Armageddon Time

Director: James Gray
Starring: Anne Hathaway, Jeremy Strong, Banks Repeta, Jaylin Webb, Anthony Hopkins, Tovah Feldshuh, Ryan Sell, John Diehl, Jessica Chastain, Andrew Polk
Running Time: 115 min.
Rating: R 

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

While watching writer/director James Gray's semi-autobiographical, coming-of-age drama Armageddon Time, it's almost impossible not to subconsciously think of Steven Spielberg's The Fabelmans. But even as both respected filmmakers' childhoods are defined by complicated relationships with their Jewish families, there are key differences. This is more intimate, dryer and less showy than Spielberg's effort, which isn't necessarily a put down. And with the exception of a couple of cameos sure to stir debate, it's not nearly as eccentric. A subdued experience that functions as a time capsule of early eighties New York, it's also a project that transcends the director's own nostalgia to convey larger points about inequality and prejudice. 

Gray deserves credit for making this less about him than how a kid his age viewed a changing world. Known for smaller character driven pieces, it snuggly fits into his filmography, and since Gray isn't the public figure Spielberg is, it feels like less of an event. But that works well in managing viewer expectations, enabling us to more easily lose ourselves in the story and performances. Despite a downbeat tone, the care and attention to detail make it a comfortable universe to reside in for nearly two hours, as its young leads convey an authentic friendship that's tested by the biases surrounding them.  

It's 1980 in Queens, New York and on his first day of sixth grade, Paul Graff (Banks Repeta) befriends a rebellious African-American student named Johnny Davis (Jaylin Webb), who was held back a year. When the two start getting into trouble, Johnny receives the brunt of the blame, while Paul's ambitions of becoming an artist are scoffed at by his caring but strict Jewish parents, Irving (Jeremy Strong) and Esther (Anne Hathaway). Only grandfather Aaron Rabinowitz (Anthony Hopkins) encourages his artistic pursuits and dispenses sage advice, while still acknowledging he has some growing up to do.

When the two boys are caught smoking a joint in the school restroom, Paul is sent to the same private school as his older brother Ted (Ryan Sell), trying to fit in as he and Johnny's bond is challenged by the move. Feeling burdened by the weight of his parents' lofty expectations, Paul soon realizes just how much his friend's perilous situation is dictated by outside forces far beyond their control.   

Shot in this brownish, old timey hue by cinematographer Darius Khondji, it sometimes feels as if this takes place earlier than 1980, with references to the Beatles and just a general feeling that Paul's being guided into conforming to the standards of his parents and grandparents' generation rather than his own. Some of the best scenes are at school, with him and Johnny immediately forging a friendship based on shared interests and a penchant for creating chaos. 

The story reaches a point that that you start wondering whether the adults are inadvertently pouring gasoline on the fire, with the kids' behavior worsening with each new warning or consequence. We also get the impression that they're being held to entirely different standards, with many believing Paul's been corrupted by this new black kid in class. That both could be equally responsible rarely crosses anyone's minds, leading to even uglier consequences later on.

Paul dreams of becoming an artist and Johnny intends to work for NASA, but both are discouraged at every turn, which is ironic considering how anyone today would be impressed a pair sixth graders have such grand ambitions at all. But these goals are really only attainable for Paul, who's white. Johnny has no parents and lives with his grandmother, while his more privileged, connected friend has a mom on the school board and a hard working father with high standards. Young actors Repeta and Webb are extremely likable in their roles, even when doing unlikable things. And is this gets progressively heavier, both are up to the task, subtly projecting a potential in their characters that flies over the heads of these authority figures.    

Anthony Hopkins makes the most out of his supporting role as the boy's pragmatic grandfather, a wise, empathetic figure who stands in stark contrast to Paul's dad, or so we think. It's revealed just how much the pressure of living up to that example weighs on Irving, with a performance from Jeremy Strong that only becomes more nuanced as the film progresses, establishing the character as someone more than a strict disciplinarian who reaches for the strap every time Paul tests him. 

Hathaway is effortless in her part, sliding into Gray's early 80's universe as a working mother  contemplating conflicted feelings of concern and uncertainty over the right way to handle their son's behavior. Paul fears the beating of his young life when his dad discovers his worst transgression yet, only to realize that's preferable to the actual punishment, which involves a transfer to Forest Manor Prep in Queens. This leads to a face-to-face encounter with the school's primary financial donor, a mustachioed businessman by the name of Fred Trump (John Diehl). 

If that wasn't enough, Paul even sits through a speech by Fred's daughter and school alumna Maryanne Trump (Jessica Chastain). So even if it may be more interesting to watch a documentary detailing Gray's conversation with the Oscar winner about taking the role, this apparently happen, as the family's involvement at Forest Manor during this time is quite real. Their brief inclusion, as shocking as it is, does seem less about them than what they represent. Fred's most infamous son may not be in it, but Gray's intentions still come across loud and clear.

Maryanne's motivational talk foreshadows the film's ending, even if Gray has a tougher time directly tying that to the featured news clips of Ronald Reagan, who takes more of a thrashing here than the Trumps, as he's frequently mocked by Paul's liberal, minded parents. This all makes it sound like a political film when the intention is really to point out the uneven playing field Johnny continuously endures.

For certain people to succeed, others are inevitably thrown under the bus, and the best Irving can do for his son is make him acutely aware of it, preparing him for the inevitability that life's more unfair for some than others. There's a moment in the last act where Gray has an easy out, but instead decides to go a step further and write the characters into a corner that forces them and the viewers to confront harsher realities. It's through this that Paul realizes just how fortunate he is and how you sometimes take the lucky break, no matter how bad or wrong it feels. 

At its core, Armageddon Time is a period piece about kids who just want to be kids, despite having little wiggle room to learn, grow or make mistakes. And unfortunately for one, there's no room whatsoever. The hypothesis Gray eventually reaches is something we know, but isn't often expressed through a child's perspective. It's blunt but effective, leaving a lasting impression that sure to receive criticism better reserved for films far less accomplished at handling the tricky material this does. Gray walks a thin line in attempting to draw parallels between his childhood and the world today, but he mostly pulls off, enveloping us in a deeply personal story that suggests far broader implications.                                     

Burning Questions From The 2021 Oscars

 

With viewers more unfamiliar than ever with the nominated films this year, isn't it strange they didn't open with a big montage?

Isn't this whole setup unusual, even considering?

Doesn't the old school dinner table layout look like something out of footage from 1950's Oscar telcasts?

Wasn't Regina King asked to handle a lot for someone who wasn't officially the "host?"  

Content aside, didn't she do pretty well? 

After the cool visual of her walking through Union Station with the Oscar, didn't everything just start going downhill?

Did any chance of the show providing an "escape" pretty much go out the window within the first few minutes?

Was reading those andecdotes for the nominees probably a better idea on paper than in execution?

Weren't they kind of long-winded?

Was this their big plan to make the show more exciting?

Were you worried they'd just continue this all night without showing any clips of the nominated films? 

When The Father won for screenplay, was I thinking it's too early to miss a big one like that already? 

Can anyone really argue with that winning? 

Did Laura Dern steal Bjork's Oscar dress?

Where can I get one of those Oscar lamps on everyone's tables?

When Laura Dern very sincerely started talking directly to the supporting nominees, did you wish they'd go back to reading those andecdotes? 

Did Daniel Kaluuya take full advantage of the fact there was seemingly no time limit put on the speeches or live orchestra to play him off? 

Have we lost faith that Steven Spielberg can direct something of supreme importance again?

Having your doubts West Side Story is that movie? 

They're doing Best Director NOW? 

Is Zhao's victory a spoiler warning for Best Picture?

Is shaking up the order of major awards the only noteworthy thing they've done with this show?

Did they just play "Live and Let Die" right after Zhao's emotional speech about her childhood? 

How can they show no clips of the nominated performances or films?  

Didn't it feel good not have multiple sound categories screwing up your scorecard?

Did you hear the announcer brag about the show "running on time?"

Is she counting her chickens before they hatch? 

Can we get an update on that in about an hour?

Were you thinking "Finally!" when they actually showed clips of the animated films? 

Is this the first time I've gotten both Animated and Live-Action Short?

Did it all go out the window with Documentary Short?

Didn't My Octopus Teacher director Pippa Ehrlich completely win the night with her speech?

Didn't Tenet deserve more love at the Oscars? 

Don't you immediately think "Marilyn Monroe" when talking about Maria Bakalova in Borat? 

Am I the only one who still feels bad for Amanda Seyfried? 

Didn't that woman giving the death stare to the camera look thrilled to be nominated for Tenet?

How can you not smile at The Father production designer's career inspiration starting with One Eyed Willy's ship in The Goonies? 

Shouldn't I have known that black and white usually equals a Best Cinematography win? 

Then again, isn't it ironic Mank's Eric Messerschmidt won the cinematography statue Gregg Toland didn't for Citizen Kane?  

Is 80 years the longest the Academy's ever waited to make up for an Oscar loss?

Wasn't Harrison Ford reading the Blade Runner notes a pretty good bit?

At least by this show's standards? 

Am I imagining this or didn't Tyler Perry win a similar award already a few months back? Or was it a year? The whole thing's a blur. 

Seemingly overnight, has Zendaya become the most famous, recognizable actress?

So I'm guessing we won't be getting performances of the Original Song nominees this year? 

Did anyone call "Fight For You" winning that category? 

Did Andra Day's reaction to Purple Rain's lack of a Best Song nomination sum up everyone's thoughts on the Oscars? 

What did we just see with Glenn Close?

Can we really say the censors at ABC were working overtime when both bits were entirely scripted? 

Were they zooming through the In Memoriam segment this year or what?

Um, Jessica Walter? 

You don't hear the announcer bragging about making such great time anymore, do you? 

Best Picture...NOW?!

Did this placement basically just give away what category they're closing with? 

Did Frances McDormand just howl like a wolf? 

If Netflix can't win Best Picture in a pandemic year, will they ever?

Should we be glad Zhao's holding on to the Best Picture Oscar since Frances McDormand has a penchant for misplacing them?

Did I speak too early?

Does McDormand winning (again) prove right everyone's theory that the "Academy does what the Academy does?"

Were you worried what that meant for Boseman? 

Have they ever finished an Oscar show with the winner(s) being completely absent?

No pre-recorded message or anything?

How foolish were they for putting Best Actor on last?

Didn't a really big assumption accompany that decision?

Is that a mistake they won't be making again anytime soon?

While it couldn't have been handled any worse, can anyone really say Boseman was robbed when Hopkins, one of our greatest actors, won for the best performance of his career?

At 83 years-old, can anyone blame Hopkins for not taking the trip out there for this show?

After actually watching it, will he be even more relieved he didn't go? 

Has there ever been a more shocking outcome in the two lead acting categories?

Or such a flat non-ending to the telecast?

Were you thinking that at least the whole Moonlight/La La Land fiasco was entertaining? 

Does this whole debacle make as good a case as any to give the producers a heads up on who's winning? 

Do they need to be introduced to the concept of video packages in between segments?

Maybe having hosts isn't such a terrible idea after all? 

Are Anne Hathaway and James Franco still available? 

Does the "worst Oscars ever" complaining contingent actually have a good case for once? 

Doesn't it seem like they just completely threw the towel in on this year's telecast?

While simultaneously trying entirely too hard? 

Well, at least they made good time, right?

Is there a good chance that none of the major four networks will carry the show next year?

Would that be such a bad thing?

The Father

Director: Florian Zeller
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Olivia Colman, Rufus Sewell, Imogen Poots, Olivia Williams, Mark Gatiss
Running Time: 97 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Florian Zeller's The Father employs a brilliant narrative device in conveying the anguish and confusion that accompanies dementia, its entire stucture functioning as a full reflection of its themes and suffering protagonist's state of mind. Placing us inside the shoes of a man who's mentally and physically fading  by the minute is a big risk, but it proves to be brutally eye-opening in showing the impact of a disease that still very much carries stigmas and preconceived notions. That's it's almost unbearably difficult to watch is exactly the point, especially considering our disorientation from seeing this pales in comparison to the pain of those who have actually suffered from it.

Adapted from Zeller's own 2012 play, Le Père, it creates a self-contained world where time ceases to exist, events bleed into each other, and faces and names change. You wouldn't be blamed for assuming that's a description for a sci-fi story story rather than tragic reality, as most commericals and trailers haven't done it justice, selling the project as a Merchant Ivory-type production focusing on elder care. But in downplaying its chief conceit from ususpecting moviegoers, it's only all the more impactful when the pieces start coming together. And that's a courtesy never entirely extended to the main character, whose saddest, most devastating scenes arrive in fleeting moments of recognition, where he "knows" something's wrong, if not necessarily what. 

In a career of full of legendary performances, a good case can be made that this is Anthony Hopkins' best, finding inventive avenues to practically normalize the most abnormal behavior, actions and observations. While extremely uncomfortable to watch, this only seems to make its viewing that much more essential. Given all the attention paid over the past few year to films tackling important social issues, it would be a crime if this somehow managed to fall through the cracks.  

Anthony (Hopkins) is sufferering from memory loss and dementia, constantly misplacing items, failing to recall key names and events, or even recognize the most familiar faces in his life. When daughter Anne (Olivia Colman) visits him in his London flat and announces she's planning to move to Paris with her new boyfriend, Anthony's rattled. Confused as to who this person is and worried how Anne's impending absence could affect his routine, he becomes increasingly belligerent, digging his heels in and proclaiming he's not going anywhere, most especially a care facility. Having already gone through numerous nurses, the latest whom he accused of stealing his watch, a new caretaker named Laura (Imogen Poots) arrives, baring an uncanny resemblance to his late daughter, Lucy. 

Radiating wide-eyed optimism and a strong desire to help, Lucy's won over by Anthony's humor and charm, blissfully unaware that it won't be long before she's on the receiving end of his verbal abuse, however unintentional. While adamently denying he's suffering a cognitive decline, inexplicable occurances and the presence of an unknown man (Mark Gatniss) and woman (Olivia Williams) only further disorient Anthony. 

With Anthony rapidly losing his grasp on reality, Anne is pressured by her increasingly intolerant boyfriend, Paul (Rufus Sewell) to institutionalize him. Seemingly surrounded by so many, her father couldn't be more alone, with the disease's progression continuing to take its toll, completely isolating him in ways that seem almost unimaginable given the care and attention he receives. Through no fault of his own, none of it will be enough.

Every event that happens from the opening credits right through the final scene should be taken with a grain of salt. Under normal circumstances, this could be seen as a creative fault or labeled as manipulative by some. But it isn't long before you gradually catch on to what first-time feature director Zeller and co-writer Christopher Hampton are up to and how accurately this non-linear, zig-zag style structure reflects Anthony's plight, allowing us to see this fragmented world through his eyes. 

Regardless of how true it is, Anthony views his daughter's flat as his property, initially coming off as a cranky codger who would scream at kids to get off his lawn if he had one. Of course, that's the disease talking, making it impossible to form any concrete determination about his actual personality. With dementia fully taking hold, he can be an intolerable grump one moment, before coming off as a completely kind and engaging old soul the next, almost as if nothing's wrong. But it is, and Hopkins expertly flips that switch, giving us fletting glimpses of who he was before his faculties left him. 

As one of our great living actors, it's hard to call any Hopkins performance underappreciated but what he does here is remarkable, appearing to almost play entirely different characters throughout, gradually appearing more dissheveled and tweaking his speech patterns and movements according to how far along the illness has progressed. Ironically, the most apt comparision just might be his work in 1995's Nixon, where with the sheer force of his presence he seemed to physically will himsel into becoming the disgraced 37th President despite baring very little resemblance to the actual man.   

At various points, viewers will ask themselves why Anthony hasn't been put in a home already, wondering how much longer this man or those caring for him can possibly continue like this. That is until realizing we have no idea of measuring how much time has passed over the course of the film's running length. It could be a month, a year or even possibly longer. For all we know it could only be hours, but the screenplay doesn't ignore how it feels like decades for Anne or any of the aids who look after him. The strain on them isn't lost, and in one especially powerful dream sequence, she envisions a particularly cruel solution to the "problem," as if it isn't harsh enough describing him with that word. And yet Colman's performance is still so empathetic it's hard to judge the character or imagine anyone wouldn't also hate themselves for feeling the same way.

Anne's approach differs greatly from that of her boyfriend Paul's, which is viciously intolerant, highlighting the issue of elder abuse in its worst possible manifestation. But even here it's important to tread carefully when detailing events since we can't be sure they're happening exactly how they appear on screen. Like Anthony, the viewer is overcome with feelings of mistrust, disbelieving everyone and everything that's seen, until that frustration begins to turn to self-doubt. And despite being based on an acclaimed play and largely taking place within a single setting, most of what surrounds Anthony is constantly changing, sometimes in barely noticeable ways that challenge the audience to pay attention to even the smallest details within the apartment flat. This makes an emotionally triggering experience surprisingly ripe for repeated viewings in order to pick up on what was likely missed during an initial watch.  

Even when we're not completely sure what's happening, Hopkins ensures all the physical and mental signposts of Anthony's deterioration are present. Sometimes it's subtle, while at others it isn't, gradually worsening until it culminates in an ending that might be the most uncomfortable we've seen in years, with his entire state of mind regressing into childlike infancy. In personalizing the trauma by throwing viewers in headfirst, we're forced to confront the harsh truth of a rapidly vanishing mind. It would be flippant to call The Father an unforgettable experience since this material so painfully demonstrates that there's no such thing. Instead, it shows us that any memories, including those taking place over the course of this film, shouldn't be so easily taken for granted.

Thor

Director: Kenneth Branagh
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba 
Running Time: 114 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ (out of ★★★★)

Even if writing Thor off as a complete waste of time is probably something I should wait on doing until officially viewing The Green Lantern or Captain America: The First Avenger, the fact still remains that it's pretty underwhelming. It's yet another 2-hour commercial for Marvel Studios, who still seems more interested in promoting their other superhero properties than focusing on the task at hand. At this rate, considering the amount of time and effort they've spent promoting next year's The Avengers, that movie could turn out to be the second coming of The Dark Knight and no one outside its core fanbase would even care since it's been shamefully shoved down our throats for three years. They're at it again here, indulging in silly clues and distracting cameos. It's a big misstep, but hardly the worst of Thor's problems. Not when you have a sleep-inducing backstory for the protagonist, an overabundance of distracting CGI effects and a charisma deficient villain. Things get a little better once the story starts to play out and at least the most prominent role is well cast, but Marvel really needs to get its act together moving forward. As a mix of action-comedy and fantasy, Thor's somewhat original in its approach, but a disappointment just the same.

Most of the first hour is spent on Thor's origin story, and it's a drag. Information that could have easily been dispensed via voiceover or even a brief flashback over the opening credits feels like it's given nearly half the running length of the movie, in addition to those voiceovers and flashbacks. I understand the desire to give a detailed backstory so we care and it's commendable (it definitely worked for Christopher Nolan in Batman Begins), but the problem is that Thor's is silly. It's a weird and not entirely successful mix of mythology and comic books, with a Shakespearean style family feud thrown in for good measure. That the director is Shakespeare veteran Kenneth Branagh explains a lot, as does the presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins as King Odin of Asgard, father to Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston). When the quick-tempered Thor stages an attack against Laufey, the Frost Giant King, breaking a long-standing peace agreement, Odin banishes his arrogant son to Earth. He's discovered in the New Mexico dessert by scientists Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). As he adjusts to life on Earth S.H.I.E.L.D agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) is brought in to investigate, while back on Asgard Loki looks to benefit from his older brother's misfortune, scheming his way to the throne.

The scenes on Earth work much better than those on Asgard, if only because there are some decent comic moments with Thor trying to get used to life in 21st century America and Hemsworth's performance, while not as spectacular as everyone's been claiming, is solid. He looks the part and has surprisingly decent comic timing so it's difficult coming up with alternative actor choices that could have worked any better. Hemsworth (known primarily for his brief role as Captain Kirk's father in 2009's Star Trek) does what he can with the material he's given, even if there's no escaping the fact that a lot of the lighter Earth-bound scenes contrast in tone to the mythological fantasy nonsense it's interspersed with. Hiddleston's Loki comes off as more of a whiner with daddy issues than any kind of serious threat and the intended love connection between Thor and Portman's Jane falls flat and feels thrown together and underdeveloped. If they really wanted to go in that direction it would have been better to eliminate Skarsgard and Denning's characters to narrow the focus on Jane, but considering Denning delivers the film's best one-liners, she may have been indispensable. Given how much she's improved as an actress over the past few years, it's a shame to see Portman take on such a thankless role, but a relief that it likely would have been just as forgettable in anyone else's hands.

On the plus side, he involvement of S.H.I.E.L.D.(Avengers plug #1) Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson wasn't quite as distracting as I expected, but still kind of insulting when you realize we haven't been made to care about Thor to begin with.  As for the inevitable Samuel L. Jackson cameo (Avengers plug #2) as Nick Fury, it at least takes place after the film, avoiding the nightmare that occurred at the end of The Incredible Hulk a couple of years ago when a huge, showboating cameo in the final scene nearly upstaged the entire picture, pissing on the title character for the sake of promoting you know what. But there is a cameo during this film from an Oscar nominated actor (Avengers plug #3) that I won't reveal, but that I had to check what character he was and why he was there probably doesn't bode well for the impact it had, at least for more casual viewers who actually want to see a movie about Thor.

Over the closing credits there's actually a message (Avengers plug #4) reminding viewers to "See Thor in The Avengers." Thanks for the heads up. I'm willing to bet most of the people reading this review (and many others) don't even know what The Avengers is. If Marvel really wanted to promote that film a good start would have been to make this one as good as possible so we'd actually look forward to seeing Thor in it. This does some things right, but there's this inescapable feeling of it being just a teaser for something else, which isn't okay since that's what trailers are for. All movies are made to make money, but I shouldn't be able to tell that while watching them and those decisions shouldn't adversely affect the product on screen. The downside in the entertainment industry to the economic crisis is that everyone's playing it safe, not looking how they can creatively improve the movie they're working on, but promote the next one they haven't gotten to yet. And that, despite some inspired direction by Branagh, is the main problem with Thor. It feels like it exists to generate revenue for the studio rather than excitement for audiences watching it.

Fracture

Director: Gregory Hoblit
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Ryan Gosling, David Strathairn, Rosamund Pike, Embeth Davidtz, Bill Burke, Cliff Curtis, Bob Gunton
Running Time: 113 min.
Rating: R

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

Sometimes it's fun to see great actors "slumming it," so to speak, in mainstream popcorn movies. Watching Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling in Gregory Hoblit's legal potboiler Fracture isn't one of those times. Okay…maybe it is. Just a little. But that doesn't make this a good movie. I enjoy writing reviews but this time I was tempted instead of a review to post an interview with someone I know who's a lawyer. I'd have him watch Fracture, then ask about all the ridiculous events that occur throughout the course of the film and the likelihood of anything even close to them ever occurring in our legal system. That would probably be missing the point though.

This movie is just supposed to give us a good time and despite having one of the most poorly conceived scripts of the year, I could actually see how many may enjoy it. The 117 minutes fly by, it doesn't take itself too seriously and the actors appear to be having a good time with the material (or at least one of them is). In a way this could be thought of as one of the funniest comedies of the year since the events depicted in the film are so wildly implausible and over-the-top all you can really do is laugh. I know I did. Many times. However, the movie is ultimately too stupid for me to give it a recommendation and be able to look at myself in the mirror tomorrow morning. I'm all for checking your brain at the door and suspending disbelief when watching a movie, but this one pushes it past the limit, even for me.

Anthony Hopkins is Ted Crawford, an eccentric structural engineer in Los Angeles who upon discovering his wife (Embeth Davidtz) is having an affair, shoots her in the face. Assigned to prosecute Crawford's case is young hotshot attorney Willy Beachum (Gosling), who's on his way out of the public sector and on to a job for a prestigious civil law firm. This is his last order of business and should be nothing more than a walk in the park with a signed confession and a murder weapon. Or so he thinks. Crawford has already put into motion a brilliant (but in reality stupid and implausible) plan to frame his wife's lover (Billy Burke) for the murder. Without revealing too much lets just say his plan involves him correctly anticipating a series of events before he commits the crime that Nostradamus himself wouldn't be able to predict with any degree of accuracy.

Luckily for the film, Hopkins is in the role so anything he does, no matter how ridiculous it seems, comes off looking absolutely brilliant. I won't even try to imagine the train wreck this movie could have been without him. I will give the film credit for having the sense to actually show Crawford shooting his wife and leave no mystery at all as to his guilt right away. An even stupider movie (believe it or not, they exist) would have created some shadow of doubt as to whether he actually committed the crime. At least we know he did it and the rest of the film can be spent watching Hopkins and Gosling face off, which unfortunately isn't as thrilling as you likely imagined it to be. Crawford commits himself to finding Willy's "weak spot" and exploiting it. Needless to say, he doesn't have too tough a time.

Since this is essentially a courtroom drama we're treated to some hilarious scenes of Crawford representing himself at the trial. Whenever I watch the news and hear a defendant in some kind of murder case is representing themselves, I have to laugh. If you've ever seen something like that (for example the 1993 trial of subway gunman Colin Ferguson) you know what a joke it makes of our legal system. Hopkins is very entertaining here but unfortunately the reality sets in that he must bring some degree of credibility to Daniel Pyne and Glenn Gers silly screenplay. The judge lets him do some things in this courtroom that are just so absurd and unbelievable that I was rolling on the floor with laughter. If you're ever on accused of murder just pray this judge gets your case, or better yet, that Pyne and Gers write the script for your trial.

Those flaws would be fine if the film didn't phone it in when it came to establishing Gosling's Willy as a human being you actually care about. There's an utterly pointless and actually somewhat annoying sub-plot involving an office romance with an attractive lawyer (played by Rosamund Pike) training him for his new position at the firm. She doesn't want his last case in the public sector to turn into an embarrassment for her and the powers that be responsible for his hiring. Oh, and she wants to sleep with him. I mention it as an aside because that's exactly how the movie treats it. Since they're two good looking people who happen to work together they must have sex. There isn't even the slightest attempt to establish anything that resembles a real relationship between them unless you count their lusty stares at one another for minutes at a time. The writers, to steal a quote from Julie Gianni in Vanilla Sky, treat her as nothing more than a "f*ck buddy."

Not helping matters is that Pike, while beautiful, is a black hole of charisma, nearly sucking the life out of every scene in which she appears. The only time the film comes remotely close to giving us anything of interest related to this romance is when they go to her parents' house. It's here where the writers bizarrely choose to give one of the few intelligent lines of dialogue in the entire film to her father (Bob Gunton), who's a civil court judge. David Strathairn is completely wasted as Willy's superior who's trying to take Willy off the case when he starts fumbling it big time. They could have hired a member the catering crew to play the role and no one would have noticed. In fact, it probably would have been a lot cheaper.

This film doesn't really contain any shocking surprises (at least I wasn't surprised by anything that happened) and not nearly as much suspense as I expected. After all, it is tough generating suspense when the characters are all really just agents for carrying out the increasingly ludicrous developments in the screenplay. While Hopkins looks like he's having the time of his life and at least knows what kind of movie he's in, Gosling plays this dead serious and fares far worse. He thinks this is Half Nelson in a courtroom. I didn't care for that film, but at least the material wasn't below him. What's fascinating about Gosling is even though he's one of our best young actors he's yet to make a great movie. If he hopes to achieve that goal, these are exactly the kind of roles he should NOT be taking, as they don't play to any of his strengths as an actor. He excels when given a character with some life or depth to him.

If you approach this film in the right mindset (or lack of one) you'll have a good time since Hopkins is a real hoot. You may even be able to argue it's at least the funniest performance of his career, even if I'll always go with 2003's The Human Stain. Gregory Hoblit is a director known for churning out competent, if routine, thrillers (Primal Fear, Fallen, Frequency) and this isn't a departure for him, even if it does stand as one of his lesser efforts. In his defense though, there isn't much more he could have done with the material. He gets as much mileage as he can out of a laughable script, at least knowing enough to step back and let Hopkins do his thing. That's where this film's bread is buttered. So if you're up for it, go rent Fracture for a good time, but be aware that side effects may include the loss of a few brain cells

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.