new movies offer a wealth of choices
Sharkwater — Rob Stewart devotes himself to studying, swimming with and explaining the world’s sharks. He’s also a gifted filmmaker, with a keen eye for underwater beauty and a nose for corruption. That’s how this astonishing documentary turns into a thriller on the high seas, as Stewart stumbles upon a Costa Rican shark-poaching operation run by Asian gangsters.
You might be surprised to learn that sharks avoid humans more desperately than we avoid them. Indeed, greedy fishermen are destroying the world’s shark population to satisfy the demand for shark fin soup. These amazing fish — vital to the ocean’s ecosystem — are caught, maimed (their dorsal fins are worth a lot on the black market) and tossed back to die slowly.
Sharkwater is a personal nonfiction film of the highest order — it’s gorgeous to look at while it creates a powerful awareness.
A-
The Heartbreak Kid — We hate it when Hollywood hacks uproot a classic comedy and turn it into disposable mush. It happened with “The In-Laws” and now we get this obnoxious update of the 1972 favorite. Although each film is a farcical look at a real jerk — a guy who falls in love with another woman while on his honeymoon — the differences are devastating. On the one hand, you have Neil Simon (who still gets screenplay credit that I’m betting he would rather not have). On the modern end, you get the Farrelly brothers.
You know the Farrellys. Dumb and Dumber. Stuck on You. Lowbrow, gross-out, profane and modern. This time, Peter and Bobby rejoin their “Something About Mary” star Ben Stiller for a string of embarrassing foul-ups and predicaments. That’s Stiller’s specialty, and he can get a laugh with his shabby missteps. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer Neil Simon’s wordplay and character development to the Farrellys’ bodily-function humor. On the other hand, if you’ve always wanted to see a girl with a private piercing urinate on the skin of a jellyfish sting victim, then this one’s for you.
C-
The Jane Austen Book Club — The title tells you the truth: This is indeed a literate chick flick. It’s an ensemble piece for women who read, and for men who appreciate the nuances of Austen’s novels. The author’s wit and observations hold up 200 years later. Even better, writer-director Robin Swicord has adapted Karen Joy Fowler’s book into a fairly brisk study of assorted modern relationships.
The plot is simple enough. Six Californians form a club that meets monthly to discuss an Austen title. That means we get six months (i.e., chapters) for the main stories to develop. Five of the members are female, the sixth being a bachelor bicyclist (Hugh Dancy) who’s dreamy enough to be a present-day Mr. Darcy himself. The women are played by Maria Bello, Emily Blunt, Amy Brenneman, Kathy Baker and Maggie Grace. Each has issues, all are sympathetic and easy to watch.
Come on, guys. Give your date a break from blood and guts one time. It won’t hurt a bit.
B
The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising — So you miss Harry Potter already and you’re tired of waiting for a Narnia sequel? Well, this kiddie fantasy-adventure will give you a watered-down fix that might hold you a while. It’s about a 14-year-old boy who is apparently the sole heir of some mystic power that can save humanity from evil forces. You know, the usual stuff — shape-shifting creatures, billowing clouds, massive swarms of black birds and unscrupulous villains with magic powers of their own.
The effects are unobtrusive, the actors competent and the story predictably busy. Alexander Ludwig plays the young hero, with Ian McShane and Frances Conroy as the leaders of the good-guy faction that faces doom from a nasty wizard called The Rider (Christopher Eccleston). The plot involves six enchanted objects, scattered through time, that must be collected before the bad guys can wreck the Earth. Time Bandits was more fun.
Still, the action is suitable for youngsters (it’s rated PG), so don’t expect anything on the intensity level of Lord of the Rings. This is mild stuff meant for kids. And if it catches on there will be sequels. But we wouldn’t bet on it.
B-
The Kite Runner (opens Oct. 19) — Set partly in the U.S. but mainly in Afghanistan, this story of friendship and family features unknown actors in sharply realized performances. Director Marc Forster (”Finding Neverland”) takes us into the life and culture of Afghanistan in this drama, based on a best-seller, about a writer in San Francisco who recalls his youth in Kabul and returns there on a mission to help his childhood buddy.
Beautifully photographed (with China subbing for the Afghani locations) by Roberto Schaefer, this stirring tale truly transports us to a land that defies our expectations.
B+
In the Shadow of the Moon — An eloquent, surprisingly moving documentary about the men who walked on the moon. Told in smartly edited blends of close-up interview footage and clips from news archives and actual Apollo missions. It’s a simple as it sounds, but you’ll be impressed with how it holds you rapt as these aging astronauts share memories that no other humans can share. Oddest point: Neil Armstrong declined to participate. The other guys cover for him nicely.
B+
We Own the Night (opens Oct. 12) — The title is the motto of an NYPD violent crime unit, and the film delivers brutal action in the context of family conflict. Writer-director James Gray rejoins his co-stars from “The Yards,” Mark Wahlberg and Joaquin Phoenix. This time, the actors portray brothers on opposite sides of the law. Wahlberg is the “good” son, a police lieutenant following the path of his much-admired father, the chief (Robert Duvall, always a treat even in a familiar role). Phoenix plays the other son, a nightclub manager whose clientele includes some extremely disreputable characters. The clashes here are violent — physically and emotionally — and the story is set in 1988, when drug dealers threatened to overrun the city.
The characters seem conventional here, but the three stars make them fun to watch even as we notice plot holes, anachronisms and stale twists. Think of it as an unusually sensitive crime thriller.
B-
Gone Baby Gone (opens Oct. 19) — Yes, Ben Affleck can direct. The much-derided actor and Oscar-sharing screenwriter (with Matt Damon, remember?) makes an impressive debut behind the camera with this crime thriller that goes in directions we won’t even hint at. It would spoil the kick in this twisted tale about a novice detective (younger brother Casey Affleck, showing surprising new depths) and the kidnapping of a 4-year-old girl.
It’s based on a novel by Dennis Lehane, who sets it among the blunt, blue-collar Bostonians who also inhabited his “Mystic River” script. This time, a distraught aunt and uncle hire the young private eye because the police unit on the case (Morgan Freeman plays their leader) isn’t getting results.
It’s best not to know too much more before seeing the movie. Just be aware that morality has at least two sides this time around. Director Affleck, who shares writing credit, keeps the dialogue moving almost as fast as the chases and surprises. It’s not as memorable as “The Departed,” but it brings a similar Boston accent and rapid-fire convolution to the police-procedural genre.
B+
Tags: film, review
Loading ...
October 4th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
no offense, bob, but you keep saying “we” and it’s you who are doing the review. “we” sounds like a cop out on your opinion — it’s the organizations opinion, not your own. Take credit for what you write
October 4th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We#Atypical_uses_of_we
“… in which editorial columnists in newspapers and similar commentators in other media refer to themselves as we when giving their opinions. Here, the writer has once more cast himself or herself in the role of spokesman: either for the media institution who employs him, or more generally on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.”
Which is to say that I am quite ok with Bob using it.
October 5th, 2007 at 4:34 am
It’s a style i’ve used about 40 years. It’s based on old-school theories of proper written expression. the editorial or royal “we” is pure fuddy-duddy these days and i’m trying to adapt. but it’s hard for me to say “I Me Me Mine” all the time. it makes me feel as if i’m more interested in being the center of the discussion than in being objective. It has been said that one must not use “we” unless one is a monarch or pregnant. Please forgive my obviously outdated usage. i was taught that to wrie objectively and effectively, the first-person plurals are the pronouns of choice.
If enough Sticks readers want me to adapt a hipper new style, where everything’s about ME and MY THOUGHTS, i imagine i would become a bit more self-centered but less authoritative.
In fact, i am trying to learn the grammar of text messaging, where spelling doesn’t count and ideas are mostly one-dimensional. With the help of my peers i could learn functional illiteracy, where spelling doesn’t count and the writer is always the main subject. Next time you visit Wikipedia, look up Solipsism.