Reviews

It is not often that audiences today are treated to a film that has as many things going for it as Eastern Promises does. Whether it's because of interference from studios determined to make their products as marketable as possible, filmmakers who favor style over substance, or just a plain old shortage of originality, nowadays it is a treat when a film fan can leave the theater and feel affected by the artistry that he/she has just experienced.

On the surface, Eastern Promises is a straightforward crime story about people who don't appear to be terribly complex. But somehow, the combination of the narrative, the mood, and the humanness of the characters create an alchemy that transcends this film from something that could have been common into something quite unique and memorable. Noirish settings, dedicated medical professionals, and mobsters and their loyal henchmen are all commonplace enough in movies as to risk being clichés. Yet everything in this film about a London midwife who stumbles into contact with the Russian mob as she seeks clues to the identity of a teen who died in childbirth mesh together wonderfully and fully engage the viewer.

While it all starts with the script, credit must be given to the director, David Cronenberg for bringing it to life, and for the cast, who created living, breathing characters who the viewer cares about- whether they are likable or not, good or evil, or not quite so easy to read. They seem real.

At the core of the film is "Nikolai," the loyal chauffeur to the kingpin's volatile son. "Nikolai" is both enigmatic and mesmerizing. We know he is a man with a past and with secrets, but we really don't know what his goals and motives are. We don't know who he is, yet somehow, just as the half-Russian midwife, "Anna", we are drawn to him and trust that there is goodness in him, even as were are not quite sure we should. It is a skillful, yet understated performance that quietly blows you away.

Although Eastern Promises has some of the director's signature moments of eye-popping violence, they do not dominate this film and it is the quiet moments- where the characters are silently contemplating aspects of their own existence that give the film its power. We can see the introspection and pain on their faces, but the script leaves so much unsaid, and so much about the two main characters (played by Viggo Mortensen and Naomi Watts) we come to care about so much remain a beautiful, haunting mystery.

A compelling story lead by two of the most talented and charismatic actors working in film (Christian Bale and Russell Crowe) is kept from achieving the level of a great film because of plot points that are implausible. If the viewer can let go of the need for logic and enjoy fine acting and entertaining dialogue, it should not be too difficult to appreciate the characters brought to life by Crowe, Bale, and the supporting cast. What the script lacks in consistent believability, it makes up for with humor and chemistry. Crowe, as the hardened, life-long (yet charming) criminal searching for something decent in himself, and Bale as the beleaguered, beaten down rancher desperate to hold onto his land and last shred of self-respect make a memorable screen duo who square off against each other (and themselves) physically and psychologically.

This film is intellectual without being arrogant, hip and stylish without being pretentious, and brimming with youth and energy without being juvenile.

On a simplistic level, the film can be described as a coming of age story about two Oslo twenty-somethings who are writers. The scenes when they are hanging out with their friends contain witty, realistic dialogue and interactions. But this is a very rich, complex film. A unique, fresh narrative structure, depth of emotion, brilliant character development, beautiful photography, and terrific acting- this is really a film that has nothing simplistic about it. At times incisively funny, at other times angst ridden and sad, the film takes the viewer through the gamut of emotions experienced by the characters.

I didn't always know where the story or characters were going (I don't think the characters themselves did), but the director/writer was always in charge and confidently in control of every frame, yet not manipulative; I was a very satisfied viewer when the credits rolled and loud applause broke out in the audience at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

Keep your eye on Joachim Trier- he's going places.

Before writing this review, I read the four comments that were already posted- by tvspace, zumlinz, seabiscuit, and bartman. Their ratings ranged from two stars to ten stars, and one reviewer here (in addition to Manhola Dargis of the NY Times) hailed it as a masterpiece.

After viewing the film this afternoon at the IFC Center in Greenwich Village, I have to say that all four reviewers have valid points about the film.

It certainly has an "amateur" feel to it, including the acting of some of the smaller roles, as one of the previous reviewers pointed out. But I found much that was beautiful about it, and saw a sort of perfection in its lack of polish- polish and formula that is so commonplace today in not only big studio pictures, but many independent films as well.

While certainly not about "nothing," it does lack a conventional narrative, as was pointed out previously as well. But it is this absence of an obvious agenda (other than to portray typical, everyday life in Watts from the point of view of one family) that allows the film to work so well as a loosely structured, poetic slice of life. It is an amazing mood piece, and it made me feel quite sad. Yet there was humor, warmth, and hope scattered throughout the generally melancholy film.

I think this is the kind of film that will effect people differently, as is already evident from the first four reviews. If you don't catch this film in the theater this time around, it will be available on DVD in the fall and is well worth watching. Nowadays it seems to be in vogue with hotshot filmmakers to recreate the specific,unique look of older films, using all sorts of advanced technology to turn back the clock. Here's a chance to see the real deal-something raw and authentic from a talented filmmaker as he emerged.

If Peter O'Toole's mesmerizing, fearless, and endearing performance was the only positive aspect of Venus, it would still be well worth seeing.

I was pleasantly surprised that the sharp wit and general delightfulness promised by the theatrical trailer for this film delivered the goods.

Like the critically acclaimed and popular film from 2004, Sideways, this well-written bittersweet comedy celebrates what is means to be fully human by presenting us with complex, flawed characters who don't always behave the way they should- and our hearts end up bleeding for them as much when they're bad as when they're good.

With the simple story line about an aging British stage actor who develops an "interest" in his best friend's great niece, Venus artfully widens into a realistic exploration of how different relationships in our lives fulfill some needs, but not all, and how aging threatens aspects of our identity, but leaves other core pieces intact.

The scenes with "Maurice" and his actor friends are absolutely delightful and perfectly executed. The two wonderful scenes between "Maurice" and his estranged wife (a marvel of a performance by Vanessa Redgrave) are both heartwarming and heartbreaking.

The core of the story- the not-so-kosher, yet not-nearly-as-revolting as-you-might-think relationship between "Maurice" and "Jessie" (an impressive Jodie Whitaker) avoids all clichés and predictability found in Hollywood movies, and presents the viewers with a believable, engrossing slice of life, and fully invests them with an emotional stake in these characters' outcomes.

Venus is an expertly acted, beautifully written little gem that hopefully will not get lost among the more hyped (and over-blown) late year offerings. If The Academy decides to reward Mr. O'Toole with an Oscar for this performance, it will be one that is well deserved and won't be dismissed as "the sentimental choice." Treat yourself to the best adult comedy of 2006, and one of the best performances of the year.

The Painted Veil has all of the elements a viewer looks for in a period piece set during the time of British colonial rule. Beautiful scenery and costumes, a cast of thousands, and enough background information to make you feel you are more educated about a time and place than you were before you saw the movie.

What this film offers the fortunate viewer that many other movies of its kind do not, are lead characters you can actually empathize with and grow to care about. "Walter" and "Kitty" are far more likable and worth rooting for than- I don't know, let's say- Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas in the English Patient (see? I don't even remember their characters' names.) The movie's tagline- "Sometimes the greatest journey is the distance between two people" succinctly points to the heart of this film, and what makes it work so well; the journey of a couple who married for the wrong reasons towards true intimacy with each other.

On one level, the plot is so simple and straightforward that a one line summary gives the whole story away, and for that reason, I will refrain from providing that information as much as possible. It is enough to know that it is the story of The Fanes- Walter, the shy, bookish bacteriologist, and Kitty, the shallow, haughty young woman he becomes infatuated in and persuades to marry him. Walter takes Kitty to Shanghai, where he works in a government lab. Circumstances lead Walter to re-locate them to a more remote area of China in the throes of a cholera epidemic. It is in this setting that the parallel stories unfold; the story of a doctor and his wife living in the house of a dead missionary's family as the doctor tries to get control of the conditions responsible for the epidemic, and the story of the couple's journey towards re-discovering each other.

The impressive skill that Ms. Watts and Mr. Norton bring to their work truly makes you believe that that the first challenge- combating cholera amid colonial unrest and nationalist hostilities is easier than the task of repairing a damaged marriage, and with each uneasy glance and every unsaid word, you feel what these two people feel. And that is the beauty of The Painted Veil. Fans of Ms. Watts and Mr. Norton will have reason to rejoice- this is a performance unlike any I have ever seen Ms. Watts give. There is nothing of what was becoming her trademark "emotionally fragile woman in shambles" persona on display here. And what of Edward Norton? Well, after his turn in The Illusionist earlier in the year and now "Walter Fane," all I can say is, move over, Ralph Fiennes- there's a new sexy "repressed, stiff-upper-lipped, sensually simmering under the surface" leading man in town.

The Painted Veil is an intelligently adapted, well-directed film with two charismatic, award-worthy lead performances and a strong supporting cast, including Liev Schreiber, Diana Rigg, and most notably Toby Jones as the Fanes' neighbor. It is also wonderfully entertaining, and a good introduction to the period piece/historical epic genre some viewers have been avoiding due to fear of suffocation.

Leonardo DiCaprio has become one of the premiere American actors. With a set of natural instincts that lends a non-showy, believable quality to all of his performances, versatility, and movie star size charisma that fills up the screen and emotionally hooks the viewer into his character and story, it is hard to think of another male American actor (with the exception of Johnny Depp) who is consistently giving an audience its money worth; these two gentleman have taken the reins from Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, as those two Oscar-winning future legends of the silver screen gracefully age into more mature roles.

In Blood Diamond, it is Mr. DiCaprio's performance that raises this film above it's standard Hollywood fare of a script (although it is a solid script) into something memorable. His performance here as an opportunistic diamond smuggler equals that of the one he gave earlier in the fall as "Billy Costigan" in The Departed, although the two characters couldn't be more different from each other. It may be his best performance yet, and in terms of sheer charisma and memorability it certainly rivals his mega-star making performance as "Jack Dawson" in Titanic.

I liked Blood Diamond a great deal, but do not think it is a great film. A good movie? Yes. Very mainstream and formulaic, but it is raised up quite a bit by DiCaprio's character and his terrific realization of it. If I had read this script beforehand, I never would have thought of Leo for this role- possibly George Clooney or some other star known for "roguish charm," but not Leo. But now, having seen it, I can't imagine anybody else as "Danny Archer;" it is a fully realized, winning performance.

Mr. Hounsou was wonderful as well, and I liked the chemistry between the two men in their scenes together. He was able to make the audience feel the gamut of emotions his character experiences during the course of the movie- pride and hope, fear, outrage, resignation, mistrust, desperation, and determination, and beautifully rises above the somewhat limiting way his role was written.

I thought Ms. Connelly did as good a job as possible in her role as "the idealistic journalist who wants to make a difference." Her part was just a larger version of Joaquin Phoenix's in Hotel Rwanda. As always, I find she brings a certain dignity and intelligence to her performances and does not allow her incredible beauty to overshadow her acting. I thought she and Leo worked wonderfully together, as well, and along with Mr. Hounsou they make an engaging trio you can't help rooting for.

In comparing it to other recent films about Africa, I didn't think this was quite as good as as Hotel Rwanda, but better than The Interpreter, The Constant Gardener, and The Last King of Scotland. I felt an emotional engagement with the characters I didn't experience in the latter three films. I found the script allowed my care for the characters to grow as the story progressed, and was not overly manipulative. At times it veered too much into standard action movie territory, with much violence and many "close calls" but would then be brought back into the realm of compelling human drama by a wonderfully acted, intimate scene.

After reading some early negative comments, I was pleasantly surprised at my response to it. Compelling characters and the skillful use of a truly gripping global issue as the plot line make this a satisfying viewing experience- one that I would happily see again.

When a complex plot with enigmatic characters serve to draw the audience in and keep it fully engaged, a political thriller is successful.

Unfortunately, Syriana appears to have been made by a filmmaker who had forgotten he was making this film for an audience; that the people in the seats were flesh and blood, breathing humans who had paid for a ticket expecting a story and characters who were also made out of flesh and blood.

Instead we get stick figures who have been drawn with only slight changes in facial expressions whom Gaghan woodenly moves around the globe, uttering completely wooden, bloodless (yet overblown) dialogue.

If his point was to show there is no soul involved in any aspect of the oil industry, I "get it." But did he have to numb my emotions, insult my intelligence and completely bore me to death for over two hours to illustrate his point? Is this my punishment for being a consumer of oil?

I saw this movie at a Q&A (with the director) screening Sunday night in Lincoln Center. I would say it was good movie but not a great one.

It seemed to me that the film was trying to do and be too many things, so the emotional impact it had on me was far less than what I think it should have been, given the basic story and quality of the performances. I never read the book, so I can't compare the film to it.

I think my major problems were these:

1.The way the story is told never enabled me to really feel the level of love that was supposed to exist between ""Justin" (Ralph Fiennes) and "Tessa" (Rachel Weisz), and it was this love that was supposed to enable "Justin" to change and choose the course of action that is the center of the story- the protagonist's "quest".

2.While the scenes of the conditions the Kenyans and Sudanese (I believe that a later scene was shot in Sudan) live under made me feel sympathy (and to some degree, guilt), there wasn't one main character who was a native of this environment- they were nameless faces who were supposed to symbolize the results of the exploitation and corruption that victimize Africa and her people. (I don't think the doctor who "Tessa" worked with was native to that area.) So, while I felt bad in the same way I would if I were watching the nightly news, it's not the same level of connection I would feel if there had been some well-defined characters- even one- who could have defined "who," as opposed to "what" "Tessa" was fighting for.

Because the movie has a mystery element to it, "Tessa's" full motives, by virtue of both the narrative form and needs, retains a degree of mystery, and to me, this made her character seem somewhat aloof, underdeveloped and one-note, although I have no problem with Rachel's portrayal of her. She is quite an engaging actress; reminds me a lot of Kate Winslet .

The most successful part of the film to me, despite the roadblocks I mentioned, was Ralph Fienne's beautiful performance. His work here is very internal, subtle and understated, and I found it quietly moving and powerful. Although "the too much going on" I referred to causes a competition of sorts among the elements for what the focus of the film should be- a murder mystery? A love story? An exploration and indictment of government and corporate greed being able to flourish unnoticed in Africa because nobody cares? The director's formidable skill in using flashback, visuals and sound to create auras of haunting memories, mystery, and suspense?- it is Fienne's moving portrayal of an English gentleman who experiences his emotions quietly as he pieces together what has happened that emerges from all of these vying elements as the center of this film.

I saw a screening of this in New York City in late March, and I loved it. I thought about this movie for many days afterward, and it is one of the best films I've seen all year. It is scheduled for an October release.

This was a beautiful, poetic film- one that touched me both on an artistic level and a deeply personal level. Although I am forty-five now, the movie took me on a vivid journey back to my own adolescence, and the truth that Ms. Shortland captured about "Heidi," and the relationship between "Heidi" and "Joe" was breathtakingly realistic.

Somewhere during my viewing, I realized I was watching one those rare works of art which so startlingly and accurately paint a piece of the human experience that is both reflective of its time and place and destined to transcend them. "Heidi's" red gloves become the self-protective coat of armor to an Aussie teen-aged a girl of the twenty-first century the way "Holden's" red hunting cap served the same purpose to the confused, distraught adolescent of 1940's New York City.

The acting is superb, and there is not a false note anywhere to be found in any of the elements of this film.