Henry Poole Is Here - Swimming In Spirituality

This is a sleeping giant of a film, that deserves a giant wake up call. It has the potential to launch a few rising stars and revive the careers of some cinematic veterans.

Luke Wilson, who has the good looks and acting chops to be a leading man, hasn't really had the opportunity to shine in many of his roles. But in this film directed by Mark Pellington ( Arlington Road, Mothman Prophecies) Wilson is given the center stage spotlight. Henry Poole (Wilson) is a man troubled by news that he is about to die.

As sort of personal gesture to himself, Henry decides to return to the neighborhood where he grew up, in order to put his personal affairs in order before he departs. His plan was to buy the house he grew up in, but must settle for a neighboring house down the street. Which becomes the blessing and bane of his remaining life. Shortly after moving in, the realtor has a wall outside his home re-stuccoed, and a rather remarkable phenomenon occurs soon after in the form of a water stain.

A nosey, neurotic and very spiritually misguided neighbor Esperanza played by Adrianna Barraza, discovers the stain in the stucco and becomes convinced it is the face of God. She begins a crusade to convince Henry it is a miracle and a sign from God. Henry wants nothing to do with God, miracles or his wall being turned into a shrine. Thus becomes the basis for this spiritual divided plot.

Sort of poised in the middle of this ecclesiatical conflict are two characters, a level headed priest played by George Lopez and Henry's next door neighbor ( Radha Mitchell) whose daughter is withdrawn into herself, and unwilling to speak a word to anyone.

These characters one by one slowly draw Henry out and force him to at least accept the fact that faith can be a powerful thing. The more he resists the more the miraculous and unexplainable seem to plague him and force him to see the light.

It is a very profound and touching film, and Luke Wilson delivers a rather heartfelt performance. As does the rest of the cast. George Lopez is starting to reinvent himself as an actor, and I am certain this film will do for him and Luke Wilson , what Pulp Fiction did for John Travolta and Samuel Jackson.

But the most surprising performance comes from the little girl Millie played by Morgan Lily. It is amazing how a young actor such as Morgan can deliver such powerful performances at such a young age. But I see great things in her future, and I would predict she is someone Hollywood will be keeping a close eye on.

And to balance this stirring film out is yet another killer soundtrack, including the memorable song "On an Ocean" by Lisa Gerrard, which was featured in Ridley Scott's epic " Gladiator". I would recommend renting this and at the very least buying the soundtrack. It is a very light hearted and moving film.

Strange Beginnings In The Middle Part II

Okay speaking of fun, the second film is simply just a huge goof for all involved and if I ever get the chance to ask anyone who was involved in this epic blunder of a film, I will certainly not hesitate to ask.

Knightriders, directed by George A. Romero, yes of Night of the Living Dead fame, is a rather strange tale of fantasy and fiction. It's star lead is a very young Ed Harris, who though he had hair was showing signs of the trademark receeding hairline. The story is about a troop of traveling performers who joust on the backs of iron steeds. Okay, let me say this with as straight of a face as possible. They get dressed up in armor, and joust like in Medieval times, on armor plated dirt bikes. Not sure who the target demographic was for this film, or even if they even had one specifically? But this is not something you could get away with bringing to the table of a major studio today, without a large pile of cocaine involved!

Now granted I am a geek, I love Renaissance festivals, and motorcycles. So obviously I am a bit jaded. But how George Romero got roped into doing this movie is beyond me? And if you pay close attention you notice that Stephen King also appears in this film. Somehow, I can't help but feel someone lost a bet and was taking all their buddies down with them.

But never the less the film's only real other brand name star in this is Tom Savini, Hollywood's original bad boy! He plays Morgan ( which is sort of the Mordred) to Ed Harris' "Billy" (which is obviously meant to be seen as King Arthur). The film is basically about stuntmen who have a desire to pretend they are knights, jousting for honor and glory. Which is fine, but the story ends with Ed Harris sort of becoming lost in the part. That is to say he takes the whole "pretending he's King Arthur" just a little too seriously.

Meanwhile this film is backdropped against small town America as the troop travels across the mid-west doing carnivals and impromptu shows. Ironically meeting up with some awnry bikers along the way, that think they are a bunch of idiots. But righteousness prevails, and the ability to hold a lance while riding a dirt bike as well.

Again I am not sure how anyone was sold on this being worth the trouble to shoot? I am sure Ed Harris will not be happy that I am bringing this film up. But from a retrospective look back at what passed for entertainment in the early 80's, it's kind of a hokey goof to watch this film. And lord knows there are plenty films that were way sillier than this. I am certain Lea Thompson and possibly Tim Robbins are trying very hard to forget "Howard The Duck"! What a fowl movie that was!

But again "A" for being uniquely weird, and helping to epitomize what a weird time the 80's was film making. And as a small side note it also stars a very cute under rated actress named Patricia Tallman, who got her main notoriety in the showbiz game as a stunt women. She is of course well known by the sci-fi geeks for her various roles in the Star Trek franchises and her big role in Babylon 5 as the lovely Psi Corp telepath Lyta Alexander.

Strange Beginnings in the Middle Part I

These are just two of my favorite rather bizarre cult classic films in my collection, that I thought I would discuss today! They are rather strange departures for both the actors and directors, and just a prime example that just about any zany idea will be turned into a movie, if the right producer gets their hands on it.

The film "Flesh and Blood" is just a weird movie about disgruntled employees taking matters into their own hands, and the price they pay for their wild indulgences. Okay let me explain, it is vaguely about a band of brigands led by Rutger Hauer of Bladerunner and Lady Hawk fame. It takes place roughly in Western Europe around 1501. After campaigning, the war weary soldiers are promised booty and plunder and are denied this by the lord they were fighting for in the battle. Angered these mercenaries go on a tear to plunder the surrounding countryside.

The film is directed by Paul Verhoeven the man who brought you such classic films as RoboCop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, Showgirls, and Starship Troopers. Granted it is one his first commercial films, but somehow he lures fellow Dutch countrymen Rutger Hauer, who was already a celebrated actor, to appear in this rather uniquely depraved tale of debauchery. Not saying it was Hauer's down fall, but not sure that it helped his career any either.

The film also stars Brion James who worked previously with Rutger in Bladerunner. James also has had a rather interesting career as a character actor in tons of tv shows and films. Stranger still is the appearance of Bruno Kirby of City Slickers, When Harry Met Sally and Good Morning Vietnam acclaim. Not sure how he ended up in it either, but never the less there he was playing a brigand in the film. I give this film merit for it's casting alone!

The real appeal to this epic lost gem, is Jennifer Jason Leigh of Fast Times at Ridgemont High acclaim. Who doesn't help her career any by breaking free of the morally loose characters she portrays. She puts herself, all of herself if you take my meaning, out there in this film. Walking about in the altogether, no strategic camera angles or props to cover her assets.

The film is just this hedonistic lust driven tale, that goes absolutely no where, has no point, and yet has some interesting scenes and performances by it's cast. Not that this film got any kind of props by the industry, but it gets an "A" for effort in my book for at least having the balls to be strange and daring. And that in itself can be entertaining. It is like if you tried to make Ladyhawk into a porno and threw in the plague for good measures! Silly but fun.

Knowing - Do You Really Want To Know?

WARNING! Spoiler Alerts!

This latest film by Alex Proyas, who brought us such existential classics as "The Crow", "Dark City" and "I, Robot" brings us another thriller about the end of the Earth.

Nick Cage plays John Koestler an MIT Astrophysicists who discovers a list of numerals that was left behind in a time capsule that was buried a half a century earlier at his son's school. By a strange set of circumstance, he is able to decifer that these numbers are predicited world disasters.

The rest of the film is trying to find out where these prophecies came from, and what do they mean.

This film has been taking some serious hits from critics. And I am not entirely sure why? It is not a horrible film, I have seem much worse from some celebrated directors like M. Night Shyamalan. His latest film "The Happening" is another apocalyptic based movie of super natural powers disrupting life on the planet. That was a disappointing movie, more so because of the ending.

But I think this film has amazing potential for what it tried to do, not what it actually achieved. The ending is a little hokey and wrapped up with a pretty bow. But it raises the existential question about the nature of the universe. Is everythings a random set of circumstances or is there some divine force governing things?

The story was suspenseful and gripping for the most part. The special effects were certainly well done. The acting even by the young actors was top notch. The young girl played by Lara Robinson did a phenomenal job play a duel role in the film.

Nick Cage and Rose Byrne ( 28 Weeks Later, Sunshine and Wicker Park) gave believable performances, portraying single parents trying to make sense of this bizarre series of events and doing their best to protect their kids. So there is purpose and motivation to the story. So what more do you want?

But I guess the writer crosses a line and attempts to assert a possible view of how and why the inevitable apocalypse might unfold. May not be your cup of tea, not sure it is mine. But in my mind doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. Just not giving the answers to the questions, that you might have hoped for.

All in all the film was entertaining. As to whether or not the ending was plausible, ask Michael Bay if he cares if his film "Armageddon" was believable or not? I think it was a good film, it makes you think about the universe, life and meaning to it all. It is worth a look.

The DVD offers some behind the scenes views and interpretations from the cast and crew.

Push- With a Little Give and Take

This latest film by Paul McGuigan of "Wicker Park and Lucky Number Slevin" acclaim does a fair job with a growing genre of film, the sci-fi/superhuman movie.

Seeing how there are now a bunch of these films scattered about it is hard to come out with and an interesting let alone unique story line. But "Push" seems to be able to stand on it's own.

There have been some films that touch upon the mutant/superhuman/ genetically engineered genre that have sunk while others swam. "X-Men" was certainly a hard act to follow, and a few in my opinion were able to bring anything new to the table, like "Eagle Eye" or "Wanted". The film "Jumper" was a good movie in it's unique plot, and "Push" was sort of a distant cousin to it, mutants being pursued by covert government agencies.

I did find it slightly amusing that like "Jumper", "Push" had a black actor ( Djimon Hounsou) playing the lead agent, not unlike the role played by Samuel Jackson in the former. But otherwise that is were the similarities ended.

"Push" is based in a semi-real conspiracy theory world or psychic and telekinetic powers being harvested in people through the use of labratory drugs. And basically trained mutants are used to track down and subdue the rogues. So nothing new there really.

The performances were decent enough, not the top of the shelf crew as far as actors go, but I would say every one in the cast is someone with strong box office currency. Chris Evans of Fantastic Four fame, delivers more or less the same sort of acting he does in all his other films, falable hero with the charming smile and humorous disposition. Camilla Belle is someone who really should be making Oscar winning movies, seems to prefer doing these sci-fi/horror based films. And Dakota Fanning seems to be riding in the wake, acting-wise as well. She delivered a rather endearing perfomance and has the chops to carry a film. I hope to see her in future projects.

Not really sure why Djimon is not knocking out more serious roles either. He was awesome in "Amistad", "Gladiator" and "The Four Feathers", but I guess there is only so many films you can make with in intense angry black men, and Denzel and Sammy J, seem to be scooping them up! But Djimon is a gentle soul, and good things I hope come to those who wait.

The film is a fast pace adventure filled with plot twists, and seriously cool special effects as far as the fight scenes and mutant powers go. It had the potential to be really bad, with the storyline going all over the place. But all in all I would say cast and crew did a decent job, at least the story had a theme and an ending which is more than I can say for some films I have seen. Maybe not a must own on DVD, as it has few special features worth noting. But definitely worth a look as a Netflix rental.

A final note there is an actor with a very brief role named Joel Gretsch. I first became aware of him in Legend of Bagger Vance. He has great personality and looks, and yet he seems destined for these little cameos in films. Another career I will be keeping an eye on.

Progress, Profits and Predictabilities!

I have had this discussion with a few folks over the years, about the decline in going to the movies versus watching films of DVD. And I guess it is inevitable that now we have movies that go straight to DVD almost immediately and some that are made specifically for home viewing. (And I am not refering to the adult entertainment variety.)

But I recall as teenager, looking forward to a film's release, especially films like Star Wars, or Indiana Jones and actually waiting in line for hours to buy tickets to the very first showing! And many of these I saw more than once in the theaters. I think I saw "The Empire Strikes Back" a half a dozen times.

This had a lot to do the times I was living in and the limited technology. We waited in line because at the time, these films were on the cutting edge of technology and entertainment, as far as movies went. And we saw them many times, not just because they were good. but because we had no way of knowing if we would ever see them again? This was before the days of syndicated cable networks, Home Video,DVD's and now BlueRay.

Sadly, those days are gone, and I can't help but feel we as a society are a little more jaded than we used to be. Now before a film comes out we can download screen savers, trailers, photos, songs, and interviews on our computers and even our cell phones! We rent dvd's and the discs themselves have previews and commercials for other things. World has become way too accessible, and again as I have lamented we are not coming together as much in the real world as we once did.

Now you don't even have to go to a theater to catch the latest film, to keep up with the "in crowd" you can download a quick thumbs up or down from a website, to get the "411" and skip the movie all together. And you don't have to wait long before it is delivered to your door either on cable television or by Netflix in the mail. And further still you can "watch instantly" on your computer through down loadable streaming.

Money is still being made by the promoters, studios, and hopefully the actors and crews. But somehow it seems like the original magic has diminished quite a bit. I remember treating a trip to the theater as a big social event. Now it is something you do to kill time. Although I would imagine that for kids, it is still a prefered escape to get out of the house. But I am disturbed by how many of them are texting away on their cell phones in the theaters, which begs the question why did you go to movies in the first place?

Even in most households I would assume that "movie night" has become less of a thrill. People are so used to "multi-tasking", that television in and of itself is becoming just ambient background noise, while we "twitter away" or search on the web for other things! We have become a wee bit over sensitized. We are flooded now with a steady flow of visual and audio stimuli thanks in part to the great world wide web and the blazing advances in electronics technology!

I even think that Hollywood is getting a little too saturated and running out of things to make films about. I used to complain back in the day, " How many Police Academy movies do we really need?" And now I laugh, because for more than a while , they have been making movies based on some loveable TV shows going as far back as the 50's and 60's. With limited success I might add. They have done Bewitched, The Brady Bunch, Lost in Space and now I shudder because there is a Gilligans Island movie in the works! Oh the humanity!

Might as well make a "Happy Days" film! Wait, they did it was called "American Graffitti"! But seriously they made a few Gilligan films, that failed! Do we really need one more? Most of those classic television programs are great in a nostalgic sort of way. But please leave them alone and get back to work!

And it is not so much that I blame the machine or progress so much. Hollywood has been cranking out "B-movies" for ages. So it is par for the course to have 10 films come out every two weeks. With one being good and the other nine being questionable. It just seems that we are less entertained, and in some cases we are less motivated to watch films. And I would hate to live in a world where movies became either redundant or non-existent.

I also get into a rant about the excessive use of "CGI" and again I have nothing against the industry or the folks that do all the hard work to bring us such great special effects in films, I just don't think it excuses the writers, the directors or even the producers from delivering an entertaining story line or plot.

It is something I touched upon earlier about soundtracks, where music is relied upon too often to spice up the more boring moments of a film. Just because a blockbuster film has something blowing up every five minutes does not make it an exciting movie. We still need to have our minds and imaginations stimulated, not just our senses.

Some where we have traded in waiting in a movie line for a bottom line. But all is not lost, there are still some great movies being made, and there are still people like me who enjoy seeing a blockbuster movie with a packed audience to feel the energy and be part of the experience. And I hope for all future generations that never fades away. There is just nothing like seeing a great film on the big screen.

Although I will confess that having a large High Definition Flat Screen and a bodacious digital surround sound system is a close second at times. And I do love being able to watch my favorite films over and over again at my own leisure. Ah the times they are a changing! Pass the popcorn!

Public Enemies

The problem with doing films based on true events, let alone historical events, is that your ending is pretty much set in stone for you. Very little wiggle room. Because basically you are surviving solely on the merits of your performance.

And alot of people won't go to see a film like Titanic, because they know in advance that the boat sinks. And in the case of this film if you know even a little American history, John Dillinger gets shot.

Now going into this film I had a fairly decent understanding about the man, or at least I thought I did. I knew he was a ruthless killer and a flamboyant personality. And that he died in a hail of gun fire, betrayed by his girlfriend, outside a movie theater in Chicago.

And I won't spoil much for you but it seems some liberties were taken with the story line. Which is fine, the film was enjoyable. Not overly exciting, but enjoyable. And this is due in greater part to the performances of Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard and of course Johnny Depp.

The gunfighting scenes with the roaring Tommy Guns, was alot like the fire fights in Star Wars, lots going on, bullets flying, but seems to take forever for someone to get hit. So even that got a little old quickly.

The story was limited, and the characters were a little two dimensional, you never really get a good look into what makes these people tick? You are given quick little explanations, and then wisked away into prolonged series of events that is basically bewildering and somewhat pointless.

You are never really sure from beginning to end why you are watching this? Or what the point the director Michael Mann was trying to make with this rather lengthy movie? Was John Dillinger a likeable misunderstood hero, or a ruthless killer?

And equally confusing is the position of purpose behind the way the FBI was portrayed in this film, are we to believe they are inept ruthless kilers as well? Or bungling idiots on some sort of vendetta to prove themselves to a sceptical society? It was all sort of sketchy at best.

Johnny Depp, Chistian Bale and Marion Cotillard delivered superb performances, as did the support cast. Lots of support cast in this, though not much shine time for any of them including some fairly big names like Stephen Dorff, David Wenham, Giovanni Ribisi, James Russo, Rory Cochrane and Billy Cruddup.

So all I can say, is don't believe the hype, it's an entertaing enough film, don't rush out to see it if another film grabs your interest. It is worth catching on DVD.