Kingdom, The (2007)

Rated: R

Grade: AFA/FA=A
Budget: $73 million
Box Office: $48 million US, $38 million int’l, $14 million DVD

Directed by: Peter Berg, who previously made Friday Night Lights (both the movie and several episodes) and The Rundown with Dwayne Johnson, otherwise better known as the one-raised-eyebrow wonder: The Rock.
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Ali Suliman, Jeremy Piven, Richard Jenkins, Tim McGraw, and Ashraf Barhom.

Summary: When terrorists launch a multi-stage attack on American civilians in the Aramco compound in Saudi Arabia, FBI investigators persuade the Saudis to let them investigate. They discover that doing so will be a lot more difficult than merely getting permission to visit the kingdom where oil, fanaticism, sharia, and freedom collide.

Entertainment Value: A

I watched three action movies over the weekend, one per day. This was the only one worth the effort, and thankfully I watched it last. From start to finish, this movie will captivate you because you want to know how it will go and you’ll be fascinated by the process of getting there. I will complain that the second half of the movie depends on a plot implausibility involving the motorcade, but it’s so good you don’t much mind.

Superficial Content: F
Drugs/Alcohol A, Sexuality A, Violence F, Language F, Illegality D
It’s a movie about terrorism and the gun-slinging response to it. This means that there is more than enough bloodshed and body parts to justify an R rating. Likewise, the language is regularly foul because tensions are quite high. The nice thing, so much as it is, is that the movie is sexuality free, other than a weird scene with Jeremy Piven telling Jennifer Garner to cover up while wearing a khaki t-shirt.

Significant Content: A/F

The main problem with this movie is that there is just enough of a hint of reproach and condemnation in it to ruin the rest of the movie. It’s like an outstanding meatloaf that someone added peppermint to and ruined. Since the director acted in Lions for Lambs and Chris Cooper is one of the stars, I’m suspicious. Nonetheless, if you ignore the hints at moral equivalence and take it for what it should have been, it’s a clear anti-terrorist movie, showing the utter evil of Islamo-fascist terrorism and also showing that the only, repeat only, response to it is the use of ruthless force. You simply cannot coexist with people who use children’s jacks and marbles as the shrapnel for IEDs, and our best partners in this war are the Muslims who also hate the evil in their midst. There are also themes about political cowardice and the importance of doing what is right with the time you have been given.

Artistic/Thought Value: A

The opening scene will bother you, and rightly so. They bring real terrorism to life and you will be outraged by the calculating evil of it. In fact, what I find so interesting about this movie is that, even though I have my questions about the makers’ motives, it serves the ultimate purpose of helping Americans. It’s simple. We need movies where terrorists are evil and where terrorists die, and this one fits that bill almost as successfully as the outstanding Denzel Washington masterpiece, The Siege. Also, the brief history lesson via a timeline in the opening and DVD extras is excellent.

Discussion Questions:
~What do you think the producers of this film intended for it to say? How do you interpret the final juxtaposition of the two opposite parties promising to “kill them all?”
~Can we coexist in any way with people who shoot up softball games and make bombs with jacks and marbles?
~Is it ever acceptable to hate? Is a movie like this which encourages us to hate our enemies in the war on terror a healthy thing for American Christians to watch?
~In the near-to-final scene, the Americans have the opportunity to kill the entire family of the terrorists. Would this have been a good thing to do? Did you find yourself wanting them to do so? ~Given the terrorists denial of the distinction between combatants and civilians, should we consider their family members as legitimate targets? What sort of perspective on the command to kill all the inhabitants of Canaan by God to Joshua and the Israelites does this give you?
~What do you think about our partnership with Saudi Arabia? Given that the extremist Wahabi Islam was involved at the outset of the country, is it realistic for us to envision a democratic Saudi? ~Evaluate Jeremy Piven’s character. Is he intended here as a symbolic representative of the entire U.S. State Department?
.

Overall Grade: A It’s just about everything you could expect from such a movie.

Eastern Promises (2007)

Rated: R

Grade: CFCB=D
Budget: $25 million
Box Office: $17 million US, $30 million int’l, $5 million DVD

Directed by: David Cronenberg, who made A History of Violence, Naked Lunch, and a bunch of old school horror flicks like The Dead Zone, Videodrome, Scanners, The Brood, and The Fly.
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassell, and Armin Mueller-Stahl.

Summary:

An obstetrician holds the key to taking down a Russian mobster because the teenage Jane Doe who died delivering his daughter left a diary depicting her life as a forced prostitute. Meanwhile, Viggo Mortensen is an up-and-coming tough guy trying to make it big time despite being the driver for the unbalanced son of the boss.

Entertainment Value: C I should have known better, since I also forced myself to sit through A History of Violence (also starring Viggo) and I could have checked his pedigree. If you like dark, violent crime dramas, you’d like this. I usually don’t. That being said, I found the plot intriguing and some of the turns and the tension to be fairly interesting. At the very least, the characters are terribly fascinating. Hence, a C.

Superficial Content: F
Drugs/Alcohol F, Sexuality F, Violence F, Language F, Illegality F
So, it’s unanimous, see? Everyone drinks a lot, and there is heroin use referred to. Almost everyone gets naked at some point. It’s the Russian mafia, so language and illegality are pretty constant. However, of all the elements, the violence is probably the worst, including torture elements, an extremely brutal knife fight in a bath house, and an opening scene a la the Sweeney Todd. I’d call it NC-17 if it were up to me.

Significant Content: C

When people become objects, anything can happen to them. Crime is bad. Crime puts ordinary people in danger. Heroism can come in all sorts of packages.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

For sheer atmosphere, the movie is rich. Apparently Viggo studied Russian gangs visually for weeks without a translator in order to put himself in the frame of mind necessary. His character here is fascinating, and the burgeoning romance between him and Naomi Watts is chillingly enticing, as are the various forms of pride portrayed here.

Discussion Questions:
~What are the characteristics of a monster? Which character in this movie scares you the most? Why are we tempted to think of monsters in hyperbolic terms? How does this keep us from seeing monstrosity around us in everyday life? If you’ve seen A History of Violence, would you say ~Viggo’s character there is like his here or more like that of Semyon?
~What do you think of the notion of tattoos as identity and history? Why are tattoos so popular today? If you’ve seen it, how would you compare the role of tattoos in this movie with that of those in Memento? Are the tattoos in this movie a character in themselves?
~Do you feel pity for any of these characters?
~Can a human being do the sort of things Viggo does in this movie and still remain unaffected or unpolluted by it? How about watching him do them as a viewer?
~To what degree is violence necessary in dealing with those who feel no compunction about using it?
~What do we lose because we do not have folk songs and rituals which cross generations? How has the generational separation in culture (movies, song, attire) affected the United States?
~What do you think of the uncle spitting on Viggo? Was that brave or stupid?

~If you were to view this entire movie as a commentary on the sin of pride, how might you assess the characters and the elements?
~What do you think of the ending?

Overall Grade: D

It’s a brutal gangster movie. More Scarface than The Godfather, which almost seems like a Disney movie by contrast.

Shoot ‘Em Up (2007)

Rated: R
Grade: FFDF=F
Budget: $39 million
Box Office: $13 million US, $12 million int’l, $ million DVD

Directed by: Michael Davis, who previously made Monster Man, Girl Fever, 100 Girls, and the strange and semi-charming Eight Days a Week.
Starring: Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti, Monica Belucci, Greg Byrk, and Stephen McHattie.

Comments:
This is the R-rated hitman-with-guns-and-blood-instead-of-kung-fu version of a Jackie Chan movie. Campy bad guys…no, wait..super-campy bad guys thrown in with a terrible plot and a ton of sexuality and bullets. No, it’s not quite as insane as Smokin’ Aces, but the difference is a matter of degree, not of kind. There’s been a trend lately toward movies which are huge on effects and visual imagery and extremely shallow on plot and character development. My one word of advice to all would-be action film writers is this. If it doesn’t work on paper, no amount of amped-up FX will make it work on film. If it works on paper, excellent FX will make it unforgettable. My only grudging compliment is for the absurdly brilliant opening sequence where Clive Owen is delivering the baby and shooting bad guys all at the same time. A pro-life hitman? As a satire, it indulges too much in itself to work. Besides, I doubt the average admirer of it can spell irony.

Waitress (2007)

Rated: PG-13

Grade: CCCC=C

Full review not yet written. Feel free to post your comments.

Bella (2007)

Rated: PG-13
Grade: ABA+A+=A

Full review not yet written. Feel free to post your comments.

Memento (2001)

Rated: R
Grade: A+DBA+=A

Full review not yet written. Feel free to post your comments.

Zodiac (2007)

Rated: R

Grade: ADBA=A-

.

Full review not yet written. Feel free to post your comments.

Balls of Fury (2007)

Rated: PG-13

Grade: DCDF=D-

Budget: $23 million
Box Office: $33 million US, $2 million int’l, $7 million DVD

Directed by: Robert Ben Garant, whose primary pedigree is Reno 911, which should have told me everything I needed to know about this film.
Starring: Dan Fogler, Christopher Walken, George Lopez, Maggie Q, and James Hong, with a bunch of cameos.

Comments:

Gay sex slaves, kicking people in the crotch, and a ping-pong tournament of champions where all the losers get killed by poisoned blowdarts. Yes, I hoped beyond hope that Christopher Walken might make this film funny. He did not, and it was not. My best suggestion for you is that if you enjoy Reno 911, perhaps you’ll like this. I hated the 28 seconds of Reno 911 I’ve experienced in my life, and I wish I had avoided this movie. Simple.

Even Money (2007)

Rated: R

Grade: DDAB=B+/D
Budget: Unknown, but not high.
Box Office: $65 thousand (yes, not million)

Directed by: Mark Rydell, who hasn’t made much in the last two decades. Previously, he did The River, For the Boys, and On Golden Pond.
Starring: Kim Basinger, Danny DeVito, Kelsey Grammer, Nick Cannon, Ray Liotta, forest Whitaker, Jay Mohr, and Tim Roth.

Summary:

A struggling writer conceals her gambling addiction from her husband by claiming to be working on her next book as she befriends a con-man/magician with big dreams. On the other side of town, a local basketball star must decide whether he will shave points on games to help his heavily indebted brother. The third set of characters are bookies and corrupt cops. It’s a vignette piece, okay?

Entertainment Value: D

This is a film noir public service announcement about the dangers of gambling. I couldn’t find the production budget, but I’m figuring that all the big names did this virtually pro bono in an effort to produce something of use to addicted gamblers. Sadly, despite all the big talent, the movie really drags on and is not enticing enough to really keep our attention. It is, however, realistic and honest in its portrayal of problem gambling.

Superficial Content: D
Drugs/Alcohol D, Sexuality B, Violence D, Language D, Illegality F
This is the graphic underside of legal and illegal gambling with people being beaten up, lying to spouses, drinking too much, corrupt police, and murder/suicide. It’s definitely an R, which is fine, since only those people who are living this way should be watching it anyhow.

Significant Content: A

You cannot gamble your way out of gambling problems, and if you let gambling take control, the only end to it all is personal tragedy.

Artistic/Thought Value: B

Although I didn’t enjoy the film, and I doubt anyone would describe it as “enjoyable,” at least it’s willing to finish what it starts without very much flinching. They take it all the way to the end with every character, and my only gripe was that they sort of let Kim Basinger off the hook.

Discussion Questions:
~One of the main rationalizations used by Whitaker and Basinger is that everyone is imperfect, but are all forms of imperfection equal? Is missing a shot in a basketball game the same as gambling too much or stealing your family’s savings?

~Does a person have to live a perfect life in order to point out the serious immoralities of other people? Are the standards true regardless of whether people hit them consistently themselves?
~Have you ever felt the thrill of winning at gambling? Why do you think people gamble or gamble excessively? Is it more like a disease or more like a choice?
~Can a virtuous person run a gambling operation, legal or illegal?
~Why is Basinger impressed by DeVito’s magic? Are we always impressed by those things we just can’t do ourselves?
~Can you think of some other marital catastrophes which start off with minor deception and concealment besides gambling?

.

Overall Grade: B/D

The point of this movie is simple: watch it with anyone who you know has a gambling problem or who is involved in illegal betting. It’s a crutch for gambling interventions. For everyone else, not so much value.

Nanny Diaries (2007)

Rated: PG-13

Grade: DCCD=D
Budget: $20 million
Box Office: $26 million US, $15 million int’l, $5 million DVD
.

Directed by: Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, whose only notable previous work (and not much at that) was on American Splendor.

Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Donna Murphy, Alicia Keys, Chris Evans, Nicholas Art, Laura Linney, and Paul Giamatti.
.

Summary:

Newly graduated from college with an anthropology degree, Annie Braddock backs into discovering herself when she agrees to become a nanny and studies the tribe of the Upper East Side.

Entertainment Value: D

I thought it would be a cute little romantic babysitter comedy. It’s not. Who is this movie made for? Not for parents. Not for nannies. Certainly not for kids, and certainly not funny. Most of the characters were unbelievable to me, perhaps because I don’t know people like this, and I kept being unable to match this movie up to anything I had experienced in real life. However, the DVD extras showed the writers and they seem to think these people are pretty realistic. The closest thing to entertaining was the semi-anthropological commentary on the different kinds of Manhattanites, but even here it’s far less clever than the much lower-budget but funnier Mating Habits of the Earthbound Human.

Superficial Content: C
Drugs/Alcohol C , Sexuality B, Violence B, Language C, Illegality
Most of the characters are alcohol users or abusers, with scenes at bars. There is adultery implied and not quite shown as well as some semi-suggestive scenes. There are plenty of marital arguments with yelling. The language is PG-13. This is a case where the movie itself is distressing rather than any particular objectionable element.

Significant Content: C

This is really a heartbreaking movie, but the problem is that it never gives you a better way. The way these parents treat their kids is truly abusive, although no one could arrest them for it. But the Nanny is just as much a part of the problem because she allows it to happen to her and to them.

Artistic/Thought Value: D

I know the golden rule of anthropology is to study and not intervene, so in a way, this movie might serve as useful anthropology. But it just doesn’t work. Homage is paid to Mary Poppins, but so what? I guess in the sense that it portrays evil as evil, it works, but gosh! Are the wealthy really this stupid and selfish? And if they are, will they grasp this movie anyhow? It’s not much of an expose if they laugh it off as ridiculous hyperbole.

Discussion Questions:
~Who do you think is to blame for the way Grayer gets treated? Identify the ways in which various characters could have done better.
~There are two types of trauma people can suffer: A and B. A traumas are direct harms, B traumas are necessary things being withheld or deprived. Which is worse? Do B traumas constitute child abuse? Should this sort of white collar child neglect be illegal?
~Evaluate the nanny’s character. Consider that she lied to her mom and the Xes.
~If Mrs. X stood up to Mr. X, what would happen? If the nanny stood up to Mrs. X? Why do you think the nanny and Mrs. X never do so? What is codependence?
~We are well aware of many exotic evils such as terrorism and murderous monsters and disease. How does the fixation on these sorts of extreme cases blind us to the ordinary evil all around us every day?

.

Overall Grade: D

If you’re going to make me miserable in watching your stupid movie, at least tell me that in advance. Don’t try to seduce me into watching it by making me think it’s going to be a lighthearted comedy.