The Nativity Story

I feel it necessary to start off this review by stating that I am an atheist. I choose not to have any religion in my life. But I’d also like to state that I can fully enjoy a religious themed movie. The Passion of the Christ was a good movie. But The Nativity Story just simply is not.

The Nativity Story is one of the most familiar stories in the Western world, and is routinely told at this time of year. It’s the story of Jesus’ birth. And this film from director Catherine Hardwicke (Lords of Dogtown, Thirteen) covers his immaculate conception to his humble birth. Following the arranged marriage of Joseph (Oscar Isaac) and Mary (Keisha Castle-Hughes, The Whale Rider), Mary is visited by The Angel Gabriel (Alexander Siddig, Star Trek: Deep Space 9), telling her that she will carry and give birth to the son of God. She flees Nazareth for a brief period to gather her thoughts, staying with her cousin Elizabeth (Shohreh Agdashloo, 24) who is also miraculously pregnant. Mary returns noticeably pregnant, and is at first an outcast, but after Gabriel visits Joseph, he becomes a believer to. King Herod (Ciarán Hinds, Munich) orders every man to return to the town of their birth for a census, forcing Joseph to lead a very pregnant Mary back to the town of Bethlehem. They arrive just in time for her to go into labor, and are only able to find a manger to stay in. Jesus is born, everybody is happy. The end.

It’s the same old thing we’re drilled with time and time again, every December, with TV specials and recreations on the Discovery Channel. And that’s exactly what this feels like. I’m sure if I flip to TLC later tonight I would find “The Story of Mary” playing. It has only a slightly better production value than those made for TV movies, but only slightly better. But the whole production was very bland and mechanical, like they didn’t even try with it. It’s as if she, the producers and writer Mike Rich (Finding Forrester, The Rookie) felt that the story was good enough as is, so there would be no need to do anything special to it, which is where this film fails. I’m not implying there should have been a car chase or a fight scene, just jazz it up a bit. Make me care about Jesus. Do something new.

The cast was walking through that. I didn’t get the feeling that they really even cared about it. That it was just a paycheck for them. The only actor that impressed me was Isaac. It’s sort of a breakout performance for this Guatemalan actor who is relatively unknown in the States. His was the most impressive and engaging in the film. He really captures your attention and emotion and holds it throughout. When the focus shifts to Mary at Elizabeth’s house, you want to go back to Joseph.

The most insulting part of the production is the three wise men. They’re used as comedic relief, as almost every scene they’re in (the exception being the manger scene) features jokes and “witty” banter. I fail to see why this film needed moments of levity. It’s ok to be serious. Especially with Jesus. You don’t mess with Jesus.

What it all comes down to is, was this film necessary? I think this film begs that question. It wants to have significance, but it doesn’t offer anything that you can’t get with a church sermon or a PBS special.

1.5 Stars

The Fountain

Modern science fiction has been greatly influenced by George Lucas. It’s become this big grand production of epic proportions. New age auteur Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream) has dared to scale back the genre, falling more in tune with Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Oddity, making The Fountain, starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz one of the more intriguing sci-fi films in recent years.

The base story of The Fountain is about Tommy and Izzy Creo (Jackman and Weisz, respectively). Tommy is a contemporary research scientist trying to figure out the cure for cancer, which his wife Izzy has. He believes he has found it in an ancient Central American tree. Meanwhile Izzy is finishing her novel set in 1500 Spain about Queen Isabel, who sends Conquistador Tomas on a mission to find the tree of life in New Spain (Central America). The third portion of the story is set in 2500, where Tommy has lived for the past 500 and is waiting for the tree to enter a nebula and be destroyed.

I could spend the entire review trying to explain the plot, but it’s too intricate to do so. Jackman is still trying to prove his worth and talent as an actor to the general film going public, and after this and The Prestige from earlier this year, I don’t think he has anything left to prove. He’s a very capable actor, and his scenes as present day Tommy were some of the most touching I’ve ever seen in a sci-fi film. Weisz continues to push herself as an actress, taking on challenging or different roles than what she could take, and thus stretching her dramatic range, making her that much more appealing as an actress.

Aronofsky is of the new generation of filmmaking, the millennial generation. Where Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and David Fincher led the pack in the 90’s, Aronofsky is in the company of Christopher Nolan and Richard Kelly on the front lines of 21^st century filmmaking. He retools a genre that’s become known for being bombastic, goofy and out there. He evokes drama and emotion from the genre and it’s simply moving. I can’t wait to see more of his work

The primary reason Aronofsky is so engaging as a filmmaker is his visual style. It’s not enough for him to present a beautiful and wondrous tale; he does so in a beautiful and wondrous way. The scenes set in the future take place in space in this sort of, bubble. The tree and some of the surrounding earth is floating in a bubble towards the nebula that was believed by the Mayans to be the afterlife. It’s one of the most beautiful effects created. The Queens palace in the 1500 set scenes is just as stunning. The room was lit by an amazing series of suspended candles, and it provides some of the most aesthetically pleasing visuals I’ve seen all year.

Aronofsky’s gift for making an intriguing web of a film is a curse upon his talent that sometimes he gets so far into his own world that he forgets that the audience isn’t inside his head with him. The futuristic scenes aren’t made clear in their narrative intentions till about halfway through the film, confounding the audience to their impact on the story. But it’s a treat to look at, so you almost don’t even mind.

It’s a welcome step outside the generic mainstream, which I can only assume is Aronofsky’s intention.

4.5 Stars

Bobby

Eerily released almost 43 years to the day after John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Bobby is about the people present at the Ambassador hotel at the time of the assassination of JFK’s younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy.

The film tells somewhat interconnected stories of roughly 20 people who were at RFK campaign headquarters on the day of the California primary, including an aging singer (Demi Moore), two elderly doormen (Anthony Hopkins and Harry Belafonte) who have seen literally everything, a young couple trying to stay out of the war (Elijah Wood and Lindsay Lohan), and various hotel workers dealing with daily stresses compounded by the political event (William H. Macy, Christian Slater and Freddy Rodriguez).

To tell you all the stars who were in this movie would be to take up all the space that’s afforded to me. There’s so many, it’s easier to tell you who gave the best performances. Moore was engaging, Rodriguez was heartbreaking, Hopkins was amusing and Shia LaBeouf was just great as the young campaign worker worried about going to war. And the acid trip scenes were just amusing. In a movie littered with acting giants and stalwarts, the two standouts were a couple of relatively unknown kids in LaBeouf and Rodriguez. I see great things for both of them in the years to come.

One thing that I never thought I’d say, in all my years as a film fan and then critic, is could an Oscar nomination be on the horizon for Bobby director Emilio Estevez? This is Coach Bombay (The Mighty Ducks) having written and directed one of the best films of the year. It’s still taking me some time to wrap my head around that. But he did a fantastic job. He faltered with the pacing. It was scattered, and trying to corral the stories of 22 major characters is a lofty endeavor. I commend him for trying, but it was ultimately too much and got out of control, he was barely able to bring it back in for the closing.

Leaving that looseness aside, where the film succeeds, where Estevez succeeds, is in the presentation the film. He presents it in such a manner that really captures the spirit of the era, of Bobby Kennedy. He and his exquisitely talented cast put us back in an era of hope, an era of faith in our political leaders. RFK had come along at the right point in history. His brother was assassinated just five years prior, Martin Luther King Jr. just three months prior and he was seen as the hope of the nation by his supporters.

The tone of the country was mixed at that time. There was distrust going on. New Orleans District Attorney William Garrison was just starting his investigations into the JFK assassination. Dr. King and Malcolm X were dead, the country was in the midst of the Vietnam War. It was a nation of turmoil. And RFK was the hope. If anyone could have made the nation great, it was him.

It seems to be perfect timing on Estevez’s part to release this at this time in history. There are plenty of parallels between the time period of the movie and now. Country in turmoil, in the middle of a popular war, and there is possibly a candidate out there that could be considered the hope of the nation. A lot of people are looking at Barack Obama as a new kind of politician, to bring about change, and that he could be the next president.

In that capacity, capturing the late 60’s and relating it to present day, Bobby succeeds. That accomplishment alone overshadows the organizational pitfalls.

4.5 Stars

Casino Royale

Casino Royale is gritty, visceral, bloody, violent throwback to the stripped down James Bond flicks of the 60’s, a great diversion from the CG and gadget heavy films of the 90’s and 2000’s.

Casino Royale is about the start of James Bond’s (Daniel Craig) career. From the time he gets promoted to a 00 agent (license to kill) and his first major assignment, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who helps finance various terrorist organizations around the world. His investigation takes him to Madagascar, the Bahamas and finally to Italy to compete against Le Chiffre in a high stakes ($10 million buy in) poker game in order to take down Le Chiffre’s business, with the help of fellow M16 agent Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), British Treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright).

The writers (Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis) and director (veteran Bond director Martin Campbell) had this idea that in order to compete for super-spy supremacy in the modern world of Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer, who have their brains, their brawn, and little else to go on, a CG flick with more futuristic gadgets than Batman wouldn’t fly, and opted for a stripped down, no-nonsense film. Early on in the film, the free-style walking/movement technique known as Parkour is heavily used in a very long but very intense chase scene between Bond and an African bomb maker (who is played by one of the creators of Parkour). The most high tech gadget Bond is given throughout the whole film is the portable defibrillator in his glove compartment.

Obviously, when discussing a new Bond flick that features a new actor portraying the world’s most famous spy, discussion of his performance is a top priority. Everyone wants to know how he’ll do. And there has been no greater scrutiny of a casting decision than that of Craig for Bond. Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) comes in at a very close second to Sean Connery for best Bond. He’s got the swagger. The charismatic, cocky, “I’m the baddest mother” in the room swagger. But since he’s playing a younger, less experienced Bond, he also has an intensity and naivety to his performance that makes it much more than just another Bond, it propels him to a high plane. You actually take note of Craig’s talent for acting, not just his talent for portraying Bond.

Craig’s supporting cast is just wonderful. The beautiful and talented French actress Green (The Dreamers, Kingdom of Heaven) is a mesmerizing Bond girl. Mikkelsen is one of the best villains we’ve seen since Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill. Wright, Giannini and Dame Judi Dench round out the stellar cast that help Craig slip into Bond’s tuxedo with ease.

But however impressive this film may have been, it was still a rookie film. It felt like a rookie film. Craig played Bond to the best of his abilities at the time, but he’s still trying to gather his full bearings. His second film will be simply amazing. He’ll be more comfortable with the character. And the film just didn’t feel the same without the beloved Q branch.

I would have accepted this film as just a straight spy film. It didn’t need the James Bond brand. And there are times when it doesn’t feel like a Bond film. Because when you think of Bond, you think beautiful women, fantastical gadgets, and vodka martinis, shaken not stirred. Giving Bond depth, emotion and multiple layers sends the franchise in a whole new direction. Only time will tell if that works for the cocky ladies man.

4 Stars