USA, 2004
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Tyrese Gibson, Giovanni Ribisi, Miranda Otto
Director: John Moore
20th Century Fox

There was no way I was going to watch the atrocious Jim Carrey vehicle LEMONY SNICKET’S SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS. No way in Hell. So what did that leave me with? The actioner FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX, a remake of a classic Jimmy Stewart pic——the lesser of two evils right? Wrong.

FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX is completely entertaining, engrossing, suspenseful and above all, extremely fun high-adventure. And no surprise, as it was directed by John Moore, who did the Owen Wilson war flick BEHIND ENEMY LINES, another film I had low expectations for but has ended up being one of my favorite action films ever. And sophomore slump be damned, Moore delivers once again.

Dennis Quaid is pilot Frank Towns, sent to the Mongolian wastelands to pick up the workers from a shutdown oil well. On the way home, they get sucked into the middle of a huge electrical dust storm (a visually stunning sequence) and crash land in the middle of the desert. With little food and very little water, Towns and the survivors, knowing full well that no one will probably come looking for them, do what they can to survive, but prepare for the worst.

As they await their doom, an odd little man named Elliot (Giovanni Ribisi) has a plan: using the parts of the plane that aren’t completely destroyed, they can build a new plane that will guide them to the next outpost. Realizing they have no other way out, they carry through with the scheme, all the while avoiding more storms, dehydration and a band of murderous marauders.

Sure the plot sounds pretty ludicrous, but on-screen it’s so damned enthralling to watch that you don’’t care. Quaid is in full on grizzled ***censored*** mode (and I thank him for it) and finally, Giovanni Ribisi is in a role where I don’t want to beat the living Hell out of him. The lovely Miranda Otto does a great job with her role as the token female, and the rest of the supporting cast admirably fills their roles with believability and humor.

If the kids want to go and watch Jim Carrey flail around in an ADDAMS FAMILY rip-off, let ‘em—! Drop them off while you go see a crowd-pleasing action film that (thank God) relies more on story and actual characters than grotesque, rubbery-faced idiots who talk out of their ***censored***.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louis Fowler is a frequent contributor to Cinema Eye and Hitch Magazine. He is the host of DAMAGED Hearing, Fridays at midnight on KRFC-FM and film critic for the Rocky Mountain Bullhorn. Oh yeah, he also has a blog!

Starring: Adam Sandler, Tea Leoni and Paz Vega
Directed by: James L. Brooks
Columbia Pictures

Somewhere in SPANGLISH is a ***censored*** good movie. I can see it at times, but then, SHE comes on screen and everything that the film has built up is ruined, destroyed, burnt to ash and urinated on.

SHE is Tea Leoni, probably the worst actress in the world, playing what is going down as my most hated character in any film, ever. Every time this bony shrew appears onscreen, I sink into my seat, rage boiling over. Leoni not only completely ruins this movies, she has ruined pretty much all movies for me for at least three weeks. Regardless of whether or not she’s in the said future film, I will picture her in a random role and thusly, the film will be the cinematic equivalent of dysentery. She has been permanently burned into my cortex and only a bullet will get her out.

SPANGLISH is the story of perhaps the best father in the world, John Clasky (a brilliant, mature Adam Sandler) and his wife, the Pol Pot-ish Deborah (the aforementioned Leoni), who is psychotically neurotic to the point where even Woody Allen would slap her and scream “"Snap out of it, Goddammit!””

Her mental state is destroying the family——she constantly nags and berates John, makes her overweight pre-teen daughter feel worthless by always buying clothes two sizes too small and there’s a third kid, a little boy who we barely see, but he too is constantly afraid mom is mad at him. She’’s a complete mess who spends all her time crying and whining and to top it off (and this was the part that really infuriated me), she’s cheating on John.

And John, seriously, is the type of husband and dad everyone would like to have——he’s caring, loving, nice, supportive and doesn’t complain when his wife starts having a ***censored***-fit after she orgasms, getting off him and leaving him unsatisfied. In other words, he’s practically the Jesus of husbands.

Enter the new maid, Flor (the stunningly entrancing Paz Vega), a Spanish-speaking alien who moves into the house and bears witness to the insanity of Deborah and how it’s destroying everyone. We, as an audience, also bear witness to, what I believe, is the best example of repressed racism as Deborah talks down, accuses, screams, insults, insinuates and practically puts a flaming cross in the front yard every time she interacts with Flor.

I believe this is pretty much the way white, upper middle class liberals act towards Hispanics——sure on the outside they act all accepting and non-prejudiced, because that’’s what the public expects, but behind closed doors, all they think Mexicans are good for is taking care of their kids and absorbing abuse. So in this respect, SPANGLISH gets the inherit subconscious racism of all white people right.

After reaching his breaking point upon learning that Deborah has been cheating on him, he leaves and has an all night talk session with Flor that is extremely touching——as a matter of fact, just about every scene with Adam Sandler, whether it be him interacting with Flor or especially with his kids, either you tear up of you marvel at the genius of the writing.
But the writing’s also the biggest part of the problem of SPANGLISH. As I said earlier, in this movie is what could have been a great movie—if only they had completely written out the entire Deborah character.

Here’’s how I would have done it: John Clasky is a widower who is a great dad, but is also kind of lonely since his wife died. With his new restaurant taking off, he needs some help around the house and he hires Flor. Even though there is a language barrier between them, they still fall in love. And it’s beautiful and everyone leaves the theater with newfound warmth in their hearts. Yeah, it sounds treacle on paper, but you can see how well it would work on the screen as you watch the film.

Adam Sandler is in PUNCH DRUNK LOVE mode, which is to say subtle and mildly genius and Paz Vega is a revelation as the non-English immigrant. She’s also jaw-droppingly stunning, which is a plus.

Tea Leoni, on the other hand, need to be dragged out in the street and shot in the back of the head.

I recommend waiting to see this as a rental, because at least then you have the merciful goodness of the fast-forward button at your disposal, and believe me, you’’ll be thankful.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louis Fowler is a frequent contributor to Cinema Eye and Hitch Magazine. He is the host of DAMAGED Hearing, Fridays at midnight on KRFC-FM and film critic for the Rocky Mountain Bullhorn. Oh yeah, he also has a blog!

USA, 2004
Director: Martin Scorsese
Score: ***

It would seem more appropriate for Martin Scorsese to direct the biography of eccentric and reclusive millionaire Howard Hughes after Michael Mann (COLLATERAL) bowed out of the project. Scorsese has made films about celebrities (THE KING OF COMEDY, NEW YORK NEW YORK), madmen (TAXI DRIVER) and dirty dealings (GOODFELLAS) before. Together with actor Leonardo DiCaprio, who has done his turn with oddball characters (WHAT’S EATING GILBERT GRAPE?) and a host of accomplished actors as Kate Beckinsale, Cate Blanchett, John C. Reilly and a cameo from Jude Law as Errol Flynn, Scorsese has assembled quite the team for putting THE AVIATOR on celluloid.

As the title implies, Howard Hughes is portrayed primarily as an aviator. Film director, playboy and businessman come secondary. Scorsese devotes most of the screen time towards his obsession with flying and engineering design of new aircraft. In fact, the film’s best scenes occur when Hughes (DiCaprio) is piloting his craft or wheeling dealing with Pan-Am chief (Alec Baldwin). The trial speed sequence and the later crash that resulted in 78% burns over his body and crushed ribs are spectacularly executed. Though Scorsese omits the last years of Hughes’ life following his death, he covers most of his descent into seclusion and madness, especially his obsession over cleanliness. This is less glamorous material and the film starts losing momentum once Hughes, unshaven and unkempt, starts locking himself in a room.

DiCaprio and Blanchett do marvelous jobs at capturing the mannerisms of Hughes and Katherine Hepburn, besides acting their convincing roles. Scorsese also provides some insight to the origin of his cleanliness fixation – though it may be argued that what is shown might be a little hokey. (Hughes, as a boy is shown bathed by his mother in a tub before he was orphaned.) Though the best of the Scorsese films are the small budget ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE and MEAN STREETS, THE AVIATOR is worth a look for its splendid production values.

Review by Gilbert Seah.

Director: Jean Jacques Annuad
Starring: Guy Pearce
Buy it on Amazon.com!

Plot: Two tiger cubs have grown up in the ruins of the old Buddhist temples in the middle of the Southeast Asian jungle. But life for the two cubs changes when Aiden McRory (Guy Pearce) comes to steal the Buddha statues from the ruins. One tiger is sold off to a circus, where homesickness and living in a cage rob him of his spirit. Meanwhile, the other tiger becomes the beloved companion of the governor’s lonely young son, until an accident forces the family to give him away to a man who turn him into a fighter for sport. When they are fully-grown the brothers find their way to reunite but as forced enemies, pitted against each other.

Is this BAMBI of tigers? Yes. IS this another THE BEAR? No, not likely. This is a new film by Jean Jacques Annaud who brought us underrated films like THE NAME OF THE ROSE and THE BEAR. Unlike THE BEAR, this is a scripted tale of a journey of two tiger cubs. Often in films like this, which have an environmental message, the hunters are presented as two-dimensional characters that are just obstacles for the main characters which are animals. McRory played by Guy Pearce is not portrayed in this stereotype; instead he is shown to be somewhat compassionate in many ways. Earlier in the film, we witness as he feeds Kumahl honey sweets, later when he discovers Kumahl has been taken to the circus, he pays the owners to take good care of him.  Little thing like that really add spice to the story, without which TWO BROTHERS would be as one-dimensional as most animal movies.

And yes, just like any films about journey of animals, this film embraces sentimental value. It will surely have those who cried during BAMBI shedding a few tears. There are some nice turn-arounds in the story as well but this is a family film, it is not something you wouldn’t see it coming from miles away. The only major problem with the film is that its pacing is slow. It is very understandable to feature as much magnificent things those tigers do, but the film could be more tightly edited to enhance the story rather than the animals itself.

This film is surprisingly well worth watching. There is some violence, but most of it occurs off-screen. It is a mystery why Universal Pictures didn’t really promote this film as much as they did two of the worst films to come out in years: VAN HELSING and THUNDERBIRDS. Unlike those films, TWO BROTHERS will live on for years to come.

Video: 3 out of 5
The DVD is presented in the film’s theatrical ratio of 2.35:1 and this anamorphic widescreen transfer of the film is pretty vivid. Colors are warm and well delineated. The dark scenes contain nice shadow delineation, and contrast. Only problem is since this is shot on HD, some camera movements leave a ghostly render problem.

Audio: 3 out of 5
English 5.1 Track has nice use of rear channels for atmospheric effects, especially all the scenes takes place in the jungle. Dialogue is nice and clear free of any hiss or distortion.  But for today’s standard, it isn’t something to be impressed with.

Extras:
Audio commentary by director Jean-Jacques Annaud: most interesting stuff was that he apologizes for the accent very early on. We get how much he loves animals but overall, it isn’t compelling enough.

Fun With Tigers
Wild About Tigers: a 35 minute documentary about tigers narrated by Guy Pearce

Call Of The Wild: the quick montage short of “wilds” on set.

The Cast
Tiger Trainers: a short featurette about how to train a tiger

Tiger Brothers:  inside look at the tigers used for the film.

Production
Tiger Tech: a featurette explaining of why animatronics sometimes had to be used in the film,

Tiger Cam: Basically they rationalize why humans had to be caged at some time.

Location Scouting: location scouting stills which director Jean-Jacques Annaud narrating the way through.

Costume Design: a video gallery of costumes

Story Boards: Storyboard to final film comparison

Buy it on Amazon.com!

USA, 2004
Director: James L. Brooks
Score: **1/2

Flor (Paz Vega) wants her mothering to work. Deb (Tea Leoni) needs to find herself. Chef John (Adam Sandler) has marital problems with wife, Deb.  Deb’s mother Evelyn (Cloris Leachman) is an alcoholic and wants better for her daughter and son-in-law. Even the family dog has problems - obsessed with ball fetching. Such is a James L. Brooks comedy/drama. His characters are dysfunctional in one way or other (Shirley MacLaine’ neurotic mother in TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, Helen Hunt’s ambitious but unfulfilled producer in BROADCAST NEWS and obsessive/compulsive Jack Nicholson’s lover in AS GOOD AS IT GETS). That is where he draws his stories and incidents from. But still, his characters are essentially romantics at heart who find love or at least achieve some goal at the end. Brooks’ SPANGLISH is more ambitious in that it covers the problems of the entire Clasky family including the Mexican housekeeper. The only one left out is the dog.

Brooks centers the story on Flor’s daughter Christina. She narrates the film and the film starts and ends with her.  Flor sneaks Christina and herself across the Mexican/U.S. border and finally find work at the Clasky family.  Cultures, but more importantly, individualities clash. That is as much as need be said about the plot. The success of the film derives on how Brooks ties everything up together, how he makes his characters true and believable and whether he delivers entertainment in the process.

For the first point, Brooks is less successful. Unlike his other films where there is only one main character to deal with, Brooks functions here more as a traffic cop dishing off equal time to each character. The result is that the viewer is never sure where the film is leading. Though this is acceptable in other movies where the film finally heads in a fixed direction or somehow comes together to a satisfactory closure, Brooks lets his characters separate to solve his dilemma. Though it was reported that Brooks did his research on Latinos prior to the film, SPANGLISH still appears contrived. An indication of this occurs at the film’s start where the narrator mentions of Flor and her daughter’s travel to the U.S. in economy class. This means sneaking across the border of course, but for a duo so poor, they somehow managed to pick up quite the ideal luggage. Brooks’ characters are likeable but one wonders about how everyone in the film is so good-looking. One would expect an immigrant looking for work to have much less than a model’s figure. Or the perfect hair! Brooks’ Flor is also a saint without the least of faults. Brooks writes funny enough lines though. The Flor/John confrontation scene done with Christina’s translation is effectively funny. A neighbor’s translation of the surprise line “You are married?” offers two meanings as well. Surprise as in the translation as well as for the translator as the neighbor shows interest in Flor.

Strange enough, SPANGLISH (running a little over the 2-hour mark as all the James L. Brooks films do) is compelling. Despite its flaws, Brooks moves his film at a good pace with jokes, small-talk and incidents appropriately placed. Though a few scenes are stretched out (like the final encounter between Sandler and Paz or the communication between Leachman and Leoni), the viewer never feels it. One reason is the watchable performances from the cast, especially the children. But ultimately, Brooks cannot hide the fact that as good as his intentions might be, SPANGLISH finally emerges as a pretentious (all the Mexicans are drop-dead gorgeous; food and life-style displayed are picture perfect) flawed attempt at having respect for ones individuality.  Incidentally, one film that succeeds admirably in the theme of respect is the currently playing Clint Eastwood film MILLION DOLLAR BABY. SPANGLISH is weak, sentimental and clumsily put together instead of being powerful, violent and wonderfully crafted which are words that can be used to describe the Eastwood film.

One wonders then at the reason behind the box-office successes of Brooks’ previous films. Could it be Jack Nicholson who was in almost every one of them? At least the 40 million Latinos who live in American today and use SPANGLISH (a hybrid of English and Spanish) will guarantee the film does well at the box-office.

Review by Gilbert Seah.