The Lookout

Posted on March 28, 2007 at 2:13 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language, some violence and sexual content.
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, smoking, drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	Tense and violent situations, some graphic, many characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	2007
Date Released to DVD:	2007
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000QFCD8Q

In this tense and twisty thriller, our narrator and central figure is Chris (the stunning Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a one-time high school hockey star and dreamboat who was brain-damaged in a car crash on prom night. Now, he works as the night janitor in a bank and goes to life skills classes to practice “sequencing” and tone down the “disinhibition” that allows him to make inappropriate comments to his pretty caseworker. At night, while he is at work, a friendly cop comes by to bring him donuts and sometimes he plays janitor hockey with his mop and thinks about how much he wants to be “who I was.” The hardest part of sequencing is finding a way to move his own story forward.

“I wake up,” he says. “I shower. With soap.” But is that before shaving or after? And “I cry sometimes” — is that supposed to be there? Chris has a little notebook for writing everything down to make sure he gets the sequences right.

But the sequences don’t seem to be right. He has the patient guidance of Lewis (Jeff Daniels), the blind roommate he met at the life skills center. And he has the confused affection of his wealthy family. They have kept his old room the way he left it, filled with trophies and the wheelchair from rehab folded up in the corner. His father still expects him to play chess. They seem to have more trouble than he does sequencing him into his future.

And then Chris meets Gary (Matthew Goode), who remembers him the way he was and doesn’t seem to think he’s changed much. Gary introduces him to Luvlee (Isla Fisher of The Wedding Crashers) and she seems to think he’s pretty great the way he is. They show him a heady glimpse of himself as powerful, wanted, friended by people who see no reason to feel sorry for him.

And capable of…something adventurous and dashing? Gary wants to rob a bank. The one where Chris and Barney Fife have donuts every night. Has Chris missed a step in his sequence and gotten himself into a situation he can’t sequence himself out of?

The genre of the “impaired narrator” provides instant interest for audiences, who must try to guess what is going on based on limited information from the character who is telling it. Of course, writers always dole out information in a highly controlled way. But this personification of narrative control creates a puzzle that immediately makes our involvement more intense and alert.

Gordon-Levitt is the real deal, a fascinating performer who creates the pre-crash Chris so compellingly in a few brief moments that we can miss him — and glimpse him under the slightly scrambled version he becomes. We’ve seen too many showboat-y performances by actors who love to play the look-at-me-act-with-one-hand-behind-my-back award-bait disabled roles. But Gordon-Levitt and Daniels give us characters who happen to have some disabilities, fascinating for who they are, not for what they can and cannot do. And Goode is…great. In the past relegated to playing the cute English guy with the cute English accent in movies like Match Point and Chasing Liberty, here he is as silky and menacing as a cougar. First-time director Scott Frank makes the most of his own tightly-written script, never neglecting character for action. He makes our hearts pound, but he also makes us care.

Parents should know that this movie has very mature material, including explicit and graphic peril and violence, with many characters injured or killed. Characters use very strong language, drink, smoke, and use drugs. Many of the characters are criminals who threaten, bully, cheat, and steal. There are sexual references and situations, including nudity. A strength of the movie is the portrayal of disabled characters who are capable and dedicated.

Families who see this movie should talk about “sequencing,” and why it is important for the characters and in storytelling. How does the structure of this movie help to make that point?

Audiences who enjoy this film will also enjoy Memento. They will also enjoy other outstanding tense thrillers like A Simple Plan, Shallow Grave, and Out of Sight, with a superb screenplay by this film’s writer-director.

Related Tags:

Shooter

Posted on March 16, 2007 at 4:06 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for strong graphic violence and some language.
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, smoking, giving beer to a dog
Violence/ Scariness:	Extreme and intense peril and violence, including heavy artillery, shotguns, suicide
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters as both good and bad guys
Date Released to Theaters:	2007
Date Released to DVD:	2007
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000Q6GUTI

Pulitzer prize-winning film critic Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post has seen a lot of movies, both good and bad, and this film, based on his highly cinematic novel Point of Impact, shows an able, if somewhat derivative, sense of narrative propulsion. It’s a little bit Rambo, a little bit Death Wish, a little bit Under Seige, a little bit Die Hard.

The premise almost sounds like a parody of a movie pitch: Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg), a crack shot of a Marine sharpshooter becomes disillusioned after he and his best pal and spotter are abandoned by their commanders and the pal is killed. When some big shots track him down in his cabin in the woods to tell him they need his help to stop an assassination attempt on the President, he agrees to go back into service. But he is betrayed again, and set up as the fall guy for an attempted assassination in a complex conspiracy that reaches into government and big business. When everything closes in on him, he has to rely on the generic pretty girl with spunk — the widow of his spotter (Kate Mara), the generic wiseman/expert who knows the secrets (a specialist who’s even deeper in the woods than Swagger was) and a brand new FBI agent (Michael Pena of Crash) with a fresh perspective who doesn’t buy the too-convenient story about how Swagger planned to kill the President.

The idea satisfies a deep-seated fantasy. We all think we deserve an apology from someone and we all want our special talents to be discerned and appreciated by people in positions of authority. The big shots seek Swagger out to say they’re sorry and they need him. They acknowledge that he’s the best there is.

And then, after they betray him and try to kill him, Swagger (and we, through him) gets that oh-so-nice “Who IS that guy?” gratification of outsmarting those high-powered but corrupt guys at the top. And then he gets revenge — with extreme prejudice.

Some people will find that satisfying, too, but I found it over the top, thuggish, and brutal. The movie’s strengths are its appealing hero, a performance of surprising warmth and humor by Pena, and some clever use of expertise, especially in Swagger’s explanation of the elements that have to be factored in to hit an extra-long-range target (everything, including the rotation of the earth). And those colorful flags snapping in the breeze? They’re not there for decoration.

But then there is its clunky obviousness: The name has to be Swagger? And he has to walk toward us in slo-mo? And the bad guys have to cackle over their total domination and corruption? And there have to be not one, not two, but three explaining villains? And the overheatedness gets out of control by the end, with Swagger taking too many laws and too many lives into his own hands.

Parents should know that this movie has extreme and intense action-style peril and violence with some very graphic and disturbing images. Characters are are shot, stabbed, impaled, tortured, and punched. Many are injured and killed, including a dog. Characters are assassinated and a character commits suicide on-screen. There is a pro-vigilante aspect to some of the killing that audience members may find disturbing. They may also be disturbed by references to genocide, rape, torture, and political corruption. Characters smoke, drink, and use strong language. There are some sexual references, including rape, and a character wears skimpy clothing. And there is an Anna Nicole Smith joke that was clearly made before her death.

Families who watch this movie should talk about whether and when it is appropriate to take the law into your own hands.

Families who appreciate this movie will also appreciate In the Line of Fire and paranoia classics like The Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor, The Pelican Brief, and Under Siege. And they will enjoy the book, and sequels Time to Hunt and Black Light by Stephen Hunter.

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

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