I Think I Love My Wife

Posted on March 15, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for pervasive language and some sexual content.
Profanity:	A lot of very strong language, including the n-word
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, marijuana
Violence/ Scariness:	Punching kicking, shooting
Diversity Issues:	Racial humor, use of n-word (though acknowledged inappropriate for children)
Date Released to Theaters:	2007
Date Released to DVD:	2007
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000R5OFNG

Chris Rock has often said he admires the work of Woody Allen, and in Rock’s latest film, “I Think I Love My Wife,” the comedian tries to channel a very “Allen” vibe. Like Allen, he writes, directs, and stars. And the story is a classic Allen-esque set-up, as a married man wonders whether he would be better off single. But, as with the lesser Allen films, it never achieves a heightened level of dialogue or insight.

Based on a 1972 Eric Rohmer film Chloe in the Afternoon, in this version, it is “Nikki” who presents temptation by repeatedly visiting a married man at work and insisting on less-than-innocent lunches. Richard Cooper (Rock) is a family man who excels in business but finds his personal life intolerably “boring.” He questions the fairness of fidelity and laments the lack of intimacy with his wife. When Richard runs into Nikki — an old friend whose only purpose in life appears to be garnering attention from men, married or not — the rest of the film is not hard to guess.

The concept of a rumination on temptation, especially one that deals with the notion of what it really means to cheat (Nikki and Richard remain platonic; is it “cheating” even if no sex is involved?) is not a terrible idea in itself. As far as realizing the idea, Rock does an adequate job of portraying the ways in which Richard and Nikki’s “platonic” relationship becomes detrimental to his wife and family. Even though no sex is involved it forces Richard to concoct elaborate lies and detracts attention from his other relationships. The film ultimately fails to make Nikki an enticing character. She is just a one-dimensional manipulator. This removes the drama, the danger, and the interest from the story. With no charm in her personality, it becomes painfully clear how heavily her controlling personality highlights the deficiencies of others (most notably, Richard and his inability to say “Go away”). The near entirety of the film has audiences accompanying Richard to crossroad after crossroad, only to watch him make bad choice after bad choice. The overwhelming sense is that Richard is likeable, but sympathy wears thin as it becomes obvious that he’s not a victim of Nikki’s persistence as much as he is a victim of his own lack of resolve.

Parents should know that although the film seems intended to be quirky, the very adult themes of sex and lust are crucial aspects of both plot and dialogue. Rock’s well-established observations on racially determined cultural stereotypes are also extremely prevalent. Viewers should know that the n-word appears repeatedly in conversational dialogue.

Families who see this film should discuss the concept of marriage and what it can mean for a couple to be in a committed relationship. At which point did Richard’s relationship with Nikki become a threat to his marriage? Can the moment be pinpointed to a specific incident, such as when Richard lies to his wife about how long it’s been since he last saw Nikki? Or is it more general, such as the fact that spending time with Nikki begins to have a negative effect on his job performance and leads him to be argumentative with his wife and friends? Richard is also depicted as being devoted to his children; parents might discuss how this devotion could translate into better choices, such as focusing on providing a safe atmosphere at home and building a more positive relationship with his wife.

Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy Alfie, the story of a womanizing Londoner that first came to theatres in 1966 and has since been remade to star Jude Law. Families might also consider watching any of the many available Woody Allen films, including Manhattan and Stardust Memories, which focus on sex, fidelity, and relationships.

Related Tags:

Premonition

Posted on March 13, 2007 at 10:57 am

F+

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for some violent content, disturbing images, thematic material and brief language.
Profanity:	Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Smoking, wine, pharmaceuticals
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense peril, some graphic injuries, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters have a close friendship
Date Released to Theaters:	2007
Date Released to DVD:	2007
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000QGDY0G

With little style and no substance, this low-wattage forgettable thriller plays like a rejected episode of “The Twilight Zone.” Linda (Sandra Bullock) wakes up every day in a different reality (and a different sleeping outfit — she has quite the collection of nighties and pajamas). One day, she opens the door to a cop who tells her that her husband has been killed in a car accident. The next day, he’s in the kitchen having breakfast and watching television. Another day, it’s his funeral, and she can’t remember how her daughter got cuts all over her face and some scary people are coming to take her to a hospital. Another day, she goes to see him in his office and wonders if there might be something going on with that pretty new assistant manager (Amber Valetta). She begins to figure out that she’s living the days out of order. Can she change the future she has already experienced?

Bullock is appealing and committed as always, Valetta shows again that she has a sympathetic screen presence and can make the most of a few moments, and Nia Long as Linda’s best friend makes us wish the movie was about her. But the two things you are entitled to expect from a movie like this one are some “aha” moments as all the pieces of the plot come together and some “ahh” moments as the main characters learn something meaningful. What we get instead are a couple of “gotcha” fake-outs that are more exploitive than spooky (and no surprise to anyone who has the vaguest idea of the movie’s premise) and a “that’s it?” moment at the end that makes Linda’s character seem creepy rather than sympathetic.

Haven’t we lived through this before? And was it just as bad the last time? One reality she unfortunately can’t change is the ineluctable trudge toward the appallingly boneheaded ending.

Parents should know that this movie has some intense peril and disturbing images. A character is killed and a child is hurt. There is a bloody dead bird (later we see what happened to it). Characters use brief strong language, smoke, drink wine, and pharmaceutical medication is prescribed and forcibly injected. There is a non-explicit sexual situation and there are references to adultery. Issues of destiny and premonition may be upsetting to some audience members. A strength of the movie is the portrayal of a close friendship between diverse characters.

Families who see this movie should talk about times they have felt they knew something that was going to happen. What did Linda decide was worth fighting for?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the much better Frequency and Deja Vu (intense and graphic violence and terrorism). The Family Man and Me, Myself & I are non-thriller explorations of roads not taken in family relationships.

Related Tags:

Drama Fantasy Movies -- format Thriller

300

Posted on March 1, 2007 at 11:09 am

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity.
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, possible drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	Extreme, graphic, and intense peril and violence, many characters injured and killed, sexual predator
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie, issue of treatment of women, some homophobic references and implications
Date Released to Theaters:	2007
Date Released to DVD:	2007
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000Q6GX5Y

“Everyone will kneel to you — if you will kneel to me.” That is the offer made by a gold-dusted, multi-pierced Xerxes of Persia to King Lionidas (Gerard Butler) of Sparta in this visually sumptuous version of the battle of Thermopylae.

If Lionidas is tempted it is not by the prospect of ruling over thousands of people he has never met. What makes him pause is the consequence of saying no. If he refuses to kneel to Xerxes, he and his 300 warriors will be slaughtered.

Would we still be making movies about them if he accepted Xerxes’ offer?

He said no. Actually, it was more like NO. The 300 Spartans fought as hard as they could until all of them were dead. Their skill and courage rallied their Greek countrymen to fight the Persians. And their passion for freedom has kept their story vital through the centuries.

This version is based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller (“The Dark Knight,” “Sin City”). Like his book, it explodes with stunning images of breathtaking power. Ironically, though, while in the book the still images are kinetic, on screen the moving images are sometimes static. On the page, we see very striking composition but have to imagine all that happens in between and we intuitively assign the interstitial material less intensity. But director Zach Snyder tries to take our breath away with every single shot and he has so many moments in slow- and stop-motion that the film would be half an hour shorter if everything ran at normal speed. The heavily stylized compositions, balletic, blood-gushing violence, and wave after wave of different styles of marauders at times feel more like a video game than a movie.

The images are undeniably stunning, though. Almost everything was done through computer effects, which means that anything was possible — elephants hurtling over a cliff, a giant warrior, a wall of bodies, arrows that, as promised by the Persians, blot out the sun, all in a burnished, gold-washed glow accented by the red of the Spartans’ cloaks.

The best that can be said of the acting and the dialogue is that they are not overly distracting. Ultimately, like Greece itself, the movie’s strength is based in the eternal pull of its story. Like the Alamo and Masada, the story of the 300 Spartans who died in the battle of Thermopylae reminds us of the dignity, honor, and meaning that can be drawn from the direst of circumstances. That these stories span thousands of years of history should remind us of our failure to honor the memories of those who have died by learning how to prevent the need for such sacrifices.

What lessons do we learn? People on both sides have already begun to comment on the parallels between the story of Lionidas and Xerxes and the role of the United States in Iraq. But is America like the Spartans, standing up for freedom at whatever cost? Or are we the Persians, bringing our corrupt but mighty power to bear on a country that has a small fraction of our resources but many times our passion and staying power? What is most important is that retelling this story gives us an opportunity to ask those questions. This version gives us a lot to look at and more to think about.

Parents should know that this movie is filled with non-stop, extreme, and very graphic battle violence. Many, many limbs and heads are sliced off and many, many characters are wounded and killed. There are also some grotesque and graphic images of diseased and monstrous characters. There is some drinking and possible drug use, and there are are some sexual references (including homophobic insults and transgender characteristics as a sign of lack of integrity and honor) and some sexual situations, including an orgy, and some nudity. A man forces a woman to have sex and tells her that it will be painful.

Families who see this movie should talk about the concept of hubris in classical texts, the fatal mistake of placing oneself on the same level as the gods. They should talk about what mattered most to Lionidas and Gorgas, his wife. Did they make the right choices? What should Lionidas have said to Ephialtes? Why did Spartan woman tell their men to come back “with your shield or on it?” What do you think of the values of the Spartans? Are they barbaric? Why or why not? Theron calls himself a realist. What does that mean?

Families who want to know more about the history of this battle can begin with this essay by scholar Victor Davis Hanson, adapted from his introduction to the book about the making of the movie. They may want to take a look at the report of the battle by Herodotus. A 1962 movie with Richard Egan, The 300 Spartans, depicted this battle. And they may like to compare this film to Frank Miller’s graphic novel. The movie Go Tell the Spartans uses the battle of Thermopylae as a metaphor and counterpoint to the Vietnam war. A very different portrayal of Xerxes can be found in the Bible, where he is called Achashverosh, in the Book of Esther. Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy Gladiator.

Zodiac

Posted on February 28, 2007 at 11:34 am

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for some strong killings, language, drug material and brief sexual images.
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, smoking, character abuses alcohol, marijuana
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense and graphic murders by a serial killer
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	2007
Date Released to DVD:	2007
Amazon.com ASIN:	B001HUHBAE

We still don’t know for sure who was — or is — the California serial killer known as the Zodiac, the name he used in a series of letters he sent to San Francisco newspapers in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. This movie is not about some big payoff. There are no “eureka” WHO moments and we don’t get to see someone solve the puzzle and get a handshake from the mayor and the thanks of a victim’s family. We don’t get an “aha” WHY moment as we find out that it all began when Zodiac was a little boy and suffered some major trauma.

A puzzle is what it is. Zodiac sent not just taunting letters to the press; he sent four cryptograms, only one of which has ever been solved. While San Francisco’s investigation is inactive, the other jurisdictions’ files are still open.

This is not the story of the Zodiac, what he did and why. It is the story of what happened to three men whose lives were taken up with their efforts to answer those questions. A superb cast and an absorbing script make a frustratingly complex story accessible and keep even the nearly three-hour running time moving quickly.

Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.) is the chain-smoking hard-drinking newspaper reporter who covered the story. Downey vibrates like a tuning fork, his offbeat rhythms responding to tones only he can hear. It is is heartbreaking to see the sensitivity that makes him a meticulous observer of the world he writes about begin to implode. The movie doesn’t ask or answer whether the stress of being a possible target of Zodiac is what finally causes him to unravel or whether working on the story kept his fragile spirit together with a sense of purpose. It just shows us the toll that the story took on the man who happened to have the crime beat when the first letter came in.

David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong were the cops assigned to the case in San Francisco. They coordinated with Jack Mulanax (Elias Koteas) and Ken Narlow (Donal Logue), the police officers in the other regions where there were killings tied to the Zodiac. With literally thousands of suspects and no certainty about which crimes were committed by the Zodiac and which by copy-cats or unrelated killers, they are looking for one deadly needle in a haystack that could fill what was then called Candlestick Park.

And then there is Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal). He’s the newspaper’s political cartoonist. It isn’t his job to write about the case and it isn’t his job to investigate it. And yet, there is something that draws him into it so deeply he will ruin his marriage to devote himself to a story that is twisted and terrible, with an evil genius of a bad guy who is, well, right out of the movies.

Director David Fincher (Fight Club, Panic Room) wisely makes this story not about the monster, but about our fascination with monsters. Like Avery, Toschi, and Graysmith, we are pulled into the puzzle, horrified, but tantalized, stimulated, drawn to the edge of what separates us from a human being who could commit such atrocities and then taunt the people who try to stop him. In his letters, Zodiac may have referred to the classic film The Most Dangerous Game, about a hunter who uses humans as his game — in both senses of the word. He sees them as the only quarry worthy of him because they can truly test his skill. In a deeper sense, it is Avery, Toschi, and Graysmith who devote their lives to their own most dangerous game, tracking the Zodiac, who continues to elude them, searching for clues and patterns and meaning in a world where kids on lovers lane are killed by a man who dares the world to find him.

Parents should know that this is the story of a serial killer and there are graphic portrayals of some of the murders. Characters drink and smoke and one has some marijuana. A chain-smoking character also abuses alcohol. Characters use strong language and there are brief glimpses of pornography and references to child molestation. Some audience members will be disturbed by the themes of the story, which include serial killing and the impact on the lives and families of those who are involved in investigating the murders.

Families who see this movie should talk about why the story was so important to Graysmith and what he sacrificed in order to be able to pursue it.

Viewers who appreciate this movie will also like the classic Call Northside 777 starring Jimmy Stewart, also based on a real-life case of a reporter’s investigation of a murder. And they will enjoy other movies about murders who communicate with journalists or policemen, including Dirty Harry (inspired by the Zodiac case and briefly glimpsed in this film), The Mean Season, and No Way to Treat a Lady. Viewers who would like to find out more about the Zodiac case (and perhaps try to solve some of the still-unsolved coded messages) should read Zodiac and “This Is the Zodiac Speaking”: Into the Mind of a Serial Killer. And they might like to take a look at the classic movie that allegedly influenced or inspired the Zodiac killer, The Most Dangerous Game.

The Number 23

Posted on February 20, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for violence, disturbing images, sexuality and language.
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense peril and graphic violence, suicides, murders
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	2007
Date Released to DVD:	2007
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000OYC7BW

There are 23 things wrong with this movie.

Or maybe there are 24. Or 165. To be honest, I lost count. Despite this film’s best efforts, it never persuaded me that there was anything special about the number 23.

It began a moody but nicely stylish little thriller with some striking visuals, strong performances, and a provocative premise. Animal control officer Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey) is late meeting his wife Agatha (Virginia Madsen) on his birthday, February 3 (2/3, get it?). While she waits, she wanders into a small used bookshop and begins reading a novel about a man obsessed with the number 23. She buys it as a birthday gift for Walter, and he gets caught up in the book and its parallels to his own life. He begins to be haunted by the book, envisioning himself as its main character, a detective. He dreams that he is committing crimes.

And he begins to see 23’s everywhere. Everything adds up to 23. But nothing adds up.

Perhaps that is in part because it’s never clear whether 23 is a good number or a bad number, a blessing or a curse. And then there’s the fact that it’s something of a stretch to tie everything to the number 23. It seems to count if it just connects to 2 and 3 or 32 or to some other number that — gasp! — has some relationship with the number 23, even if it’s not much more than the fact that they are both numbers. There’s reason number one. It’s hard to make something so vague feel menacing. Reason number two: the obviousness of the fake-outs. Reason number three: the you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-ness of the characters’ decisions in trying to track down the mystery. Have these people never heard of Google? Or the public library? And don’t they know that you’re not supposed to investigate creepy places at night by yourself? Reason number four: there are several major logical flaws in the big reveal. Reasons number five through twenty-three: if you take the first two reasons and the last three reasons and put the numbers next to each other, it will say 23. This makes as much sense as anything in the story.

In other words, 23 is an unlucky number for Jim Carrey, Virginia Madsen, and anyone who goes to this movie.

Parents should know that there are a number of disturbing themes and images in the movie, including graphic, bloody suicides, murders and mental illness. Characters and a dog are in peril and some are injured and killed. There is brief strong language, and there are some sexual references and situations, including some bondage and masochistic fantasies.

Families who see this movie should talk about their own superstitions and the idea of apophenia, the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data, for which human brains are hard-wired. This is what makes it possible for us to read, make maps, and develop strategies, but it is also what sometimes has us projecting patterns on to Rorschach ink blots and other random shapes. For a delightful and very provocative discussion of this issue, see Michael Shermer’s lecture at Ted Talks.

Viewers who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Dead Again and Identity. They may want to read the Wikipedia entry on the superstion surrounding the number 23.

Related Tags:

Drama Movies -- format Thriller