Reviewed by Richard Lee Zuras

Released Sep. 16, 2009

2 hr. 10 min.

Cedric Klapisch/Studio Canal

Juliette Binoche

Romain Duris

Francois Cluzet

Karen Viard

Fabrice Luchini

Albert Dupontel

Juliette Binoche is that rare actress that knows no country. This is not to say that she is not beloved in France. She is. And this is not to say that she does not feel at home in a film wherein she speaks her native tongue. She does. But Juliette is so graceful in her screen persona, and so gifted (please don’t refer to her as the french Julia Roberts unless you are willing to compare their work over the last half dozen years–in which case you’ll find that this comparison has unwittingly disparaged Madame Binoche) that her movies are inhabited by her.

This film is a troupe film, and many of the actors shine. But Juliette is so good at what she does, you might become annoyed waiting for the story to find its way back to her. And this is the key to watching this film–the discovery of foreign screen stars you would not have known were it not for said entry point. Thank you, again, Madame Binoche.

The first discovery you will make is in the performance by a man named Romain Duris, who plays Juliette’s ailing brother. And you will make many more, as director Klapisch weaves a tale of strangers and friends and families that could only be told in a foreign film. You may find no patience to watch this film. Its sensibilities are not in line with traditional american cinema.

However…it is set in Paris. It is beautifully shot (did I mention it is set in Paris?), and there are very real time periods when lives are unfolding in front of you, in real time, and you forget you are at the movies. People find love. Lose love. People meet or do not. People die or might. And you are absorbed…

Or you are not. This is, regardless of Binoche’s world-wide appeal (yes, even in America: Chocolat, The English Patient, Dan in Real Life, Bee Season), a non-closed film. There is no domino plot. There are no jerky camera movements. No list of known stars. The film doesn’t tell you how to interpret every scene, every character, every decision.

And yet Ebert gives this 3 and a half stars out of four and I am giving it four out of five.

Beg your curiosity? Or not.

I saw a film this summer about the historical role of the movie critic entitled For The Love Of Movies. Of great, great interest to me was the notion that, based on the work of critics, film-goers–get this–actually avoided bad films (2 out of 4 stars and below) and sought out those highly reviewed. That power is long gone. In fact…I believe the opposite formula is utilized wherein the worst films are sought out. Or maybe it is simply the rash of marketing dollars spent on the broad (read as weak) films that herd us into the theaters.

Anyway, we critics are still trying.

Bottom line 4.0/5.0

Oct.2, 2009

Reviewed by: Richard Lee Zuras

Released Aug. 9, 2009

Rated PG-13

2 hr. 3 min.

Meryl Streep

Amy Adams

Stanley Tucci

Chris Messina

I see a big future for Julie & Julia. I see TBS using it, ad nauseam, for “Dinner and a Movie.” I see lots of people (not all women) having a dinner-themed viewing party centered around the DVD. It does have this kind of appeal.

But I don’t see, other than money– see above– exactly why this movie was released. It is a film based on a book based on a blog about a woman who decides to cook her way (if not eat) through 524 Julia Child recipes. If this is where our screenplays are going to come from– it may be time to re-think the industry for just a minute or two.

As the film goes to great lengths to say– even Julia Child disapproves.

But Meryl Streep does Julia justice. Caught between the (oft) overdone voice, and the bulky, jerky, catterwalled full-bodied movements, there beats a heart. Streep always brings three-dimensionality to her roles– and “Julia” is no exception. The problem lies in the fact that acting, in large part, involves playing off your opposing scene/screen partner. Stanley Tucci, a renowned if lesser known actor, is aptly cast in the role of husband to this scene-stealer named Julia. The problem is, and it is a large, large problem, Stanley’s “husband” role is so under-developed, so cheerfully under-developed, that several moments, such as his role of victim in the McCarthy trials, are glaringly unwritten. At times you wonder why either Julie or Julia had a screen husband (other than to mimic real life).

Julie’s husband spends half the film as the perfect supporter, and the other half as the jealous failure of a man. In attempting to attain versimilitude, the addition of the screen-husbands performs the polar opposite.

Perhaps director Nora Ephron was simply placing the men in the film roles women have played for a hundred years. The “wife” becomes the “husband,” and the actor/role/part is woefully under-valued. Touche! But Nora Ephron, for those who have seen (and who hasn’t?) When Harry Met Sally and Sleepless in Seattle etc., is simply too good a filmmaker for that. In many ways, she single-handedly transformed the rom-com into something truly worthy of everyone’s attention. Let’s hope she can find her way back after this mess.

And it would be a mistake to think this movie will make you want to cook. (Was that the point? I mean it is a story of a cook who loved to cook, after all.) Dead, sewed up animals. Food dropped on floors. Smoking while eating. Food so thick it looked like it was forming the letters for colonic.

But it might make you love butter again– and you may go running to the lobby for a big batch of artificially flavored butter popcorn.

Again, Julia would not approve.

Bottom Line: 3.0/5.0

Reviewed by Richard Lee Zuras

Released July 31, 2009

2 hr. 12 min.

Ole Christian Madsen/IFC Films

Thure Lindhardt

Mads Mikkelson

Not everyone will be given the opportunity to experience Flame & Citron (Flammen & Citronen) during its theatrical release, but through the wonders of On Demand/DVD, no one will have an excuse to never see it. This is a Hollywood style film made in Danish and German (with English subtitles) that traces (in the vein of Spielberg’s Munich) the clandestine attempt of a few “good” men to seriously damage the Nazi effort. Set in 1944 Copenhagen, and superbly directed and penned by Ole Christian Madsen, the film chronicles the true-life story of a close-knit team of renegades. The problem, though, proves not to be the difficulty of overthrowing the German occupiers, but instead, which of my leaders can I trust?

Flame and Citron are two men who, despite their violence, are justly fighting to limit the havoc of the war. If they can “take out” the right figure heads, as the theory goes, they can effectively destroy the war effort. Only some of the information they are receiving is erroneous. Given instructions are often in the interest of profit, and only after the fact do Flame and Citron become aware. The plot only thickens, as they say.

Flame, nicknamed for his torch-like hair, is a man who could slide right into Hollywood as a sort of über-Bourne. There may be less steroidal hand-to-hand combat, but this is a man who can and will protect what he loves. His partner, Citron, is less prone to violence yet more prone to temper, and the two compose a mercenary team as good as I have seen.

Make no mistake– this is a Hollywood type of film (the most expensive film in the history of Danish cinema). Flame has a budding love life and Citron has a family he may need to lose in order to keep. Multi-layered, like so many foreign films, this movie is also a crowd pleaser. Part story, part war film, part romance, and all thriller, this is a foreign film domestic audiences will love– if only they take the time to seek it out. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if we one day see Thure Lindhardt (Flame) in the occasional Hollywood film. Hollywood has long been adept at “stealing” good looking talent from abroad. This is one theft we wouldn’t mind a bit.

It should be fully noted here that IFC Films is providing a service to the discerning moviegoer: Flame & Citron, In The Loop, Paris– the list goes on– have all come to the U.S. by way of IFC Films. For those who regularly watch IFC on cable or satellite, their penchant for supporting talented filmmakers comes as no surprise. But know this, if IFC is supporting a film and lending its name, chances are you will find it more than worth your while. This is truly a world we live in, after all, and as the new millennium unfolds, the “national” film borders we once knew will, thankfully, continue to fall away, opening up new frontiers (as Kirk famously said) for every fan of the cinema.

Bottom Line: 4.0/5.0

Reviewed by Richard Lee Zuras

Released July 31, 2009

1 hr. 45 min.

R

The Dardenne Brothers/IFC Films

Arta Dobroshi

Jeremie Renier

Why does Roger Ebert, Cannes Film Festival, and a host of other people love the films of the Dardenne Brothers? In part, to paraphrase a famous axiom from Mr. Ebert: you haven’t seen this film before. Lorna’s Silence is such a film you have never seen. Who else but the Dardenne Brothers ( of L’Enfant fame) would bring us a story of an Albanian woman who attempts to flourish in Belgium by marrying a drug addict so she can gain citizenship, divorce, and then marry to provide citizenship to a wealthy Russian mafioso? And when I say bring us a story I mean write it, produce it, direct it. These are two talented men, and their films should be on your list.

But though most critics love Lorna’s Silence (Ebert gives it 3 ½ stars out of 4), there are those in the audience that will not. And without spoiling the film for you, let me now supply you with one piece of advice (the original job of the critic was to save or spend your money, after all): don’t go see this or eventually pay to rent it if your beef with foreign films is a (very American) disdain for “open” endings. This film has one. I won’t ruin it for you. But let me just recount the words of the cinema patron to my left as the credits rolled: “Damn foreign films.”

And you will see (should you go) one of two things happening when the credits roll:

1. Everyone is hoping that after a minute or two the film “will roll” again, and we will get some closure. (I watched this, and felt like screaming “It’s over. They’re not going to give you an ending!”)

2. Everyone is contemplating the possible ending(s) they believe the film has set-up.

Or, I guess, there is a third option. And that option might simply be reader-response. You are either glass half full or half empty. But trust me, you will have to work at the end of this film.

The reward? This is a sensational script, the film is populated by lasting characters, and the lead is played flawlessly by actress Arta Dobroshi. She is so good, so unique, that I struggle to find an actress to compare her to. Her face is that of a silent film star. Her features actually express emotions even when they seem inert. It is one of the only performances you will actually feel.

The drug addict, with which Arta shares several convincing scenes, is played with absolute vermilitude by Jeremie Renier. Their scenes are so weighted that had the Dardenne brothers pulled those scenes out and released a short film containing only their relationship– it would stand on its own. They are the kind of actors one “discovers” and begins to line one’s Netflix cue with their previous films.

The film really is that good. Unless you need full closure, in which case it is that bad.

Bottom Line: 4.0/5.0

Reviewed by Richard Lee Zuras

Released July, 24 2009

1 hr. 46 min.

Armando Iannucci/IFC Films

Peter Capaldi

Mimi Kennedy

Tom Hollander

Gina McKee

James Gandolfini

Anna Chlumsky

You may not know who Peter Capaldi is. But if you see this film, and you should, you will always remember his performance. You may not remember Anna Chlumsky from her star childhood turn in My Girl, but you should. (Anna Chlumsky is in the mold of childhood Oscar winner Anna Paquin, who has lately lit up the small screen in True Blood). Throw in Mimi Kennedy from Dharma and Greg and the oddly funny James Gandolfini of Sopranos fame and you have the ultimate B-list cast. And that’s exactly the type of cast this movie benefits from. This is a movie the big Hollywood studios/Hollywood A-listers would have mangled.

Critics compare this film to Wag the Dog and that is fair. And it does have elements of standard british humor a-la Monty Python. But this film, political satire that it is, is singular in that the character played by Capaldi, Malcolm Tucker, is the biggest jerk you’ve ever laughed at. He’s ascerbic and abrasive. He’s an ass. And boy is he funny. I viewed this in a packed house and I can’t count the number of lines I didn’t hear as I waited for the laughter to subside. If you were going to be cursed out by someone, this would be the man. Though I wonder if you or me, in real life, would find it so funny after all!

Essentially the film is a send-up of the Bush/Blair Iraq war/Weapons of Mass Destruction debacle. It is much more. Anyone who wears their red power-tie into the theater will miss a truly clever, immensely funny movie-going experience, so I implore you to check your politics at the door. Any war decision or high power subject could be at the heart of this piece and it would work. The humor is in the way we all want power, and about how we all make gaffes.

The beauty is in the script–truly as well crafted in its dialogue as I’ve seen/heard in a long time. Every character seems to get the tenor of this film. The director employs an agressive style to perfection. The editing is a lesson in how to cut for comic effect. The film is so tight that on the rare occasion it misses, you actually feel disappointed. Like the pitcher just gave up his first hit in the ninth.

When you are finished, and you want more of Peter Capaldi, you will want to know right off that he is the longtime comedy partner of one Hugh Laurie (Dr. Greg House). He was the best part of the comedy tandem’s ill-fated show Fortysomething. Many believe he was the best part of Blackadder. He is a british talent waiting for America to discover him. In a way I hope America does not. I’d hate to see a good thing ruined.

Bottom line 4.5/5.0

Reviwed by Richard Lee Zuras

Released July 24, 2009

1 hr. 36 min.

Marc Webb/Fox Searchlight Films

Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Zooey Deschanel

Full disclosure: I am a huge Zooey Deschanel fan. (Though I haven’t seen her recent years-long slew of Indie films.) I “discovered” her in her first film, a decade ago, entitled Mumford. Since then, as she has appeared in films like Elf, Almost Famous and Yes Man, I have marveled at her voice, speaking and singing, and her grace. She is often referred to as having saucer-like eyes (it is meant in a good way), and an impish smile. The psychologist in me says she reminds me of Jessica in Rankin-Bass’ Santa Claus is Comin’ To Town. But I digress for a reason. Zooey is rarely sexualized (Maxim lists not withstanding) in the way so common of Hollywood’s young actresses. She is from a Hollywood family (her father is the cinematographer that gave us The Passion of the Christ) and seems to know how to cast her spell in the vein of a young Katherine Hepburn–another screen beauty that was never redacted into a purely sexual object.

In this film, she has found the perfect role. Not to spoil the movie but suffice it to say that there is a real-world quality about Zooey that she is somehow unattainable, somehow a projection of perfection splashed with Artistic imperfection. Human. And her ability, and Joseph’s, to play to the roles they have set before them is remarkable. It has been reported that the director gave the two leads specific songs to listen to before each day’s filming. Music, in fact, is perfectly intertwined throughout the film, including a Bollywood-like little song and dance set to the sounds of Hall and Oates. Having seen this in a packed theater, I can report that everyone responded with glee! Not since When Harry Met Sally has a romantic comedy given us such real characters with such believable chemistry. And if I’ve not given Joseph enough credit let me add here that having followe him since 10 Things to his star turns in Miracle in St. Anna and The Lookout, let me state here that the sky is the limit for this uber-talented actor.

A few old-school critics accuse this movie of manipulating the tools of the trade (it is ripe with flash-backs, flash-forwards, re-edits of scenes, and voice-over) in order to achieve its desired effects. Well isn’t that the point of having a large tool-box? Now these days, particularly in the action arena, many directors/producers make movies in service of the tools themselves. But no rational movie-goer will see such propaganda at work herein. This is a film that employs its wares in a synchronistic, highly organic manner. Seldom, if ever, will you find yourself saying “Oh, that shouldn’t have been done that way.” Trust me.

This is a charming movie about infatuation. Therefore, about 99% of the audience should relate. But it is a quiet film, not one that will easily fall into the laps of the teen-goer, and will therefore have to make it in the same way that Little Miss Sunshine or Juno did–through positive word of mouth and rave reviews. It will be hard to find many folks that don’t recommend it. It will be harder still to find a negative review. Trust me.

Bottom line 4.5/5.0

Reviewed by Richard Lee Zuras

Released July 1, 2009

2 hr. 20 min.

Michael Mann/Universal

Johnny Depp

Christian Bale

Marion Cotillard

Billy Crudup

Jason Clarke

Giovanni Ribisi

If you aren’t Michael Bay (Transformers), you can do a lot of good with $80 million. Michael Mann has spent his money wisely. The actors are top notch, and in the case of both Depp and Crudup more than even that. The music, in spite of Mann’s penchant for bombast, is quite moving (very Deadwood in places). The costumes are striking even in their appropriate sameness, and if you care, heavily researched and correct. The set pieces are so unbelievable that even Roger Ebert felt obliged to walk through them during production.

There are no wasted scenes of Michael Bay-like special effects here. But there are gunfights. A lot of guns and smoke from guns and bullets hitting walls and a lot of gunshot bloody holes to keep people’s interests. And there is a reason for that: there isn’t much in the screenplay to hold onto.

The actors play their parts with reserve, and that is fine. Appropriate even. The script never allows true interplay. Many scenes begin the process of engagement only to be met by a steely eyed look or a grunt. The movie is simply trying to hard to be a classic when it should have allowed its parts to exist as a film. Even the title–in its attempts to invoke that most classic of gangster films–is a reach.

Cotillard is wasted here, as is Ribiski and a host of other fine actors. A movie that runs 2 and a third hours simply must engage and explore its characters and their inter-relationships: even if the source material (book) does not. If the movie looks a little glossy it is for a reason: the only two ways to hide a weak script are special effects and gloss. And these days, nothing glosses like gunplay. Mann’s Miami Vice was an exercise in gloss, and with this entry, and his upcoming Heat re-make/spin-off, Mann seems poised to circle this drain for awhile. That’s a shame.

But the good the movie has going for it (and again I don’t mean the screenplay’s obvious attempts at summer blockbuster catch phrases), is almost enough. But for the honest movie-goer you can feel yourself saying I want to like this…oh, and he’s in it too? I love him…wow that was cool…and et cetera, et cetera. And this movie should have been so much more than an exercise in what might have been.

Many pundits say this is the type of movie that has led to the coming 10 picture Oscar category. And that’s a shame too. The Junos and Little Miss Sunshines are earning their spots in that coveted category by pushing these inferior movies out. Shouldn’t we ask for more from a movie like Public Enemies instead of doubling a category to assure an Oscar telecast crowd? Or perhaps we could go high enough in number to encapsulate a movie like Transformers 2. Just a thought.

Bottom line 3.5/5.0

Reviewed by Richard Lee Zuras

Released May 8, 2009

2 hr. 6 min.

PG-13

J.J. Abrams/Paramount

Leonard Nimoy

Zachary Quinto

Chris Pine

Zoe Saldana

Eric Bana

Bruce Greenwood

Simon Pegg

John Cho

When one watches the pilot episode of a tv show, one is usually advised to allow for the fact that pilot shows are at a disadvantage: they plan to run for a long time–exposing and engaging in character study as new plots unfold and reveal character…all the while, the show must newly introduce some ten or fifteen characters and the world they inhabit.

So, for Star Trek, we have our campy memories of the show (and many dreadful “On gauge”) films to sweep away. This Abrams film is meant to be zero (the subtitle of the film), and it is meant to re-boot the franchise. It is simultaneously an extension of what has come before, and a first step from nothingness.

This means, for film-goers, that it posits itself in either or an enviable place, or an un-enviable place. That, and age, will divide most viewers. This is a straight down the line PG-13 film. It covers the fertile ground of school-age male fantasy (note that the female cadets of the future live in a go-go boot world that refuses to accept that Gloria Steinam was ever born), and shakes the camera enough to illicit the orient response.

But it does several things well. Quinto is perfectly cast as Spock (he was the first actor cast), and it is his character that is most adroitly explored. Whereas Pine’s Kirk is a cross between a wanna-be Tom Cruise (circa Cocktail) and a punching bag, Quinto’s Spock is a lesson in study. Quinto has clearly imbibed the Nimoy version, all the while making the persona his own. When he leaves a scene, the air is sucked out and quickly replaced with shaking camera action scenes. These scenes are full of errors–which of course is part of the point of “Sci-Fi.” But logic and continuity aside, many of the effects seem caught between the camp of the original show, and Abrams $150 million budget. Between the goofy red ice planet monster, and the rubber friend Scotty works with, one wonders if they are laughing at the right aspect.

And said humor is one of the many dividers. While Abrams makes a valiant attempt to imbue the film with campy humor, his screen-writers seem to have succumbed to the “throw it all and see what sticks” philosophy. While Bones’ constant attempts to inject Kirk w/vaccines create much of the Bones/Kirk dynamic, it is an example of how the film rides its jokes too far. In comedy, timing is everything, and this film seems to have lost its chances in the editing room.

The actors are signed for two sequels, and the set-ups for dramatic tension have been set. One only hopes the makers of these sequels spend more time mining what they’ve set in motion, and a little less time shaking the camera and the fake can of nuts.

Bottom line 3.5/5.0

Reviewed by Richard Lee Zuras

Released Jan. 30, 2009

1 hr. 33 min.

PG-13

Pierre Morel/20th Century Fox

Liam Neeson

Famke Jannsen

Maggie Grace

Xander Berkeley

It is time to wake up and question the world around us. I don’t mean to say here that we should wake up and question the corruption that is allowing prostitution rings like the one in this movie–I know better than to think the average American will get involved in that. Heck, to be honest, if it took this film to instruct you and lead you to this problem then it is clear that you live in a fantasy world anyway. This subject has been covered in journalism since forever, and covered on celluloid to better effect many years ago in the HBO series The Wire.

I’m talking about the fact that movies have turned into nothing more than commerce. Now this has been a topic of concern since the early days of the studio bosses, but things are beginning to sour in a new way. Never before in the long and storied history of film have movies purposely been cut to turn obvious R subject matter into PG-13 rated films. As I will explain, this hurts everyone involved EXCEPT the studios.

Witness the simple fact that Bond movies used to garner R not PG-13 ratings. Witness the fact that the comic book movies are getting PG-13 ratings. Witness the fact that Taken somehow gained a PG-13 rating. What is going on is now a decade old and seems to be taking on a new ability. The heads of studios admitted in the late 1990′s that it made no sense to cut a movie to R when PG-13 would gain more audience/money. So films began to lose a little quality, as subjects of a mature nature were cut to afford the Holy Grail: PG-13 rating. More people went, and we (adults) all noted that the films would have been better as R fare.

Now, fast forward ten years. The violence and outright subject matter that had been trimmed, much to our dismay, has been/is being put back in. The rating, however, is remaining the same. Well, Newton’s third law says there must be an equal and opposite reaction. And there is. The result is that while we as adults have ostensibly re-gained our R movie fare, the kids sitting around us have gained it as well.

Do an experiment. Take a PG-13 film from 1984 (in Pg-13′s infancy) and play it alongside Taken. Or The Dark Night. Or Quantum of Solace. Better yet–find PG and R movies from pre-1984 and play them. You can easily tell that certain movies have adult fare and are thus R movies. No question. Heck, the main concern in the 1970′s was how some movies (like The Exorcist) were getting an R instead of an X. This begs the question: In 20 years will we be amazed to find that movies that are clearly PG-13 are getting PG or even G ratings?

Oh, and if you think I am over-reacting to what (in Taken) even the MPAA calls “intense sequences of violence, disturbing thematic material, sexual content, some drug references and language,” then let me remind you of the countries that think 13 years old is too young for this movie:

Australia

UK

New Zealand

Ireland

South Africa

Peru

Argentina

Brazil

Norway

Canada

Finland

Germany

Sweden

Singapore

Of course France thinks 12 is old enough for Taken. So we’ve got that…

Bottom line 3.5/5.0 for adults

Bottom Line 0.0/5.0 for young children

Reviewed by Richard Lee Zuras

Released Feb. 13, 2009

1 hr. 45 min.

PG

P.J.Hogan/Bruckheimer Films

Isla Fisher

Hugh Dancy

Krysten Ritter

Critics used to exist to steer folks away from movies like this. In this day and age, people seldom listen to the critics–even when, en masse, the critics rise up and sound the alarm: This film may be hazardous to your health.

No, really. If you are young and therefore impressionable, this is a film that may indeed give you a mixed message wrapped in couture. The whole film, including Isla’s wink at the end as she is drawn to a new pair of shoes (or whatever…I was numb to the gimmicky mannequin trick by then and was having flashbacks of Andrew McCarthy), pretends it is teaching you a lesson on responsibility. Here’s the thing–if 102 physicians tell you that you have a disease, well chances are you do. It is almost impossible to find a critic that does not feel truly insulted by sections of this film. Search the net. Give it a try.

The writing is not only bad, it is an exercise in, and an insult to cliches. One can imagine that the true intended audience for this film is so young they have simply not seen all of this before. Therefore, the audience that enjoys this film is young enough to see (note the squareness of the parents and the mean debt collector who is simply doing his 9-5 job) that it is okay to behave in this manner–not to mention finding it viable that everyone is fabulous looking and people with heavy intellects who run intellectual finance magazines look like Hugh Dancy. Or that with no actual education in such boring things like personal finance a ditzy, arrested development socialite wannabe could pull off writing finance articles that the intellectuals will not only accept but welcome. Gee why didn’t I think of dumbing down economics?

There are messages here that relate to every aspect of our current financial crisis. This movie would be funny IF it were a training film from the 60′s–the kind they used to show high school students. It could be called “Here we have a woman in her early 30′s that has no discernible knowledge of the world around her that also lives with a roommate some 6 or 7 years younger that seems to already know more than she.” Or a high school film called “Addicted to shopping: How you can spot obvious psychology problems.”

There are intelligent attempts in the third act of the film. For a few moments we see that we are not supposed to act like this…but those moments are quickly undermined by acts that force the viewer to again side with the shopaholic who has, and seems likely to continue to, regress. When one watches a movie about alcohol addiction, for instance Leaving Las Vegas, one is not prone to see the addiction in a good light. But then again, if a movie tells you to think, even introspect, and not fall prey to materialism–that film will make less money that this one. Therein lies the APR…

Bottom line 2.0/5.0