Crossing Over

Posted on June 9, 2009 at 8:01 am

A well-intentioned but ham-handed exploration of U.S. immigration policies, this movie’s message is undermined by its cardboard characters and clunky script. Like “Babel” and “Crash” it is a multi-story exploration of one theme, but it is formulaic and uninvolving.

It starts off badly as one character says to Max Brogan, the immigration cop played by Harrison Ford, “must you always be the humanitarian?” And just in case we don’t get it immediately that the immigration defense lawyer played by Ashley Judd is close to sainthood when she is introduced on screen hugging a little African girl and worrying that if she is not placed soon she will lose her native language, Judd wears a necklace with a charm in the shape of Africa to make it clear where her loyalties are.

The movie unspools as though it had been laid out on a grid. On one side, we have the worthy immigrants who want to stay in the United States. On the other we have the evil or unfeeling bureaucrats who want to send them home. Brogan’s partner is a naturalized citizen from Iran (New Zealand’s Cliff Curtis, in one of the film’s best performances) whose father is about to become the last member of the family to be naturalized. The two Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers (with huge ICE letters on their jackets) conduct raids on sweatshops to round up illegal immigrants. But the soft-hearted “humanitarian” Brogan cannot help getting involved. When one beautiful young woman pleads with him to make sure her son is all right, he literally cannot sleep until he tracks down the boy and delivers him to his grandparents in Tijuana.

The movie’s points are hit with a sledgehammer and the dialogue is almost as overweighted. Each character is a symbol with only one presenting characteristic. Slimy: predatory judge who insists on sexual favors in exchange for a green card. Misguided: Korean kid about to be naturalized who thinks that he has to be in a gang to get along in America. Even more tragically misguided: long, awkward conversations and confrontations in impossible circumstances, like a murder accusation in the middle of a naturalization ceremony. This is a serious and often tragic issue but the sincerity of the film’s good intentions cannot make it successful as a movie or as advocacy.

Related Tags:

Crime Drama

The International

Posted on June 9, 2009 at 8:00 am

This thriller about a multi-national bank with innumerable tentacles and immeasurable power has two problems and the worst is bad timing. It’s just a little bit more difficult these days to feel pleasurably shaken up while watching a story about a couple of brave souls from law enforcement fighting a big, bad, bank when recent developments have made it clear that not only are the banks less powerful than we thought, they are not even competent enough to stay in business much less plot total world domination.

If we can put reality aside for a moment, it begins as a fairly serviceable if standard thriller, some tough talk, a murder, a determined if overmatched international investigator (Clive Owen as Louis Salinger), and that all-powerful corporation that thwarts him through a combination of muscle and corruption. There are hints and echoes of a story worth exploring about the ability of large corporations to transcend and evade the rules of any jurisdiction. But it all descends into the same old bang-bang and director, in a couple of awkwardly inserted scenes reportedly added due to lukewarm responses to an earlier version. Director Tom Twyker seems much more interested in the architecture of the various world capitols the characters chase through than he is in having anything of much interest happen there.

There is a lot of urgent rushing around from city to city, always helpfully identified with official-looking titles in the corner of the screen. And there are a lot of meaningful glances with narrowed eyes as people try to convey urgency and threats and counter-threats. And then there is a big out of nowhere shoot-out in the Guggenheim Museum that goes on forever but apparently not long enough for law enforcement to stop the survivors from walking away from it before any police cars arrive.

Related Tags:

Drama Thriller

Fired Up

Posted on June 9, 2009 at 8:00 am

Yes, this is a dumb little teen sex comedy that repeatedly tries to generate hilarity with a cheer involving the initials of its title. Yes, it spends a lot of camera time focusing on tight little shorts on tight little tushes. Yes, it tries for the best of both worlds by presenting us with heroes who are major playas for most of the film with some lessons learned and spiritually enlarging experiences just in time for (and during) the closing credits. Yes, the high school junior heroes are played by actors who are at least a decade older than their characters. But as dumb little teen sex comedies go, this one could have been a lot worse.
Shawn (Nicholas D’Agosto) and Nick (Eric Christian Olsen) have just one goal — to get with as many lovely young ladies as possible as frequently as possible. Very effective singly, they are all but unstoppable with each other as wingmen. When it is time to go to El Paso for football training camp, they decide that rather than go to hot, dry, girl-free Texas they will instead go where the girls are, cheerleading camp. Though the camp is three weeks long, they plan to leave early to spend time at a friend’s vacation home.

Carly (Sarah Roemer), the captain of the cheerleaders, is a very attractive girl who is unprecedentedly impervious to Nick’s charm (and also impervious to the obnoxiousness of her pretentious boyfriend). Shawn does very well with the cheerleaders but increasingly finds himself attracted to the co-cheerleader coach (Milly Sims), even though she is married to her co-coach (Michael John Higgins, born to do spirit fingers) and, in his word, “old.” While Shawn and Nick are focused on getting as much as they can from as many girls as they can, the girls are focused on competing with the champion Panthers.
No surprises along the way — except perhaps how poorly the cheerleading routines are photographed and how much you can get away with in a PG-13 movie — but D’Agosto and Olsen have an easy rhythm and the movie wisely makes their comeuppances more sweet than humiliating. Its attempts to temper its homophobic humor are weak. But it nicely makes the point that the girls who get a boy’s attention and respect are those who respect themselves enough to insist on trust and affection before they will get involved.

(more…)

Related Tags:

Comedy

Which is Dirtier — ‘Land of the Lost’ or ‘Hangover?’ (Spoiler Alert)

Posted on June 8, 2009 at 3:58 pm

The Hangover and Land of the Lost opened on the same day. Other than that, they have little in common. The Hangover is a raunchy comedy about the aftermath of a Las Vegas bachelor party that would have been unforgettable if any of the attendees could remember any of it. The movie has male and female nudity, substance abuse, and many different kinds of very bad behavior. The movie is rated R, just barely (no pun intended). The still photos over the closing credits merit an NC-17.
Land of the Lost is based on a classic — if cheesy — 1970’s children’s television show. It has dinosaurs and time travel but it is “rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, and for language including a drug reference.”
Both movies are silly comedies with no aspiration to be anything else, but I would argue that it is the superficially raunchier film, “The Hangover,” that is more moral and a more entertaining film as a result. “Land of the Lost” treats its female character (played by the talented and beautiful Anna Friel) as a prop. She is there to provide exposition, to be literally pawed by an ape-boy, and to gaze adoringly at Will Ferrell. Although she is the only intelligent and capable person in the film, she is treated as an afterthought. The other characters behave badly and treat her badly and there are no consequences of any kind.
“The Hangover,” on the other hand, is a movie entirely about consequences. The bachelor party guests spend the whole film piecing together the bad choices they made the night before and paying for them financially, emotionally, and even spiritually. They all learn something important and we leave confident that they will be unlikely to repeat their mistakes (except that they have already agreed to a sequel). Furthermore, legally and morally they are not completely responsible for the worst of their behavior because they were drugged, two of them inadvertently.
No one is arguing that either of these films is any kind of morality tale. They are both helium-weight comedies. But I think “The Hangover” is a better film because it fits the innate audience desire for justice and lessons learned. The vicarious thrill of the transgressive behavior is not nearly as satisfying as seeing the characters learn some painful lessons and pay for their mistakes.
For a little more insight into the MPAA’s approach to ratings, take a look at what they have to say.

(more…)

‘Billy Elliot’ — Before the Tony

Posted on June 8, 2009 at 12:00 pm

Last night, “Billy Elliot” and its three young stars won Tony awards. Now is a good time to watch the movie about the boy who wants to dance that inspired it all (rated R for constant very bad language but otherwise suitable for mature teens).

Related Tags:

Movie Mom’s Top Picks for Families