Being the Ricardos

Director: Aaron Sorkin
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Javier Bardem, J.K. Simmons, Nina Arianda, Tony Hale, Alia Shawkat, Jake Lacy, Clark Gregg, Christopher Denham, John Rubinstein, Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox
Running Time: 131 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Writer/director Aaron Sorkin's Being the Ricardos poses the question of how much an actor or actress's physical resemblance to an iconic public figure affects our perception of their performance. Even while conceding there's a lot more to acting than mimicry and imitation, Nicole Kidman's casting as Lucille Ball does push the envelope in terms of how points should be scored for embodying a person the performer looks or acts nothing like. It's been a discussion point since the first trailer, or maybe back further to when Cate Blanchett unexpectedly dropped out of the project. On paper, she was perfect for the role in every way, but things happen, and is often the case, another big name stepped in, causing many to question whether Kidman would be the right fit.

It's a credit to Kidman and Sorkin that the actress somehow makes it work, as well as the rest of the cast who who are frequently given more intriguing material than you'd expect. It's all very inside TV, providing glimpses into the pressures and challenges facing the first juggernaut sitcom of the medium's infancy. When Sorkin's focusing entirely on this, the film's at its best, which isn't to say that Lucy and Desi's tumultuous marriage holds no interest. As both personal and business partners, the two sub-plots are frequently intertwined, with Sorkin taking some creative license in jamming all the troubles facing the show and its star into one fateful week. That Kidman's casting has become such a point of debate is ironic considering she's playing a woman who was constantly told by studio executives she "just wasn't right" for the part, forcing Lucy to take matters into her own hands before experiencing true success. It then became a constant battle to hold on to it, consuming the comedy legend from the inside out as she hid her biggest fears and insecurities from the world.

Mostly taking place within one chaotic week of rehearsals and preparation for a 1953 live filming of I Love Lucy, Lucy (Kidman) must deal with tabloid rumors of Desi's (Javier Bardem) infidelity and a newspaper article declaring her a Communist, despite being cleared of the allegation in a HUAC hearing months earlier. On top of that, the couple are also attempting to convince CBS and sponsor Philip Morris to write Lucy's pregnancy into the show, which isn't just unheard of for television at the time, but downright scandalous considering their married characters aren't allowed to even sleep in the same bed. 

As Lucy's marital and creative frustrations begin boiling over, she clashes with writer/producer and show runner Jess Oppenheimer (Tony Hale) and new director Donald Glass (Christopher Denham) over certain scenes, while also taking the writing team of Bob Carroll (Jake Lacy) and Madelyn Pugh (Alia Shawkat) to task over the dumbing down of her character. Before long, even co-stars William Frawley (J.K. Simmons) and Vivian Vance's (Nina Arianda) patience starts to wear thin when it comes to Lucy's obsessive perfectionism. The root of that is revealed through flashbacks when the young RKO-contracted actress met Cuban band leader and actor Desi Arnaz, while "interviews" with an older Oppenheimer (John Rubenstein), Pugh (Linda Lavin) and Carroll (Ronny Cox) frame the events leading up to that week's memorable live show.

It may seem odd that Lucille Ball's life is upstaged by the more compelling backstage machinations and ego clashes that go into creating a television sitcom, until you remember how big this show was and who's making the film. If the knock against Sorkin has always been that he's a far better writer than director, of the three projects he's helmed, this could be the most practical example yet of the theory. While adequately directed, it's still a writer's movie through and through and there's probably no one better equipped to believably bringing a TV writing room to life than him. Unsurprisingly, these are the scenes that really click, detailing the battles Lucy wages over the show's content, as dictated by the network, but trickling down to producer Oppenheimer and his writers. In a way, they're all casualties of their own enormous success, as a sitcom that brings in a staggering 60 million viewers is a reliable cash cow that won't be given much leeway from the network to experiment, potentially compromising its creative direction.

Sorkin's fly-on-the-wall approach is appreciated, especially in regards to the nuts and bolts of what makes comedy scenes work. Since I Love Lucy is a classic remembered for pioneering an entire genre, there's an existing perception of flawlessness, at least by the time it made air. He demystifies that, recognizing that any show is rife with issues, while giving credit to Lucy for taking the initiative to correct and tweak every one, whether or not the staff agrees. And most of the time she's completely right about everything, even as her aggressive, frequently insensitive approach alienates rather than inspires. It's an uphill battle for Lucy that Desi couldn't possibly understand as a man capable of smooth talking his way out of any predicament, occasionally losing his temper, but ultimately getting everything he wants in the end. That Desi often commands more respect as a producer than Lucy is a cruel turn considering she was the one who strong armed the network into hiring him as her co-star.

Bardem captures all these contradictions so well, dispelling preconceptions that Desi wasn't a talented performer in his own right.  His performance is such that it doesn't come off as if he's outright controlling Lucy, but subtly gaslighting her in way that fills the actress with self-doubt, thinking that nothing's ever good enough in this continuous quest to "keep" him. The smoothest of players, he even offsets his infidelity with what seems like a tireless professional loyalty to Lucy that rarely extends to their actual marriage. Bardem deserves a lot of credit for bringing all these dimensions to someone most associate as just being along for the ride. Whether it's true they'd be no Desi without her, Bardem situates him in the driver's seat more often than not, even making him remarkably likable while doing it. He also really impresses in the sitcom reenactment scenes, which all play better than expected due to the comedic chops of those involved.

The flashbacks and staged interviews are somewhat redundant, underlining what's already evident in the '53 segments that detail Lucy's week from hell. If you can get past the fact Kidman looks nothing like Ball and rarely attempts to vocally inflect her, there's a lot to appreciate in what she does with the material, which treats her as a real person who should be played as such. The actress excels in conveying the deep seeded feelings of inadequacy that cause Lucy to micromanage the creative process, while Sorkin shows us with read throughs, run throughs and rehearsals that she's not wrong. Tony Hale hits it out of the park with what's probably his most memorable big screen supporting role thus far far as the frazzled show runner attempting to keep it all together, given the unenviable task of pleasing both Desi and Lucy while still keeping them in line. 

Hale's former Arrested Development co-star Alia Shawkat also makes a huge impression as Madelyn Pugh, the lone female writer and sounding board for Lucy as she tries to push her more progressive ideas through, while Nina Arianda's take on Vivian Vance successfully navigates the strain of being Ethel to Lucille's Lucy and screen wife to William Frawley's much older Fred. Arianda doesn't get a ton of screen time, but she makes the most of it, especially in one dynamic scene opposite Kidman, who shows us there were few limits to whom and what Lucy perceived as threats to her career. And the great J.K. Simmons breathes more complexity into the hard drinking, wisecracking Frawley than one would guess from his character's hysterically dry and cranky demeanor, proving to be Lucy's most unlikely friend and supporter during a tough stretch.

Given all the justifiable reservations concerning whether Kidman fits this role, she's the common denominator in all of this, often anchoring the film's best scenes, be it comedic or otherwise. If the ending's very literally a real crowd pleaser, it's simultaneously a downer as well, forcing audiences to reconcile two Lucys. One was a trailblazing talent that delighted generations with her talent while the other felt constantly insecure and diminished, as if nothing was ever good enough, especially when it came to Desi. Through that lens, the end of her show and marriage could have been an unexpected triumph, enabling Lucy to start a new chapter where she could spread her creative wings without limitations. But even while remaining a force in front of and behind the camera for years to come, it would be impossible to reach these heights again, with Sorkin doing a thorough job exploring exactly why.

Lion

Director: Garth Davis
Starring: Dev Patel, Sunny Pawar, Rooney Mara, Nicole Kidman, David Wenham, Abhishek Bharate, Divian Ladwa, Kheshav Jadhav, Priyanka Bose
Running Time: 118 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Lion earns its Best Picture nomination in its opening half, trusting the audience to not only comprehend, but become completely enveloped in a story that's initially spoken entirely in Hindi, and without the benefit of subtitles. It turns out to be a wise bet. The opening 45 minutes are so expertly calibrated and performed, brimming with lump-in-your-throat moments of disbelief, perseverance and astonishment, it was almost inevitable that whatever followed would pale in comparison. That it doesn't, at least completely, is somewhat of a tiny miracle, with much of that credit going to Australian director Garth Davis, who in adapting Saroo Brierley's 2013 autobiographical novel, A Long Way Home, temporarily refutes the theory that Hollywood filmmakers pander to the lowest common denominator when it comes to depicting foreign cultures.

It opens with a mistake that has ripple effect on more than a few lives, but the true revelation might come in how frequently something like this occurs, or how little we hear about it. Then after a certain point, Luke Davies Oscar-nominated screenplay does kind of hit a wall, which has led to harsh criticisms that the film stretches out a 30-second spot for Google Earth to a two-hour running length. But there's just too much else it has going for it to make those completely complaints valid since, despite a weaker middle portion, the performances, cinematography and underrated musical score make it too powerful an experience to dismiss.

It's 1986 and a five year-old boy named Saroo (Sunny Pawar) lives with his mother Kamla (Priyanka Bose), older brother Guduu (Abhishek Bharate) and younger sister in a tiny, poor village in Khandwa, India. One night, when Saroo joins his brother Guduu for a night of train-hopping for food, Guduu leaves his napping little sibling at a station and when Saroo awakens to find his brother hasn't returned, he boards a train headed to Calcutta. Now completely lost and wandering around a city where he doesn't speak or understand the Bengali language, Saroo must survive on the crowded streets and rely on the help of strangers, some with motives more nefarious than others. After landing in the custody of police and eventually an orphanage, Saroo is adopted by Australian couple Sue (Nicole Kidman) and John Brierley and goes to live with them in Tasmania.

We catch up with him twenty years later as a young man (now Dev Patel), studying for his degree in  hotel management and involved in a relationship with American classmate, Lucy (Rooney Mara). But despite Saroo having a fulfilled life and more than anyone from his background could have hoped for, there's an incompleteness that eats away at him, stemming from a desire to track down his biological family and make sense of that night's events over two decades ago. While his adopted mother struggles with family challenges of her own, Saroo wrestles with the guilt and hope of finding "home," embarking on a journey of self-discovery sure to have a lasting impact on those he holds closest.

The opening section actually shares some similarities with the last entirely Indian-flavored Best Picture nominee (and eventual winner), Slumdog Millionaire. And while we know, like that film, we'll eventually be given our happy ending, the scenes of kids on the street here have a far different tone, especially when watching a scared young Saroo aimlessly searching for his brother in a perilous situation surely qualifying as an immediate "Amber Alert" if it took place today in the states. Even in 1986, as commonplace as lost, homeless children in India may have been, it's still kind of frightening to see through western eyes.

What really sells this is the editing and the likably adorable child actor playing young Saroo, Sunny Pawar, whose combination of wide-eyed panic and innocence, along with some steely determination, carries the first half of the picture, eliminating the language barrier for both him and us. It seems like eternity he's on the streets, avoiding kidnappers and potential child molesters on his way to who knows where. It's disturbing how few people care about kids like him running around in the streets and really do nothing even when they think they are. That is until, by sheer luck, he meets someone who finally takes the necessary measures to offer actual help.

After watching this five-year-old struggle to survive after being separated from his sibling, it's of little surprise the second half of the film would have to work hard to match the Dickensian heights of its opening hour, both in tone and quality.  But it works well as a logical next chapter, thanks largely  to the strong performance of a nearly unrecognizable Dev Patel as the adult Saroo, whose suddenly jolted into finding his biological family, but fears the ramifications of what going forward with such a plan could do to his adoptive mother, already at the breaking point dealing with her other adopted Indian son, the emotionally disturbed Montash. The casting of both the child and adult versions of this role are spot-on, as actors Kheshav Jadhav and Divian Ladwa are so eerily identical in both manner and appearance you'd really think the filmmakers pulled a Boyhood, checking in with the same person twenty years later.

The entire second half really belongs to Patel, who nearly everyone had written off as a one-movie wonder after Slumdog Millionaire peaked almost a decade ago. And for a while there, it really looked like they were right. He returns in a big way here, a better, more mature actor, fully capable of handling the complexity of emotions running through Saroo as he embarks on his (Google) search for his birth mother. Just the very conceit of this true story could have been problematic on screen, but Patel takes what could have been a dramatically inert arc and draws us into his journey, which is as much internal as external. It helps that the first half of the picture was so strong, that our recollection of the opening half hour drives nearly all interest in the rest, with him filling in the blanks.

Rooney Mara's role and performance has been criticized by some as a throwaway, and while her work as Saroo's girlfriend Lucy won't be the first discussion point coming out of the film, it shouldn't  anyway. It's entirely functional since we need to know the man that young boy has become and what his life evolved into in the twenty years since the train station, not to mention what he could potentially be risking or giving up by doing this. Her part is what it is, and the never uninteresting actress serves it well, despite the nagging feeling she could have been given more. The other half of the equation is Nicole Kidman, who as Sue gets opportunities in the latter half to convey a woman crumbling at the emotional distance that's been put between her and her family, which has more to do with the struggles of raising the far less adjusted adopted son than Saroo's secret urge to reconcile his past.               

Intelligently addressing universal issues involving memory and identity, Lion tells a worthwhile, important story that most will feel more fulfilled having experienced. As for whether it manipulates, all movies do. The real question is how well. Aside from an unnecessary ending coda that spends too much time reinforcing a point the preceding hour and a half made perfectly clear (an epidemic these days), this more than passes that test, and does it with two phenomenal performances in the same central role, one which could easily be remembered as the year's most satisfying acting comeback.
     

Just Go With It

Director: Dennis Dugan
Starring: Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Brooklyn Decker, Dave Matthews, Nicole Kidman, Nick Swardson, Bailee Madison
Running Time: 110 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

It's getting to the point where I dread reviewing each new Adam Sandler comedy, but not for the reasons you'd expect. After enjoying widely maligned recent efforts of his like Don't Mess With The Zohan and Grown Ups I've kind of grown tired constantly defending myself and coming up with what many claim are new "excuses" as to why they work. As usual, his latest "Happy Madison" collaboration with director Dennis Dugan, Just Go With It, is much better than you've heard, even if admittedly still barely recommendable. If nothing else, the always self-aware Sandler always knows the kind of movie he's making and in actually being likable, doesn't deserve the groundless Eddie Murphy comparisons he often receives. So other than miscasting the actor as a womanizing lothario and portraying one of the female leads as a clueless idiot, it's a mildly enjoyable comedy that's funny, doesn't drag despite its nearly two hour running time and features a couple of really good performances. As hard as it may be to shake the feeling that Sandler's phoning it in with another safe, harmless, mainstream moneymaker, there isn't too much wrong with this. 

Sandler is Danny Maccabee, a wealthy Los Angeles plastic surgeon who twenty years ago was dumped by his fiancee on his wedding day (as we learn through a flashback featuring Sandler wearing a prosthetic schnoz) and hasn't taken off his wedding ring since, believing women go for guys stuck in unhappy marriages. But when Danny hooks up with supermodel-looking sixth grade math teacher Palmer (actual supermodel Brooklyn Decker) he seems to have finally made a real connection until she discovers the ring the morning after, angrily assuming he's married. So Danny concocts a wild scheme, recruiting his longtime office manager Katharine (Jennifer Aniston) to play the role of his unhappy wife, who he must convince Palmer he's now in the process of divorcing. As the lie spirals out of control, it soon involves Katharine's kids, Maggie (Bailee Madison) and Michael (Griffin Gluck) assuming the roles of their children and Danny's oddball cousin Eddie (Nick Swardson) playing his "wife's" new boyfriend, "Dolph Lundgren." All of this takes place during an impromptu trip to Hawaii in which Danny must continue with this charade and deal with his real feelings for Katharine.

The film's biggest flaws are out of the way early with the questionable casting of Sandler as a wealthy plastic surgeon who seems able to pick up any beautiful woman half his age at the drop of a hat simply by leaving on his wedding ring. That this is done seriously without so much as a wink at the audience is a problem, but since Sandler's always there to effectively mock the material, he's the only actor who would be immune to his own miscasting anyway. Once you get past that premise and the rushed "connection" between Danny and Palmer at a party (that's notable only for a hilarious Kevin Nealon cameo as plastic surgery addict), the rest of the film does get some creative mileage out of this fake marriage scenario, mostly due to Jennifer Aniston, who for a change is well cast in an age appropriate role that plays to her strengths as a performer.  She's perfect as his sassy, sarcastic assistant who's uncomfortably forced into playing the role of his estranged trophy wife. The kids are also terrific, especially Bailee Madison as the daughter intent on using this lie her own acting audition, complete with a phony British accent. All of these scenes work, but often at the expense of the thinly written Palmer character, who really does unintentionally come off looking like the village idiot for falling for this. In her acting debut, Brooklyn Decker isn't asked to do much and doesn't, but she's okay in a role she couldn't reasonably have been expected to save. But unlike Aniston, she has no chemistry with Sandler at all and clearly doesn't try to add anything to the character a seasoned actress could have. In a fact not heavily promoted, this is actually a very loose remake of 1968's Cactus Flower, for which won Goldie Hawn her Best Supporting Actress Oscar in Decker's role so we can at least be grateful Kate Hudson didn't decide to take it. Nick Swardson is funnier than expected as "Dolph," considering the limitations of his stereotypical role.

Say what you will about the intelligence level of the plot (which basically focuses on a one giant misunderstanding we've seen dozens of variations of), but at least director Dennis Dugan has this down to a science and grasps the idea this is supposed to be a comedy and spares us the requisite big reveal at the end complete with the couple fake breaking up. It also thankfully doesn't resemble the tone deaf Forgetting Sarah Marshall from a couple of years ago where a Hawaiian vacation existed only as an excuse for its depressed protagonist to mope around a resort and whine about a doomed relationship. This trip is actually upbeat, highlighted by the hilarious performances of Nicole Kidman and singer Dave Matthews (in his biggest Sandler part yet) as a kooky vacationing married couple. Far from the brief hidden cameo it's been downplayed as, Kidman actually has a pretty decent sized supporting role as a super-competitive former friend of Aniston's that's more entertaining than you'd think, reminding us (and probably her) that she should do comedy more often being that she's good at it.

As a longtime Sandler fan dating all the way back to his early albums and run on Saturday Night Live,  even I'm under no illusion that his current comedies can compete with Happy Gilmore or Billy Madison on the laughter scale, but this holds up on its own terms. About the only huge complaint I can offer up is that it doesn't have nearly enough bite. So while it's no worse in quality than Zohan or Grown-ups, it is wimpier and makes you miss the days when Sandler took risks and was capable of flying off the deep end with his craziness every once in a while. Judging from the stupendously insane trailer for his next project, I may finally get my wish, even if everyone thinks I should be careful what I wish for. Sandler's one of those actors critics and audiences will always seem to disagree on, but it's tough denying his talent. In a perfect world it would be nice if he challenged himself again more (and I suspect he eventually will) but for now he's comfortable doing what he does best, even if some can't stand it. Just Go With It may be yet another middle-of-the-road Sandler effort but given the scorn he receives when he tries anything different, it's hard to blame him for sticking to a formula that works.

Australia

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Bryan Brown, Brandon Walters, David Wenham
Running Time: 165 minutes
Rating: PG-13

***1/2 (out of ****)

Poor Baz Luhrmann. He had to know even before Australia was released into theaters critics and the mainstream media would have their knives sharpened, ready to attack. But someone has to make a movie like this and I don’t see any other filmmaker with enough guts to try. In 2001 Luhrman reintroduced us to the movie musical with Moulin Rouge! and Hollywood is still riding the wave of its success.Now, seven years later, he’s resurrecting another endangered genre, the old-fashioned studio epic, aiming to recapture the magic of such golden age classics as Gone With The Wind, Giant and The African Queen with their sweeping vistas and gargantuan stories. There’s even a mustache-twirling villain. You have to give him credit. The Oscar season wouldn’t feel complete without a big movie and this is BIG in every sense of the word. From its scope, to its story, to its ambition, and yes, even to its seemingly never-ending running time.

Of course the big question coming out of this is just how "EPIC" it is. The answer to that is a little tricky and it’s there where the one glaring flaw with the film comes into view. In terms of length and scope its definitely epic but there were many points where I felt it was trying very hard to evoke memories of those aforementioned classic films without ever actually becoming the real thing. Baz’s intentions are blatantly obvious, but that’s probably what he wanted and why he’s respected and even adored as a filmmaker by many. He wears his heart on his sleeve and for this to become the real thing he’d have to hold back and we all know this isn’t a director capable of subtlety. To his credit, he knows exactly the kind of movie he’s trying to make, offers no apologies for it and takes it as far over the top as it can possibly go. In the final act he manages to take it even further than that with a series of false endings that may test even the most patient of filmgoers.

As the movie entered its home stretch (one of many) I found almost laughing at the audacity of the picture, but I do mean that in a good way. Not just because the events that occur at the end were hysterically entertaining, but because I simply couldn’t believe he went all out like this. Is it too long? Well, I didn’t remember what year I entered the theater and was pretty sure I didn’t have a full beard when it started. But I was never bored. The whole thing is a sprawling, self-indulgent mess that should win an Oscar for LEAST Editing, yet I kind of loved it and the approach was definitely appropriate for the daunting material.

The year is 1939 and stuck-up English aristocrat Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) has arrived in Australia to take ownership of her late husband’s cattle station, Faraway Downs, where a half-caste Aboriginal boy named Nullah (Brandon Walters) is hiding out from authorities. He learns the way of the land from his grandfather, King George (David Gulpilil), who looks over him and the events in the film from the sidelines, acting as a sort of a Greek chorus for the viewer. Lady Sarah’s first order of business is dismissing the ranch’s abusive manager Neil Fletcher (David Wenham), unaware she must also soon contend with beef baron King Carney (Bryan Brown) who wants to corner all of the cattle market and add the land to his growing collection.

With the help of a rugged, quick-tempered man known only as the “Drover” (Hugh Jackman), she embarks on a journey to drive the cattle across the land to the town of Darwin where soldiers are stationed. Joining them is Nullah and the ranch’s drunk Teddy Roosevelt look alike, Kipling Flynn (Jack Thompson). This adventure comprises the old-school Western portion of the film, arguably the most exciting and visually impressive (especially a scene where they steer the cattle from the edge of a cliff). Despite complaints to the contrary I thought the CGI looked just fine.

From there it moves into romance territory as the class clash between prissy Lady Sarah and the Drover evolves into what we expect it to and the film makes social statements about The Stolen Generation, a shameful period in the country’s history where mixed-race aboriginal children were removed from their families and forcibly placed into white society. If I had to pick a section of the film that could have used some tightening or a trim this probably would have been it. The film then turns into a war epic with the bombing of Dover by Japanese forces and this section is so brief that if you blink you’ll miss it. Don’t blink though because it’s an incredible sequence that's already drawn mostly unfair comparisons to Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor. There’s a visual similarity but unlike that atrocity this is actually well directed and performed.

The heart and soul of Australia lies in newcomer Brandon Walters' performance as the young Aboriginal boy Nullah. Besides his energetic and engaging narration of the story, Walters just commands attention every time he’s onscreen and basically steals the movie from his more seasoned co-stars. It’s nearly impossible to believe this kid has never acted a day in his life and was just plucked from obscurity. If the film manages to get any nominations outside the obvious and deserving ones for Mandy Walker’s awe inspiring cinematography and Catherine Martin's impressive costume design it will belong to him.

As for Kidman, she might be the only actress working today that when I see her name on a film I’m instantly willing to pay up. I have to wonder how many more great performances she can give before everyone stops giving her a hard time and finally admits she’s one of the best we have. No one takes risks like she does. Ironically though the only Oscar she owns is for her role as Virginia Woolf in The Hours, easily one of her least interesting performances. She should have already earned hardware for her daring turns in Dogville and Birth, the latter of which was one of the best performances I’ve seen in a bad movie. Her turn as Lady Sarah does not rank among those mainly because the character isn’t as fully formed and more meant to stand in as a Scarlett O’ Hara type. But boy does she play it well. Naysayers who claim she’s incapable of facial expressions may want to pay attention to the first half hour of this film where she delivers a bunch of hysterical ones.

By casting Kidman as an uptight ice queen Baz cleverly plays on her celebrity reputation and as Lady Sarah’s guard starts to drop her performance loosens, kicking into high gear. Of course, as expected, everyone is blaming the film’s box office performance and critical reception on her as if no one else was involved at all in the making of it. What nonsense. The media was foaming at the mouth, waiting to bash this if only for the reason she was headlining it. You’d think by now the public would have finally gotten over the fact she was married to Tom Cruise, especially since he has a new wife for us to pick on. I think down the line people will eventually see how silly the Kidman hate is and she’ll eventually be remembered as one of the greats. As good as she is, however, it's actually Jackman who carries most of the film, bringing a lot of substance to what could have been a shallow, one-dimensional role. Well, it kind of still is a shallow, one-dimensional role but he manages to hide that really well. The performance is almost invisible in its effectiveness.
The supporting actors also turn in fine work and their characters were treated with more respect than I expected. Bryan Brown is pitch-perfect in an underwritten role as King Carney while David Wenham chews the scenery appropriately as the main stock villain, Fletcher. When his character starts to really fly off the rails in the final act he’s up for it and the results are a lot of fun. I appreciated the attention given to the Drover’s helper Magarri (well played by David Ngoombujarra) and the comedy involving the Thompson’s Kipling. Even Fletcher’s wife (Essie Davis) is brush stroked with a human dimension I found surprising. I could see the argument these characters are broad stereotypes but would that make them all that different from those in the films this is paying homage to? Some will have problems with the ending but when I like and care about the characters the last thing I want is for them to needlessly suffer for the sake of dark realism, especially in a fun Hollywood throwback like this.

It’s easy to understand why critics and audiences haven’t responded that favorably to the film, outside of a preconceived bias against the director and star. When this much time and effort is put into something there’s the tendency to expect a masterpiece and anything less is deemed unacceptable. Baz leaves it all up on the screen and drenches this irony-free outing in pure, unapologetic emotion, something we’re definitely not used to seeing these days.

Under normal circumstances a film as big as this would seem to be a shoo-in for a Best Picture nomination, which was probably a primary motivation behind behind making it. It won’t get one though. There are just too many issues with it and politics aren’t on its side, but I’ll admit it would be funny if the Academy just decided to go ahead and nominate it anyway in spite of the poor reviews because it has that "Oscar feel” to it. They did it last year with Atonement and ended up being right.
When the film ended I was more exhausted than elated and still not sure whether it was long because it needed to be or long just for the sake of being long. The Dark Knight was only 15 minutes shorter than this but it sure didn’t feel like it. Outside of that it’s difficult to name many specific things it did wrong. Baz is smart like that. He covered himself. He knows that overindulgence is never a criminal offense and, as a result, he gets away with an awful lot. I left with a feeling that I had seen something of importance and substance, not a frequent event in what’s been a considerably weak movie going year. The more I think back the more I realize how much I liked it, a small miracle considering my general distaste for period films.

An argument will be made that a movie as big as this can only be only be experienced on the big screen and to an extent that’s true but I’d like to offer up a case for DVD viewing. It can be grueling in a theater for that long and I think I would have enjoyed this more if I saw it in the comfort of my own home, but that’s just me. There’s no denying the theater atmosphere does add to the experience though and cinephiles will likely prefer it in that context. It’s definitely a movie for movie lovers. We need big films like this because without them the smaller ones would mean less. And I’m glad someone is out there still trying to make them. There may have been better films than Australia this year, but few had as much guts.

From The Vault: Batman Forever

Director: Joel Schumacher
Starring: Val Kilmer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Nicole Kidman, Chris O’Donnell, Drew Barrymore, Michael Gough, Pat Hingle, Debi Mazar
Running Time: 122 min.
Rating: PG-13
Release Date: 1995

**1/2 (out of ****)

Riddle me this: What big name director almost single-handedly ruined the Batman franchise over a decade ago? If you answered Joel Schumacher, congratulations. It took me almost 13 years to recover from the trauma of actually seeing this in theaters when it opened in 1995 and calm down enough to finally write this review. I figured it might be fun now to revisit a film I hated years ago and see if anything’s changed at all.

First, the good news. It’s not nearly as bad as I remembered it and this time around I did notice a few things the Batman Forever actually did really well that I had overlooked. Now the bad news. The things about it that didn’t work are still very much there, and one aspect in particular looks worse than I ever remembered it. It’s a performance actually. And it comes from an Academy Award winning actor. That this man is not only still working after giving a performance so awful, but was nominated for Best Actor this year as well as appearing in the year’s Best Picture, should be considered a miracle. He deserves credit for that at least. I don’t know many other actors whose reputations could survive giving a performance so mind blowingly terrible.

In a bizarre way, Batman Forever works for what it is: A joke. And I do think it works better now as one than it did 13 years ago. For those who found Burton’s versions too dark and depressing (I didn’t) and are searching for an alternative take on "The Dark Knight" this fits the bill. For Batman purists, however, it can’t be viewed as anything other than an abomination (although I do know a few diehards who love it). But on the bright side, at least it isn’t boring or uninteresting.

It’s worth noting that the DVD I’m reviewing isn’t the 2-disc Collectors Edition that was released in 2005 as part of the entire Batman series box set. Rather this is the crappy, bare bones, double-sided full screen and widescreen single disc edition that came out in 1997. I’m mentioning that because the DVD transfer is absolutely terrible and for a film whose primary assets are visual it made the viewing a more unpleasant experience than it should have been I’m sure. The colors are a little washed out and I could even swear the print was scratched (and this film isn’t THAT old). It looked more like Planet Terror than Batman Forever. For anyone who actually enjoyed the film (show of hands?) and owns this edition, without even viewing the other I can tell you it’s worth the upgrade. I’m disappointed because I was really curious to get Schumacher’s explanation for some of the nonsense he inflicted upon us.

I remember reading a review of this a while back that complained that you shouldn’t be able to tell a director’s sexual preference just by watching their film. That’s very funny…and also very true. All joking aside, it is interesting to analyze the decisions Schumacher made and his possible reasoning behind them. Although Tim Burton handed over the directorial reins to Schumacher he stayed on as a producer, but how much input he actually had in this effort we’ll never know. My guess is very little. In a questionable decision, Schumacher completely did away with Danny Elfman’s score from the Burton movies, but I thought it was the right call. It wouldn’t have fit this material and Elliot Goldenthal’s score here works. There’s no sense picking a fight over that.

The most controversial decision surrounded the casting of a stoic (some would say wooden) Val Kilmer as Bruce Wayne/Batman because the fantastic Michael Keaton wisely passed on returning for a third outing. When I first saw the film I absolutely hated Kilmer’s performance with a passion but now seeing it again I realize he did the best he could in a thankless situation. He’s okay in the role and appropriately brooding when he needs to be, which is all the time. I’d rank his performance below Keaton’s (which I still believe is the definitive portrayal) and Bale’s but I’d have to see George Clooney’s interpretation again to determine how it ranks against that. Matching it up against Adam West’s seems a little ridiculous since that’s a whole different animal altogether. Kilmer does probably look the best in the actual costume and it’s an interesting factoid that Batman creator Bob Kane has said that of all the actors who have donned the bat suit, Kilmer is actually his favorite.

The plot of Batman Forever concerns Batman’s attempts to rescue a very colorful Gotham City from Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), who was previously known as District Attorney Harvey Dent before half his face was burned and horrifically disfigured by acid (which we see in a 15 second flashback). He’s joined by Edward E. Nigma a.k.a. The Riddler (Jim Carrey) a mad scientist employed by Wayne enterprises who goes off the deep end. Batman is joined in his fight against villainy by the young Dick Grayson (Chris O’Donnell) who has his sights set on Two-Face after he murdered his acrobatic circus performing parents in cold blood. He eventually takes on the moniker of Robin, but his role in this film is considerably less important than you may expect given the ads and the posters. Nicole Kidman is Dr. Chase Meridian, a clinical psychiatrist with a dual interest in Bruce Wayne and Batman, but not necessarily in that order.

Chris O’ Donnell has taken a thrashing for years for his performance as Robin, but really he’s perfect and this character is one of the few things this movie gets completely right. No one would have been a better fit for the part and I’m not sure what else people expected from him that he didn’t give. The scene where Two-Face kills his family (a big change from the comic) is the most effective of the film and he does a good job establishing his role in very little time. Another memorable scene where he steals the Batmobile and goes for a joyride is a clever idea that plays well. The only problem is that because Kilmer’s Batman/Bruce Wayne is fairly young he’s not quite believable as an older mentor to Robin. They seem more like equals both, joined by the murder of their parents at the hands of career criminals. The only remaining links left to Burton’s films are Pat Hingle’s Commissioner Gordon and Michael Gough’s Alfred. Alfred is actually better utilized here than in Burton’s efforts and gets in some good one-liners. Sure, he’s no Michael Caine, but who is?

As big a fan as I am of everything Burton did with the franchise I have to admit Schumacher did one thing better. Nicole Kidman’s Dr. Chase Meridian completely blows Kim Basinger’s Vicky Vale out of the water as Batman’s love interest. First of all, my god does Kidman look amazing in this. I’d go as far as to say this probably the hottest female character you’re ever likely to see in a superhero movie. And to think the idiots at Warner Brothers actually resisted Schumacher’s attempts to cast Kidman, claiming she wasn’t sexy enough. I can’t imagine anyone not wanting to be trapped in the Batcave with her. But the character herself is interesting as well. She has feelings for both Batman and Bruce Wayne but can’t seem to reconcile either of them. And Bruce doesn’t really know how he should feel about it. Happy? Jealous? That’s how conflicted this guy is. It’s pretty funny to have a love interest whose only real goal in the movie is to screw Batman. You can’t tell me we’ve seen something like that before. Kidman is known for making strange, risk-taking film choices (even more so now) so it’s ironic that in even her most mainstream vehicle she still finds a way to make her role completely insane. She’s the real star of this movie.

The major problems in the film are with the villains and considering they eat up most of the screen time it does create a big issue. Jim Carry was hot off the heels of the success of Dumb and Dumber and Ace Ventura: Pet Detective when he was cast in the role of The Riddler and it was, for the most part, a good choice. He’s clearly basing his performance on Frank Gorshin’s from the 1960’s television series and I can’t say that was a wrong way to go. I just wish he turned it down a notch and Oscar winner Akiva Goldsmith’s script didn’t contain so much of that mad scientist garbage at the beginning of the film. Can anyone explain to me what that brain sucking machine The Riddler created is even supposed to do? With those boxes in every home and people glued to their TV sets the entire silly premise brought back bad memories of Halloween III: Season of The Witch.

We know which team Schumacher plays for (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but was it really necessary to deck The Riddler out in eyeliner and mascara? He looked more like a drag queen than a criminal mastermind. Supposedly, Robin Williams was the original choice to play the role and I’m actually glad he didn’t get it. If Carrey was just a notch over-the-top than Williams would have needed a cage to contain his overacting. We dodged a bullet there. It’s a shame that Carrey guy never really went on to do anything else. I’m kidding of course. He went on to have a very respectable career… dressing as an elephant and shilling his movies on American Idol.

Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face is a complete disaster and nearly ruins the entire film. If Carrey was basing his Riddler on Gorshin than Jones was basing his Two-Face on Jack Nicholson’s Joker. Except he was trying to copy it, incorporating only the worst elements of that performance. With his annoying cackle and garish attire every second he’s on screen is nothing short of pure torture. Schumacher also felt it would be a good idea to give him a really pretty, colorful disfigurement because we all know how beautiful it looks when your badly burned face matches your suit. If Oscars were given for the worst achievement in costume and make-up this film would have them locked up. Not surprisingly, the "genius" make-up artist behind this endeavor is Rick Baker who you may recall from his Oscar-nominated work…in Norbit.

Besides rushing through Two-Face’s story arc too quickly and giving us virtually no backstory on him, serious creative liberties were taken as well, all of which hurt the character. In the comic he was known for his signature coin toss, which fatefully controls all of his evil decision-making. Here, like a petulant infant, he tosses the coin incessantly until he gets the desired result. Anton Sigurh this guy most definitely is not. He also has some arm candy to go along with his two personalities in Sugar and Spice (Drew Barrymore and Debi Mazar respectively). Barrymore looks good but barely has a single line of dialogue the entire film. Although he’s supposed to be the lead villain, Jones just ends up playing lackey to Carrey’s substantially more entertaining Riddler for most of the film.

The one saving grace of Two-Face (SPOILER AHEAD!) is that he meets a final, conclusive demise at the end, eliminating any chance of Tommy Lee Jones returning. The alternate ending which saw Two-Face sitting at the kitchen table with his wife complaining about how crime in Gotham city has passed him by as the screen fades to black was apparently rejected. I remember reading an interview with Jones a few months back where he first learned that Aaron Eckhart would be taking over the role of Harvey Dent a.k.a. Two-Face in this summer’s The Dark Knight. When asked if he was ever interested in reprising the role he answered simply: "No." It’s a relief that he has just as little interest playing the role again as I do seeing him in it. I’ve been so traumatized by his work in the film that my heart sank when I heard Two-Face was returning in any incarnation for a sequel, even though Eckhart could probably sleep walk through the role and still fare better than Jones. I just have no interest in seeing that character ever again. The sad part of it is that if The Riddler were just toughened up a little and Two-Face was excised from the movie entirely we could have really had something here.

This is just a guess but it seems Schumacher was going for the campy feel of the 60’s TV show with this movie. If he was he failed because even the worst episode of that terrific show was slightly better than this. He took those campy tendencies to new heights with his sequel, 1997’s Batman and Robin. Compared to that this almost looks restrained. And the title of this film I’ll never understand. Batman…Forever? It sounds like a musical. What’s scarier was there was actually another Schumacher helmed sequel planned that would have been called…Batman Triumphant. Who comes up with these titles? With his gigantic set pieces, bat-suits with nipples and rainbow color schemes Schumacher’s primary goal was to sell a lot of toys and make tons of money. Second on the agenda was making a good movie. That he almost accomplished the latter could be chalked up as an accident. I realize now that Schumacher is really guilty of only one crime: Going too far.

Amazingly, this film scored three Academy Award nominations for Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing and Best Sound, the most of any Batman film to date. It kills me to admit it but those nominations weren’t necessarily undeserved, as it’s a great looking and sounding film. Schumacher was trying to stage a full-on assault on our senses and provide an amusement park thrill ride, so to that end this could be considered a success. It’s surprisingly well-paced and ends before you even know it started, never dragging once during its two hour running time. It played much better for me this time, but as tempting as it may be, I still can’t recommend it because, well, it’s just not a very good movie. I will say this is a better film than Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns, but that doesn’t mean I’m eager to give Schumacher a third chance to redeem himself.

The biggest revelation to come out of my re-watching of Batman Forever was that I didn’t hate it. Maybe I’ve just softened with age or it could be that because Christopher Nolan has successfully resurrected the franchise I’m able to put my bitterness toward the film behind me and put it in its proper historical context. It can now be viewed as an interesting cinematic curiosity and an alternative interpretation of an iconic character. Tilda Swinton’s hilarious Oscar acceptance speech this year got me thinking about Schumacher’s Batman films again and made me wonder how history will judge them and him. It’s never good when your movies have become the punch line of an Oscar joke. And in case you were wondering, yes, I am eventually planning to review Batman and Robin, with a very special emphasis on George Clooney’s performance.

Schumacher survived this, but that’s not to say his career ever fully recovered. He went on to direct solid features like Tigerland and Phone Booth and not so solid ones like The Number 23 starring his old pal Jim Carrey. Looking at the glass as half-full, we can thank Schumacher for his mistakes because without them we probably wouldn’t be enjoying the emergence of more serious superhero movies like Batman Begins and the upcoming Iron Man and The Dark Knight films. Unfortunately, the negative effects of his work can still be seen on films like The Fantastic Four series. His greatest contribution is that by turning Batman into a joke he unintentionally caused us to appreciate what makes superhero films special to begin with…at least the ones not directed by him.

The Invasion

Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Jeremy Northam, Jeffrey Wright, Jackson Bond, Veronica Cartwright
Running Time: 99 min.
Rating: PG-13

** (out of ****)

The Invasion is an exercise in futility. There's little reason it should have been (re-) made and even less of a reason anyone should bother seeing it, unless watching two big stars collect fat paychecks interests you. They've certainly earned them here. The umpteenth adaptation of Jack Finney's 1954 serialized story, The Body Snatchers (better known by its film title, Invasion of the Body Snatchers) brings nothing new or fresh to the source material, which makes you wonder why anyone in the first place thought this story was begging to be updated for current times.

This film is now nearly infamous for sitting on the shelf for more than a year, enduring numerous re-shoots and directors and even resulting in several broken ribs for Nicole Kidman. All of this sounds a whole lot more interesting than the final product we see onscreen and the controversy surrounding the film is probably the only reason anyone may be interested in seeing it.

It's tough to decifer where the blame lies exactly as director Oliver Hirschbiegel was robbed of final cut by the studio and the film was handed over to the Wachowski brothers who did re-writes on the script and brought in V for Vendetta director James McTeigue. Their efforts, thankfully for them, go uncredited. Regardless of whatever mish-mash of visions we ended up with, I'm not trying to toss blame, just warn you that it isn't worth a watch. The problems in production are actually visible onscreen, as the film, other than a semi-exciting finale, is rather flat and boring, lacking any kind of distinctive rhythm. Scenes don't flow into one another and seem thrown together, a tip-off that the movie's failure could be traced to problems at the screenplay and editing stages, with no one being able to agree what kind of film they were trying to make. Having two different directors and three different writers couldn't have helped.

Nicole Kidman is divorced psychiatrist Carol Bennell, whose ex-husband Tucker (Jeremy Northam) is a CDC director investigating a Challenger-like space shuttle crash. Attached to the wreckage and debris from the shuttle is a gooey alien substance that infects anyone who comes in contact with it, resulting in a loss of emotion when they enter deep sleep. Upon awakening, they're essentially "pod people" walking around like zombies with no feelings whatsoever. They also start to look disgusting and vomit a lot. After her ex-husband is infected and attempts to use the CDC to spread the plague, Carol must protect their son, Oliver (Jackson Bond) from his father while saving herself from becoming a pod person. If that sounds silly, how it plays out is even sillier as she recruits the help of her best "friend", Dr. Ben Driscoll (Daniel Craig) and his biologist buddy (Jeffrey Wright) to stop the epidemic.

The major problem here is that there's no sense of normalcy at the beginning of the picture, so when the plague does occur it doesn't have much of an emotional impact. Every character in the film (especially Kidman's and Craig's) seem like emotionless zombies right from the get-go so there really isn't much of a transformation to undergo. We're also so familiar with the story (that's been told nearly half a dozen times) that we know what's happening a good thirty to forty minutes before anyone in the movie does. This results in a lack of suspense and some scenes even evoke unintentional laughter, specifically the ones featuring projectile vomiting. The movie is at its strongest in the third act when Carol is on the run and the script shifts focus to the mother-son bond and that's mainly because of a good performance from young Jackson Bond as the boy.

As usual, the media has leveled all the blame for this movie's critical and commercial at Kidman, with her detractors using it as further evidence that she needs a new agent. They'll also probably get a good laugh out of the fact she's portraying a character struggling not to become an emotionless robot. That's unfair though because out of her recent box office flops this is actually the only one that deserved to fail and could qualify as a misstep on her part. She should continue along the path she's been going taking big risks like Dogville, Birth, and Fur while staying clear of mainstream sci-fi garbage like this. She's the type of actress who responds best to a daunting challenge and unless one is given to her she tends to falter. The movie's failure has nothing to do with her, but admittedly, this is far from her best work. She looks as bored as we are and director Hirschbiegel seems more interested in making her look as photogenic as possible (which isn't difficult) than squeezing an inspired performance out of her. Craig, however, is even worse. His Ben Driscoll is painfully underwritten but he's nothing but a wet blanket in the role and there were times I actually worried he would doze off onscreen. 007 this guy is not, that's for sure. Jeffrey Wright, a gifted supporting actor, is also completely wasted in a role that's way beneath him.

Watching the special features on this DVD you'd think the filmmakers were adapting the deepest, most philosophical American saga to ever be put on celluloid. I hate to burst their bubbles but they're not, as attempts to put a Bush-era spin on a film that in 1956 so effectively exploited Cold War paranoia and McCarthyism is half-hearted and ineffective. Other than a fascinating dinner scene where the sociological implications of the invasion is explored the film often comes off as a sci-fi spoof rather than a important meditation on the world we live in. At least the production design and cinematography are top notch, which sadly just tells me a lot of money was wasted in creating a product that couldn't live up to its meager promise. There's even a shout-out to the 1978 remake as one of the stars of that film, actress Veronica Cartwright, has a small part. It's something only the hardest of hardcore fans would notice or care about and just serves to remind us this material has been re-made a few too many times.

It's tough judging a film when you can't point any fingers or toss blame in any one direction, but a misfire like this reminds us that most of the time failure is a corroborative effort. Often the more names the worse. My guess is that Hirschbiegel and screenwriter Dave Kajganich had some good ideas in there somewhere and were undermined by an untrusting studio. But that's just a guess. What isn't a guess though is if you're adapting a story that's been done many times over in this era of pointless remakes, you better bring something interesting to the table. The end result isn't so much awful as it is an uninspired mess of ideas and dots that don't connect. When the final credits rolled, and all the creative contributors to the film were listed, the last thing I couldn't help but think that Ed Wood's name wouldn't seem that out of place among them. Then again, at least his movies were fun.

From The Vault: Birth

Director: Jonathan Glazer
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Cameron Bright, Danny Huston, Lauren Bacall, Arliss Howard, Anne Heche, Peter Stormare
Running Time: 100 min.
Rating: R
Release Date: 2004

** (out of ****)

Birth is a strangely compelling motion picture, but more importantly, an extremely frustrating one. It starts off with an intriguing premise, but then bombards us with unearned scenes of shock and sensationalism meant to make us feel as uncomfortable as humanly possible. It also features some of the most irresponsible adult characters I've ever seen in a movie. They should all be thrown in jail for child abuse and endangerment. Even worse, after the film has drained us emotionally and presented a sensitive subject matter in the most insensitive way, it fails to give us any kind of resolution or closure.

The film is mean-spirited and at times incredibly difficult to watch, but yet frustratingly you can't take your eyes off it. The film moves at a snail's pace yet I sat transfixed by the disaster that was unfolding in front of me. That it's so beautifully shot and acted only adds to the frustration because you wonder what this film could have been with a better script. This is the kind of bad movie that can only be made by talented people.

The film opens memorably with a jogger collapsing and dying in New York's Central Park. We flash forward ten years to find out that man was Sean and now his widow Anna (Nicole Kidman) is on the cusp of marrying wealthy businessman Joseph (an incredibly bland Danny Huston). While attending the birthday party of her mother (Lauren Bacall) the family is greeted with an unexpected guest. He's a 10-year-old boy coincidentally named Sean (a creepy Cameron Bright), who claims he's Anna's dead husband and doesn't want her to marry Joseph.

Right off the bat, we already have some serious problems. First of all, we have no idea who Anna's deceased husband Sean is as a person. All we know is that he's a jogger who collapsed in Central Park. It would have helped to establish who he was and his relationship with Anna in the opening minutes so we actually care when this kid shows up claiming to be him. Instead, it just seems creepy. That this child acts like he just stepped out of Stephen King's The Shining doesn't help matters. Another detail about this 10 year-old: his parents let him roam the streets of New York City alone at night hailing taxi cabs and crashing strangers' parties uninvited. At first, because of the tone of the picture and his demeanor I thought he would be a supernatural being, which would be fine because then he wouldn't have parents. So you can imagine how shocked I was to find out he not only has parents, but that they could care less what he's doing.

All of this seems almost normal compared to what follows and how the characters choose to deal with this bizarre situation. Anna's family is determined to "get to the bottom of this" and find out if Sean really is Anna's husband. May I ask why? Shouldn't they instead be getting this obviously disturbed kid some help? Wait…I have a better idea. Instead why don't they grill him about the intimate details of Sean and Anna's life that he couldn't possibly know… or could he? Once he answers those questions he's ready to move in, have ice cream, go on dates and take baths with her. After all, she has to find out the truth. You think this kid will have some wild stories for school?

You may be wondering where Anna's fiancée Joseph is in all of this. Well, he's kind of pissed. This leads to a scene in the house that's supposed to be dramatic, but instead evokes unintentional laughter. That this guy enabled the kid into their lives just makes it even stupider. I almost forgot to mention a married couple (played by Peter Stormare and Anne Heche) resurfacing from Anna's past who we're led to believe have some connection to all of this. I'd love to tell you I was trying to figure out what it was, but I was too busy wondering why Anne Heche's eyebrows and lips were mysteriously missing. I was also way too happy to see Peter Stormare in a role that didn't involve him killing people.

It's clear what the movie is trying to do, but how it executes it is another matter altogether. They're trying to convince us Anna is becoming obsessed with this boy because she can't let go of the memory of her husband, who this kid may be the reincarnation of. That's how the filmmakers can justify the uncomfortable scenes we're forced to endure between the two of them. Except they're wrong. All this kid has proven is that he can robotically recite information from Sean and Anna's past. He hasn't taken on any of Sean's personality (whatever that may be since the movie refused to let us know who that man was), therefore all the scenes between Anna and young Sean come off as a grown woman attempting to seduce a creepy 10-year-old boy.

There's been much controversy surrounding the infamous bathtub scene with them, but that's actually harmless since they're not actually in the tub together and the scene was spliced together in post-production. The real disturbing scene is in the ice cream shop when you'll want to cover your ears when you hear a woman having a conversation like this with a little boy. The movie is not about pedophilia, but because of the lazy script and Jonathan Glazer's irresponsible direction (which includes seductive lighting and uncomfortable glances) the movie feels like it's all about pedophilia. Here's a question: Would this movie have been made if the gender roles were reversed?

There's also a serious problem with tone in this film. You're never quite sure what it is. A horror movie? A drama? A mystery? It even has a Merchant/Ivory 1990's art house feel to it. The tone just all over the place. Alexandre Desplat's score is fantastic, although I have to wonder whether it was appropriate for the film or even if it was a good thing that I noticed it that much. Come to think of it, any score probably would seem out of place for a film this bizarre. The best part of the movie is the work from director of photography Harris Savides (Gus Van Sant and David Fincher's cinematographer, whose work includes The Game and Elephant) who adds a beautiful, layered richness to the film that makes it compellingly watchable. He's hands down the best working cinematographer today and without him it frightens me to think how much worse this movie could have been.

Probably the saddest part of this entire enterprise is that Nicole Kidman gives one of the best performances of her career and she justifiably earned a Golden Globe nomination for it. The camera loves her as she's never looked as good as she does here and manages to make all this garbage somewhat convincing, selling it like a pro. You really do feel the pain of this woman over the loss of her husband. Too bad we have no idea who he was. It's not Cameron Bright's fault he's asked to act like the spawn of Satan so he does a reasonable job conveying the emotions, or lack of them, required. I just hope the poor kid isn't traumatized for life.

I could actually understand how someone could appreciate this film (notice I didn't say enjoy), but I can't understand how anyone could sit through it more than once. It's just too draining. Plus, this isn't the kind of film where repeated viewings reward the audience with its secrets. There are no secrets. I'm all for ambiguous endings if it's called for, but when a movie sets up a big mystery and forces the actors to endure uncomfortable scenes like the ones here, it better pay off. Maybe there will be a sequel (Birth 2?) that addresses all the unanswered questions. After all, I'm still curious what happened to Anne Heche's eyebrows.