Peacock (2010)

Usually if the basic premise of a film cannot be believed, the rest of it completely falls apart. Peacock (2010) is a rare exception for me. The setting, the tone, the cinematography, the acting, and even most of the story comes together nicely to make an entertaining and suspenseful film that is ultimately very satisfying in a Hitchcock meets Malick sort of way. 

Peacock was directed by Michael Lander, written by Lander along with Ryan Roy and features a wonderful cast including Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page and Susan Sarandon. It's also worth noting that it was the last film edited by Sally Menke, a Quentin Tarantino regular. She died five months after the release. The editing, of course, is great, but this is nothing like a Tarantino movie. 

I mentioned both Terrence Malick and Alfred Hitchcock as comparisons for the direction of this film. The establishing shots at the beginning let us know that this film takes place in a small town in the middle of nowhere. There are large fields of tall grass blown by the breeze, which look right out of Days of Heaven or a Kurosawa film. The tone of the film is also very Malickian. Everything is quiet on the surface. If you have ever been to a small town, it really does feel like a Terrence Malick film. Below the surface is more of a David Lynch small town...but really more Hitchcock. Multiple personalities, secrets, double lives, dark histories,...I've probably said too much already. One of the reasons why I think I enjoyed this film so much was because I didn't know anything about it before seeing it. I didn't even know who was in it except for Susan Sarandon. And honestly, I would see anything with her, even Stepmom (1998) which I did see, in the theater, by myself. 

For the sake of writing a thorough and sufficient review, I will now attempt to describe the plot, but not too much. John Skillpa (Cillian Murphy) lives in the small town of Peacock, Nebraska. I checked google maps, there is no Peacock, Nebraska. On the other hand there is a Lumberton, North Carolina, but that is neither here nor there. Skillpa works for a bank. He's very quiet and keeps to himself. If he lived in a large city, we would probably expect him to be a serial killer. We find out early just to what extent his past has shaped who he has become, but it's not a serial killer. It's less obvious than that. John goes through his daily routine with great precision. Everything goes exactly as planned and if he's surprised by the slightest deviation, he becomes sweaty and nervous and looks at the floor a lot. 

Do you think a character in a film like this is going to just continue living a life that is easy and predictable- the way he likes it? Not a chance. There are many other characters who have something to say about it. Not that they know what's up, or even suspect anything out of the ordinary. It's just that small town residents have a way of making everybody else's business their own. To make matters worse, the caboose of a freight train has derailed and ends up in John Skillpa's back yard. Suddenly he is the town celebrity and this means a lot of sweating and looking at the floor. 

Ellen Page plays a young mother who is an inhabitant of Peacock. She really stands out because she plays an adult, and a very convincing one. There are no traces of Juno in this role. Even when I was watching Inception (2010) I couldn't stop thinking about the Juno character. She really shows what she's capable of here and it's wonderful stuff. A small role worth noting is Keith Carradine as Mayor Ray Crill. He is always fun to watch, and since his role on Dexter, his acting has been taken to a whole different level in my eyes. Cillian Murphy has the biggest task in this film and he pulls it off effortlessly. 

If you have the patience to watch this tale slowly unfold while you take in the scenery along with that feeling of dread, then this is your movie. 

Rampage (1987)

Red is a good color for a movie about a serial killer that takes place during the holiday season. There are lots of Poinsettias and there is a lot of blood. When we first see Charles Reece (Alex McArthur) he is bouncing awkwardly but with confidence down the street while wearing a bright red jacket. Not like James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, more like something Travis Bickle would wear on Christmas. 

Early in the film we also meet prosecuting attorney Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn). We find out that he had been against capital punishment, but his views on that are quickly changing due to some personal experiences.  

It is revealed pretty quickly that Reece is a serial killer. We see him murder families in suburban neighborhoods and we see flashes of his face covered in blood. He's caught almost right away by the police. And so begins the long process of deciding what to do with him and at the same time Rampage transforms itself into a courtroom drama with little to offer. 

The first third of the film is quite beautiful to look at. William Friedkin does a wonderful job of filling up the screen with almost a single color. And as I mentioned before, the red that the killer is wearing makes him really pop out of the scenery. As we follow Reece around while he stalks the streets, the camera moves with slow and careful grace. There is a nice combination of suspense and calmness, that surprisingly works remarkably well. 

There are moments in Rampage that remind me of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986). While I think that Henry is a much better film, Rampage has a visual style that reminds us that this movie was made by the same guy who made The Exorcist. Unfortunately, when the action moves into the jail and the courtroom, the style starts to fade and nothing that is said, no points that are made are of any earth shattering profundity. To me, this movie didn't bring anything new to the table on the discussion of legal insanity and capital punishment. 

Is it worth watching? I suppose so. It's available on hulu and Netflix, so it sure is easy to access. And at around 90 minutes there are much worse ways to spend your time. Twin Peaks fans will want to see this for Grace Zabriskie's performance as Reece's oblivious, drug addicted mother. Otherwise, if you have never seen John McNaughton's Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, you should probably watch that instead. 

Towelhead (2007)

I can't think of very many movies whose title is a racial slur. The word is used twice in the first 15 minutes and it's slung by a little white kid. I am also amazed that Aaron Eckhart (A Neil LaBute favorite) is so comfortable in uncomfortable roles. But all of that is meaningless, this film is fantastic. There are so many movies about how hard it is to grow up, but this one takes culture into consideration. And it also presents the fact that all of the men in her life are essentially predators.

Jasira (Summer Bishil) is a 13 year old girl. Her mother is American and her father is from Lebanon, this makes her Lebanese-American and she has just gone to live with her Lebanese father (Peter Macdissi). There is a humorous scene where he ad his daughter are hoisting an american flag and he remarks, "It's more patriotic to fly the american flag all the time." 

Aaron Eckhart (whom I mentioned earlier) plays Mr. Vuoso. He is the father of a kid that Jasira babysits. He has an extensive collection of dirty magazines that Jasira finds intriguing. His performance is completely fearless and absolutely despicable all at once. But as an actor he does exactly what he is supposed to in the movie. 

Jasira makes friends with a young African American kid at her school. After she has dinner with his family, her father tells her that she is not to see him again. "Do you understand what I am referring to?" He says. There is racism from all angles in this film. The best line comes from one of Jasira's friends who says, "If you do what a racist tells you, that makes you racist." Makes sense to me. 

One thing I want to point out, is that just because a movie makes you feel terrible, doesn't mean it's bad. Of course it's entirely contingent upon the reason it makes you feel that way. I believe that this film is as truthful as possible. It's a film that could only be made in a post 9/11 and post W. Bush America. In a way it kind of takes a lot of the themes from the television series The Wonder Years and makes them more modern than ever. But there is an undercurrent of humor. 

The absolute best character in Towelhead is played by Toni Collette. On the surface she seems like a stereotypical Texan. But she is smart and knows everything that's going on. Jasira is resistant to her help, but after all she is the child and Collette's character is the adult. 

Jasira reminds me so much of Winnie Cooper from The Wonder Years. She talks the same way and she even looks like Danica McKellar. Her performance is perfect. She's an 18 year old playing a 13 year old. She's very convincing. But somehow seems to have the naivete that a young teenager might have. 

Towelhead isn't easy to watch. It shouldn't be easy to watch. But it's worth watching. Nobody knows what it's like for anybody else. This film is a good reminder of that.

Return of the Evil Dead (1973)

Return of the Evil Dead (El Ataque de los Muertos Sin Ojos, 1973) is part of a wonderful horror film quadrilogy by Spanish director Amando de Ossorio. It's a good thing that the films are available in a DVD box set with the original Spanish language intact, because as usual the English dubbing is awful. I can't think of a single film I have seen dubbed that was enhanced by the fact that it was in English. In fact, I don't think I have seen a dubbed film that was even adequate. If you rent this one, definitely watch it with the subtitles. 

The series of films that this is a part of is known as The Blind Dead series. All four films feature the reanimated zombie corpses of members of the Knights Templar. According to this film, they each had their eyes burnt out before being executed in the Middle Ages. Now, they come back on the anniversary of their death to avenge their deaths by killing anyone who gets in their way. Lucky for them, the town has a big party to commemorate the event. The premise sounds really ridiculous, but Amando de Ossorio handles the subject matter better than anyone could possibly expect. 

Ossorio is obviously a fan of George A. Romero, as he should be, there are tons of references to Night of the Living Dead (1968) all throughout the film. I think most people agree that Romero makes the best zombie films. But The Blind Dead films as well as the films of italian horror maestro Lucio Fulci have the best looking zombies. The corpses actually look like they've been dead a long time and they've been rotting underground. This is important to get this detail right. Most of the Romero zombies are newly dead, so they aren't quite as decomposed. 

Something else you need to know about Return of the Evil Dead is that it's less horror and more action. The zombies are also Knights so they carry swords and remember how to use them. They still move really slow, but there are a few sword fights in the film. However, the best scenes are the quiet ones. The humans are actually smart in these films. They realize that these zombies are blind so if they're really quiet, they might be able to escape. The long scenes of silence build the appropriate amount of dread for the viewer. When the sword fights come it's a bit of a release, like comic relief. 

Amando de Ossorio was a more than competent film maker. He made these films around the same time that Italian cinema was producing some of the most interesting work. And the look of all of the films in this series are right up there with Leone, Fulci, Argento and Lenzi. I really hope that viewers can overlook the basic premise of the film and see it for what it really is.

Bug (2006)

Bug is a movie I remember wanting to see when it was released in theaters in 2006. It was directed by William Friedkin, who was responsible for The Exorcist (1973) and for some reason I was under the impression that it was a remake of the 1975 William Castle production called Bug. I have no idea where I got this impression, but I love that cheesy, horribly wonderful film. I got all excited that the director who made one of the scariest and most respected horror films of all time was remaking a film from the king of the low-budget B-movies from the 50's. Now please understand this- Bug (2006) has absolutely nothing to do with Bug (1975) other than the fact that they share a title. I was misinformed going into this. And I need you to believe, this almost never happens. 

After reading up on the subject, I discovered that Bug (2006) was actually based on a stage play written by Tracy Letts. Which completely makes sense. The story takes place almost entirely in a motel room. There are only five characters and there is a lot of dialogue. The male lead in the film, Michael Shannon, played the same character in the original stage production in London. Letts also wrote the screenplay for the film which is usually a great idea. This is no exception. It totally works here. 

Bug is set in a dirty, cheap motel in Oklahoma. Agnes (Ashley Judd) is a waitress who lives in the motel. She takes a lot of drugs, drinks a lot of booze and doesn't look like she ever sleeps or showers. She works with her friend R.C. (Lynn Collins), a lesbian who boozes with her and seems to want to be more than friends. Agnes also has an abusive ex-husband Jerry (Harry Connick, Jr.) who has just been released from prison. In the opening scene of the film, she's getting calls from someone who remains silent. It freaks her out, but she seems to think it's probably Jerry. One night R.C. brings a stranger to Agnes' motel room. His name is Peter Evans (Michael Shannon). After R.C goes home, Peter stays. As they talk he reveals that he had just met R.C. earlier that same evening. They start talking, make a connection and she asks if he wants to stay the night, but sleep on the couch. He agrees and the movie really takes off in a direction I didn't expect. 

Obviously, the title gives some of it away, but I didn't realize just how far it would all go. 

Have you ever had a conversation with someone who has bi-polar disorder while they are deep inside a manic phase? More than half of this film is like that. Then all of a sudden, you are observing the conversation instead of being a part of it. Is it exhausting? Yes. Is it confusing? Yes. Is it absolutely edge of your seat riveting and interesting to no end? Hell yes! 

Toward the start of their conversation, I jotted down in my notes that these people don't seem very intelligent. They seemed to me like the stereotypical hicks of small town America. I'm not judging anybody in those places, I'm just trying to describe an archetype. But as the story moves along and more words come out of their mouths, their complexities are revealed. When Peter starts telling her why he's the way he is, he uses big words and seemingly well thought out concepts. Agnes asks, "Where'd you learn to talk like that?" Peter replies, "School." It's a good enough answer for Agnes. 

I mentioned that the film takes places in pretty much only the motel room. I was reminded of Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998). Much like that film, the motel room starts out one particular place- a very average typical motel room. But by the end of the film it has transformed physically into a silver, blue lit cave of craziness and paranoia. 

The final scene of the film is all of the craziness coming together and it features some of the best dialogue and best acting I've seen in recent years. In Roger Ebert's review, he remarks, "The thing about "Bug" is that we're not scared for ourselves so much as for the characters in the movie. Judd and Shannon bravely cast all restraint aside and allow themselves to be seen as raw, terrified and mad." 

Friedkin's direction is subtle and effective. He uses color and lighting in way that reflects the characters' emotions. But he really lets the actors carry the film. I suspect that this is a film that will be rediscovered by future generations, who realize just how brilliant it is.

Sleepless In Seattle (1993)

On the surface, I feel like Sleepless in Seattle is a film I should not like. It's an early 90's romantic comedy, It stars Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks, it's inspired by two pretty mediocre but well respected films from Hollywood's golden age, and Rosie O'Donnell is in it. So why do I love it so much? Well for starters, it's very well written by the late Nora Ephron. It was made before Meg Ryan acquired her plastic duck face and before Tom Hanks starred in Forrest Gump (One of my least favorite...no, most hated films of all time). Also, over the last couple of years I've come to respect Rosie O'Donnell for the most part. 

There are also plenty of obvious reason to love this movie. The genius Rob Reiner is in it, as is Bill Pullman who I liked a lot in the 80's and early 90's until he started appearing in everything. His role as the President in Independence Day (1996) was what finally did it for me. I had finally had enough of him. But, c'mon, the guy was in Spaceballs (1987). 

Sleepless in Seattle was directed by Nora Ephron, who passed away the same day that I am writing this. She also wrote the screenplay.

The film opens with Sam Baldwin (Tom Hanks) and his son Jonah (Ross Malinger) standing side by side in a graveyard. "Mommy got sick, and it happened just like that. There's nothing anybody could do. It isn't fair. There's no reason. But if we start asking why, we'll go crazy." Sam shares these very honest words with his son. Sam has just lost his wife and Jonah has just lost his mother. The broad reason as to why they lost her is cancer. But for anyone who has ever lost someone to that horrible thing knows how broad and insufficient a reason it is. Sam is right. There's no reason. Following the death of his wife, Sam does what most people do, he grieves. He also gets the hell out of town. Sam and Jonah move to Seattle.

Annie Reed (Meg Ryan) is a newspaper reporter in Baltimore and she is newly engaged to Walter (Bill Pullman). They aren't married yet, so his name is not Walter Reed. Actually, Nora Ephron didn't give his character a last name. He's just Walter. He's a good guy. He parts his hair on the side and he is deathly allergic to nuts. 

Sleepless in Seattle and When Harry Met Sally... (1989) (also written by Ephron) are the films that gave Meg Ryan her reputation of being so gosh darn cute. It's genuine here too. A few years later when she and Hanks would reunite for You've Got Mail (1998), the magic would be gone. A performance of hers hasn't given me that same feeling since. And oh my goodness, the plastic surgery. But back to her cuteness circa 1993, there's a scene near the beginning of the film where she's driving alone while listening to Christmas music. As "Jingle Bells" plays on the radio she sings along, "Harses Harses Harses..." Yeah, it's adorable. 

Still singing, she changes the station and a talk radio program comes on, the topic is Christmas wishes. She hears young Jonah call in expressing that he would like a new wife for his dad. That's how he words it too. He does not wish for a new mom. He quite simply and warmly wishes for his father to be happy again. When the radio doctor wants to speak with Sam, Jonah puts him on the phone. At first Sam seems kinda pissed that Jonah would put him on the spot like this in front of potentially millions of radio listeners. "Talk to her, dad, she's a doctor." "Her first name could be doctor." The image of the two guys on the phone in the same room is great. 

As Annie listens, she is drawn in to Sam and Jonah's world. You can see the wheels turning. She's very intrigued. As are countless other women who call in to the radio program. I heard somewhere that men fall in love with their eyes and women fall in love with their ears. Ephron seems to agree. I think I do too. But as a man, I feel like I can understand the importance of listening with your ears and hearing with your heart. 

So two thousand women respond to Jonah/Sam's situation by calling the station. The newspaper gets wind of it and it becomes a real story. Good thing Annie has that job with the newspaper in Baltimore. Annie also has Sneezy, her fiancé Walter. The wheels are still turning and now her ears are regularly hearing the radio talk show. Good thing for her ears, Sam is now calling in regularly. 

This film was made almost twenty years ago now. So, if you haven't seen it yet or don't know what happens, I don't know what to tell you. I would suggest watching this immediately. But for those of you who think you can guess, you would probably be right. It's okay too. This is one of those movies that has wonderful detail and great conversation and fun supporting characters that can't be guessed. The ride to what ultimately is destined to happen to these people is what makes it worth the while. One thing I will tell you, Sam and Annie live on opposite coasts in 1993 and there is a brand new form of communication called email. It's electronic, you use your personal computer and it's instant! 

Nora Ephron wrote the script for this movie with An Affair To Remember (1957) in mind, which was a remake of a very sad film from 1939 called Love Affair. Sleepless in Seattle is not a remake of the other two films. They are just used as a frame of reference and a plot device. At one point Annie and her friend Becky (Rosie O'Donnell) watch the 1957 film starring Cary Grant and Becky says tearily, "Men never get this movie." I didn't care for it much, but I love Sleepless In Seattle.

The music in this film is mostly really great. The opening credits roll as Jimmy Durante sings "As Time Goes By".  Ray Charles sings "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" and Nat King Cole sings "Stardust". If it's true that you can fall in love with your ears then good music is obviously essential. 

I'll end this article now with a quote from another Jimmy Durante song in the film, "Love is the answer, someone to love is the answer. Once you've found her, build your world around her." Do you think Sam found her?

21 Hours At Munich (1976)

I find it interesting that countries like Sweden can make quality films that are produced for television, but in America, a T.V. movie carries a stigma. If you are a cinephile, you are more than likely to turn up your nose at the thought of watching a T.V. movie. But once in a blue moon, a good one comes along. 

21 Hours At Munich tells the true story of the terrorism that unfolded at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, West Germany. The event is now sometimes referred to as The Munich Massacre. It was when members of the Israeli Olympic team were taken hostage and murdered by a Palestinian group known as Black September. 

The Olympic Games of the XXX Olympiad are going on as I write this. The International Olympic Committee decided not mark the 40 year anniversary of the tragedy in Munich with any kind of tribute to the victims. In a world where terrorism is still in everyone's minds and fears and the struggles between Israel and Palestine continue and show no sign of ending anytime soon, it is amazing to me that there wasn't more of a reminder of what happened in Munich in 1972. So, I figured it would be timely for me to unearth this movie and sat something about it. 

In 2005, Steven Spielberg made the film Munich. I saw it and was oddly unmoved by it. At almost three hours, it was way too long and about half way through it seemed to regress into a shoot 'em up chase film. 21 Hours At Munich has a perfect running time of 1 hour and 40 minutes. Both films were based on books. Munich was based on Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team by Canadian journalist George Jonas and 21 Hours At Munich was based on The Blood of Israel by Serge Groussard.

There is great acting in this film. The lead is the great William Holden, he plays the Chief of Police Manfred Schreiber. Two Israeli athletes are played by Paul L. Smith and David Hess. You may not know their names, but I'm sure you know their faces. 

The locations in the film are all the places where the events actually took place. This provides are pretty chilling backdrop and gives you a good idea as to what happened that summer. This is definitely worth watching if you are interested in history. I would also recommend seeing the 1999 documentary One Day In September. Despite a "tasteless conclusion" as Roger Ebert remarked, that was just a poor choice by the director, it provides the most information on the Munich Massacre. As I was watching the opening ceremonies last week, I got a lump in my throat thinking about how small the world has truly gotten. I honestly believe that the Olympic games are one of those things that brings the entire world together. Every two years the world gets a little smaller and our hearts get a little bigger.