SUNSHINE

Written by Alex Garland
Directed by Danny Boyle


Cassie: There’s a difference between thinking you might not make it home and knowing you won’t.


Oh Mother Nature, why have you forsaken us? Are we really all that bad to you that we deserve what you’re giving us? Not only have you fought back with global warming and disastrous storm activity but now you insist on dooming us on film as well. SUNSHINE, from director, Danny Boyle, does not announce distinctly when it takes place. Regardless of the time, the sun is about to give out on us. It has been slowly dying over the centuries and its warmth is finally waning on earth. After one unsuccessful attempt, the people of earth have pooled their resources together to send one last chance into space. The crew of Icarus II must travel through space for what can only be millions of miles (it may even be billions but I’m no space enthusiast) to reach the sun and drop a bomb into its center in hopes of reigniting its flame. Boyle’s SUNSHINE is a visual hot bed that draws the viewer into its world of dichotomies. From light and dark to close and far, the opposing forces manifest on the screen to make for a gripping debate between whether it’s better to fight against fate or resign yourself to it.


Staring directly into the sun is damaging to your eyes while staring directly into Boyle’s SUNSHINE will delight them. Boyle makes calculated visual and sound decisions that allow the viewer to feel like a crewmember on this momentous voyage. Long corridors are often devoid of noise and shown stretching on toward far depths before cutting to tight framing of various crewmembers (Cillian Murphy, Michelle Yeoh and Chris Evans, to name but a few). The rooms that find these solitary crewmembers vary in style from simulation rooms that show the glory of the sun’s power to the payload room that houses the bomb that will hopefully save humanity, from rooms with wall-to-wall computer screens to oxygen rooms dedicated to the growth of plants. With so many rooms to speak of, Icarus II feels like its own world. With the people of this world alone in each of these rooms that make up this separate existence, the detachment from each other is only second in intensity to the distance between this ship and the planet it has left behind and lost all communication with. Determined to complete the mission they have set out for must outweigh the fear they feel being so completely secluded as their drive in order to survive.


Author of THE BEACH, Alex Garland, has crafted a script that plays out like a morality debate. The importance of the individual is weighed against the significance of the masses in some moments, while the needs of the masses are then weighed against the natural progression of the species in others. Fate and the usual bickering over whether we have any say in the matter permeate the entire mission, mostly against Boyle’s better judgment. Garland’s exploration of God and atheism were not elements that Boyle wanted to devote much screen time to, if any, but they still manage to make their way to the forefront. It seems curious to me that he would want to avoid these topics, as SUNSHINE needs them to further enforce its own sense of urgency. If this mission is unsuccessful, the sun’s warmth will inevitably cease to reach the earth. Come the time when all of earth’s inhabitants begin to reach their freezing point, the existence of God is going to be the hottest topic around.


SUNSHINE will definitely draw comparison to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 (it’s doing it right now even) with its soft-spoken computer voice commanding the ship and eerie, quiet emptiness. While it won’t come anywhere near having the same impact, it is still a strong successor. Boyle modernizes the space solitude tale by jumping back and forth between quiet calm and frenetic dizziness, between dusty and stale and bright and explosive. As the mission wreaks havoc on the minds of the crew, Boyle plays with our senses, making SUNSHINE an engaging, tense and thought-provoking trip to the center of the sun. Really though, can you imagine it any other way?

THE SIMPSONS MOVIE

Written by James L. Brooks, Matt Groening, Al Jean, Ian Maxtone-Graham, George Meyer, David Mirkin, Mike Reiss, Mike Scully, Matt Selman, John Swartzwelder, Jon Vitti
Directed by David Silverman


Homer Simpson: I can’t believe we’re paying to see something we can see at home for free.

It has been eighteen years since America’s ultimate nuclear family introduced themselves to the television-watching world. Their popularity and critical favour have waffled in waves over the near-two-decade span of the series’ life, but they have also become pop culture icons and a source of constant comfort and laughter through widespread syndication and DVD sales. And so the question I’ve heard tossed around the most leading up to the release of their first foray in the land of the big screen is why did they wait so darn long to get here? The reason doesn’t matter really; it’s the sense of entitlement Simpson fans have regarding the series and these characters that is somewhat frightful in its level of expectation. (Although if you’re interested to know, series creator Matt Groening and creative mainstay, James Brooks, wanted to place all the focus necessary on perfecting the television series without having anything take away from that. When they finally decided to go forward, close to the turn of the century, there were disputes over final script approval.) The pressure alone to deliver a hilarious feature that will appease the fans, the masses and the studio execs alike would be enough reason for me to never consider making it. Yet THE SIMPSONS MOVIE is finally here and from the moment little Ralph Wiggum pops out of the 20th Century Fox tag to trumpet triumphantly with the tune we all know well, it is clear that the whole “Simpsons” clan is happy to have arrived. As someone who would subscribe to a 24-hour “Simpsons” channel if one existed, I am just as happy to see them too.


The “Simpsons” folks know this is big. They almost seem to acknowledge it right away when the film opens with the biggest “Itchy & Scratchy” cartoon ever created. Itchy the mouse and Scratchy the cat get on about their usual, violent antics, but they do so while taking the first steps on the moon. THE SIMPSONS MOVIE is one small step for Springfield and one giant leap for television animated series everywhere. What does a leap of this size entail exactly? Rather than string four episodes together, “Simpsons” creators opted to tell a story that was too big to encompass on a small screen. In doing so, there are both elements lost and gained. The expansion means longer stretches between punch lines, which can be frustrating at first, as you want director, David Silverman (a one-time regular director of the series and former creative player at Pixar) to pick up the pace. Also, the story itself is much more linear than most of the television episodes that find Homer & company starting in one place and ending up somewhere entirely unexpected by episode’s end. (A recent example would be beginning with weaning Maggie off her pacifier, which leads to Homer taking sleeping pills, which finds him causing injury to all of Springfield’s fire department and ultimately ending with corruption in volunteer fire fighter work.) The movie follows the Simpson family as they once again find themselves the target of all of Springfield’s animosity after Homer commits a selfish blunder to eclipse the hundreds of blunders that came before that. Once the film finds its pace though and adjusts to its newfound size and stature, or perhaps once this fan boy became accustomed to the grandeur of it all, the laughs roll out rapidly. It may be mostly tame but it is also riotous and faithful.


A bigger screen means an opportunity to take some of the Simpson characters further than they have ever been. (It also means some characters don’t get any spoken screen time – sorry Patty and Selma.) Lisa meets a boy who transforms her into the giddy girl she’s repressed so many times before. Marge finds an assertive voice that elevates her above the doormat status she all too often assumes. One of the more prominent storylines, which I’m carefully trying to avoid being specific about for those of you who are trying to go in to the movie as clear as possible, finds Bart questioning what his life would be like if he had a father figure who wasn’t such an impulsive goof all the time. In one of THE SIMPSON MOVIE’s greatest achievements, it breathes new life and depth into characters that have spent almost two decades trying to remain the same. The one constant that needs to remain that way to avoid throwing the world order out of alignment is, of course, Homer. As Homer is accustomed to making monumental mistakes and learning lessons from those mistakes shortly afterward, his movie mistakes are nothing new for him. And like usual, he will see the error of his ways and make many more mistakes by the time a sequel hits.


THE SIMPSONS MOVIE is a rare, successful experiment in defying expectation and pressure to become a film that honours its origins while moving forward at the same time. As the town of Springfield breeds a self contained awareness that requires more than just a casual glance to appreciate fully, I’m not sure how well THE SIMPSONS MOVIE will play outside of its fan base. That said, anyone who has had the fortune to spend any amount of time with the people of Springfield since 1989, will find their first feature to be filled with a humoured familiarity that serves as a reminder for how they’ve been able to stick around for so long. And now that my Mac widget that has been counting down the days until THE SIMPSONS MOVIE has finally run its course, I can rest easy knowing that all my expectations were met and it probably won’t be quite as long until the Simpsons find themselves on the big screen again.

GOD GREW TIRED OF US

Written and Directed by Christopher Dillon Quinn
Co-Directed by Tommy Walker


Unidentified Lost Boy (holding a bottle of Pepsi up to the camera):
This is, in my country, we call it Coca-Cola.”

How often do critics and audiences agree on something? I think we can all admit it’s somewhat rare. So when I heard that documentary, GOD GREW TIRED OF US, had managed to win both the Audience Prize and the Grand Jury Prize at last year’s Sundance festival, I was certainly intrigued. However, when I finally caught the trailer, skepticism settled in. The film appeared to be some sort of social experiment where young, African men were transplanted into America with an array of comedic mishaps to follow. What could be funnier than watching the unexposed baffled over how to use an escalator? Still, I was not deterred. I would see with my own eyes what movie had managed to appease the masses and the minutiae-oriented. Proving once again that you cannot judge a movie by its proverbial cover, GOD GREW TIRED OF US is a unique and rare experience that burrows its way into your mind and soul, forcing you to see your world and the world outside your world through the eyes of a wide-eyed stranger.


In 1983, the second Sudanese Civil war began. Over 27,000 young boys and girls (many more boys than girls as girls were often snatched up by attackers to be raped and/or turned into slaves first) fled their villages and journeyed to refugee relief camps in bordering countries, Ethiopia and Kenya. The treks lasted a few years and only 12,000 managed to reach their destinations. These camps became their new homes, in some cases for fifteen years. In 2001, an aid program was put in place to bring 3800 young men over to the United States. The program was called The Lost Boys of Sudan. It was at this point that filmmakers Christopher Dillon Quinn and Tommy Walker made their way to the refugee camp in Kakuma, Kenya. They would follow three lost boys as they traveled across the Atlantic Ocean to begin their new life. Using archival footage to demonstrate the horrendous experience endured by these young men in their boyhood, Quinn ensures that his audience understands where these men came from and what family and community means to them before he shows their worlds being turned upside down.


Though the Lost Boys’ coming face to face with electricity and the subtle differences between turning a light on at the source or by using the wall switch can be comedic, their introduction to Western society is more telling of the natives than anything else. Coming from a past that at one point included eating mud as a source of water while in the desert, must make the concept of testing the water coming from your shower head until it is just right before stepping underneath it seem downright extravagant. Excessive is a Western way of life for those who can afford it. Even those who can’t live above their means to appear that they can. When the Lost Boys walk down the aisles of a large chain grocery store, awe beams from their eyes. The point is only further proven when they are offered a taste of a sugar doughnut smothered in sprinkles. They each take tiny bites as if unsure of what form of ridiculousness they’re biting into. Everyone around them walks up and down the grocery store aisles as if they do it every day and think nothing of it. I would be doing the same and GOD GREW TIRED OF US, without being accusatory or judgmental, draws your attention to how much you take for granted on a daily basis. It’ll get you thinking about your supposed needs the next time you bite into a doughnut of your own.


What gives GOD GREW TIRED OF US its deeper, more substantial meaning is the decision to not just expose the culture shock the Lost Boys endure as if they were guinea pigs put on screen for our privileged perspectives to devour. The film goes further when it follows the Lost Boys as they cement their lives in the United States over a period of three years. The illusion wears off when you have to work three jobs to afford your basic needs while sending money to your family back in Africa that you haven’t seen in over fifteen years. America the beautiful quickly becomes a very lonely place that feels very far from home. Despite having opportunity and an abundance of everything, the Lost Boys still miss the Sudan. GOD GREW TIRED OF US is respectful of both its subjects and its audience, always sure never to demean one for the sake of the other. Maybe this is why it has captured the attention of critics and audiences alike; its humbling, thought-provoking nature levels the distance between the two, where each group feels better than the other, allowing each to see that they are no different from each other when faced with the bigger picture of humanity and its arduous journey towards global compassion.

DEADEN

Numbing the pain with Christian Viel


The D.B. Clarke theatre space is hidden away in the basement of the downtown Concordia University campus in Montreal. While it normally plays home to student productions of varied results, on July 14, 2007, it opened its doors to the North American premiere of DEADEN, by Montreal filmmaker, Christian Viel. Playing as part of the Fantasia Film Festival, the premiere brought out the director himself as well as the screenwriter/star, John Fallon. Taking the stage before the film, each gentleman took a turn to say a few words. Fallon began by announcing how drunk he was. The crowd, mostly male, erupted in cheers. He went on to say how fucking amazing it was for this fucking movie to finally be getting its fucking North American premiere and how fucking difficult it is to get any fucking funding in Canada. This was peppered with bursts of cheers throughout, mostly after each usage of the word, “fucking.” Viel then took the mic. Meek in comparison although similar in stature, Viel forewarned that the first ten minutes of DEADEN have made people leave the theatre in previous screenings. He wanted to make sure we knew he would not be offended if we felt we needed to do the same. I couldn’t understand how these two polar opposite forces managed to collaborate on a film, let alone remain actual friends.

I had already been warned about the potentially horrifying opening scene in DEADEN by Viel himself when we met for coffee shortly before the premiere. Without going into too much detail, more so to save you from bringing up your lunch than giving away too much about the film, DEADEN opens with its hero, Rane (Fallon), tied up in his living room and about to be beaten and killed by three other men and one woman. His pregnant fiancée is brought in and Rane is subsequently forced to watch as she is raped and killed, along with her unborn fetus. When Rane is finally able to break free to fight back, he too is killed … or so we think. I’ve only given you the bare minimum here. The details are much more horrific. And even though his neighbours reported domestic disturbances when he was editing the sequence, Viel is surprised by the reaction …

“It’s probably the most harrowing scene in the whole film.
It caused us a few problems at screenings because it really
freaks people out. We knew it was a tough scene but we
didn’t expect the organic reactions of the people. It’s funny
because it’s all very suggestive. We didn’t have that much
money so everything is suggested. It seems though that
when it’s suggested it feels even stronger. People see
what they want but it’s all editing.” - Viel

As far as I could tell, no one walked out of this particular screening. (I've since learned that two people left.)


Fallon and Viel were inspired to make DEADEN after watching 2004’s interpretation of the Marvel comic, THE PUNISHER. The two were so disappointed with the film, (“The only thing they got right was the T-shirt.”) they originally wished they could remake it. As the rights for Marvel comics tend to be costly, they decided to make a straightforward revenge flick. The rest of DEADEN follows Rane as he snorts obscene amounts of cocaine and avenges the memory of his fiancée and unborn child, one bad guy at a time. With more and more kills to his name, who is the bad guy really? Each scene attempts to out do the one before by upping the violence and gore factor each time. Although, DEADEN walks into clichés from time to time (ie. spitting at the feet of a statue of Jesus), Fallon’s Rane has plenty of charisma to get you rooting for him at each turn of his killing spree, making it a solid addition to the revenge film sub-genre.

Another sub-genre of film DEADEN flirts with is the horror offshoot, torture porn. The idea behind the term is a film that gets its kicks and gives you yours by twistedly torturing its characters for viewing pleasure. When you have a contemporary pioneer of the genre like SAW 2 & 3 director, Darren Bousman, referring to DEADEN as “not only raw and brutal but unforgiving,” you’ve got to wonder if maybe you’ve gone too far. Viel thinks not …

“There are elements of torture porn in the opening sequence
but at the same time, it’s not something we tried to do on
purpose. It has its own purpose; it’s the motivation. It’s vital
to the story. It’s not just for shock value. I don’t like that.
Good drama involves pain and sometimes torture because
you need the motivation for the characters to move on or
an actual reason for things to happen. There may be a primal
pleasure to be derived from that but beyond that, there’s
nothing." - Viel


Regardless of or perhaps thanks to the film’s violent nature, DEADEN has found an American distribution deal which will likely see the film rolling onto DVD this fall. This success, as well as the international success of Viel’s RECON trilogy, are great signs for the Montreal film community and their development and production should serve as models for future generations of local filmmakers. Ever since the Canadian government became involved in the decision making process for funding film projects, it has become increasingly more difficult to get mainstream or even excessive yet accessibly violent films made. The emphasis is placed on more experimental or supposedly artistic fare. At the other extreme, Hollywood is busy recycling ideas and cannibalizing themselves to make the most money possible in the least amount of time. In response to this, Viel founded Movie Seals Productions. Movie Seals Productions does not wait for funding to come its way. Their logic is to make the movie any way you can but make it well. Then, get it seen and start generating revenue with it in any market that will take it so you can get to work on your next movie. In the world of home movie libraries and pay downloading, each movie made has the potential for a long life ahead. More importantly, Movie Seals Productions makes movies that Viel wants to see.

“It’s starting to feel like a sausage factory. That’s why
I want to make movies that I would want to watch. More
and more, the movies I want to watch, I don’t see anymore.
Maybe it’s old school, maybe I’m getting older but I know
what pleases a certain portion of the population and it
makes us enough money to keep making more so why not?”
-Viel

Judging from the cheers DEADEN got every time Rane crushed someone’s head or lit someone on fire, Viel is not just making movies for himself anymore.

For more information regarding DEADEN, Movie Seals Productions or Christian Viel, please visit the following websites:

http://www.deaden-movie.com/
http://www.movieseals.biz/

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX

Written by Michael Goldenberg
Directed by David Yates


Harry Potter: The more you care, the more you lose. Maybe it’s better to …
Hermione Granger: To what?
Harry Potter: To go it alone.

Consistency oddly both enhances and takes away from the Harry Potter experience. Like the books, the films have a built-in structure that allows for them to not bother with coming up with fresh ways to start and finish each film. A new academic year at Hogwart’s School of Witchcraft and Wizardry begins and ends with the film following suit. While this familiar structure doesn’t allow for surprise, it is the adventures the take place between these two bookends that define each film. And despite a new rule of conservative values and repression falling upon Hogwart’s, it is the constantly appreciative and awed faces of Harry, his few friends, his professors and the legions of fans watching that make HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX one of the most solid in the series. Being a part of one of the most successful film and literary phenomenon of all time has not jaded a single player in the least. Doing justice to a lushly imaginative world without making itself into something more serious than it is and managing to have fun while working hard has allowed Harry & co. to find a comfortable, satisfying stride.

Under the new direction of British television director, David Yates, Harry finds himself facing a darkness that is brooding and growing inside of him. In his fifth time out as Mr. Potter, Daniel Radcliffe continues to add new levels to Harry’s personality, becoming increasingly more introverted throughout the series. Here is a boy whose parents were killed and dons a scar that certifies him as the wizard the world has waited for. Dealing with his own demons and the weight of being something of a chosen one is so much for this young man’s shoulders to bare that social interaction and expectation become more difficult. Radcliffe’s Harry is a boy becoming a man. He knows he is destined for great things but he also knows how much there is still to be learned and how far there is still to go. The storm that goes from raging to calm in his mind on a regular basis is so taxing that his instinct is to cut himself off from those that always have his back. It is noble to wish to spare those he cares for from his pain but it is also telling of his fear to be close to people who might one day also be taken away from him.


Detachment and repression are common themes in THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. While Harry imposes rules upon himself, new addition to the Potter cast, Delores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) ushers Hogwart’s into conservative times, placing value on paranoia and control. With this comes the greatest challenge for Yates. How do you make a movie about magic where the characters are forbidden from performing any? Yates overcomes this by driving the magic underground and pitting the students against enemies both frivolous and frightful. Staunton’s tart persona has plenty of pucker, making her the teacher every kid wants to exact sweet revenge upon. Despite her stern hand, she is merely an irritating distraction when compared with the looming return of Lord Voldemort. The denial steeped around his return and the subsequent nondisclosure to the public make THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX an atypically topical Potter film. The implications made when the ruling powers manipulate the press and silence those who oppose them are unexpected and yet never take away from the plight of Harry and friends. Suffice it to say that come the end of this film, their growth as people will ensure they are no longer treated like simple children. What is most striking about their maturity is they don’t even know it’s happening.


With so much emotion being forced inside, it is exhilarating and liberating by the time the climax comes and all is finally unleashed. It’s an awful lot like being in the head of an adolescent. HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX also manages its own magic by cramming the longest book from the Potter series into the shortest running time of any of the films while maintaining all the elements necessary to make the story whole. Weaving in layers of thematic insight and giving more depth to Mr. Potter himself brings the film from magical to meaningful. And after five installments, bringing something new to the spell without ruining the recipe or changing the consistency is a pretty impressive trick unto itself.

TRANSFORMERS

Written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman
Directed by Michael Bay


Optimus Prime: Sorry, my bad.

No, it is I who is sorry, Optimus Prime, for I do not accept your apology. You can hardly be held accountable for the two-hour plus mess that is TRANSFORMERS, 2007’s tent pole original blockbuster, but my anger needs to be directed somewhere. Seeing as how director Michael Bay is not standing here in front of me, you my fictional friend will have to do. It could have all been so simple. You had a pretty solid cartoon back in the 80’s. The Autobots and Decepticons had their crews in check and their goals set. Both teams found themselves here on Earth. The Decepticons were bent on bleeding the world of its energy to bring back to your home planet somewhere so that they could rule while you were here to stop them and protect us simple humans at the same time. They would plot and you would plan and battles would go on with very little involvement on the part of the human race. Why then, in your live action feature film debut, do we see no trace of you but instead a few unpopular Decepticons and a ton of one-liner jokester humans for the first half of this film? Could your agent not negotiate you some more screen time?


The Transformers from the cartoon series had personality, ranging from a corny sense of humour to loyalty to caring. The movie machines, well, they have names and that’s about it. Gone are the neurosis and power struggles, replaced by supposed strength and stature. Standing and looking pretty for our enjoyment only takes us so far. Without squabbling between Megatron and Starscream to scoff at, we’re left to seek out personality from the human faction of this ensemble. Unfortunately, like any “good” action movie, actual colour in a character or a performance is entirely optional. Army boys anxiously await their return to their loved ones at home; high school jocks mock the dorks to look good for their girls; and those same girls can twist their hips just right to catch the setting sun against their bare stomachs. With such reusable filler characters, no actor actually has to try to craft depth into the fold. Luckily, the “IT” boy himself, Shia LaBeouf, is young enough and hungry enough to not forsake his own talents to the point of banality. As Sam Witwicki, TRANSFORMERS’ central human character, LaBeouf is charming, shy and earnest. His performance shines like the brightest piece in a sea of scrap metal and solidifies his face as one that will be seen for many years to come.


Why do I find myself going on and on about people in a review for a movie about machines? Perhaps this is because TRANSFORMERS treats the Transformers like an afterthought most of the time. Granted, they are very elaborate and exquisite constructions but how can they be seen as anything but secondary when some of the most popular Transformers don’t make an appearance until the last third of the film? And as beautiful as the talented folks at Industrial Light and Magic made these reincarnations, they are a bit too complex for their own good. Watching all the metal pieces swerve in and around while the machines transform made me think of the toys I had as a boy. If they were ever that complicated to transform, I doubt I would have played with them for as long as I did. The abundance of detail gets even messier when the Transformers start to rumble with each other. Through what he believes to be fancy camera work, Bay over uses close-up’s and quick editing to turn his machines into metal monstrosities that are at times near impossible to distinguish from one another. You can’t tell who’s who until the metallic mess breaks apart and one machine stands while another has fallen. There’s an awful lot of fighting but it’s also a lot of not being able to tell who’s winning.


It is pointed out to me time and time again that big budget action movies require a good chunk of our brains to be shut off in order to be enjoyed. Are we not tired yet of filmmakers giving us the bare minimum and the same old conventions while expecting us to fall over ourselves at the sight of awesome movie magic? TRANSFORMERS is not horrible because it is a special effects driven action film. It is horrible because it took the enormous potential to be a cheeky, geeky visual wonder and diminished that by dumbing it down to a mess of gunfire, product placement and hollowed-out, clunky machines. While it can be fun to relax our minds and enjoy the good times, it is not acceptable to dangle a shiny piece of metal before our eyes to distract us from seeing that that’s all you got.

RATATOUILLE

Written and Directed by Brad Bird


Gusteau: If you focus on what you’ve left behind, you will never be able to see what lies ahead.

Rats are a hard sell. They’re filthy little rodents with fierce, ugly teeth that scurry across your feet when you aren’t expecting anything, dragging their long, scaly tails behind them and sending those they cross into squeals of fear. Rats in a kitchen comedy are arguably an impossible sell. If you don’t like rats to begin with, you certainly don’t want them anywhere near your food. Yet here we are smack in the middle of the premise for the near infallible Pixar’s latest summer crowd pleaser, RATATOUILLE. Separated from his rat colony, Remy (voiced by comedian Patton Oswalt), finds himself accidentally putting his culinary talents to good use in what was once one of Paris’ most prestigious kitchens, earning him rave reviews. Of course a rat can’t take credit for fine food preparation so he forms an unlikely friendship with a gangly, awkward fellow by the name of Linguini (Lou Romano), who serves as his front. Together they bring new life to an aging restaurant and inspire each other to be better than they believe themselves to be. The folks at Pixar might have been sniffing too many expensive cheeses when they concocted this mousecapade but they may also be the only people out there who could have pulled it off. Only, under the writing and direction of Brad Bird (THE INCREDIBLES), they didn’t just pull it off; RATATOUILLE is a masterwork in the field of animated filmmaking, deliciously reaching heights that no rat has ever reached before.


Remy is no ordinary rat. He has a gift, a gift that is being squandered at home. He understands the complicated calibration of cooking. He knows the spice for every occasion yet his overbearing father (Brian Dennehy) uses his heightened senses as a tool to sniff out rat poison amongst the garbage. Like so many of us born into situations that do not lead instantly to fame and fortune, Remy is destined for greatness but has yet to be discovered. Not only does he need to win over the hearts and stomachs of notoriously finicky food critics (like the one voiced so delectably by Peter O’Toole) but he must also win over the potentially lost appetites of modest movie goers who may not want rats with the their popcorn. Bird’s animators studied the bahavior of rats extensively and felt it would be best to have the rats walk about like humans, on two feet, in an effort to appear more likeable. Bird refused. He wanted the rats to act like rats. He wanted their ideals to win us over. When trapped in a jar early on in the film, it is Remy’s charm that gets him set free. There is an earnestness, a yearning, a hope seen deep in his pleading eyes that reminds us just how often we find ourselves trapped in jars by people bent on keeping us down. Besides, aren’t we all just rats in the race?


Like Remy, Bird and his Pixar cohorts know to add a sprinkling of depth to their dishes and that presentation is key. RATATOUILLE raises the Pixar standard of beauty to new levels while seasoning the whole with hints of meaning that are only completely realized once they hit your palette. Pixar’s Paris is a foggy riverside with scattered street lamps at one moment and a string of window lights and fountains the next. While it is romantically distracting, it is nowhere near as chaotic as the view from two inches above the floor. Rats scamper and the camera follows as Remy swerves in and out of kitchen crevasses and sewers (always sure to wash his hands before touching the food). The fluidity of the movement through such luscious colour is hypnotic and magical, simply what one would expect from the city of love. Somewhere tucked away in this city is a tiny one-bedroom apartment the size of a storage space known as not much but still home to Linguini. The friendship formed between the man and his rat is unlikely, yes, but it anchors the film with its humbling mutual appreciation. They learn to rely on each other without forgetting how to contribute the most vital parts of themselves. Theirs is a friendship so powerful and so respectful that it changes the minds and hearts of the naysayers who play witness to it, including those sitting comfortably in front of the screen.


“Anyone can cook.” These are the words of Chef Gousteau, Remy’s inspiration and hero, that run throughout RATATOUILLE. Cooking can be interpreted as anything and therefore anyone can do anything they want. Just look at Remy, a rat with an impossible dream that comes true despite every odd and thanks to hard work (and a dash of fate). Better yet, just look at Pixar. By not simply following the recipe but rather using inspired, unusual ingredients, they have managed to make a mesmerizing masterpiece that is astonishing, endearing and about a rat.

SICKO

Written and Directed by Michael Moore


Tony Benn: If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.


Years ago, Michael Moore set out to produce a documentary about the American health care system and how that affects both those with and without insurance. In 1999 though, the Columbine shootings redirected his focus towards gun control and teenage violence. The health care project was put on hold and BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE was made and went on to win the Academy Award for Best Documentary. Hollywood had found a new spokesman and Moore rode that wave for as long as he could. He was about to return to the health care project when the war in Iraq began. Again, Moore felt his efforts would be better put to use elsewhere. FARENHEIT 9/11, part expository documentary, part slander campaign to ensure George W. Bush would not be re-elected, became the highest grossing documentary of all time. He may have had notoriety like he had never known but he also had an increasing number of angry detractors. Moore’s success was inflating his ego and that ego was taking up more screen time than the subject matter itself in his films. Well, Mr. Moore has heard your complaints and has redirected his focus once again by removing it from himself and placing it back on the subject. Eight years after its original conception, Moore is finally ready to give us SICKO.


While Moore’s mug does still find its way into the action and his voice guides us along our tour of the world’s hospital waiting rooms, he is less invasive and more sympathetic in SICKO. In fact, we don’t even see him for the first third of the piece. Instead, real people with real horror stories of disappointment and struggle put a face to the bureaucracy. Having no insurance, Rick must make a decision between reattaching his middle finger ($60,000) or his ring finger ($12,000) after the tips are sliced off in a buzz saw accident as he cannot afford both. In her 50’s, Donna is forced to move in to her daughter’s storage room with her husband because their medical bills have far exceeded what their insurance will cover. The American people already know that their health care system does not work for everyone so SICKO ensures that people know the desperate realities of those that are left behind. Moore makes sure to get all his pills in a line by giving historical context to the deterioration of provided health care and establishes profit as the unsurprising devil. There have been so many stories of death and unnecessary suffering by this point in the film that the tears come naturally when you see the livelihood of real people being cast aside for profit expansion.


Yet through the tears, there is laughter to be had in SICKO and most of it is directed at Moore himself, as an American representative. Moore leaves the USA to explore whether socialized health care is as poor and pathetic as the American media and American Medical Association would have you believe. In Canada, he meets a hockey player who sliced several fingers off while playing and didn’t have to choose between having any one in particular reattached nor did he have to pay a cent for the operation. In England, he meets with a doctor who still earns a strong six-figure salary that affords him an Audi and a million-dollar home despite the government signing his checks. In France, he meets with a group of Americans who have relocated to France and are now enjoying social health benefits like 24-hour medical service that comes to your door. Moore seems as if in a constant state of shock and awe as he asks patients leaving hospitals what their bills cost. The response is always nothing but not before they have a good laugh at how ridiculous his question is.


When the initial urge to laugh has run its route, SICKO reminds us that we are laughing at how dire this situation has become. How else can one describe it when homeless patients, clearly without insurance, are dumped in front of shelters after being forced out of a hospital and forced into a cab? Moore still can’t resist a cheeky, sarcastic turn but his filmmaking is maturing. While past efforts struggled to maintain their objectivity, feeling at times like one man’s personal vendetta against the powers that be, SICKO is more like a rallying of the people, exposing many Americans’ selfish motivations to look out for themselves above all else as their ugliest problem. Instead of yelling incessantly at the Bush administration and the corporations that pull the strings, all Moore seems to be concerned with is how the American population is still allowing for a world where the weakest among them is left to die in the streets.

A MIGHTY HEART

Written by John Orloff
Directed by Michael Winterbottom


Mariane Pearl: This film is for our son so he knows his father was an ordinary man, an ordinary hero.

Telling the truth is generally considered to be the first step on the path to righteousness. It brings redemption to some and relieves the guilt of others. Many people have a hard time accepting the truth when faced with it. That difficulty in dealing is perhaps the main reason some run far away from the truth altogether. Given how troubling facing the truth can be in everyday reality, being subjected to it in celluloid on the big screen is a very hard sell. This is even more relevant when the film in question is based on an event that was played out to the point of emotional exhaustion in the media. (Just ask the producers of UNITED 93.) This is the plight of A MIGHTY HEART, an adaptation of Mariane Pearl’s novel of the same name, about her experiences during the search for her kidnapped husband, Daniel Pearl, in the winter of 2002. For director Michael Winterbottom, this is only the beginning though. Assuming he manages to get people to see the film, (casting Angelina Jolie in the role or Marian Pearl certainly doesn‘t hurt the film’s chances), Winterbottom must then get people to forget that they know how it’s all going to end.


Winterbottom is too smart to go against the grain. Instead, he uses the audience’s prior knowledge of the story to incite an even deeper emotional reaction. He begins by establishing his style. A MIGHTY HEART is not a documentary but rather a fictionalized reenactment of actual events that is shot and edited like a documentary. There are no talking heads but the camera is an active participant in the drama that unfolds. Hand-held movement, jump cuts and an omnipresent observer’s point of view lend realism to the film’s already tense premise. For those who aren’t aware, Jewish-American journalist, Daniel Pearl (played here by CAPOTE scribe, Dan Futterman) was kidnapped in Pakistan in January of 2002. The violent act became an international scandal as the group that claimed responsibility for the crime demanded the liberation of prisoners from American detainee prison, Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba. The American government does not give in to the terrorists’ demands. It doesn’t end well. The film focuses on the efforts made by Mariane, the Pakistani police, the C.I.A. and the journalistic community throughout the search for Daniel. Knowing Daniel doesn’t live through the ordeal and that this search is fruitless may leave the audience without hope but the dedication and fervor with which the case is attacked carries enough hope to inspire an overwhelming sympathy that sinks our hearts when what we know is coming actually comes.


A blustering soundscape and tightly framed street and crowd shots elevate stress levels to unimagined heights. Mariane is alone in a foreign country, searching for the most important person in her life. Knowing the odds are against her, holding on to hope becomes all the more complicated when she is surrounded by strangers, traffic and the sounds of incessant honking, cell phones and random farm animals. The chaos is absolutely inescapable. Yet still, Mariane must remain calm. After all, she is the heart of this operation. If her heart fails, all hope is lost and all efforts will fall apart. Jolie exhibits both outer strength and inner fragility at the same time as Mariane. She is direct and focused in face of this horrific reality, holding it together for Daniel, herself and her unborn child but Jolie’s distant eyes and suddenly fidgeted demeanor suggest just how difficult maintaining all this composure truly is. Being a journalist herself, Mariane’s most endearing quality is perhaps her ability to remain hopeful in spite of all the horror she has known in her own career without coming across as naïve. Jolie’s balancing act upon such a tightly wound rope is truly genuine in both its intention and execution.


Any movie entitled A MIGHTY HEART cannot spend all its time entrenched in fact. After all, there is a delicate, growing love between Daniel and Mariane that is also being held prisoner. This love though cannot be held captive and gives life to hope. Their love comes back to Mariane in flashes throughout her suffering. Insignificant moments like the last time they saw each other take on new meanings, making the loss feel larger while still reminding her what she is fighting to find. The truth behind A MIGHTY HEART is that it takes one to live through something like this and, more importantly, live past it.

SURF’S UP

Written by Lisa Addario, Christian Darren, Don Rhymner and Joe Syracuse
Directed by Ash Brannon and Chris Buck


Filmmaker: Do you have any other talents?
Cody Maverick: What? You mean like singing and dancing? Nah, man, I just surf.


Anyone who knows me, knows that I love me some penguin. Of course, I am referring to the line of clothing and not the waddling bird. Regardless, I too fell in love with the emperor penguins along with the rest of the world a couple of years back when THE MARCH OF THE PENGUINS swept the summer documentary box office. That was the same summer the mischievous animated penguins of MADAGASCAR had people begging for more (which they were unfortunately given months later with the dreadfully drab short, A CHRISTMAS CAPER). Penguins were all the rage. After winning the Best Documentary OSCAR, the penguin love only continued to grow with the holiday hit, HAPPY FEET. The premise there, after essentially crafting an animated reenactment of the mating ritual outlined in the aforementioned documentary, penguins sing to express themselves while one dances instead (see above quote for cheeky acknowledgement). HAPPY FEET was a big success and went on to a surprising win for Best Animated Feature at last year’s Academy Awards. And so the trend continues with another animated feature about penguins, SURF’S UP. Only now it may seem the public is growing weary of these tuxed-up birds. Perhaps there is only so much penguin love to go around. It’s a shame really because SURF’S UP may be the best of the (animated) bunch.


To differentiate itself from all the previous penguin fare, SURF’S UP, is constructed as a mockumentary. To capture an on-the-cuff style, a special motion capture camera system was mounted to an old Sony video camera to give the illusion that the movie was shot with a hand-held camera. Factor in jump cuts and film scratches from different stocks and you have a style that is both authentic and dynamic. A film crew (voiced by the actual directors, Ash Brannon and Chris Buck) has decided to follow an aspiring surfer by the name of Cody Maverick (voiced by Shia LaBeouf) on his journey that begins at his humble home in Shiverpool to the Penguin World Surfing Championship. With blizzards gusting in the background at home and forestry looking lush and wet at the championship, SURF’S UP uses nature to not only establish its fish-out-of-water story but to wow its audience. The beauty of the animation itself is enough to make SURF’S UP a serious contender come award season when the waves of praise come crashing ashore.


Set amidst these beautiful backdrops is a bevy of lovable, genuinely hilarious characters. What is perhaps the film’s strongest achievement is the spontaneity it creates in a style that is so meticulously designed and planned. The penguins sincerely seem as if they are on camera. They are both uncomfortable and candid. At home, Cody is surrounded by his doting, doubtful mother (Dana Belben) and oversized, pesky brother (Brian Posehn). The tension in this family is palpable and unnervingly funny. En route to the competition, Cody comes into contact with talent scout, Mikey Abromowitz (Mario Cantone), whose neurosis run through his head almost as fast as his little bird legs run on land and an oddball surfer/rooster named Chicken Joe (Jon Heder), who is as laid back (read potentially stoned) as one would expect a surfer to be. Cody is taken under wing by a former surfer named Geek (Jeff Bridges) once at the competition and their playful interactions keep your gliding through to the finals. SURF’S UP packs in more unexpected laughs than one would expect and the fact that they are unexpected is what makes it so incredible.


SURF’S UP also makes sure to bang home an important lesson for the kids. After all, this is a summer family film and there needs to be a lesson learned. Cody learns a number of things along his way but they all amount to understanding a thing or two about patience. “Winning isn’t everything” and “There are more important things to life than winning” make appearances but what is most important is the philosophy that will help Cody win out overall. Stop fighting and learn to ride the wave. It is a lesson that even the filmmakers should have heeded as there are times when the imposing hand of the powers that be can be felt in the film’s construction to ensure it is as marketable as possible. Oddly placed soundtrack choices and shots that could not have been caught by documentary filmmakers undermine the credibility of the mockumentary but hardly take away from the fun to be had. SURF’S UP will surprise you, crack you up and leave you wanting to catch the wave again and again.

The only question left to answer is whether polar bears will be over saturating the marketplace after the people who brought you THE MARCH OF THE PENGUINS bring you AN ARCTIC TALE later this summer.

OCEAN’S 13

Written by Brian Koppelman and David Levien
Directed by Steven Soderbergh


Turk Malloy: Is it in yet?
Virgil Malloy: I hate that question.

I am a member of minority group. This group is made up of a small number of people who actually enjoyed OCEAN’S 12. Sure it was somewhat unbelievable and occasionally ridiculous but it kept a good groove on while filling the screen with some slick style. The boys all looked like they were having a good time, perhaps too good a time. Maybe audiences felt like they had taken it all too far; that the Ocean gang was having fun without them. And so, a director and a cast who generally don’t seem to pay much heed to appeasing the masses, have returned to the original scene of the crime, Las Vegas, for their third and final caper in OCEAN’S 13. The main goal for this reunion is to make up for their supposed misfire last time out and every possible effort to do so is made diligently. With the exception of Julia Roberts, the original players have all returned. From Clooney to Pitt to Damon to Affleck (no, not that one, the younger one), the stars are all out. Even Al Pacino has come on board to lend more weight to this already heavy load. And with Mr. Style himself, Steven Soderbergh, at the helm, the dream is kept alive. So why then, with every element so perfectly placed, has the fun disappeared almost entirely?


Perhaps perfection is part of the problem. The Ocean gang is a smart bunch, crafty fellas. They are also often prone to making mistakes. The situations they find themselves in stem from their own decisions and almost always lead them to the brink of unraveling. The cracks they need to squeeze through get tighter and tighter, creating both intrigue and urgency for the viewer. OCEAN’S 13 finds Danny Ocean et al plotting sweet revenge against Willie Bank (Pacino) for putting Ocean member, Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould), in the hospital after screwing him out of a huge hotel/casino deal. The plan is to ruin his prestigious grand opening and milk him for hundreds of thousands of dollars all in one night. The execution is vast, ranging from rigging the dice at the source of manufacturing in Mexico to orchestrating an earthquake to disarm the stronghold security system that stands between them and the prize. Clearly, the good guys are going to win but never does it feel that there is a chance this might not happen. The urgency and intrigue were bet and lost.


Pacino is a welcome addition to the mix. His portrayal of hotel mogul, Willie Banks, is so sinister and egotistical that you can’t wait for the Ocean boys to bring him down. However, while Pacino is stepping it up, Clooney and Pitt might as well have had their stand-ins play their parts. The camaraderie that brought such joy and laughs to the Ocean film experience in the past has grown tired. When the boys laugh now, it almost seems like the joke is on us; that getting us into the theatre with their pretty faces was all they were obliged to do. Once there, entertaining us was not part of their contract. These two haven’t left it to just showing up for work in a while and the effect weighs you down. Luckily, Damon, Affleck, Scott Caan and Don Cheadle are still working for their paychecks, bringing wit, charm and humility to an often-lifeless script. Sadly, the sporadic laughs are not enough to call this film funny, or even fun for that matter.


So if OCEAN’S 13 isn’t fun, what is it? Well, it’s neatly packaged and pristinely presented. Soderbergh has a fantastic eye. He has a knack for crafting colorful films that are visual worlds unto themselves, which draw the viewer in to a point where the real world can look somewhat drab in comparison once you leave them. Only this time out, he spent too much time setting everything up that no room was left for error or chance. It’s like a perfectly dealt hand that just isn’t played with any finesse. It’s ironic really how a film set against the gambling capital of the world takes so few risks. Soderbergh sets out to distract the audience with OCEAN’S 13, like any good casino would. With all the flashing lights, pretty colours and fireworks, you might not realize that you’ve been playing the slots for longer than you should.