One of the great things about the superhero genre, when done right, is that it explores what ordinary people do when given extraordinary powers or circumstances to deal with. Alan Moore created the limited series Watchmen in the mid-80s, developing a compelling story about former vigilantes in a world where the United States and the Soviet Union are dealing with rising tensions. Moore’s piece is widely recognized as one of the greatest books of all time.

But Moore, after bad experiences with From Hell and A League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, turned his back to Hollywood and never wished to return. He swore off of film projects of his works, choosing instead to give any cut of financial gain to Watchmen and V for Vendetta artist Dave Gibbons. As such, Moore’s name does not appear in the opening credits of the film.

Zack Snyder, director of 300, does a great job pulling this massive work together and snugly places it in a well-paced, well-delivered 162 minutes. He proves himself to be a capable director, using many of the same action shots from 300 but adding a sense of depth to the locations and passion for the characters. Snyder, strangely dubbed as a “visionary” in the film’s press, might prove to be one hell of a talent someday.

Watchmen introduces us to a parallel universe where Richard Nixon (Robert Wisden) is still the President of the United States thanks to a law passed to eradicate term limits. The America we’re shown features superheroes, of course, operating under the restraints of their humanity. The world is dangerous, with nuclear war predicted by the Doomsday Clock and Nixon’s recent outlawing of “superhero activity.” The bastard.

The story sets up with the murder of Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) by an unknown force. This draws other superheroes, a team called the Watchmen, together to figure out what’s going on. Each brings his or her past to the table in solving the mystery and each wonders who’s next to die. Interestingly, only one of the Watchmen appears to have superpowers in the literal sense. He is Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) and he lives outside of space and time. He’s blue.

The Watchmen also include the world’s smartest man Ozymandias (Matthew Goode), the Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson), Rorshach (Jackie Earl Haley), and Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman). Each character has his or her own cross to bear. In the case of Silk Spectre II, she has to live up to her own mother, the first Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino). There are interesting family dynamics, compelling back stories, and the final matter of figuring out just what the hell is going on.

The plot is labyrinthine and broad in scope, yet it remains entirely understandable on screen. Snyder does a remarkable job composing this symphony of characters, placing their stories and their histories where they ought to go. Because he takes his time with the project and is meticulous in his approach, we are able to get to know each character and, subsequently, care about where they’ve been and where they’re headed.

The beauty of Watchmen lies in the fact that Snyder chooses to dwell on the contradictions presented by these characters. They are more than mere anti-heroes, which is ultimately Moore’s doing, but Snyder doesn’t hide from their realities and keeps them concise, clear visions of opposition and passion. We learn of relationships between characters, flaws, and nihilistic attitudes towards humanity and damn near everything else. And we learn of this substance without sacrificing one iota of Snyder’s action-packed style.

Snyder’s typical slow-mo action sequence style is evolved somewhat here, although he utilizes many of the same tricks from 300. The scenes have a visceral quality and are given time to develop. They are creatively choreographed and often gory, lending more darkness and depth to the storyline. Even within the action sequences, we are treated to characters that kill indiscriminately for different reasons.

Watchmen is one of my favourite comic book movies. It is enthralling, intelligent, and briskly-paced. Snyder’s work is good and his delivery of the complex storyline eclipses The Dark Knight and Iron Man in terms of depth and thought. There’s a lot to like about Watchmen and a lot going on, but that’s nothing several repeat viewings won’t fix in a hurry.

9.1/10

Trailer:

Kevin Smith’s second film to leave the View Askewniverse is 2008’s Zack and Miri Make a Porno, a bland and stupid romantic comedy with little going for it. The movie, allegedly greenlit by The Weinstein Company on the basis of its title alone, features much of what Smith fans find entertaining. There’s plenty of profanity, sex discussion, and “witty” pop culture references to pepper the dialogue ad nauseam.

For the most part, however, it simply seems like Smith is trying too hard. The writing never comes across as natural and the characters, for all of their supposed working-class charm, never seem believable or the least bit likeable. The title characters had overstayed their welcome by about the ten-minute mark, while the supporting characters offer little beyond Smith’s normal menagerie of stereotypes and cardboard cut-outs.

Seth Rogen stars as Zack and Elizabeth Banks is Miri. The two are roommates, having been friends since first grade, and they’re facing stacks of unpaid bills and rough times. With a high school reunion upcoming, the pair agrees to go on the basis of getting drunk and/or getting laid. While at the reunion, Miri meets a former schoolmate named Bobby Long (Brandon Routh) while Zack subsequently meets Bobby’s boyfriend, gay porn star Brandon St. Randy (Justin Long).

After a pair of interesting conversations, Zack and Miri head home to find out that the power has been cut. Frustrated, they go to a bar where they come up with an idea to make an adult film to generate some cash to pay their bills. They gather a group of acquaintances, including Zack’s co-worker Delaney (Craig Robinson), Deacon (Jeff Anderson), and a few actors and actresses game for making a porno. The film outlines the ups and downs of putting together the movie until a romantic plot is woven in and further complicates matters between Zack and Miri. Jason Mewes, Traci Lords, and Katie Morgan co-star.

Smith’s movie attempts to be a working-class comedy, using filth as a sort of rationale to prop up the loose, rushed love story towards the conclusion of the picture. Unfortunately the build is cheesy and Smith’s use of one particular song by the band Live comes across as one of the most ridiculous and lame moments on film in 2008. The entire structure of the picture and the supposed romance feels off for a number of reasons.

For starters, it’s tough to care about the characters. They are foul-mouthed, rude, obnoxious jerks. There is no reason to feel bad about their economic situation, as we’re made well aware that they blow all of their available funds on sex toys. They consistently whine and mumble haphazardly about how lame they are, only to come back with this veiled sense of superiority that becomes really annoying to take. Smith’s dialogue sounds pretentious and ultimately hollow, leaving room only for a slew of F-words and raunchy sex jokes that seem designed exclusively for offense and have nothing to do with character, plot, or anything else.

The performances are average, too. I’ve yet to become a fan of Rogen and haven’t found him all that great as a lead actor. He’s perfectly acceptable in a supporting role, as he was funny in Superbad, but I don’t feel he can carry a picture. Banks is only slightly better and her ability to go toe-to-toe in raunch with Rogen is admirable, but she simply fails to make her character believable or likeable in any fashion. As such, it’s hard to care much about the pair when they’re forced together by Smith’s heavy-handed writing.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno is a disappointing romantic comedy that relies far too much on the same repetitious “adult” humour and raunch. It sneaks the love story in the back door (ha!) and attempts to pull a fast one in elongating the plot by developing a “problem” for the “couple” to go through at the last minute that could have been easily solved with another two seconds of conversation. If Smith isn’t willing to put in the effort to make his filmic relationship work, why should anyone else?

2.1/10

Trailer (Red Band Trailer):

Bryan Singer’s Valkyrie is an intriguing production, but it ultimately fails in generating much genuine emotion or tension. The film, based on the plot by German army officers to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944, is couched in solid subject matter and looks sleek, but the performances and overall pacing of the story leaves a lot to be desired. As such, it remains a very middling project and doesn’t stand out as a notable work in the Nazi film genre.

Tom Cruise generated a considerable amount of buzz for his part in Valkyrie, yet his performance is so stiff and uninteresting that one wonders if it was worth it. Cruise, together with Paula Wagner and United Artists, intended this picture to be the one that would help boost his studio over the top and back into contention. There was a lot riding on it, to say the least, and the stress around the movie was compounded with German complaints regarding the casting of the Scientologist in the role. It was difficult to get access to key landmarks as a result.

Cruise, leading an impressive cast, stars as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Stauffenberg is serving in Tunisia in World War II when he is wounded and later evacuated back home to Nazi Germany. Major General Henning von Tresckow (Kenneth Branagh) is attempting to assassinate Hitler as part of a resistance movement, but his plan is thwarted. Through a series of events, Stauffenberg is connected with the resistance movement and meets with their secret committee.

General Ludwig Beck (Terrence Stamp), Dr. Carl Goerdeler (Kevin McNally), and Erwin von Witzleben (David Schofield) are among the plotters, but Stauffenberg soon discovers that any plan held by the group is in need of serious tweaking. Along with General Friedrich Olbricht (Bill Nighy), Stauffenberg and the plotters begin to develop a plan that includes using Operation Valkyrie, a deployment of the army reserves in case of emergency, to help overthrow the SS and get in position to assassinate Hitler. The remainder of the film concerns how the plan plays out and the mistakes that were made.

At its core, Valkyrie is a cold procedural. The plot is labyrinthine in complexity, with all sorts of secret documents, phone calls, and meticulous conversations taking place. In that respect, it is fascinating to watch. It runs like a sleek technical thriller at moments, with the majority of the adventure and excitement coming from exchanges of information or attempts to win people over to the side of the plotters. Singer does well to direct and frame these sorts of sequences.

In terms of accuracy, many reports suggest that the filmmakers got most of it right for a change. While the movie suggests that the events came closer to impacting Hitler’s Germany than they perhaps actually did, most experts on the matter state that Valkyrie sticks with a relatively genuine accounting of the historical record with few expected cinematic liberties.

With all of this in mind, Valkyrie still somehow fails to make an emotional connection. Singer’s direction is capable, albeit a touch too “Hollywood” for the subject matter, and his interaction with regular collaborator John Ottman’s score adds excitement to scenes that would otherwise be quite drab. The effects are also quite good, providing solid, accurate historical imagery to go with the general feel of the picture.

The performers, however, fail to make any sort of emotional connection. This is especially problematic given the context and subject matter. Cruise is the leading culprit here, with his stiff portrayal coming across as disturbingly wooden and drab given the poignancy of his character’s reality. It’s hard to fault the other actors, with Nighy, Stamp, Branagh, and Tom Wilkinson all coming through with good but not great performances.

Overall, Valkyrie is a concise technical thriller with little emotional impact. It is an instantly forgettable but enjoyable rendering of a bold true story. Singer’s picture, through no fault of the movie’s look or style, simply fails to make a connection on any deeper level and, as such, remains a glossy take on history instead of a bold new vision taken from past events.

5.4/10

Trailer:

Based on the life of John Nash, the famed Nobel Laureate in Economics, Ron Howard’s 2001 film A Beautiful Mind is a biopic that runs a touch too long and plays a little too fast and loose with the facts to be effective. A leaner, less glossy approach would have made for better viewing, but Howard’s not exactly known for being subtle (Frost/Nixon being an exception, of course).

Russell Crowe stars as Nash and we are introduced to him as he arrives at Princeton University. He was promised a single room, but winds up with a roommate named Charles Herman (Paul Bettany) anyways. The two become fast friends, with Charles helping Nash out in some stressful situations and edging him into a social environment to help him with his personality. Nash comes off as somewhat abrasive and eccentric, but this fits just fine with the territory of a highfalutin university such as Princeton.

Nash also strikes up an awkward friendship or two, but he’s having trouble pulling together any serious work despite having a mind filled with brilliant ideas. His lack of focus threatens his future until he finally composes a breathtaking theory in mathematical economics and governing dynamics. Nash receives an appointment at MIT and winds up teaching a class. He meets student Alicia Larde (Jennifer Connelly) and the pair eventually strike up a relationship and marry.

As life continues, Nash is invited to a “secret” Department of Defense facility within the Pentagon to crack a secret code. He meets William Parcher (Ed Harris) and ends up being dispatched for what he sees as important missions for the United States government. The missions begin to take over his life and he becomes paranoid, only to have Alicia and his friends soon discover what the real story is.

A Beautiful Mind is based on Sylvia Nasar’s book of the same name, which is in turn of course based on the life of John Nash. The film’s narrative clearly differs from the real life account of Nash, as most biopics do, but there are some adjustments Howard and the screenwriters made that could have been better left untouched. Perhaps a smaller production would have brought out more of the controversial elements in Nash’s life and made for a more interesting, less romantic motion picture.

Nevertheless, Howard takes the “blockbuster” approach here and is saved by his great actors. Crowe is terrific, proving why he’s one of the best actors of his generation, and Connelly is a perfect accompaniment for him. She shares the screen well, her elegant beauty almost overwhelming and her character’s forwardness a sort of ideal foil for her counterpart’s natural shyness and eccentricity. This allows the film’s exploration of mental disorder to feel more legitimate, thankfully.

There are some interesting components to Nash’s life that could have used a look, including the actual chronology of his hallucinations and their nature. In reality, they were solely auditory. The device used by Howard to make them visual serves the purpose of a movie, of course, and allows for performers to step into the roles and captivate, but perhaps another approach could have made more out of the claustrophobia of hearing voices inside as opposed to seeing them manifest outside.

There is also the question of his relationship with Alicia. Nash, in real life, wound up divorced from Alicia in 1963 and the two worked hard to recommit and reconnect. His son, featured on the outskirts of the movie only slightly, was also a sufferer of schizophrenia. Nothing in this relationship is even faintly explored.

Overall, A Beautiful Mind still somewhat works as a beautiful testimony to the bravery of the human spirit and the power of relationships. It is fuelled largely by the great performances within, but Howard’s heavy-handed direction has sequences feeling a little too big and glossy for the subject matter. It’s too bad that the reality behind this biopic is so drastically different and, in effect, so much more interesting.

5.2/10

Trailer:

Akira Kurosawa’s 1962 film Sanjuro is a tremendously enjoyable action-comedy led by a terrific performance (as usual) by Toshirō Mifune and a whole lot of clever fun. The movie is the sequel to 1961’s Yojimbo, a Kurosawa classic that starred Mifune as a wandering nameless ronin. Yojimbo was reflective of the early “Man with No Name” storylines, offering up a sort of antihero without a clear identity to step into a problem situation, solve it, and head on his merry way.

Sanjuro picks up our nomadic ronin (Mifune) in interesting fashion. In essence, Mifune’s character simply appears out of a side room during a critical opening scene in which a group of samurai discuss corruption in their clan. Kurosawa’s tale is based on Shūgorō Yamamoto’s short story Peaceful Days and deals with concepts of youthful exuberance as relates to patience and cleverness.

As the story unfolds, we start to learn that these nine young samurai misunderstand who the real mastermind behind the corruption is. They act hastily and are often saved by this mysterious ronin who has arrived to help them. The young samurai are divided as to what they think of this character, often electing to go about their own plans to discover the source of corruption and rescue the chamberlain (Yûnosuke Itô).

Along the way, there is a rescue of the chamberlain’s cheerfully unaware wife (Takako Irie) and daughter (Reiko Dan) that changes the entire dynamic of the crew thanks to their feminine influences. The two women take issue with the ronin’s use of violence to solve problems, for instance, and suggest an alternative to the traditional “burning down the house” signal that results in one of the movie’s funniest conversations.

Sanjuro is one of Kurosawa’s escapist films. It brims with vigour, clocks in at slightly over 90 minutes, and races with a brisk, oft-hilarious pace. Mifune makes everything work accordingly thanks to his captivating portrayal of the nameless ronin. His expressions are timeless, his energy is contagious, and his knack for napping while the nine samurai race around makes for some seriously funny sequences.

Kurosawa shoots his film flawlessly, as expected, and is effortlessly captures the geometry and beauty of various segments with glee. Kurosawa seems to take divine pleasure in shooting the formation of young samurai as they sit in a straight row and juxtaposing that with Mifune’s ronin as he slumps, snoozes, and slurs through the picture. It’s a compelling portrait of social order meeting, well, a guy who does whatever the hell he wants.

The music is especially noteworthy, too. Provided by Masaru Satô, there are some truly interesting and unique moments throughout the film’s score. When the nine samurai celebrate a certain breakthrough along with a captured enemy, for instance, the Satô offers bright horns playing a jaunty tune that certainly doesn’t belong in such a period piece. Other places feature extravagant, rolling strings while more understated pieces punctuate the film’s important moments.

Sanjuro is interesting not only because of its accessibility but because of its forceful juxtaposition and extravagance. When the ronin takes on the film’s final battle against Hanbei (Tatsuya Nakadai), there is an explosion of sudden bloodshed and violence that the rest of the movie lacked. Is this a symbol of some sort? What is Kurosawa illustrating about the violence at this point and time? Mifune’s ronin is not celebratory. Instead he suggests that he and his adversary are alike, telling the samurai that “the best sword stays in its sheath.” Indeed.

9.8/10

Trailer:

As a superstar of Hong Kong entertainment, Stephen Chow is the master of mo-lei-tau comedy. Mo-lei-tau can be translated to mean “with no source” or “makes no sense.” Chow, typical for mo-lei-tau comedy, uses a lot of double entendres, puns, and nonsensical parodies and contrasts in his films. If you’ve seen Kung Fu Hustle or Shaolin Soccer, you have a rough idea as to what mo lei tau can be.

But for a real sense of Chow using mo-lei-tau to a more understanding target audience, you need to dig back further in Chow’s career. That’s where 1991’s Fight Back to School comes in. A nonsense comedy in just about every sense of the word, Fight Back to School can be a little tricky at first. In Hong Kong, however, it was extremely popular and spawned two sequels and a spin-off.

Directed by Gordon Chan, Fight Back to School is one of Chow’s more successful films. He stars as Star Chow, a cop about to be kicked off the force. Luckily the police commissioner (Barry Wong) gives him one last chance after he loses his gun. The clues to the gun’s whereabouts lead to the Edinburgh High School in Hong Kong, so it’s up to Star Chow to go undercover as a student to find the thing.

Star is partnered with Uncle Tat (Ng Man-Tat), an aging police detective already stationed at the school. The mission is further complicated by the usual trappings of high school, but luckily Star Chow makes a friend in Turtle Wong (Gabriel Wong) and falls in love with the school’s guidance counsellor Miss Ho (Sharla Cheung). Once a gang involved in arms-dealing is discovered in the school, it’s up to Star Chow and Uncle Tat to spring into action.

The slapstick is really the top selling point for Fight Back to School. There’s not much point in ruminating about the plot or its details, nor is there any real character development or great script to speak of. Fight Back to School is simply a very zany comedy, done up Hong Kong-style with a little touch of action and gunplay to help wrap up the plot’s loose ends (somewhat) during the final frames.

Chow is entertaining as Star Chow, as you’d probably expect. His command of slapstick is very amusing, from battling with flying chalk erasers to attempting to play hero during the movie’s final action sequence. Chow as Chow is convincing, too, and his facial expressions help give us a sense of who he is without unnecessary monologues or “why me?” speeches. Instead, Chow’s proof is in the pudding and his interactions with the other characters tell us all we need to know.

Fans of Hong Kong cinema, especially some of Jackie Chan’s stuff, will catch a lot of the parodies in Fight Back to School. The opening sequence is lifted from Chan’s bizarre Sammo Hung-directed Heart of Dragon, while another scene owes a lot to Police Story. The entire premise of the picture is based somewhat on 1987’s Hiding Out, a comedy about a stock broker hiding out in a high school.

For a real sense of mo-lei-tau and a great look at the master of the nonsense comedy genre in Hong Kong, Fight Back to School is the best place to start. It is fast-paced, hilarious, oft-perplexing, and out-and-out silly like a Looney Tunes cartoon. It’s a great precursor to the hilariously awesome Kung Fu Hustle, too, and demonstrates why Stephen Chow is so popular in Hong Kong.

7.6/10

Trailer: (sorry, no subtitles):

Based on a true story or perhaps countless true stories, Girl, Interrupted is about how a 60s culture dealt with mental illness. We are given access to the story through the eyes of Susanna Kaysen, played in the movie by Winona Ryder. Kaysen’s memoirs of the same name were adapted for the screen by director James Mangold and Lisa Loomer. According to Kaysen, the finished product was a film with too much “melodramatic drivel.”

For the most part, Kaysen is correct. While Girl, Interrupted is well-acted and looks pretty good, it lacks the meandering quality of the memoirs and attempts too rigid a plotline. Instead of perhaps talking about the system of mental health care and how problems were dealt with at the fictional Claymoore Hospital (for Kaysen, the real facility was McLean Hospital), Mangold veers down a path of melodramatic posturing and blows momentum with a problematic third act.

Susanna is 18-years-old. She’s what we could call a typical teenager, except one day she downed a bottle of pills and chased it with a bottle of vodka. Who knows? Maybe that’s still typical teen stuff. Susanna “voluntarily” checks herself in to Claymoore Hospital and meets the supervising nurse (Whoopi Goldberg) upon arrival. She’s whisked into an almost magical world of various patients suffering with various conditions. They’re all jammed on to the same basic floor in the hospital, regardless of the severity of the condition.

There’s burn victim Polly (Elisabeth Moss), pathological liar Georgina Tuskin (Clea DuVall), the abused and self-abusive Daisy Randone (Brittany Murphy), anorexic Janet Webber (Angela Bettis), lesbian Cynthia (Jillian Armenante), and some others. The “leader of the pack,” so to speak, is a wild sociopath named Lisa Rowe (Angelina Jolie). As Susanna gets to know the various people in the hospital, she starts to make friends and realizes something she never had in the “outside world.” The cost of these friends turns out to be more significant than she ever thought possible.

Kaysen’s memoirs detail what is described as two years of life lost. She is now a “recovered borderline personality,” apparently, so perhaps those years weren’t lost after all. The events of her life are shrouded in some ambiguity, as the memoirs reflect, but Mangold’s picture leaves none of that to the imagination. Instead of psychological meanderings, we’re given direct, sharp plot points complete with a runaway trip to visit a released patient and a stupid conclusion in the bowels of the hospital.

But the reason to see Girl, Interrupted really has little to do with whether or not Mangold got Kaysen’s memoirs quite right. The real reason to see this movie has to do with the performances. Frankly, they’re all very good from the top to the bottom of the cast. Goldberg is comforting and amusing as the supervising nurse, while Ryder plays a convincing lead character yet again. Murphy puts forth what is doubtlessly the best performance of her haphazard and perplexing career, too.

It is Angelina Jolie, in her Oscar-winning performance, who really knocks it out of the park though. She’s a loose cannon in every sense of the word, launching herself headfirst into the role of Lisa with a sort of impish, disrespectful abandon. There’s nothing to her and there’s everything to her, all at once, as she’s able to shift gears on a dime and really give her character deep, weighty context. It’s easy to play a crazy person; it’s less easy to make that person relevant and ultimately human.

Overall, however, Mangold simply dropped the ball here. Despite being given the gift of solid performances and a great cast, he fiddles and fusses with the material too much to make much of an impact. There’s too much convolution outside of the hospital and too little concern with why these women are there inside the facility. It’s almost as though they become caricatures only saved by the quality of the performances behind them. As such, Girl, Interrupted is nowhere near as good as it could have been.

4.6/10

Trailer:

Husbands and Wives is one of Woody Allen’s most fascinating pieces of work. A deeply engrossing documentary-style motion picture that examines marriage via two couples, this is a film as much about the process of keeping a marriage going as it is about the process of finding love in the first place. Allen dissects marriage brutally at times, offering a very cynical point of view that later floats on wings of hope.

Allen’s personal life hit the rocks as soon as Husbands and Wives was released in 1992, so there’s a lot of interesting subtext to look for here. Allen seems to make some discoveries along the way that might have helped him out, but part of the tragic lining of the movie is reflected in the director’s own choices. It doesn’t help matters that Allen also stars.

Our story revolves around two couples, both of which have been married for a long time. The first couple is Jack (Sydney Pollack) and Sally (Judy Davis). Jack is a businessman and is often out of town. They consider themselves to be very intellectual and very reasonable, although events throughout the movie reveal different sides to this perception. They are friends with the other couple in the story, Gabe (Allen) and his wife Judy (Mia Farrow). Gabe is an English professor at college and Judy works at a magazine with Sally.

Husbands and Wives opens with an event shot in frantic documentary style that sets the whole ball of wax rolling straight down hill and over everything in sight. Jack and Sally are splitting up and they approach the issue with such matter-of-factness that it disturbs Judy. She begins to question her relationship with Gabe, who in turn is drawn to a young student (Juliette Lewis). Judy becomes infatuated with a co-worker (Liam Neeson), but sets him up with the newly-available Sally anyways.

The magic to this film comes with watching the couples surround each other and weave in and out of each other’s lives. The combinations are endless, with each character meeting new love or finding love to be ultimately fleeting due to a variety of circumstances. While such a description might seem vague, Husbands and Wives is the sort of broad picture that teems with infinite possibilities.

Allen’s point about the durability of the featured “rational” relationships is not subtle. He removes certainty with consistency, telling us that the most “sensible” couples can often be the most fragile. If Jack and Sally can break up and face disaster, who’s really safe? The way the relationship disaster threatens Judy and takes her down with the ship is fascinating stuff to watch.

In the ultimate deconstruction, Husbands and Wives becomes more about self and less about relationships. It is about why we pursue what we pursue and the belief that relationships, especially those of the characters in the movie, are based on the desire to have the needs of the self met before meeting the needs of, well, the other. The failure comes not as the result of miscommunication or elemental disaster, but as the result of natural human selfishness.

The performances are terrific, especially that of Sydney Pollack. His ability to convey that sense of selfishness and absorption in the meeting of his desires is compelling, especially when his new relationship comes apart at the seams and undoes his limitations. Neeson does a nice turn here too, playing perhaps the only decent guy in the whole film.

Allen’s Husbands and Wives is one of his most fascinating character studies. His analysis of relationships as compartments of needs and conceptions of self might ring true to many viewers. Luckily, Allen doesn’t leave us wanting in terms of hope. The final frames of the picture are beautiful, with a sense of hope lining the screen with elegance.

9.1/10

Trailer:

Woody Allen’s 1993 film Manhattan Murder Mystery is a fun sort of gumshoe detective movie with a nice twist about marital bliss and showing interest in your significant other’s, well, interests. The screenplay for Manhattan Murder Mystery started out as the screenplay to Annie Hall. Woody felt the piece was a little too lightweight, however, and wound up shelving it for a few years.

Allen’s life was in turmoil during this period, as he was engaged in the stuff of tabloids on an almost daily basis. This comedic mystery was a way for him to unwind and concentrate on something less serious. It is a light comedy, for certain, with plenty of laughs and quick-witted lines and even a touch of physical comedy. It is also very sweet, especially towards the conclusion of the film, as the characters begin to find their places in life again.

Diane Keaton stars as Carol Lipton and Allen is her husband Larry. They meet their neighbours, Paul (Jerry Adler) and Lillian (Lynn Cohen) House. Paul bores Larry with his stamp collection, while Carol is happy to meet some new people in the building. After a night out on the town, Larry and Carol come back to find that Lillian has suffered a heart attack and died.

Through a series of prompts and pushes thanks to their friend Ted (Alan Alda), Carol becomes obsessed with the idea that Paul killed his wife. She soon drags Larry into it as well and they take to solving the mystery themselves. This leads them into some interesting situations and sheds light on the reality of their relationship, especially illuminating Ted’s interest in Carol and Larry’s interest in Marcia Fox (Anjelica Huston).

Keaton and Allen are essentially reprising their roles from Annie Hall, which works to an extent. Allen is still neurotic and paranoid, while Keaton is still holding it down in the balance and brimming with energy and pluck. They work well off of one another, thanks in large part due to their natural chemistry, and the movie soon becomes a game of egging one another on to seek out the eerie results of this murder mystery.

Manhattan Murder Mystery works as a nice return to comedy for Allen after doing a string of dramatic pieces. Allen’s work shooting Manhattan is impeccable, as usual, and the city streets become characters of their own. It is interesting how he utilizes the concept of space and proximity to drive the story, as the Lipton’s propinquity to their neighbours sets up a sort of “window to the soul” that makes Carol all the more curious as to what happens.

Along with being a film about neighbours and late night suspicions, this is a movie about marriage. Allen’s Larry joins with Carol in her suspicion only after he determines he is losing her to Ted. He loves her and she loves him, but they haven’t done anything exciting in years and Carol fears that they are drifting apart and into a pair of “old shoes.” This turns out to be the driving force behind Larry’s involvement with her in solving the mystery.

Manhattan Murder Mystery is fun stuff, that’s for sure. It’s an enjoyable romp and, while it seems to escape Allen’s grasp during some sequences and bends a little too much to solve the “mystery,” it’s still a great time and far better than most modern comedies. The performances are top-notch, the chemistry between Allen and Keaton can’t be beat, and the shots of Manhattan are beautiful.

7.9/10

Andrucha Waddington’s 2000 Brazilian film, Me You Them, is a careful piece of sex comedy that works because of the obvious compassion Waddington has for the characters. In Hollywood’s hands, the project would look completely different and, I daresay, completely unnatural. As it is, there’s something to the flow of Me You Them that is utterly intoxicating.

Instead of simply placing characters into a situation and letting them pantomime their way through it, Waddington’s picture develops the situation slowly and with care. It is set in a poor, arid village in Brazil with a shrinking water supply and lots of red dirt. Poverty is the norm, yet the people get by on their passions and on hitting up the local bar for dancing, drinking, and more drinking.

Regina Casé is Darlene. She is average-looking, which is comforting and accessible, and endlessly determined. As Roger Ebert puts it, “She has big teeth, she wipes her hands on her dress, she can work in the fields all day, and if she takes you to her bed, you’ll have your work cut out for you.” Establishing her character is vital, as Darlene really has everything to do with how and why this little story happens in the first place.

We first meet Darlene when she’s expecting a child and set to marry the father. In her wedding dress, she’s left at the “altar” with no husband. Darlene returns and finds her grandmother dead. She also discovers Osias (Lima Duarte) offering her a proposition. If she marries him, she can move in with him. Darlene has nowhere else to stay and is with child, so she takes him up on it and our story begins.

Now, Osias is a bit of a lazy ass. He lays in his hammock all day long, fiddling and fussing with his radio. He assigns Darlene to care for the goats and to go to work in the fields, so she does. A second child arrives, darker than expected, and there is some unspoken suspicion about paternity. Nevermind. Soon another man drifts into the picture. He is Zezinho (Stenio Garcia) and he is Osias’ cousin. He is kind, so Darlene takes to him instantly and they have an affair.

Zezinho moves in and cooks for Osias and sleeps with Darlene. Osias may or may not be aware of this, but nothing seems to disturb his hammock’d existence. Another baby arrives and it’s Zezinho’s and again there is some unspoken suspicion about paternity. Nevermind. Soon enough another man (Luiz Carlos Vasconcelos) drifts into the picture, moves in, and so forth.

Apparently this weird sex romp is based on a true story. It could be based on a thousand true stories. The beauty in it comes as Darlene is fully in control of these three men in her own way, owing in part to the subtle attractiveness she possesses and in part to her natural mothering instincts. She is a mother and a lover and a worker and a drinker and even a fighter to these three men. She owns them.

There are swirling complexities to the relationships here, but Waddington keeps things remarkably pure and simple. There are currents of polyamorous living and even a thread of positivity towards polygamy, but who the hell really cares? The end result is ultimate happiness and, without spoiling the picture totally, these characters reach it on their own terms with their own desires for control, sex, and food met entirely.

The movie is marvellously acted, beautifully shot, and tenderly paced. It isn’t a typical farce; it isn’t guided by music or whirling camera shots to evoke emotion. The purity comes from the characters and the situation, as it should. Me You Them is a nice surprise and Casé, a television presenter akin to Oprah in Brazil, is fun to watch as the dominant female.

7.4/10