The Substance

Director: Coralie Fargeat
Starring: Demi Moore, Margaret Qualley, Dennis Quaid, Edward Hamilton Clark, Gore Abrams, Oscar Lesage, Christian Erickson, Robin Greer, Hugo Diego Garcia
Running Time: 141 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

Gripping, disgusting and hilarious, French filmmaker Coralie Fargeat's wicked horror satire The Substance is a cautionary tale the great Rod Serling probably would have appreciated. And that's obvious from the very first scene, which shows a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame gradually deteriorating over the decades. If receiving one can be a source of pride and validation in an industry where respect is scarce, it's also fleeting. Especially for entertainers encouraged to measure their self-worth with superficial accolades.

Recognition may be nice, but what happens when you're kicked to the curb for a younger model? That's the question the film's aging actress faces and her male colleagues rarely need to consider, at least to this extent. While plastic surgery, collagen injections and various pills provide viable options for women to turn back the clock and enhance their appearance, it's tougher finding a sufficient explanation as to why that's now a prerequisite. 

In providing users an unusual black market drug, this mysterious company at the film's center seems to have it all down to a science. Our protagonist takes the bait because she's desperate, but the underlying implication is that many others already gave in and will continue to. And like most medical breakthroughs, there are few safe guards against misuse or addiction, a detail that serves as a compelling launch pad for the craziness that'll unfold.

When fading movie star Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore) turns 50, she's fired from her Jane Fonda inspired TV aerobics show by the network's greedy, boisterous producer Harvey (Dennis Quaid), who's looking for a younger replacement. But when Elisabeth's admitted to the hospital after a car accident, she's given a flash drive by a nurse that advertises a cell-replicating serum called "The Substance," which promises a "younger, more beautiful, more perfect" version of herself. After picking up the supply, Elisabeth injects the "single-use activator," causing her body to generate Sue (Margaret Qualley), who emerges from a slit in her back. 

Every seven days the two must switch consciousness, with the inactive, unconscious body being fed intravenously. But when the wild, hard partying Sue becomes an overnight sensation as Elisabeth's replacement on the show, the latter falls into deep despair, unable to face the world as an older woman. Breaking protocol to extend her time and permanently bench Elisabeth, Sue's selfishness causes catastrophic side effects as the two consciousnesses head for a collision course, ignoring the fact they'll need each other to survive. 

Fountain of youth concepts aren't new to film, but the originality behind this particular process and its ramifications definitely are. Early on, the plot recalls elements of 1966's Seconds, in which a middle-aged banker utilizes the services of a clandestine agency to surgically transforms himself into a younger man played by Rock Hudson. Here, Fargeat takes that general idea to a different place by focusing on an actress whose age and appearance has always been her calling card. 

To say Elisabeth's insecurities apply strictly to this profession ignores how this premise casts a much wider net, independent of social status or wealth. Because she's an Oscar winner and fitness guru who isn't financially hurting, it's a credit to the script and Moore's performance that we don't roll our eyes at her unhappiness or dismiss the plot as a rich woman's Hollywood problem. The handwriting's on the wall as she's cruelly and casually cast aside, making it easy to see how she'd be drawn to "The Substance," which promises to rescue this increasingly invisible woman from certain obscurity. 

Retrieving her starter package from this sterile white medical storage facility in a dilapidated warehouse, it's amazing just how idiot proof the kit is. With clearly marked bags notating the steps so plainly you'd believe someone could perform this procedure without detailed instructions, despite how grossly absurd it looks. But none of that accounts for how Elisabeth psychologically handles taking a backseat to her younger, more desirable counterpart as she lies unconscious on the bathroom floor for a week.

Since Elisabeth and Sue share a consciousness, it stands to reason what one does should benefit the other, curtailing any potential pitfalls. Instead, Elisabeth wakes from her slumber even more depressed and invisible, binge eating all day and night. It's Sue who basks in the adulation that comes with being the hot, young ingenue, soon growing disgusted by the mere thought of her older version even existing. So it isn't long before she violates protocol to extend her time, resulting in crippling side effects for Elisabeth. Sue doesn't get off so easily either, having to inject herself with a "stabilizer fluid" to avoid a similar physical deterioration. 

This battle for supremacy is contested entirely inside Elisabeth's mind, as strange as that seems for a story so firmly situated in the body horror genre. She's the one person who can stop this, if only the pressure to remain young and desired wasn't so great. Hating Sue out of jealousy while still desperately needing her counterpart to maintain any semblance of self esteem, she becomes trapped in a prison of her own making.

With a willingness to spoof her public image while inhabiting the headspace of a character defined as old and washed up, a never more vulnerable Moore is literally and emotionally naked for much of this meta role. She also endures an absurd amount of prosthetics and physicality in an insane third act, conveying the complicated trauma of a woman who will do anything to retain her youth, not realizing the true cost of that deal. But her most pointed scene comes when she can't leave her apartment for a date, constantly altering her appearance in the mirror before collapsing in a pile of tears, shaking and unable to function.

As Sue, Qualley's job is tougher than it first appears, playing the vainest, most selfish version of a woman unwilling to squander her second chance at any cost. The character initially comes across as a cipher who smiles and looks pretty enough to please the ratings hungry Harvey, until all the attention goes to her head. Viewing Elisabeth as a loathsome burden that needs disposing of, the only thing more jarring than Sue's self absorbedness is how good Qualley is at portraying it, her iciness setting the stage for a showdown where neither can possibly walk away the winner.

Dennis Quaid's scenery devouring turn as this slimy producer isn't intended to be multi-dimensional, but he entertains every minute he's on screen as you eagerly anticipating his next appearance. Diabolically sleazy with his sinister smile and passive aggressive misogyny, Fargeat films him in these uncomfortably extreme close-ups that make the character look like the grossest person on Earth, especially when he's sloppily inhaling a plate of seafood. Comically repulsive, Quaid knows what movie he's in, even if his showy work will unfairly fly under the radar amidst justifiable praise for Moore and Qualley.

In addition to cinematographer Benjamin Kračun eye-popping, immersive visuals, production designer Pierre Olivier-Persin creates this unforgettable look for a bizarre time vacuum that looks and feels like the 1980's, but isn't quite. It also contains a windfall of cleverly coded cinematic references that range from The Shining to 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Elephant Man, Basket Case and Carrie. 

Elisabeth and Sue do eventually find a way to coexist in a blood soaked New Year's climax, though not at all how either expected, as both hold their funhouse mirror up to the ugly society that's rejected them. Filmed in a hyper realistic style that comes right out of Cronenberg's playbook, there's a deliberate build to the chaos that makes its gruesome payoff even more satisfying and thematically relevant. Lacking all pretense of restraint, Fargeat gleefully beats us into submission with sickening thrills and a fearless Demi Moore, who gives a performance unlike anything else in her career.

Margin Call

Director: J.C. Chandor
Starring: Kevin Spacey, Paul Bettany, Jeremy Irons, Zachary Quinto, Penn Badgley, Simon Baker Mary McDonnell, Stanley Tucci, Demi Moore
Running Time: 109 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

In the opening minutes of writer/director J.C. Chandor's thrilling debut feature Margin Call, Eric Dale (Stanley Tucci) a manager at an unnamed financial firm, is let go. He's told it's nothing personal. We see his face as he takes the news, says his goodbyes, cleans out his desk and gets escorted to the elevator by security. Just before he leaves he hands his protege Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) a USB drive and tells him to "be careful." That's the set up. What unfolds over the next 24 hours is the pay off. When Peter works out Eric's model the results are horrifying and the potential losses for the firm crippling. There would be no firm. He calls back in his friend and fellow analyst Seth (Penn Badgley) along with their boss Will Emerson (Paul Bettany). The information travels up the chain of command to Will's boss Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey), then to Sam's boss, Jared Cohen (Simon Baker) before finally landing in the lap of CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) whose impending 4 am helicopter arrival is so suspenseful it may as well be Darth Vader arriving on the Death Star. Without giving too much away, in just a few scenes Irons exceeds all expectations of this character's involvement, creating the most intriguing (and scariest) portrayal of a high ranking CEO I can remember seeing on screen. Besides being the best performance Irons has given in decades, it's exactly the type of brief, but gripping work the supporting actor Oscar category seems created to acknowledge. 

It's not so much what's said at that emergency meeting, but how, and the implications for all involved. And for a talky film, there are definitely times when nothing is said but you can still feel that the tension is always escalating. This story is all about escalating tension. It would have been easy to choose to make a film demonizing those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis, and even stupider to try to evoke sympathy for them, but Chandor wisely doesn't judge. Your boss has a boss who's taking orders from their boss who's taking orders from another boss and if you're at the bottom of the food chain (or even at the middle), you just do what you're told. The financial crisis started because those at the top got greedy and everyone else just kept following orders. We're taken inside a shark tank where it's a battle for survival but these are real people with qualities both good and bad. The scariest part of the film is how any of them could be any of us if we're willing to take the job and for that money there are likely few among us who wouldn't.

The closest we get to a hero is Quinto's idealistic, inexperienced underling Peter, a rocket scientist whose brains unwillingly take him from the trading floor to a scary meeting with the CEO, where the entire fate of the firm suddenly rests on his calculations. Bettany's Will is a greedy hotshot who has a monologue late in the film that will give you chills. Simon Baker is fantastic as an arrogant wunderkind promoted to securities head before his time but now faces the very real possibility he could be thrown under the bus unless head of risk Sarah Roberston (Demi Moore) takes the fall instead. Though never explicitly stated, we know and she knows it's because she's a woman and she's reached her limit in a man's world. Moore, in full Disclosure mode, hasn't had a part this meaty to chew on in years. The same could be said, perhaps more so, for Spacey, who breaks out of his post-American Beauty slump as a good man torn between doing what's right and doing what's right for the firm, which may or may not be the same thing depending on one's perspective. He knows what the plan is and the devastating consequences for everyone not at the top if they decide to go through with it. A sub-plot involving his ailing dog gives the film an unexpected emotional humanity, serving also as an uncomfortable reminder that situations spiral out of control and anyone, regardless of their values, can be caught up in the current.

This is an astounding debut feature for a filmmaker and it wouldn't be off base to call it Wall Street for the current generation. I'd even go as far as to call it superior to that film (and certainly to its recent sequel) since it has more compelling characters, better performances and isn't as one-sided. It casts no judgment and leaves interpretation up to the viewer, which is why it succeeds. It's a snapshot in time, and a rare opportunity seeing so many actors of such a high talent level appearing together in the same project, much less one with material this strong. They must have been chomping at the bit when they read the script but even with a cast this packed no one seems to be fighting for screen time and each role, however small, feels important. The two standouts are clearly Irons and Spacey but everyone else is excellent, with a few delivering some of their best work. Efficient and tension-filled, there isn't a wasted minute to be found, leaving me pondering what would happen to its characters when the smoke cleared.        

The Joneses

Director: Derrick Borte
Starring: Demi Moore, David Duchovny, Amber Heard, Ben Hollingsworth, Gary Cole, Lauren Hutton, Glenne Headly
Running Time: 96 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

The Joneses is the most frustrating kind of good movie to review because it brushes so closely with greatness, only to fall short due to a couple of dumb, easily correctable problems. Calling its central premise inspired or original is an understatement. So much so that the execution could have been completely squandered and the finished product would have still probably turned out okay. It isn't squandered, but there's that feeling that all the potential wasn't realized and there was something really special in there struggling to break through. With a concept like this I question how any film could fully deliver on it without at least some degree of disappointment. For the first hour it looks like it will, but writer/director Derrick Borte sets the bar a little too high for himself and struggles at times to find the right tone before unloading a rushed ending completely inappropriate for the film.

Some movies can get away with a lackluster ending but this can't since all the themes and ideas seem to build toward the story's resolution.  But in all fairness to Borte, it's no easy task getting a high concept like this exactly where it needs to go and he does a serviceable job.  If nothing else, the film deserved more attention than it got during its brief, invisible run in theaters and should be wildly applauded for actually introducing an original idea we haven't seen on screen before. But as impressive as certain ideas can look on paper, following through with them all the way is a different matter altogether.

It helps to know as little as possible about the premise going in but the trailers and commercials give it away because they didn't really have a choice. Without coming clean with its concept, there's nothing to sell the movie on other than its stars, a cruel irony considering this is all about selling. But for the first fifteen minutes we are cleverly left in the dark when Steve Jones (David Duchovny) and his youthful looking wife, Kate (Demi Moore) move into an upper-middle class (i.e. rich) suburban neighborhood with their two high school aged kids, Jennifer (Amber Heard) and Mick (Ben Hollingsworth). They look like one of those impossibly perfect, great looking families that stepped out of a fancy home magazine, with a residence to match. And for good reason. That's basically what they are. The big secret is that they're a fake family being paid by a stealth marketing company to push new products in the neighborhood. Logically, if they're liked, everyone will want to to own what they have. They're selling themselves as much as they are the products with their manager, KC (Lauren Hutton) tracking the progress. On her sixth husband, the driven Kate is the veteran of the "unit" and on her first "head of household" assignment is supervising Steve, a green as grass rookie learning the ropes, but it gets complicated when their working arrangement evolves into something more and their "kids" begin to emotionally unravel from pretending to be what they're not. The Joneses also have to deal with the consequences of the bonds they've formed with those in the neighborhood, real or fake as they may be.

The expression "Keeping up with the Joneses" could seem dated to some, but the idea behind it definitely isn't. Hearing the title of the movie I couldn't help but laugh at the fact that one of my favorite sayings was being adapted into a feature film as I've been known to use it every time it seems applicable, which is a lot more often than you'd think.  Knowing the premise going in I was still impressed with how it was slowly and mysteriously introduced so that like the neighbors we're not initially sure what to make of these Joneses or what their deal is. When we do is when the movie really comes alive in its first sixty minutes, fully exploiting all the possibilities and implications of their deception. An important touch is that the Joneses are actually good salespeople because they don't overdo it and the film already has a built-in excuse for product placement, which Borte's script doesn't abuse by shoving it down our throats. In this sense the film, while completely original in conceit, does have definite thematic shadings of The Truman Show and Pleasantville in its critique of American materialism and consumerism.

The casting is so spot-on it's scary, with the choices in actors serving the themes exceptionally well. Who wouldn't buy a golf club David Duchovny recommended? Who could have possibly been a better choice to play Kate than Demi Moore, an actress who's basically sold to us as an anti-aging commodity? And is there a high school girl who wouldn't want look, dress like and BE Amber Heard? Moore gives her best performance in ages as the ambitious sales leader, in addition to looking as young as she has in years, which isn't an entirely irrelevant point when you consider the nature of her role. Duchovny brings the sly charm in what's kind of a watered down version of his Hank Moody character on Californication, making his best case so far for big screen leading man status.  In smaller but still suitably developed roles, the increasingly prolific Heard continues her streak of nailing (literally in this case) any supporting part she's given and newcomer Hollingsworth effectively sketches out the teen poser harboring a secret of his own. And since they're both supposed to be adults playing teenagers, we now finally have a movie with a suitable excuse for casting adults as teenagers.

The movie attempts to go to dark places the second act requires even if it feels a little out of step with the sitcom-style feel that's present throughout. The darkest center around married couple, Summer and Larry (Glenne Headly and Gary Cole), next-door neighbors struggling to keep up with Joneses. Headley and Cole are two of the more underrated character actors working today so it's no surprise they turn mere sketches into real people worth caring about and fill in the blanks of their slightly underwritten roles, alternating seamlessly between the comedy and drama. When the wheels start to fly off the Joneses perfect fake life Borte seems to want to turn this into a scathing commentary carrying an impact similar to more dramatic entries in suburban dysfunction like American Beauty or the more recent Revolutionary Road. That's when he starts losing his way and grasp on tone before wimping out with an abrupt, unsatisfying finish that damages the film's overall credibility. The worst thing he could have done with a premise this strong was attempt to spell everything out for us, which he does with an embarrassing soapbox-style speech that comes abruptly out of left field to wrap things up in a conventional Hollywood way. He also does the second worst thing in giving far too much emphasis to the romantic angle between the two leads. The idea that this sales team family are co-workers under the same roof is intriguing and Moore and Duchovny have chemistry, but her character is such a humorless ice queen it's difficult to grasp what Steve sees in her (well, at least from a personality standpoint). This sub-plot that should be downplayed in favor of the darker elements of the script instead takes center stage at the worst possible time, making the film feel almost like a fluffy romantic comedy.

I'll concede to some bias here since dark, suburban social commentaries are among my favorite types of pictures but Borte at least had the concept for a real winner in his hands, only to let it slip through his fingers. With a firm command over the look of sprawling, sunny suburbia he's a better director than writer, which isn't to say he's a bad writer because it takes a lot of talent to even come up with an idea like this, much less push it as far as he does. But the last thing that should be accompanying this film this ambitious at its conclusion is a forgettable feeling. With a final act that reeks of studio interference, I wouldn't mind seeing a hidden director's cut or even a full-blown remake that follows its dark path to the ending its premise promises. Despite an admirable effort to do something different, The Joneses tries to please everybody, and ironically becomes guilty of engaging in some of the same tactics it's sending up.

Mr. Brooks

Director: Bruce A. Evans Starring: Kevin Costner, Demi Moore, Dane Cook, William Hurt, Marg Helgenberger, Danielle Panabaker
Running Time: 120 min.
Rating: R

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

The devil is in the details. It's a phrase we hear often but I can't think of a more appropriate time to use it than in describing Mr. Brooks, easily one of the most bizarre, but fascinating films of this year. No, actually "bizarre" doesn't cover it. "Insane" is probably the better word. It reminds me how much I hate assigning movies star ratings. No star rating I could give this film would provide anyone with a better idea of what to expect going in, as it's an overcooked, overambitious spectacle you'll either love or detest with a passion.

Just look who's starring in it. Based on their track records I can't think of three actors more likely to send audiences fleeing from the theater than Kevin Costner, Demi Moore and Dane Cook. If you told me even one of those actors had starred in a movie that was somewhat decent I'd probably go into shock. That all three not only co-star in a really good one together, but two out of the three give great performances, may be cause to resuscitate me.

I get a headache just thinking about how much effort must have gone into writing a script you could argue approaches brilliance in its commitment and attention to detail. The film, which falls somewhere in between a deep psychological thriller and black comedy, also provides Costner with one of the best roles of his career. It's his most interesting, nuanced performance in years and continues his career resurgence that began with his great, understated supporting work in 2005's The Upside of Anger. The script tries to pack a little too much in but stands as further evidence that it's always better to risk failure swinging for the fences than just playing it safe. Mr. Brooks is a true original and one of the more entertaining serial killer films to come around in a long time.

Earl Brooks (Costner) is a successful business owner with a beautiful wife (Marg Helgenberger), a devoted but rebellious daughter (Danielle Panabaker) away at college and is being honored as "Man of the Year" by the Portland Chamber of Commerce. He's a pillar of the community and to those who know him he can do no wrong. But he harbors a terrible secret. An addiction. Mr. Brooks is a serial killer and he just can't help himself. Just as other addicts get their thrills from gambling, drinking or drugs, Brooks gets a rush from the kill. He knows it's wrong and he has to stop, but just can't because there's that voice inside telling him to go through with it. It'll be fun.

That voice is his sadistic alter-ego Marshall (William Hurt) and he seems frighteningly real, appearing at the most inopportune time to talk Brooks into restarting his run as the "thumbprint killer," after a two-year sabbatical. The night of his "Man of the Year" speech, he's back in action committing a grisly double murder, except this time the normally meticulous Brooks wasn't careful enough and he's spotted by nosy neighbor Mr. Smith (Dane Cook). Smith, who had an unhealthy habit of photographing his now murdered neighbors having sex, is armed with incriminating photos of that night and blackmails Mr. Brooks. But he doesn't want money. He wants Brooks to take him under his wing and show him how it's done. Together they'll commit a murder and Mr. Smith will have the learning experience of a lifetime. Brooks, not the least bit happy he has to babysit this goof, is obsessively pursued by tenacious police detective Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore).

Given enough sub-plots for 15 movies, she's a millionaire heiress going through an ugly divorce with a much younger man and was just taken off a big case involving another notorious serial killer. As she moves closer to discovering Brooks' identity, he struggles with another very messy situation at home with his daughter. Vowing to never kill again, Brooks must wrestle with his own demons and the lingering threat of being caught and exposed not only to the world, but most importantly, his family.

Bruce A. Evans' (who also directed) and Raynold Gideon's script for this film is so clever at times. There's no question it overreaches, but it's very rare you see a movie jam this much in and have it work so well. A big reason for that is how sharply written the title character is. Everything comes back to Mr. Brooks. We've seen plenty of serial killers onscreen before, but their psyche and motivations for murder were never played quite like this. By presenting murder as an addiction afflicting an otherwise likeable family man the movie opens up a ton of dramatic possibilities and nearly all of them are fully exploited.

What's so frightening and often times comical about the whole situation is that the gentle Mr. Brooks we see with his wife and daughter isn't all that different in demeanor from the cold-blooded "thumb print" killer. This would mark one of the few times Costner's infamous low-key, subdued presence helps a film immensely. Less is always more with Costner, an actor who was never flashy or painted with broad strokes. He's tried to be in the past and the results have been disastrous. In contrast, this is a role that suits his casual acting style and emphasizes his strengths. It's his best performance since 1993's A Perfect World.

In a great early scene we see Brooks leave his wife in bed to commit a murder and his obsessive attention to every physical detail concerning the set-up, execution and clean-up of the crime scene is fascinating. Criminologists always claim serial killers secretly want to be caught and are craving attention. For Brooks part of that may be true (especially when you evaluate his rare error at the crime scene), but mostly being caught represents his worst nightmare. While it would definitely end his murder spree he can't bare for his wife and daughter to know the truth because it would destroy them.

As Detective Atwood closes in, you can almost feel Brooks' control over the world he created for himself slipping and his alter-ego Marshall fearing for his existence. An event happens with his daughter during the course of the film (which I won't give away) that changes the way Brooks' looks at everything and forces him to do something that isn't necessarily unfamiliar, but just never presented itself in that particular context. The results are potentially life-altering for both himself, his family and his alter-ego.

The decision to have Brooks' addictive personality physically manifested onscreen is very effective, giving the film a Fight Club-like feel. That he's played by William Hurt, one of our creepiest and engaging supporting actors makes Marshall's presence that much more satisfying. I liked how Evans' and Gideon's script made Marshall smart, logical and contemplative instead of a loose cannon screaming at Brooks to kill people at every turn. Serial killers are careful and clever and this was one of the few scripts in what's become a very tired genre that accurately depicts that. The arguments Brooks and Marshall have throughout the film make sense and move the story forward, while at the same time reflect Brooks' conflicted state of mind.

While the Brooks' character is given first class treatment the same can't exactly be said for Moore's Detective Atwood. She's a little too busy with various sub-plots and story threads you're not sure will tie together by the end. Most of them do, but one doesn't. Yet, there are even flashes of brilliance with this character. How many movies have you seen where a hard-boiled cop just happens to be a millionaire? She doesn't even need the job, or any job for that matter. A lesser script would introduce her inherited wealth as a plot device for some kind of blackmail or extortion sub-plot. Not here. It instead is used to invest the character with more depth and psychologically deepen the cat-and-mouse relationship between her and the unknown killer she's pursuing. Mr. Brooks respects her and what she's doing, which just makes him more afraid. He may have finally met his match.

I can't lie and tell you this is one of Moore's best performances (she's kind of stiff) but at least she's finally taken the kind of strong lead role she usually excels at and should be playing at this stage of her career. Tough as it may be to believe, Dane Cook does really delivers here as Mr. Smith, channeling his annoying persona to a film's advantage for a change. Maybe not having the pressure of being a comedy lead reined him in, allowing him to finally fully inhabit a character. Watch the scene in the parking lot with Moore's detective trying to rattle him. Cook plays it just right. I can't say for sure another actor wouldn't have done better in the role, but he does a great job with it. Maybe if he tackled more interesting roles like this in the future he'd be known as a hard-working supporting actor instead of one of our most hated celebrities.

Will Detective Atwood capture Mr. Brooks or will Mr. Smith turn him in? Will his family find out who he really is? Can he give up a life of crime? Will he live? The movie answers all of these questions and the last half-hour of this film is impressive, somehow converging all (or at least most) of the storylines and sub-plots in a way that's not only surprising and exciting, but holds up very well logically. When the film ended I had a feeling I hadn't had in a while. I actually wanted to see a sequel. Given the movie's poor box office returns that doesn't seem likely, but if there ever is, the possibilities are endless.

Hopefully, the film's odd originality will give it a well deserved following on DVD and we'll get the next two films in the trilogy producer Costner had originally envisioned. Costner has taken a beating for years from critics and audiences for what essentially amounts to just two horrible choices (you know what they are), but overlook the fact that when he's on he's really on. It's great to finally have that Costner back, at least temporarily. There's a lot to laugh at during the overstuffed Mr. Brooks, but when you look beyond that you see a smart, original thriller that takes some big risks. Even if you hate it, you can't deny its guts.

Bobby

Director: Emilio Estevez
Starring: Anthony Hokins, Demi Moore, Christian Slater, Martin Sheen, Helen Hunt, Emilio Estevez, William H. Macy, Laurence Fishburne, Sharon Stone, Lindsay Lohan, Elijah Wood, Ashton Kutcher, Heather Graham
Running Time: 120 min.
Rating: R

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

Emilio Estevez's Bobby is a misfire that fails so fascinatingly I couldn't turn away from the screen. It was like watching a train wreck. In that sense, I would recommend everyone see it. The movie is all at once mind-numbingly boring, unintentionally hilarious, and at times emotionally moving. The film features some career worst performances from major stars and some brilliant ones from lesser known actors. Major mistakes are made tackling a sensitive subject that borders on being downright offensive. Yet strangely, the movie is unforgettable and nearly redeems itself in the emotionally powerful last half hour.

The cast you see listed above is perhaps the most star-studded ever assembled in a film and given the liberal leanings of Hollywood and the connections of Estevez (who concieved, wrote and directed this himself), it's not exactly a surprise that major A-list stars were foaming at the mouth to be a part of it. What is a surprise is that someone thought it was a good idea for many of them to be in the film in the parts they were cast. It was definitely time for a movie about the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. This is supposed to be about what he stood for and how he affected the lives of a myriad of fictional characters who were present in Los Angeles' Ambassador Hotel in 1968, the day the 42 year-old senator was gunned down after winning the California primary. Only it doesn't completely succeed where it needs to. Estevez has his heart in the right place and the movie does succeed as something: Being one of the most unforgettably bizarre movie experiences I've had this year.

I cannnot possibly overstate how loaded this cast is, nor how sometimes it distracts unbelievably from the important issue at the center of the film. There are so many subplots and storylines (some good, a lot bad) going on I had to remind myself at times that Kennedy was going to be shot. It becomes almost an afterthought in the midst of what is essentially a nearly two hour soap opera.

We have William H. Macy as the hotel's manager who's married to manacurist Sharon Stone, but having an affair with switchboard operator Heather Graham. Macy just fired the restaurant manager Christian Slater because he's a racist who won't let Hispanics leave work to vote. Freddy Rodriguez is a busboy with tickets to see Don Drysdale's sixth consecutive shutout but can't go because he has to work a double shift. He gives the tickets to the Ambassador's chef, played by Lawrence Fishbourne. Martin Sheen and Helen Hunt are a married couple battling his depression and her superficiality. Lindsay Lohan and Elijah Wood play childhood friends getting married so he doesn't have to go to Vietnam. Anthony Hopkins is the retired doorman of the Ambassador who now just hangs around in the lobby and plays chess with Harry Belafonte. Demi Moore plays washed up alcoholic lounge singer Virginia Fallon, who's set to introduce Kennedy that night and is stuck in a loveless marriage to Emilio Estevez. Joshua Jackson and Nick Cannon are young Kennedy campaign workers who send Shia LeBouf and Brian Geraghty out into the field to get votes, but they instead hit on flirty waitress Mary Elizabeth Winstead and drop acid with hippie drug dealer Ashton Kutcher. And on and on.

There isn't enough space in this review to list all the ridiculous choices Estevez makes in this film but I'm going to attempt to try. First, there's the casting. I don't know who thought it would be a good idea to put Lindsay Lohan and Ashton Kutcher in major roles in a movie about the legacy of Robert F. Kennedy. Unfortunately for both, they're involved in the two worst storyline threads in the entire film further accentuating their unwelcome presence. I'm not saying this as a shot at their acting abilty, though neither are very good (Lohan's performance is merely adequate, while Kutcher is just plain awful), but more at the decision to cast them in these roles.

The second Lohan appears on screen it's distracting and I was taken completely out of the movie. It's not her fault she's such a huge celebrity (well, it kind of is) but how could she top anyone's list of who they'd want to see playing this role? If it's a movie about the day Bobby Kennedy was shot, wouldn't you want it to seem as authentic as humanly possible? I know this is a fictional account, but why not avoid a potential problem by casting a relative unknown instead of making Lohan have to act beyond her reach to overcome preconcieved notions. She's not up for it.

As for Kutcher, his appearance actually drew unintentional laughter from the audience. Bobby's probably rolling over in his grave. Even worse, his character serves no purpose other than as an excuse to show us there was drug use in the 60's. It's forced and unnecessary. This is representative of another larger problem with the film. This whole drug scene excursion with the campaign workers is funny, but not for the reasons Estevez wants it to be. The scenes are so stupid and ridiculous that it becomes hysterical for all the wrong reasons. Helping with this is Estevez blasting Donovan's "Season of the Witch" over the sound track because well, you know, it's 1968. There's even the mandatory appearance of Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence." Estevez also has the characters in the film have arbitrary conversations about The Graduate and Planet of the Apes just to make sure we don't suffer from time dislocation. There's also an annoying Czech reporter (cartoonishly played by Svetlana Metkina) determined to interview Senator Kennedy. Of course, she's in the film only so they can mention Communism and deliver the cruel irony of her never getting the interview. I'll give it to Estevez, though. He jams as many 60's social issues as he can into the picture. In just the first hour we witness infidelity, racism, mental illness, Communism, materialism and the anti-war movement.

The wisest decision Estevez makes is to not cast any actor in the role of Bobby. He instead intersperses real footage of Kennedy into the fictional story. Even though I felt uncomfortable seeing footage of the real man intercut with these storylines, Estevez at least knew the movie should be about the hope Bobby represented and any actor would have a rough time trying to convey that. The way this movie was cast I suppose I should just be grateful Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes weren't playing Robert and Ethel Kennedy.

With this many big names you are bound to have a number of different and interesting performances. Some actors come out of this circus unscathed while others don't. Anthony Hopkins has maybe the most useless role of his entire career as the former doorman. He hangs out in the lobby. That's it. Is Estevez trying to show how time can has passed these people by? I'm sure, but why is Anthony Hopkins in the role? It makes no sense to have an Academy Award winning actor to do nothing for two hours.

I did some research and found out none of these characters are based on real people. I'm glad because if lounge singer Virginia Fallon really existed her family would have to sue Demi Moore for slander. She gives an unbelievably campy performance, easily the worst in the film. I don't know whether to be relieved the character is ficticious or insulted it was actually written and conceived for the the screen. The saving grace of her performance is that she does her own singing and her voice is actually very good. Moore and Sharon Stone have an interesting scene together in the salon where they confide in one another the problems facing older women. This is clearly meant to draw parallels with the actresses' own lives, but what's more fascinating is watching Stone completely out act her.

Despite the trivial nature of the adultery storyline, Stone, Macy, and most surprisingly, Heather Graham, all give really solid performances. Christian Slater does career-high work as the bigoted kitchen manager who clashes with Macy. That Slater and Graham are such standouts amidst the names billed along side them should give you an idea how strange this movie is. With a small role, Mary Elizabeth Winstead also does a great job as the aspiring actress waiting tables. In just the few minutes of screen time she's given she seems authentic and real, acting how you imagine a waitress would in 1968. Why couldn't she have Lohan's role?

Nick Cannon and Joshua Jackson are also very good and they have much larger parts than you'd expect. Even though Estevez addresses the issue of racism heavy handedly, the performances of Laurence Fishburne and Freddy Rodriguez reach way beyond it. Fishburne especially. He gives a speech about race and society that forces you to sit up and pay attention. When he gets the tickets to the Dodgers game, he scribbles a message on the kichen wall and it's a heartbreaking moment because we know by the end of the night who's blood will be covering it. Rodriguez's performance is the heart and soul of the movie. His character is based on the famous photo of the busboy cradling Kennedy's lifeless body in his arms after the shooting. He makes us care about him so it becomes that much more emotional when that pivotal moment finally does come. Out of everyone, his character is the one that really connects.

A strange thing happens with the film when we finally see Sirhan Sirhan enter the Ambassador. It suddenly takes on an important meaning and everything ties together. There's almost justification for a lot of the ridiculousness we endured for the first hour and a half and I realized why we were introduced to all these people, even if at times they seemed like caricatures. I was even reminded of an important detail of the assassination that I had either forgotten or just pushed out of my mind during the film. This detail becomes important in realizing why the film was tracking so many random people in the hotel and their behavior. When he's shot the scene is scary, devestating and uncomfortable giving the rest of the film an eery brilliance, despite all it's flaws. It's kind of neat the way Estevez brings them all together at the end.

By the time the credits rolled, I felt film does pay tribute to Bobby Kennedy and the cold, hard impact his death had on the entire country and the world. There was a universal loss of hope you could argue we've never fully recovered from. What would have happened if he wasn't shot? He likely would have won the Presidency but how would that have affected things today? One of the things the movie does very well is draw a strong parallel between the turmoil and uncertainty of the 1960's and what's happening now. If you think about there isn't a huge difference and that may be the saddest message I walked out of this movie with. The last half hour to forty five minutes of this picture almost saves everything. Almost.

I just read a Roger Ebert interview with Nicolas Cage where Cage says he looks forward to getting mixed reactions to his films because it confirms he's working outside the box and evoking strong reactions. Even if they don't like it at least "they felt something." I thought about that comment after leaving the theater. I don't recall ever having such a strong reaction to a movie I felt was this flawed. Estevez at least had the creativity to fail interestingly and he gets credit for being a far superior director than writer. The movie is well-paced, beautifully shot and he deserves special props for being able to shoot some scenes in Los Angeles' Ambassador Hotel before it was torn down.

With it's end of the year release date and all-star cast this movie is clearly being postioned as Oscar bait. It should be interesting to see whether the Academy overlooks the movie's flaws and probable low box office to give it any nominations. Like I said, Estevez clearly has his heart in the right place with this project. It's just his mind I'm not so sure about. Bobby may not necessarily be good, but it isn't easily forgettable.