Review: Starsky & Hutch
March 29, 2004; Loew’s Boston Common #7
* * 3/4 (out of 4)

This will be the first time I ever talk about a movie, and utter the words, “Snoop Dogg was the best part.” Trust me, this is not something I ever thought I’d say, but I had high expectations of funny for this Owen Wilson/Ben Stiller comedy, and while there were some amusing parts, I left feeling kind of disappointed with the whole thing. In this case, Snoop rises about the rest of the cast, including the normally sidesplitting starring duo.

The movie serves a sort of prequel to the hit TV show of the seventies. David Starsky (Stiller) is a tightly-wound, straight-laced cop whose job is his life. Every investigation is by the book, and to him, crime has no levels; a purse thief has the same priority as homicide. This is a stark contrast with Ken Hutchinson (Wilson), who cleans out illegal booking houses (without filing reports or making arrests) as a way to supplement his police salary. Bay City Police Captain Doby (Fred Williamson) makes the two partners, hoping they’ll drive each other nuts instead of him. Starsky & Hutch head out to investigate rumors of a huge sale of undetectable cocaine, grating against each other in a sometimes-funny manner until they learn to trust each other.

I don’t know… maybe I was expecting too much from Stiller and Wilson, but after The Royal Tenenbaums and Zoolander together, everyone knows this could have been so much more. It looked like they were trying as hard as they could, but it also became pretty apparent that the movie was written with them in mind; there are ample opportunities for Stiller to make weird faces and move awkwardly, and Wilson’s sex-driven Hutch feels and sounds a lot like Roy O’Bannon of Shanghai Noon. The funnier moments of the movie come from Snoop’s Huggy Bear, who he wears like a second skin – Huggy complaining about wearing a wire is about the funniest whining ever. Also worthwhile is Vince Vaugn playing Reese Feldman, a.k.a. “The Villain.” His stuff is pretty standard fare, but Vaugn does well to make this guy the sleaziest dealer possible, hiding behind his family in some hilarious scenes (his daughter’s bat mitzvah).

One upside to the writing is that it would have been very easy, especially with Stiller and Wilson, to turn this into a mockery of the present 70s culture, but that isn’t done. The setting and surroundings are taken seriously, and are presented authentically. Though I wasn’t around in the 70s, I never had a moment when I looked at anything and said “that shouldn’t be there.”

This is a decent movie with some funny parts; I guess I’ve just come to expect a bit more from Stiller and Wilson. Don’t blame it on them, though… credit there goes to the writing, which seems like it was written to appease their fans, not give them something new to do in a made-for-comedy setting like that of the TV show.

Theatre Review: Movin’ Out
March 28, 2004; The Colonial Theatre, Boston
* * * ¾ (out of 4)

I hesitate to write this review for two reasons. The first is that I have no right to write anything about a show that is primarily dance, cause I don’t know the first thing about dancing. The second reason is that I fear I can’t properly give credit where it is due, since my Playbill lists everyone who is playing each part on the tour, but not who was playing what part on this particular afternoon. But I enjoyed this thoroughly, and since theatre reviews is kind of what I feel like I’m heading towards, dammit, I’m going to try.

I don’t think I can say enough good things about this show. This is the Tony Award-winning musical that is a combination of three decades of music by the incomparable Billy Joel and choreography by the (apparently) equally distinguished Twyla Tharp. While for Mr. Joel I can speak from personal experience of his greatness, but as for Ms. Tharp, I can only rely on her bio in the Playbill, which credits her with a Tony, two Emmys, and 16 honorary degrees. I’d say that is impressive enough.

The story is told exclusively through dance and twenty-nine of Joel’s songs (note – that’s right… with the exception of a drill sergeant’s orders at one or two points, there is no dialogue in this show). It follows five friends through twenty years of interaction and turbulence, a major factor being the Vietnam War. It is inspired by the question, “What happens to Brenda and Eddie (of Joel’s “Scenes From An Italian Restaurant”) after the song ends?” Brenda and Eddie are joined onstage by James (“James”), Judy (“Why Judy Why”), and Tony (“Movin’ Out (Anthony’s Song)”), and the story moves through Brenda and Eddie’s breakup, the boys being sent to war, the homecoming, and all five coping with life, love, tragedy, and friendship.

A lot of things surprised me about this show. First off, going in I was not aware that the cast did not sing at all. All the music and vocals are performed by the band, led in this performance by Darren Holden (http://www.darrenholden.com), who turned out to be the absolute show-stealing star. Flawlessly banging out Joel’s hits on the piano while belting them with a passion and energy second only to the Piano Man himself, Holden captivated me from start to finish, often reminding me of Joel himself in his prime. I found myself watching him and the band as much as I did the dancers. He and the rest of the nine-piece band smoothly transition between beautiful versions of songs spanning Joel’s entire career, from well-known megahits like “Uptown Girl,” “The Stranger” and “River of Dreams,” through Joel’s most recent works, such as the classically-inspired “Reverie (Villa D’Este)” and “Invention in C Minor.”

Though I admit to knowing nothing about dance, I was thoroughly impressed with it here. The choreography was a perfect mixture of classical ballet and more modern styles (which I will not even attempt to name), and the execution was at worst impressive, at best freakin’ unbelievable. In particular, the dancer portraying Eddie (either Ron Todorowski or Brendan King) wowed the audience with his moves, which sometimes bordered on acrobatic… at times it made me dizzy just to watch. Even to my untrained eye, all five lead members and their supporting ensemble are obviously gifted dancers. If the ballet here scares you, worry not: some of this is completely unrecognizable as ballet, as some is the most sexually-energized "ballet" I've ever encountered, at points deliciously bordering on raunchy, though never in bad taste.

However, still the star in my eyes is Holden’s impassioned delivery of some of Billy Joel’s most famous classics. In this lies the show’s only flaw, overall. It feels like the main attraction of the show is Joel’s music, and I think that is what people come expecting to enjoy, so I fear the dancing might get overlooked. Beautiful and impressive as it is, walking in I certianly didn’t expect to enjoy that aspect as much as I did. I think it is something that will take the attending Joel fans by surprise and win them over, but they must be open to that, and I don’t feel like the show is being promoted as having such an emphasis on dance. But, beyond that, I give this show as much praise as I can possibly give. Everyone involved gave more effort than I’ve seen in a “musical” in a very long time, led by Holden at the microphone and piano. The show is currently on its nationwide tour, so if it stops near you, get to it; it is well, well worth it.

Review: The Ladykillers
March 26, 2004; Loew’s Boston Common #16
* * * 1/2

Prior to seeing the film, I had read a review that claimed this was the best outing by veteran writer/directors Joel and Ethan Coen, so walking in, the bar was set pretty high. After seeing it, though I can’t say it will be replacing O Brother, Where Art Thou? or The Hudsucker Proxy, I can say it is certainly high on the list.

Tom Hanks plays G. H. Dorr, a southern gentleman/professor/criminal mastermind who has an ingenious scheme. Assembling a team of “specialists,” he plans to empty the vault of a riverboat casino in Mississippi. To do this, he plans to tunnel underground, starting in the basement of the house he is renting a room in, owned by Marva Munson, played by the sidesplitting Irma P. Hall. Things go awry when Marva begins to figure out that something a little more involved than band rehearsal is going on in her basement between Dorr and his friends.

The strongest points in The Ladykillers are the cast and the writing. The cast is superb, from the bottom up. J.K. Simmons, Marlon Wayans, Tzi Ma, and Ryan Hurst all turn in distinct and worthwhile performances that are all hilarious in their own right. Each character has a different style of comedy, and each actor does well to bring out the distinctions. Also, a personal joy was to see nepotism resurrected, with long-time Coen friend and collaborator Bruce Campbell giving a cameo.

Shining through all competition, however, is Hanks. His G.H. Dorr is legitimate in everything he does. Sometimes nerdy, sometimes criminally brilliant, and sometimes downright creepy, everything is completely believable. As good as Apollo 13 and Road To Perdition and the similar dramas are, it is roles like this that make me remember that Tom Hanks is one of the best comedic actors around. Additionally, to Hanks’s credit, every time Dorr laughs… well, let’s just say it is infectious.

Also outstanding, per usual, is the writing of the near-infallible Coen brothers. It’s obvious, however, that in this movie, Marva and Professor Dorr are favorite characters. Marva is stereotypical without being offensive, and as such every word out of her mouth is authentic and appropriately amusing. There are times when Dorr’s dialogue is so completely esoteric and arcane that you can’t help but laugh… whether you understood what he said or not.

I have not seen the original The Ladykillers, nor do I have any stronger desire to after seeing the Coen version. From what I understand, there’s no real connection between the two beyond the basic plot, anyway. The Coens have once again crafted a darkly hilarious tale with characters so quirky and unique that they can only be human. Hanks delivers a hugely successful return to comedy, his first such role since 1999’s Toy Story 2. Everything works here, just maybe not as flawlessly as some previous Coen endeavors.

Review: Spartan
March 25, 2004; Loew's Boston Common #8
* * * 1/4

Contrary to my brother's comment that this is the first time I've seen a movie shot in locations I'm personally familiar with, I somehow had the great misfortune of being dragged to Message In A Bottle a few years ago. The difference there is that there I saw places in Portland, ME and Bath, ME that I knew well... and yet the filmmakers repeatedly tried to convince me this was some small town in North Carolina. By the way, Mr. Costner... still waiting for my $8 refund on that one...

But I digress. Spartan is the latest project from writer/director and playwright veteran David Mamet. It seems to be a pretty straightforward story: Val Kilmer plays Scott, a Marine and moonlighting Secret Service agent who is called in to investigate the apparent abduction of the President's daughter. Ah, if only it were that simple. Kilmer's Scott thinks he's in for a simple ride, but any ending that seems to bring a conclusion to the case only drags him deeper into a conspiracy. It seems those investigating the crime with him may not quite have the same motives as he. All this leads to a tense build and climax that, unlike a lot of thrillers recently, never fails to make sense. Mamet's twists are realistic, explainable, and in a lot of cases almost logical, a refreshing change from the near-deus ex machina quality of some thrillers.

Shining through the story and solid performances by Kilmer and Derek Luke - along with a small but excellent job by Mamet regular William H. Macy - is Mamet's script. It is refreshing to see that some theatre-to-film converts still remember where they came from. The dialogue here feels like it belongs on stage. Theatre dialogue tends to be a bit meatier, a bit more convoluted or abstract, where films - mainstream ones, at least - tend to lean towards clarity. For the most part, all the actors make the transition easily and gracefully. The biggest glitch keeping this from another half-star or so is Kilmer's dialogue. About half the movie he is fine, but there are situations, particularly when he has to speak at any length, where he seems to stumble over Mamet's rhythms. Though a bit distracting, I agree with my brother that it lends a weapon to his character, using his dispassionate speech to distance himself from those who would try to know him any more intimately than they really need to.

This is a thriller that produces an elaborate but easily understood plot without elaborate gimmicks. The action is well-directed, following procedures more suited to actual special forces units - the cast apparently trained with one in preparation for the film - as opposed to typical action fare. Though the brutality and realism of some of the onscreen deaths might be hard to watch for some, Mamet's intelligent manipulation of a relatively simple kidnapping premise is worth a look. And a quick one, at that: Spartan seems to be bouncing around cinemas, leaving the Boston Commons screen for the more modest Copley Square venue. Catch it if you have an opportunity; if not, this is definitely worth a rental.

Review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
March 19, 2004; Loews Boston Common #18
* * * 3/4 (out of 4)

I admit, I went into this movie really, really wanting to like it. I’ve always liked Jim Carrey – I suppose I basically grew up with him as one of the great comics of my age, Ace Ventura on up. Also, I had recently watched Being John Malkovich, so I was very much in the mood for more of Charlie Kaufman at his best. I am most pleased to say without hesitation that Kaufman, Carrey, Kate Winslet, and nearly everyone else involved here took my expectations, ripped them to shreds, burned the shred, replaced my expectations with better ones, and succeeded well beyond my new ones.

Though I really don’t want to give away any of the plot, the basic gist is this. Joel (Carrey) is devastated when he discovers his recently-exed girlfriend, Clementine (Kate Winslet), has completed a procedure which moved any reminder of him from her memory. Rather than wallow in his own pity while she moves on, Joel opts for the same procedure to remove her from his mind. The catch is that during the process, Joel, now an active and dynamic participant in his own memories, begins to remember why he fell in love with Clementine in the first place, and begins searching desperately for a way to stop the procedure from the inside.

First, what will be the focus of a lot of discussion for this movie, Jim Carrey. This is, hands down, the best he has ever been. While in nearly all his other movies – the only exception that I can think of being The Majestic – he has moments where he blatantly goes for laughs; something in his character is written for a laugh, or he’ll break character to have a little Ace moment. There’s none of this here. Carrey is playing a straight lead. His Joel is a complete departure from anything Carrey has done before: he’s quiet, thoughtful, and terrified. Most impressive is how Carrey fully maintains the character even when playing a 4-year-old version of him. While that scene does give us the one classic Carrey rubber-faced man, that’s all there is: it’s just a face, and a believable one at that. That’s not to say there’s no humor – far from it. In this case, the humor is situational, mostly between Carrey and Winslet, with David Cross providing his share as well. The humor between the couple is fantastically real, and their romance is almost flawlessly developed – albeit backwards, as the story sometimes moves.

Winslet also borders on incredible. I admit I haven’t seen anything she’s been in since Titanic, and that hadn’t been something I regret. It is now. Her Clementine is more than sincere, and it interested me how these two were both playing the same type of character; Joel dealt with his fears and shortcomings by withdrawing from them, while Clementine overcompensated, creating two harshly different personalities from the same ideas, and they came off as completely different

The rest of the cast is present for good reasons, and they know it. David Cross and Jane Adams are excellent as Joel’s best friends, perfect foreshadows of everything Joel fears becoming in his relationship. Even Kirsten Dunst, whom I’ve had problems looking at since Spider-man’s last scene, handled Mary with grace and intelligence.

As always, Kaufman’s script is excellent; I think this easily surpasses both Adaptation and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. He has presented a number of issues, and does so subtly – pros and cons of technological alteration of nature, relationships, and self-discovery, to name a few. The only element I’m not sure about is that he never truly takes a stance on these issues, preferring instead to leave them wide open for interpretation. (Note: this is not to say his characters don’t take stances on these issues; that is certainly not the case. However, he does provide ample coverage of all sides of debate, particularly the technology aspect.) His writing is smart, and his romance, though presented a bit haphazardly as required by his gimmick, is sincere, convincing, and heartwarming.

My only issue lies in the shooting, and it’s not even a big issue at that. The film is shot almost entirely with handheld cameras, and perhaps digitally. At first, I truly thought the unsteady camera would be a hindrance, and I suppose if technical scrutiny is your cup of tea, it might be. For me, however, as soon as I got involved in the story, which came very quickly, the stylistic choices became a non-issue.

This was truly impressive. I’ve always expected Kaufman to make me think about his films after I see them, and this is no exception. The difference here is that it feels like the execution is better. His loose ends are all tied up; despite the wandering time in the film, I didn’t come out with any sense of confusion as to where the characters stood at the end of the day. This is an excellently written film with amazing performances backing it up. This is the best film of the year to this point.