Your Ad Here

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Public Enemies

Public Enemies Pictures, Images and Photos

Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies” is a grave and beautiful work of art. Shot in high-definition digital by a filmmaker who’s helping change the way movies look, it revisits with meticulous detail and convulsions of violence a short, frantic period in the life and bank-robbing times of John Dillinger, an Indiana farm boy turned Depression outlaw, played by a low-voltage Johnny Depp. Much of what makes the movie pleasurable is the vigor with which it restages our familiar romance with period criminals, a perennial affair. But what also makes it more than the sum of its spectacular shootouts is the ambivalence about this romance that seeps into the filmmaking, steadily darkening the skies and draining the story of easy thrills.

The thrills are certainly there in the sensationally choreographed prison break that opens the movie under a bright blue Midwestern sky that stretches across the wide screen like a cathedral ceiling. Dappled by fluffy white clouds, it is the kind of sky that tends to show up as a backdrop in paintings of the Madonna and Child, but here offers a sharp contrast to the long-distance image of Dillinger and his friend Red (Jason Clarke), quickly striding toward an enormous, looming prison. Mr. Mann goes in closer once the men enter the prison, where they help disarm the guards, and he pulls back again for the long view as Dillinger fires on the prison with a machine gun while the escapees make a run for the getaway car.

By force of Hollywood habit, you might expect that this vision of the suddenly lone gunman would serve as a prelude to another exciting joy ride about living fast and dying young. Instead it’s followed by a striking short scene of a wounded escapee being dragged alongside the speeding car while Dillinger and another man struggle to pull him up. In the most startling shot, Mr. Mann places the camera right next to the fallen man, pointing it up at Dillinger’s dark, ominous figure as he almost blots out that blue sky. Dillinger holds on until the man’s grip wilts, the dead body slipping away in one direction as the car races off in the other. Laying the blame elsewhere, he next tosses another man out of the moving car.

This, then, is Mr. Mann’s Dillinger: brave enough to stand his ground, loyal, ruthless. There’s a hint of the demonic in this portrait, particularly when the outlaw is gliding through a bank, his long, dark coat fanning around him and a tommy gun in one hand. This is the stuff of legends, of shoot-’em-ups and matinee gangsters with jaunty smiles. Mr. Mann loves this apparition of calculated bravura and initially he frames the first few heists as seamlessly choreographed set pieces. During the first robbery he shows Dillinger and two accomplices from high overhead, the camera peering straight down as the men fan across a black-and-white bank floor like MGM dancers. When Dillinger leaps across a railing, he soars.

It’s a seductive moment — the bad man seems to be defying gravity, not just the law — and much like the other action scenes, it gives the movie a jolt. It also, perhaps in homage, mirrors a similar shot of the escaping serial killer in David Fincher’s “Seven.” Like Mr. Fincher, Mr. Mann makes big-budget art movies that because of their complex pleasures and ambiguities, don’t always hit the box office sweet spot (“Seven” and “Collateral,” Mr. Mann’s movie with Tom Cruise, being exceptions). Despite Mr. Mann’s mainstream bona fides, notably with the 1980s hit TV show “Miami Vice,” and preference for muscular cinematic genres, there’s something resolutely noncommercial about his movies. Among other things, they’re deeply serious (at times to the edge of parody), which is why they rarely pop.

And “Public Enemies” is nothing if not serious, a vividly realistic if fictionalized portrait of a country deep in depression and jumping with bad men. The story centers on two dramatic antagonists, Dillinger and Melvin Purvis (a remote Christian Bale), the F.B.I. agent who doggedly, if often ineptly, led the hunt for America’s most wanted. At first the bureau’s young chief, J. Edgar Hoover (a terrific Billy Crudup, his neck thickened and delivery clipped), ignored Dillinger, deeming him a state problem. Hoover would have been spared embarrassment if the outlaw had remained out of federal jurisdiction because, when the chase was on, it was with agents who didn’t know how to conduct a stakeout or properly fire their guns.

Like Dillinger, Hoover cultivated a public profile that looked good on paper and later up on the screen. They had a lot of competition. Bonnie and Clyde were running wild, as were Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson and other hoods with marquee-ready stories, some of whom make appearances here. Banks made for easy targets, logistically and otherwise, and, as the writer Bryan Burrough points out in a book about America’s inaugural war on crime, these outlaws took advantage of the public’s hatred of those recently failed institutions. Dillinger raided bank vaults and staged prison breaks to increasing approval. He shot one man to death, though didn’t always own up to the killing. It was bad for his image.

He became another kind of America’s most wanted: a star. “Get me the money, Honey,” he instructed one female teller with his crooked smile. The press raised his profile with screaming headlines, and the comic Will Rogers joked about the ineptitude of the authorities. (They were going to shoot Dillinger, Rogers joked, but “another bunch of folks came out ahead; so they shot them instead.”) Mr. Mann, working with incidents drawn from Mr. Burrough’s “Public Enemies: America’s Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the F.B.I., 1933-34,” underscores the celebrity angle. But that’s only part of the big picture sketched out in his ambitious screenplay, written with Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman, which also makes room for a love story amid the blazing guns and tabloid glory.

The relationship between Dillinger and a hatcheck girl named Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard, holding her own in this man’s world) eats up considerable time, sometimes winningly, though both actors are better when they’re apart. When not in pirate drag, Mr. Depp can be a recessive, even inscrutable screen presence, which is crucial to his strengths and performative limits. He’s a cool cat, to be sure: veiled and often most memorable when he’s staring into space while the camera soaks in his subdued but potent physical charms. He might have made a great silent star, as earlier roles suggest. Part of his initial appeal was that he seemed almost Garboesque in a movie world that increasingly makes no room for sacred idols.

Mr. Depp looks good as Dillinger — few contemporary actors can wear a fedora as persuasively — but the performance sneaks up on you, inching into your system scene by scene. The same holds true of “Public Enemies,” which looks and plays like no other American gangster film I can think of and very much like a Michael Mann movie, with its emphasis on men at work, its darkly moody passages, eruptions of violence and pictorial beauty. Mr. Mann’s digital manipulations, in particular, which encompass almost pure abstraction and interludes of hyper-realism, is worthy of longer exegesis, one that explores how this still-unfamiliar format is changing the movies: it allows, among other things, filmmakers to capture the eerie brightness of nighttime as never before.

“Public Enemies” doesn’t look like the usual gangster picture, not only because it’s been shot in digital, but also because Mr. Mann is searching for a new kind of gangster story to fit the times, one that makes room for greater ambivalence, and lawmen and outlaws who are closer to one another in temperament and deed. If he doesn’t fully succeed, it’s because he knows that the gangster’s rakish smile is at once a fiction of cinema and one of its great, irresistible lies. During the big finish, Dillinger grins wryly at a black-and-white Hollywood picture with Clark Gable as the kind of gangster who could only have been invented by the movies, a gangster who is as false as the bullets that finally stopped Dillinger were real.

“Public Enemies” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Bloody gun violence.

Public Enemies

Opens on Wednesday nationwide.

Directed by Michael Mann; written by Mr. Mann, Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman, based on the book by Bryan Burrough; director of photography, Dante Spinotti; edited by Paul Rubell and Jeffrey Ford; music by Elliot Goldenthal; production designer, Nathan Crowley; produced by Mr. Mann and Kevin Misher; released by Universal Pictures. Running time: 2 hours 13 minutes.

WITH: Johnny Depp (John Dillinger), Christian Bale (Melvin Purvis), Marion Cotillard (Billie Frechette), Billy Crudup (J. Edgar Hoover), Stephen Dorff (Homer Van Meter), Jason Clarke (Red Hamilton) and Stephen Lang (Charles Winstead).

Harry Potter and Half Blood Prince

half_blood_prince_l
WIZ KID Michael Gambon and Daniel Radcliffe seek enlightenment in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Darkness is visible from the outset of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The Death Eaters mobilized by the return of Lord Voldemort at the end of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix are on the loose in London, streaking through an anxious metropolis on missions of urban destruction that, in a different fantasy cosmos, might challenge the talents of Batman. Thunder rattles a gray sky; the camera alights on a heavyhearted young man reading his newspaper in a sad subway café out of an old Edward Hopper painting while he ogles a pretty waitress out of modern multiracial England. Yet there's cause for audience spirits to be high: The universally recognizable fellow is Harry Potter, embodied in blossoming manhood by Daniel Radcliffe. The newspaper is The Daily Prophet, that model of innovative print journalism in which every photo not only tells a story, but morphs into a moving picture, too. And it's abundantly clear that director David Yates, returning to the magical realm after Order of the Phoenix, and indispensable Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves (he's written all but the Phoenix script) have perfected a crucial potion: They've found just the right balance of timeless spiritual profundity and contemporary teen specificity, of awe and humor, necessary to steer J.K. Rowling's 
 enthralling seven-book saga to a satisfying conclusion. Will Hermione (Emma Watson) attract Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint)? Will Ron kiss flouncy, pouncy Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave)? Will Harry connect with Ron's no-longer-such-a-kid sister, Ginny (Bonnie Wright)? And will good triumph over evil? Stick around till Yates and Kloves' final two-part Potter production, scheduled for 2010 and 2011, and find out.

Even loyal readers who enjoy the gift of clairvoyance may appreciate a reminder or two about the plot of Half-Blood Prince. Just before Harry is set to return to Hogwarts, the star student is recruited by venerable headmaster Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) for a mission. The old wizard wants to lure the retired Potions professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent, doing a juicy inside-out version of his role 
 in Topsy-Turvy) back to Hogwarts to find out what the vain old goat remembers about a certain former star student named Tom Riddle. (Long story short for Muggles: Riddle became Voldemort.) In the meantime, Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) is being groomed to do some major evil. And Prof. Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) appears to have Draco's back — as well as the most delicious ability to. clip. his. words.

All the while, the teenage wizards-in-training have enough to handle just being regular teens under the spell of raging hormones. ''Excuse me, I have to go and vomit,'' Hermione announces with a bite worthy of Gossip Girl when she observes Ron getting all snoggy with Lavender, who's one of the great lovestruck steamrollers of teen literature. And anyone who has survived 12th grade has passed a pale individualist classmate like Evanna Lynch's Luna Lovegood in the hallway, or encountered an imperious dragon-lady teacher like Maggie Smith's Minerva McGonagall.

On the other hand, not many teens face a hero's quest as daunting as the one set for Harry, with a showdown scheduled for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Half-Blood Prince encompasses important plot developments involving both love and death. But the story is, still and all, only a pause, deferring an intensely anticipated conclusion. And it's in that exquisite place of action and waiting that this elegantly balanced production emerges as a model adaptation. By now, as played with utmost loyalty to the cause by some of Britain's most illustrious actors, the supporting characters are as familiar as the population of Homer Simpson's neighborhood (and that's a great compliment). Yet with a big assist from cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel — a Potter newbie who memorably shot Amélie and Across the Universe — the filmmakers have found a way to refresh our eyes and enhance our appreciation for this rich, amazing creation. A-

Angel and Demons

Angels & Demons
Zade Rosenthal/Sony Pictures

Tom Hanks and Ayelet Zurer in "Angels & Demons."

Since “Angels & Demons” takes place mainly in the Vatican, and is festooned with the rites and ornaments of Roman Catholicism, I might as well begin with a confession. I have not read the novel by Dan Brown on which this film (directed, like its predecessor, “The Da Vinci Code,” by Ron Howard) is based. I have come to believe that to do so would be a sin against my faith, not in the Church of Rome but in the English language, a noble and beleaguered institution against which Mr. Brown practices vile and unspeakable blasphemy.

And it was partly, perhaps, because I chose to remain innocent of the book that I was able to enjoy “Angels & Demons” more than “The Da Vinci Code,” which opened almost exactly three years ago to an international critical hissy fit and global box office rapture. (The novel “Angels & Demons “was published three years before “The Da Vinci Code.”)

This movie, without being particularly good, is nonetheless far less hysterical than “Da Vinci.” Its preposterous narrative, efficiently rendered by the blue-chip screenwriting team of Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp, unfolds with the locomotive elegance of a Tintin comic or an episode of “Murder, She Wrote.” Mr. Howard’s direction combines the visual charm of mass-produced postcards with the mental stimulation of an easy Monday crossword puzzle. It could be worse.

The only people likely to be offended by “Angels & Demons” are those who persist in their adherence to the fading dogma that popular entertainment should earn its acclaim through excellence and originality. It is therefore not surprising that the public reaction so far has been notably calm. Theological hyperventilation has been minimal, and Columbia Pictures has not been accused of falsifying the history or corrupting the morals of Western civilization.

L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, has found nothing worthy of rebuke, and who can quarrel with that judgment? In the busy, bloody course of the picture a few hot topical buttons are gently grazed, but in the end (sorry if I’m spoiling anything) “Angels & Demons” boldly insists that science and religion must coexist, an empirical observation elevated to a statement of principle. Both the persecution of Galileo by the 17th-century church and the more recent (apparently fictional) practice of murdering priests in popular tourist locations in the name of reason are roundly condemned.

It is such killing — undertaken by an anxious grad-student type in the service of an obscure cause — that naturally preoccupies the film’s scholarly hero, the Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon. Langdon, no favorite of the Holy See and long denied access to the Vatican archives, is summoned to Rome to assess, and then defuse, a deadly threat involving antimatter, papal succession and the ancient pro-science terrorist underground known as the Illuminati. You didn’t suspect the Illuminati? Nobody suspects the Illuminati. Except Robert Langdon of course.

Played by Tom Hanks in his high minimalist mode, his face stroboscopically snapping from wry smirk to worried squint and back again, Langdon is something of a cipher in his own right, a walking embodiment of skeptical intellect who seems, most of the time, not to have a thought in his head. Once again Mr. Hanks is accompanied by a ravishing international movie star, in this case the Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer (“Munich,” “Vantage Point”). She plays Vittoria Vetra, an Italian scientist — specializing in “bioentanglement physics” — whose role is to serve not as a romantic foil for the sexless professor but rather as his sidekick sleuth and fellow panelist in a high-velocity interdisciplinary seminar.

The high-minded shop talk, half buttressed by real historical information, half floating in the ether of cocktail party nonsense, seems to be a crucial feature of a Robert Langdon adventure, and you can only be charmed when the symbologist says things like: “An obelisk! A kind of pyramid adopted by the Illuminati! If he’s going to kill, he’ll do it here.”

And as an exercise in extreme mass-market tourism “Angels & Demons” gives pretty good value. Unable to shoot in the Vatican itself, Mr. Howard and his team have deftly blended actual Roman locations with Hollywood stage sets and C.G.I. confections to make a dreamy, ephemeral Eternal City.

The costume and production design — all those red cardinals’ robes swirling dervishlike in the incense-tinted light, those sensuous Bernini sculptures and soundless library stacks — nearly steal the movie from the bland, dogged heroes. Luckily an international squad of potential villains and victims — you’ll figure out who is which soon enough, since Mr. Brown tends to let the wiring show when he rigs his surprise twists — has already carried out the larceny.

Just as “The Da Vinci Code” was rescued, or at least mitigated, by the twinkling nonsense of Ian McKellen, so is “Angels & Demons” kicked into something like life by the histrionic professionalism of Armin Mueller-Stahl, Stellan Skarsgard and Ewan McGregor. The three of them are players in a Vatican power struggle that takes shape after the death of a beloved pope.

His likely successors have vanished, and in trying to find them and prevent Vatican City from being blasted into oblivion, Langdon and Vittoria find themselves in a mare’s nest of hidden agendas and competing jurisdictions. Mr. Skarsgard, commander of the Swiss Guards, and Mr. Mueller-Stahl, a powerful cardinal, are obvious heavies, while Mr. McGregor has a fine time playing a wide-eyed Irish Obi-Wan with a wee bit of a messiah complex.

The utter silliness of “Angels & Demons” is either its fatal flaw or its saving grace, and in the spirit of compassion I suppose I’d be inclined to go with the second option. The movie all but begs for such treatment.

“When you write about us,” an erstwhile nemesis says to Langdon near the end, “and you will write about us, do so gently.” It was as if he were looking right into my soul. And how could I refuse such a humble, earnest petition? Go in peace.

“Angels and Demons” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). It has some fairly gruesome deaths.

ANGELS & DEMONS

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Ron Howard; written by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman, based on the novel by Dan Brown; director of photography, Salvatore Totino; edited by Dan Hanley and Mike Hill; music by Hans Zimmer; production designer, Allan Cameron; produced by Brian Grazer, Mr. Howard and John Calley; released by Columbia Pictures and Imagine Entertainment. Running time: 2 hours 20 minutes.

WITH: Tom Hanks (Prof. Robert Langdon), Ewan McGregor (Camerlengo Patrick McKenna), Ayelet Zurer (Dr. Vittoria Vetra), Stellan Skarsgard (Commander Richter), Pierfrancesco Favino (Inspector Ernesto Olivetti), Nikolaj Lie Kaas (Assassin/Mr. Gray) and Armin Mueller-Stahl (Cardinal Strauss).

StarTrek

Star Trek
Paramount Pictures

Zachary Quinto, left, as Spock and Chris Pine as James T. Kirk in "Star Trek."

A bright, shiny blast from a newly imagined past, “Star Trek,” the latest spinoff from the influential television show, isn’t just a pleasurable rethink of your geek uncle’s favorite science-fiction series. It’s also a testament to television’s power as mythmaker, as a source for some of the fundamental stories we tell about ourselves, who we are and where we came from. The famous captain (William Shatner, bless his loony lights) and creator (Gene Roddenberry, rest in peace) may no longer be on board, but the spirit of adventure and embrace of rationality that define the show are in full swing, as are the chicks in minis and kicky boots.

Initially appearing in 1966, the original “Star Trek” is a utopian fantasy of the first order, a vision of the enlightened future in which whites, blacks, Asians and one poker-faced Vulcan are united by their exploratory mission (“to boldly go”), a prime directive (no intervention) and the occasional dust-up. An origin story directed with a sure touch and perfect tone by J. J. Abrams, the fully loaded film — a showcase for big-studio hardware, software, muscled boys who can act and leggy girls who aren’t required to — turns back the narrative clock to the moment before the main characters first assembled on the deck of the U.S.S. Enterprise, a sleek spacecraft that invariably sails into intergalactic storms. Even utopia needs a little bang.

Apparently so do franchise reboots, which explains why the movie opens with a loud, somewhat chaotic scene filled with fireballs, airborne bodies, heroically clenched male jaws and a squawking pregnant woman about to pop out the future James Tiberius Kirk. Born in space (well, a shuttle craft), Kirk is destined to return to its embracing darkness. (Future “Trek” scholars will be working the Oedipal angle hard.) But this being an origin story, first there’s a peek at a boy (Jimmy Bennett as the young Kirk) tearing down an Iowa highway in a stolen hot rod, a paradigmatic character moment that’s juxtaposed with images of a young brainiac (Jacob Kogan as the wee Spock) problem-solving with intelligence and a few punches.

Kirk and Spock don’t meet in person until they’re adults — now played by Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto — at Starfleet Academy, which, in keeping with the show’s liberal leanings, is in San Francisco. At school Kirk flirts with Uhura (Zoë Saldana), a hot number who coolly brushes him off, and makes friends with a doctor, Leonard McCoy, a k a Bones (Karl Urban, wild-eyed and funny). Kirk also comes smack up against Spock, an officious instructor. In the tradition of many great romances, the two men take almost an instant dislike to each other, an antagonism that literalizes the Western divide between the mind (Spock) and body (Kirk) that gives the story emotional and dramatic force as well as some generous laughs.

Those laughs never slide into mockery. Mr. Abrams doesn’t treat “Star Trek” as a sacred text, which would be deadly for everyone save the fanatics. But neither does he skewer a pop cultural classic that, more than 40 years after its first run, has been so lampooned (it feels like there are more “South Park” parodies than original episodes) it was difficult to see how he was going to give it new life. By design or accident, he has, simply because in its hopefulness “Star Trek” reminds you that there’s more to science fiction (and Hollywood blockbusters) than nihilism. Mr. Abrams doesn’t venture into politics as boldly as Mr. Roddenberry sometimes did, though it’s worth noting he does equate torture with barbarism.

The barbarians here are the Romulans, who at one point in television time used to look a lot like Spock, but here resemble a Maori motorcycle gang complete with facial tattoos and Goth threads. Led by the glowering psychopath Nero (Eric Bana, an actor who knows how to take villainy seriously), the Romulans are mainly on hand to provoke the Starfleet cadets into space. There Mr. Abrams shows off some expensive-looking special effects, including an enemy warship that, with its enormous, grasping tendrils, by turns resembles a monstrous jellyfish and a malignantly blooming flower. The film comes down on the side of hope, but its apocalyptic interludes, including the image of a planet imploding into gray dust, collapsing like a desiccated piece of fruit, linger.

Despite these visions, the flashing lasers and latex aliens, “Star Trek” is fundamentally about two men engaged in a continuing conversation about civilizations and their discontents. Hot and cold, impulsive and tightly controlled, Kirk and Spock need each other to work, a dynamic Mr. Abrams captures with his two well-balanced leads. Mr. Quinto lets you see and hear the struggle between the human and the Vulcan in Spock through the emotions that ripple across his face and periodically throw off his unmodulated phrasing. Mr. Pine has the harder job — he has to invoke Mr. Shatner’s sui generis performance while transcending its excesses — which makes his nuanced interpretation all the more potent. Steering clear of outright imitation, the two instead distill the characters to capture their essence, their Kirk-ness and Spock-ness.

Written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the story has plenty of chatter, but Mr. Abrams keeps the talk moving, slowing down only intermittently, as when Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) or the wryly smiling Leonard Nimoy (!) unload some paternalistic advice on Kirk. A television veteran (“Lost”), Mr. Abrams handles the action scenes better than he did in his only other big-screen outing (“Mission: Impossible III”), largely by not lavishing too much time on them. By far his finest moments take place on the brightly lighted deck of the Enterprise, where against the backdrop of limitless space, Kirk, Spock and the rest of the young crew fumble with roles that — much like the young actors playing them, including Anton Yelchin as Chekov and John Cho as Sulu — they ultimately and rather wonderfully make their own.