Fireproof

Firep posterLet’s face it, movies are a waste of time and money, especially considering that the average film has a budget of over $200 million. Every once in a while, however, a true gem comes along that almost vindicates the flood of resources that fuels Hollywood debauchery. The other day I purchased a humble project titled Fireproof. My wife and I watched it together and had one of the best discussions we have had in our marriage.

The production is a bit rough; the acting seems rehearsed at times and the camera work is simple. Not all the actors have the sculpted bodies we’re used to, either. But it’s good enough that I never would have guessed what I learned in one of the extras on the DVD: this film was made entirely by volunteers. Members of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, GA pooled their resources and their talents, according to their trade, in construction, cinematography, theatre or computer graphics, and on one occasion, a stranger whose house they filmed an action scene next to volunteered his services with a forklift. The result is a film that looks almost as slick as, and is more engaging than, many big-budget Hollywood pictures.

But the most important thing about Fireproof is that it is one of very – very few films in history that have the potential to profoundly impact the lives of those who see them. The beginning gets our attention instantly because it realistically portrays something most people care about and are fearful for – their marriages. A couple of heated exchanges between the primal couple, firefighter Caleb (Kirk Cameron, the only professional actor in the cast) and Catherine (Erin Bethea) Holt, are almost painful to sit through, not because they’re bad but because they’re such a frank portrayal of a marriage falling apart. Catherine eventually tells Caleb she wants out.

In the next several scenes, we see both of them talking to their friends

Caleb Holt at work.

Caleb Holt at work.

about it. I couldn’t help but laugh as Caleb tells Michael, his lieutenant, (Ken Bevel) “I bet she’s whining to all her friends about me right now … and they’re having this big old group hug …” while we see Catherine doing just that. It’s interesting that Michael pushes Caleb to reexamine himself and take responsibility for his part of the problem, while Catherine’s friends instantly agree with her and join her in disparaging Caleb. On the other hand, my wife says I side too much with Caleb.

Caleb’s parents urge him not to get divorced. His father asks him to wait forty days, and sends him a notebook with a hand-written forty-day program called “The Love Dare.” Each entry directs Caleb to do something to show love to his wife, beginning with not saying anything negative to her and increasing from there. Grudgingly, he forces himself through the motions of the first few days. We alternate between chuckling and wincing as Catherine scoffs at and spurns his half-hearted attempts. At one point he tells his father “I feel nothing.” His father reminds him that “you can’t listen to the way you feel at the moment.” This is a welcome change from the brainless follow-your-feelings messages movies spit out.

Calling this program a “dare” is no idle boast. In fact, it’s an understatement. In the United States, it takes two to get married, but only one to get divorced. The only way to stop it is to change your spouse’s mind. This makes it extremely risky for one partner to resist a divorce, because it’s almost impossible, and resisting the divorce when you could be fighting for your rights in the divorce leaves you much more likely to get burned. Fireproof is a story of extreme courage, and going out on a limb for somebody in a way that doesn’t require any special effects, but is no less nail-biting for it.

Caleb Holt at home.

Caleb Holt at home.

Bethea gives a tour-de-force portrayal of a wife’s pain in a marriage going nowhere. One scene where she pours out her heart about how humiliated she feels when Caleb looks at pornography is impossible to forget, and her sadness is infectious as she eats meals and does chores alone.

Cameron plays his role well as a real, relatable American guy, and screen writers Alex and Stephen Kendrick were careful to include a few intense fire rescue scenes to give the movie an ample dose of testosterone. Male audience members will connect easily with Caleb and his longing for respect, need to blow off steam, and yearning for the next big thing.

All of which is the perfect preparation for the pivotal moment in Fireproof, about half-way through. Upon the instructions of day 18, Caleb prepares a candlelit dinner for Catherine, sparing no expense. When she comes home and sees it, she simply looks at him and declares “I do not love you,” and walks out. The next day, Caleb is walking through a wood with his dad, and the rejection is beyond what he can bare. In a cathartic moment, he blurts out

“She’s ungrateful. You’d think after I’ve washed the car, done the dishes, cleaned the house, that she would try to show me a little gratitude. But when I come home, she makes me feel like I’m an enemy. … For the last three weeks I have bent over backwards for her. I have tried to demonstrate that I still care about this relationship. I bought her flowers – which she threw away! I have taken her insults and her sarcasm, but last night was it. I made dinner for her, I did everything I could think of to show her that I care about her, to show value for her. And she spat in my face! She does not deserve this, Dad. How am I supposed to show love to somebody who constantly rejects me?”

I grimaced as Caleb got on his knees, but my wife loved it.

I grimaced as Caleb got on his knees, but my wife loved it.

All of what he’s saying is true, and what turns things around is not that Caleb and Catherine realize how wonderful the other really is. In the following minutes, Caleb realizes that he has never truly loved his wife, and in fact he cannot do so, because, as his dad points out, “you can’t give her what you don’t have.” Everything that Caleb has just accused Catherine of, he has been doing to someone else throughout his life. The movie expresses a profound truth about love: it has to start somewhere. And it can’t start with flawed human beings, but only with the Love for that which is unlovable.

There aren’t many movies everyone should see, but this is one. Fireproof will challenge and inspire audiences to do the hardest, most frightening thing they’ve ever done – to truly love someone, as well as point them to the only way it can happen.

[Rating:5/5]

World Trade Center

WTC poster

WTC poster

I confess: the second thing that went through my mind on September 11, 2001 (after the horror of the moment, of course) was “this will make a great film someday.” I would be mortified by this, except for the fact that I’m sure every member of my generation thought the same thing, if not as soon. Terrible as the day was, I was feeling a kind of thrill. I hadn’t been there for Pearl Harbor (although I did endure Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor), or for Kenedy’s assassination; moments when the country was instantly unified, if only for awhile. But I was here for a story that would be told and retold through many mediums. Already, I was starting to see the folk heroes that would emerge, the dramatic stories that would be reenacted – and probably embellished – for decades to come, and the moments, poorly filmed in life, that would look so spectacular done in a studio.

Apparently, director Oliver Stone had similar thoughts.

Nicolas Cage as John McLothlen

Nicolas Cage as John McLoughlin

If this sounds terrible, consider the millions of solid citizens who praised the frank depiction of the gore in Saving Private Ryan, or the millions who lined up to see Braveheart again and again. If it makes a difference that these stories happened longer ago, consider that it takes about four to five years for a film to develop from concept to finished product. In the first five years since 9/11 we had already seen two movies about it (Flight 93 was released Jan. 30 of 2006).

John McLothlen, the man.

John McLoughlin, the man.

It has now been three years since Stone’s World Trade Center was released and I first wrote this article. During that time we have seen September 11 return to its status as just another box on the calendar. American culture has gone back to infighting and second-guessing government (Stone himself directed an anti-war ad in April of 2007). This has to raise questions in the alert reader because there are dates far older – December 7, 1941 for instance – that Americans still observe every year. One has to wonder if an ably directed film could reignite American reverence for September 11 (if not what we learned from it).

Micheal Pena as Will Jimeno.

Micheal Pena as Will Jimeno.

Needless to say, however, that wasn’t what WTC was intended to do. Stone intended it as a tribute, probably due the recency of the event. As a tribute, the film delivers. It introduces two folk heros, Port Authority Officers John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and William Jimeno (Michael Pena), who spend most of the movie under a ton of rubble. Probably the best thing about it is that if anyone who was involved with planning the attacks ever sees it, and they probably will, they will be very disappointed. The jihadis behind the attacks get no attention whatsoever. The crash into the North Tower is heralded only by the shadow of a plane swooping across a building and a muffled explosion. The rest of the film follows several main characters through the rescue efforts. In short, every frame is devoted to the good, the valiance and the victory I hope we all remember from that day.

Will Jimeno, the man.

Will Jimeno, the man.

Decades will come and go, the pain brought on by that day will lessen and the grieving families will be names in dusty historical records. As the subject gets less sensitive, so will the movies. We’ll see body parts fly ala Saving Private Ryan and we’ll get to know the villains. But for now World Trade Center focuses on what should be focused on.

As McLothlen says at the end of World Trade Center, “Nine eleven showed us what human beings are capable of – the evil, sure. But also the good. People looking out for each other, for no reason other than that it was the right thing to do. It’s important to remember that. And to talk about it.”

[Rating:3/5]

Funny People

2009_funny_people_wallpaper_001

Judd Apatow, with his mega reputation as the savior of comedy in the last few years, has his first misstep as a director. ‘Funny People’ is an odd comedy-drama that is  an overlong (an Apatow trademark) and mostly depressing look at a celebrity comedian’s life. Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, much like the star himself, a comedic actor with a lot crappy blockbusters on his resume who discovers he is dying from a form of lukemia. Simmons then decides to hire a struggling stand-up comedian (Seth Rogen) to work as a live-in assistant and writer for him. Midway through the film, Simmons finds out his experimental treatment on his disease has actually cured him, so he decides to seek out his former love interest (Leslie Mann), now married, and attempt to win her back.

At the point Sandler’s character thinks he’s going to win back his former love does ‘Funny People’ start to sink into a slump it can’t recover from. Otherwise, the first hour or so of the film actually works to Apatow’s credit. Sandler plays a disspirited, selfish character stuck in regret and despair. You don’t like or sympathize with George Simmons the entire film, and that’s a big problem.  I didn’t care about his impending death or his lost relationships.  Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman and many celebrity cameos are the saving graces of the film and provide a lot of the real genuine laughs and help this near 2 1/2 hour endeavor keep on moving.  Yes, 2 1/2 hours, a seriously long time to wade through a film about a main character that you don’t like. Unlike Mickey Rourke in ‘The Wrestler’ who also had a screwed-up life and torn relationships, you sympathized with the character. He played a man seeking redemption, but kept taking the wrong turns. Sandler plays a character that hates everyone about as much as he hates himself, and he continually uses people for his own benefit. The final hour of the movie introduces Leslie Mann, Sandler’s ex, as he travels with Seth Rogen to her suburb home. She’s stuck in a relationship with a cheating husband (Eric Bana) and two daughters. She wants out and back with Sandler, but everything gets complicated, leading to a lot of long, depressing scenes that seem out of left field for the movie.  The moral here, is that despite Simmons’ second chance at life and outlook that he can change for the better, the man will never find happiness because he will always be himself. It’s a long road to figure that out, and despite great performances from all the actors involved and some good scattered laughs, ‘Funny People’ is a mixed-bag that is too long and odd to recommend. It’s the mistake of an immensely talented filmmaker, so hopefully with his next feature he sticks to the lighter tones of what made ‘The 40-Year-Old Virgin’ and ‘Knocked Up’ comedy gold.

[Rating:2/5]

Lions for Lambs

Robert Redford is one of the most distinguished individuals in Hollywood today:  his decades-spanning film acting career includes such classic titles as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, All The President’s Men, and Out of Africa.  As a director he has produced indelible works like Ordinary People, A River Runs Through It, and The Horse Whisperer.  He even played an instrumental role in founding Sundance Film Festival the annual indie-movie showcase named after his role in Butch Cassidy.  Lions for Lambs, his most recent project which directed and in which he starred, is an intriguing film that explores many facets of the War on Terror as seen through roughly intertwining vignettes involving a Republican senator and a liberal interviewer, a college professor and his young mush-minded pupil, and two students-turned-soldiers who are on the front lines of a new attack strategy masterminded by the senator.  While the acting and direction are top-notch, perhaps the film’s most impressive quality is its restraint, as Redford deeply explores many sides of a complicated issue instead of using the hour and twenty minute running time to grind a particular political axe.  It’s classic Robert Redford:  classy.

When this movie came out I was surprised at how little attention it got from the general public.  Having watched it this week, though, I think I can understand why:  Lions for Lambs is not exactly entertaining per se, and it’s also a tricky premise to sell to an audience (especially an audience that has catapulted drivel like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen into the box office stratosphere) because of the multi-faceted approach to telling its story.  The action unfolds in real time as senator Jasper Irving, played by Tom Cruise who looks and acts like the all-growed-up version of his Daniel Kaffe character in A Few Good Men, is being interviewed by journalist Janine Roth, played by Meryl Streep.  She gets him to spill the beans about a new strategy for finally winning the War –a plan that is being put into action in Afghanistan as they speak, and involves two young soldiers who get separated from the rest of their platoon.  The two soldiers just happen to be former students of professor Stephen Malley–Robert Redford in a role that feels as natural as any he has ever played, if a bit more passionate at times.  Malley is, at the same time this is all going on, trying to knock some real-world sense into one of his students (young actor Andrew Garfield, channeling a healthy dose of Judd Nelson’s character from The Breakfast Club), using his former students as examples of true courage and conviction, even though he personally disagrees with their decision to join the military.

The movie isn’t so much a story as it is an exploration of a political topic.  And yet, despite the intensely political nature of the film, it never gets preachy.  The characters come across as passionate but not informed and far from their stereotypical raving counterparts in so many movies today.  There are no easy answers to the solution to the War, and the viewpoints expressed by the various characters are thoughtful and reasonable as opposed to ideological diatribes.  Several express regret over past mistakes, and the media at large is even taken to task for its role in ramping up the hype for the War years ago.  However, all this serves as an interesting essay or PBS debate, but it does not serve to make the most engaging movie.  For all that I appreciate about Lions for Lambs, it does boil down to little more than 80 minutes of dialog, and the disconnected nature of the plot keeps it from being in the same league as movies like Frost/Nixon.  There is no main character to follow, no central storyline other than the peril of the two stranded soldiers, and the conflict rests mainly in the minds of the audience rather than the characters.

But it’s a fine film overall, especially for people who are looking for a more thoughtful approach to politics in their movies.

Killshot

killshotSynopsis: Beautiful Carmen Colson (Diane Lane) and her ironworker husband Wayne (Thomas Jane) are placed in the Federal Witness Protection program after witnessing an “incident”. Thinking they are at last safe, they are targeted by an experienced hit man (Mickey Rourke) and a psychopathic young upstart killer (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). The ensuing struggle will test Carmen to the limit. (IMDB)

Review in short: ‘Killshot’ is consistently interesting and also consistently messy. It has a top-notch cast and a respected director (John Madden, Shakespeare in Love) at the helm, but the troubled production doesn’t allow for a clear vision. The film doesn’t know whether to follow the protagonists or the villains. The performances are decent, although Gordon-Levitt veers a bit over the top. By its finish, the movie is merely okay, better than expected, but not as good as it could be–it feels exactly like a made-for-cable thriller.

[Rating:2.5/5]

Public Enemies

Michael Mann’s ‘Public Enemies’ arrives just in time this season to remind audiences looking for some smart adult action, they needn’t venture into movies about robots and aliens, or endure John Travolta’s embarrassing rants and whines on a subway train. Instead, they can sit back and watch Johnny Depp, one of the greatest actors around, single-handedly take this movie and breathe life into celluloid as 1930s American gangster and professional bank robberJohn Dillinger, on the run from and on the radar of the FBI.

Now, let’s get this out here right away, however: ‘Public Enemies’ is not a great movie. It’s far from Mann’s ‘Heat’, but it’s luminous when compared to 2006’s ‘Miami Vice’ adaptation.  In fact, I felt much the same way about this movie as I did with Ridley Scott’s ‘American Gangster.’ Now instead of Denzel Washington vs. Russell Crowe, we have Johnny Depp vs. Christian Bale — and the end results are pretty similar.  Both flicks are from master filmmakers, showcasing two stars in the lead performances, and each film is interesting and competently made — but neither sizzle.

‘Public Enemies’ most certainly has two things going for it. Johnny Depp is superb in the role. His Dillinger character is dark, mysterious, but also straight-laced. In fact, Dillinger as a character seems to have been written so mysterious that the audience never fully understands or feels that heroic connection with him. But Depp plays it up even when he’s not given dramatic scenes to shine in.  Michael Mann adds to Depp’s talent. The director cooks up shootouts with great intensity. And I suppose I can’t overlook Marion Cotillard. The Oscar-winning actress has an authentic romance with Depp’s character that never comes off contrived or tacked-on. The audience truly believes in their relationship, and it works.

The drawbacks really extend from the movie not involving the audience as it should. From Christian Bale’s straightforward and uninteresting performance as Agent Melvin Purvis, the man hunting Dillinger, to the confusing supporting characters that are never given the proper distinctive treatment, and finally the lack of excitement in the bank heists — I really wasn’t engrossed in the full spectrum of the picture. I greatly admired Depp’s work, some of the film’s intensity, and much of the ‘hunt’ of the storyline, but I didn’t feel quite as connected to Dillinger’s story and the men surrounding him as I wanted to be.  While those gripes didn’t make this a bad film, because this remains satisfactory work, this isn’t greatness. And from Michael Mann, that’s what I hope for.

[Rating:3/5]

Frost/Nixon

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen came out this weekend, and in almost every conceivable way it is the polar opposite of 2008’s Frost/Nixon. The former is, from what I have read, a typical Michael Bay exercise in excess: explosions, lightning-paced editing, the hottest young stars, blazing weaponry, insane chases, and more explosions. The latter has none of these, and its leads are virtual unknowns–especially compared to the headlining actors in Transformers: RotF. But it is this limited canvas with which director Ron Howard paints a very interesting, engaging, and (dare I say it? Yes, I dare!) entertaining movie about…well, about little more than a series of TV interviews between a talk show host and the former president.

Movies based on plays are a tricky proposition for today’s audiences weaned on the theatrical bombast of directors such as Michael Bay, Tony Scott, and the Wachowski Brothers. Not to mention their forebears, the great Lucas and Spielberg. Whereas movies often employ special effects, realistic audio, blaring soundtracks, and a host of other tricks to enhance the viewing experience, plays instead offer, for the most part, only dialog cemented by good ol’fashioned acting. And this is why adapting a play into a movie is a somewhat daunting task for any director, but Ron Howard manages to pull it off quite nicely.

In many ways, Frost/Nixon is the spiritual successor to Rob Reiner’s A Few Good Men. Both are based on plays. Both are about well-nigh untouchable political figures brought down by unlikely young spitfires. Both feature extended dialog-heavy sequences with no changes in setting. Music and special effects are used sparingly, characters are well-defined and interesting, and yes, both movies feature none other than the estimable Kevin Bacon. But whereas Reiner’s 1992 movie was a largely fictionalized account of military justice loosely based on the experiences of young military lawyer Donald Marcari, Ron Howard’s film is about the verbal toppling of none other than Richard Nixon himself.

Frost/Nixon follows the tale of David Frost, a talk-show host who hatches a plan to get Richard Nixon to admit to wrongdoing while in office and apologize, on camera, to the American people. His preparation and interview methods are better suited to the theatrics of a boisterous TV personality, and I enjoyed seeing him come face to face with the political powerhouse that is Mr. Nixon. What kept me entertained through the dialog-heavy film was the constant sense of awe and wonder with which Mr. Nixon is portrayed–not awe for his politics, but a healthy respect for the type of man he was: an extremely savvy politician who was not to be trifled with. Michael Sheen’s portrayal of the young, eager David Frost who is forced to come to grips with his own shortcomings and find a way to, as in A Few Good Men, get an extremely powerful man to admit to his own wrongdoings, even though it will cost him dearly, is impeccable. The two men eventually come to a mutual respect for each other, and it is this character journey that makes Frost/Nixon as entertaining as anything Michael Bay could ever do.

Well, not that a few explosions wouldn’t have helped a bit…