From The Vault: Batman Forever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The Vault: Birth

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

** (out of ****)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From The Vault: The Stunt Man

Director: Richard Rush
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Steve Railsback, Barbara Hershey, Allen Garfield, Alex Rocco
Running Time: 131 min.
Rating: R
Release Date: 1980

*** (out of ****)

One of the many positive things to come out of the recent release of Grindhouse is that it finally shines the spotlight on the unsung heroes of movie making: stunt people. Zoe Bell's performance in Death Proof is the only instance I can remember where a stunt person is actually portraying themself in a film. They might have the most difficult job (and easily the most physically taxing) in movies, but must stand behind the curtain as the high paying actor or actress gets all the credit. Of course there are exceptions, as Tom Cruise supposedly performs most of his own stunts (which he's more than happy to tell us). You could probably name all the actors and actresses involved in your favorite action scenes, but try naming the stunt people who actually made them possible.

This got me thinking about the most famous movie ever made about stunt men, Richard Rush's The Stunt Man, which was received by critics as a masterpiece upon its release in 1980. It was considered to be the first great movie of the 80's, but time has instead revealed it as one of the last great ones of the 70's. While the press embraced it and it even earned a Best Actor Oscar nomination for Peter O'Toole, audiences stayed away and it fell off the map. The stress of actually getting it made, greenlit and its subsequent box office failure lead to a 14 year exile from Hollywood for director Richard Rush. While I don't think The Stunt Man is the masterpiece its fans proclaim and has some serious flaws, it is a lot of fun and worth checking out. If nothing else, it features an amazing performance from the great O'Toole and the most unintentionally hilarious film score you'll ever hear in your life.

Cameron (Steve Railback) is a fugitive on the run who stumbles upon the filming of a World War I movie directed by the eccentric and enigmatic Eli Cross (O' Toole). Cross offers to help Cameron hide under the condition he step in and replace his stunt man who was (accidently?) killed during filming. He falls in love with the movie's star, Nina Franklin (Barbara Hershey) but soon suspects Cross is crazy and attempting to kill him by eventually having him perform the very stunt that killed his predecessor. The whole movie and movie within the movie becomes a tighrope walk between perception and reality.

This may be one of the most far fetched films I've ever seen. If aliens came down and abducted every character in the film that would probably be more believable than what we actually witness. Here's just a few examples:

1) Despite a stunt man being killed on the set of a major motion picture there's really no formal investigation, yet a buffoon cop (Alex Rocco) decides to just hang around all week yelling at the crew and director, making empty threats to shut down production.

2) A man who looks homeless is taken off the street and replaces the deceased stunt man despite having no experience.

3) The beautiful star actress of the movie falls in love with the new stunt man instantly.

4) All action scenes in this movie are filmed in uninterrupted takes. They go on for up to 15 minutes at a time with the director not once calling for another take or yelling "cut!" The action is accompanied by what sounds like vaudeville carnival music.

5) This director decides it would be more convenient to travel around set on his moving camera crane (when they're not filming!)

6) This director also sets up a barricade so members of the cast or crew can't "escape." The police (who should be investigating him for murder) are not only behind the idea they later take cameo roles in his movie.

From what I just listed there you'd probably think I hate this film but nothing could be further from the truth. It's so bizarre and determined to entertain that you just can't. A lot of that stems from the performance of Peter O' Toole as Eli Cross (who supposedly based his portrayal of the egomaniacal director on his Lawrence of Arabia director David Lean). Even though Railsback's Cameron is the title character and in just about every scene, O'Toole owns this movie. He's charming, funny, selfish and arrogant, all while remaining completely likable and just believable enough to hire a criminal off the street to kill him in his film. The movie tries to juggle a lot of balls at once as it tries to be a dark comedy, an action/adventure, a romance, a mystery and a drama. By the end I think I came to the conclusion it was a dark comedy. I think. Without O'Toole the movie couldn't have even been anything.

Steve Railsback is adequate as the fugitive stunt man who may or may not be paranoid (even though his performance becomes whiny and irratating as the film wears on), but Hershey adds some real substance in a role that otherwise would have been forgettable. Now about that music. Dominic Frontiere's score for this film is so cartoonish and catchy I started to wonder if it was being done as a joke. It's distracting and hilariously out of place given the subject matter, but I'd be lying to you if I said I wasn't humming the theme for hours after the film ended. It sure is catchy. It's in my head now as I'm typing this. Maybe it's fitting a film this weird contain a musical score that's even weirder. Still, like most of the elements in this film, I have to give it a pass because there's no doubt it'll entertain the hell out of you.

The Stunt Man was released on DVD in 2001 in a special collector's edition, which includes a making of documentary entitled The Sinister Saga of Making The Stuntman. The doc is almost as long as the film itself (it clocks in just under 2 hours) and is hosted by the film's director, Richard Rush. I absolutely loved this documentary and it may go down as one of those special features that are actually as entertaining as the film itself. On very few occasions have I seen a "making of…" documentary where the director was this passionate and excited about the film they made as Rush is here. Some may think he's just stroking his own ego, but I don't think so. Even if he is, so what? He's proud of himself and the film he made and there's nothing wrong with that. He's like a 5 year-old at Christmas and his passion and enthusiasm for filmmaking is contagious. You can't knock that.

Rush seems to be having the time of his life explaining the technical and narrative aspects of the movie. He also isn't afraid to make a fool of himself and participates in some ridiculously cheesy visual tricks to demonstrate the themes of perceived reality in the film. The movie may not nearly be as deep as he thinks it is, but he certainly makes a good case. He hosts this entire 2 hour affair himself which had me wondering: Why can't other filmmakers be as giving as this guy is on their DVD releases? If he has this much excitement and enthusiasm for the film, how can I not? This was one of those rare cases where the supplemental material increased my appreciation for the actual movie.

The sad footnote to this saga of The Stunt Man is that Rush only made one other film after it (The 1994 Bruce Willis flop Color of Night) and all but disappeared from Hollywood. His problems with the studio system are even hinted at in the documentary as at times he comes across as somewhat bitter about the struggles he had to get it made and the audience reception. He entertainingly takes little inside shots at how studios aren't receptive to any idea that may be somewhat original and complex (a statement that rings even truer now) and criticizes them for trying to change certain aspects of the film. Good for him. He seems like the kind of guy who wants to make films he's passionate about and do it his way. It makes sense that he wouldn't fit into the Hollywood system, which could be the one thing he has in common with the fictional director O'Toole portrays in his film.

I've heard rumors that Rush was considered to be a judge on the upcoming Steven Spielberg/Mark Burnett reality show On The Lot premiering in May. I've yet to get a confirmation on that but really hope it's true because Rush seems like a great guy who could add a lot of insight and education into the world of filmmaking, even for the most casual viewer. It would be fantastic to have him back. For now though, we get to look back on The Stunt Man as fun, interesting entertainment that, despite its flaws, took risks very few films today seem capable of.

From The Vault: Closer

Director: Mike Nichols
Starring: Natalie Portman, Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Running Time: 104 min.
Rating: R
Release Date: 2004

*** (out of ****)

"A heart is a fist covered in blood!"
- Larry

"Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her clothes off, but its better if you do."
-Alice

Released in December, 2004 Mike Nichols' Closer (based on Patrick Marber's acclaimed stage play) is likely one of the angriest films about sex and relationships you'll ever witness. It unfolds like a chess game, with each character carefully making their move to inflict pain on one other and, in an interesting twist, using the truth instead of lies to do it. The film, which garnered supporting acting Oscar nominations for Natalie Portman and Clive Owen, also has some of the most insanely quotable dialogue in recent memory. The first quote you see above is actually one of the tamer lines in the film, but merely transcribing can do no justice to the ferocity with which Clive Owen's character delivers it. Anyone familar with the band Panic at the Disco! will probably recognize the second quote above (which was spoken by Natalie Portman in the most memorable scene in the film) because they took it as names for two of their songs.

It's a powerful film, yet when it was over I couldn't help thinking the whole didn't quite equal the sum of its parts. It checks in at a brisk but emotionally draining 104 minutes, which actually works in its favor because I'm not too sure how much more of it I could have taken. If nothing else, it's worth seeing as an actor's showcase as there are some really interesting performances amidst some admiteddly bizarre casting decisions. You'll see some actors in roles unlike anything you've ever witnessed them in before. For all you Natalie Portman fans out there (and I know there are many), you'll be happy to know that you can tell anyone if they watch one starring her, this should be it. But they'll have to wipe the drool off themselves when it's over.

"Hello, stranger." Those are the first words to open Closer as a magenta-haired Alice (Natalie Portman) lies on a London street after being struck by a taxi cab. She looks up at Dan (a whiny, annoying Jude Law), an obituary writer comes to her rescue and accompanies her to the hospital. It's the beginning of a beautiful romance. Well, no actually it isn't. It's the beginning of an emotional nightmare for this couple and one other, as well as for the audience.

Flash forward a year later and Dan has written a book based on Alice's previous life as a stripper in New York called (ridiculously as one character points out), "The Aquarium." He goes to the loft of photographer Anna (Julia Roberts) to get his shot taken for the book jacket and not so innocent flirtation soon turns into something more. Maybe the best moment in the entire film occurs when Alice arrives at Anna's loft to meet Dan. I'm not going to spoil what happens in the scene, but the way it plays out is nothing like what you'd expect and Portman is amazing in it. However Anna, who spends most of this movie falsely believing she's on a moral ground higher than the rest of these characters, puts the skids on the relationship.

An angry Dan decides to play a little prank on her. He poses as Anna in a dirty internet chat room and sets up a meeting with Larry (Clive Owen), a horny dermatologist who's in for the embarassment of his life when he shows up and the real Anna is there. The joke's on Dan however as Anna and Dr. Larry's mutual amusement at the situation leads to a relationship and eventually marriage. We flash forward again a little further to Anna's photo exhibit and the affair between Anna and Dan suddenly seems to be on again, in no small part due to Dan's needy, obsessive, stalkerish infatuation with her. It's here where the story becomes emotionally brutal and the characters hurt each other rather senselessly and pathetically. They hurt only with words, but those words are like a knife to the heart as Marber's dialogue jumps off the page and out of the mouths of these talented actors.

We're used to romantic dramas, especially those involving infidelity to follow the same general formula. A man or woman cheats and then spends most of the rest of the film lying about it or trying to cover it up. Then the significant other somehow finds out and everything explodes at the end. This screenplay does something very interesting by having the characters being completely open and honest about their heinous behavior, thus resulting in nearly every scene in the film exploding with conflict. The movie is extemely talky (as most adaptations of stage plays are) but it holds your interest because of the power of the dialogue and the conviction of the performances. It also raises the question that if you tell the truth, does that make what you've done any less worse? Sure, these characters are being honest with one another but they're doing it just to hurt one another and ease their guilty conscience.

You'll have fun ranking them on their levels of deplorability as you watch the film. Many consider Clive Owen's Dr. Larry to be the worst of the bunch because he seems to take way too much delight in hurling his hurtful but witty one-liners and, like Anna, has a false belief he's acting more responsibly than everyone else. I actually thought he was the most likable because unlike the rest of the chracters he at least had the self-respect to fight back even if his methods were questionable. Owen (who actually played Dan in the stage version) is known for playing dark, brooding characters, but here he starts out as kind of a hapless sap, who due to circumstances beyond his control is turned dark and brooding. It's a huge transformation but Owen pulls it off and it's no surprise to me he was also able to play the role of Dan on stage and Larry on screen. He's that versatile.

2004 was the year Jude Law was in just about every other movie and he's the weak link in this as he mopes from scene to scene adding nothing to the role of Dan. I realize this guy is supposed to be a loser and a coward, but Jonathan Rhys Meyers played nearly the exact same role a year later in Woody Allen's Match Point to far greater effect. Law just seemed to sleep walk through this. Julia Roberts is actually really, really good as Anna. That I believed Law's character would cheat on Alice with her (when on paper it would seem unfathomable) is a high compliment to Julia as an actress. There's also something really funny and exciting seeing an actress who's been known as "America's sweetheart" having to deliver the dirty, graphic lines she does in this movie. Here's an example of casting against type that actually works.

The most sympathy to be had is for Alice, in no small part due to the fact that Portman is playing her, which I'm sure Nichols knew. She gives a great performance , made all the more brave and admirable by the fact that, like Roberts, she is completely miscast. By the end though, our sympathy dwindles for her as we're given a hint she not only hasn't been straight with the other characters, but with us.

What's strange about the film is that it presents itself as a no holds barred look at sex, infidelity and relationships but there's absolutely no sex or nudity in the picture. The closest we get is the now relatively infamous scene at the strip club with Alice and Dr. Larry. This encounter should give Portman fans a heart attack and joins the list of reasons the pause button on a remote control was invented. It comes dangerously close to being offensive and expoitive but Portman's performance reigns it in. I read an interview with her saying she took this role to overcome her fears and prove to herself she could do something different like this. She did, but I'm not sure at what cost or whether that's the right reason to ever take a role. Supposedly a nude scene was filmed then taken out at her insistence. but trust me she comes close enough that it didn't really make a difference either way. From what we know about her and her previous film choices, this had to be an ordeal for her to shoot and I commend her bravery in doing it.

Since the movie was filmed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf?) we know at least an adequate job was done visually to make it look like it's an important film. I have to be honest though and say that by the end I'm not too sure what we accomplished. Everything seemed to go back to where it started off originally, despite Nichols' attempt to visually convey an amazing transformation of sorts (for Alice at least) at the end. That attempt, which really bookends the entire story, is set to Damien Rice's haunting and hypnotic song "The Blower's Daughter." I mention that not only because it's an integral part of the story because the music video for that song is the only special feature available on the DVD release of this film.

You'd figure if any film deserved an in depth analysis complete with commentaries and interviews it was this. How did Portman feel about doing that strip club scene and how did she approach it? What would director Nichols have to say about the deeper themes of the story and how he tried to convey them? You could go on all day. A film exploring as many issues as this deserved a double disc set. The movie may not be as important as Nichols intended it to be but there is a certain cruel irony in the film's title. When the story's over we feel no closer to the main characters than they do to one another, which is probably for the better.

From The Vault: House of Sand and Fog

Director: Vadim Perelman
Starring: Jennifer Connelly, Ben Kingsley, Ron Eldard, Shoreh Aghdashloo, Frances Fisher, Jonathan Ahdout
Release Date: 2003
Running Time: 126 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)
"Masterpiece" is a word I try to use very selectively when reviewing a motion picture and not after careful consideration. This is one of those cases where it applies. For some reason I had problems remembering what film won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2003, which is either a poor reflection on my memory or that film, but considering I usually remember what film won in any given year, I'll say it's more likely the latter. After looking it up, I found out it was The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. But it doesn't really matter.

What I can tell you with great certainty is that whatever film won that year was the wrong choice if it was released the same year as House of Sand and Fog. When it was over I felt like a better person for having seen it and felt like paying closer attention to how I treat people and how I view their behavior. For me, it was one of those rare movies that makes you think as well as feel.

After failing to pay false tax charge Kathy Nicolo (Connelly), a depressed recovering alcoholic who's husband just left her, is evicted from the house her father left her before he died. Now she's homeless and the only one willing to help is local sheriff Lester (Ron Eldard) who makes sure she has a place to stay and gives her the number of a good attorney (Frances Fisher). Before her and her lawyer can begin their fight it's auctioned off by the county and bought by Colonel Behrani (Kingsley), a former officer under the Shah in Iran who relocated his wife and son to America. He's had to work odd jobs just to make ends meet and they've been living in an apartment that's way beyond their means. After seeing the ad for this house in the paper it seems as if all his prayers are answered. He purchases it with the plan to renovate and resell it for four times it's worth, then be able to pay for his son's college education and improve things for his family.

The coastal Malibu house bears an uncanny resemblance to the family's former home in Iran further cementing Behrani's attachment to it and its representation for a better life in this country. He's now the rightful owner of the property, with a deed of sale to prove it. There's nothing Kathy can do. She 's lost her house. Behrani will sell it back, but ONLY at four times its value. What happens from here is shocking and heartbreaking and puts two total strangers on a collision course toward unimaginable tragedy and the saddest part of it is that it's really no one's fault. She thinks this man stole her house and in a sense, she's right.

He's living in a stolen house, as there was no good reason she should have been evicted in the first place. Regardless, he's the owner so he shouldn't, and isn't, obligated to return the house to her. He should be able to sell it for a profit and be able to provide a better life for his family. He's right also. They're both good people who would probably get along in most normal circumstances. In fact, they're great people. Except they're caught in a terrible situation where they make questionable choices and it brings out their worst qualities. These people could live next door to you. They're like you and I and that's what makes this situation so scary.

Behrani is an honorable man, but he's also very stubborn, somewhat hostile toward women, and can only see one side of the issue. Kathy is negligent, failing to open her mail for months, which would have informed her of this bogus tax charge. The character that drives the conflict forward like a freight train is Ron Eldard's Lester, a local officer who's essentially a nice guy but gets too personally involved with something he has no business getting into. The more the relationship between he and the lonely Kathy escalates the more it negatively impacts his ability to see the situation reasonably and act accordingly. Not only as an officer of the law, but as a human being. That's about all I can give way without spoiling anything.

Paul Haggis' Crash, which won Best Picture in 2005 explored issues very similar to the one covered in this film, but it lacked the real, raw emotional power that resonates throughout this film. With Crash, I was always aware I was watching a movie (albeit a very well made one) and that these people were brought together not by circumstances, but screenwriting. I never got that feeling watching this as it doesn't strike a false note once. Every single action each character takes in this story I believe they would take. I believe anyone in their situation would take it.

There's a tendency when criticizing films these days for everyone to dismiss any movie that has tragedy befall it's characters as "contrived." I hate it as much as the next person when a movie tries to elicit unearned sympathy. In this movie though, it's earned. Sometimes in life good people do bad things to one another and tragedy occurs. That's a fact. We can choose to look the other way or admit to ourselves when a film like this comes along that we can learn something from. It's honest. Even it's characters are honest with one another when they're behaving at their absolute worst.

In some ways, this film reminded me of Todd Field's In The Bedroom, but even that film contained a character that could clearly be identified as the villain. Here, the situation's trickier and as a result more morally complex. I'm sure many would identify Eldard's cop as the villain, but even he starts out with pure intentions and is essentially trying to do the right thing by helping this woman. What he doesn't count on is how he'll feel about her and how that will effect his relationship with his wife and kids and Behrani's family. He's not trying to hurt anyone, but as the situation worsens so do his decisions and his prejudices slowly begin to surface. Morally he is the most flawed character as he ends up stepping way over the line and abusing his authority as an officer of the law. Supposedly women audiences really hated the Kathy character because they thought she was "too weak." But Kathy can't reach out to her family for help because she's afraid what they'll think of her. Anyone else would be too.

This movie, based on the 1999 bestselling novel of the same name by Andre Dubus III, was written and directed by Vadim Perelman, who's best known for his work on televison commercials and videos. Amazingly this is his first feature film and he was drawn to the material when he read the book on a flight to one of his commercial shoots. He has said the book spoke to him personally as he himself was an immigrant from Russia and could relate to many of the story's themes. I haven't read the book (although I definitely will now) but I have the feeling Dubus had to have been pleased with this adaptation.

The movie was shot beautifully by Roger Deakins, who is probably the best cinematographer working today and whose impressive credits include The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo and A Beautiful Mind. The ominous, foggy coastal shoreline becomes as much of a character as anybody else in the film the way Deakins shoots it, as he never ceases to amaze when he's behind the lens.

Perelman made his first order of business obtaining Ben Kingsley for the role of Colonel Behrani and what a wise choice he made as I can't imagine anyone else doing this role the justice he does. Kingsley won the Best Actor Academy Award in 1982 for Gandhi, but his performance here is better. Luckily, the Academy did see fit to nominate him for again in 2003 for his work here, but unfortunately this time Sir Ben lost to Sean Penn for Mystic River. Having now seen both performances I can officially say Kingsley was robbed, which is no slight on Penn, who's one of our finest actors. If we were talking about Penn's performance that same year in 21 Grams then we might have a contest. Maybe.

As Kathy, Jennifer Connelly goes places emotionally few actresses are capable of and her work in this joins Hilary Swank's in Million Dollar Baby as one of the best female performances of the modern era. To see an actress put it all out there like she does in this film and not be recognized or rewarded with so much as a nomination is pretty disheartening. What she does in this film isn't easy and I have to admit I was exhausted just watching her. Connelly fans will also be happy to know that the movie's ending does include a scene with her on a pier, which I'm starting to think might be something that's written into her contract.

Shohreh Aghdashloo did receive a well deserved nomination for Best Supporting Actress here for her nuanced work as the Colonel's wife, Nadi. An Iranian immigrant herself she brings an aura of authenticity to the role as a woman who can barely understand a word of English, but could teach her husband a few lessons in sympathy and understanding. She has a limited idea of the atrocity that's happening around her, but has unending devotion to her family and cares for Connelly's character, taking her in like a wounded bird. She accomplishes all of this with limited screen time and even less dialogue.

I've read some reviews that cite Ron Eldard as the weak link in the movie, but when you share the screen with Kingsley and Connelly that's understandable. I thought he did an excellent job in a very, very tough role. Best known for his t.v. work in the '90's on shows like Men Behaving Badly and E.R., he's never really had a platform in feature films to show what he's got. Other actors would have played Lester as a stereotypical jerk cop but Eldard, under Perelman's skilled direction, knows to play him as a good guy who's slightly off his rocker and kind of stupid. He's got a goofy, normal guy charm that makes you not take him seriously which technically shouldn't work, but here it makes the events and his behavior more frightening and realistic.

As I reached the last quarter of this film I have to admit I had a difficult time watching. By this point the suspense becomes unbearable, the characters' actions more irrational and the movie becomes a pressure cooker just waiting to boil over. In an interview on the bonus features, Eldard says the saddest thing about the movie is that everything could have been avoided had one of the characters just stopped, took a deep breath and assessed the situation. I felt that toward the end of the film one of the characters did stop and decide all of this just isn't worth it and reaches out to end it. Unfortunately, this act is misinterpreted and leads to further tragedy.

There's an alternate ending included, but it's all about vengeance (which isn't what this story is about) and was justifiably scrapped in favor of the one they used, which is equally tragic, but in tone with the rest of the film. When this movie was over I couldn't help but feel angry and have conflicted thoughts about being a citizen in a country where this could conceivably happen. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if something like this actually has happened. This film touched me on levels no recent one has, but I can't say I'm eager to watch it again. It was an ordeal to sit through, but an experience not easily forgotten.