Jodorowsky's Dune

Director: Frank Pavich, Interviews with Alejandro Jodorowsky, Michel Seydoux, H.R. Giger

Two words that are a bugbear of history are what if? They tend to haunt the art world too: what if the majority of Sophocles plays weren't consumed in the fire that destroyed the Alexandrian library, or what if Kafka's friend had acceded to the author's wishes that his work never be published posthumously or what if Jimi Hendrix and Miles Davis had collaborated as the two musicians once intended? Fortunately Kafka's friend didn't listen but for the others, we can only imagine.

Jodorowsky's Dune is another massive What If and one that is fascinating to contemplate. Director Frank Pavich explores the history behind Chilean director Alejandro Jodorowsky's ill-fated attempt to bring Frank Herbert's Dune to the screen and what we learn is painful and frustrating.

Jodorowsky, known for surreal fare like El Topo and Holy Mountain, was approached with Dune as a possible film project and though he hadn't read it himself, he immediately gravitated to the idea. Burning with inspiration, Jodorowsky set out to enlist not only the best talent, but those he felt had a spiritual compatibility with his vision. Among the august collaborators were H.R. Giger, special effects whiz Dan O' Bannon, comic illustrator Chris Foss, and the (then) still-ascending Pink Floyd. In casting actors, Jodorowsky was no less ambitious: Salvador Dali, Orson Welles and Mick Jagger.

Rights to the novel were secured, storyboards were drawn up and pre-production commenced. All Jodorowsky needed was a Hollywood budget so meetings with major studios were secured. A $15 million dollar budget--enormous but not obscene by 70s' standards--was proposed. Though studios were impressed with Jodorowsky's adaptation, storyboards and the otherworldly designs, they wouldn't trust a massive undertaking to someone like the Chilean director. Everyone interviewed, critics and those connected to the project, agreed Jodorowsky's film would have been one of the most important and seminal films in history. If that seems like ludicrous hyperbole, consider the evidence the movie provides for how Hollywood borrowed, stole and re-purposed Jodorowsky's production designs and design team. H.R.Giger's designs were seen in Alien and more recently Prometheus, costumes inspired movies like Flash Gordon and elements of the story can be seen reworked in Raiders of the Lost Ark; to name but a few films. Even in storyboard, Jodorowsky's film is breathtaking, as are the costumes and spaceship designs.

Pavich's documentary also brings interesting, anecdotal, pre-production tid-bits to life. We learn Dali wanted to be paid an exorbitant sum just to be known as the highest paid actor in the industry while Orson Welles had to be coaxed with the promise of daily meals prepared by a french restaurant he loved. Jodorowsky had an easier time with Mick Jagger, who actually approached him about being in one of his films.

Film critics discuss Hollywood's aversion to Jodorowsky's project; one posits the theory that the film frightened Hollywood; studio heads aware the film could be revolutionary and usher in sweeping changes to how films looked and were made.

What if becomes If Only, as if only someone in Hollywood would have had the guts and vision to greenlight the project. We're left feeling the frustration Jodorowsky and his collaborators must have endured, especially after learning another production would be made, with David Lynch in the directorial seat. With no ill-will to Lynch, Jodorowsky expresses relief after viewing the 1984 Dune, bearing witness to its awfulness.

That Jodorowsky isn't bitter or doesn't seem to be, is a surprise; knowing what didn't get made was plundered by other filmmakers and other productions, like a new Lamborghini being junked and used for its precious parts.

We'll never know what Jodorowsky's film would have looked like or if it would have lived up to his towering ambitions, but the sheer idea of it seems grander than all the film's it inspired and most films made by the Hollywood system. If only...

The Other Woman

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Nick Cassavetes, Starring: Cameron Diaz, Leslie Mann, Don Johnson, Kate Upton and Nicki Minaj

I had just come from seeing John Turturro's incoherent, parody of a movie, Fading Gigolo and thought my day couldn't get worse. My hopes were premature.

I've never been a fan of Nick Cassvetes work. His films (for me) are either mediocre or embarrassing or both. The Other Woman is a new low in his career; an excruciatingly unfunny, viscerally stupid, IQ-corrosive that never seems to end.

Working from a script by first time screen-scribe Melissa Stack, The Other Woman tells the story of three women who all learn they have been had by the same man. Kate King (Leslie Mann), is the woman married to a jerk; Mark (played by Nicolaj Coster-Waldau) who romances a woman Carly Whitten (Cameron Diaz), never telling her of his marriage. The two women discover his duplicity then bond, forming an awkward friendship. But it isn't long before they discover Kate's husband is romancing yet another woman; a blonde bomshell named Amber (Kate Upton). Kate and Carly bring Amber into their fold by announcing she too is yet another victim. The three women then hatch a series of schemes to avenge themselves and also to bring Mark's shady financial dealings to light.

I usually find Cameron Diaz the most annoying presence in any film but what does it say about a movie when she is the most charming person in it? Leslie Mann aquits herself well in her husband Judd Apatow's films but is less interesting with other's material. Here she is so ear-splittingly shrill, one wonders how she charmed her husband to the altar. The series of slapsticky scenes where she is falling all over Diaz are something of musty, Laverne and Shirley comedy bits that weren't amusing then either. Kate Upton brings absolutely nothing to the table in terms of comedic timing or physical comedy. Her performance is hopelessly bland but then again, she has little to work with. She's supposed to be the beauty all women despise and fear but she radiates little heat or magnetism. And Nicky Minaj is a puzzling casting choice. Other than her current popularity, I wondered what got into Cassavetes' head to cast her as Carly's administrative assistant. Her voice is so grating, I was reminded of a creaky door hinge whenever she opened her mouth. Cassavetes also seemed to enjoy accentuating Minaj's ample posterior. Maybe he found it more expressive than her acting.

Nothing in the plot to ruin Mark is all that clever or funny; laxative in a drink, estrogen in Mark's morning smoothie, and hair-removal gel in his shampoo. Where is the dark, vengeful, hell-hath-no-fury, female psyche with its cunning menace, personified as Linda Fiorentino's nether-siren in The Last Seduction or the legions of noir femme-fatales of yore? Surely a little dark humor wouldn't hurt a comedy.

I try to resist the silly hyperbolizing moviegoers are susceptible to when they love or hate a movie but it's difficult to refrain from it myself after seeing something like The Other Woman. To call the movie garbage might be exaggeration better left to others so I'll resort to euphemism by calling it unrecyclable, noxious, waste material.

And leave it at that.

Heaven is for Real....Suckers?

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Randall Wallace, Starring: Greg Kinnear, Thomas Haden Church, Margo Martindale and Kelly Reilly

Based on Todd Burpo's New York Times bestseller of the same name, Heaven is for Real is part of a recent trend of religiously themed films coming out of Hollywood: Son of God, Noah, and God is Not Dead, with Ridley Scott's Exodus: Gods and Kings slated for a December release.

Heaven is for Real tells the story of Todd Burpo and his family, who reside in a small, farming community in Imperial, Nebraska. After his son Colton (Connor Corum), experiences a near-death experience while in the hospital battling a severe fever, he begins to talk casually about seeing angels and visiting heaven. His father, who is a minister in the community church (played earnestly by Greg Kinnear), begins to take his son's accounts seriously. When Todd begins to incorporate his son's experiences into his Sunday sermons, it makes members of the congregation uneasy and his wife a little annoyed. Beset by hospital bills and Todd's shaky income from his garage door installation business, his wife feels his focus should remain on their financial woes, not their son's heavenly preoccupations.

A weepy, tender score accompanies nearly every scene until it almost becomes deafening; its maudlin violins a cue that the movie won't offend or upset the frail sensibilities of the audience. Everyone in Imperial seems so unbelievably upbeat and friendly they make Up With People seem like bitter cynics.

While others dismiss their son's experiences as imaginative ravings, Todd is convinced his son's visions are real when Colton tells him about seeing his dead grandfather in heaven. Todd shows him a picture of his grandfather as an elderly man which Colton doesn't recognize until he is shown another photo of him in his younger years. Colton identifies the man as the one he had seen, informing his dad that in heaven, "everyone is young." What exactly constitutes "young" in heaven is anyone's guess. Colton also shocks his skeptical mother later when he mentions his "other sister," a baby the Colton's lost in the womb and whose gender was never disclosed to the family. Todd's wife Sonja (Kelly Reilly), has been grieving the loss of her daughter, so when Colton talks of his sister--someone he couldn't have possibly known about--his mother begins to believe her son.

Heaven is for Real isn't the appallingly witless mess God is Not Dead was, but it has it's share of eye-rolling nonsense that will guarantee a chuckle, if not a guffaw.
One such scene finds Todd questioning his son about his heavenly visits. In recalling one incident, Colton describes a visit to the church where his father preaches. While Colton sits alone in a pew, the wall behind the altar dissolves into serene clouds and sky. Angels appear, singing, which prompts Colton to ask them if they might sing We Will Rock You to which they respond with laughter. The scene is cloyingly cute but it only worsens when we see someone dressed in white robes approach Colton in the aisle. You got to be kidding me, I thought; weren't the angels enough? No, we get his holiness too though we don't see his face. More on that later.

Given Todd Burpo's financial troubles, you'd think the angels might provide Colton something useful, like winning lottery numbers rather than stupid warbling. The deceased family members Colton sees don't seem to be any more useful.

Another curious scene is Todd's meeting with a psychologist to discuss his son's otherworldly experiences. Of course the doctor comes off as cold and unsympathetic-the typical characterization of science and scientists as hopelessly out of touch with the spiritual world-but later Todd mentions something Einstein said to buttress an argument for Colton's experiences. The religious want it both ways, I guess.

It all ends as one would expect; the congregation forgives Todd his talk of Colton's heaven though we never learn what became of the Burpo family's financial woes. The outcome is more violins, familial well-being, vast fields of golden wheat, peace and harmony, and not a problem in sight.

Wait a minute; what does Jesus look like? Let's get back to that. We see his robes in church but not his divine visage. In the final moments of the film, we see Todd sitting on the back porch as his children play; his attention riveted on an internet story of a girl who had an experience much like Colton's. A video of the girl painting a portrait reveals Jesus' face. When Todd shows the face to Colton, the boy says "Yeah, that's what he looks like." The audience might share my surprise to learn that Jesus is a dead ringer for Kenny Loggins! That's right; when you die, you'll be greeted at the pearly gates by one half of the 70s' pop duo Loggins and Messina.

Needless to say I left the theater trying hopelessly to suppress a giggle.

Transcendence

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Wally Pfister, Starring: Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Paul Bettany and Morgan Freeman

Wally Pfister, mostly known heretofore as a cinematographer, tackles a directorial role for Transcendence, a sci-fi tale about hubris, the ominous encroachment of artificial intelligence technology as well as the dominance of computers in our daily lives.

Johnny Depp plays Will Caster, a leader in artificial intelligence technology and researcher who has designed a computer that is highly intelligent and virtually self-aware. His colleague and life-partner, Evelyn Caster (Rebecca Hall), assists him in his research while colleagues Max Waters (Paul Bettany) and Joseph Tagger (Morgan Freeman), are part of a tech-movement that hope to create computers with superior artificial intelligence that overcome human limitations which Caster calls Transcendence.

Meanwhile, an anti-technology, terrorist organization known as R.I.F.T. isn't beyond employing violence to stop Caster and his colleagues from turning the world into a techno-cyber hell they believe will result from his work. One R.I.F.T. member (Lukas Haas) approaches Caster after a speech on artificial intelligence, levels a gun barrel at him and shoots, wounding him. The gunman takes his own life but the search for the members of the organization commences; led by an FBI Agent named Buchanan (Cillian Murphy).

Recovering from his wound, a doctor informs Caster the bullet that penetrated his abdomen was laced with Pollonium, a lethal radioactive substance whose effects on the human body are irreversible. Caster then becomes determined to spend quality time with his wife his last month alive. While Evelyn Caster and Max tend to Caster's physical decline, they hatch a plan to upload they dying man's neural activity into a computer, thus preserving his consciousness as Will had once achieved with a monkey.

Following Will's death, Max and Evelyn return to their hideout, away from R.I.F.T.'s prying eyes to test the efficacy of their work. At first the test yields nothing but as they prepare to wipe the files, they discover Will has made contact; his words "Anyone there?" appear brightly on the screen. Evelyn is ecstatic, feeling she has saved part of her husband though he resides in a cyber-limbo. It isn't long before Will informs Evelyn he needs more space with which to expand and transcend. Warned by Max that Will's demand to be connected to Wall Street smacks of an ominous power grab, Evelyn ignores his admonition and proceeds with Caster's demands. To facilitate Evelyn's tasks, he uses his reach of web resources to amass a sizeable bank account for her. He then selects an isolated, desert town to build an underground facility to house his prodigious, god-like "mind." Cyber-Caster begins to develop extraordinary abilities, such as healing wounds and regenerating damaged bodily tissues. This seems a benign and humanitarian gesture until Evelyn becomes privy to his plans to also control those in his care. His power reaches its apex when he begins to control the weather, causing micro-nano units to fall from the sky. Aware of what Caster has become, Max and Tagger join members of R.I.F.T. and the FBI to destroy him before he expands his control.

The allegory of technology developing beyond human control is nothing new though here it wears a different face, so to speak.

My problem with the movie isn't with the performances or the direction but with a conception of an artificial intelligence that falls short of being "supreme." Other than regenerating living matter, Cyber-Caster's agenda seems shockingly limited, given the power he has attained. You mean to tell me that a higher intelligence wouldn't seize control of the military's computerized launch codes or control the grid or manipulate financial data to control markets worldwide? What threat does he really pose other than enslaving town locals? Why doesn't he just seize control of Facebook and Twitter; social media that truly do enslave?

The movie is bookended with scenes of the aftermath of Caster's demise; a dead power grid and a nation reduced to a scavenging-gathering status, struggling to survive. It is all mildly entertaining but one might shrug one's shoulders afterward and say, "okay, whatever," and move on, as the movie is unable to resonate or offer intellectual sustenance. If Transcendence wants to inspire thought or serve as a cautionary tale, it does so weakly and unconvincingly. If it only were transcendent...

Locke

**Spoiler Alert**

Directed by: Steven Knight, Starring: Tom Hardy

An ambitious, original film like Steven Knight's Locke asks the audience to invest time and emotions on a story told completely within the confines of a car, which could have just as easily been set in a sensory-deprivation tank for the minimal sound and visual stimuli we are presented. In said hermetically-sealed environment is Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy); a man who has just driven away from a major construction project--for which he acts as a foreman--and his wife and family. Why would a man abandon a life of security, step into his vehicle and drive away into the abyss of night, his destination known only to him?

It is only a matter of time before we learn just what Locke has in mind. A celebratory, post-project dalliance from the year before leaves him the father of a child with an emotionally fragile woman he barely knows. The very evening he leaves his job and family is also the night the woman is to give birth to his child and he is determined to be there at her side when it happens.

Along the way we hear Locke cooly inform his wife of the one night stand and the child the woman is to bear, which is of course met with astonished silence. He also informs the construction project leader that he won't be present the next day for what will be the most important day in Locke's career. The leader reminds him several hundred million dollars is at stake but Locke, as calmly as he addressed his wife of his infidelity, tells the leader he will insure the project continues as planned with a colleague as surrogate. The leader is of course apoplectic and after a volley of phone calls to the project leader, Locke is dismissed from his position. With an Olympian devotion to duty, Locke contacts colleagues to assist him in his mission though he finds the task exceedingly difficult.

He also spends his time on the phone to his wife and son; the former can't forgive Locke, in spite of his repeated pleas for understanding while the latter, ignorant of what has transpired between his mother and father, is crestfallen when his dad tells him he won't be home to watch the football game with the family. It is heartbreaking to hear his son's plaintive appeals as the dissolution of Locke's family seems all but assured.

And finally, Locke must also contend with the woman who will bear his child. Her anxious, frightened voice on the phone is as emotionally trying to Locke as it is to the audience but even to her he maintains a collected demeanor and in his stark honesty, he informs her he can't love her because he barely knows her.

What develops between the three scenarios makes for a hairy, nail-biting drama and what is particularly mind-boggling about it all is that it takes place inside a moving car; only the voices of Locke's associates and family characterize their offscreen identities. This is an ambitious role for Hardy and one his talent is more than equal to. His performance is the film and it is crucial in creating tension in what is essentially a chamber piece. He is natural and restrained, only erupting occasionally when his problems become a little too sticky. He is also granted a soliloquy of sorts when he sometimes addresses the empty, rear seat angrily, as if his father were there, which provides a psychological backstory and a motivation.

Knight also works with limitations but manages to make the passing vehicles and lights a dramatic tableau. We sometimes see Locke within the confines of the car and sometimes outside the vehicle, looking in; allowing us to regard him with and without the interceding glass medium.

And how does Locke resolve his many problems in his seemingly endless drive? All I will say is that he loses and wins, though the viewer must assess that statement's accuracy and decide in what proportions he is awarded and penalized. And is his determination to do the ethical and moral thing equal to the loss of family and job? Again, the viewer must decide and in posing the question, Knight rewards us with so much with so many self-imposed narrative limitations.

The Railway Man

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Jonathan Teplitzky, Starring: Colin Firth, Nicole Kidman and Stellan Skarsgard

Early 80s' England, a middle-age man meets an attractive woman on a train. After some conversation, it's immediately apparent they have fallen for one another. In spite of this, the man exits the train at the first stop and realizing he may have made a grievous error, meets the woman down the line and in doing so, begins a deliriously happy courtship and marriage. Or so we think.

It isn't long after they've set up their domicile before Patti, the wife,(Nicole Kidman) finds her husband Eric (Colin Firth) writhing on the floor in agony and it isn't long before we learn the cause of such suffering. Patti discovers Eric was once a prisoner of war in the pacific theater in WWII, more specifically southeast asia. Eric's reticence about his experiences leads her to his friend and former fellow prisoner Finlay (Stellan Skarsgard), who divulges what he and Eric and others endured at the hands of the Japanese in a labor camp.

Eric and Finlay were part of an army engineering group whose skills the Japanese enlisted in the camp but the engineer's cooperation only goes so far as they use their considerable technical skills to craft a radio to receive allied news of the war's progress. Learning from a British broadcast that the Germans are losing ground in the European theater, morale surges. The engineers become determined to spread the news to the British troops and native laborers, who were unlucky enough not to be spared the punishing, torturous, back-breaking work on the railway the Japanese hope to build through the Burmese jungles and mountains. Eric's formidable knowledge of trains enables him to enlighten his fellow engineers that the railway system the Japanese are determined to build was once considered by British engineers but upon surveying the Burmese terrain and landscape, dismissed the idea as a work of brutality. He also informs them that such a project couldn't be accomplished by laborers alone; only an army could carry out the task. Eric's information, supported by his calculations, is met with anxious expressions by his colleagues. His ominous declaration is confirmed when he sees the British army regulars working under savage conditions on the railway. He even meets his former commanding officer on the labor crew as they dig through a hill of rock in the sweltering sun. The officer's face is one of exhaustion and madness as his blank stare reveals his mental and physical deterioration.

The radio is soon discovered, which brings the engineers before Japanese disciplinary officers. Seeing a fellow engineer endure a barbaric beating, Eric steps forward to accept culpability for the infraction. This leads to unspeakable torture and cruelty, but Finlay's account can only go so far, for even he doesn't know what Eric endured at the hands of the Japanese officers. He warns Patti that an attempt to force Eric to recollect might be fruitless and she could never hope to understand what he suffered. Undeterred, she presses on, hoping to understand what the Japanese visited upon Eric's mind and body. Ultimately we see what he suffered: severe beatings on his body with what resembles a hard axe-handle and often on broken bones in the process of healing. He also undergoes what is the Japanese version of waterboarding; a horrific and disturbing scene in the film. Though the Japanese officers are mostly single-mindedly sadistic in their methods, one officer shows compassion though he dare not express it to the soldiers intent on torturing Eric.

It is clear what happened 40 years earlier hasn't passed from the minds of those that shared Eric's imprisonment, for Finlay makes a statement by hanging himself above railway tracks (a poorly deployed, symbolically heavy-handed image). The act also serves as a warning to Eric about the perils of leaving the past unaddressed. Before Finlay's suicide, he gives Eric an article from a newspaper overseas about the officer who presided over Eric's torture; now a tour guide at the very labor camp where the British soldiers were held. As a way to face his grim past, Eric travels to the camp, now a tourist destination, to confront his former nemesis.

The film is based on Eric Lomax's real war and post-war experiences. The performances from the cast are powerful and affecting, particularly Firth's, who shows Eric's anguish and controlled rage when confronting his former interrogator. The actors cast in the roles of the principle character's younger selves are also exceptional. As the film swings from the war to present and back again, we see how deep, emotional scars he bears in middle-age are as raw as the physical torture was excruciating.

Most of The Railway Man works; the story is riveting and Eric Lomax's experiences make for a poignant film, though I don't think it wears the mantle of greatness. It is definitely worth the time and emotional commitment.

Under The Skin

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Jonathan Glazer, Starring: Scarlett Johansson

Jonathan Glazer seems to be a director always working in that twilight of universal recognition and an area just below the radar, and though he doesn't have many films under his belt, he can always be trusted to deliver something dark and engaging. Sexy Beast unleashed a frightening psychotic, expertly played by Ben Kingsley and in the seldom seen and unjustly forgotten Birth, a child claimed the attention of a couple and family with a creepy agenda. In the aptly titled Under the Skin, Glazer offers us something abstract, darkly poetic, sometimes abstruse and offbeat.

Scarlett Johansson stars as an entity who assumes the body of a human female. With the help of a mysterious sidekick, she drives around a Scottish town, looking for males wandering alone. Luring them into her van, she drives them to the interior of a shabby building with the promise of sex. Her sidekick speeds around in his motorcycle, abbetting her act though we never learn what they specifically seek or why.

Once the victims enter the building, they disrobe as they follow slowly behind the entity. The large room they enter is completely black and empty; only the bodies are visible. Luring them further, the victims slowly sink into what resembles a black pool of crude oil until they completely submerge. They don't cry out or struggle, as if in a trance, while the entity walks on, never sinking herself. Later we see what becomes of her victims: they don't asphyxiate in the viscous substance as we might expect but instead awaken to find themselves unable to extricate themselves as they watch the entity receding on the surface. The victims then undergo a kind of transformation; their bodies become a kind of wispy, epidermal remnant.

We hear almost no dialogue in the film and what the Scottish characters do speak is barely understood. The film could have used subtitles. Only the entity's British accent comes across audibly. No matter; I think Glazer intentionally makes the Scottish brogue difficult to decipher to muddy the human/alien distinction. Humans appear as strange and alien as the entity. It is interesting that we never see an "alien" but something shrouded in human skin--a subtle metaphor for alienation? Commentary on the dehumanization of women in our society; humans regarded only for their external, physical projections? Interpretations can flourish.

The entity looks at the world with a stoic, scientific curiosity. As the film progesses, she begins to sympathize with her victims; no longer leading them to their peril but forming a more human bond with them until she becomes prey herself. In one scene, a man with a facial deformation is treated tenderly until he too meets his viscid fate.

The role of the entity is a markedly different character for Johansson than her current, Captain America acting incarnation and is, of course more ambitious. In Captain America she's little more than a siren in form-fitting leather whereas her character here uses her feminine allure more as a means to an end.

Glazer's camera work shows a more mature, aesthetically assured growth. The opening shot of concentric circles; an abstract, visual melding of the human and entity would be the envy of Kubrick, as would the blackened room where the men meet their strange doom.

I really like and admire Under the Skin, which are not always compatible, emotional reactions one has to a film. I think Glazer is an exceptional director and one who will no doubt astonish us again. The film leaves much room for reflection about what we've seen and what we must interpret.