Roland Emmerich is best known for destroying the world in films like INDEPENDENCE DAY, GODZILLA, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW and 2012. This period political thriller is the furthest from his other work as any film he has done. It’s also easily his best film. Do I believe in its central premise that Shakespeare didn’t write his plays? Not any more than I believe that Shakespeare based ROMEO AND JULIET one his own love affair with a noble woman who dreamed of acting.

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave, JULIA), the stage was seen ripe with sedition. The problem was that the queen loved plays, so her handlers William Cecil (David Thewlis, HARRY POTTER) and his hunchback son Robert (Edward Hogg, 2004’s ALFIE) had to tread lightly in their censorship campaign. Amid this backdrop, Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans, NOTTING HILL), the son-in-law of William Cecil, writes plays in secret. After watching the work of Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto, BRIGHT STAR), the nobleman, who is wasting away his inheritance, commands the playwright to stage his work under the writer’s name. Unwilling to take the risk, the opportunistic actor William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall, SHAUN OF THE DEAD) begins to claim he is the author of such works as HENRY VI, MACBETH and HAMLET.

I, in general, do not believe in mass conspiracies because conspiracies need humans to carry them out and humans talk. Oxfordian theorists read a lot into the work of Shakepeare to find parallels to the life of De Vere just like Nostradamus scholars force history into the psychic’s writings. And any proof to the other side is just proof of the conspiracy at work. That said, seen as an ingenious work of alternative historical fiction, the film works wonders.

Emmerich sets up his players well. De Vere is a passionate man who needs to express himself through writing. His place in society forces him to do so anonymously. He has been educated and seen the behind-the-scenes workings of the court. In witnessing the corruption of the Cecils, he wants to support the succession claim of the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid, TV’s MI-5). He tells the young impressionable Earl of Southampton (Xavier Samuel, THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE) that the pen is mightier than the sword.

De Vere is a tortured genius who puts many of the tragedies of his life into his work. As a young man the character is played by Jamie Campbell Bower (SWEENEY TODD) at a time when he fancies the Queen, played by Joely Richardson (THE PATRIOT). If De Vere has a weakness it is his own hubris. He looks down upon the commoner Johnson, who he chose to stage his plays because the writer had no voice of his own. Jealousy starts to brew. Johnson becomes envious of the work De Vere produces and the fame that the illiterate Shakespeare receives for it. De Vere is too tormented by the applause given his work that is directed toward another unworthy man.

Both Ifans and Bower bring drive and obsession to the character. De Vere is a man who cares about ideas and how they can change the world. He knows the power and wants to exploit it, but the forces conspiring against him know secrets that he couldn’t imagine. The story takes on the scope of a Greek tragedy.

Mother and daughter, Redgrave and Richardson, also give their queen passion. She cherishes the freedom that plays bring and the truth they so often speak. At times she comes off as a pawn, but in the end she is the queen. Redgrave makes us believe that Queen Elizabeth I is a woman who has endured a great deal of heartache and sacrifice over her lifetime, but holds onto youthful delights as much as she can.

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,

De Vere plays a nobleman, a scholar, a murderer, a lover, a husband, a father and a rebel over the course of his life. But I guess you have to be all of those in order to be a great playwright. The same can be said of the real Shakespeare who continues to inspire the imagination in ways that he might never have imagined.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

It’s not surprising that George Clooney would make a political film. What might be surprising is how cynical the film is about our political process. For sure Clooney works in liberal ideas, but it’s not the point. His character just happens to be a Democrat. The political policies his character talks about easily be switched to the other side and it wouldn’t change the central theme, which is that politics is completely compromised with flawed humans looking out for themselves.

Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling, DRIVE) is a young campaign operative who has worked on more campaigns at 30 than most people have worked by 40. He’s an idealist who really believes in the presidential candidate Gov. Mike Morris (Clooney). He works under the grizzled operative Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman, CAPOTE), who is working behind the scenes to seal a deal with former primary candidate Senator Thompson (Jeffrey Wright, CASINO ROYALE), whose delegates would put either of the two remaining candidates over the top.

Morris talks about not compromising on his principles. He doesn’t want to take union money. He doesn’t want to makes back room deals that go against his policy goals. Myers pushes the candidate to be bold and not go halfway on his ideas. But politics seem to always get in the way of ideals. Scandals arise and loyalties will be questioned. Stephen will be pressed on what is morally right. Are the greater goals of Morris worth acting unethically to cover up problems?

Pulling the strings of this paranoid thriller are others who all have their own agendas. Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti, WIN WIN) is the campaign chief for Morris’ opponent who wants to recruit Myers. Ida Horowicz (Marisa Tomei, BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU’RE DEAD) is a very connected newspaper reporter who seems to know everything and is willing to print it all no matter who it hurts. Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood, TV’s TRUE BLOOD) is an intern for the Morris campaign who has eyes for Myers. She also has a very important father. Morris’ wife Cindy (Jennifer Ehle, CONTAGION) is not off limits to be used to convince her husband to act the way his handlers want him to act. Ben Harpen (Max Minghella, SYRIANA) is a junior operative who tries to keep his head down, do his job and hope he rises when the crap begins to pile up.

Gosling makes Myers a cool and clean operator. He’s a little full of himself, but he has to be to be doing what he is doing. Nothing more fires him up than defending his belief in his candidate against the older more jaded political insiders. Wood’s college-aged Molly is instinctively drawn to Myers, because he exudes confidence. So he must he great in bed. Wood makes Molly sexy and sweet. She knows what she is doing and just wants to be involved because she might be a bigger true believer than Myers. Hoffman’s Paul is just the opposite. He’s paranoid and vindictive. He takes politics personally.

Taking things personally is what Clooney is getting at. Personality clashes, double crosses and personal survival are far more the top motivations for political moves than political ideals. There is a moment between Myers and another where it’s a tense stand off on who will blink first. A simple mistake starts the boulder rolling and Myers has to run in order to keep from getting crushed. What the boulder doesn’t know is that Myers is working out how to crush it.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

So what does the Bible say about homosexuality? The verse thrown out most often is Leviticus 20:13 — “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” An abomination that’s some strong language. But what else does the Bible call an abomination? Even before homosexuality, Leviticus 11:10-11 says, “But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.” Holy cow, stop the church retreat and clambake!

Director Daniel G. Karslake looks at the conflict between conservative Christians and the LGBT community. He does so by interviewing families of gay children, as well as clergy and religion professors. One of the interviewees is Dick Gephardt, the former Democratic House Majority Leader, who talks about the coming-out of his daughter Chrissy and how that played into his run for president. Gene Robinson is the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church. The film looks into the waves his nomination as bishop caused and the backlash he had to deal with.

But the film also deals with average families and how they reacted to their children coming out. An African American family talks about their daughter’s homosexuality with frank honesty on how they don’t agree with her lifestyle. Her father said he always hoped his daughter wouldn’t turn out a slut and his son a frag, but he laughs when she says he didn’t expect it to turn out the other way around. Both her parents have found ways to rationalize her homosexuality with their religious views in order to stay in contact with her. Her mother seems to have a particular problem imagining her daughter’s sex life. Really? What parent is comfortable imagining their children’s sex life whether they’re straight or gay?

A young man comes out in high school. When he tells his parents, they didn’t know how to react really. They bought books and consulted psychiatrists to see if they could fix him. They’re biggest worry was how others would treat their son. But the outspoken teen couldn’t hide his identity. Over time his parents embrace his activism and stand side by side with him as he pushes for equal rights.

A young woman goes off to college, the first place she is comfortable to embrace her homosexuality. She comes out to her mother in a letter. Her mother writes back that she doesn’t want to ever see her again, because the church told her so. The mother regrets this choice.

Some of the religious experts the film talks with take on the Bible verses against homosexuality directly. They claim that literalism vs. interpretation is where the problem lies. Translation plays a part as well. How can homosexuality and eating shellfish both be an abomination? Well upon the writing of the Old Testament, an abomination was anything that was against tradition. Others point to the story of Sodom and Gomorra as another example of God smiting homosexuals. Angels come to the door of a rich man and the rich man sends his guards to rape them. In context to the time, rape was common as a tool to humiliate one’s enemies. The biggest sin the rich man committed was not letting a stranger into his house as a guest, which was the tradition of the times.

In an animated sequence, the film looks at the science of homosexuality. One fact that stuck out was that the more boys a woman has the more likely future boys will be homosexual. Scientists believe this is the case because a woman’s immune system fights harder against the male baby as a foreign object and the more boys a woman has, the better her body gets at hitting the male child with female hormones.

The doc is both scholarly and emotional. The science and religious interpretation arguments are compelling, but those devoted to bigotry toward homosexuals will find ways to disregard them. It’s interesting when the film does on the street interviews with people who believe homosexuality is wrong because of Bible, but really don’t know what the Bible says about homosexuality. However, it’s the personal stories of families dealing with their feelings on homosexuality that is hard to toss aside.

The film clearly makes the point that what the Bible says is taken selectively. Homosexuality is still on the no-no list, but might not be forever just like eating shellfish or pork, seeing your wife’s menstrual flow, cutting the hair at the sides of your head or wearing mixed fabric trousers. Polyester-cotton blends should still be a sin, but you know traditions change.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Patrice Laconte is a filmmaker who likes to deal with stories about peculiar relationships. This period piece deals with the peculiar relationships that sprung up during the reign of Louis XVI. Wit ruled the day and was the way to catch the ear of the king. Sincerity was looked down upon. Those best at publicly ridiculing his fellow man were the celebrity du jour. So those who actually had sincere plans needed to hide them under the mask of mockery.

Le Marquis Gregoire Ponceludon de Malavoy (Charles Berling, SUMMER HOURS) is a country nobleman with a grand plan to drain the swamps of Dombes in order to save the people from disease. He decides to travel to Versailles in order to see the king about his idea. He is quickly rejected. Along the road back home, he is mugged and falls under the care of the doctor Le Marquis de Bellegarde (Jean Rochefort, THE MAN ON THE TRAIN), who takes the young man under his wing and gives him a chance at court. There Gregoire shows off his biting wit. He catches the attention of the rich widow Madame de Blayac (Fanny Ardant, ELIZABETH) and the current wit champion L’Abbee de Vilecourt (Bernard Giraudau, A MATTER OF TASTE).

While Bellegarde marvels at Gregoire’s mental dexterity, the young engineer doesn’t particularly like the game he has to play. Meanwhile, Bellegarde’s daughter Mathilde (Judith Godreche, THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK) is playing a game of her own lining up as the second wife of the ancient nobleman Monsieur Montalieri (Bernard Dheran, DON’T DELIVER US FROM EVIL). They’re just waiting for his first wife to die. It is the only way for her to fund her research into diving bells. Gregoire and Mathilde come together in their passion for science, but science needs money to fund it and love doesn’t pay the bills.

Two related scenes define the mood of the era. Gregoire and Bellegarde are traveling with the sign language innovator Charles-Michel de l’Epee (Jacques Mathou, DELICATESSEN). He offers to take in Bellegarde’s deaf ward, who is viewed as the local idiot. Bellegarde scuttles off the idea to save face. L’Epee’s passion of doing good is a social faux pas. Later l’Epee will have a chance to show off his work at court. Few have the guts to commend him, most just make fun of the deaf and dumb patients as if they were dogs dressed up in formal attire to amuse them.

The court, with great snobbery, say they are following the writings of Voltaire, but seem to have no clue what their idol was talking about when it came to social justice. Louis XVI (Urbain Cancelier, AMIELE) is a symbol of this phoniness. The monarch would shun longtime supporters if they weren’t witty enough like a teenage coward shuns an old friend because the friend isn’t cool enough to be among his new pals. The postscript to the film reminds us of the how the French Revolution dealt with these out of touch privileged elite. They ate cake while laughing about the dying peasants and lost their heads too.

Under Louis XVI, the privileged class mocked the poor. They can’t imagine what it is like to be poor, turning their noses up at the retched masses that are just “bleeding the nation dry.” The elite of the 18th century kept particular company and threw out anyone who said anything against the prevailing wisdom of the king. Gregoire tries to fit in but he’s seen the poor and all the wine and women in Versailles can’t make him forget. Some things never change.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

It’s been five years since Roman Polanski directed his very good adaptation of OLIVER TWIST. Now he returns to the thriller genre he so commanded in classics like CHINATOWN and ROSEMARY’S BABY. Now mind you, this isn’t a new classic, but it is a return to form from his last thriller, THE NINTH GATE. This time he delves into the land of modern political mystery, keeping us wondering right up to the very end.

Ewan McGregor stars as simply The Ghost, a writer hired to ghost write the autobiography of Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan, THE MATADOR), the former prime minister of the U.K. The writer has a month to rewrite the draft of the previous writer who drowned. He flies from London to Massachusetts where the PM lives with his wife Ruth (Olivia Williams, RUSHMORE). His life is closely regimented by his assistant Amelia Bly (Kim Cattrall, SEX IN THE CITY), who refuses to let the writer leave the house with the manuscript. It seems there are people eager to steal it. While the Ghost delves into Lang’s past, the former world leader is whipped up in controversy over detainees and torture that has lead to war crimes charges at the Hague.

McGregor does a very good job of conveying the impossible job that this assignment presents. His goal is to accurately portray Lang, while pleasing the client at the same time. The question is whether Lang is willing to reveal the skeletons in his closet. Nonetheless, the writer’s sense of integrity drives him to seek them out. This puts him in a great deal of danger. Ruth resents her husband’s relationship with Mrs. Bly, but has an innate desire to protect him from the media scrutiny that is at siege on him. Robert Rycart (Robert Pugh, MASTER & COMMANDER) use to be part of Lang’s government until the PM sacked him. So what are his motivations in bringing up the charges against his former boss? And how does the professor Paul Emmett (Tom Wilkinson, IN THE BEDROOM) fit into this puzzle? How well does he really know Adam Lang?

Polanski takes his time with the material often creating tension with awkward silence. Deep seeded tensions between characters and unheard phone calls make one suspicious. He’s also unafraid to break that tension at times with wry humor instead of needless action. McGregor’s frustration with this impossible job creates many of the laughs. Because the Ghost has nothing personal at stake in this mystery, he works like many great detectives — a seeker of the truth. In this story, he also stands as the conscience of the characters. His fate in the end says a lot about the moral compass of the other characters.

While the characters are engaging, this is a thriller about ideas first and foremost. Like many of Polanski’s films, it has a pessimistic view of the world. Corruption always runs deep and strange in his work.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Armando Iannucci’s political satire looks at the maneuvering the British government makes to find out what the Americans have in the works in the lead up to a war in the Middle East. Pro-war and anti-war sides connive to push their agendas. A throwaway comment on a radio show puts the hapless Minister for International Development right in the middle of this political battle.

The minister, Simon Foster (Tom Hollander, PRIDE & PREJUDICE), said that he felt war in the Middle East was unforeseeable. The next day the Prime Minister’s strong arm Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi, MAX) blows his lid and threatens to stick Simon in the sticks. His new assistant Toby (Chris Addison, TV’s THE THICK OF IT) gets him into a big meeting with a visiting U.S. State official named Karen Clarke (Mimi Kennedy, TV’s DHARMA & GREG). He’s supposed to be room meat, but Clarke takes the opportunity to use Simon’s radio remarks to support her anti-war case. This leads to Simon being invited to the States to be used in Clarke’s battle against her warmonger counterpart Linton Barwick (David Rasche, TV’s SLEDGE HAMMER!).

Simon tries to take the opportunity to advance his career, but trying to not take a stand one way or the other makes him look like a boob. Meanwhile, Clarke’s assistant Liza Weld (Anna Chlumsky, MY GIRL) has written a compelling paper on reasons to not go to war, but if the U.S. eventually moves toward war, it could ruin her career. Barwick’s assistant Chad (Zach Woods) won’t let her forget it. Lt. Gen. George Miller (James Gandolfini, TV’s THE SOPRANOS) tries to explain to Clarke why they can’t go to war, but needs a kid’s calculator to work out the troupe numbers. When Malcolm heads to America to make sure Simon doesn’t make a mess of things, he puts his assistant Jamie MacDonald (Paul Higgins, TV’s THE THICK OF IT) in charge. Jamie is like a younger copy of his foul mouthed boss. Judy Molloy (Gina McKee, NOTTING HILL) of Simon’s office just assesses the mess with a raised eyebrow and a wry quip from time to time.

The film is a take on Armando’s TV’s series THE THICK OF IT, which follows the inner workings of the British government’s spin machine. The only major returning character from the series is Malcolm, but many of the same actors in the series play new variations on their TV characters. CINEMA SCOPE called the film THE THICK OF IT origin story.

The film has a sharp, subtle and rapid fire wit. Most of the humor comes from the clash of personalities. Simon is a laid back politician who didn’t get into politics to make waves. Hollander is droll in the role. There is one segment where he’s sent off to deal with public complaints and has to deal with Steve Coogan in a cameo as Paul Michaelson, a civilian livid over a municipal wall that’s leaning over his mother’s garden. Capaldi is like a force of nature. He guns off rapid fire insults like a crazy man with a machine gun. Kennedy and Gandolfini’s characters have a past, which creates for some nice banter. Rasche’s Barwick is a classic satire of politicians who look at every issue as black & white. He’s a little off and very dim. He has a live hand grenade as a paperweight.

I was expecting a more direct satire of the Iraq War, but in reality the film is a satire of the political process. In dealing with the State department underlings, the film takes a unique look at how complex political wheeling and dealings go. The smartest moments come when the film weaves in biting irony like Clarke and Miller discussing the war in a kid’s room or Malcolm’s reaction to having to meet a U.S. official that looks like he was born during the second term of the Clinton administration. PMs and presidents play politics about war, while they need assassins like Malcolm to engage war about politics.

Support the Site

Buy “In the Loop” on DVD Here!

Support the Site

Buy “In the Loop” on Blu-ray Here!

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Inspired by the Judith Miller ordeal where she outed CIA agent Valerie Plame, writer/director Rob Lurie crafts a tense political thriller that argues the pros and cons of the freedom of the press versus national security. How far would you go to defend a principle?

Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale, SNOW ANGELS) is a reporter for the fictional Capitol Sun-Times. At her son’s soccer game she goes up to another soccer mom, named Erica Van Doren (Vera Farmiga, THE DEPARTED), a woman she only knows as the mom of another student. She tells Erica that in the morning she will be publishing an article that reveals that she is a CIA agent and that the article will be very embarrassing to the current administration. Van Doren is certainly not pleased.

Soon a special prosecutor named Patton Dubois (Matt Dillon, CRASH) is assigned to investigate who leaked the name of Van Doren, which is a treasonable offence. Armstrong is called in front of a grand jury and refuses to reveal her sources and is found in contempt of court. Her newspaper hires high powered lawyer Alan Burnside (Alan Alda, THE AVIATOR), who seems more worried about his expensive suit than whether Armstrong will actually be imprisoned. He underestimated the determination of Dubois and within no time Van Doren is in jail.

As the drama progresses, both Armstrong and Van Doren’s lives will be turned upside down. Erica’s husband Oscar (Jamey Sheridan, THE STAND) leaves her and Armstrong’s husband Ray (David Schwimmer, TV’s FRIENDS) wonders how she can put her journalistic principles before her family. The CIA begins to investigate Van Doren, fearing she may be the leak herself. She’s dogged by reporters at every turn. Armstrong languishes in prison and whenever she thinks she might have a way out, Dubois is right there to lasso her with legality again.

Armstrong’s editor Bonnie Benjamin (Angela Bassett, WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?) supports her reporter’s stance, but the paper’s lawyer Avril Aaronson (Noah Wyle, TV’s E.R.) only sees how much this stance is costing. The longer she is imprisoned, Armstrong questions whether it was worth writing the story, but from her point of view what’s done is done and what’s right is right.

Beckinsale gives one of her best performances. She is much more than a pretty face. It’s a testament to the character she was given and her skills as an actress that her time in prison feels authentic. She’s a reporter in prison from day one, not a hardened criminal like those she’s imprisoned with. Her fear is understandable and compelling. Farmiga gives yet another amazing performance. She crafts Van Doren as a no-nonsense, intelligent woman who shows why she has moved up the ranks at the CIA.

Lurie is not new to political stories where his characters take hard stances on principles. In THE CONTENDER, his female vice presidential candidate refused to answer questions about her personal life that would never be asked of a man. Armstrong understands that whether revealing Van Doren’s identity was right or wrong, the issue now is protecting sources so that journalists can be trusted and can get important scoops.

Lurie builds tension wonderfully throughout. As Armstrong’s circumstances get worse, the viewer sometimes sways on whether it’s worth it. In the film, the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and Burnside’s speech brings us right back on Armstrong’s side. It’s so good it would sway the real Court I believe. In a day when the nature of journalism is changing daily, this film underlines, italicizes and bolds the reason why a free, independent press is so vital to democracy. The responsibility of being a journalist has rarely been more intriguingly portrayed on the screen.

Support the Site

Buy “Nothing But The Truth” on DVD Here!

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

Based on a BBC miniseries, which starred Bill Nighy and James McAvoy, Kevin Macdonald’s American feature version brings back the hero journalist to the big screen before they are blogged out of existence. I am aware of the irony in that statement for I am blogging right now. The director of THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND mixes journalism and politics and murder in a film well aware of how all three are changing in modern society.

Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe, THE INSIDER) is a veteran reporter for the Washington Globe, a top newspaper that has been bought by a bigger corporation that’s demanding profits. His editor Cameron Lynne (Helen Mirren, THE QUEEN) feels the pressure the most, valuing Cal’s journalistic integrity, but salivating over cheaper, faster blog-style reporters like the young Della Frye (Rachel McAdams, THE NOTEBOOK). A big story breaks involving Cal’s friend, congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck, HOLLYWOODLAND). Turns out, he was having an affair with his researcher, who has been murdered. It also turns out that their friendship has been on the rocks ever since Cal slept with Collins’ wife Anne (Robin Wright Penn, FORREST GUMP). How does the young woman’s death relate to the murder of a purse-snatcher? Is the military contractor that Collins is fighting against involved? Cal digs for the truth anyway he can, which doesn’t make for fast headlines, while Della can turn out copy fast based solely on knee-jerk speculation.

Paul Abbott wrote the original series, which was pared down into this 127-minute feature by Matthew Michael Carnahan (LIONS FOR LAMBS), Tony Gilroy (MICHAEL CLAYTON) and Billy Ray (SHATTERED GLASS). Each writer seems precisely chosen for different elements of the plot. Carnahan knows world politics. Ray knows journalism. Gilroy knows how to weave it all together. With director Macdonald at the helm, the film turns into a tightly woven thriller that twists and turns as new information is uncovered. Most impressively, the film never twists or turns in a 180-degree direction that breaks the film’s well earn credibility. This credibility is earned in the smart way it uses current demands on newspapers by their corporate owners to create tension, while commenting on how real investigative journalism is in jeopardy. This part is done so well that a few standard physical action sequences stick out like real journalism on Perez Hilton’s website. I don’t remember Jimmy Stewart needing to get shot at in CALL NORTHSIDE 777 to make that film thrilling.

Crowe is perfectly suited as the grizzled reporter. Like he did in AMERICAN GANGSTER, I like how he adds moments of vulnerability into his characters, showing that they aren’t movie heroes, but humans simply trying to do their job, which happen to put them into danger. McAdams burst onto the scene with THE NOTEBOOK and she reminds us here why we love her. She gives her character pluck, while subtly showing that she has a few things to learn without making it an obvious war between old school reporting and the new school. Mirren gives the film a nice dose of wit.

STATE OF PLAY has something to say about why real, down-and-dirty investigative reporting is invaluable, as well as makes for captivating cinema. Investigating this murder might have greater meaning. What is going on with America outsourcing war? How dangerous will the world become when wars are run for-profit? This film doesn’t set out to be the definitive answer to those questions, but it puts out the questions, just like a good journalist would. Whether it’s about politics or journalism, this film knows what it’s talking about. It’s most important point is that in journalism, the most important part of the job is getting the story right, not first. But if you can get it right and first, that’s even better.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

I saw this at about the same time I saw the 2008 political thriller VANTAGE POINT and am surprised at the similarities. They both have gimmicks in how they structure their story and they both deal with politics. But what’s even more surprising is that the romantic comedy DEFINITELY, MAYBE executes both of those elements better than the other movie. Romantic comedies are usually slavish to conventions, and thrillers are supposed to throw new twists at us each time out. While DEFINITELY, MAYBE isn’t perfect, it respects its audience enough to know what its talking about when not in romance mode.

Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds, BLADE TRINITY) is getting divorced. His young daughter Maya (Abigail Breslin, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE) wants to know how her father and mother met, and why they’re splitting, so Will begins to tell her his dating-life story since college — only changing the names to protect the innocent (and add a bit of mystery to who is Maya’s mom). The first suspect is Emily (Elizabeth Banks, W.), Will’s hometown sweetheart. Maya isn’t convinced it’s her because in romances the guy never stays with the original girl. Next is April (Isla Fisher, THE LOOKOUT), a vivacious woman who isn’t big on commitment, which often casts Will in the role of boy friend not boyfriend. The third and final suspect is journalist Summer (Rachel Weisz, THE CONSTANT GARDENER), who turns out to have a lot in common with Will.

Between all the romantic elements, Will tells the story of the rise of his political career from an intern to speechwriter. Jobs in romantic comedies usually are window dressing, but writer/director Adam Brooks cares enough to make Will’s career real, which makes him more interesting. The political material also adds a nice historical look at the political climate of the Clinton years. Now I will say that the politics and romance stories have little to do with each other thematically, but they are both well told and never get in the way of each other. It’s like getting two movies in one.

Reynolds is known as a funny guy, but in this role, he shows that he’s more than a comedian. His boyish good looks make him perfect for meatier romantic comedy leads. Banks dials down this character from her more flashy work in films like 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN. Fisher is given a chance to play something other than a dimwit, and fits perfectly into this free-spirit role. While its not a criticism of her acting, Weisz is a bit distracting, because our expectations of her are higher than the material. She’s an Oscar-winning actress, not just the third female lead in a rom-com. That said she is the right choice for an up-and-coming political journalist. So when the film is in its political world, she fits perfectly, and when it’s in rom-com land, she feels miscast. This only highlights the disconnect between the two plot lines.

Going into the film, I thought the gimmick of Maya trying to figure out who her mother is would be contrived. Now having seen the film, I can say it is contrived, but it doesn’t matter. What it provides is another second, unexpected, love story to emerge, the one between a father and his daughter. With its smart attention to all its characters and plot elements, DEFINITELY, MAYBE is certainly a cut above the average romantic comedy.

Support the Site

Buy “Definitely, Maybe” Here!

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network

I am a WATCHMEN comic fan. I think it’s important to say that right from the start, because it informs my perspective on Zack Snyder’s film rendition. The material works better as a comic, where it finds a perfect middle ground between the visual and the literary. On the screen, it doesn’t have the visceral drive that made THE DARK KNIGHT a thrill ride as well as a work of pop art. That doesn’t mean WATCHMEN isn’t a work of pop art. Those unfamiliar with the original material might be quite perplexed with this heady superhero drama. This isn’t Bang! Boom! Whomp! material. It’s superheroes going through an existential crisis, wrapped around a murder mystery. A murder mystery that might just involve all of mankind.

In an alternative version of Earth, where costumed superheroes have been outlawed and Richard Nixon is still president in 1985, The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, TV’s GREY’S ANATOMY) is thrown from his apartment window. He was a masked vigilante before becoming a government assassin. For his former ally Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley, LITTLE CHILDREN), his murder is not a random act of violence against a savage man, but a hit on former masks. Rorschach goes to warn his other former partners. Nite Owl II, or Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson, LITTLE CHILDREN), is now a pudgy middle-aged man who longs for his glory days when his superior tech skills and cool costume made him feel like a real man. Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup, ALMOST FAMOUS) is like a god. He’s the only superhero with superpowers, which are infinite. Human relationships are difficult for him because he views life not in terms of a human lifespan, but in terms of eons. This makes living with him difficult for Silk Spectre II, aka Laurie Jupiter (Malin Akerman, 27 DRESSES). Adrian Veidt, aka Ozymandias, is the smartest and wealthiest man on Earth, who wants to bring free energy to everyone, making him suspect to the powerful who are invested in war.

WATCHMEN the movie, as the comic, is about ideas and characters, not action. From Rorschach’s point of view, humans are inherently violent creatures. Through his savage means, he seeks to uncover truth and rain revenge down on the wicked. The world has made him bitter, but not cynical like The Comedian, who views humans the same, but doesn’t care who deserves to live or die, to him it’s all a twisted joke of fate. Dr. Manhattan seems indifferent to the suffering of men. Life happens then ends. In the scope of the existence of the universe, why does one life, or even millions of lives, matter when on a cosmic scale their existence is but a blink? With his infinite power, what’s the moral difference between taking and saving lives? These are the dark internal conflicts of WATCHMEN.

Hope comes in the form of the relationship between Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II. Both second-generation crimefighters, they must live up to the pressures of the past. Dan willingly took the Nite Owl name from Hollis Mason (Stephen McHattie, 300), who is now retired. Laurie was more or less forced into crimefighting by her mother, Sally Jupiter, the original Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino, SIN CITY), who had a past with the violent Comedian. Sally has a perspective on cause and effect that challenges black and white views of morality. Can good come from bad? In terms of Dan and Laurie, the bad in the world brings them together, and provides the film with its spark of humanity. So much of the movie argues that the world isn’t worth saving, but the tenderness between Dan and Laurie fights against wishing for doomsday.

Visually, Snyder uses the comic as a template. The ink blots on Rorschach’s mask shift via his moods, and is an element that is far more dynamic on screen than in the comic. Dr. Manhattan is an imposing presence with his white eyes and glowing blue skin. He’s often naked, floating in the air. He can be a hundred feet tall or split into multiple bodies. At one point he is exiled on Mars and creates a glass city out of the Martian sand. All these images are richly brought to the screen, capturing the essence of Dave Gibbons’ drawings.

In casting, Snyder found actors that embody their roles. Haley is gruff and passionate. Crudup is cool and distant, while being a bit ethereal at the same time. Morgan is the SOB that The Comedian is supposed to be. Wilson and Akerman are crucial. They’re relationship needs to work, because it’s the emotional center. When they come out of superhero retirement, the sparks in their eyes brings joy to this dark film.

While THE DARK KNIGHT was an adult superhero drama for everybody, WATCHMEN isn’t. It’s not pop entertainment. It has literary sensibilities, dealing with grand themes about existence. Is it the best superhero movie ever made? No. But it’s up there, because it expands what a superhero film can be. With its sex and violence, it is certainly for adults only. But it’s also for adults who like characters and ideas in their films. This is a “turn your brain on” movie. I say this as a high compliment, but also as a warning. You will enjoy the film more if you let go of your expectations of what a superhero movie is supposed to be. Zack Snyder and all the filmmakers involved should be proud of what they brought to the screen. Big budget films haven’t been this deep since the 1970s.

This site is a member of Animation blogspot, part of the Animation World Network