32

Great but spoiler heavy commentary on the latest 24 episode right here.

Spring break has been pretty well used by me, or at least I feel like it has. I wrote a few reviews, watch a lot of movies, and hammered out a few more pages of Heart Shaped Rounds. Got to spend lots of time with Susan and friends, too.

On Monday, Prison Break will start playing before 24, and I'm excited. For those not in the know, Prison Break is a serial thriller that concerns a brilliant man's attempt to break his brother out of death row. He does this by tattooing a complex web of plans on his body and robs a bank, instructing his lawyer to steer him towards the prison his brother is in.

Far fetched? Yes. As good as 24 or The Shield? Not quite. Exciting and interesting? Always. Monday is about to get a little more special for me.

31- A History of Violence

A little girl cries in her sleep. Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen), her father, rushes to her bedside. She says that monsters lurk under her bed, but Tom simply holds her and assures her that no monsters exist. A few hours before, not too far away, two men shoot another little girl in the face.

A History of Violence is an exploration of the ugliness of violence and the haunting physical and mental scars it leaves. No matter where the characters are, violence menacingly looms overhead, a snake that can choose to eat the mouse at a time of its choice.

Tom runs a small town diner, has two kids and a wife (Maria Bello) that playfully dons a cheerleader outfit before sex. One night, the two murderers slither into his diner, fully intending to massacre everyone inside. Tom uncoils like a spring, easily and messily dispatching both men in the blink of an eye. People are shocked at this mild mannered man’s apparent prowess at killing, and he becomes one of those day long media sensations, his face plastered across the TV news.

The next day, Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) a venomous gangster with a horrific scar shows up at the diner, only he calls Tom ‘Joey’ and seems to think they knew each other in Philadelphia. Tom quietly denies this, though Fogarty is 100% certain that Tom once tried to rip his eye out with barbed wire. Fogarty turns out not to be the type of man who cares much for an apology.

A History of Violence contains some of the more gruesome kills ever put to film, but interestingly Tom and his family never strike except in self defense. Tom always tries to walk away or rectify the situation, but it doesn’t work. In lieu of peaceful solutions, his ability to kill people by smashing their noses into their brains and crushing their larynx’s by foot opens a startling window into Tom’s soul, one that he had hoped was forever closed. A final meeting with Ritchie (the brilliant Willam Hurt), his estranged, murderous brother, ensures the window will never again close.

Tom’s son serves as an interesting parallel; bullied at school, he tries to walk away, but attacks in self-defense and ends up severely mauling his teenage tormentor. The realization that Tom has lived another, murderous life burns slowly to his wife. When she lashes out at him, Tom’s violently sexual reaction illustrates how deeply the recent bloodshed has tapped into Joey, his former self.

Director David Cronenberg does well with the material, though it falls short at times. There exists a disconnect from the characters at certain points where we should be as close to them as possible. Examining Cronenberg’s filmography, this makes sense; the director of far out plot driven films such as Scanners and Videodrome, he struggles with the strong characterization of the story. A director like Martin Scorsese could do better with both characters and violence, while David Lynch and his obsession with small town USA would serve the story well.

A History of Violence argues that violence is wrong, but exists everywhere, and serves as its own most effective solution. By the end, we are served a critique of humanity, because humans are naturally violent, and if killing works so well as a solution to our problems, then we can never be right.

4 out of 5

30 - Doom review

Doom is based on an extremely bloody video game shooter, only the filmmakers decided that the shooting part wasn’t as important as the bloody. By the time the first half hour ticks by, we’ve seen buckets of gore, but not a single shot fired. If Doom’s goal was to suggest that films can poison the mind just as easily as video games, then mission accomplished (for real).

It seems as if the director had only seen one movie before, James Cameron’s Aliens. Only the DVD must have been damaged, because the only scenes he could study were the ones where the Marines slowly walk around the abandoned space outpost, the lights at the end of their weapons providing the only illumination. Doom’s run time clocks in at a criminal 113 minutes, 90 of which consist of scenes where the Marines split into pairs and clear dark rooms.

In between those, we have lots of childish expository talking, along with poorly choreographed shots of Marines plowing bullets into monsters. The visual effects crew obviously missed the rest of Aliens as well, because where Aliens creatures were creepy and sleek, Doom’s demons resemble rugby players drenched in mud. Perhaps they figured that the brazen lack of lighting would make this a moot point?

Exactly why the filmmakers mostly ignored the vile looking monsters of the source material is hard to explain, as is the complete lack of interesting violence or combat. People get butchered, Marines shoot machine guns, they move on. Most films of this nature are ruthlessly mean-spirited and cynical, but Doom merely operates on fumes, gliding from one stupid scene to the next. Gore sickos will have much more fun with smut like Saw II or Wolf Creek, while action fans can find more inspiring material in the typical B western. A bright 6th grader or a stupid English grad student could have reasonably written the plot, which is so worthless that it doesn’t deserve description.

Doom offers surprise only in the astonishing boredom of each frame. I can’t even despise Doom, because to do so would require the far more energy than the film possesses. If for some reason you are forced to watch Doom, I suggest a game; close your eyes, listen to the dialogue, and make your own pictures. Rest assured, what you think of will be much more enjoyable than what actually exists. Even better, suggest an alternative activity. How about a good book? Video games can be so dull.


0.5 out of 5

29

According to this Pew Research Study, Republicans are happier than Democrats. And the more conservative, the better, even amongst Democrats themselves.

True? Not true? Not sure. If this is true, I can think of a couple of reasons why, but I'll bite my tongue, metaphorically of course. I'd really love to hear from people on this one.

28 - 24 *****SPOILERS*****

Tony Almeida, one of America's finest counter-terror operatives, is dead.




Tony made his first appearance on the very first episode of 24. At the time, he was third in command of CTU, and dating Nina Myers, Jack Bauer's second in command and former lover. Tony and Jack did not get along well, but Tony proved a valuable ally throughout the day, even as Nina proved to be a traitor.



During Day 2, Tony began as CTU's second in command. After the death of George Mason, he rose to the top, and despite more clashes with Jack, he again came through and helped stop the terrorists. It was during this 24 hour period that his relationship with Michelle Dessler, a fellow CTU employee, began.



By Day 3, Tony and Michelle were married, and contemplating a move to Langley. Michelle was trapped in a building infected with a deadly virus, and though she appeared lost, she was one of the lucky 1 in 10 who were immune. Unfortunately, she was kidnapped, and the villain forced Tony to work against CTU from the inside in order to keep his wife alive.



Tony ultimately aided in his capture, but his treachery landed him in prison.



When Day 4 began, Tony and Michelle were divorced, with Tony working on a severe alcohol problem. However, Jack still trusted him above anyone else, and he was brought back into the CTU fold in order to assist with an escalating number of terrorist strikes.

In an ironic twist, Tony was taken hostage and used as leverage against Michelle to manipulate CTU resources, though Michelle refused to cooperate.





He appeared to be killed, though this was merely a ruse, and thanks to Tony's quick thinking, he got out alive. Soon afterwards, Tony and Michelle help Jack Bauer escape from his own government and disappear.



As Day 5 began, Tony and Michelle were married again, and running their own company. Nonetheless, they are targeted for assassination, and Michelle is killed, with Tony in bad shape.

Upon awakening at CTU, Tony is horrified to hear his wife has been killed. A short time later, he gets a chance at revenge. He hovers over Christopher Henderson, one of the men responsible for Michelle's death, with a lethal dose of drugs. Henderson, the only man alive with combat prowress equal to Jack Bauer, springs upwards and plunges the needle into Tony's chest.



Jack finds Tony dying in the medical room. Jack tells Tony to hold on, but Tony simply says "Michelle's gone," and dies in Jack's arms.




Tony Almeida was by far one of 24's most interesting characters. Deeply loyal and skilled, he functioned well as both an ally and a yin to Jack Bauer. While not as ruthless or independant as 24's popular hero, he was willing to do what it took to get the job done. His soul was easier to stain than Jack's, and whereas Jack's losses were fuel to the fire, Tony's were water.

He will be severely missed by all fans of 24. As of now, only two characters from the first episode are still alive; Jack and Kim Bauer.

R.I.P. Tony Almeida

27- The Constant Gardener

Diplomat Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) receives news that his wife Tessa (Rachel Weisz) has been killed in Kenya. Justin’s British reserve goes so deep that he hardly blinks, and apologizes to the man who had to bear the news. Despite the calm formality, his eyes flicker with pain.

The Constant Gardener is a decidedly British film, a political thriller that displays low-key intelligence and yet crackles with intrigue. There are no shootouts or heroics, nor are there dramatic clues left behind at every location. Instead we are given a complicated, intersecting web of seedy diplomats, greedy corporations, battered third-world war zones, and merciless contract killers. Beneath all this, a touching human story punctuates every frame.

Before her death, Tessa was a leftist activist who traveled throughout Africa. Treading through Kenya alone would be dangerous for anyone, much less a pregnant British woman, but she does so with naïve zeal, desperate to help anyone she can. Although Justin found these qualities attractive in the first place, they are getting tiresome. Tessa rarely comes home, and spends a startling amount of time with an African doctor, a sore point that generates no shortage of rumor. At the time of her suspicious death, Tessa was a key component of an investigation into the habits of a parsimonious pharmaceutical company, and Justin finds himself quickly sucked into his wife’s work. Obsessively diving into the Africa his wife knew, Justin begins to acquire the same qualities that made Tessa a great person, and got her killed.

The Constant Gardener pays great respect to the intelligence of the audience, all but unheard of for a left-leaning political thriller. Tessa’s death comes right away, but almost immediately the film cuts to flashbacks, correctly assuming that attentive audience members don’t need it spelled out. The British nature of the story works very well; characters rarely say exactly what runs through their minds, but use subtle wording and veiled threats to convey the plot. Instead of long-winded monologues of The Contender or Good Night, and Good Luck, we simply watch events play out, free to make up our own minds.

Yet, most interesting is the story of Justin and Tessa’s marriage. Justin had a deep but almost bemused love for his wife, who never seemed to forget about her humanitarian work for a minute. At the time of her death, the marriage appeared to be crumbling, Justin nearing the end of his rope with her secrecy and absences.

Through the course of his investigation, he discovers things about Tessa that he never knew, peeling back the layers until he sees what sort of person she really was at the core. Her generosity was infectious, and changes him profoundly. Many of us wish for a few more minutes with someone that we lost; Justin’s longing for Tessa builds in his eyes until looking at him is like peering into the sun.

The Constant Gardener works splendidly on every level it exists. Simultaneously suspenseful, touching, and thought provoking, the film can justly take a seat with the other great issue pieces of 2005, though it will not be remembered solely for its views on drug companies. Any film maker who wants to touch on politics should take a note; lectures are boring, great stories are not.

4 out of 5

26 - Good Night, and Good Luck review

This film really rubbed me the wrong way. Observe:



Good Night, and Good Luck is a loathsome film, a snarling insult to the intellect of anyone who lies on the political right of Karl Marx. One that hawks the corrupt notion that an individual journalist knows more about the world than every politician, general, doctor, policeman, fireman, clergyman, college professor, and average Joe put together. Director George Clooney has crafted a film that is toThe New York Times what a porno movie is to Paul Reubens. Clooney should count himself lucky that his side of the political isle, not the other, gets cathartic release from throwing custard pies at their enemies (women in particular), otherwise he could scarcely leave his $12 million Italian villa without receiving his dessert early.

This atrocity follows Ed Murrow (David Stratharin) and his staff’s quest to bring down Senator Joseph McCarthy. Clooney, completely lacking even a grain of shame, shoots the film’s heroes with ten times the love and respect that Spielberg gave the citizen soldiers in Saving Private Ryan, and no one in Good Night, and Good Luck ever faces physical danger. Murrow strides throughout the 50’s era sets, so smug in his natural genius and God given correctness on every issue that he foregoes having to explain or argue a single issue, but why should he? As a journalist, he knows everything, and is never wrong(see Memogate for an example of where this attitude leads in real life).

For a film with more pompous lectures on integrity than I have fingers and toes, it displays astonishing boldness through a total disregard for legitimate debate and dismissive stance towards historical accuracy. Clooney here argues that the Cold War was nothing more than a hysterical Republican farce, which all of the smart liberals like him and Murrow knew was trash. McCarthy is portrayed as a would be Hitler, gleefully trampling on the rights of liberals as Godzilla would stomp through Tokyo. McCarthy is so evil, to paraphrase Ann Coulter, Manhattan becomes unsafe to travel through for fear of corpses raining from the towers, fresh suicides courtesy of the mental distress the junior Senator from Wisconsin has wrought.

Since a conservative Republican won the Cold War, the ‘Cold War Farce’ argument has become the rage amongst liberals in the past decade, with Adolf McCarthy being one of, if not the, mastermind of the Republican effort to deceive people into voting for them. Good Night, and Good Luck forgets to mention that McCarthy never violated the constitutional rights of a single person, and that while a few screenwriters partied in Paris for a few years because Communism wasn’t in style in the USA, people in the Ukraine ate their shoes. McCarthy was an opportunist and a complete liar, but Holocaust 2.0 he wasn’t. Did I mention that Soviet spies did exist?

Shot in black and white, Clooney obviously hired a skilled cinematographer, though he might have chosen someone other than himself to write it. By the third jazz montage in 70 minutes, I found myself longing for the glory days of Michael Moore, because at least that disgusting liar knows how to edit, and bothers to erect faux defenses. Like his characters, Clooney doesn’t even feel the need to explain himself to the common trash he supposedly cares about.

Clooney, a notoriously mean spirited socialist windbag, even has the nerve to have Murrow directly lecture the audience at the end, telling us that we are fat, stupid, and need to listen. Ah, but listen to who? Why, the liberal media of course! A room full of philosophy professors watching the entire Sorkin years of The West Wing could only hope to be so pompous while having a depth equal to that of a children’s pool.

The notion of the liberal media as the sole purveyor of justice in the world has rightfully come under blistering assault over the past few years, with men like Clooney screaming bloody murder as their monopoly on information comes crashing down. Only in this perverse way does Good Night, and Good Luck offer any comfort, as an unintentional portrait of men who use the news to recklessly push their own political agendas, eventually becoming so mired in their self-righteousness that they fail to notice they signing themselves off to the dreaded trash heap of history. Who said we shouldn’t shoot garbage into space?

0 out of 5




My liberal friends: Where am I wrong? Am I wrong? This film was so far to the left I was shocked; it could have been funded by the Politburo. Even if you agree with the politics of it, didn't the whole thing seem phony and dishonest? I've hated most of the right-wing films I've seen, because they substitute shock arguments and hyperbole for reasonable discourse.
Just because you and the filmmaker may vote the same way doesn't mean you have to subscribe to his methods, but whenever a liberal film is released, the critics heap it with praise and Oscar talk (exception: The Life and Death of David Gale). While I'll certainly be accused of only disliking the film because I'm not a liberal, by the same logic, shouldn't we disregard the opinions of any liberals who like the film?