, has also developed a very hard and unapproachable exterior. She has excelled in her career as a high powered attorney and manages her sexual affairs with total and ruthless control. Elizabeth is involved in an affair with her boss (who would have thought we would see Samuel L. Jackson being dominated!), and also her ‘happily-married’ neighbor.

The last woman in this list is Lucy (Kerry Washington) who first appears with her husband in a rather desperate and neurotic meeting with an adoption agency. She details her four year struggle to fall pregnant and is clearly deeply struggling with this issue. Although, it is not immediately obvious you begin to notice as her storyline develops how her pain is also isolating her from people, most noticeably her husband who is having second thoughts about adopting.

Through the process of this movie, each of these characters undergoes transformative and growing experiences, and they all end up becoming far more open and vulnerable to others. All three actresses portray their characters with remarkable depth and emotive insight. However, despite the excellent acting, there are some quite marked weaknesses. Firstly, while this movie takes itself a little too seriously, at some points it starts to feel like a looong episode of ‘Days of our Lives’. Secondly, while I understand the whole point is that the males play supportive and background roles, their characters were so passive they seemed a little unrealistic. Ironically for all the emphasis on cross-cultural relationships, the men came across as a little colourless. Thirdly, this movie also makes some quite jarring jumps in the story line process with Karen moving from a bitter and impossible to relate to harridan to a happily and sweetly married woman in next to no time at all. Finally, there is also a major soap-opera kind of continuity gaffe because the birth mother of the baby that Lucy is waiting for, already 6 months pregnant even before Elizabeth conceives still has not given birth by the time Elizabeth’s baby arrives.

Another major criticism could also be directed towards the overall message of the movie, which as I understand it was to credit the strength of variou women as they face emotional and relational difficulties. However, the movie itself seems to suggest that women emotively grow and find peace solely through successfully having children. All three characters leave behind their hard shells because of the children which enter their lives. If this is intending to portray a great truth for all women then it is more than a little condescending and short-sighted. There is far more to women than their ability to reproduce and nurture children. However, if García was not attempting to make some great moral point, and was just telling the story of these three particular women in their own contexts, then the whole premise becomes far more realistic. Certainly, it could be that for those three particular women that they managed to ‘find themselves’ and their true womanhood by connecting with their children.

Be warned that there is strong language and adult sexual content throughout. I would definitely recommend seeing Mother and Child because it does have something good to say, and while it might make you cry a little, it will also make you smile more than once. Don’t wait for the wife’s birthday, take her anyway! 3 (and a half) out of 5 for Mother and Child.

Review of Iron Man II

What do you get when you cross the irrepressible Robert Downey Jnr with amazing special effects, a fast-paced plot and great support actors? A bit of a disappointment actually. It’s weird because you would think a movie that compromises all the above would be thoroughly enjoyable, but Iron Man 2 falls a little short of the standard set by the first Iron Man (2008). Downey Jnr WAS excellent, the special effects WERE stunning, the support actors WERE a whole lot of fun, but still something was missing. Wait, I know, what about an interesting plot?

Unfortunately, although not boring by any means, the main plot of the story is very average. It is the age-old ‘ghosts-from-the-past-revenge’ schtick, and it seems that the plot itself was just a handy vehicle to display Downey’s magnetism in the Stark role and the witty banter between the heavyweight support staff (Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson and Sam Rockwell).

Now don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed the movie! But then I am far too easily distracted by special effects and fast pacing. It was only after leaving that I got the feeling it was a little light-weight, primarily because its plot didn’t move us on a great deal from the first movie. It just delivered more of the same for there seemed to be no progression in Stark’s life at all, which is a classic mistake made by many sequels.

The first movie captured the irony of being Iron Man superbly. Tony Stark was always a broken and wounded figure, a scientific genius whose invulnerable metal suit hid a very fragile soul. Downey Jnr played this role superbly, perhaps in part because his own great acting talent has for so long played second fiddle to a wounded and vulnerable inner being. The movie carried an important message that it is possible for anyone to rise above their brokenness and become an ‘angel of mercy’ whose presence inspires others to be more.

This is a great message that was thoughtfully crafted into a very enjoyable movie to watch the first time round. In Iron Man 2 the exact same message is presented, with Stark’s vulnerability now presented as a life threatening blood toxicity caused by the invention he wears to prevent shrapnel entering his heart (see the first Iron Man to learn more). Stark refuses to share his technology with the American military, and this combined with his excessive narcissism means he bites off far more than he can chew. Iron Man is all that stands between the entire world and those who would destroy it, and that is a heck of a burden for one man to carry. “I have successfully privatized world peace,” Stark quips at one stage. Weighed down by this and the pressure of his terminal illness, Stark starts to unravel, which concerns not only those closest to him but also the entire world, (for with great power comes great responsibility remember!).

Iron Man is also under threat from a jealous rival billionaire weapons developer, Justin Hammer (amusingly played by Sam Rockwell), and his ghost-from-the-past Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), the son of a Russian scientist betrayed by Stark’s father, and who also just happens to be a scientific genius capable of rivaling Stark’s own inventions.

Look, the movie is a whole lot of fun and I would warmly recommend it as a fantastic bit of escapism. It is just that it seems as if there wasn’t any real effort to better the first movie (as Dark Knight did with the Batman franchise) but rather to reproduce more of what worked before. And a photocopy, no matter how well done … never quite comes across as good as the original does it?

3 (and a half) out of 5 for Iron Man 2.