Man Of The Century (1999) * *

Directed by: Adam Abraham

Starring: Gibson Frazier, Susan Egan, Anthony Rapp, Cara Buono

I sometimes come across movies that the world seems to know about but I don't. Maybe you don't know of it either and I'm sure the names of the actors who star in the film won't ring a bell, but every now and then I catch something on cable that seems interesting and go with it. Man Of The Century is a comedy with an interesting premise that unfortunately goes nowhere with it. It's a film I watched in frustration as I expected it to pay off but didn't.

The film stars Gibson Frazier, who also is a co-writer of the film and an actor I've never heard of, as Johnny Twennies. He is a newspaper reporter who speaks and acts like a newspaper man from the 1920's or early 1930's, as his name suggests. Using 20's slang in nearly every sentence he speaks, he always has a cigarette in his mouth and is always going after "the scoop". He speaks in a fast, clipped manner which you would've seen in 1930's screwball comedies and Three Stooges films. He has a girl "he's sweet on" named Samantha who is frustrated by "being unable to get to first base with him." But she likes him anyway, because he takes her out to "cut the rug". While courting Samantha, he is also dodging thugs who want him to plant a fake story about a dangerous, yet unseen crime lord.

Oh, I forgot to mention that Johnny lives in modern-day Manhattan, not in the 20's or 30's and his girlfriend is an art gallery curator who should be a lot more curious about his odd mannerisms than she is. This sounds like a good setup for a comedy in which anachronisms that Johnny must run into are questioned. He works for a modern-day newspaper, but he has an old typewriter and phone at his desk. He requests the operator connect him to "Yukon 5245" instead of dialing or pushing buttons. Naturally, the operator doesn't know what he's talking about. But doesn't he occasionally see a modern telephone (at least as modern as 1999) or even newer cars? How about computers, faxes, etc.? You mean to tell me he didn't encounter any of these things? It would've been interesting to see his reaction to a modern piece of technology. The closest the film comes to this is when he walks into an S & M session involving a gal pal. In the 20s, seeing this would've sent someone like Johnny into apoplexy. He hears others use swear words that he wouldn't hear normally, but he kinda brushes right past that. It would've been amusing to hear Johnny say, "What do you mean by skullfuck?"

And how about the modern-day people he comes in contact with? They think he's a bit off, but don't really question why he uses phrases like "the bee's knees." His girlfriend thinks it's odd that he hasn't kissed her on the lips yet after a month of dating, but she doesn't think much more of it. He sends her telegrams to ask for a date, but this doesn't seem to be weird to her either. In other words, they're not the least bit curious. The puzzling thing about Man Of The Century is that the film goes out of its way not to contrast 1920s vs. the 1990s. Everything is accepted as is and thus I realized that I was really watching a 1930's type of screwball comedy set in the 1990s. All the filmmakers did was change the calendar.

Man Of The Century isn't terrible. In fact, it had the makings of something unusual. Frazier has the look and talk of a man of the 20s down pat. It's not easy to behave the way he does, but he pulls it off. Johnny is happy, positive, without fear, and not the least bit cynical. All of the actors here are appealing and the black and white cinematography is right for the material. However, I kept waiting for something more to develop. I expected more 1930's optimism vs 1990's "been there, done that" New York mentality. But yet, Man Of The Century seems to avoid this and becomes a genial homage to early comedies. It's pleasant, it's cute, but it's also unimaginative. There's so much more that could've been explored.

Clean And Sober (1988) * * * 1/2

Directed by: Glenn Gordon Caron

Starring: Michael Keaton, Kathy Baker, Morgan Freeman

Clean And Sober opens as Daryl Poynter (Keaton) wakes up with a hangover, a phone call questioning the whereabouts of money in an escrow account, and a dead woman in his bed. To deal with all of this, he does some lines of coke before calling the police.  Because coke is what allows him to function, he needs to do it.   Daryl is at the point in which every minute of his day is spent in the quest of finding more cocaine and figuring out how to pay for it.   His credit cards are maxed out, his dealer to whom he owes money to hangs up on him, and the money he embezzled from the escrow account has been severly depleted by stock market losses, but who knows if that is even true.   Yet, he doesn't admit to a problem because, according to what a sponsor says later in the film, "You're not an addict because you're not dead? Is that what you think?"

Clean And Sober is an absorbing film about an addict and the beginning of his recovery.   It also is about the other addicts he comes in contact with that help to shape that recovery and make it successful.   As the film opens, Daryl hears about a rehab program and enters it as a way to dodge the trouble he is in.   He is a real-estate broker who is successful, but due to his addiction, he probably won't be doing that much longer.   The police may arrest him because the girl in his bed died from an overdose and the girl's father posts flyers all over his development calling him a murderer.   During his first few days in the rehab, he tries desperately to use the phone and have drugs shipped to him. This catches the eye of rehab counselor Craig (Freeman), who has seen it all and heard it all, so nothing Daryl does surprises him.  But yet, day by day, Daryl unwittingly becomes clean.

Because the film was made in the late 80s, a time in which afterschool specials and nighttime soaps ruled TV screens, you would think Clean And Sober would be treated in melodramatic fashion in which all of Daryl's problems are cleaned up and he lives happily ever after.   Not the case here.   What makes Clean And Sober work is that it focuses not only on Daryl, but another recovering addict named Charlie (Baker), a woman who can't say no to drugs, alcohol, or her ex-con husband who does everything in the house you shouldn't do if you live with an addict.

Charlie works in a steel mill, owns a home, and otherwise would be happy except that she allows herself to be manipulated by her husband, who pulls out all of the tricks to keep her in their unhappy home.  Daryl thinks he can save her, but as Daryl's sponsor Richard (M. Emmet Walsh-great here) says, "It's conceited to think you could do something. Could anyone have stopped your addiction?" Walsh's Richard is a friendly, but no-nonsense sponsor who has a habit of always making sense even when Daryl's world doesn't.

The performances are all strong here.  Keaton was known mostly for comedies before this film and goes from obnoxious cokehead who will stoop to any depths to feed his habit to a stronger person who can say no in spite of life's problems.  Baker and Freeman both play people who are wise to Daryl in different ways.   Baker is especially sympathetic because she doesn't even realize what a trap she's in.   At least Daryl can see the trap for what it is.

The ending of Clean And Sober has Daryl earning his 30 days sober chip at an AA meeting.   A lot has happened to him in 30 days and there is still much to clean up, but he is hopeful.   Considering where he came from in the beginning of the film, seeing him in that frame of mind was uplifting and moving.   George Carlin was once asked about how cocaine made him feel, he replied, "It makes you feel like having more cocaine."   This film understands that and made me understand it as well.

Kick-Ass (2010) 1/2 *

Directed by: Matthew Vaughn

Starring: Aaron Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Chloe Moretz, Nicolas Cage


Here's one of the creepier films I've seen in many a moon. At first, Kick-Ass is a harmless, if not altogether compelling movie about a teenager who decides he wants to be a superhero despite having no superpowers or ability to do anything unusual.   Then, Hit-Girl shows up and things fly off the rails in a hurry.  The film goes from uncompelling to just plain wrong.    There's something fundamentally creepy about the sight of an 11-year old girl beating guys to a bloody pulp and brandishing automatic weapons.    Call me whatever you want but don't call me if they make Kick-Ass 2.

Hit-Girl (Moretz) is the daughter of Cage's character, a former cop framed and jailed by mob boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong) and wants revenge.   How?   By training his daughter to be a killing machine who is as lethal with her fists as she is guns.    Child Protective Services has taken kids away from their parents for a whole lot less, I'm sure.    The pity is, this is somehow supposed to be fun.

The filmmakers believed that the sight of Hit-Girl taking care of bad guys in this fashion would somehow be amusing to audiences, but I'm missing the boat on that idea.    It's not just that she commits these acts, it's how lovingly the camera focuses on blood spurting from guys that Hit-Girl maims, wounds, or kills.   I'm not against blood or violence in films at all, but the whole idea and method used here is simply rotten.

It seems the character of Kick-Ass has taken a back seat in this review and guess what?   He does in the movie too.    Despite his desire, he is far from lethal and the film counts on Hit-Girl to do what Kick-Ass can't.    From the 45-minute mark on, Kick-Ass the character is an afterthought.    But since a whole lot isn't done with him anyway, I didn't miss him much.

What a dreary movie this is.    It is not any kind of a joy to watch.     There are pretty good actors in it who have been better in other things or will be soon.     Does Nicolas Cage agree to star in any script that is placed in front of him?     I understand he has tax issues, but c'mon.     The IRS would understand if he passed up this garbage. 

Bowling For Columbine (2002) * * * 1/2

Directed by: Michael Moore


Over 11,000 gun-related deaths occur in the US each year, as per the statistics shown in Michael Moore's 2002 Oscar-winning documentary, Bowling For Columbine. The film focuses on a few of those murders, including 12 students and a one faculty member of Columbine High School on April 20, 1999.   Some of the stark and eerie footage provided in this film includes security camera shots of the shooters as they stalk the library and cafeteria in search of their targets, which pretty much included anyone on that day.

What perplexes Moore is that other nations have the same economic issues and accessibility to handguns but yet have only a fraction of the gun-related deaths as the US.  It's amusing to see how myths about Canada and why they have so few gun murders are debunked one by one.   Apparently, Americans think Canadians don't have any poverty or even access to guns, but do they think Canadians don't hunt?

Michael Moore grew up in Michigan and is a lifelong NRA member, so he has no real axe to grind in making this film, except that America is seemingly gun crazy.  Oddly, I was watching Capitalism: A Love Story the other day and one depiction is a family being evicted from its home.  What were some of the items they took with them? About half a dozen handguns and rifles.  Why so many guns? Wouldn't one do the trick if you were serious about using it?   The shooters at Columbine had access to an arsenal of weapons, including ammunition sold at a Kmart down the street from the high school. The father of one of the victims holds up the type of gun used to kill his son at school that day and says,  "This weapon is certainly not used to shoot deer."

Bowling For Columbine is a film of moving, stark, and enraging images.  The NRA held a rally in the Littleton, Colorado area not even two weeks after the shootings at Columbine, with its leader Charlton Heston holding up a rifle and proclaiming, "From my cold, dead hands."  The members on hand certainly got a thrill from that, but the town in mourning certainly wasn't amused.  It's certainly true that the NRA had a right to hold its rally at that time and in that place, but does that mean they should?   Moore has a tense on-camera discussion with Heston later which poses that same question. Seeing Heston fumble along attempting to justify his and the NRA's position made me cringe, but that was Moore's intention.   If Heston couldn't come off well, then imagine how the rest of the NRA must look.

The NRA/Columbine incidents are at the heart of Bowling For Columbine.  Americans have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd Amendment. But does that mean they should?  If those who do can't keep them safely, like the parents of the Columbine shooters Harris and Kliebold, then should they own them?   At what point does gun stockpiling become self-defeating and more dangerous to yourself than any outsider?

There are other intriguing aspects of Bowling For Columbine, including a bank that gives away a free gun with every new account opened, and an interview with the brother of Oklahoma City bombing co-conspirator Terry Nichols.  It is quite obvious that James Nichols, the brother, is not in any frame of mind to be owning a gun.  Also interviewed is Marilyn Manson, whose music some believed was the reason why Harris and Kliebold shot up Columbine High School.    Manson comes across as intelligent and thoughtful on the subject in an interview by Moore and is correct to believe that other factors played more of a role in the killers' mindsets.

Bowling For Columbine poses many reasons for gun craziness in this country. Media prodding, fear, and easy access are three legitimate reasons indeed.   It is a thoughtful, somber documentary about a subject that most people dismiss as a God-given right.  Again, it may be a right, but is it right to do it?

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) * * *

Directed by: Michael Moore

"The rich do none of the work, pay none of the taxes. The middle class does most of the work and foots most of the bill. The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keeps them showing up at those jobs."- George Carlin


Michael Moore reminisces about his childhood in which his father worked for GM and the job wasn't going away anytime soon. His father paid the house off before Moore had finished kindergarten, the family had a new car every three years, and they visited New York every other summer.  Things were good and GM was prosperous.  Apparently, not prosperous enough according to GM, because they set the wheels in motion via layoffs and cutbacks that allowed Moore to grow up into the filmmaker who made Roger & Me. If there is one thing Moore never tires of visiting, it's corporate greed that has gone unchecked. Roger & Me and The Big One are two previous films that explored corporations' recent obsession with layoffs helping to contribute to a healthier company bottom line.

Here, Moore goes over the same territory, but amidst highly publicized bank collapses and the ushering in of President Obama. The film depicts outgoing President Bush as akin to a co-conspirator in big business's neverending quest to squeeze a few more sheckles out of everyone before leaving office. Bush created such a mess by failing to regulate banks and big business that it's no wonder Obama has yet to be able to clean it up 18 months into his term. Of course, many blame Obama for his failure to clean this up, but that's another argument for another time.

Actually, lassez-faire government regulation of big business really kicked in as early as Reagan's administration. Jimmy Carter conducted a televised address in which he warns of an economy going belly up because greed and profits overshadowed everything. Moore, in his narration, said, "Many thought, 'That guy's a bummer. We need someone else. Who else but Hollywood's most famous corporate spokesman, Ronald Reagan?" The rest is history. Carter wasn't the first President to recognize a need for better treatment of America's workers. In the film, a never before shown newsreel of a very sick President Franklin Roosevelt shows the President speaking about "adding another Bill Of Rights" which includes a right to quality education for all, a good job for all, and a government that will take care of them. Funny how other countries, like the ones the US conquered in World War II, received many of these benefits, but these benefits aren't available to American citizens.

Despite its historical context, Capitalism: A Love Story covers much of the same ground as Moore's previous two films on this subject. People getting thrown out of homes due to foreclosure and guys like a real estate broker who calls himself "The Condo Vulture" proudly swoop in to make a profit off of that. "People are always ready to pounce on other's misfortunes," says the real estate broker, which is Moore's message in today's capitalistic economy. There is plenty of misfortune to be had, mostly caused by the corporations themselves.

Will films like this cause big corporations to examine themselves and their practices? The answer is no, especially when Lehman Brothers and other banks used government bailout funds to give out record bonuses to executives in a very public way. Bonuses for what? Probably for being able to persuade the government to give them $700 million in taxpayer money.

Corporate response to this film will probably be (and I'm borrowing from the last line of Ebert's review of The Big One): "Yeah? And?"

Dragonfly (2003) * 1/2

Directed by: Tom Shadyac

Starring: Kevin Costner, Kathy Bates, Joe Morton, Susanna Thompson


I have a hard time believing in ghosts. Movies like Dragonfly are a big reason why, but I'll explain that in a moment. I can understand the need to believe in them. It's comforting to think that a loved one is around still in some form; somehow participating in your life even after the body is gone. Ghost movies are inherently silly. It's just a question of how much silliness you're willing to put up with before you start to become bored with it. If a ghost of a loved one behaved the way the one in Dragonfly does, I'd just as soon have them go to the great beyond and leave me alone.

One thing I've recognized in TV shows about hauntings and spirits is that they are very, very indirect in how they choose to contact the living. Things rattle. Winds blow hard. There may or may not be a creak or two where there shouldn't be. And the haunted person is absolutely convinced a ghost is present. But because the ghost is so cryptic, everything can be interpreted in different ways. If you're a ghost and you can interact in any way with the living, wouldn't you just go full throttle and try and have a conversation? What the hell, it's not like the person won't believe you.

Dragonfly is a maddening film. It stars Kevin Costner as a Chicago doctor who loses his pregnant wife in a bus accident while she's tending to the sick and needy in Venezuela.  Soon after the funeral, Doc begins to notice strange things, like dragonflies hovering outside of his window (the wife loved dragonflies according to a line of dialogue), things falling to the ground on their own, and sick children Doc has never met who seem to be calling for him by name while being brought into intensive care.

At first, he dismisses these things as odd, but not supernatural. For the first nearly 80 minutes of the film, Costner experiences all kinds of oddities and becomes convinced his dead wife is trying to contact him. Why? Well, the reason is never made clear. The ghost is inconsiderate that way. The ghost is able to use sick children to speak her message, physically draw strange symbols for Costner to interpret, rearrange closets, and even show up as a vision outside of Costner's window, but can't go the extra mile and explain why she so desperately needs to contact him. If I were Costner, grieving or not, I'd beg her to stop torturing me and spit it out.

It's not just this ridiculous plot hole that has me disliking Dragonfly. The film itself is rather dead itself in terms of tone and pacing. There's not a lot of joy in telling a suspenseful story here. Things kind of meander to the conclusion while being all too solemn for its own good. Costner does what he can to be a sympathetic hero, but everything is dialed down too much. This sort of dialing down by director Shadyac that would've been more useful in Ace Ventura and Liar, Liar, two of his previous hits.

The conclusion? I won't dare give it away, but it's the sort of ending that had me asking way too many questions instead of being blindsided. Such as, how exactly did the ghost's cryptic hints lead Costner to where he needed to be? What if Costner never read the map at home which explained what the symbols were? This is a film in which a conversation like the one between Hamlet and his father's ghost is sorely needed.