Originally Reviewed – 5/20/2010

The revolution WILL be televised…or at least shown in limited release on select screens throughout North America.

Staged, written and set in modern day Terhan, No One Knows About Persian Cats is the story of two friends searching the underground Iranian music scene for band mates in preparation for a gig in London. Trouble is, they don’t have a passport and live in a society that forbids any sort of creativity whatsoever. Along the way, they meet an eccentric promoter, meet fellow underground musicians, and discover how difficult it is to make music under the tight grip of Iranian rule.

The above synopsis is pretty much all you need to know about this film. Ninety percent of the movie is framed like this: couple goes to underground Iranian band looking for bandmates, listens to one of the band’s songs, drives around Tehran with wacky manager and repeat. The story structure is a very simple one that really doesn’t allow much in terms of character development or storyline. While there are moments of introspection, all it really consists of is, “I have a bad feeling about this” and “I don’t think we’re going to make it.” The rest of the film, aside from the end, is filled with quick cuts of poverty stricken areas of Terhan and musicians simply playing music. Luckily for the film, that’s all you really need.

The hallmark of this film is the music and the enduring spirit of those who are making it. The cast, from the leads on down, is made up entirely of real musicians from the Iranian underground music scene. This style is reminiscent of the Irish musical Once and the technique gives the film a similar feel, but has a vastly different purpose. Where Once is, at its soul, a love story, Persian Cats is a cry for freedom from oppression voiced in the music and the music is, for the most part, fantastic. Every genre from Avenged Sevenfold style hard rock to indie to hip hop is represented in this film and showcases the best the area has to offer.

Even with the excellent music, the film would’ve have been nothing but a giant Middle Eastern music video if not for the fascinating look into Iranian sub-culture and the government that threatens its very existence. According to the film, the arts are highly controlled in Iran. Everything written, created or played has to go through a Censorship Board for approval. Forget getting together with your friends to jam; in America, if the neighbors call the cops because your band is too loud, they tell you to lower it. In Iran, they throw you in jail for two months. This sense of urgency and guerilla style filmmaking gives Persian Cats its energy and makes you wonder how this film even got made, never mind seeing a stateside release. If a 10 minute jam session nets you jail time, imagine the penalty for making a feature length film about that very government.

While the film features no name actors, a threadbare plot and an ending that may leave some filmgoers a little cold, No One Knows About Persian Cats is an energetic documentary style film that succeeds solely on the spirit of the people involved and the underlying message they are trying to convey. The film speaks like a desperate cry for freedom in the midst of societal repression and hits right to the heart of anyone who can empathize with what these musicians have to go through to do what many of us take for granted. Add to the mix some excellent music played passionately by the people who wrote it and you have yourself a little indie that could and does so wonderfully.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 5/20/2010

If there’s one almost constant in the universe, it’s that sequels rarely surpass the quality of the original film. Maybe it’s the lack of freshness, maybe it’s the high expectations or maybe it’s just bad luck that drive these flicks straight to the bargain bin, but a sequel is simply a tough nut to crack. From The Matrix to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, sequels almost always lead to a letdown. So how did director John Favreau do with his second crack at the Iron Man franchise? In my opinion, just fraknin’ fine.

Iron Man 2 finds our beloved Tony Stark in quite a few pickles. Not only is he being pressured by the government to surrender his Iron Man weapon to the US Army, he has a mad Russian after him to avenge the “stealing” of his father’s arc reactor (Mickey Rourke), a rival industrialist looking to make a suit of his own for the military (Sam Rockwell) and a secret agency looking to recruit him, headed up by an eye patch wearing Samuel L. Jackson. Add to that a love triangle between him, Pepper Potts and his new assistant, a back stabbing best bud and all sorts of daddy issues, and you can see this film has a ton going on, with mixed results.

With a complex and muddled script, Iron Man 2 really bites off more than it can chew and the result is a thick narrative that does nothing except set up the eventual sequels. As a result, things like plot structure and character development are thrown to the wolves, creating an uneven experience. Still, Favreau knows how to direct the franchise and he does his best to connect the web of plot points as well as create some kinetically satisfying fight sequences. Even as the main cast balloons to over double the original film, Favreau does a fine job of keeping everything moving, remarkable given the bloat in the screenplay.

As for the cast, the only returning members are Downey and Gwyneth Paltrow and while Downey does his Tony Stark shtick to perfection yet again, the introduction of Scarlet Johannson as Tony’s new eye candy reduces Pepper Potts to a withering, weeping damsel in distress and a poorly acted one at that. While the script really didn’t give her much to work with, Paltrow does a shockingly bad job in the role reprisal, surprising considering how good she was in the first installment. The rest of the cast, with the exception of Sam Rockwell who is a scene stealer as the competing industrialist, just chews their lines and gets through the feature. Don Cheadle does his best with his limited screen time, Mickey Rourke was very believable yet uninteresting as the Russian madman and Johannson adds some sexiness to an otherwise bland cast of supporting characters. Again, the cast does their best with their diluted screen time but the acting quality is nowhere near the original film.

Luckily, the film holds together due to Downey’s great performance and the skilled direction of John Favreau. Without those two, this could have been a mess, but the film is a satisfying second stanza that bridges the fantastic original and the eventual sequels quite nicely. While nobody arcs here (Stark is still a loveable dick, Potts is constantly fretting, etc, etc), the film doesn’t take a step back and still provides some visceral thrills that make it an enjoyable go-round. Some reviewers have said this movie is merely a 2 hour advertisement for the sequels, and while I can see where they’re coming from, I still think the film stands up fine on its own. While it’s not the achievement the original was, Iron Man 2 works nicely as a solid start to the summer movie season.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed 5/10/2010

When it comes to why I leave the comfort of my cozy apartment and brave the streets of Manhattan to see a film, it all comes down to motive. Sometimes, I want to get swept up in an emotional drama, other times I want to laugh along with an audience and sometimes I simply want to watch things blow up on a big screen. When it came to Kick Ass, I just wanted to see some serious…well…ass kicking. Story, plot and acting be damned, I just wanted to give my endorphins a bit of a rush and hopefully have a good time at the flicker show. Imagine my dismay when I walked out of the movie, not disgusted, not exhilarated but thoroughly uneasy.

Kick Ass is the second feature film from director Matthew Vaughn and is a far cry from his first flick, Stardust. The story centers around a geeky comic book kid who, after getting fed up with the bullies of the world knocking him down, creates an alter ego named, not surprisingly, Kick Ass. After a few brushes with ne’er-do-wellers, often with disastrous results, Kick Ass finds himself the center of an Internet phenomenon and gardeners the attention of two “real” superheroes: Big Daddy, played wonderfully by Nicholas Cage, and Hit Girl, his 12 year old daughter. Add into the mix Red Mist, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and you have yourself a decent cast to start with.

The film has a promising start as I really enjoyed the home grown superhero aspect and connected with the lead who only wanted to see what ordinary Joe Shmoes could do to make life better for the people around him. When he’s in the comic book store with his friends wondering why regular people can’t be superheroes, the film touched on something that was simple yet profound. I even excused the silly way Kick Ass gets his “powers”…again, this isn’t a documentary or anything. Unfortunately for the film, the tone drastically changed in the second and third act.

My main problem with Kick Ass isn’t with the violence, which isn’t that bad, or the action, which isn’t that intense, but it’s with the overall tone and feel. Kick Ass could have been a whole lot of fun, even with the body count, but the film gets mired in an odd desire to be everything all at once. The movie isn’t content with being a rousing yet violent comic book adaptation, with a homegrown feel. The film also wants to be dark yet teen comedy, gritty yet campy and inspiring yet shocking. And, after all that, the film STILL could have held together, somehow, someway, if it weren’t for the nasty undertones, primarily surrounding the character of Hit Girl.

Now, I know 90% of you are saying, “C’mon, she was awesome!” or “Wow, what are you, 80?” or “Time to change your Huggies, Grandpa”. Sorry, but there’s something simply not right about a 12 year old girl brutally slaying 40 henchmen, getting shot in chest by a ’38 and throwing around the F-word like it’s the word “was”, especially when there is no need for it. For the sake of Pete, there’s one scene where Hit Girl is lying flat on her back getting the snot beaten out of her by a 40 year old man. I’m all for comic violence, but that’s just mean and unsettling.

The problem is that the Hit Girl character, while very well played by Chloe Grace Mortez, is only cussing and killing up a storm for pure shock value. If the language had some connection to the story, you could excuse it, but when it’s there just to get people talking about it, it looses all validity. For example, if this was a dramatic film about a young girl living in the streets, maybe then the language would have some context, but here, it’s reduced to a Howard Stern bit. To my mind, if we’re at the point in pop culture where we need a mass murdering pre-teen to yell C U Next Tuesday to get us giggling, sorry, but I can’t get behind that.

But, it’s not all Hit Girl’s fault. The second half of the film is replete with an almost sadistic undertone that bogs down the story to the point where I just wanted it to be over. Shame to, because I really wanted to kick back with Kick Ass and enjoy the story of an everyday kid becoming more than who he his. Kick Ass is like an apple wrapped in a coating of stomach bile; there’s a center there that’s worth getting to but you have to stomach a lot of sourness before you reach it and it makes you wonder why they didn’t just omit the blech in the first place. Hopefully the eventual sequel tones down the nastiness and re-focuses as there is a lot to enjoy in this world of real life superheroes. Just would’ve been nice to enjoy it without getting smacked in the face by the random brutality.

Note: This is a solid 6 out of 10 film for me, but since I can’t honestly recommend this film to anybody, I had to mark it at 50%

Score – 50%

Originally Reviewed – 5/4/2010

Funerals are rarely funny but somehow, someone always laughs at one. Not to be Debbie Depressing, but I’ve been at a few and inevitably somebody in the back of the room starts snickering about something. Maybe it’s just a natural reaction to tragedy, but there is humor to be mined from the morbid setting of a family funeral which is where this very funny British import finds its material.

The direct brother of the recently released Chris Rock film, Death At A Funeral is a smart, silly, if not uneven farce about a funeral gone horribly wrong. Featuring an ensemble cast of very talented British actors and directed by Frank Oz (yes, the Mrs Piggy, Yoda Frank Oz), DAAF tows the line between smart relational comedy and sophomoric gross out humor and while the film sometimes dips too strongly to either side, there is a lot to laugh at in this import.

The cast itself is unilaterally great, as each character compliments this family in hilarious turmoil. From the egotistical author back from the US for the first time in ages to the dwarf who claims to have a “special relationship” to the deceased, every character has the appropriate amount of depth to go with their craziness. The role of the elderly grandfather is particularly hilarious, especially in the “bathroom scene”, which is one of those aforementioned tip the scales scenes, but still provides belly laughs.

The script is also well done, giving the comedic actors lots of room to create the funny. Dialogue is quick, witty and completely genuine while the screenplay itself, although not without its pitfalls, allows the hilarious parts of the story to really shine. While every joke doesn’t work as it should, there is enough character to this film to make it work as a whole.

The film also takes time out of the lunacy to establish character connections, cement relationships and provide just enough back story to keep this film from spiraling into nonsense. The only real downside is that the story itself is barely believable and some of the jokes take the easy way out, but again, it’s a true farce in every sense of the word, so these types of transgressions are totally acceptable.

To be fair, I can imagine a good deal of people out there shunning this film for the subject matter alone, and if that’s the case with you, fair enough. While this film isn’t a masterpiece by any stretch, it’s a breezy hour and a half that will provide some laughs, some groans and the occasional guffaw. If the trailers and reviews for the remake are leaving you cold, get out there and give this film a spin. Chances are, you wont be disappointed.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 4/15/2010

Interesting, artistic and sometimes head scratching, Toyko! is a spirited trio of films directed by three auteur directors, Michel Gondry, Leos Carax and Bong Joon-ho. As the title would suggest, all three shorts are set in Tokyo and feature a combination of slice of life drama in the big city with off beat and occasionally stunning imagery. Of the three films, one is excellent, another is visually mesmerizing and the third is a big stinking pile. Which is which…keep reading to find out!

The first film, entitled Interior Design and directed by Gondry, is the best of the three. It’s the story of a young filmmaker and his tag-along girlfriend as they try to make their way through a new life in downtown Tokyo. While the first two-thirds of the film play like a straight ahead coming of age story, the final third quickly turns into an interesting display of classic Gondry camera trickery and visual flair. The film also hits home at just the right points with a message that’s sweet and endearing. Definitely the best of the three and worth the price of admission alone.

Then comes the second film, Merde, directed by Carax and is that aforementioned stinking pile. While the film is visually interesting, its aimless story, ham-handed inner meanings and bizarre ending make it the sore spot of the trilogy. The story about a strange sewer dwelling creature causing increasing amounts of mischief through the streets of Tokyo, is a shuffling and shiftless as it’s protagonist, full of mean spirited moments, odd violence and one scene that’s downright gratuitous for no real reason. Even the visuals, which should have been this films hallmark, wear off after two minutes, leaving the viewer with 25 minutes of tedium. The final third of the film is especially painful, with over the top acting and a storyline that goes nowhere. Not worth seeing, at all.

Luckily for Tokyo!, the final film, Shaking Tokyo, directed by Bong Joon-ho, is a return to tone and form for the trilogy. The very sweet story of a Japanese shut-in who, after falling for the local delivery girl, decides to step out for the first time in ages, is a sweet and artfully directed short. The most mesmerizing of the three films, Shaking takes the viewer on a wonderful ride through the streets of Tokyo in a stylish and beautifully realized way. While this is least “visual” of the three films, this one connects the most on an emotional level. Great work by a true artist.

As a whole, Tokyo! is a fine example of true artists stretching their minds and creativity, for better or for worst. While the second film really doesn’t do the other two justice, Tokyo! Is still a bright oasis in a land of bland filmmaking, and should be checked out by fans of the genre. Luckily for the film as a whole, one common thread exists and that’s the city itself featured as a central character. All three films do a great job of showcasing the different facets and fold of Tokyo and is worth a watch for that reason alone.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 3/21/2010

Sometimes it’s best to simply write a review, be as objective as possible and call it day. If your buddy wants to see Couples Retreat despite your best efforts to dissuade him, that’s on him. However, this time around I actually want people to listen for once. Take heed and do as I say. Go out right now and see A Prophet. I’m talking right this bloody minute. Why? Because it’s probably the best film out right now that nobody is going to see.

Directed by Jacques Audiard and starring the fantastic first timer Tahar Rahim, A Prophet is the story of an illiterate 16 year old kid who is arrested and sentenced to 6 years in prison. While in jail, he has to use his wits and drive to navigate the world of prison, eventually working his way to being the right hand man of the “boss” of the jail, played by the unbelievably good Niels Arestrup.

First things first, Rahim is exquisite in the lead role as Malik. Despite the fact his character is an actual criminal, you instantly feel for his situation and predicament. Rahim plays his character in an honest, unfettered way that seems effortless. Props also go out to Arestrup as the inmate leader of the prison as his character is the polar opposite of Rahim and it’s this combination of the ruthless leader and the relative innocence of Malik that gives the film its balance.

The film is also wonderfully directed in that you get a little bit of everything. While the film does take place in a prison and there are some intensely graphic moments, the film isn’t all tension and violence. The film also allows for humor and compassion while never feeling forced or trite. The story is also brilliantly written, weaving three different groups of prison gangs and how Malik gets his paws in each one. One of the biggest hurdles to jump in this film is that it’s in a number of languages with English subtitles throughout, and while it can be distracting to have to read the dialogue and connect with the actors, A Prophet works just as well in subtitles as it would if you spoke French, so don’t let the subtitles dissuade you from seeing it.

Not surprisingly, A Prophet has garnered itself its fair share of awards and accolades. The film was the French submission for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars (should have won but whatever) and nabbed itself a Grand Prix prize at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. Critically it has been unanimously lauded and for good reason. Still, that don’t mean a hill of beans when it comes to box office receipts, where this movie has yet to gross a million bucks. Sad, sad, sad considering this is one of the finest films I’ve seen this year and a must see if it’s playing in your local arthouse cinema. Many critics have called A Prophet the French Godfather and while it doesn’t quite live up to that classic, it’s definitely playing the same game.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 3/16/2010

Often, reviewing movies can be, what the English call, a sticky wicket. As critical reviewers, we tend to examine what exactly makes a good or bad movie. Elements such as lighting, cinematography and acting all come into play and as critics, we tend to let deficiencies in those aspects affect our feelings on a film. By the very definition of the term, critics are…well…critical, more so than your average viewer, so much so, that we sometimes forget why we fell in love with movies in the first place.

Avatar is one of those films that inspire an internal struggle within me, the epic debate of substance versus experience, technique over emotion. The film features hammy, over the top acting, a script that is teeming with laughable dialogue and a story that’s been told literally a hundred times before. So why oh why did I leave the theater with a smile on my face feeling completely satisfied and blown away? The answer is a complex one, but to do the film justice, let’s examine what the movie is, what it’s not and what it aspires to be.

While you would think the highest grossing film in move history wouldn’t need a synopsis, Avatar is the story of a peaceful alien race called the Na’vi whose tree hugging way of life is being threatened by the big bad industrialist humans. Enter a crippled Marine who, via a mind meld with a Na’vi avatar, is tasked with infiltrating the alien culture to learn their ways and try to sniff out a potential weakness. On the way he flies a dragon, falls in love, and learns to appreciate a culture that his superiors have tasked him to help destroy.

First the bad, and there is plenty of it. As I mentioned earlier, Avatar featured one of the worst Oscar nominated scripts I’ve ever seen on the big screen. No amount of technical tomfoolery can mask the cornball lines that come out of the actor’s mouth at every turn. The role of the General is particularly painful as he has some of the worst lines ever committed to celluloid…and I have to reiterate, this was a front runner for Best Picture! On the acting front, Sam Worthington proves he has neither the charm nor the chops to be a leading man, Zoe Salanda plays it over the top as Worthington’s love interest and Sigourney Weaver is surprisingly wooden as the Avatar scientist. In fact, the acting as a whole is clichéd, stale and, without the incredible special effects, pretty boring. Inspiring monologues don’t inspire, humor falls flat and the film actually starts to drag after an hour and half into it. So why the 70% Fresh rating?

Well, now for the good. The film itself can only be described as a big, beautiful spectacle, and in this case, that’s enough. Much ado has been made about the technology behind Avatar, but the CGI world that the Na’vi inhabit truly is beautifully realized with ooohh and ahhh moments at every turn. While James Cameron’s weakness is directing real human beings, he is one of the finest action directors in Hollywood and those scenes are frantic, exciting and very satisfying. The art direction is also inspired as all that technology would have been for naught if the vision hadn’t been there, and it’s there in spades. The story, while clichéd to the point of plagiarism, still hits all the right emotional buttons. In short, the film is something that we are wired to enjoy.

In fact, one can make some Cameron / Lucas comparisons. They both have no clue how direct real human beings, have a love for cutting edge technology and are true visionaries. They also both borrow heavily from the archetypes of Joseph Campbell to create their movie structures. Just like Star Wars and The Matrix, Avatar, whether James Cameron intended on it or not, uses Campbell’s classic mythological archetypes to create a story that, despite its many flaws, people naturally respond to. While I’m not going to start writing a thesis on Campbell, do a quick Google search for “Joseph Campbell archetypes” and you’ll see what I mean. Avatar is basically Star Wars with blue people and audiences are having a similar reaction. Why? Because it’s a proven formula for writing success, that’s why.

When all the dust settles, Avatar works as a film because it’s a classic story that people can’t help but respond to. Much like pop music simply sounds good and peanut butter tastes great with chocolate, Avatar simply feels good to watch, despite all the aforementioned problems and pitfalls. When it comes to all the things we critics look for in movies, Avatar falls short in almost every aspect; however, it’s a fantastic ride for the senses and clicks all the right links within our souls. While it wasn’t deserving of the Best Picture buzz, Avatar creates an awe-inspiring, hopeful world that you can’t help but fall in love with, even if only for the 162 minutes you spend there. Afterwards, you can dish with your film buddies on all of the movie’s flaws, but if you don’t find yourself staring at it with childlike wonder, you may want to re-examine what made you fall in love with film in the first place.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 3/5/2010

One this season’s surprise critical hits and Oscar nomination scarfing films, The Hurt Locker flew under most people’s radar this past summer. Directed by Katherine Bigelow (Strange Days, Point Break, being James Cameron’s ex), this film tracks the lives and exploits of three Army soldiers whose specialty is defusing bombs in wartime Iraq. Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty round out the bomb squad in a film that’s one part war flick, another part psycho-drama and all parts wonderfully kick ass.

The first thing you notice about the film is how expertly paced and balanced it is. From the first shot to the ending frame, everything is perfectly pitched. Humor is balanced with raw emotion and intense action is intertwined with light hearted joking, all expertly mixed by Bigelow, who deserves top mark for her work in this film. Without her excellent direction, this film could have easily devolved into “just another war flick”. Thanks to her, the film brings something new to the table.

Full credit also goes to Jeremy Renner in the role of SSG William James, the leader of the team and the most complex character of the three. When you first meet James, he tends to come off as brash and arrogant, but as the movie develops, you learn how deep the character gets and Renner does a fantastic in this emotional balancing act. If it weren’t for Jeff Bridges, he would be the front runner for a Best Actor Oscar.

The other actors do a fine job filling out the triangle. Mackie, playing the hardened journeyman soldier and Geraghty as the young kid just trying to make it though play nicely to Renner’s character. The cinematography is also noteworthy as it drops it you into the fray in almost a pseudo-documentary style that not quite District 9, but features a combination of shaky cam, quick pulls and classic filmmaking that compliments the story nicely.

When all is said and done, The Hurt Locker effortlessly balances all the intensity, drama and emotion of modern day warfare in what shapes up as an instant classic. Featuring fine performances by the top three actors, a thrilling story and top notch direction by Ms. Bigelow, The Hurt Locker is one the finest films released this year and is a no-brainer must see film.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 2/23/2010

At the risk of sounding overly emo, I love myself a sad, depressing movie. While summer blockbusters, explosions and comedies keep the little boy in me grinning, for me, there’s nothing like watching a film that pushes the right buttons deep within, eliciting an emotional response. Friends of mine often say that I like depressing movies and while that’s not always the case, I can’t say they are wrong. Nothing wrong with curling up on the couch with a bag of Cheeze-Its, moping about with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and if I have to turn in my guy card because of this, so be it.

So, when a movie is about a British literature professor who’s trying to find joy in his life after losing his partner of 16 years in a car accident, I say sign me up. Never mind it’s being directed by first time director Tom Ford. When you have talent like Colin Firth and Julianne Moore starring, how could it go wrong?

The answer is simple. It goes horribly wrong when you rely on contrivances to force an emotional response. It fails when you introduce cliché characters that do nothing to move the story along. It sinks when you tack on a hack ending because you’re not brave enough to allow the characters to arc on their own. In short, a good story can be ruined when you simply don’t know how to direct a movie.

Wow…that last paragraph was harsh, so let me soften it a bit by saying there is a fair amount of good in this film. As every reviewer has mentioned, Colin Firth is wonderful in the starring role. Never once does he overact or play the part too strong. Firth’s performance is patient, controlled and connects with the audience in a meaningful way. The film also shines when Firth flashes back to moments with his partner. In interviews, Tom Ford mentioned that he wanted to add these moments as it reminded him of time spent with his partner and that was good move. These quiet moments of interaction, which include reading together at home and laying on the beach, are some of the best in the film and really cement the relationship between the two characters. Julianne Moore is also very good in the film, although I felt she was underused.

It all sounds great, right? Why the bashing? Keep reading…

The main fault in the movie centers on the absolute pretentiousness of the filmmaking. Making an artistic film is one thing, but boring is boring and pretentious is pretentious, no matter how you slice it. Do we really need the slow pull into a budding flower? Is the owl launching into flight at a moment of personal revelation really necessary? There’s a fine line between artful touches and being “too cool” for the room. While Tom Ford does have an excellent eye for staging, imagery and shot design (he is a professional photographer and fashion designer after all), his additions are hackneyed and unnecessary. Ultimately, A Single Man is defeated by Tom Ford’s insistence on being too arty for his own good.

And you know what the real crime is? HE DIDN’T NEED TO BE! Art films are just that…artfulness for the sake of art. Generally, films of that type work well enough because aspects like acting and character development are developed through the artistry of the filmmaking, not necessarily the actors on screen. Sure, you need a stomach for that sort of film, and there is a market for it. In A Single Man, you have excellent actors working their tails off. There is no need for the aforementioned owl because Firth’s state of mind is written all over his face. To me, nothing is worse than watching good acting get bogged down by bad, or in this case, over fluffed directing. If this were an art piece, fine, but this is a drama and the actors are pulling their weight. There’s no need to artificially heighten the drama.

Directorial choices aside, A Single Man falters in other areas as well. Firth and Moore aside, the surrounding actors don’t bring much to the table and the film features an ending that literally made me scream, “Hack!”, through my clenched teeth. Not to ruin the ending, which I’m almost tempted to do so you have no excuse to see it, but it seemed tacked on and gutless.

In the end, A Single Man is a prime example of opportunity squandered. The film features a moving story featuring excellent acting that’s brought to a screeching halt by a director Tom Ford’s insistence on being arty when the subject matter didn’t need to be. To be fair to a director I’ve really taken a dump on, you can tell this was a labor of love, and I respect that, however, a 99 minute film shouldn’t feel like it took two and a half to get through. Hopefully Tom Ford learns to trust his actors to bring the drama rather than relying on photographic cliché’s as he truly has the vision of an artist but lacks the filmmaking chops to see it through.

Score – 50%

Originally Reviewed – 2/12/2010

Typically, I’m not a huge fan of the traditional biopic. Something about the stoic re-telling of a famous person’s life always seem self serving and over-indulgent…about as much as using the words “self serving” and “over-indulgent” in a movie review, but give me a pass, I just watched a movie about Leo Tolstoy. I reserve the right to be “verbose”! While The Last Station certainly falls into some of the traps that other films of this type do, those other films don’t have Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer sharing a screen together. And that, dear readers, makes all the difference in the world.

The Last Station takes place in the twilight years of Tolstoy’s life as he lives out his elder years surrounded by his wife (Mirren), his personal secretary and devotee (played by James McAvoy) and his financial advisor (played by Paul Giamatti). While the central plot of the film involves Giamatti’s attempts to have Tolstoy sign over ownership of his work to the Russian people, which would leave his wife in the cold financially, the real strength of the film is the relationship between Tolstoy and his wife. Watching Plummer and Mirren together on screen is electric and is the highlight of the movie.

When it comes to Plummer’s portrayal of Tolstoy, he plays the character with the dignity and respect you would expect from an actor of Plummer’s caliber. Tolstoy comes off as a quiet genius who has lived his fair share of life in the past but now has resigned himself to a life of self sacrifice. If the Russian people must suffer, so must he. Plummer’s portrayal of Tolstoy is honest, deceptively simple and works wonderfully.

Mirren, on the other hand, plays his wife, Sofya, with a ferocity and a passion that perfectly mirrors Tolstoy’s stoic nature. Sofya is almost Tolstoy’s opposite, a true lady who enjoys life, love and everything Tolstoy’s success has afforded them to have. Although Sofya and Tolstoy argue on a regular basis, simply because of their divergence in ideals, there is always an undercurrent of a true love for each other that lifts the movie from ordinary to excellent. Without giving anything away, the scene between the two when they are in the bedroom together is one of the sweetest scenes I’ve seen this year and cements the two as head strong characters who still share a deep love for one another.

As for the rest of the main cast, McAvoy does a nice job as Tolstoy’s idealist secretary who, after years of studying his work, finally has a chance to work for his idol. The role is an important one as he’s thrown in middle of both the financial and emotional tension between Sofya and Tolstoy. Being a young idealist, he tows the line between a true Tolstoyian and his deep desires for forbidden passions providing that emotional link the film desperately needs. Giamatti also does a fine job as the “villain” in the film, however, I felt his character was underwritten.

The rest of film follows the period piece / biopic formula to a tee, with all the expected strengths and pitfalls. While I applaud director Michael Hoffman for giving the actors a stage to simply work their magic without too much meddling, the script itself could have been livelier without the standard clichés and slow pacing of period piece writing. All in all, though, the unbelievable performances of both Mirren and Plummer elevate this film to required viewing status and will be enjoyed by anyone who can appreciate two actors at the top of their game.

Score – 80%