FISH TANK

You are immersed into a world of meanness by the third scene of the movie Fish Tank but that meanness is not earned. I’ve had enough of Mike Leigh’s (“Life is Sweet,” “All or Nothing”) subterranean slum dramas, the last thing I needed was a carbon copy by another filmmaker. This Andrea Arnold film tells the story of Mia (Katie Jarvis), a 15-year old girl living under an irresponsible drunk mother (Kierston Wareing) in a slum area where recreations and activities are limited. Mia has no friends, only an interest in hip-hop. Mia develops a crush on her mother’s boyfriend Connor (Michael Fassbender).


“Fish Tank” is one of these verité pieces that exist purposely to be as realistic as possible, except the fact there are at least two major developments that are hugely unrealistic. Connor, in the big revelation, has a secondary life pinned to commitments. But no man can pull off sleeping at a girlfriend’s house on consecutive overnight stays, so easily, when he has another domestic home life. It is also too apparent, or transparent, that Connor gets more dialogue-intimate scenes with Mia than the mother he is dating.

Second, a strip club would have seen that Mia is underage and dismissed her before she went on stage. The entire strip club audition is phony, with the filmmaker trying to get you to sigh pitifully at a vulnerable girl stumbling into an exploitation trap.

What makes this film different from say, the emotional powerhouse “Precious” is that film’s director, Lee Daniels, is an enormously empathetic filmmaker who felt he had the need to tell that story. We are getting works by other filmmakers, such as this one of “Fish Tank,” who put out these kinds of movies to show-off their filmmaking skill, to show how “gritty” they can be. “Fish Tank” is preoccupied with throwing obstacles at the heroine in the name of plot cleverness, not empathy.

Also, Arnold is one of these filmmakers who doesn’t know how to use a steady cam. One of the checkpoints of the movie, the big symbolic moment of this girl’s life, is when she drops an audition tape in the mailbox, a symbolically important moment. A true filmmaker would hold the shot on the mailbox, and hold it steady, to underline its significance. Arnold as a filmmaker swerves the camera around and thoughtlessly tracks onto the next “moment,” onto another scene that has less bearing.

That said, Michael Fassbender is one to watch and something can be learned from “Fish Tank” not from the story but of observing his talent. Fassbender, you might remember, played good guy Lt. Archie Hicox who gets a briefing by Mike Myers in “Inglorious Bastereds.” He’s as talented and charismatic as Ewan McGregor, or perhaps a brainier version of Matthew McConaughey.

Go to the official site at http://www.fishtankmovie.com/
Grade: C

FROM PARIS WITH LOVE

The people behind the making of From Paris with Love wanted to make a sensational CIA intrigue action-adventure without caring whether or not the CIA details were accurate or realistic. The filmmakers’ intention is to create an entertainment that is a blast, a rip-roaring adventure that doesn’t need to mirror anything going on in real life. The clichés are ripped off from clichés from other movies.

Pierre Morel (“Taken,” which demonstrated concern with that thing called narrative) gets to play around with a couple of explosion scenes, meaning you get the sense that this is a director that loved putting together his sharp camera angles and smash-cut editing techniques. He gets two primary camera subjects: Jonathan Rhys Meyers (who we love from “Match Point”) and John Travolta (who we love from “Face/Off”). Kasia Smutniak (who you might know only if you spend a lot of time with French cinema) is the secondary camera subject, also known as the pretty girl.

James Reese (Rhys Meyers) is established early as a personal aide to the U.S. Ambassador in Paris. In addition to being an aide, he is also the Ambassador’s chess partner which is important for setting up a howlingly bad exchange of dialogue at the end of the movie which I dare not give away. Anyway, Reese’s dream is to become an operative for the CIA. He gets an on-the-field training day when he acts as escort to FBI agent Charlie Wax (Travolta) who transports firearms from the States and successfully gets them past French security.

For a whole half hour, I was uncertain what was going on plot-wise but off the track I was still amused by the male repartee. What I could gather was that Wax might be considered some kind of bad guy since he indulges in snorting drugs and cajoling with hookers. If there is a central mystery in the film – intended or unintended because I was never sure if the filmmakers had an agenda or not – it is whether or not Wax is a bad guy or simply a badass renegade. Like I said, I wonder if “mystery” was even intended within the screenplay.

What is apparent is that Reese is less an escort than a tag along, and the intensity of Wax’s methods is scary for him – Reese is not sure if he should trust Wax. Within two hours, the two of them are already engaged in a couple of shoot-outs or brawls. Within twenty-four hours, well, it’s bam-bam all over the place. The one-liners in-between the bullet frays can be described as either awful or priceless, or maybe it is both at the same time. I think screenwriters of action movies in the 1980’s tried harder to be witty. I do apologize for not having any dialogue examples for you, but perhaps just in case you see the movie, I wouldn’t want to spoil the ridiculousness for you.

I am going to be Mr. Obvious here: This is not a respectable movie but it is not trying to be. I can’t even begin to say how incoherent the plot is but I am amused by how unconcerned it was at being incoherent. The big whopper plot twist where the key woman of the plot turns out to have a double-crossing agenda isn’t mind-bending, it’s just contrived.

Oh, the action is preposterous, and laughable, but isn’t it fun to laugh? Isn’t ridiculous more fun than solemn? Sure, sometimes it is even if it is to a limited degree. I was shaking my head in disbelief, yet I wasn’t exactly bored.

My memory was a little fuzzy just a couple of hours after seeing the movie, but I do have a couple of favorite moments. I like the scene at the end where the French diplomat is irritated by the inconvenience of how delayed she is – didn’t she recall that just moments ago an oncoming car got hit by a rocket launcher that was intended for her? Then at the beginning, how about shoot-out at the Chinese restaurant scene with cocaine oozing through bullet holes from the ceiling. What was that about? I mean to say, What Was That About!!!

Go to the official site at http://frompariswithlovefilm.com/

Grade: C

THE BOOK OF ELI

The Book of Eli is post-apocalyptic sci-fi with a drifting hero (with an initial undisclosed purpose) traveling west, and he is embodied by none other than Denzel Washington as the title character. This is a violent and graphic film, with gray skies and brown deserts, desaturated from realistic colors to the point that some of the visuals look black & white. In an early deadly encounter as Eli faces off some homicidal scavengers underneath a bridge, it is filmed in high contrast so the actors are pitch-black while the desolate landscape serves as backdrop.

Interesting how much more involving this opening action scene are in comparison to other movies of this nature. This probably has to do with a steady and fixed camera where you can appreciate the elaborate choreography taking place before your eyes. There are no choppy and chaotic editing techniques, and for an abundance of the movie, you can sense the filmmakers’ disciplined strategy.

This is the fifth film by the Hughes Brothers (“Menace II Society,” “From Hell”) who if anything depend upon a regimented style. But enough about them, let’s go onto the story. As if it was the old west once again, Eli stumbles into a town to do some trades with the intent to immediately get the hell out of there. It is amusing that in the future, KFC wet napkin packets carry a certain value. Eli makes the wrong decision to enter the local pub to get some water and soon enough Carnegie (Gary Oldman), the lord of the town, wants Eli to join his side and work for him.

Tension of the story persuasively arises when Carnegie makes any threat or coercion to get Eli to stay. Eli just wants to head for the road and a new girl, the barmaid, Solara (Mila Kunis, with improbably perfect skin) wants to accompany him. The story structure gets routine – one band of baddies chase the good guys down in the desert that all leads to the inevitable shoot-out. But the movie deserves a nod for creating a shoot-out that is technically unique, with the camera doing an unbroken, virtual figure-8 camera loop-around.

Second act violence is all triggered by the Carnegie character. But Oldman suggests something interesting with his character, he makes Carnegie a man who you once believed was good until he lost his sanity and corrupted himself with lordly power, but he is literate and cultivated man in contrast to a wasteland of degenerates. Oldman’s hook on the character is subtle, and the movie doesn’t rest to contemplate this idea thoroughly, but if you look deep you will see it. This is not to take away anything from Washington who is terrific as this saintly, baddass and a self-appointed apostle. An apostle with a gun, if this is something you can accept.

Maybe Eli becomes something more than an apostle though, it’s up for debate. The conclusion of the movie is actually very bold. It goes further, into more transcendent territory, than the usual post-apocalyptic movie. This is a surprise for a movie coming out in January, where studios unleash their dogs. This is a movie that is not a dog, but you still have to chew on some preposterous stuff. Such as, why do roughnecks with only pipes and hacksaws approach Eli, who clearly has a gun? Why does Solara choose such an inopportune moment to recite a prayer? And what’s with that laughable final twist, revealed in ultra-tight close-up of Eli, that is anything but gratuitous?

Still, genre fans are going to eat this up and appreciate its evocative visual style as well as for the reflective religious elements. It is uncommon for an action movie to depend crucially on adversaries vying for scripture. But ardently the script by Gary Whitta makes a good case that the Bible could be the greatest book ever written due to its intellectual content and influential language. Audiences looking for plot holes will find “Book of Eli” a crock, but the kind of substance the movie has is very bold indeed. It also goes without saying the movie is very entertaining.

Click here to go to Book of Eli official website.

Grade: B

SHERLOCK HOLMES

Sherlock Holmes plunges you into the plot without warming you up or seducing you into 1890’s London, slapping together shots incoherently until you don’t care what is happening. Instead of sleuthing and puzzle-solving, the audience is treated to a reckless action scene. The dialogue is also zippy and breathless (and incoherent), and Robert Downey Jr. in the lead role as Sherlock even mumbles his words in an early scene where he insults Jude Law’s female companion (Law plays Dr. John Watson). While actors certainly appear debonair they are nevertheless surrounded by a sloppy production.

Worth mentioning right away is that there are precisely four good scenes in the movie, and surprisingly, three of those are action scenes. Dame Irene (Rachel McAdams) is swinging from a meat hook on one scene in a charnel house and Sherlock Action Hero has to set her free in time before she gets shredded by blades. That was a highlight, and that is not to sound sarcastic. It really is a good scene.

Also good moments are a scene featuring a runaway boat sinking into the bay, and a climactic scene jousting on the rafters. If you haven’t figured it out by now, let’s make it clear that Sherlock Holmes has been made into an Action Hero for this generation leaving the cleverness of sleuthing to past adaptations. Certainly there is a little bit of sleuthing, and the finale where he puts the pieces together is exuberantly executed. But did we really need to see Holmes in a boxing match? The snap and crackle direction by Guy Ritchie (“Snatch”) predisposes that it must be so.

That’s really for the Ritchie fans that enjoy his overblown theatrics, but for keen viewers, the Ritchie overall style is frenetic and chaotic (the mere snap and crackle editing is saved for shots of bone-breaking). Ritchie doesn’t care if you brew over the mystery of the film, he just wants to smash excess at your senses. As for the mystery, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) has been executed by hanging but continues to terrorize London from beyond the grave. Death, you see, has only made him stronger. But Sherlock figures that Blackwood must have been getting help from somewhere other than from his gift of Black Magic.

But sometimes a superfast pace just makes time stand still. What’s lost is fresh Holmes and Watkins camaraderie. McAdams is adrift in randomly shuffled scenes. The Hans Zimmer score is endless lightning, it also never stops to breath. Although Zimmer does echo notes from Ennio Morricone’s score from “Once Upon a Time in the West.” Moreover, what is lost is any satisfying sense of cleverness.

In a production overrun with bombast, what you will nonetheless recognize is the set design of the film which is meticulous in detail. The film’s display of 1890’s London looks as real as the history books. It’s the actors who are contemporary, and the action and style that is ultra-modern. For those readers looking for nothing but sheer entertainment, why are you bothering to look anywhere else but “Avatar” for this holiday season?

Click Here to go to official Sherlock Holmes website

Grade: C

THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS

Even shots of beauty have a tinge of off-putting perversity in Terry Gilliam’s world. Gilliam wants to crush and decimate the idea of a fairy tale with his latest The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. The film will more likely be remembered as Heath Ledger’s final film. Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped in as substitute for Ledger’s non-completed scenes which are mostly the fantasy ones, sometimes masquerading in disguise or aided by CGI to fill in for Ledger’s character.

“Parnassus” is an original idea by Gilliam and co-writer Charles McKeown that revolves around a travelling stage show. Once you go backstage, you fall into a magical alternate world that’s like an id extension of the Candyland game. It’s a place where Gilliam, like he did in “Brazil” and “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen,” unleashes his whacked surrealist imagination.

Yet Gilliam finds it necessary to open the movie with a demonstration of cruel and mean behavior as a couple of drunks attempt to trash the stage of Parnassus’ (Christopher Plummer, in white goatee). Other travelling players include Percy (Vern Troyer) as the midget who deploys wisecracks. Anton (Andrew Garfield) and Valentina (Lily Cole) are the hormonal teenagers. New to the pack, Tony (Ledger) is an amnesiac who joins the gang until he can figure out where he can from and why he stumbled.

What can be said when Ledger has more charisma than anybody in the troupe, even Parnassus himself, who is the dullest of dullest of eponymous characters? This is in no way a demonstration of Ledger’s greatest acting (“Brokeback Mountain” and “The Dark Knight” are proof of his endurance), but in a movie replete with magic tricks, Ledger’s star burns brightest.

You never want to be a part of the ordinary scenes as these guys travel through London. The dialogue is garble, often nonsensical or grandiose. “He doesn’t want to rule the world. He wants the world to rule itself.” Gilliam’s visual sense is more cluttered than ever – it’s oppressive, assaultive. If “Parnassus” is worth bothering to look at it is for some of its technical work (in the fantasy sequences only), not story. In brief, it is a shiftless story about making improvements to the road show, figuring out the meaning of self-identity and escaping from Tom Waits (He plays the Devil).

In regards to technical work, what you will get in the fantasy sequences are such things as mammoth staircases, funny-acting mirrors and men on elongated stilts. His neatest trick, with Depp in foreground, is an oily onyx river that morphs into a snake’s head. What poisons the film ultimately however is Gilliam’s unceasing misanthropy. This is his third bad movie in a row.

Click here to go to Doctor Parnassus official site

Grade: C-