The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

"The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" has Nicolas Cage playing a screwy policeman who gets smashed on cocaine and other intoxicants very often while conducting business, which leads of course to a lot of inappropriate behavior on the job. He's one who does a whole lot on a case to get information just to go up to the man suspected of it (while illegally giving information) and say that he doesn't give (but this could be yet another ploy, and now that I think of it, probably it is). You get the idea. Without Cage and Werner Herzog, the film would be an incredibly simple police procedural, scripted by a William M. Finklestein, who wrote episodes of "L.A. Law," among others. They are definitely who count here. Cage brings vigor and immorality to the role. He's actually good, especially in the scenes when he shows how he can be. The articles I've read (in Film Comment and Sight & Sound) cite that the film is humorous, and yes, it can be when Cage lets loose what IMDB calls a "hysterical laugh." Anyways, Cage's Terence McDonagh is stumbling through his lieutenantship as he goes to drastic measures to get to Xzibit's Big Fate, who is the main suspect in a case involving a guy who did some drug selling and his family. McDonagh cannot do anything well, as he messes up with all of his leads, especially Denzel Whitaker's Daryl, who he loses sight of at a casino where he's trying to find his woman Frankie (Eva Mendes). He's incompetent, double-crossing, and altogether dishonorable. That should give you good enough of an idea of what you're getting into. But then again, according to people I know, it's not nearly as "gritty" as the "Bad Lieutenant" of 1992, with Harvey Keitel as an awful, awful, awful person, who does despicable things. According to the coverage I've read (like in Variety and Rolling Stone), it's very dissimilar in other ways. I just think I should put it out there, but I don't have an opinion to match, as I haven't seen the original. It's the white elephant in the room for most people. I just think this movie, shadowed or not by Abel Ferrara's movie, should be perhaps a little better done. The plot is low-rate for a movie like this, and while not completely underwhelming, at least without too much scope. And at 122 minutes, it is for stretches boring, as New York Daily News noted, despite Cage's vivacity. It's Herzog, it's Cage, meaning it's combined madness. But then again, while not insubstantial (it is a pretty inflicting movie), not quite as much as you might desire (at least of Herzog). C+

Anvil! The Story of Anvil

"Anvil! The Story of Anvil" is about the two founding members of the eponymous band and their struggles to really get back into the popular opinion after their heyday back in the 1980's, when they were on the same bill as Bon Jovi at a festival in Japan. This was their limelight, and they attracted a lot of attention due their onstage methods and other things. They were considered pioneers of hard rock back then, but 12 albums later, when the film sets its focus, they aren't riding as high as before. We see from a series of dismal concerts that they struggle to fill a room with people. But they still want to record, especially Steve Kudlow, who goes by the stage name Lips. He's never given up his dream, even though it's taken hit after hit, and judging by this film, he never will. Robb Reiner, the drummer, wants it to happen as well, but not with the fervor that Kudlow does. He's always wanted to play the drums, but then again, he also likes to paint. Kudlow is like Jeremy Renner's Sgt. James in "The Hurt Locker": only one environment will suit him. Kudlow is part of a family of businessmen, so clean-cut that with Kudlow's long, flowing hair and informal attitude he doesn't seem to fit in. As noted before, the only place he can really function is the stage. Now about the technical aspects of the film. I assume from a credit cookie picture that Sasha Gervasi is to Anvil as Anton Corbijn is to Joy Division. In the style of Corbijn's "Control," Gervasi crafts a documentary, which is the correct narrative form for this movie, as the story continues into the present and perhaps beyond. He gets unrestricted access to all of everything that goes on with Anvil. As A.O. Scott says, Gervasi "makes a case and a place for" Anvil, and that's vital, since otherwise Kudlow would just be another dreamer left on his own. It's also perhaps time to see what happens after a band goes downpeak from its highest stage. Since we sort of know this, it's all the more depressing and sort of downbeat a movie. The documentary for me started out really well but then sort of swirled into doubtfulness. It needed a little more direction. But hey, this was where the mood and information headed. What I'm saying is that Gervasi was on course for a great directorial debut, but what he ended up with was something only good. But it's not a disaster finish (as a matter of fact, the opposite), and "Anvil! The Story of Anvil!" does very well in leading us into territory that at least that I (an alternative rock lover) hadn't gone into. B

The Cove

"The Cove" isn't the best made documentary, but it definitely has its purpose. People for years have tried to get behind the cliffside at Taiji's notorious cove to document to the world the assassinations of dolphins. The techniques are cruel, the set-up is well planned (a with high security), and the butchery is unheard of in Japan and in many other places. Japan is shown here as tricky, trying to bribe third-world countries into helping them legalize the practice of whaling again, and what could they do? But the message here is made clear: we can do something about all this mess. The leader of this insurgence is Richard O'Barry, former Flipper trainer who grew to love the dolphins and eventually was getting routinely caught trying to let them go. Also is the film's director Louie Psihoyos, who I believe started an organization called OPS or the Oceanic Preservation Society. His inexperience directing is shown here, since the film technically fails to be very stimulating, often sticking to the same techniques again and again and again to convey the story and resorting to the same shots of the same interview subjects. But the subject is enough to propel the film through whatever stretches Psihoyos couldn't, and thus we have an effective film that gets its message across, while conventionally, in a way that would inspire you to help. This is a case like "Food, Inc." where the sheer force of the facts offered bring the film to well-being. Even without the same threats posed as the former film, "The Cove" still manages to paint an frustrating picture of a corrupt Japan that will not stop unless the public makes it. That's exactly what the people behind this film are trying to provoke, and the only way of truly doing this is getting into the cove and showing what goes on there. No one will like what they see. The fact of this footage (although we know what is coming thus making it slightly underwhelming if you could call it that, I guess due to the build-up to it) makes this film worth seeing. There will be converts from "inactivism" to "activism," to use the words of one of interviewees (perhaps it was O'Barry, but maybe Psihoyos?). Perhaps it's good that the film is being considered for Best Documentary (only since it should be seen, not because I think that it necessarily is a great film or even a great documentary, and this is one of the places to provoke audience viewing); thank God for every opportunity for this information to be passed onwards. It's because a cause needs to be seen not heard of, which is exactly the same reason "Food, Inc." ended up being decent. "The Cove" is good for its content, not for its style (except in a couple of instances), but I guess that's made clear. B

The Soloist

Joe Wright's "The Soloist" adapts a book by Steve Lopez that chronicles his relationship with Nathaniel Anthony Ayers, Jr., who's a multi-musician who went from good talents to being homeless because of his unstable mental state. It has some interesting sequences from inside the mind of Ayers as well as dealing with his love of classical music, but it doesn't really work as it should. While it meanders, there's small moments of beauty, but that's not enough to save the film from its boring stretches among other things. Robert Downey, Jr. plays Steve Lopez as an easily bored LA Times reporter, hard-drinking (a character trait that occupies all of about 30 seconds), raccoon-pursuing, and writing a column titled "Points West." While walking past a statue of Beethoven, he finds Ayers, who's playing a two-stringed violin, which I believe attracts Lopez's attention. Jamie Foxx plays Ayers in a performance that is good for the same reason I disliked it: even though it's clear that he's mentally unbalanced, it's still depressing to see him not take advantage of what people have and are giving him. But I guess that's talking more of Ayers than Foxx's acting, and speaking less about what he can control and more about what is expected of him. Anyways, I was frustrated, but perhaps that was the effect trying to be projected. What I'm saying is, it's kind of hard to take after a while of Foxx's repeated Lucky-esque mumblings which probably could be attributed to his mental state. But then again, if I were hearing many voices in my head, I probably would be doing the same. But this a review of the film, not an analysis of Ayers' psychology. On the film, I didn't really care for it all that much, especially the sections involving Lopez, which are dry and bland. The film has some interest, what with the musical sequences as well as some other things, but not enough to keep the viewer fully hooked and not occupied by something else. I don't know really what to say other than that there are much better movies to be seen now instead of this one. Foxx is good in his role, yes, but perhaps there could be a little more other than just him to focus on. I guess Downey, Jr. is newspapermanish enough for the role (which he was in David Fincher's "Zodiac") and I guess supplies wry humanity, but then again, maybe the movie would have worked better with a different actor. Not to say that he's all bad, but he's just a little boring, and inhibits the film from success. For Wright, think about those music segments and go much farther. What I was expecting was something more music-oriented than what was there. It's not so much the relationship between the two that's interesting, it's the musical aspects. But judging from how Lopez doesn't seem to be paying any attention to any of the musical performances in the film, I think I may be the only one. C+

Paper Heart

"Paper Heart" captures the feeling of one of those projects, ambitious or whatever, that you can't quite finish. I've had these in terms of videos and the like: you put in time on them, but you just can't get the mileage you need out of a certain idea or plot. That's probably what the fictional representation of Nicholas Jasenovec (Jake M. Johnson) feels as this film starts to wind down. It's hard to capture life on camera, dulling for the person on it and frustrating for the person behind it. This movie somewhat captures this feeling that I've been describing. It would be different if Charlyne Yi played someone who couldn't feel love who finally developed a relationship with someone played by Michael Cera. It's interesting since you get the whole feeling of the moment, as it is played as real, so you have the difficulties described above coming into play. But that's not all it is. Yi, who finds herself (fictionally or not) without a trace of love in her, goes out to find definitions of love from people scattered throughout the country. For me, what she found felt a little contrived, but I guess these are real stories. The best interview scene for me involved children in Atlanta, which may sound like it will be a groan coming, but think otherwise. I thought it was actually pretty funny. As I said, this is intercut with her relationship with Cera, which looks very predictable when you think about it. This is especially true in the end when the progression of the relationship seems to be accelerated to the point of Yi bemoaning the absence of Cera in her life. Ebert is right: the thing in this movie that is really important and perhaps the X factor for it to be good is Yi, who is endearing and an encouraging interviewer (though, as some IMDB people said, kind of difficult (they said annoying, but whatever)). The same could not be said for Bill Maher, who takes on the equally gargantuan subject of religion in his film "Religulous." That film could be considered better considering that it's a real documentary and also because the results are (slightly) more interesting. That film also was trying to make somewhat of a point, however heavy-handed. This film is less about its subject than its techniques, at least for me. As self-conscious and "quirky" Yi and Cera are, I guess the conclusion of this film could never have been satisfying (for me or for people on IMDB). But perhaps as I said before maybe it's supposed to be a project too big too finish, but I dunno. A paradox: the movie works because it stars moderately famous Yi and Cera, and because a relationship starts between them on film, but then we sort of know what will happen since it's in a self-contained box of sorts. You know what you're getting, which is charming, but also problematic and obnoxiously "quirky," like Jake Johnson's character. C+

The Messenger

Oren Moverman's "The Messenger" contains pain, and you can see why and yet cannot even believe that Captain Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson) gives the advice to not get personal when telling the "next of kin" that their loved one has died in service. How could you not interact? Yet at the same time, it's something unbearable to see. Stone has calculated this throughout his years, and passes it on to Sgt. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster), who seems like a hardened person when we see him at the start of the film. But he, as anyone else would besides Stone (who Montgomery calls out as being inhumane), starts to sympathize with the people he is indirectly victimizing, especially Olivia (Samantha Morton, playing a sort of annoyingly unreadable yet very awkward type), who he helps far beyond the dreadful notification. She's the only one whose story we get to hear in great detail (in one relentless shot). All others are given to us in small doses, which are used in the screenplay to make the suffering all the more real. Now that I think about it, the stories are kind of cliche and contrived (of course some happen like this, but it feels old at the cinema), but the sadness is all too real. The scenes from which the film derives its name and which the film is pretty much based upon are sad, especially the first, which uses a bait technique to gain tension but still provides some pretty devastating moments. You think what's imprinted into the mind of one of these "messengers" and, although not life-threatening, a comparison to the war would be very fitting, while obvious and probably already used in countless reviews of this film. I wasn't wildly excited about seeing this film due to its look on paper, but I guess you can't really transcribe what's here down. You have to show it, since it's human emotion. The real reason I saw it, like many others, was due to the National Board of Review's award of Best Supporting Actor to Harrelson, which most definitely translates to Oscar nomination (one less spot for Paul Schneider, who prognosticators like EW still count in there, but who really seems to be heading out of the race). Harrelson goes into the role well-cast, as there is a jokey yet serious type needed here, and he delivers in that respect. He does some fine acting here, not in the same range as some others this year, but not bad. He uses his persona, which was truly patented this year with "Zombieland," but I guess does some other things, too. Ben Foster is pretty decent as well, playing a hardened guy who sounds weird when he yells and who really faced some traumatic horrors when on duty. But he's not talented enough to really shoulder the load at the end, where I agreed with my moviegoing companions who said it wasn't up to snuff with the beginning. Another point of one of my fellow moviegoers: too long. 105 minutes is long and hard here. "The Messenger" got and engaged me for long stretches, which is valuable, but not enough. B-

My Sister's Keeper

I believe I've read some review about Nick Cassavetes' "My Sister's Keeper" comparing it to a Hallmark or Lifetime movie. I'm not entirely sure about if I've read it, but I would think that this is a good description. This is a film with an interesting idea, yet it's forgettable, due to the way it's shot (bright-lit but depressing nonetheless), structured (flashbacks bordering on ridiculousness), etc. You've read the book, by Jodi Picoult, or if not heard about the synopsis somehow: a girl (Sofia Vassillieva) gets cancer and her parents conceive a child exclusively to cater to her needs, giving her necessary parts to sustain her life. The child (Abigail Breslin) feels like she's being taken advantage of and goes to sue for her freedom. Her mom (Cameron Diaz, who plays an interesting character who does things that are not fully explained that in a more personal film would be), who we find is conveniently a lawyer (which makes it easier to battle against her intent daughter) has put everything aside to help her Kate (Vassillieva) stay alive like the mother in "Mother" trying to get her son to freedom. Maybe with stronger technical support, the film could be excellent, but it's not here. It's just like "The Time Traveler's Wife," not in subject, but in tone. It's another example of a Hallmark movie that shouldn't be: there's an interesting idea, but it's either not realized or perhaps it doesn't have enough in it to fuel a film (this is something I doubt). This is just your average medical drama, nothing more, just as heavy-handed as you would expect, (apparently) not wishing to go beyond that. Plus, it feels sort of misguided, especially with Kate as a character. We see her go through different phrases, the weirdest and most detached of which being a punk stage, where we see her briefly drinking and pill-popping. Why? It doesn't fit into the film, basically just a flashback conjured out of thin air to explain something, a task it fails to complete. This is the sort of thing that's a common occurrence. We look backwards into family history, and it all seems to be terribly sentimental, as well as deeply depressing. That's an emotion I felt during "The Time Traveler's Wife," as well (a film I saw in glimpses on a plane, not avidly enough to review, but enough to capture the emotion of). I dunno. I really don't. Devout fans of the book will flock to see it, and there's no stopping them. But for those who stumble upon it: it didn't work for me. Consisting of clichéd moments and ambient and mediocre music, this is not a good movie. It's insufferable for all, but in different ways to different people. There are some interesting developments, as in most of these films, such as the influence of Judge de Salvo's (Joan Cusack) own traumatic experience on this one. That's one element that spun my mind. Plus, Diaz's character is interesting. Finally, Alec Baldwin's lawyer for Breslin's Anna is, as I believe others have said, persuasive and satisfying to watch. He's talented, which is well-known, but should be said. There's also Taylor (Thomas Dekker), also shown in flashbacks, who gives Kate a nice time as she begins treatment. But it's dealt with uninterestingly, though playing to those (IMDB posters I gather from) who praise it for being "realistic." Fine, fine. But I wasn't totally stimulated, a phrase I could apply to many an aspect of this piece. I struggle to find something to say about it, other than to talk about the widely known fact of the re-scripted ending, which feels like it devalues the whole pursuit of the heroine, in favor of showing affection. Made me feel a little warmer, perhaps, that it was done all in good intent, but then again, conflict beyond a point would have been interesting (although turn-offing to many a viewer). As I said before, I'm not converting any lovers of the book. I'm just saying to those on the outside, seeking a choice for a film to watch, I'm not a supporter of this work, which is unfortunately not very interested in aesthetics and into everything else obsessively. Okay. Maybe I'm a little hard on it. But "My Sister's Keeper" fails to be of much stimulation, which I feel a good movie inspires. It's confused, and although I'm pretty negative about it, so am I. C

Mammoth

Lukas Moodysson's "Mammoth," while thoughtful, seems familiar, as if borrowing from other movies of its type. It bears resemblance to "Babel," an obvious comparison, yes, but it’s the elephant in the room the whole time. Both have caretakers to American families, both from countries that each respective film dove into and followed, both follow two brothers in a foreign country. "Mammoth," however, opts to observe characters more clearly. We see a happy, affluent family at the film's beginning. The father, named Leo, is Gael Garcia Bernal, who runs a website called "Underlandish" or something of the like, is as over-flowingly rich as the people who started Facebook. The mother, named Ellen, is Michelle Williams, who is a doctor and who is kept at the hospital at night as doctors are. The film centers around Leo having to go to Thailand to make a deal. He ends up staying there for a long, long time. In this time, Gloria, the caretaker (Marife Necesito), and Jackie, the child (Sophie Nyweide) bond. Ellen feels sad that she is not able to nurture the child herself. But she is grateful for the love and care of her nanny, who lets Jackie learn her native language of Tagalong and takes her along to Mass and the Hayden Planetarium. Gloria is working day and night to care for her poor family across the globe. She has two sons, Salvador (Jan David G. Nicdao) and Manuel (Martin Delos Santos), and she wants them to live nicely. Salvador wants to work for her to come home. This is much to the dismay of his grandmother (Maria Esmeralda del Carmen), who believes he should be thankful that his mother is giving such an effort. Leo decides to move outwards from Bangkok, going to live at a "bungalow" on the beach. I won't go much farther than that. I appreciated that Moodysson (seemingly) took the time to shoot on location. It's interesting to see different locales. He does something that feels authentic, captures the emotion of people and places. He has strength in his actors, as they are very, very good. I especially liked Williams and Carmen. I could have asked for more out of Necesito, who embodies a typical role typically. Moodysson's screenplay also sometimes goes down roads that I've seen before, such as the treatment of the nonspeaking Anthony (a kid who Ellen treats as a son and as a patient) as a character as well as (to a lesser extent) that of the brothers. The very end, a "perfect moment" as described by one of the characters, is bittersweet, partially well-done while also leaving room for disappointment. "Mammoth" is a movie worth seeing for the reason that it usually employs different ideas than what you may be thinking. It's thought-provoking. Not to mention containing strong acting. You've maybe heard early hype from Ebert (ed. I thought he was going to rave about it, but his review was about the same as mine), and it's true to an extent. "Mammoth" is not great, but it's unusual and interesting. Your heart may be tugged by some of the contents. Mine was in some ways, but my mind was more. In the end, I'm left a little cold (as was an IMDB user, who created a thread of "Pointless movie"), but it's not all for nothing. B