Kev’s Corner

Originally published in December 2004
By Kevin Craft

Peter Jackson’s re-make of King Kong is not an epic tale of adventure, greed and interspecies romance like the original Kong but a prime example of a talented director run amok with his 207 million dollar budget. The film clocks in at 187 minutes, 83 more than the original, and is simply tiresome to watch.

Jackson’s biggest mistake is that he expands the original film’s perfunctory first act to include excessive back story on all of the human characters. As a result, Kong does not even get on the screen until an hour into the movie, and the audience must sit through scenes explaining the characters’ incentives as a result of the Great Depression. This is a fantasy/science fiction film which involves traveling to a prehistoric island in search of a giant gorilla; the characters do not need thoroughly explained incentives.

Once the action kicks in, the film treats each scene as an opportunity to infuse the screen with as many CGI effects as possible. Kong’s showdown with a T-Rex, a memorable moment in the original film, is super-sized into a battle with three T-Rexes tumbling down ravine. Later, the ship’s crew, lead by Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) and Carl Denham (Jack Black), escapes a stampede of brontosauruses and velociraptors, a post-Jurassic Park edition, only to end up in a pit of man-eating maggots. While these scenes may entertain the youngest of viewers, they quickly become repetitive, and in their midst the main character gets lost.

The film’s CGI creatures demonstrate technical prowess, but they also lose the magic of the original’s stop motion action sequences. Maybe I’m just sentimental for the goofy look of the original Kong or just tired of “special” effects that resemble video games, but for all the money spent by the production team I never felt visually amazed.

The narrative does achieve some emotionally poignant moments during its finale, in which Kong battles bi-planes and fawns over blond bombshell Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts). Jackson, however, shows his proclivity for overdrawn endings (e.g. Return of the King), and the film takes longer than it should to reach its conclusion. It seems that Jackson failed to realize he was re-making the ultimate popcorn movie, not Gone with the Wind, and when it comes to action films, brevity goes a long way.

As I was leaving the theater, I found myself thinking about all the scenes that I should have slept through and realized that instead of re-creating a classic, Jackson had only managed to craft a lackluster tribute to the world’s ultimate alpha male.

Kev’s Corner Grade: D+

Originally published in July 2006
By Kevin Craft

After struggling for several weeks to fulfill her duties as the second assistant to Runaway magazine’s dictatorial editor Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) tearfully breaks down in front of a co-worker and vents her frustration at being under appreciated. The Northwestern graduate, who once won a college journalism competition for an article about mistreated union workers, does not resent spending her days fetching lattes and confirming appointments. But she resents the fact that Miranda never acknowledges her efforts. Her co-worker, Nigel (Stanley Tucci), tells her to stop whining – a million girls would kill for her job – and start trying harder, by which he really means start dressing better. A makeover ensues with Nigel taking the formerly drab Andy and transforming her to look like the models that grace Runway’s pages. From that moment on, Andy excels at her job. The errands she struggled to complete on time no longer pose a challenge; the numerous contacts she failed to remember are now locked in her memory. This chic wardrobe inexplicably gives her abilities she failed to gain during four years at a prestigious university, and looking like a material girl actually enables her to become the world’s most competent assistant. Perhaps clothes do make the man or in this case, the woman.

While this transformation makes no sense whatsoever, it works nicely as an allegory for Andy’s character arc. After moving to New York, she and three of her closest friends quickly learn that their college credentials mean little in the real world, and they must pay their dues at menial jobs before moving on to their dream careers. For Andy that career is journalism, so she enslaves herself to Miranda hoping that one year of servitude will open the necessary doors. She approaches the job without any emotion, pledging not to let Miranda’s demands bother her. However once Andy drinks the Kool-Aid – courtesy of the aforementioned makeover – she fully assimilates into the world Miranda presides over. The once idealistic college journalist begins to mirror her boss’ ruthless ways. This impresses Miranda, who promotes Andy to the position of first assistant, but her friends wonder what happened to the wide-eyed girl who used to dress in plaid skirts and cumbersome sweaters.

The basic story – young professional sacrifices integrity to get ahead – is not novel but looking at it from a female’s perspective feels fresh. Double standards exist in the professional world, and as Andy points out, if Miranda was a man people would only know that she was good at her job, and her cold-hearted behavior would go unnoticed. Consider how our culture regards Donald Trump as a player and Martha Stewart as a shrew.

Such insights into the professional world are few and far between, but The Devil Wears Prada provides an entertaining peek into the cutthroat world of top tier fashion. Meryl Streep’s scene stealing performance as Miranda keeps every moment interesting–she emanates cold vanity while still bringing the slightest bit of humanity to a character most actresses would play as a bad stereotype. Tucci is no less brilliant as Nigel, a man who recognizes the absurdity of the world he inhabits but never questions his part in it, because at this point in his career he has no other options. It’s a grand piece of escapist entertainment that has a heart under its beautiful surface.
Kev’s Corner grade: B+

Originally published in September 2006
By Kevin Craft

The Covenant is like a WB science fiction supersized into a feature film. It features a cast of good looking young actors and the impossibly beautiful scenery of New England in autumn. Its story is a hybrid of fantasy and the formulaic teenage angst that is a staple in good shows such as “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and less worthy ones like “Charmed.” This adherence to convention works for a while, before it feels like the overused routine it is.

The film’s protagonists are four teenage wizards – no this is not a Harry Potter spin-off – who are the descendants of four of the five founding families of the Ipswich Colony in Massachusetts. The magical powers they’ve inherited come with a catch: using their powers causes them to age. Led by Caleb Danvers (Steven Strait), who is a few days away from turning eighteen and ascending into full wizard form, the boys are bound by a covenant, which is never fully explained but involves keeping their powers secret from the rest of the world. Many of their ancestors were convicted at the Salem Witch trials, so staying mum on the magical prowess is paramount.

In the present, their lives are all fun and games at the prestigious Spencer Academy. An ordinary day includes chasing around their equally good looking co-eds and playing pranks on the other males, who do not have the ability to levitate.

Things change quickly for the four young warlocks when Chase Collins (Sebastian Stan) transfers to Spencer and mysterious things begin to happen. A student turns up dead, and Caleb begins having visions. It turns out that Chase is a descendant from the fifth Ipswich family and feels a bit left out. He seeks to wreak havoc on the lives of his fellow wizards, and this involves trying to take away Caleb’s powers and putting Caleb’s girlfriend (Laura Ramsey) in a spell induced coma. Suffice to say a struggle ensues, good triumphs evil and the film ends with a set-up that begs for a sequel.

The Covenant was made for teenagers and pre-teens alike, and it should entertain its target audience. Anyone who no longer has a homeroom, however, will quickly tire of watching the alpha white males of Spencer Academy seek to outdo each other. This is typical high school movie fodder supercharged with magic, but the film lacks the colorful characters and humor of the Harry Potter series and the sly feminist commentary of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” References to the Salem witch trials are peppered throughout the film but only imply an intelligent undercurrent instead of actually establishing one. The filmmakers seem to have no hidden message but seek only to spoon feed audiences with eye candy.

While parts of the film left me wishing I was seventeen and owned a BMW that I could drive through New England’s beautiful countryside, most of it made me happy that I have graduated to a state of mind that craves more mature entertainment. Even the fall movie season has its brainless duds, and The Covenant is certainly one of them.

Kev’s Corner Grade: C

Originally published in January 2006
By Kevin Craft

Dame Judi Dench uses her incredibly strong screen to deliver another stellar performance in the World War II dramedy Mrs. Henderson Presents. As Laura Henderson, a high society widow who buys a London theater out of sheer boredom, Dench spends a large portion of the film shocking the conservative British establishment with her unorthodox viewpoints and liberal vocabulary. Anyone who enjoys watching an elderly woman use dirty words while fellow elders gasp should get to a theater immediately.

After purchasing The Windmill theater and running a failed variety act, Mrs. Henderson and crotchety theater manager Vivian Van Damm (Bob Hoskins) devise a show featuring nude women with the hope of boosting their sinking sales. Despite the objections of the Lord Chamberlain (Christopher Guest), who sanctions the idea on the condition that the women remain motionless while undressed, the show becomes very popular very quickly. When the Germans begin bombing London, Mrs. Henderson’s theater becomes a symbol of British resistance, stubbornly refusing to close its doors or cover its actresses.

The film’s most shocking attribute, however, is not the bare women that adorn Mrs. Henderson’s stage, but the inherently sexist argument that its protagonist articulates over and over again. Without any subtlety Mrs. Henderson suggests that young women can best serve their country during war by transforming themselves into sexual fantasies aimed at lifting male soldiers’ spirits. Near the film’s conclusion, she assures a group of young soldiers that so long as conflict ensues, her theater will remain open and provide plenty of naked ladies to gawk at.

The film reinforces her point of view by portraying the performers who embrace their roles as sex symbols as heroines, while paying little attention to the soldiers who come to the theater looking for entertainment. This idea is somewhat disconcerting considering the fact that at that same time, American women were working in factories in support of the war effort. I have a hard time picturing Rosie the Riveter getting on stage and dropping trou.

So while Mrs. Henderson Presents’ plot revolves around shocking a conservative establishment, the film presents a somewhat antiquated viewpoint of its own, and this unexpected twist makes the film compelling in spite of the often forced “I hate you/I love you” routine perpetuated by Hoskins and Dench.

Kev’s Corner Grade: B+ 

Originally published in January 2006
By Kevin Craft

Unlike many left leaning political documentaries that slam right wing policy from a safe distance, the documentary Why We Fight embraces the thinking of certain Republican politicians. Writer/director Eugene Jarecki uses the farewell address of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower as the basis for his indictment of American military policy. Before leaving the White House, Eisenhower warned Americans about our growing military-industrial complex, a phrase he coined, and the harmful influence it could one day yield over our democracy.

This is brilliant strategy on the part of Jarecki, who adeptly demonstrates the benefits politicians from both parties reap by advocating military spending and supporting war. It also contrasts the old school of conservatism championed by republicans such as Eisenhower, with the new school of conservatism/imperialism of the Bush administration.

The film’s weakness is that it rushes through the latter decades of the twentieth century, giving minimal coverage to important events like Vietnam, and quickly transforms into Why the Bush Administration Fights. While it certainly seems valid to argue that the current administration’s policies, such as the pre-emptive strike against Iraq, are the culmination of our dangerous obsession with military power, the film might have made a stronger argument had it spent more time tracing military build-up over the years. Some of its strongest scenes illustrate the ways the United States  meddled in Middle Eastern affairs throughout the 20^th century , even during Eisenhower’s term, and how the expected “blowback” (an official CIA term), hit us all at once on 9/11/01.

Poignant scenes such as one that contrasts international feelings towards the US immediately after 9/11 with more current ones lend gravitas to the situation our country faces. A practical analysis of the failure of “smart” bombs soberly addresses the everyday realities of conducting war. Jarecki even interviews the two pilots who dropped Gulf War II’s first bomb but never manipulates them into faulting the war or their actions. Unlike Michael Moore, Jarecki doesn’t meddle too much with his material; he lets the story tell itself. Why We Fight uses multiple points of view to make an argument that places blame for our current situation on all Americans instead of one political party.

Kev’s Corner Grade: A

Originally published in May 2005
By Kevin Craft

Werner Herzog’s Grizzly Man is a fascinating exploration of human behavior disguised as a nature documentary. A combination of original footage shot by grizzly bear fanatic Timothy Treadwell and interviews conducted by Herzog after Treadwell’s death, the film struggles with its own subjectivity while trying to find meaning in this man’s existence.

After a failed acting career, Timothy Treadwell spent 13 summers living amongst Alaskan grizzly bears in a nationally protected state park. He filmed much of his time there, and in his footage Treadwell continually claims to be the bears’ sole protector from poachers and deforestation. The bears, however, never seem to encounter any danger, and an Alaskan biologist refutes Treadwell’s assertion during an interview conducted after Treadwell’s death.

While his facts may be off, Treadwell’s love for the bears comes across as undisputed. He gives them pet names such as Mr. Chocolate and stands in dangerously close proximity to them. In one of the films oddest moments, he expresses his fascination with a particular bear while caressing its feces.

Scenes depicting this sort of strange lifestyle could have become boring very fast, but Herzog skillfully weaves in footage that delves deeper into Treadwell’s personality. While filming himself, Treadwell talked as much about his repeated failures with women as his fascination with Grizzly bears, and Herzog continually points out that Treadwell is a filmmaker trying to present a certain image. Treadwell’s dialogue with the camera paints the picture of a lone figure stranded from civilization, while other shots from his footage show Treadwell obviously had more human contact than he wanted his imaginary audience to know about. We watch as Treadwell does repeated takes of certain monologues, trying to nail the character he wants to convey, and begin to wonder about his motivations for making these home videos.

Herzog’s posthumous interviews bring up similar issues about narrative credibility. His interview with the coroner, who examined Treadwell’s remains, is particularly jarring not because of its subject matter but because of the way it was filmed. Done in one take, the question Herzog poses is not heard. Instead the coroner launches into an overdrawn monologue describing both his examination of the bodies and the audio track of Treadwell’s death, which was recorded by one of Treadwell’s camera. The coroner hesitates and looks off screen so often that I continually questioned how much he actually remembered and how much his mind was filling in. The audiotape of Treadwell’s death is never played during the film, but one scene shows Treadwell’s closest surviving friend listening to it before Herzog suggests she destroy it.

Bizarre moments such as these pepper the film as often as beautiful and terrifying images of grizzly bears in their natural habitat. As a result, the film addresses subjectivity as much as the danger of living with wild animals. Herzog even inserts a clip of David Letterman jokingly asking Treadwell if he thinks he will end being eaten by the bears, a possibility Treadwell casually denies.

The interviews illustrate that different people interpreted Treadwell and his vision in different ways. Some saw his death at the hands of the animals he so desperately wanted to co-exist with as a tragedy, others as a matter of him getting his comeuppances.

Regardless as to which side of this argument you agree with, Grizzly Man is an extraordinary journey into the bizarre motivations and consequences of one man’s life journey. Seeing the strength of Treadwell’s probably misguided convictions and the lengths to which he went to pursue them certainly makes an interesting statement about human desires, though Herzog never romances Treadwell’s vision but keeps it grounded by his own, somewhat outside perspective.

Kev’s Corner Grade: A

Originally published in April 2006

By Kevin Craft

Unlike more typical biopics, The Notorious Bettie Page does not delve too deeply into the inner turmoil of its title character. Instead the film provides an overview of the life of pin-up queen and bondage icon Bettie Page (Gretchen Mol) while focusing on the counter-culture of 1950’s erotica that rebelled against the decade’s more conservative mainstream.

Perhaps this choice was made out of necessity since Page’s character seems like a hard one to pin down. She was a devout Christian who gained notoriety through her bondage films; she posed nude in pin-up magazines while remaining a devout Christian. Unlike more sultry sex icons like Jayne Mansfield or Marilyn Monroe, Page emanated a childlike pleasure while creating erotica that pushed the sexual limits of her era and the patience of those in power. Did her naivety allow her to believe she was participating in legitimate acting projects, or could she somehow justify being both a Christian and a bondage vixen? In one scene, Bettie muses that Adam and Eve went naked in the Garden of Eden and only became sinners once they donned clothing. While this hardly qualifies as an explanation of her behavior, it’s as deep as the film ventures into Bettie’s soul.

This lack of character exploration does not hurt the film per se, because director Mary Harron evokes fifties’ nostalgia through beautiful black and white cinematography, complimented by occasional splashes of color, and a wonderful score of pre-rock and roll jazz. Despite that decade’s obvious flaws, such as its tendency to support life-ruining witch-hunts, the supposed innocence of fifties’ culture makes it such an appealing decade to explore. Watching Bettie’s videos now, it’s hard to fathom that anyone ever found them obscene; as producer Irving Klaw (Chris Bauer) points out in the film, “There’s no nudity.”

In each short film, Page and her co-stars giggle as much as they spank, effectively negating any menacing effect. Yet the films ruffled enough feathers to warrant a congressional investigation. In retrospect, it seems strange that people once felt threatened by Bettie’s work or self-important enough to label it as harmful. For the decade that simultaneously celebrated the conservative values of the nuclear family and gave birth to rock and roll, Page might be the perfect icon for that bizarre time. She adhered to Christian principles in her personal life but unabashedly worked as a pin-up model. This atypical dichotomy mirrors that decade as a whole: a transitional period between the conservative forties and the liberal sixties.

Mol deserves praise for her performance: She exudes the warmth of Page’s persona in every scene. And Harron deserves credit for preventing the film from becoming a lecture on the importance of free speech (e.g. Good Night, and Good Luck). Instead of exploring its main character, the film observes her in the context of the time period she inhabited, and while the motivations for Page’s actions may remain unknown, this film proves just appreciating her is compelling enough.

Kev’s Corner Grade: A-

American Gangster: Denzel Washington is superb, but Russell Crowe steals the show as a painfully honest cop with a huge chip on his shoulder. 

Juno: Ellen Paige is terrific as a sassy teenager who can’t joke her way out of an unexpected pregnancy, but it’s Jennifer Garner’s performance as an expectant mother that gives this comedy its emotional punch.

The Namesake: This story about the son of Indian immigrants quest for cultural identity is as American as they come.  

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters: Who knew that a story about two obscure, middle-aged men battling for the world record of an antiquated video game would make a beautiful metaphor about our society’s unhealthy obsession with competition? 

Ratatouille: A multi-flavored comedy that urges us to worship the art, regardless of the artist.

Charlie Wilson’s War: Mike Nichols’ best film in a decade wisely avoids unnecessary sentimentality in its portrayal of the United States’ covert involvement in Afghanistan at the tail end of the Cold War.

There Will Be Blood: There will be an Oscar in Daniel Day Lewis’ future.   

Not top films    

No Country for Old Men: The Cohen brothers failed to establish a clear narrative voice in a film that oscillates between compelling thriller and sappy story about an aging cowboy.     

Grace is Gone: This sappy film about an irresponsible father’s refusal to inform his daughters about their mother’s death is as contrived as they come. 

Gone Baby Gone: Confirms that Casey Affleck is unwatchable as a leading man.

Hotel Chevalier: Wes Anderson’s short film may have garnered significant attention due to a certain bare backside, but it was so laughably bad that I refused to see The Darjeeling Limited.

1. Little Miss Sunshine:  Many independent films tend to wallow in overblown, existential anxiety, but Little Miss Sunshine proves that optimism can be more enlightening than morose reflection. Steve Carrell’s un-nominated yet inspired performance as a suicidal Proust scholar proves the Academy Awards do not understand how to celebrate comedic genius.

2. Pan’s Labyrinth: This modern day fairy tale celebrates the power of imagination in the face of hardship without coddling its audience or arguing that make-believe can change the realities of war.

3. Stranger than Fiction: Despite its imaginative premise, Stranger than Fiction works as a slice of life story about one tax agent’s quest for a little change and the wrist watch that helps him achieve it.

4. The Departed: Scorsese’s latest mafia movie reminds us that he is the master at infusing the gangster genre with panache. From the acting to the editing, the entire production is flawless, and while the film may not be as deep as some of his other works (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull), it is certainly entertaining.

5. Down in the Valley: Edward Norton gives another fantastic performance as an American cowboy trying to adapt to a 21st century lifestyle in David Jacobson’s film about the seductive nature of violence and the dark side of American mythology.

6. Thank You For Smoking: Adapted from a novel written over a decade ago, this film’s pitch perfect satire is still relevant today. It focuses on a tobacco lobbyist but skewers our entire culture of spin. Senators, large corporations, lobbyists and journalists are all mocked in this hilarious satire about the business of selling “truth.”

7. Why We Fight: Eugene Jarecki’s documentary never reverts to partisan mudslinging and makes a more compelling argument about our reasons for war than anything else in recent years.

8. Children of Men: Adapted from P.D. James Novel of the same name, Children of Men portrays a future in which the world faces an infertility pandemic and countries are consumed with immigration problems. In the hands of less skilled director, the film might have devolved into a more typical sci-fi thriller, but Cuaron understands the gravity of the material he’s dealing with and captures the utter desolation through an extraordinary stream of images that communicates incredible emotion.

9. The Science of Sleep: Michel Gondry’s fantastic imagery paired with a down to earth love story creates a touching romantic comedy

10. The History Boys: Confident storytelling and superb acting drive this film that addresses the ways in which reputation and merit often become confused.

By Kevin Craft

Superbad is the latest film about the lengths high school males will go in order to obtain their fantasies. Unlike Harold and Kumar, whose sole desire was to enjoy a tasty burger after a long night, best friends Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) are just hoping to score some female attention before they head off to separate colleges. To obtain this dream, they hatch a plan to buy alcohol using their hapless friend Fogell’s (Christopher Mintze-Plasse) poorly made fake I.D. Needless to say, the scheme falls through leading the trio on a number of adventures.

Like Steve Carell’s unlucky character in The 40 Year Old Virgin and Seth Rogen’s reluctant father to be in Knocked Up, Seth and Evan are the lovable losers whose cluelessness often extends beyond believability. At points during the film, it’s almost unbearable to watch the pair trip over themselves as they unwittingly make life harder than it has to be. But the fact that they are “good guys” makes you hope they get what they want. I put good guys in quotations because their purity of heart is evident, despite the fact they are scheming to trick drunk girls to hook up with them; their questionable courtship techniques stem from desperation rather than malevolence.

Superbad’s fatal flaw is that its comedic appeal rests entirely on the outrageous dialogue between its main characters. When the dialogue is funny, the film is enjoyable, but the obviously constructed plot devices cannot cover up the verbal dead spots that exist during the film’s ninety-minute duration.

The not so subtle message at the heart of this narrative is that adolescent males love each other more than anything else, and they use the excuse of pursuing girls or cheap fast food to be together. Y Tu Mama Tambien and American Pie more profoundly explored this theme. Nevertheless, Superbad is more enjoyable than the average Friday night.

Kev’s Corner Grade: B-