The best defense is a good offense

Lex is exiting stage left as a regular on Smallville.  While it was terribly unexpected, the fact there is finally confirmation is a let down.  The show's bread and butter has been the interaction between Clark and Lex; their unexpected friendship; and then their dramatic falling out.  Lex-as-Zod, overlooking a burning Metropolis with Lana at his side was a definitive image for the series.

One by one, each of the original regulars has left the show.  Eric Johnson (Whitney) was shipped off to war and killed.  Pete Ross, Clark's former best friend, moved away, only to come back as a "meteor freak" for a guest appearance.  Jonathan Kent is dead.  Martha Kent is, supposedly, being a state congresswomen.  Even Lionel Luthor was killed off a couple weeks ago.

And now both Rosenbaum and, supposedly, Kristen Kreuk (Lana) are leaving.  Allison Mack is still in talks to return to the show.  Which leaves the following as season eight's (yes, season eight) main cast: Tom Welling (Clark), Laura Vendervoort (Kara), Aaron Ashmore (Jimmy) and Erica Durance (Lois).  Oh yeah, they're casting a new female villain.  Cue eye rolling here.

The biggest news?  The addition of a new super enemy...

Released: April 29, 2008
*****
The series does start with a bang, however, with a riff on "The Facts of Life" showcasing a romance between Jo and Blair. With Michael Serrato portraying Mrs. Garrett (he himself is a bigger, gentlemen who nails Edna rather well) and a wonderfully spot on Erica Ash as Tootie, this simple sketch provides the promise for the series.
*****
The Big Gay Sketch Show: The Complete Unrated First Season DVD Review

Released: June 2, 2006 (Seattle International Film Festival)
Director: Thom Fitzgerald
*****
A movie told in three acts,  3 Needles looks at the AIDS epidemic from the perspective of people trying to make a difference, yet failing.  Act I takes place in China, where a woman (Lucy Liu) runs blood from villages to the cities, unknowingly passing contaminated blood to healthy people.  The second story takes place in Montreal, following a young porn actor (Shawn Ashmore) and his quest to fool an AIDS test in order to keep working.  And, at the end, three nuns in Africa try to help families ravaged by the disease, yet are horrified at how far they are willing to suspend their principles to do so.

Writing and directing this epic, spanning five different languages and three continents, is Thom Fitzgerald.  He handles each story with care and conviction, never letting the action on screen become too violent, grotesque or graphic.  That is perhaps the film's largest drawback: it sanitizes AIDS and what it does to people.  When a pregnant Jin Ping (Liu) is raped by Chinese soldiers, the camera only shows the men exiting her van in extreme long shots.  As people die of AIDS throughout the film, their symptoms and pain are glossed over with a very minimal amount of acknowledgment.  Perhaps that is the idea behind the film, to be as unintrusive as possible in an attempt to get in front of as many people as possible. 

One other minor quibble with the production comes in the length of each story.  Running at 127 minutes, there is ample time for each act to receive an equal running time.  Yet the arguably least compelling group of characters-the nuns-get more time than either of the other two stories.  There is no need for us to see the nuns arriving at their monastery.  Instead jump right into the middle of the existing story, following the death of a woman from AIDS and her family.  Devote some more time to fleshing out the truth in Act II (keep reading).

Yet for all its faults, 3 Needles is an heartfelt production, armed with top notch actors (Ashmore, Liu, Stockard Channing, Olympia Dukakis, Sandra Oh, Chloe Sevigny and a cast of unnamed hundreds as background extras and in supporting parts) and exquisite location shooting.  Fitzgerald refrains from preaching, opting instead to simply tell the stories he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell them.  Is there ambiguity at the end?  Of course, most notably in the second vignette.  How does Olive (Stockard Channing), porn actor Denys' mother, actually get the virus?  There are two possible routes, though in the end the how doesn't really matter, only the fact she tests as positive.  What is her rationale when she cashes in the life insurance policy?  To be a selfish and jealous woman?  Or she is helping Denys in some way we never get to know about?  These questions aren't critical to the main story and, thus, were most likely left out.  Just loose strings to be tied up.

The finished product is epic, though retaining a sense of the people who make up each story.  It's not nearly enough to understand the wide implications of actions (or inactions); to see how each act impacts the immediate vicinity and the world reminds us we aren't alone.  Whatever the good intentions are, even one reused needle can potentially infect hundreds of people with contaminated blood, for example. 

Released: April 29, 2008 (USA, DVD)
Director: Shaky Gonzalez
*****
While I won´t dispute the superficial positive aspects of "Pistoleros," there isn´t a whole lot underneath for serious discussion. So lets start with the reasons to seek the film out. First and foremost, there´s the cast. From the brooding Daniell Edwards (Sonny, as one of Frank´s kids) to Zlatko Buric´s Ivan (a gleefully violent, greasy haired outlaw), they need not open their mouths to convey their fictional personality. The physical look of each person-even the two filmmakers in the wraparound segments of the film-is important because the it must go hand in hand with the words coming out of their mouths. It is crucial looks and dialogue match up in order to maintain the illusion of reality. And when the Danish language track is added in, there is never any doubt as to who these people are.
*****

Pistoleros DVD Review

Released: October 27, 2006
Director: Gabriel Range
*****
Known more for its controversial subject than any detailed part of the plot, Death of a President focuses on a fictional assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago following a speech in 2007.  At least, that's what the movie bills itself as.  Instead, it is an attempt-a decent one at that-to bring the events of September 11 down to a more manageable level.  Instead of buildings being hit by airplanes, the president is shot.  Poor intelligence about terrorism is replaced by racial profiling and a rush to judgment.  All the while, in a documentary-style approach, the event is "examined" through interviews with key personnel...though no one we really want to hear from.

Director and co-writer Range seems a bit schizophrenic in executing the film.  The titular act doesn't happen until a half hour into the 90 minute production and, even then, never achieves the emotional punch it should.  President Bush dies in surgery, not on the rope line when he's greeting people.  Not in his motorcade.  In the hospital.  For us to feel the impact, there has to be something more, a better constructed narrative.  Because of all the eggs in the narrative basket, it never focuses on one and rides it to the end.  Is this the story of a nation grieving for a fallen president?  Or the story of people wrongly accused of a crime?  Racial profiling?  Rush to judgment?  Consequences of not listening to advisers?  What is the movie truly about?

Some credit has to be given to Range for constructing the film from reenactments and archival footage of the participants.  Since no government entity was involved in the production, hours of news footage had to be sifted through to find appropriate moments.  For instance, new President Cheney's eulogy is lifted from Ronald Regan's funeral, only with the name changed.  While we do see the moment on screen, we also know to watch his lips.  When they don't match up to the actual words, there is a problem.  (Every other instance of doctored archived footage is manipulated off screen.)

Critics have said Death of a President goes too far in the hatred people feel toward the current president.  To pretend he is dead and show a supposed aftermath is in poor taste.  Does the movie cross the line?  It may skirt it, but not cross.  Why?  There is a larger point Range is trying to make, I think, which gets lost in the shuffle.  This is supposed to be a "worst case scenario" prediction, possibly even a warning to the world.  Preachy and heavy handed?  At times, yes.  Well constructed from a visual perspective?  Sure.  A good film?  It's marginal.

Released: October 17, 2007 (Hamptons International Film Festival)
Director: Bob Balaban
*****
Director and producer Bob Balaban brazenly admits in the commentary track "Bernard & Doris" is a invention. The rationale, according to him, is no one can actually know what happened between the titular characters through their time together so, using the available information, a story was constructed linking them. Actually, the script was completed before Balaban got involved with the production. But, as long as we´re fudging the truth, why stop with the film? Some liberties are always taken with so-called true stories; that much is a given. But when at least half the finished product is fictional? Moreover, it doesn´t provide any historical document of their lives together, only a patchwork of the real and fictitious.
*****
Bernard & Doris DVD Review

Released: October 13, 2006
Director: Barry Levinson

Released: June 1957
Director: Nathan Juran
*****
Let's be honest: no one is lining up for the story or human characters in 20 Million Miles to Earth.  The attraction remains the stop motion creature work by Ray Harryhausen.  Perhaps a bit underwhelming in today's era of CGI, the work done by Harryhausen and other artists of his ilk is on full display here, with a generally lifelike and graceful moving (for 1957, of course) creature from Venus tangling with an elephant.  Just about the only problem with the special effects happens to be the shifting size of both animals in the action finale.

In case anyone is really interested: man's first exploration of Venus crashes into the sea off the coast of Sicily with only one survivor.  A container washes up on shore, which a young boy named Pepe, promptly opens up, bringing the contents to a traveling zoologists, Dr. Leonardo.  From there, the gelatinous blob hatches, unleashing Ymir onto the world.

In a nutshell, that's all there is to Earth.  A straight forward enough story with wooden characters and actors, both playing a distant second fiddle to the creature effects.  None of the actors are particularly memorable, either in the story or in their careers.  And yet, the film doesn't buckle under them.  They're simply placeholders until we can get to the siege of Rome.  It is a glorious battle by 1950s standards.  Showcasing many more creature effects than it has any real right to, Harryhausen reaffirms his place in history as a pioneer of special effects.  And, most likely, of patience, considering the painstaking detail which went into creating every aspect of a show, from something as simple as a tail moving to engaging in a street battle with an elephant.

Whereas the popular notion of creatures born out of nuclear experiments was popular at the time, 20 Million Miles to Earth uses another standby, the then-new space program, to bring Ymir to Earth.  The script is horribly lacking in specifics regarding technology or scientific fact, however.  Mentions of Ymir eating sulfur and being stopped by electrical impulses notwithstanding, the script gets us from the beginning of the story proper to the first time a full Ymir is seen with all deliberate speed.  There's no pretense of reality; just a good monster movie without the current wave of humanizing the creature, of understanding it and helping it get back home.  Ymir smash indeed.