A writer, reloaded

When the San Francisco Police Department pulled resources away from the first media driven serial killer investigation in history, author Robert Graysmith began his own inquiry. Over the course of a decade plus journey, he chased clues and witnesses all over California. Sometimes he worked against the police, sometimes with them. Relentless. Fearless. And in some way, hopeless, Graysmith paid a heavy price for his truth, losing his family to what they considered an obsession. Now his exploration forms the basis of a major motion picture. A good one, at that.

Countless producers and studios considered adapting the book for screen; only David Fincher had the nerve and skills to make it happen. I’m glad Fincher did, because in another director’s hand, this project might have degraded into the realm of the un-watchable. And it wouldn’t have been the material that caused the issue.

The backdrop, in fact, is fascinating. A lone murderer–possibly with military training, definitely with a flair for the cinematic–taunted police and the media with letters filled with ciphers, and attracted international attention. After all the time and effort, to this day no one has ever been arrested for the crimes, which may number from five to thirteen murders. The film, like the book, paints a clear picture of one particular suspect. Yet, no matter how compelling the case for this suspect may be, it does not resolve the case. Without a prosecution, the killings stand as an open wound, an affront to one’s sense of justice.

And this standoff may continue. It’s a conflict that one can live with, for one hundred and fifty three minutes of the film’s run time, and well beyond. Because that’s how it is. All who let the case affect them, are never the same.
What works about Zodiac:

1) Great cast. Robert Downey Jr. is brilliant, and Jake ( as Graysmith ) does the obsessed writer thing to a T.

2) Aesthetics. Impossible camera angles and shots make Zodiac an interesting film to watch.

3) Believability. Taking Graysmith’s account as an honest recreation of facts, the story arc is plausible.

What needs improvement:

1) A little less investigation into the Zodiac, a little more Zodiac in action. But then, that’s how it happened. Lots of time and effort chasing a ghost.

Verdict: For Fincher/Zodiac noir fans, theater full price / DVD purchase. For the casual observer, DVD purchase.

Rented 2 DVD’s this weekend, films that I skipped purposely in the theater, because they were better suited for an in home viewing. First up: Lady in the Water.

Admittedly, I am a M. Night Shyamalan admirer, one who wanted to like this movie, because his previous 4 films ranged between quite good and excellent, and I enjoyed each on a multiplex screen. Enough peers warned me off this flick, so I passed, and waited for the DVD. I watched it carefully, and will make only one observation. The real problem with this movie was the form; it needed to be a book. Interesting characters, a workable situation and a reasonable paced plot, Lady could have been a great read. A classic fairy tale, even. Some imagery plays well mentally, yet translate those same ideas for screen, and it falls short. Also, because the medium lacks the depth to bounce between a number of characters thoughts, complicated story arcs get lost, or dampened. Both compromises happened here. Chalk it to an extremely ambitious concept executed with the right intentions, but unfortunately in the wrong media.

Hollywoodland suffers from a different–and oh so similar–problem. This concept was the stuff of a made for television movie, twenty years too late. As a twelve-year-old, I might have liked this one as the Sunday Afternoon Million Dollar Movie. Alas, it surfaced in 2006, fifty years after George blew–or someone blew–his brains out across his bedroom wall. Ben Affleck did better than I expected, and Adrien Brody is a talent of note, but otherwise this could have been done for a lot less scratch, and for similar results. The storyline offered countless possible explanations for the former Superman’s death, yet very few reasons to care about the characters, why someone might want to kill him, or why he wanted to die.

Verdict: Lady, rentable; Hollywoodland, flushable.

Based on a true story, Breach follows the tail end of a massive internal investigation of FBI agent Robert Hanssen, who was arrested for treason and espionage in 2001. And interesting as that sad chapter in American intelligence might be, the biggest problem weighing down this thriller is that everyone already knows how the story ends at the outset. Unlike other fictional recreations, like Titanic, here we don’t root for survivors, or the heroes trying to save the children.

Perhaps for security purposes very little of what happened can be shown, and the director wanted to honor real events which meant pulling punches. Maybe the story arc did not lend itself to a visual adaption. But if either is the case, going for the dramatic would have been acceptable, and a lot more entertaining. A bit of artistic license goes a long way. Ultimately there is not much story to Breach.

What works:

1) Tight, zinger based dialog keeps many of the scenes afloat.

2) Chris Cooper. Great actor caught in a mediocre movie, yet he makes the best of his sentence.

What needs improvement:

1) Ryan Phillipe. He’s just cursed.

2) The script. Going for inspired by a true story, i.e. keep the names and the fact that Hanssen got arrested and invent the rest, would have unleashed a cosmos of drama and entertainment. Instead, I got warm milk and stone cold cookies.

3) The concept: In the wake of 9/11, do audiences really want to see the FBI in an unflattering light? Because they look bad here. Just awful.

Verdict: Cable.

As an agency whose usefulness has long provided fire to its critics, the CIA is a more or less a mystery—an entity answerable only to people who have no interest publicizing its successes of failures. True, they have a web site, but that does not illuminate even the basic function of this covert organization. Maybe we’re all better off not knowing how the trains run on schedule, only that they do.

The Good Shepherd, a film loosely based on the career of James Angleton a counterintelligence operative, does not examine the efficacy of the CIA either. Nor does it glamorize the mission or work. This film is not about cloak dagger or spy games. Good Shepherd does paint a harrowing picture caused by a lifetime spent serving the agency. If the experiences of the character Edward Wilson are rooted even part in fact, his story is a tortured one, indeed.

It’s a long film, close to the three hour mark. It’s littered with moments of quality drama. There’s a rich narrative, though perhaps a bit dense given the non linear plot structure.

What works about Good Shepherd:

1. A very complicated set of characters and back story in an entertaining package.

2. Cast is top shelf all the way across. Every key actor performs well.

3. Direction. More films by Robert De Niro!

Areas of improvement:

1. Very Godfather II esque vibe. Perhaps a result of Francis Ford Coppola’s involvement, several scenes draft too far into that well for my taste.

2. Story arc. Two minor conflicts could have been expanded to major plot points, and buoyed the pace.

Verdict: Matinee, or DVD rental.

Like the Oasis song ponders, you know that feeling you get? That you’ve seen it all before…well, deja vu is about the recognition of having experienced a situation in the past, while lacking a memory–real or imagined–to support that feeling. Most people know the sensation, and no one has satisfactorily explained its cause. At least not yet.
Deja Vu does not explain the mystery either, but the movie does entertain; it is very watchable. An ATF agent, played by Denzel Washington, uncovers a link between a homicide and a terrorist attack. With help from some cutting edge technology, he visualizes events leading up to the murder, and butts against an interesting paradox: If they can prevent disaster by changing the past, even at the expense of creating a different future other should they try? Audience says yes.

What works about this movie:

1) Cast. The right mix of known and unknowns. The right blend of faces and personalities.

2) Eye candy. And lots of it. Convincing explosions and disaster footage.

3) Execution of concept. Appropriates an old theme and makes it seem new.

4) Engaging. The audience wants to follow the characters along to the end.

Possible enhancements:

1) Less metaphysics. In a movie like this, one grounded in entertainment rather than science, the fact that someone can move through time and space, even at great personal risk, is far more interesting than the mechanics and theory behind the leaps they take. Not to say the movie dwells on technical matters, but a few of the imagine-if-time-was-like-a-line-on-a-paper dialog tracts jarred me loose of the story briefly.

2) Tighter editing. A few scenes could have been cut.

Verdict: A decent flick, it’s worth a DVD rental, or afternoon matinee–for the very motivated.

Gritty. Real. Masterful. Violent. The Departed is a great classic to be, with a fine script, a skilled director and a dead on cast. Literally a trifecta for the audience, this film delivers what the ads and reviews promise–a great story.

The Departed burrows into the Boston underworld where criminals and cops intersect–and sometimes collaborate–and it does so convincingly. Matt Damon plays the understudy to crime boss Jack Nicholson, and as an adult becomes a state trooper who serves both the state and the mob with equal zeal. Leo DiCaprio is a fresh cadet from a connected family who accepts the challenge of a deep cover assignment with one purpose: infiltrate the lair of the very criminal Matt Damon protects.

Chock full of memorable lines and visual imagery, the story ramps up early and and flies through the gates fast. Each scene does what it needs to and plays well. And Jack Nicholson still has the chops, and alone justifies the ticket price.

What works about The Departed:

1) Direction. Can’t say this enough. A director can take a good story and make it great, which is what Scorsese has done here.

2) Script. Tight and well planned.

3) Actors. Expertly cast and all believable.

4) Soundtrack. Usually I don’t notice the soundtracks, but this one is unusual. The Rolling Stone’s Gimme Shelter appears twice, piecemeal style. That’s rare in movies today, where studios cram as many titles as possible to keep the royalty gravy flowing.

What needs improvement:

Not out on DVD yet.

Verdict: Theater full price and DVD purchase.

I haven’t written a movie review in quite some time, which is the consequent of viewing a lot less movies. Not sure if this decision reflects my disinterest in the fare Hollywood belched up lately, or I just fell out of the movie habit. Maybe decision is too strong a word. I don’t remember consciously avoiding the cinema. Then again, I don’t remember thinking oh, there’s a flick I have to see that often either.

Anyway, I’m hitting two flicks these week. Borat and The Departed. Borat promises to offend and entertain. The Departed promises deception and lots of action. Ah, the American dream.

Oh, and this guy nearly blew up the crematorium as his flesh cooked away in the oven. There’s a horror story in that somewhere…