Irrfan Khan is not your regular hero but he is one of the rare breed of actors who can kick some serious butt even if he is pitted against your typical hero in his very own backyard. But he hasn’t reached such a stature overnight. It’s taken years of TV serials, numerous passable films and a lot of hard work. He got his first break in films with Mira Nair’s Salaam Bombay but unfortunately his scene was deleted before the release. He went on to play the role of Senapati in the famous Chankya on TV and was also seen in the award winning film Ek Doctor Ki Maut in 1991. Still, it wasn’t until 2003 that he was really noticed in India even though he did The Warrior which won the Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film.

                                                                                           In 2003 came Haasil, a gem of a film based in Allahabad about student politics and love which got Irrfan his first Filmfare award for the negative role as Ranvijay Singh. This was what his career needed and he hasn’t looked back since then. Over the past 6 years he has done films across various genres and played so many memorable characters. His performance in films like Maqbool, Life…In a Metro and Mumbai Meri Jaan speaks volumes about his range and talent. It was because of such performances that he got films like The Namesake and the Angelina Jolie starrer A Mighty Heart which got him rave reviews in Hollywood. Namesake in particular was a special performance by the man who just expresses so much by his body language that he doesn’t even need dialogues. He makes you live his character along with him which is something that can only be said for the likes of Al Pacino, Robert De Niro etc.                                                                                                                                                              And  If people were wondering what more can this man offer, he has given us another unforgettable performance as Billu. He captured the helplessness and simplicity of Billu perfectly and did it so naturally that it was hard to believe he had ever been anybody else but Billu. Hats off to this fine actor who, in spite of not having the personality of a star continues to inspire and amaze. He is a complete superstar in my book and I hope I get to  see more such performances.

Entertainment Weekly recently posted a list of the top twenty-five active film directors. These lists will forever cause disagreement and controversy but some of the inclusions, and subsequent exclusions, on this list are pretty unforgivable. Even if you don’t find it too irratating, as a film fan and blogger I feel it only necessary to present some arguments both against the inclusion of some and against the exclusion of others while I would also like to take some time to argue for the inclusion of a few that I think may brook argument elsewhere.

EW’s Original List:
25. Jon Favreau
24. Pedro Almodovar
23. Paul Greengrass
22. Paul Thomas Anderson
21. Ang Lee
20. Ron Howard
19. Clint Eastwood
18. Danny Boyle
17. Darren Aronofsky
16. Zack Snyder
15. Sam Raimi
14. Judd Apatow
13. Tim Burton
12. David Fincher
11. Guillermo Del Toro
10. Joel and Ethan Coen
9. James Cameron
8. Michael Mann
7. Quentin Tarantino
6. Ridley Scott
5. Steven Soderbergh
4. Christopher Nolan
3. Martin Scorsese
2. Peter Jackson
1. Steven Spielberg

Against The Inclusions

• I like Iron Man, I’m entertained by Elf, I haven’t seen Zathura. With this knowledge in my mind, I have to say that including Jon Favreau on this list is completely ridiculous. The action in Iron Man was okay but nothing to send pictures to Grandma about and Elf was passable and sweet but nothing representing visual flair, shot choices or directon of actors made this seems like Favreau was even remotely in the category of auteur. He did a huge amount of work to bring Iron Man to the screen in the form it comes in, but that really just marks him out as a hard-working and likeable fellow, not a great director.
• Ron Howard is a skilled technician and delivers very entertaining films. But every one of them is entertaining but nothing beyond. His films are filled with unspectacular direction in which he exhibits a great understanding of what will make audiences tick, but displays no ability to understand the psychological motivations behind characters, or at least fails to show he understands this on film. I don’t think you could ever watch any of his films and consider its a ‘Ron Howard film’. He’d likely say this is because he has no set style and just works in a way that will best serve the story he is telling. I would say it’s because he is a competent but entirely unspectacular director.
• Zack Snyder is certainly making a name for himself but, until the world has seen and been able to judge Watchmen, he cannot even remotely be considered great. Dawn of the Dead is a lot of fun but 300 is lifeless, if imaginative. He has chops but I am entirely unconvinced at present that he is ‘great’.
• Judd Apatow is a highly influential producer and writer. He has pioneered a new comic genre which currently shares a mantle alongside the Ferrell/McKay axis as the top box-office comedy type of this current generation. But, he is a director with very little again in any sort of visual flair and with little self-editing ability. Both the 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up are excellent but both go on for too long and rely more on the quality of chemistry between actors and the scripts/improv than his work. You could argue he has much to do with the quality that you see in the chemistry, but I’m not too sure on that.
• Tim Burton used to be something of an enchanting genius. Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood will stand up for eternity while he has other good works in his past with Beetlejuice and the Batmans. He even proved adept at toning himself down slightly for Big Fish. But now, despite the success of that, he has retreated back into his gothic comfort zone and continues to droll out only-okay pictures. His Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was creepy and filled with poor choices. Sweeney Todd was beautifully designed but so far into what we expect from Burton that any sense of excitement is taken away. Now he is moving on to do Frankenweenie and Alice in Wonderland, neither of which promise anything different from the man. If he could grow a pair and test himself a little more, I would be far more inclined to place him amongst these top players.
• James Cameron is a genius on his day, but are we really excited so much by the new film from a guy who has done nothing for a decade outside of 3D experimentation and nature documentaries? Avatar sounds incredible but I would be hesitant to get too excited, especially given the place of Titanic as a superb spectacle film with excruciating dialogue and generally hammy acting. Avatar may look amazing, but it may end up disappointing the legions desiring something life-changing beyond the credits.
• Ridley Scott is another with incredible films in his back catalogue but who has not really delivered anything of real value since Gladiator. He now seems to occupy an odd space where a select group of actors want to constantly work with him on projects which seem interesting. Then, he turns in films which are technically brilliant but have nearly no heart or depth. American Gangster is the prime example, a work which should have been fascinating and engrossing, instead turned into a long, well-acted and well-made episodic gangster movie-by-numbers.
• Peter Jackson did direct Lord of the Rings and you will find no arguments for me on the brilliance of those films. No doubt he should be on the list. But King Kong was an epic fumble that would have bumped him back a few places for me and though his early splatter career in New Zealand is filled with energy, and Heavenly Creatures is very good indeed, I just can’t quite build the enthusiasm I would need to defend his position above, yes above, Martin Scorsese.

In Defense of

• Danny Boyle is likely to come in for criticism that he is placed on this list purely because of the Slumdog Millionaire hype. I disagree intensely. Here is a director adept across a number of genres who made two of the defining British films of the 1990s (Shallow Grave and Trainspotting) and possibly one of the most stylistically influential of the 2000s (28 Days Later). He has worked across these genres with varying degress of success but he has always shown a visual and narrative flair which should not be discounted, especially if it can be partnered with good actors and a strong script, as evidenced by Slumdog Millionaire itself. If you want a true representation of how good he can be, check out Millions, the small British kids film he made a couple of years back which perfectly presents his ability to find heart and soul in abundance when the material serves.
• Sam Raimi managed with the Spiderman films to incorporate so much of his own style into a mainstream piece of filmmaking. He, like Boyle, has had varying success across genres and I’m not fully sure I could justify how high he is placed, but he delivered two excellent superhero movies which paved the way for the new generation to come through and, if you want any other argument, directed Evil Dead. Nuff said.
• Christopher Nolan will likely come under criticism from some corners for how high he is placed in the list. I might agree with that but his inclusion is absolutely warranted. I didn’t fanatically love The Dark Knight in the way many did, but Nolan is a director of incredible skill and intelligence and you cannot fault the ambition shown in The Dark Knight to try and transcend the stereotypes of a genre, even if not everything works. Beyond that, Memento and The Prestige are both superb and I suppose I would just say that I look forward greatly to what he will take on next outside of the Gotham universe.

The Omissions

• Terrence Malick  may not be prolific by any standards but he must be considered among the finest filmmakers currently working. Badlands and Days of Heaven are timeless works of art while The Thin Red Line and The New World are both outstanding and worthy of reassessment.
• Outside of Del Toro, Alfonso Cuaron is the most versatile and talented of the new wave of Mexican filmmakers which came into force during the early part of the 2000s. He had been working for some time before, breaking through with Solo Con tu Pareja (Love in the Time of Hysteria) in the early 1990s but really came to prominence with Y Tu Mama Tambien (And Your Mother Too), the engrossing, sexy rites-of-passage road trip before delivering the best Harry Potter film to date and then one of the defining sci-fi works of our time in Children of Men. He is technically masterful and I can’t wait to see what he delivers next.
• Yes, he’s seen some diminishing returns in the past few years, but Wes Anderson is growing as a visual filmmaker and, should he see the value in reuniting with Owen Wilson in writing in the near future, could deliver a script to match his growing skill. If you want to look back too, he has delivered some of the most interesting films of his generation, most notably his charming first two efforts, Bottle Rocket and Rushmore.
• Shane Meadows is a more personal choice for me, but fans of his would surely be able to back the robust argument for his inclusion. His first few films are imbued with a visceral verite style but more than anything, he is as finer humanist as anyone currently working. His work explores the heart of working class youth in Britain with amazing skill and, if you need to test out and see why he is so vital to the modern filmmaking world, watch Dead Man’s Shoes and This is England. The former is an emotional revenge film with killer performances from Paddy Considine and Toby Kebbell while the latter is his masterpiece, managing to blend an exploration of the difficult socio-politcal environment of the Thatcher era with a coming of age tale about a disenchanted and hurt teenager. He is also a visually interesting filmmaker and, as evidenced in A Room for Romeo Brass and This is England, a skilled practioner with actors, specifically managing to draw amazing performances from child cast members.
• Julian Schnabel wouldn’t have made the list until The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, his astonishing biopic treatment of the biography by former Elle editor Jean-Dominique Bauby. His other works are lively and interesting and both, Basquiat with Jeffrey Wright and Before Night Falls with Javier Bardem, have amazing central performances. With Diving Bell though, his artistic tendencies were streamlined into creating a moving and visually fascinating whole product. Now I will wait with baited breath to see his next full project.
• Gus Van Sant is one who has been plugging away for some time now, generally delivering good films if often flitting so openly between mainstream and hyper-indie styles. This year we were treated to the two sides of his personality which solidified his place amongst the best of his generation. Paranoid Park was in keeping with his independently-styled works like Gerry and Elephant, employing superb cinematography from Christopher Doyle and allowing Van Sant to draw out the kind of naturalistic performances from his actors which he has cultivated in his recent work. Milk then works on the other end, delivering a the same sort of intimacy and style but on a larger platter with Van Sant not having to rely on non-professional actors to bring him through. After his marquee twelve months, he is now placing himself amongst the finest filmmakers working, able to infuse mainstream, Academy-baiting product with his own eye for visual flair.
• The lack of British filmmakers will always jar a little for us on this side of the pond, but how on earth can Mike Leigh not be on the list? Just looking at his catalogue, he has pretty much created a flawless ouevre, peaking with the incredible Naked and Secrets & Lies. In the past few years too he has shown his ability to flit across non-genre filmmaking, delivering the backstage musical palate of Topsy Turvy, the hopeful optimism of All or Nothing and Happy Go-Lucky and the biopic of Vera Drake. He stands as maybe the best British filmmakers of his generation and, although excitment is rarely palpable for his work, at least some anticipation should be built considering how much brilliance often flows from his work.
• Errol Morris is among only a few, and probably the only true, auteurs working within the documentary field at present. His work is so far removed from the work being done by his peers and so much his own work, you cannot help but be excited by his projects. Standard Operating Procedure was not among his best, but consider the life-changing Thin Blue Line, not to mention the probing eccentricity of the likes of Gates of Heaven and Vernon, Florida for further evidence. If you want anything to hold up though, alongside the Thin Blue Line, as a mark of his brilliance, try Fog of War, a piece which must be considered among the greatest interviews ever conducted.
• You could never expect his inclusion, and he is as erratic as anyone on the list, but Guy Maddin is nothing if not interesting. Anticipating his films is filled with moments of trepidation and confusion, heightened further when you actually see the films and need to watch multiple times to find the genius working within. That doesn’t happen every time, but I would argue he has made at least five stunning films during his career, surely enough for consideration.
• Spike Jonze has only made two full-length features to date, but after Adaptation proved that Being John Malkovich was no fluke, he must be considered among the most fascinating talents currently working. He has created some of the best music videos of all time and those two movies are worth the time of anyone interested in watching something truly original. Where The Wild Things Are is my most anticipated movie of the coming year, should it come to fruition, and I can’t wait to see how that turns out. He doesn’t have the history of many of the names but, really, is there any film fan in the world more interested in watching a Jon Favreau movie over a Spike Jonze?
• Michel Gondry probably falls into a similar category as Jonze. At this point though, we are forming a fuller picture of his restless, childlike genius. He slipped early with Human Nature but then made one of the defining romantic films of the decade in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. His work in both Science of Sleep and Be Kind Rewind sometimes borders of the edge of twee, but he is such an ingenious stylist whose enthusiasm and eccentricity flow through his work.
• Michael Winterbottom is another filmmaker from the UK who you could term the Danny Boyle slightly further into the leftfield. His work is fiercely independent, again avoiding any cliche or generic restrictions to create a catalogue of interesting, sometimes flawed work. It doesn’t always work but when he is at full-pelt, notably with 24 Hour Party People and the underrated A Mighty Heart, he draws fantastic performances from his actors and has a probing, intrusive sense of what the camera should see, meaning he always produces original, visceral work.
• Of all the omissions, how can be possibly leave Werner Herzog off? One of the greatest, most individual filmmakers of all time, adept and making epic, sweeping pictures and intimate, probing documentaries. This is the man who had his crew haul a boat over a mountain. Who gave the world maybe the best opening shot in movie history in Aguirre, Wrath of God. I don’t feel an argument is necessary to make. If you’ve seen Herzog’s work, just ask why he’s not on the list.

Changeling 

Clint Eastwood’s worst reviewed film since Blood Work is also his most enjoyable (although I haven’t seen Flags of our Fathers or Letters From Iwo Jima). A terrifically flawed and meandering storyline that has trouble finding cohesive ways to connect its varying ideas, characters and plots. Writer J. Michael Staczynski hasn’t crafted a single character resembling anything more than one-dimensional stereotypes, and Eastwood’s medley of actors fail to add depth to these hollow cliches.

It’s disheartening to see Jolie nominated for a role that is little more than crying and repeating various phrases ten times over, such as “I want my son back!”, when she was passed over for her natural and far more complex performance in last year’s A Mighty Heart. If this all sounds overly negative, it’s because Changeling’s faults are glaringly obvious, yet perhaps it’s because I went in expecting a cinematic perversion and found myself pleasantly entertained. Still, any movie in which John Malkovich is your voice of reason is a strange one indeed.

Frozen River

A breakout hit at Sundance that’s been nominated for two oscars, Frozen River has me bewildered by the critical acclaim that it has met since it’s premiere last January. Writer-Director Courtney Hunt tries to meld  thriller and indie family drama, plus a hint of political commentary just for good measure’s sake. In the hands of a competent director these elements might come together to form something slightly credible and compelling. Instead with an array of incompetent and amateur actors as well as some of the worst digital cinematography I’ve seen bar none, Frozen River mostly comes across as a student film barely stretched into 90 minutes.

The Sixth Sense

What else is there left to say about this? Easily Shymalan’s best film (although I haven’t seen Wide Awake … bad joke), it ranges from the sublime (Haley Joel Osment’s mesmerizing performance as the subtly named Cole Sear) to the dreadful (the over-wrought, and in retrospect, quite silly ending). The film really comes alive when Osment is its focus and Shymalan manages to pull of a number of quite chilling set-pieces, which are usually followed by unnecessary scenes chock full of exposition that negate any and all mood, feeling, drama he has created previously. Unfortunately, the relationship between Bruce and Osment, which is adeptly handled, is wrapped up with too neat a bow. The way things are going it doesn’t look as if The Sixth Sense will stand the test of time.

Changeling (Universal, widescreen, $29.98) DVD of the Week

– feature, 140 mins; rated R

The first and least accomplished of last year’s Clint Eastwood films*,   Changeling, set in the Los Angeles of the 1920s,  features an Oscar-nominated performance by Angelina Jolie.

Jolie, in another turn as a real-life character (she played Mariane Pearl in 2007’s A Mighty Heart), is Christine Collins, whose 9-year-old son suddenly vanishes.

The LAPD, steeped in corruption, instead of working the case brings another boy — a street urchin, not Walter — back to Collins. Why the wrong kid? So that the department, in a hasty attempt to repair its heavily damaged reputation, can trumpet its success at solving the case and gain a little good PR.

Collins, of course, despite assurances to the contrary, protests that her son is still missing. For her troubles, she gets a quick trip to a mental ward, and public humiliation to boot. Her only ally, for a while, is a stiff-collared minister played by John Malkovich; his attacks on police misdoings reach thousands via his radio broadcasts.

There’s plenty of grist here for a terrific neo-noir film, ala L.A. Confidential — bone-deep corruption in the police force,  a sycophantic press, a force for good that may or may not be in the fight to boost his own celebrity, a few good cops, evil running rampant, a vintage-sounding score (composed by Eastwood) with mournful trumpet ballads on the soundtrack.

Eastwood, not surprisingly, gets the period feel right, and Jolie effectively gives her all to a somewhat undercooked character. And yet, Changeling is oddly misshapen, shifting from a tale of a missing child and police corruption to another story, about an emotionally/mentally damaged murderer of children, played to sickening effect by Jason Butler Harner.

The resulting trials – of the killer and the police department – take place simultaneously in film time, along the way causing the movie to nearly, but not quite, overstay its welcome. Call Changeling another smoothly professional, craftsmanlike effort from Eastwood, a veteran director who retains a knack for expert storytelling.

DVD extras:

• “Partners in Crime: Clint Eastwood and Angelina Jolie”
• “The Common Thread: Angelina Jolie Becomes Christine Collins”

*(The second, superior Eastwood film released last year was Gran Torino)

Also released this week:

Flash of Genius (Universal, $29.98), the “true” story of the man who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. Oddly, it’s more compelling than it sounds, largely due to Greg Kinnear’s surprisingly nuanced performance as a gifted engineer determined to fight for recognition for his achievement – even at the expense of his marriage and his sanity. Also stars Lauren Graham, Dermot Mulroney and Alan Alda.  Extras: Audio commentary by director Marc Abraham; deleted scenes.

Choke (Fox, $27.98), a willfully quirky, occasionally funny, decidedly adult-oriented comic drama, adapted from the book by Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club). Sam Rockwell is a sex addict and con artist on a quest to find his father — he’s choking on his urges and his mixed-up identity, and he’s literally choking on pieces of food, stuck in his throat in hopes that a wealthy restaurant patron will save him, and then shower him with sympathy checks. Clark Gregg, making his directorial debut, strains for a mix of edgy indie comedy and Judd Apatow slackerdom. But the seams are showing. Also stars the reliably offbeat Anjelica Huston, Kelly MacDonald, and Brad William Henke. Extras: Very funny, very crude audio commentary by Gregg and Rockwell; “A Conversation with Clark Gregg and Chuck Palahniuk; deleted scenes; gag reel; more.

Also out:

Body of Lies (Warner Bros., $22.99)

Hobson’s Choice (Criterion, $39.95)

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People (Sony, $27.98)

I Served the King of England (Sony, $28.96)

Quarantine (Sony, $28.96)

At 33, Kate Winslet is a tad on the young side for any kind of lifetime achievement award. Yet when she walks away with the Best Actress Oscar on Sunday for her role as the former concentration camp guard in The Reader, as she almost certainly will, that is what the little gold man will represent. This is, after all, her sixth nomination and she was a strong contender for a seventh for her turn as an unhappy housewife in Revolutionary Road. The Reader may not represent her personal best – for that, look to her nominated work in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Iris, or Sense and Sensibility, or even films that Oscar ignored, like Quills or Heavenly Creatures (her film debut, made when she was only 19 years old) – but all signs point to this being Winslet’s year.

That the 2008 Best Actress field is weak also works in Winslet’s favor. Her competition should be stronger, but the Academy saw fit to ignore Kristin Scott Thomas’ stunning portrayal of a troubled mother in I’ve Loved You So Long and Sally Hawkins’ effervescent, Golden Globe-winning performance as the bubbly Poppy in Mike Leigh’s  Happy-Go-Lucky. Instead, nominations went to Angelina Jolie – a consolation prize, no doubt, after her superior work in A Mighty Heart was ignored last year – for her over-the-top hysterics as a more sympathetic troubled mother in Changeling and to Meryl Streep, picking up her 15th nomination for her role as the suspicious nun in Doubt. The actress won for her supporting role in Kramer vs. Kramer (1980) and has continued to rack up nods over the past three decades for such films as  The French Lieutenant’s Woman, Sophie’s Choice (for which she won Best Actress), Silkwood, Ironweed, Postcards from the Edge, and Adaptation. The two-time Oscar winner can never be discounted, but she’s already been amply awarded by the Academy.

Nor does Winslet face much competition from the last two contenders. We loved Melissa Leo’s turn as yet another troubled mother in Frozen River and appreciate that the Academy is giving the Homicide: Life on the Street, 21 Grams, and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada’s actress some love. But Frozen River is a small movie, that type that usually gets ignored. Leo’s surprise nomination is her award.

That leaves Anne Hathaway, nominated for her haunting portrayal of an angry, guilt-ridden, recovering addict in Rachel Getting Married. If Clerkdogs were handing out the Oscars, the 26-year-old would take home the prize. She is simply stunning in a role that requires more emotionally from her than anything she’s played before. The Princess Diaries‘ Princess Mia traded in her tiara some time ago, taking on tougher roles in  Havoc and Brokeback Mountain, exploring her romantic lead potential in Becoming Jane, and demonstrating her comic chops in The Devil Wears Prada and Get Smart. She finally comes into her own under Jonathan Demme’s direction. We can only hope that means no more Bride Wars for her. This may be Kate Winslet’s year, but this is only Hathaway’s first nomination. That statue will be hers some time in the not-too-distant future.

- Pam G.

Fredagsnöjet den här veckan var  A Mighty Heart, Brangelinas prestigeprojekt om den amerikanske journalisten Daniel Pearl som blev kidnappad och halshuggen i Pakistan i efterdyningarna av 11 september. 

Som alltid när jag följer en historia vars slut jag redan känner till, väntar jag på the juicy parts. Speciellt om det, som i det här fallet, mest är en seg transportsträcka till det där hemska som jag vet ska komma. Angelina Jolie är ju till att börja med inte någon gudabenådad skådespelerska, och filmen i övrigt var mest rätt rörig och långtråkig. Framför allt blev jag inte berörd fast jag tyckte att jag borde det.

För svårt att gråta har jag ju aldrig haft. Snarare är avståndet mellan en känsla och den totala översvämningen i ögontrakten ofta provocerande kort. Men ibland, i den egna tv-soffan, är det förlösande att fälla några tårar över något som egentligen saknar betydelse för mitt liv. Och jag kan längta efter den typen av känslosvall utan verklig förankring – ett slags lipsillens reningsbad som inte kostar riktig smärta.

Så jag var lite besviken på min filmupplevelse, av flera anledningar. Tills det plötsligt hände. Angelina fick dödsbudet, ylade ut sin sorg på klassiskt Hollywoodmanér och som på given signal började det stocka sig i halsen (trots att jag samtidigt i en annan del av hjärnan ifrågasatte att en franskspråkig kvinna verkligen skulle skrika “No, no, no” i sitt livs svåraste stund). Lagom till eftertexterna snyftade jag högt. Min sambo filmvetaren klappade mig lite tafatt över håret och undrade varför jag blivit så ledsen. 

Och det är ju det här som är det svårförklarliga. Jag var ju inte ledsen. Jag bara grät på inlärd reflex över en halvtaskig imitation av något tragiskt som förvisso en gång hänt på riktigt. Hur sjutton förklarar man det för en rationell och sansad person? Jag har ingen aning – men tänker att det kanske finns en passande psykologisk förklaringsmodell, nånstans.

Frågan är bara hur jag ska hitta den.

My Rating:

Plot Synopsis (via IMDb): Inspired by actual events that occurred in 1920s-era Los Angeles, Clint Eastwood’s The Changeling tells the story of a woman driven to confront a corrupted LAPD after her abducted son is retrieved and she begins to suspect that the boy returned to her is not the same boy she gave birth to. The year was 1928, and the setting a working-class suburb of Los Angeles. As Christine (Angelina Jolie) said goodbye to her son, Walter, and departed for work, she never anticipated that this was the day her life would be forever changed. Upon returning home, Christine was distressed to discover that Walter was nowhere to be found. Over the course of the following months, the desperate mother would launch a search that would ultimately prove fruitless. Yet just when it seemed that all hope was lost, a nine-year-old boy claiming to be Christine’s son seemed to appear out of thin air. Overcome with emotions and uncertain how to face the authorities or the press, Christine invites the child to stay in her home despite knowing without a doubt that he is not her son. As much as Christine would like to accept the fact that her son has been returned to her, she cannot accept the injustice being pushed upon her and continues to challenge the Prohibition-era Los Angeles police force at every turn. As a result, Christine is slandered by the powers that be, and painted as an unfit mother. In this town, a woman who challenges the system is putting her life on the line, and as the situation grows desperate, the only person willing to aid her in her search is benevolent local activist Reverend Briegleb (John Malkovich).

Trailer:

Bottom Line: I went into this film expecting another terrific emotional story similar to that of another Angelina Jolie Film, A Mighty Heart.  But Changeling surpasses that by far and the reason is that in addition to being very emotional, the film is also extremely chilling.  Give Clint Eastwood all the credit for that whose talents as a director are unmatched.  The performances here are all very good including those by Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, and Amy Ryan.  It’s hard to say if Jolie can earn an Oscar nod considering her competition is ultra competitive this year (Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Sally Hawkins, Kristin Scott Thomas, Anne Hathaway, and Melissa Leo).  But the best of the bunch surprisingly may be the terrific and terrifying performance by Jason Butler Harner.  Now this is a very powerful drama so it may not be for everyone.  But it was right up my alley.  Overall, I think the combination of chills and drama pushes this movie over the top.  I loved this film and think it is one of the year’s best.

„A mighty heart“ – Ein Weg, der Bewunderung verdient

Angelina Jolie in der Hauptrolle, Brad Pitt auf dem Produktionssessel, Michael Winterbottom als Regisseur – ein grosses Staraufgebot, das ohne pompöse Inszenierung und mit viel Authenzität eine dramatische Geschichte erzählt. „A mighty heart“, 2007 im Kino, seit einiger Zeit auf DVD erhältlich, basiert auf dem autobiografischen Buch von Mariane Pearl, einer französische Journalistin, die mit ihrem Werk den grausamen Tod ihres Mannes verarbeitet. Daniel Pearl wurde 2002 in Pakistan in einen Hinterhalt gelockt, entführt und grausam hingerichtet. Seine Mörder, die zu einer religiösen Extremistengruppe gehören, filmen die Enthauptung des „Wall Street Journal“-Journalisten und verbreiten das Video stolz. „A mighty heart“ schafft es, ohne Effekthascherei oder den „Starbonus“, den man mit Angelina Jolie hätte nutzen können, diese Geschichte realitätsnah zu erzählen. Der Film lässt einen kaum atmen. Man fiebert mit, ist schockiert, leidet. Ob nun Journalist, Ehefrau, Mutter oder lediglich am Weltgeschehen interessiert: Der Film zeigt die komplexen und für uns unverständlichen Gedanken von Extremisten, macht klar, zu was Terror fähig ist. Das Schicksal von Daniel Pearl und seiner hochschwangeren Ehefrau nimmt den Zuschauer so sehr mit, dass er den einfältigen Kampf von Bush gegen den Terror wieder gutheissen möchte. Ich als Zuschauer habe mir beinahe noch härtere Haftbedingungen in Guantanamo Bay gewünscht, denn dort sitzen die Mörder von Daniel Pearl seit 2002 ein.

Zuletzt schafft Angelina Jolie ein schauspielerisches Meisterstück: Während sie sonst als hübsche Kampfmaschine agiert, versetzt sie sich hier perfekt in die Rolle von Mariane Pearl, mit der sie auch seit Jahren befreundet ist. Sie pfeift auf ihr eigenes gutes Aussehen und trägt lockige Haare und dunkel eingefärbte Haut, um der farbigen Pearl möglichst ähnlich zu sehen. Und sie gibt in einer eindrücklichen und doch gefassten Form die Verzweiflung und den Schmerz wieder, den man beinahe am eigenen Leib nachfühlen kann. Sie zeigt, wie es ist, wenn man einen geliebten Menschen verliert, gegen ein Regime kämpft, das wir nicht verstehen können und einen würdelosen Tod akzeptieren und verarbeiten muss.

Fazit: Ein Film, der ohne gross Aufsehen zu erregen, an die Nieren geht und eine unfassbare Brutalität zeigt, ohne wirklich Bilder zu verwenden.

Wir gedenken hiermit Daniel Pearl, einem grossartigen Journalisten, der sein Leben für seine Berufung opferte.

Two Blondes review a movie and ramble about themselves:

Daniel Pearl (1963-2002)

The 9/11 tragic events that took place at 9:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001, marked many people’s lives forever. Approximately 2,974 people were killed that morning. Hardly anybody will forget exactly what they were doing when the New York’s twin towers crumbled down in shambles.  It was a painful event difficult to forget, just like the assassination of President J.F. Kennedy in Dallas,Texas on Friday, November 22, 1963.

After 9/11 the world changed.  We were not safe anymore.  An undeclared war took place between radical fundamentalist Islamics and the West.  The United States reacted and attacked Afghanistan and Iraq.  Thousands of people have died and billions of dollars have been spent.  The end is not in sight.

I recently viewed a movie dubbed, A Mighty Heart, about the unfortunate abduction and assassination of Daniel Pearl, an American  journalist of the Wall Street Journal working in Karachi, Pakistan.  He was an innocent victim of this absurd war between radical Islam and the West.

At the time of his kidnapping, Pearl served as the South Asia Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal, stationed in Mumbai, India, and had been investigating the case of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and alleged links between Al Quaeda and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), for which he went to Pakistan, and was subsequently beheaded there.

In July 2002, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British national of Pakistani origin, was sentenced to death by hanging for Pearl’s abduction and murder.

In March 2007, at a closed military hearing in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said that he had personally beheaded Pearl.

The movie was based on a book written by Mariane Van Neyenhoff. She is a Buddhist, and member of the Soka Gakkai International. Their son, Adam Daniel Pearl, was born in Paris on May 28, 2002, three months after Pearl’s death.

Pearl’s widow, Mariane Pearl, wrote the memoir A Mighty Heart which tells the full story of Daniel Pearl’s murder and more about his life. The book was adapted into a film starring Angelina Jolie and Dan Futterman.

The movie is fast-paced, highly-emotional and credibly played by Angelina Jolie who spoke with a heavy French accent. The movie was spoken in English, Indian and Pakistani with Japanese subtitles. It was very difficult to understand what they said, except of course, what the American investigators said. Even English spoken by the Indian-Pakistani characters was difficult to understand because of the heavy foreign accent. I was lost for a good part of the movie.

A Mighty Heart shows many of the faces of the city of Karachi in Pakistan. Crowded streets, swarms of people everywhere, poor neighborhoods, torn-apart houses surrounded by complex networks of electric wires everywhere. Many of the scenes were dark and difficult to appreciate.

The climax of the movie was when an employee of the American Consulate in Karachi grimly told Mrs. Pearl, “Marianne, Danny didn’t make it.” She left the room and cried and shouted in pain. It was a very shocking scene.

In a nutshell, this is a sad story of an American journalist who paid with his life the struggles between fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and the West. I’m afraid this incident will repeat itself in highly explosive countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Iran, or Somalia. In these rogue countries, a human life means nothing at all. Nothing at all.

If you don’t mind viewing a strong dramatic movie with some explicit language, you can appreciate A Mighty Heart by clicking the link at the bottom of this entry.  This will stream the movie directly to your computer.  The length of the movie is 108 minutes or one hour and 48 minutes.  Good Day.

Movie:  A Mighty Heart – In four parts.

Christina Dian Parmionova

 Any secondary school student (between 14-19 years old) can join this news service as a reporter after successfully completing the PEARL World Youth News Reporter Certification Course.

        The course, which is available online and free of cost, aims to help students get started as international correspondents for the global youth news service. Students are asked to do three assignments as part of the course to demonstrate that they have understood the reading materials. Their assignments are reviewed by students and alumni from the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University in New York City, US.

        After successfully completing the course and getting their first story published on this website, students receive a certificate from us. They also get the opportunity to meet PEARL Reporters from different countries and work together to report stories on issues that they care about.

        If you are a secondary school school student interested in taking the certification course or if you’d like to view the course materials, please contact Anindita Dutta Roy at anindita@us.iearn.org.

WATER AND ENERGY RELIEF INTERNATIONAL

WERI Foundation- (WERIEVENTS)

A Selection of Daniel Pearl  works

PEARL YOUTH INITIATIVES     Prepare and Educate Aspiring Reporters for Leadership (PEARL) introduces young adults to journalism through internships, web-based news services, and other youth-oriented journalism programs sponsored by the Daniel Pearl Foundation in partnership with the International Education and Resource Network (iEARN)     PEARL World Youth News is a unique international web-based student news service. This program focuses on developing journalistic skills, unbiased reporting and respect for cultural differences; Through a network of more than 20,000 schools in 109 countries, high school students complete the PEARL Reporter Certification Program and collaboratively publish articles on an international news service for young journalists at the PEARL World Youth News website. DANIEL PEARLWORLD MUSIC DAYS

    Stories from My Favorite Planet  is likely the first musical composition inspired by the Wall Street Journal. The piece intertwines readings from five of Danny´s published articles into a musical tapestry that portrays his compassion and sense of the ridiculous.

More books, films and CD’s

Stumble It!

Article on how the glut of films and the credit crunch is effecting Hollywood, by Lauren A. E. Schuker and Peter Sanders.

HOLLYWOOD — When Meg Ryan and Antonio Banderas signed up to star in an independently produced comedy-action movie called “My Mom’s New Boyfriend,” the film’s backers figured they had a slam dunk — a modestly priced film with bankable stars that would surge at the box office.

The producers say the $17 million movie scored well in test screenings in the U.S. this spring and did decent business in Spain, Israel and Russia. But the U.S. distributor, Sony Corp.’s Sony Pictures, quietly sent the movie straight to DVD on June 17. “I believe that three years ago this movie absolutely would have been on screens, if for no other reason than the actors involved,” says George Gallo, who wrote and directed the film.

These days, scores of films such as “Boyfriend” are finding there’s no room at the multiplex. The reason: Hollywood is flush with roughly $13 billion to $18 billion in financing for movies that poured in over the past few years, according to bankers and producers, vastly expanding the number of pictures getting made. The flood of money is paying for films made by both relative newcomers and veteran film investors and producers.

That dynamic has turned movie distribution into a free-for-all, with too many films vying for too few slots in theaters each weekend. Last year, more than 600 feature films — mostly independent movies not produced at a major studio — were released theatrically in the U.S., up from 466 in 2002, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. That’s an average of 2.6 more movies every weekend that are battling for the public’s attention.

But those figures are just for the films that make it to the silver screen. Many more films, such as “Boyfriend,” with big-name actors or directors never make it to theaters. More than 3,600 feature films were submitted for consideration at Sundance Film Festival this year, and while many of those are tiny digital flicks that never have a chance of commercial release, the number is up from about 2,000 feature submissions just five years ago.

The frothy marketplace means more choices for movie fans, and more headaches for a struggling industry. In 2007, domestic box-office revenue totaled $9.68 billion, up from $9.3 billion in 2006, according to box-office tracker Media by Numbers. Box-office revenue has grown since 2005 because of higher ticket prices, but attendance started dropping last year. This year, attendance is down 4.74% from the same time a year ago. Lower attendance should trim box-office revenues for 2008 to around $9.6 billion, Media by Numbers projects.

Today, the credit crunch is putting the brakes on outside film financing. But Hollywood executives fear the glut created by the recent spate of overproduction is going to be felt for at least a couple more years. Some people say the worst of the oversupply problem is still about a year away.

“We’re at the top of the curve heading down,” says Hal Sadoff, head of international and independent film at ICM, one of the major talent agencies in Hollywood. “We’ve seen many of these financial institutions, private-equity firms and hedge funds pull away from the industry. But the films that they have advanced are still in production, and it will take another six to 12 months for the market to regularize again.”

Amir Malin, who acquired, marketed and distributed the hit indie film “The Blair Witch Project” and now runs media-investment firm Qualia Capital, says that the market for such films will get tougher before it gets easier. “The worst is yet to come,” he says.

The havoc in the movie business was evident in April, when the release schedule was packed with a bevy of big-star vehicles hoping to beat the onslaught of summer blockbusters. “Leatherheads,” a $60 million football comedy starring George Clooney and co-financed by Universal Pictures and Relativity Media, took in just $31 million domestically and about $9 million overseas. The Al Pacino thriller “88 Minutes,” financed for $26 million by Millennium Pictures and released by Sony Pictures, took in just $17 million or so at the U.S. box office.

And then there was “Smart People,” starring Sarah Jessica Parker, Dennis Quaid and Ellen Page. The star-packed comedy about a dysfunctional family seemed promising, especially given its modest cost of $8 million. Its backers, including Bill Block, who runs a financing outlet called QED International, expected the movie to make about $20 million. “It was a terrific cast and everybody loved the script, so we thought, ‘Why not?’” says Mr. Block. But the film grossed less than half of that, making $9.5 million in domestic theaters. “I think it’s just tough out there right now — especially for the upscale adult picture,” Mr. Block adds.

The competition is especially brutal in the market for small movies. Oscar-aspiring independent films — that is, films not produced at a major studio — were once seen as the most attractive segment of the movie industry. That’s because sizable profits could be made on films that required relatively little investment. That calculus prompted all of the major Hollywood studios to launch divisions aimed at exploiting the market.

But the flood of indie films has driven up marketing costs, as each film spends more to compete. Last year, top-flight casts didn’t prevent movies such as “In the Valley of Elah” and “Things We Lost in the Fire” from getting drubbed at the domestic box office. This year, a huge roster of titles, big and small, will compete for audiences, including “Changeling,” starring Angelina Jolie and directed by Clint Eastwood; “Burn After Reading,” a Coen brothers film with Brad Pitt, George Clooney and John Malkovich; and “Milk,” a Gus Van Sant picture about Harvey Milk, a pioneering gay politician in San Francisco.

Scaling Back

To avoid collisions, studios are rapidly scaling back the number of films they’re releasing, particularly smaller specialty movies. Time Warner Inc.’s Warner Bros. closed two of its art-house labels, Picturehouse and Warner Independent Pictures, this spring. In June, Viacom Inc.’s Paramount Pictures basically absorbed the majority of the staff at its specialty label, Paramount Vantage, into its main studio, cutting about 50 employees. News Corp.’s Fox Searchlight, which has had big indie hits with “Juno” and “Little Miss Sunshine,” has only six titles scheduled for release so far this year. (News Corp. also owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal.)

Indie films aren’t going away, of course. But some studios have concluded that the most-expensive films — blockbusters such as “Iron Man” and “The Dark Knight,” which often cost well over $150 million each, not counting millions more in marketing outlays — can be less risky than art-house releases such as last year’s “A Mighty Heart.” That film lost about $15 million for its backer, Viacom Inc.’s Paramount Vantage.

Studios aren’t the only ones pulling back; so are many of the individual producers who armed themselves with easily raised moviemaking funds. Producer Sidney Kimmel announced this year that his production company, Sidney Kimmel Entertainment, would scale back its releases to two films a year from five. Mr. Kimmel was hit hard when his most-recent picture, “Synecdoche, New York,” starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, failed to find a distributor at the Cannes Film Festival this spring. In late July, Sony Pictures Classics bought the film, just giving its backers a portion of the revenues. Even with that, the film’s backers will likely take a loss on the movie, which cost about $20 million. Executives at Kimmel Entertainment, however, say they recouped a substantial part of the film’s cost by selling off the international rights.

Film-financing outlets are also moving toward larger projects. Grosvenor Park has financed more than 400 film and television productions over in the past 20 years. Donald Starr, chairman, says he lent money against the foreign sales for “Powder Blue,” a small picture costing just under $10 million featuring starlet Jessica Biel that finished filming last September and is beginning to look for a U.S. distributor. Mr. Starr estimates that Ross Dinerstein, the 29-year-old producer and one of the main financiers of “Powder Blue,” could lose about $7 million on the movie.

“The amount of sales that these films generate is just too small to be worth it,” Mr. Starr says. “In any other business, if something doesn’t make back its price, you stop making it. But for some reason in the film industry we keep making more of these movies.” But Mr. Dinerstein says he won’t lose money on the film. “Our initial goal is to break even and anything after that is icing on the cake,” he says.

Few Bites From Buyers

Major film distributors are being far more cautious in acquiring independently financed films for distribution, a situation that has dramatically slowed business at major film gatherings such as Sundance in January and Cannes in May. At Cannes this year, there was very little buying, with distributors shunning films such as Steven Soderbergh’s “Che,” starring Benicio Del Toro.

At Sundance, highly anticipated films drew few bites from buyers. John Sloss, a veteran entertainment lawyer who brought 19 films to Sundance this year, says he only sold five by the time the festival finished.

Another factor in the pullback is a rise in marketing costs. A decade ago, campaigns for independent movies were driven by free publicity and word of mouth. The crowded market is prompting distributors to spend big to distinguish themselves. According to the MPAA, the amount of money the indie labels at the major studios were spending on marketing shot up 44% to $25.7 million in 2007 from $17.8 million in 2006. Since 2002, that marketing spend has doubled, driving up competition for all films trying to gain traction in the marketplace.

The rising costs are preventing some smaller movies from reaching much of an audience. Avi Lerner, who produced “My Mom’s New Boyfriend” along with scores of theatrical and direct-to-DVD movies, says higher costs have created insurmountable obstacles for his films in recent years. “Obviously, the main problem is that big studios have unlimited money to pay for [marketing] and nobody can compete with that,” he says. “Even if you spend $10 million to $15 million on marketing — which used to be enough in the past — in today’s market that’s nothing against $70 million-plus that the studios can spend on their big movies.”

Many of the specialty labels at major studios passed on distributing director Sidney Lumet’s film, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.” So, the producers chose to release it with THINKFilm, a small distributor that has struggled financially in recent months. THINKFilm opened the movie last fall with a “platform release” — starting with two screens and expanding over time to about 320 theaters. Producers Michael Cerenzie and Brian Linse were hard-pressed to find financing for the movie when one of their equity investors dropped out; at one point, Mr. Linse had to borrow $180,000 against the equity in his Hollywood Hills house. In the end, Capitol Films, a company owned by THINKFilm’s parent, paid for the $18 million picture.

“Financing this movie was a real struggle,” says Mr. Linse. “It’s hard for people to imagine since we had actors like Ethan Hawke and Philip Seymour Hoffman, but it was really tough.”

The film, which also starred Marisa Tomei, grossed a little more than $7 million at the domestic box office. That’s partially because THINKFilm spent less than $1 million in advertising on the movie, so despite strong reviews, it got lost in a crowd of pictures that opened during Oscar season.

Yet it is increasingly common to see critical darlings of the festival circuit get trampled. “Son of Rambow,” a coming-of-age comedy about two boys in England who dream of filmmaking, was a darling at Sundance in 2007, where it was reportedly sold for distribution for about $7.5 million — one of the largest buys at the festival that year.

Vantage released the film in May 2008 to top-notch reviews. But it flopped, grossing just $1.78 million. The film was put out via a platform release on the same day that Paramount’s “Iron Man” hit theaters in early May. While “Rambow” added screens through May, it never gained traction in a month that was chock-full of blockbusters, from “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” to “Sex and the City.”

“‘Son of Rambow’ is the poster child for a movie that would have worked five years ago but fails in today’s marketplace,” says Mark Gill, a veteran film executive who isn’t affiliated with the movie. “It got great reviews, audiences really liked it, it was well-marketed. It had everything going for it, and yet it didn’t work, because there is such a glut of movies and a mass of clutter right now that nothing can break out in this climate.”

Cheers!
Brian M Logan
ThatActionGuy.com
EMAIL ME HERE

Winterbottom does understated frenetic chaos and does it well in A Mighty Heart despite the jarring presence of Angelina Jolie, who despite acting like a pro, especially in her moment of bereaved wailing widow, is woefully miscast.

Director- Michael Winterbottom

Writer- John Orloff

Starring- Angelina Jolie, Dan Futterman, Archie Panjabi, Mohammed Afzal

Language – English

Runtime - 100 minutes approx.

Age Rating – 15

Genre - Drama, Historic

A FILM REVIEW BY ROSS MILLER

This is a film that has a story truly worth telling. One that should affect and engross even the most cold-hearted of audience members. It has as much guts as it does heart and emotion but beware; an easy watch this is not.

The film deals with a story that is known worldwide. That of Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl (Futterman) and his 5-month pregnant wife Mariane (Jolie) who travelled to the Middle East to do their work. Before leaving Daniel decides to get one last important interview. Very unexpectedly he is abducted and the rest of the film shows Mariane struggling and hoping to locate him and bring him home safely.

The obvious draw for the general public for this film is the fact that it stars A-List actress Angelina Jolie. But the film itself is not one that will appeal to a general audience, it is a very select film that deals with a controversial and in-depth story that would leave anyone who unexpectedly stumbles upon it a little uninterested. But for anyone willing to invest themselves into a story which is only known of but not explained in detail; A Mighty Heart most likely will satisfy.

The aforementioned Miss Jolie gives a performance that will no doubt get Oscar attention when the time roles round once again. And I would have no problem with her getting that sort of attention as from my point of view she was fantastic here. It isn’t the sort of showy role that often garners Oscar attention but rather the “less is more” approach is applied which works extremely well. Apart from one or two moments Jolie plays the role very quiet and subdued, keeping her emotions buried just under the surface and only letting them become apparent at the most intense of moments. At first I was a little distracted because it was Angelina Jolie I was watching, but the combination of her pretty-much-perfect French accent and the increasing dedication to the role as the film goes on that distraction completely faded.

The rest of the cast, with the exception of a couple of faintly recognisable faces, is made up of either unknowns or actors that usually play background roles. This helps, as always, to add a sense of believability to it all. For some reason the fact that Jolie is the only really famous face is less distracting than if the whole cast had been made up of major stars. Not a normal occurrence but one that is apparent here.

For the most part the film is basically us in Marianne’s house, waiting around and watching the characters discuss all the confusing elements involved. Although this is the only sincere way to pull off the film in the realistic fashion it demands it was quite annoying and a little underwhelming at points. That’s not to say the film isn’t engaging, as for the most part that is an accurate description, but there are stretches of ten minutes at a time where you are forced to just play the “nervous waiting game”.

Another thing that makes up a chunk of the film is the use of either hand-held cameras or bustling close-up shots of the chaos that ensues within. You are right in the heart of a Pakistan city, in taxis and cars following various different people to various different places. The whole thing is very cluttered and busy, much like the city itself. A city that is so chaotic but at the same time interesting that it almost becomes a character in itself.

As an audience member I felt a strong frustration with the overall content of the film and the way it plays out. Because the film is set a few years ago and we know the tragic ending of the story I felt frustrated because any action to stop it from happening is futile. The film can only end one way, granted we are taking the film’s word for it that it will tell the truth, and even though that is the only way it could be I still felt frustrated. But in the end because of the fact that this was more than likely a thing of intention then I applaud the film for getting me so involved and worked up to feel said frustration.

A thing I noticed upon thinking back over the film is that we only see the things that were known by most as Daniel was being help captive. There is no re-creations of what might of happened but rather what did happen. We rarely see Daniel himself on-screen, we only really see him in flashbacks when Mariane is thinking of him and some footage of him travelling before he was abducted. A certain sensitivity and respect for the real-life Daniel and what happened to him is kept throughout the film. The tape of the brutal and tragic things that happened to him is thankfully never shown on-screen. Instead we just see the reaction of the people watching and eventually the reaction of Mariane, in the film’s most heartbreaking and believable moment. There is no exploitation of the things that happened to Daniel for “cinematic entertainment” but done in the most respectful and truthful way possible.

The film is a little on the confusing side a lot of the time. Although engaging to watch this frantic investigation going on there is so many names thrown back and forth and faces appearing on-screen that it’s a little hard to keep track of it all. The film is maybe a little too frantic and lacks some focus overall. It’s never completely sure where or what it wants to be at times and in the end this brings the film down in terms of quality.

But overall we have the most depressing film so far this year but also one that is powerful and engaging for almost its entire runtime. Although it sways from its focus sometimes this is still a film that has a lot heart and emotion. It isn’t the most comfortable of watches but still more than worth a watch all the same.