What Lisa Watched Last Night #112: Megachurch Murder (dir by Darin Scott)

Posted on February 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Earlier tonight, I watched the latest Lifetime original film, Megachurch Murder!

Why Was I Watching It?

First off, it was on Lifetime. And secondly, I had read that the film was supposedly based on Hamlet!

What Was It About?

Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark … Denmark, Georgia that is. Shortly after resisting the efforts of Michael Beach to expand his church, Pastor Malcolm Jamal-Warner dies under mysterious circumstances. Soon, Beach is having an affair with the pastor’s widow (Tamala Jones) and the pastor’s daughter (Shanica Knowles) is convinced that there’s been a murder. Complicating things: Knowles is dating Beach’s son, Romeo Miller.

What Worked?

To be honest, the best thing about Megachurch Murder were the tweets. This is one of those films that seemed to bring out the best of twitter.

I appreciated that the film pretended to be based on Hamlet, even though the story itself had next to nothing in common with Shakespeare’s play. That said, two youth group leaders did show up as the Megachurch Murder equivalents of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Most of the actors seemed to just be going through the motions but Michael Beach did a good job in the role of Clay King. He made for a great villain.

What Did Not Work?

All through the movie, whenever Hannah had to get away from it all, she always went to the exact same bridge. At first, it was funny that she was always standing on that bridge. But, after the 20th scene on that bridge, I started to wonder why nobody else in the town of Denmark ever seemed to use the bridge. Finally, by the time that Clay was demanding to know where Hannah was, I found myself shouting at the TV, “She’s on the bridge! She’s always on the damn bridge!”

Plus, Romeo Miller … actually, to be honest, I think Romeo Miller could give a good performance if cast in the right role. But, in this film, I kept expecting him to start talking about ICDC college. Whenever he was comforting Hannah, I kept waiting for him to say, “You can major in criminal justice or homeland security…”

Finally, I was surprised to discover that, at the end of the film, people were still attending the church. After three violent deaths, I’d probably change parishes.

“Oh my God! Just like me!” Moments

To be honest, and no one is more shocked by this than me, this is probably the first Lifetime film that I’ve ever watched that featured absolutely no moments that made me go, “Oh my God! Just like me!” I guess it’s because I was raised Catholic and didn’t have to deal with any murders while I was growing up.

It is true that, much like Hannah, I did go through my rebellious phase and I would snap at any adult who tried to speak to me. However, Hannah had an excuse. She was dealing with her father’s murder whereas, in my case, I was just a brat. So, it really doesn’t count as a “OMG! Just like me!” moment.

Lessons Learned

Big church = murder.

Shattered Politics #80: Bobby (dir by Emilio Estevez)

Posted on February 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

A few years ago, I was on twitter when I came across someone who had just watched The Breakfast Club.

“Whatever happened to Emilio Estevez?” she asked.

Being the know-it-all, obsessive film fan that I am, I tweeted back, “He’s a director.”

Of course, I could not leave well enough along. I had to send another tweet, “He directed a movie called Bobby that got nominated for bunch of Golden Globes.”

“Was it any good?” she wrote back.

“Never seen it,” I wrote back, suddenly feeling very embarrassed because, if there’s anything I hate, it’s admitting that there’s a film that I haven’t seen.

However, Shattered Politics gave me an excuse to finally sit down and watch Bobby. So now, I can now say that I have watched this 2006 film and … eh.

Listen, I have to admit that I really hate giving a film like Bobby a lukewarm review because it’s not like Bobby is a bad film. It really isn’t. As a director, Emilio Estevez is a bit heavy-handed but he’s not without talent. He’s good with actors. Bobby actually features good performances from both Lindsay Lohan and Shia LaBeouf! So, give Estevez that.

And Bobby is a film that Estevez spent seven years making. It’s a film that he largely made with his own money. Bobby is obviously a passion project for Estevez and that passion does come through. (That’s actually one of the reasons why the film often feels so heavy-handed.)

But, with all that in mind, Bobby never really develops a strong enough narrative to make Estevez’s passion dramatically compelling. The film takes place on the day of the 1968 Democratic California Presidential Primary. That’s the day that Robert F. Kennedy won the primary and was then shot by Sirhan Sirhan in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel. However, it never seems to know what it wants to say about Kennedy or his death, beyond the fact that Estevez seems to like him.

(Incidentally, it’s always interesting, to me, that Dallas is still expected to apologize every day for the death of JFK but Los Angeles has never had to apologize for the death of his brother.)

Estevez follows an ensemble of 22 characters as they go about their day at and around the Ambassador Hotel. As often happens with ensemble pieces, some of these characters are more interesting than others.

For instance, Anthony Hopkins plays a courtly and retired doorman who sits in the lobby and plays chess with his friend Nelson (Harry Belafonte). It adds little to the film’s story but both Hopkins and Belafonte appear to enjoy acting opposite each other and so, they’re fun to watch.

Lindsay Lohan plays a woman who marries a recently enlisted soldier (Elijah Wood), the hope being that his marital status will keep him out of Vietnam. The problem with this story is that it’s so compelling that it feels unfair that it has to share space with all the other stories.

Christian Slater plays Darrell, who runs the kitchen and who spends most of the movie talking down to the kitchen staff, the majority of whom are Hispanic. Darrell is disliked by the hotel’s manager (William H. Macy) who is cheating on his wife (Sharon Stone).

And then, you’ve got two campaign aides (Shia LaBeouf and Brian Geraghty) who end up dropping acid with a drug dealer played by Ashton Kutcher. Unfortunately, Estevez tries to visualize their trip and it brings the film’s action to a halt.

Estevez himself shows up, playing the husband of an alcoholic singer (Demi Moore). And Estevez’s father, Martin Sheen, gets to play a wealthy supporter of Kennedy’s. Sheen’s wife is played by Helen Hunt. She gets to ask her husband whether she reminds him more of Jackie or of Ethel.

(Actually, Martin Sheen and Helen Hunt are cute together. Much as with Lohan and Wood, you wish that more time had been devoted to them and their relationship.)

And there are other stories as well. In fact, there’s far too many stories going on in Bobby. It may seem strange for a girl who is trying to review 94 films in three weeks to say this but Emilio Estevez really tries to cram too much into Bobby.

At the same time, too much ambition is better none. Bobby may have been a misfire but at least it’s a respectable misfire.

Shattered Politics #79: Man of the Year (dir by Barry Levinson)

Posted on February 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

The 2006 comedy Man of the Year is a difficult film to review. Some of that is because it’s not that interesting of a film. It’s simplistic and predictable. In fact, the only reason that I’m reviewing this film for Shattered Politics is because I needed an example of a bad, mainstream political film.

However, that’s not the only reason why it’s difficult to write about Man of the Year. The bigger reason is that Man Of The Year stars Robin Williams and, in many ways, it’s typical of one of his later lesser films. After his tragic death, it’s even harder to watch Robin Williams waste his talents in a bad film.

And, make no mistake about it, Man of the Year is a bad film.

Robin Williams plays Tom Dobbs. Dobbs, we are told, is the most famous political commentator in America. Watching the film, it’s obvious that Dobbs is meant to be the film’s equivalent of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. However, the difference is that Stewart and Colbert are both obviously liberal whereas, from what little we see of Tom Dobbs show, Dobbs doesn’t appear to have any positions beyond the few vague platitudes that pass for political thinking in most mainstream films. Dobbs is against special interests. He’s against career politicians. He’s against … well, he’s against everything that most people are against and for everything that most people are for. About the closest that Tom Dobbs come to being edgy is when he makes a stupid joke about Pope Benedict being German.

Anyway, Dobbs is recruited to run for President and he manages to get on the ballot in 13 states! And he’s even doing well because, apparently in this film’s version of reality, Catholic voters have no problem supporting someone who makes fun of Pope Benedict for being German. And he’s even invited to take part in a presidential debate. When asked his first question in the debate, Dobbs starts talking and, because he’s being played by Robin Williams, he doesn’t stop. The debate spirals out-of-control. Dobbs goes on and on about the state of America, all the while assuming weird accents and slipping in and out of different personalities.

“Oh my God,” I thought, “he’s had a nervous breakdown.”

Except, of course, he hasn’t. And, since this is a movie, everyone in America loves his performance. On election night, Tom Dobbs apparently wins all 13 of his states and he’s elected President!

Except, of course, he hasn’t been. It turns out there was an error with the voting machines. Eleanor Green (Laura Linney), who works at the company that built the machines, figures out what happened. In order to keep her from revealing the truth, the company drugs her and attempts to destroy her credibility and…

Wait, this is a Robin Williams comedy, isn’t it? Well, it is and it isn’t. Half of the film is devoted to Tom Dobbs saying things that are supposed to be funny but the other half deals with Eleanor trying to expose a giant cover-up without getting killed. Director Barry Levinson can’t seem to figure out whether his film is supposed to be an unfunny comedy or a boring drama. So, he tries to do both and … well, taken by that criteria, the film actually works. If Levinson set out to be unfunny and boring, he succeeded.

One of the biggest dangers of making a film about a comedian is that, for the film to work, you have to believe that people would actually find the comedian to be funny. When the jokes aren’t funny, it doesn’t matter how many reaction shots of people laughing that you stuff into the film. Man of the Year is full of reaction shots. During the debate, we continually see Eleanor’s teenage son laughing. (How many teenagers, other than the weird ones and the ones assigned to do so for homework, actually watch a presidential debate?) During one particularly painful moment, Tom starts rambling while traveling on the campaign bus and we are subjected to countless reaction shots of Christopher Walken and Lewis Black laughing so hard that they look like they might faint from exhaustion.

The problem is that it’s rare that a few hundred people will all start laughing and stop laughing at the exact same time. Whenever you listen to a truly good comedian, you always hear a few giggles that indicate that at least a few audience members are still thinking about the last joke or else that they’re anticipating the next joke. Often times, when a comedian says something especially funny or unexpected, you don’t even hear laughter. You might hear a gasp of shock. You might hear tittering. You might hear applause. You might hear someone shouting like they’re at a sporting event.

What I’m saying is that everyone reacts to humor in their own individual way. Everyone has a laugh of their very own. Uniform laughter, like the laughter in Man of the Year, sounds fake because it is fake.

Add to that, nothing that Tom Dobbs says is particularly funny.

So, no — don’t watch Man of the Year. Watch Dead Poets Society. Watch Good Will Hunting or Awakenings. You could even watch Cadillac Man! But don’t watch Man of the Year.

Shattered Politics #78: American Dreamz (dir by Paul Weitz)

Posted on February 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Nothing ages worse than heavy-handed satire and, if you need proof of that, just try watching the 2006 film American Dreamz. American Dreamz is a satire of two things that are no longer exactly relevant, the presidential administration of George W. Bush and Simon Cowell-era American Idol.

Dennis Quaid plays President ~~George W. Bush~~ Joseph Stanton. Stanton has just been reelected to a second term. One morning, he impulsively decides to read a newspaper for the first time in his life and he ends up having a nervous breakdown. “The world isn’t black-and-white,” he declares, “Instead, it’s gray.” Sinking into a deep depression, Stanton isolates himself from the American people and his approval rating starts to plunge. His evil Chief of Staff (William DaFoe, made up to look like Joe Biden but, I’m assuming, meant to be Dick Cheney) comes up with a plan to restore Stanton’s popularity. President Stanton will serve as a guest judge on his favorite television show, ~~American Idol~~ American Dreamz!

(To be honest, I think Obama would be more likely to show up as a guest judge than Bush.)

The host of American Dreamz is a self-loathing Englishman named Martin Tweed (Hugh Grant). Tweed hates both the show and himself. Early on in the film, he’s literally seeing begging for American Dreamz to be canceled. However, American Dreamz is the number one show in the country and the show must go on.

Along with President Stanton, the latest season of American Dreamz features a group of contestants who all have dramatically compelling backstories. Sally Kendoo (Mandy Moore) emerges as a favorite, largely do to her ability to manipulate the camera and the fact that her well-meaning but simple-minded boyfriend (Chris Klein) was wounded in Iraq.

Oh wow — reality shows manipulate reality and contestants are rarely as innocent as they seem!?

Tell me more, American Dreamz!

Also competing on American Dreamz is Omer (Sam Golzari), a former jihadist who proved to be too clumsy to take part in the various propaganda videos being shot by his terrorist cell. Omer was sent to America, where his love for show tunes eventually landed him on American Dreamz. With the finale rapidly approaching, Omer has been instructed to blow both himself and the President up on national TV.

The satire of American Dreamz really wasn’t all that sharp when the film was first released and now, 9 years later, it feels even weaker. Quaid and Grant both give good performances but the film’s attempts at humor largely fall flat because they’re all so predictable. It’s not exactly mind-blowing to say that reality TV is fake or that politics has a lot in common with show business. The film attempts to add some bite to its message by ending with a surprisingly dark twist but it’s just not enough. Even a dark ending has to be earned.

Shattered Politics #77: Thank You For Smoking (dir by Jason Reitman)

Posted on February 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I have always hated those Truth.com commercials. Truth.com is an organization that claims to be dedicated to eradicating smoking. Their smug commercials are essentially the height of hipster douchebaggery, a bunch of self-consciously cool people wandering around and harassing random people about whether or not they smoke. And then, of course, there was the commercial where they all gathered outside a tobacco company and pretended to be dead. Of course, the truth about Truth.com is that they are essentially the same people who, in high school, would get offended whenever anyone wore a short skirt. I really can not stand people like that. (And don’t even get me started on those assholes who appear in the Above The Influence commercials.) Myself, I don’t smoke because I have asthma. But, seriously, whenever I see a Truth.com commercial, I’m tempted to run down to 711 and start.

And so maybe that’s why I like the 2005 comedy Thank You For Smoking.

The hero of Thank You For Smoking is Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, who is first seen appearing on a talk show and winning over a hostile audience by announcing that the tobacco industry is going to be investing millions in researching way to keep young people from smoking and shaking the hand of a teenage honor student who is dying from lung cancer. Over the course of the film, Nick shows us how he does business, everything from defending tobacco companies on talk shows to convincing a former Marlboro Man-turned-cancer-patient to drop his law suit. When Nick isn’t working, he’s hanging out with his best friends (who are lobbyists for both the liquor and the gun industries), trying to bond with his son (Cameron Bright), or having sex with a reporter (Katie Holmes).

Now, in most movies, Nick Naylor would be the villain. However, in Thank You For Smoking, Nick becomes a hero by default, if just because everyone who disagrees with him is even worse than he is. Add to that, Nick has the benefit of being played by Aaron Eckhart while all of his opponents are played by balding actors with ugly beards.

Another reason that I liked Thank You For Smoking was because the main villain was a senator from Vermont and it’s about time somebody stood up to the tyranny of Vermont. Ortolan Finistirre (William H. Macy) has built a career out of campaigning against the tobacco industries and why shouldn’t he? Who, other than Nick Naylor, is willing to defend them? Finistirre’s latest plan is to change the law so that every pack of cigarettes has to be branded with a skull and crossbones warning.

When Nick and Finistirre finally face off, it’s a battle between those who believe in allowing people the freedom to make their own choices and those who hide their totalitarian impulse behind claims that they’re working for the greater good.

Thank You For Smoking was Jason Reitman’s first film. And while it may be a bit too episodic and it frequently struggles to maintain a consistent tone, it’s still a lot better than both Labor Day and Men, Women, & Children.

Shattered Politics #76: Good Night, and Good Luck (dir by George Clooney)

Posted on February 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

One of my favorite episodes of South Park is called Smug Alert! As you may remember, this is the episode where the citizens of South Park all buy hybrid cars and end up getting so self-satisfied that a dangerous cloud of smug forms over the town. At the same time, another smug storm is racing across the United States. This smug storm was created by the speech that George Clooney gave when he won the Oscar for Syriana. When those two clouds of smug meet, it’s the perfect storm. It also ends up destroying San Francisco.

The same year that Clooney was named Best Supporting Actor for Syriana, he was also nominated for directing the 2005 best picture nominee, Good Night, and Good Luck. In his speech, Clooney specifically said that he felt he was winning supporting actor to make up for not winning director and proceeded to give the speech that he would have given if he had won director.

And looking back, I think that we do have to admit that it was a very smug speech.

Fortunately, Good Night, and Good Luck has aged better than Clooney’s speech.

I do have to admit that, when I recently rewatched Good Night and Good Luck, I was a little concerned. I always manage to forget that the film starts on a really bad note. The year is 1958 and news anchorman Edward R. Murrow (played by David Strathairn) is receiving an award. As Murrow stands behind the podium, he proceeds to give a long and self-righteous speech about how television should be used not to entertain but to educate as well. And, quite frankly, he comes across like such a pompous blowhard that I was dreading the idea of having to spend the next 90 or so minutes with him.

But then, fortunately, the film entered into flashback mode and, until the final few minutes of the film, we didn’t have to listen to anymore of Murrow’s speech. The majority of Good Night and Good Luck takes place in 1953. U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (who appears in archival footage throughout the film) has declared that he has the names of communists who hold important positions in both the government and the media. Murrow and his producer, Fred Friendly (George Clooney) defy the corporate overlords of CBS and bravely investigate and challenge McCarthy’s claims. McCarthy and his henchmen respond by trying to smear both Murrow and one of his reporters (Robert Downey, Jr.) as a communists. As always seems to happen in films about McCarthyism, another supporting character reacts to the change of communism by committing suicide. And, in this particular vision of the fight against Joseph McCarthy, Edward R. Murrow and the media save America.

Of course, if you actually make the effort to learn history, you’ll discover that it wasn’t just Edward R. Murrow who stood up to McCarthy. In fact, you’ll discover that Murrow stood up to McCarthy after several other prominent people — on both sides of the political divide — had already done so. If anything, the real-life Murrow seems to have more in common with pompous scold seen at the beginning and end of the film, as opposed to the one that we see standing up to McCarthy.

One can very legitimately debate whether or not Murrow deserves all of the credit that he’s given in this film. Still, the film does make a larger and very important point. We, as Americans, have to always be on guard against witch hunts and against demagogues and the forces of fear and paranoia that are always trying to shape our politics. And, whether or not Murrow was a hero or just a bystander, one cannot deny that the larger message of Goodnight, and Good Luck remains as relevant today as when the film was originally released.

Judging from some of his other films — The Monuments Men and the Ides of March — I don’t particularly feel that George Clooney is that good of a director. But he does do a good job with Good Night and Good Luck. (In fact, he does such a good job that you can’t help but feel that it’s the exception to the rule as far as Clooney the director is concerned.) Filmed in wonderful black-and-white and full of good performances, Good Night, and Good Luck remains surprisingly watchable.

Just avoid any George Clooney Oscar speeches while watching it. San Francisco has never recovered.

Shattered Politics #75: Conventioneers (dir by Mora Stephens)

Posted on February 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

As I watched the 2005 indie film Conventioneers, I realized that I could never be a professional protestor. Conventioneers, you see, was shot at the 2004 Republican National Convention and it combines actual footage of both the conventions and the protests with scenes of a Republican delegate (Matthew Mabes) reuniting with a college friend (Woodwyn Koons) who is now a liberal activist. When Mabes and Koons first get together, they end up arguing about politics. When they meet a second time, they end up having sex. Meanwhile, Koons’ friend Dylan (Alek Friedman) has been enlisted to provide a sign language interpretation for President Bush’s acceptance speech. Should Dylan use the opportunity to stage his own protest…

Oh, who cares?

Sorry. I guess I should admit right now that I tend to be allergic to self-righteous and self-important people, regardless of which side of the political divide they call home.

And that’s one reason why I could never be a professional protestor. Or, at the very least, I couldn’t be the type of protestor who populates Conventioneers. They’re all so humorless and sure of their own importance and uniqueness (despite the fact that they all pretty much had the same look and the same way of speaking) that, as I watched them discuss and debate every little detail of their ideology, I could only think about how annoying it would be to ever watch a movie with them. I would want to laugh at the antics of Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. They would want to debate the morality of watching a movie where the characters don’t ride bicycles or wear Che t-shirts. It would just get so tedious!

Add to that, I have a need to smile, even when I’m talking about something important. As I watched Conventioneers, I was struck by how both the real protestors and the actors always had those, “We’re so serious” scowls on their faces. You could tell they were thinking, “If we look really pissed off, everyone will be sooooooo impressed. We’re changing the fucking world!”

Bleh.

And that’s really the problem with Conventioneers. It’s a left-wing film but all of the left-wing characters are so dogmatic and full of themselves that, had the film come out in time to influence the 2004 elections, Bush probably would have defeated Kerry in a landslide. Just because you have good intentions and might be on the right side of the issues, that’s no excuse to make a tedious movie. That’s a lesson that many political filmmakers really need to learn.

Reportedly, while shooting on location, director Mora Stephens and her crew were actually arrested and had to spend a few hours in jail. That makes for an interesting story but it doesn’t make for a good movie. If you want to see a good political film that was shot at a political convention, I would suggest watching Medium Cool.