The Program

Director: Stephen Frears
Starring: Ben Foster, Chris O' Dowd, Guillaume Canet, Jesse Plemons, Lee Pace, Denis Menochet, Dustin Hoffman
Running Time: 103 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Here's a first. A biopic in which hardly a single aspect of the subject's personal life is addressed. But when your subject is embattled cyclist Lance Armstrong, you'd figure it makes sense that normal just don't apply, as they certainly didn't for him. As if the pre-release promotional art featuring Armstrong and giant syringe with the tagline, "Winning Was In His Blood," wasn't enough of a hint that Stephen Frears' The Program would be heavily weighed toward exposing the doping scandal that toppled an American sports icon, there are many instances in the film where the person himself fades into the background as performance enhancing drugs take center stage.

A quick glimpse at the list of Tour de France winners immediately reveals the seven blank spaces where Armstrong's name was, drawing so much sensationalistic attention to itself you start wondering if that punishment accomplished the opposite of its goal. Second only to O.J. Simpson as the most disgraced sports figure of recent times, you almost get the impression from watching this film that he'd bask in any kind of attention he could get. And that's why it's so cruelly ironic that hardly anyone knows this Lance Armstrong film exists or was even released, albeit briefly on V.O.D and theatrically earlier in the year.

Frears seems to present an argument that the man himself never really existed before that scandal and hasn't existed on any level since. It's tough to tell how much of that approach is deliberate or the result of crucial editing room cuts that excised what could have been deeper insights into his personality. Then again, what personality? He wanted to win at all costs and that's it. This a cold, clinical framing of events that's adequate enough because the detached style feels so oddly appropriate in this case. And they got the best actor they possibly could in both physical resemblance and temperment to play Lance, emotionlessly reflecting back at us our worst suspicions. It should be seen for that performance, which probably didn't get a chance to go to the places it otherwise would in a traditional sports biopic. In a way, that may have been for the best. Any portrayal of Armstrong as something other than a blank slate of deception would likely ring false.

Based on Sunday Times sports writer David Walsh's 2012 book, Seven Deadly Sins: My Pursuit of Lance Armstrong, the film covers Walsh's (Chris O' Dowd) struggle to expose Armstrong's (Ben Foster) use of banned substances in gaining an illegal advantage that led to his seven Tour de France wins. In tracing a link between the cyclist and notoriously controversial Italian Michele Ferrari (Guillaume Canet), Walsh opens the floodgates in eventually revealing the Armstrong-led US Postal Team's involvement in the most sophisticated doping program in professional sports.

While serving as a role model and ambassador for cancer survivors worldwide with his Livestrong foundation, Armstrong was deceiving not only the public, but the UCI governing body, which brushed off Walsh's valid claim while turning a blind eye to obvious signs of cheating in order to bolster cycling's bottomline. And in expecting teammates like promising newcomer Floyd Landis (Jesse Plemons) to risk their careers for the sake of protecting his reputation, Armstrong finally meets his match in the determined Walsh, who's gathering the necessary witnesses and evidence to finally let the world know their icon is a fraud.

The details absent from the film might be more revealing of its approach than what is. There's no information on Armstrong's childhood, what spurned his decision to become a cyclist or the collapse of his marriage. Screenwriter John Hodge seems to be working on the assumption it doesn't matter, and sadly, he's probably right. Armstrong's life as a public figure really began in the early 90's and the most damning information provided is he really wasn't all that good of a cyclist at the start of his career, making Walsh's eventual claims sting that much more. An early, cordial interview between the two is a highlight, setting the table for what follows.

The public and media's refusal to see what was right in front of their faces the entire time spoke to their desire to have a hero, and according to the film, no one knew that more than Armstrong himself.  In what pretty much plays as a synchronized summary of events that occasionally comes off as a full-on reenactment, the most controversial revelation is that his 1996 cancer diagnosis created a monster. The very idea he came so close to dying sickened him more than any medical treatment could, and it's here where Ben Foster's compulsively intense performance (he actually took PED's for the role) is off to the races, hooked to wires and wearing a Vader-esque oxygen mask to begin his evolution into this racing cyborg.

Bringing himself back from the dead to become the best cyclist in the world was how the media framed the story, and Foster plays with this righteous indignation that no one or no thing stops Lance Armstrong. Therein lies the birth of "the program" as Dr. Ferrari transforms the cyclist (and eventually his teammates) into his personal lab rats and we find out exactly how Lance evaded and manipulated the drug testing. One of the recurring mantras is his repeating, "I have never tested positive," as if in an effort to convince himself. Foster's delivery of it and his acting choices when visiting juvenile cancer patients give off just the subtlest pangs of guilt and briefest glimpse of what vaguely resembles a conscience.  How he and his agent Bill Stapleton (Lee Pace) raised his profile and reputation with philanthropic work and conned SCA Promotions founder Bob Hamman (Dustin Hoffman) out of millions are almost minor indiscretions compared to how he screwed over Floyd Landis in the film's most compelling sub-plot.

Played really well by Jesse Plemons as the cycling prodigy from Amish country, Pennsylvania, Landis puts it all on the line for Lance, only to discover what happens to people Armstrong no longer has use for. It's the final piece of the puzzle for Dave Walsh and when the walls start closing in on Armstrong, Foster plays him even angrier, more entitled and arrogant, as if anyone could have the nerve to expose his lies. With an untouchable attitude, the thought that all this could come crashing down doesn't even occur to this competitive athlete Foster portrays as a delusional narcissist.

As big a stretch as it seems, anyone who saw the recent O.J.: Made in America documentary could make reasonable comparisons, obviously not to the severity of crimes, but to their subject's unwavering sense of entitlement and lack of self-awareness. The argument that drug abuse was so rampant in cycling that Armstrong was vilified merely for obtaining the best results and perfecting a system isn't presented in a film where a syringe is credited with all the work. Ultimately though, it was the deceit that unraveled him.

This isn't one of Frears' stronger efforts visually, as some location shots look downright awful due to budgetary constraints and it's probably too short, not nearly expansive enough in depth for the issue covered. Presented chronologically, it moves too fast to ever really get a strong sense of time, place, or the public's reaction. This is a Cliffs Notes version of what happened, so while it's kind of dramatically flat in that respect, much of what's on screen works largely due to Foster's performance.

There's a scene at the peak of Armstrong's career where his teammates are speculating which actor could play him in a feature film version of his life. And yes, as strange as it now seems, Matt Damon and Jake Gyllenhaal were both once attached to what would have been at the time a far different movie. An inspirational one. Instead he gets Foster, but it's far from a downgrade as Armstrong's indiscretions send it down a darker alley this actor proves even more equipped to handle. Whatever its issues, The Program is still a better film than many feel the person deserves.

Top 10 All-Time Favorite Oscar Nominations (That Didn't Win)

Just to clarify, this is NOT a list of Oscar's biggest injustices or snubs, as you'd need a whole separate web site for that. While I'm sure there's little doubt Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz and Robert DeNiro were robbed in their respective years you won't find them anywhere near here. To give you a heads up these mostly start from the 1960's and beyond just because that's the Oscar history and films I'm most familiar with. These are my FAVORITE nominations, where just simply seeing them listed made me so happy I couldn't have cared less about the result (okay, I wish they won). The best news is that maybe only two or three of these would qualify as flat-out injustices and in a few cases what beat it was actually quite deserving. I'll keep the complaining to a minimum and just be grateful these were recognized at all since most years our favorites aren't, which made compiling this easier than it should have been. Below is a list of my favorite losing nominees and the ten I'd hand statues to right now. Here's hoping after Sunday The Social Network won't be joining them.

10. THE TOWERING INFERNO (Best Picture, 1974)

LOST TO: THE GODFATHER PART II

Tell me it isn't cool that they actually nominated The Towering Inferno. Some refer to the flagbearer of 70's disaster movies as the worst Best Picture nominee of all-time. Maybe they've never seen it, or if they have, lack a sense of humor. Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire a burning high rise and O.J. Simpson. What more needs to said? It's three hours of non-stop cheesy excitement and if it went on three hours longer than that I wouldn't have complained. With 10 nominees now I wish The Academy would make more wild, outside-the-box selections like this, provided they're deserving. This is. No shame in losing to The Godfather Part II. 
 

 
9. HAL HOLBROOK (BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, INTO THE WILD, 2007)

LOST TO: JAVIER BARDEM (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN)

"In 'Into the Wild,' that scene in the truck where Hal Holbrook is asking to adopt the young man, that is one of the best performances I've ever seen. It broke me into pieces. In life, as you grow and become comfortable in your own skin and create who you are you can escape from what you are. Then the whole disguise falls apart and you are just a human being. With a mature actor, you see a face totally naked, someone who is just speaking and being in front of the camera, and that is so powerful. That explains why performing is an art, when somebody shows us the sculpture of the human soul. It hits you and makes you wonder what you are."

That quote comes from Javier Bardem, who beat Holbrook to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for No Country For Old Men and it couldn't be truer. 2007 was the strongest year for film in a while and no one can begrudge The Academy for their selection here in an ultra-competitive category. Had another actor played the aging retiree who befriends Chris McCandliss (the unnominated Emile Hirsch) on the final leg of his journey the film wouldn't have even come close to carrying the same impact it did. His understated, dignified work took the picture exactly where it needed to go in its crucial third act. Classic "support" in every sense. 

   

8. KATE HUDSON (BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS, ALMOST FAMOUS, 2000)

LOST TO: MARCIA GAY HARDEN (POLLOCK)

Um....on second thought. Is it possible the Academy knew? That they glimpsed into Hudson's acting future and were trying to protect us. Regardless, we're supposed to be judging the nominated performance not the actress or the embarrassing work that followed. But in a single film she created one of the screen's most indelible female characters in Penny Lane and briefly filled us with hope that we'd witnessed the arrival of a major talent. We didn't. She deserved the win, even if in hindsight they look like geniuses for not giving it to her. The wrong actress came out on top, but Harden can now sleep guilt free.


 
7. PAT MORITA (BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, THE KARATE KID, 1984)

LOST TO: HAING S. NGOR (THE KILLING FIELDS) 

This and Best Original Screenplay tend to be favorite categories of mine year after year as I find that's where the most interesting work is. A nomination that best exemplifies that was the late, great Pat Morita's unforgettable turn as karate teacher Mr. Keisuke Miyagi in the kind of inspiring, mainstream supporting performance that's so good it's in danger of being taken for granted. The role of the old, wise mentor has unfairly been turned into a running joke by inferior performances before and since but that does nothing to diminish what the former Happy Days star was able to do with it. Few are even aware he was nominated, which is proof of how under-appreciated the performance is, as well as how infrequently the Academy actually pays attention. Luckily they did this time.


 
6. ELISABETH SHUE (BEST ACTRESS, LEAVING LAS VEGAS, 1995)

LOST TO: SUSAN SARANDON (DEAD MAN WALKING)

Nicholas Cage officially won an Oscar that he should cut in half and split with my favorite 80's actress Elisabeth Shue.  Both faced with the challenge of playing what's widely regarded as movie stereotypes (the drunk and the hooker with a heart of gold) they transcended those limitations, especially Shue who as the strong-willed Sera transforms it into something much sharper and smarter, free of any  cliches. Cage's work was so (justifiably) hyped at the time that voters could have easily snubbed her,  falsely assuming she was just along for the ride. But they didn't.  By her own admission she made questionable career choices following this and didn't translate the nod into greater success but that's okay. It's good enough for me that she can permanently and deservedly put the title "Academy Award nominated actress" in front of her name.


 
5. BACK TO THE FUTURE (BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY, 1985) 

LOST TO: WITNESS

Yep, it was nominated for screenplay. Among the many nominations Back To The Future should have gotten and missed in 1985 (you could make a serious case for Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, and Original Score) it seems a little strange it got the nod for Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale's original screenplay. Then again, it really isn't at all. It's the story, above everything else, that keeps bringing new fans to the movie and it's almost impossible to believe something so brilliantly constructed wasn't based on previously published material. That said, because it was overlooked in every other category it feels like the Academy's just throwing the film a bone here to make up for it. But it's the thought that counts, so thanks anyway. 

4. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (BEST PICTURE, 1971) 

LOST TO: THE FRENCH CONNECTION

I know. I can't believe it either. They actually nominated Stanley Kubrick's controversial ultra-violent, sexually graphic, ahead of its time A Clockwork Orange for Best Picture. And even better than that, it lost to a respectable film in good year. I'm shocked they recognized it all, especially considering it was banned in England, released with an "X" rating in the U.S and at the time hardly carried the flawless reputation it does now. They even nominated Kubrick for director.  One of the few cases where the term "it's a thrill just to be nominated" actually holds true.  

3. DUSTIN HOFFMAN (BEST ACTOR, THE GRADUATE, 1967)

LOST TO: ROD STEIGER (IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT)

I had to go back and double check this because I actually assumed Hoffman had won. A lot of people probably did, which tells the story right there. Maybe the most influential nomination ever in this category, its reverberations still being felt this year with Jesse's Eisenberg's performance in The Social Network (and to an even greater extent his work in 2009's Adventureland). Hoffman threw Hollywood for a loop, completely changing perceptions of how a leading man is supposed to look and act. Who even remembers Steiger's performance now?



2. E.T. (BEST PICTURE, 1982)

LOST TO: GANDHI

Let's not even try to pretend Steven Spielberg has made a film since that's equaled what he accomplished with E.T. There's nothing wrong with Gandhi per se  but this is one of the few selections here that could reasonably top any list of Oscar's biggest injustices. You know it's bad when even the director of the winning film says he thought E.T. was robbed.


 
1. STANLEY KUBRICK (BEST DIRECTOR, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, 1968)

LOST TO: CAROL REED (OLIVER!)

On the bright side, let's give credit to the Academy for at least acknowledging the greatest director to never win an Oscar with nominations for this, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon since his films, for all their brilliance, were extremely cold and polarizing, and definitely not for all tastes. His reclusive, press-shy reputation probably didn't do him any favors here, though we probably care more than he did that he lost, if he cared at all. What he cared about was the work and the results were evident on screen. Still... Carol Reed for Oliver!? Oliver! also won Best Picture, while 2001 went unnominated. Even those who hate 2001 would call highway robbery on this. Ironically, this year's big match-up has faint echoes of '68 with an unpopular perfectionist filmmaker attempting to defeat a safe, emotional, audience pleasing "Oscar movie." It'll be interesting to see if the Academy's finally learned from their mistakes.


MORE FAVORITES

Best Picture: Bonnie and Clyde (1967), The Graduate (1967), Star Wars (Best Picture, 1977), Apocalypse Now (1979), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Pulp Fiction (1994), The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Babe (1995), Fargo (1996), There Will Be Blood (2007)

Best Actor: Peter Sellers (Dr. Strangelove, 1964, Being There, 1979), Dustin Hoffman (Midnight Cowboy, 1969), Jack Nicholson (Five Easy Pieces, 1970, Chinatown, 1974), Marlon Brando (Last Tango in Paris, 1973), Robert DeNiro (Taxi Driver, 1976), Woody Allen (Annie Hall, 1977), Burt Lancaster (Atlantic City, 1981), Robin Williams (Good Morning Vietnam, 1987), Tom Cruise (Born on the Fourth of July, 1989), Richard Dreyfuss (Mr. Holland's Opus, 1995), Billy Bob Thornton (Sling Blade, 1996), Robert Duvall (The Apostle, 1997), Nicolas Cage (Adaptation, 2002), Bill Murray (Lost in Translation, 2003), Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler, 2008) 

Best Supporting Actor: Alec Guinness (Star Wars, 1977), Gary Sinise (Forrest Gump, 1994), Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction, 1994), Brad Pitt (12 Monkeys, 1995), William H. Macy (Fargo, 1996), Burt Reynolds (Boogie Nights, 1997), Tom Cruise (Magnolia, 1999) 

Best Actress: Faye Dunaway (Bonnie and Clyde, 1967), Audrey Hepburn (Wait Until Dark, 1967) Jane Fonda (They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, 1969), Sissy Spacek (Carrie, 1976), Ellen Burstyn (Requiem For a Dream, 2000), Nicole Kidman (Moulin Rouge!, 2001), Diane Lane, (Unfaithful, 2002)

Best Supporting Actress: Janet Leigh (Psycho, 1960), Shelley Winters (The Poseidon Adventure, 1972), Jodie Foster (Taxi Driver, 1976), Melinda Dillon (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1977), Anne Ramsey (Throw Momma From the Train, 1987), Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction, 1994), Minnie Driver (Good Will Hunting, 1997), Julianne Moore (Boogie Nights, 1997)

Best Director: Alfred Hitchcock (Psycho, 1960), Stanely Kubrick (Dr. Strangelove, 1964), Steven Spielberg (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1977, Raiders of the Lost Ark 1981), Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, 1994), Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood, 2007), David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, 2008)  

Best Cinematography: Robert Surtees (The Graduate, 1967), Roger Deakins (Fargo, 1996, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 2007, No Country For Old Men, 2007), Emmanuel Lubezki (The New World, 2005) 

Best Original Score: John Williams (Superman, 1978, The Raiders of the Lost Ark, 1981), Ennio Morricone (The Mission, 1986) 

Best Original Song: "Eye of the Tiger" (Rocky III, 1982), "Ghostbusters" (Ghostbusters, 1984), "The Power of Love" (Back to the Future, 1985), "Blaze of Glory" (Young Guns II, 1990), "Save Me" (Magnolia, 1999) 

Best Original Screenplay: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Easy Rider (1969), American Graffiti (1973), Star Wars (1977), E.T. (1982), Brazil (1985), Big (1988), Boogie Nights (1997), The Truman Show (1998), Bulworth (1998), Being John Malkovich (1999), Magnolia (1999), Memento (2001), The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), The Squid and the Whale (2005) 

Best Adapted Screenplay: Dr. Strangelove (1964), The Graduate (1967), A Clockwork Orange (1971), Apocalypse Now (1979), The Stunt Man (1980), Full Metal Jacket (1987), Field of Dreams (1989), JFK (1991), The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Leaving Las Vegas (1995), Wag The Dog (1997), Out of Sight (1998), Primary Colors (1998), Wonder Boys (2000), Adaptation (2002)

Last Chance Harvey

Director: Joel Hopkins
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Emma Thompson, Kathy Baker, James Brolin, Liane Balaban, Eileen Atkins, Richard Schiff,
Running Time: 93 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

As an adult drama, Last Chance Harvey explores a familiar idea and goes where a lot of films have gone before. Some have done it better, but many more have done it worse. It's restrained and subdued, taking its sweet time to get where it needs to go, but doing so in an agreeable, intelligent fashion. One half of the film works better than the other but at least the focus is on real people we care about rather than stock movie characters pigeon-holed into a romantic plot. But the most newsworthy development here is that it features Dustin Hoffman's best performance in ages, reminding us just how much we've missed him as a lead performer.

The temptation will be to just label this as "BEFORE SUNRISE WITH OLD PEOPLE" but to be fair it is a story that transcends age. It's always scary when you're watching a movie and the main character reminds you of yourself. Even scarier is when you realize this character is depicted as a down on his luck loser. So no, this isn't just a movie for the older set but for anyone of any age who has ever experienced failure and disappointment in their lives and hoped someone's out there who knows exactly how they feel. This film tells what happens when they show up.

Harvey Shine (Hoffman) is a commercial jingle composer at the end of his rope. He once had dreams of becoming a Jazz pianist but now he's one strike away from losing his job as he heads to London for his estranged daughter Susan's (Liane Balaban) wedding. When he arrives things only get worse. Hauled up alone in a hotel his daughter and ex-wife (Kathy Baker) barely acknowledge his existence and all his attempts to bring levity to the situation fall flat. The ultimate slap in the face comes when his own daughter tells him that she wants her step-father Brian (James Brolin) to give her away instead of him. Dejected beyond belief, he prepares to head back to New York.

Enter Kate (Emma Thompson) a single London woman dealing with some issues of her own, such as being set up on disastrous blind dates and caring after her widowed and somewhat delusional mother (Eileen Atkins). The movie cuts back and forth between Harvey and Kate's frustrating day before it intertwines at the airport, with their intitial encounter starting off on the wrong foot. Once the ice is broken the two strangers realize they not only have everything in common, but a real emotional connnection. So much so that even the depressed, cynical Harvey has trouble bringing himself to leave London in part because he feels guilty about skipping his daughter's reception, but mostly because of Kate. He just needs a little push and she's there to give it to him.

It's fun to watch the movie as kind of like a quasi-sequel to The Graduate. What would have happened to Benjamin if things didn't work out with Elaine? If all his plans and hopes fell through? He'd probably end up something like Harvey and Hoffman plays him as only Hoffman can. Harvey stutters, stammers, trips, tells bad jokes and says all the wrong things at the wrong times. He's us.

Some actors are hired for their looks or "movie star charisma" but Hoffman has always been an entirely different kind of actor, specializing in characters who reflect how we see ourselves when we're at our worst. Defeated. Nervous. Lacking confidence. And he always digs deep to find honor and dignity buried in that somewhere. While it may seem pathetic to say that of all the screen characaters of 2008 I most relate to a divorced, unemployed sixty-something jingle composer whose life is a wreck, it isn't when Hoffman's playing him. It's been years since he had a role like this well developed and if it were a less crowded year for Best Actor he would have had a legitimate shot at a nomination.

The film and Hoffman make us question whether it was indeed Harvey's family who ostracized him or Harvey who ostracized himself from them with his defeatist attitude. His ex-wife and daughter aren't bad people and even his "replacement," Brian isn't such a bad guy. They're not trying to exclude him, but Harvey's attitude just makes it too easy. He's closed himself off in every way. Almost inevitably, Kate's circumstances aren't nearly as interesting, but at least they're REAL and the actors share a chemistry where you feel the scripts were thrown out and you're just watching Dustin and Emma. Thompson's big scenes come later on, where we have to reevaluate just who this relationship might be scarier for. The film touches on the important point that when you're so comfortable with disappointment and failure the first reaction to someone trying to take that away will be anger.

Anyone searching for dramatic excitement should go elsewhere but if you want an intellectually stimulating film about real people that will have to thinking about life after the credits role, you've come to the right place. If anything, the film could have been longer because despite the slow moving narrative and laid-back approach, the courtship between the characters feels somewhat rushed. I wanted to spend more time with them. I have no problem believing two people could fall in love that quickly, but you really have to make sure the limited time really counts in a huge way or don't make it as limited. It's no Before Sunrise (or even Before Sunset) but despite being safe and formulaic the two strong lead performances cover up the shortcomings in writer/director Joel Hopkins' script.

I had the choice between watching this, Tom Cruise as a one-eyed Nazi or an overweight mall cop on a Segway. The choice was easy. I'm sure I'll watch the other two soon and they'll be barrels of fun but sometimes you're just not in the mood for anything loud or obnoxious, just a modest film about good people who make mistakes and learn from them. It's a rare relief when an adult romance avoids stupid cliches and just trusts the actors to tell the story. Last Chance Harvey doesn't try too hard, which is its most endearing quality.

Kung Fu Panda

Directors: Mark Osborne and John Stevenson
Starring: Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, David Cross, Ian McShane, Jackie Chan, Lucy Liu
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: PG

*** (out of ****)

Kung Fu Panda is a fun and reasonably entertaining family film that can’t help but suffer a little from Post-WALL-E syndrome. While this was released into theaters nearly a month before Pixar’s masterwork I’m just getting around to it now and that timing isn’t exactly beneficial. In telling a simple story in a simple way and not aspiring to do much more this could be considered the cinematic animated equivalent of a pleasant walk in the park. It’s unfair to hold Dreamworks to the same standard as Pixar but taken on its own terms this is still the kind of movie that would have you leaving the theater telling your friends how “cute” it was. And you’d be right. That’s pretty much what it is. But there’s still some honor in executing a tried and true formula efficiently and in such a way that audiences of all ages can enjoy it.

For older kids and adults it really won’t be anything they haven’t seen before but I'm guessing small children will absolutely love it and likely beg for multiple viewings. In fact, they’ll probably like it much more than WALL-E because it movies at a brisker pace, is easier to understand and doesn’t contain jokes that will fly over their heads. In other words, they won’t be bored. But the more important newsworthy item coming out of this is that it took an animated film to give us one of Jack Black’s more restrained, intelligent performances.

Po (voiced by Black) is a Panda who works as a waiter at his father’s (James Hong) noodle restaurant and daydreams of becoming a martial arts hero, despite being rather lazy and out of shape. The old, wise Yoda-like turtle Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) has a vision that the vicious snow leopard Tia Lung (Ian McShane) will escape from prison to gain vengeance on his former master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) and wreck havoc in the Valley of Peace. He must choose and anoint the Dragon Warrior to defeat him.
Despite having top candidates for the honor amongst the "Furious Five," comprised of Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (David Cross) and Crane (Lucy Liu), Oogway selects Po, the overweight Panda with no martial arts experience. The "Five" are none too happy about it, nor is Shifu who’s designated the thankless, near-impossible task of training him for his showdown with Tia Lung. At first all seems hopeless, but Shifu finds a way to unearth his true potential and prepare him for battle with the dangerous Tia Lung.

The film boats an impressive array of big-name actors providing voice over work, yet strangely it seems as if only a couple contribute anything of value. A big fuss was made about Angelina Jolie’s presence but it’s a completely useless part and hardly the co-headlining role commercials and print advertisements have made it out to be. The same could be said for the other four members of the "Furious Five" as well. With talent like Seth Rogen and David Cross on board you’d figure they’d be given much more to do. It doesn’t really hurt the film per se and the roles fill their necessary (if somewhat lackluster) function in the story but it’s obvious the studio was just seeing dollar signs and not thinking whether their vocal talent would add anything to the film. It’s the very definition of stunt casting.

Luckily, the two major roles of Po and his trainer Shifu are exceptionally cast with Black and Hoffman. Those worrying that the usually manic Jack Black providing a voice for an animated feature would conjure up images of nails on a chalkboard can rest easy. He invests Po with a low-key charm and easygoing nature making him impossible to not root for. Of course you could joke that all of Black’s roles are cartoonish in nature so this would seem right up his alley, but he’s surprisingly restrained in this and while his voice is recognizable, it’s never a distraction. Hoffman’s voice is a little less recognizable (I didn’t even know it was him until after checking the credits), but he brings an authoritative but ultimately very caring dimension to Shifu. McShane’s voice is appropriately menacing for Tia Lung, even if this is your typical animated villain interchangeable with virtually any Disney film from the past 30 years.

Kung Fu Panda’s greatest strength is the writing as screenwriters Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger know what boxes to check and do so in an effective, workmanlike fashion. You have an outcast with a dream who must dig down deep inside himself to overcome impossible odds and the mentoring figure who helps him do it. We know how it starts, how it develops and where it ends up, although at a very quick 90 minutes it seems to get there before you can blink. Honestly, this movie felt like it was no longer than five minutes, which is probably a compliment.

The animation is just fine. Nothing special, but it doesn’t need to be because the film’s bread is buttered with the story and likable protagonist. I can’t say I was at all emotionally involved in what happened to him since the set-up is so standard but I was smiling the entire way through. If there’s a weak link it’s the action scenes, which are so fast-paced it’s sometimes difficult to tell what’s going on. It’s also hard to be concerned about the safety of Po considering no one in the film seems capable of even being hurt.

Have I made the movie sound unexciting enough for you? It’s actually a lot fun but if you go into expecting anything more than that you’re in for a letdown. I wish I could tell you about all the groundbreaking revelations Kung Fu Panda provided but the truth is that it’s good in the most average, common way possible. It’s proof that sometimes a really good movie can be less interesting than a bad one when it follows a predictable pattern we’ve seen many times before. I’d much rather watch a movie with more ambition that tries something different and fails than this, but since it’s frequently entertaining and hardly missteps it earns a passing grade. The film will be Oscar nominated for Best Animated Feature not because it’s so great but because there are only three slots to fill in that inane category. It will also lose.
I’m not surprised the movie raked in as much money as it did because it caters to its target audience really well and packs enough extra in to satisfy everyone else. Yet when it ended I couldn’t help thinking it could have been much better. Or even more perplexingly, maybe it couldn’t have been. Maybe this really is as good as was possible and we’re just spoiled. If that’s the case then there’s cause for celebration. It means we’ve come so far in animated family entertainment that calling Kung Fu Panda merely “fun” could almost be considered a backhanded compliment.

Stranger Than Fiction

Director: Marc Forster
Starring: Will Ferrell, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffman, Queen Latifah, Tom Hulce, Linda Hunt Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 113 min.

**** (out of ****)

Over the past couple of weeks I've had the opportunity to watch some Oscar nominated films and review them. Two of which I even gave four stars to. They deserved four stars, but it was based primarily on technical achievement. When they were finished, I admired and respected the work that went in to to them even if they didn't reach me on a personal level. They kind of get what could be considered a "golf clap" from me. They earned four stars no doubt about it, but I'll be honest and say I'll probably never watch either of them again.

So, what does Stranger Than Fiction have in common with this year's Best Picture Oscar nominees? Absolutely nothing, because it's better than all of them. When I watch a movie I want to laugh. I want to cry. When it's finished I want to eject a disc out of my DVD player knowing I experienced a film that tells us something about ourselves and makes us think. Stranger Than Fiction is a tragedy, a comedy, a romance and a coming of age tale all rolled up into one

Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) is an I.R.S. agent stuck in what could be called a routine. He wakes up every morning to the alarm on his perfectly synchronized Timex watch, counts the exact number of brushstrokes as he cleans his teeth, catches his bus at the exact same time every morning, counts his steps on his way into the office and takes a perfectly timed thirty second coffee and forty five minute lunch break every day. It's time efficient. In actuality, he leads a painfully boring existence, but that doesn't really occur to him. It wouldn't since those immersed in their routine rarely stop to consider if they're bored or not, or more importantly if they're even remotely satisfied or happy. 

Things change for Harold one morning when he's brushing his teeth and hears the voice of a woman with a British accent narrating everything he's doing. What he doesn't realize yet is he's the main character of the comeback novel of author Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson), a chain-smoking, suicidal recluse with a bad case of writer's block. She can't seem to find a way to kill Harold Crick and her publisher has hired her an assistant (Queen Latifah) to get her out of her funk.

Meanwhile Harold seeks help from a psychiatrist (Linda Hunt) who tells him he has schizophrenia and renowned literary professor Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman) who tries to get to the bottom of whether he's in a tragedy or comedy. On top of this he finds he must audit the tax return of Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a free-spirited, tattooed bakery owner who hates Harold because...well, he's an I.R.S. agent. You're supposed to hate I.R.S. agents. A funny thing happens. He starts having feelings for her and bumbles his way through many of their encounters, consistently embarrassing himself. That doesn't matter though. What matters is that for the first time Harold is actually feeling something and must come to terms with it in the face of his "iminent death" at the hands of Eiffel's story.

How he handles the news he's about to expire is surprising and touching, taking the story in new directions and affecting everyone around him, especially the author. It's a movie about an awakening, not just for Harold but for everyone in his story. Kay Eiffel's book within the movie forces Harold to take action and be become, for the first time, driving force of his own destiny. It forces the other characters in his life to examine how he's affected him and delivers a message (without pounding us over the head with it) that everyone is important and every moment matters. This is especially true of the ending, which is pitch perfect. Some may complain it's a cop out, but how can it be? It ends the only way it can because the characters who are part of this story choose for it to. It's earned.

Zach Helm's script joins Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation and Being John Malkovich as the most original, intelligent screenplays to come along in a while. I always thought what separates a good movie writing from a great movie writing is the care taken with the supporting characters. It's tough giving each of them a life of their own but Helm does it, and Forster (aided by perfect casting) directs each of them to magnificent performances that fill every frame of this motion picture with humor and uncontainable energy. All the decisions made in the film make sense and are based on what these people would do, not dialogue a writer has written for them.

We believe Harold would take the advice of this looney English professor Hilbert because he's smart and his advice is surprisingly good. He might be crazy, but he's right. And what a joy it is to see Dustin Hoffman, for the first time in what seems like forever, in a great role that fits him. He works so little and is given so few opportunities to show what he has that we often forget he's still one of our most treasured actors. I loved how the care was taken to make the narration of Harold's life interesting and funny, giving us the impression that if this was a real book it would likely be a bestseller. Those only familiar with Emma Thompson as a dramatic actress will find themselves surprised at her dry wit and comic timing as Kay Eiffel, especially the way she plays off Queen Latifah's character. No one in the story is as deeply affected by Harold Crick as she is. In a way, he's part of her.

For me, one of the biggest surprises of the film was how well it succeeds not only as a morality tale, but as love story. On paper Gyllenhaal and Farrell seem like the weirdest pairing imaginable, but every scene they share together in this movie is a joy to watch. Her part's relatively small, yet she really brings a realistic quirkiness to it while still conveying an intelligence that lets you know she always knows what's going on. If Harold wants her, he has to earn it and she's not making it easy for him, nor should she. If anyone needs to be challenged, it's this guy. Their relationship develops organically and isn't forced on us by strange coincidences or plot contrivances. The chemistry between the two are electric, especially in a memorable scene where he plays guitar on her couch.

If you're going into this film looking for traces of Ron Burgundy or Ricky Bobby, you won't find any of it in Will Ferrell's performance. He's shy, reserved, restrained and introspective. Everything you wouldn't expect from him. In many ways he's perfect for the part because upon first glance he's amazingly ordinary in terms of looks and appearance. He's an everyman you'd believe wakes up every morning to a stagnant, boring existence. Yet, when the story and Harold's life kicks into high gear Ferrell turns it up to just the right level. Lately many comedians have tried to stretch their acting muscles in more dramatic fare. This should rank as the most successful attempt and if the Academy ever stepped outside the box every once in a while I think they'd notice Ferrell's work was nomination-worthy. However his own skit on the Oscar telecast jokingly acknowledged his chances of a comedian ever being nominated for anything. Now that might really be a tragedy.

I'm actually very amazed, but relieved that a movie like this could be released by a major studio. I'm also surprised a movie could take a premise as promising as this and not squander it somehow. It's such a high concept, the film was almost destined not to live up to it. But director Forster knew the premise he had and was determined to have it cross the finish line in one piece. The film's been compared endlessly to 1998's The Truman Show about a man (Jim Carrey) unwittingly starring in a t.v. show about his life. That was an incredible movie, but it rarely touched on as many issues as this. With all the sequels and remakes being vomited out by Hollywood these days I sometimes wonder if there are no more new ideas and every story has been told. A movie like Stranger Than Fiction proves that isn't the case and reaffirms our faith that the well of creativity hasn't run dry yet.