The hitman next door is a miss

"The Whole Nine Yards"
Overall Rating: **


Somewhere along the line, mobsters became fair game for comedies. "Analyze This," about a mafioso in psychotherapy, and "Gun Shy," a romantic comedy focusing on a police officer pursuing the mob, both had funny previews. I haven't seen either movie (in fact, "Gun Shy" hasn't been released yet), but, like them, "The Whole Nine Yards" had amusing previews--unfortunately, "The Whole Nine Yards" isn't as good as its advertising.

Nicholas "Oz" Oseransky (Matthew Perry) is an unsuccessful dentist and a henpecked husband. His wife, Sophie (Rosanna Arquette) dragged him back to her native Montreal and berates him for not making enough money. Then, when he comes home from work one day, he meets his new neighbor. He soon realizes his new neighbor is Jimmy "The Tulip" Tudeski (Bruce Willis), an ex-hitman hiding from mobster Yanni Gogolack (Kevin Pollack). Just when Oz starts to build a tense friendship with Jimmy, his wife puts him on a plane to Chicago so he can tip off the mob and collect the bounty on Tudeski's head. Oz plans to meet with a friend in Chicago, maybe have an affair, and, above all, avoid any contact with the mob; but when he finds hitman Frankie Figs (Michael Clarke Duncan) in his hotel room, his plans soon change.

"The Whole Nine Yards" doesn't quite know whether it wants to be a comedy or a crime movie--and fails twice as a result. It's amusing when Oz first realizes who his new neighbor is--and instantly goes from a slight feeling of deja vu to sheer terror. What's funny for two minutes begins to get annoying after an hour. The problem is that the movie takes all the mob activities perfectly seriously, and relies on Oz's awkwardness around the criminals as the sole source of jokes. We have mob enforcers planning to kill each other, and only one poor schmuck tripping over himself and drinking himself blind in the background as a distraction. This gives the audience a few funny moments, such as when Oz runs into a glass door, or when Jimmy throws Oz a beer--and the stunned Oz doesn't even try to catch it. Most straight crime-dramas are funnier and much less tedious, than "The Whole Nine Yards."

The movie also strains credibility in several places. For instance, why does Oz stay with his shrew of a wife? When she and her mother are ruining his personal, professional, and financial lives, how could the disastrous divorce settlement he fears possibly be worse? It's not love--putting aside their mutual acrimony, while he's in Chicago, Oz falls in love with another woman; of course, the awkward protagonist falling in love with the worst possible woman at the worst possible time, with no explanation other than the fact that the woman in question was there and vaguely disliked him (old romantic comedy technique--if you hate someone, it's true love), doesn't exactly help the film's credibility either. Neither does the fact that his lover--who nearly everyone else in the film has a reason to kill--is still alive despite her frequent contact with mobsters. It might be one thing if the non sequiturs were funny, but they're not jokes; they're just careless writing.

The movie isn't a total loss. There are a few funny moments. Bruce Willis delivers a strong performance; his character isn't as complex as Dr. Crowe from "The Sixth Sense" (or even Harry Stamper from "Armageddon"), but, there's something to an actor who can make a mob hitman likeable. Similarly, Michael Clarke Duncan is also charming (though at this point, I'm not sure what it says when a movie's only likeable characters are mass murderers).

While "The Whole Nine Yards" may try to appear kinder and gentler than your average crime movie, don't let that fool you. There are several on-screen murders, plenty of strong language, a fairly strong sex scene, and full frontal nudity.

Apparently, the expression "the whole nine yards" comes from World War II machine gunners' ammunition belts being nine yards long--"the whole nine yards" meant that you shot off all you could without reloading. In contrast, while the title phrase may tell of a lot of ammunition, the movie "The Whole Nine Yards" itself fires blanks.

Title: "The Whole Nine Yards"
Release date: February 18, 2000

MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: **

Aprox. run time: 99 min.
Director: Jonathan Lynn
Writer: Mitchell Kapner
Stars: Bruce Willis, Matthew Perry, Natasha Henstridge (as Cynthia)

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/9Yards.htm

Added to blog site: 8/5/09

Rating the ratings

The MPAA rating system
Overall Rating: ****


Everyone knows what "R-rated" and "G-rated" mean. That's why the rating system devised by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) works.

In the 1920s, there was great concern that movies were getting too violent and too racy. In response, seven major studios formed the MPAA, and agreed on the Hays Production Code. The Hays Code was a strict set of rules restricting what could and couldn't be shown in movies. The MPAA would approve or disapprove any movie submitted, and the studios agreed not to release movies that violated the code. By the mid-1960s, however, directors with the major Hollywood studios were starting to gripe that they were being unfairly constrained. In 1966, MGM's director Michelangelo Antonioni made "Blow-Up." Because "Blow-Up" had full frontal nudity, it was denied certification by the MPAA--but MGM released it anyway. To prevent future crises, the MPAA devised four ratings, roughly modeled on a system previously developed by the Catholic Church. Anyone submitting a movie to the MPAA for a rating would be given one of four ratings--G, M, R, or X (all movies not MPAA rated would be considered X-rated; the other three ratings were trademarked to prevent misapplication).

Since implemented in the 1960s, the rating system has gone through some minor changes. M became PG; X became NC-17. An additional rating, PG-13, was added. The MPAA now makes public the reason(s) why a movie got a PG or stronger rating. The basic system still stands, however, and does what it was designed to: allows directors and producers a free hand regarding content, but also provides parents and theaters some guide to adult content.

There are still films not primarily intended for children that are made without the R-rated content; for instance, "The Boy Who Could Fly," "October Sky," and "Life is Beautiful" have content that is probably muted enough for the whole family (and probably would be approved under the old Hays Code with little or no modification). Even so, I don't think anyone would question that many films have gratuitous sex and violence. Have movies gone too far? Films filled with sex, violence, and gore are often hugely profitable. A large portion of the public actively wants the strong content, or at least doesn't object to it enough to stop going to movies with graphic elements.

As long as there's a demand for movies with salacious content, there will be a supply. The existence of modern technology makes it impossible to return to a Hays-Code-like system. Consider "The Blair Witch Project." One of last summer's big hits at the box office, it was made by a group of film students for $40,000. Consider, also, the pornographic movie industry. There is a demand for movies with stronger sexual content than mainstream producers will tolerate (indeed, this may still be on an MPAA disapproved list--I've read conflicting sources on this point). That doesn't prevent the existence of a supply--countless obscure companies produce hundreds if not thousands of titles each year--almost always releasing them directly on video or the Internet. If the big, American entertainment companies eschewed R-rated content, maverick smaller companies and foreign producers would quickly fill the void. And what would happen to the movies already out there?

Nor would it be desirable to return to a strict "approve or disapprove" system. Sex and violence have been a part of both popular and high culture at least since the days of Homer. Granted some movies demean themselves with pointless on-screen sex and violence, but that's not always the case. The problem with the Hays Code becomes immediately apparent when you try to picture "A Clockwork Orange," "Blazing Saddles," and "Breaking the Waves"--or, to cite three examples from last year alone, "Fight Club," "South Park," and "Eyes Wide Shut"--toned down enough to earn a PG rating (essentially, the limit of the Hays Code). Graphic content can be used to make a point, or it can be just vulgar entertainment; in both cases, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't--whether or not it works, however, is an artistic concern. It's there, and some people want it but other people might object to it; that's why the rating system is desirable.

Is the current rating system perfect? Of course not. A movie's rating is decided by a board of about a dozen people who evaluate the film as a whole based on fixed guidelines. Some of the MPAA's guidelines are downright crazy. For instance, a movie can show a murder on screen, and still get a PG rating, but simply showing a marijuana cigarette requires a PG-13 rating. Sometimes the board misses. Looking back at my reviews, of 71 MPAA-rated movies I've reviewed, only 13 were misrated in my opinion. Of those, I thought nine were too harshly rated, and four were too leniently rated. Three of those four, "Fight Club," "The General's Daughter," "South Park" would have received an NC-17 from me--a financial kiss of death. That brings me to another problem; since NC-17-rated films often fair poorly at the box office compared to R-rated films, there is often a conflict between the studios, who are willing to recut and reedit their films for an R rating, and directors who are concerned about artistic integrity. For example, "Eyes Wide Shut" featured several digitally added people and plants, blocking more explicit shots, to allow the movie to be rated R--with the result that Kubrick purists were howling about the tampering with his final film. (I'd like to have seen the film as Kubrick intended--but I have no basis to judge how badly the film was "damaged" since I haven't seen the unedited version.) Splitting R into two ratings, one picking up some of the borderline NC-17 films, might solve the problem. Perhaps a better solution was proposed by Jack Valenti, the president of the MPAA, when the rating system was created. According to his article on the MPAA website, he opposed the X rating, believing, as I do, that parents should be allowed to take their children to any film they feel to be suitable. The MPAA included the adults only rating because an association of theater owners was worried about legal liability.

I used to think it would be a good idea to have separate ratings for violence, sex, drug use, language, and thematic content; in short, I used to wish that the MPAA ratings would be replaced by something more like today's TV rating system--however, of the various rating systems devised by the music, television, movie, and video-game industries, the television ratings are easily the most arcane. Since the MPAA makes the reason for any PG or stricter rating available on their website, they don't need to create a code that the NSA couldn't decipher--parents who want to know why a movie is rated R can look up the reasons, or, they accept the R rating without investigation.

The MPAA system is also far preferable to no rating system. Movie promotions are too often vague, inept, or outright misleading to rely on them as a guide to whether a film is family-oriented. (If you don't think ads can be misleading, consider that, based on the previews, I had no interest in "The Sixth Sense," but actively wanted to see "Supernova;" the former is easily among the best films of last year, while the latter is this year's big turkey so far.)

It would be easy to say that in an ideal world, parents would screen every film their children see; but then again, would such a screening even be necessary in an ideal world? In any event, we don't live in an ideal world. I have always made it a point to evaluate movies for violence, sex, drug content, strong language, and strong thematic content in my reviews; some of my readers have misconstrued my comments about the presence of such content for being a complaint about that content--they're not always (though I will criticize about what I perceive as gratuitous). Beyond my service, there are other services whose sole focus is providing this type of information. Neither my service nor the other services, however, are universal. The MPAA's rating system is; movie theaters always display a film's rating with the title on their marquee or sign, on the posters, and/or at the box office. All movie ads and previews, unless far in advance of a film's release, also show the film's rating.

The MPAA rating system isn't perfect, but as long as movies show material that some parents regard as unsuitable for their children, the rating system is an excellent means to acknowledge these parents' concerns and while preserving artistic freedom.

For more information about the history of the MPAA rating system, visit the MPAA's website:
http://www.mpaa.org
Jack Valenti's article on the rating system can be found at:
http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm [This link is not working as of August 2009.]

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/_MPAA.htm
Added to blog site: 8/5/09

Luck of the Irish

"Angela's Ashes"
Overall Rating: ***½

In "Angela's Ashes," Frank McCourt, while describing all the offenses for which he can get lashed in school, mentions that one teacher would punish him for not knowing Michael Collins was the greatest man in the world, while another would punish him for not knowing that Eamon De Valera was the greatest man in the world. In a way, that line summarizes the whole film: it illustrates some of the inconsistencies of Frank McCourt's young life and how he coped, and shows the dominance that the Irish setting and its culture plays in the film itself.

Upon the death of their daughter, Angela and Malachy McCourt (Emily Watson and Robert Carlyle) return to Limerick from New York with their four surviving children, Frank, Malachy Jr., Eugene, and Oliver. Despite the fact that Ireland is, to quote Frank, a place "...where there was no work and people were dying of the starvation and the damp," the family hopes that the old country will provide the stability they need to recover. Malachy's northern, Protestant, roots and his alcoholism, however, not only leave him unemployable, but bring scorn from Angela's family. Things get even worse when young Oliver dies.

"Angela's Ashes" is confusing in places. For instance, there is a sequence where Malachy leaves home, apparently abandoning Angela and the children for good; however, he returns to Ireland with the family. There's also another scene where a coffin is in a pub--with no explanation of why. Some of the points I misunderstood may have been my own ignorance of Irish culture--you need some knowledge about Ireland, or you will be left scratching your head in many places. I also suspect that many of these confusing points are the result of the transition from McCourt's book to the screen. For instance, the film never explains the title. To be completely fair, everywhere I've seen McCourt quoted, he gave the adaptation glowing praise, and I haven't read his book, so I can't really comment on the adaptation.

The pace of the film is also extremely slow. This is a two-edge sword: the film is supposed to be slow-paced, presenting a somber, nostalgic coming of age story that takes place over many years. While a fast pace would be inappropriate, "Angela's Ashes," felt drawn out in a number of places.

There is no question about the cinematography. "Angela's Ashes" is beautifully photographed--it is simply magnificent to look at. This is not surprising, since director Alan Parker's previous effort, "Evita," also had stunning photography--"Angela's Ashes," however, is even better.

And despite the few confusing points, "Angela's Ashes," is well written. There are many nice touches, such as the scene where Frank's mother sends him to the pub after his father that tugs at your heart. Granted, the film is based on McCourt's life, but the presentation manages to evoke sympathy for the McCourt children and succeeds in tying Frank's diverse experiences together into a coherent whole.

The cast is also excellent. Emily Watson is very good. Angela is very nearly insane after the death of her daughter; Watson manages to walk the tightrope of acting nearly, but not completely, mad. Also, all of the younger members of the cast are astonishingly good. In particular, Joe Breen, who plays Frank in his early years, is excellent. Breen, who is eight-years-old, delivers a performance in one of the leading roles that puts many adult actors' efforts to shame.

Don't be fooled by the cute kid on the poster, "Angela's Ashes" is not intended for children. There is some violence (a couple of scenes where people hit each other), several nude scenes, some significant sexual content, and frequent strong language. The biggest concern would be the strong thematic content--the very graphic depiction of the damage alcoholism and poverty do to the McCourt family will probably be extremely disturbing to young children.

"Angela's Ashes" presents an interesting problem for me as a critic. The film is very well made, painting a vivid picture of Ireland in the '30s and '40s. While I'm sure it will be immensely enjoyable to some of my readers, it wasn't my taste in movies.

Title: "Angela's Ashes"
Release date: 12/25/99 (limited) / 1/21/00 (nationwide)
MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: ***½
Aprox. run time: 146 min.
Director: Alan Parker
Writers: Frank McCourt (book), Laura Jones, Alan Parker (screenplay)
Stars: Emily Watson, Robert Carlyle, Joe Breen, Ciaran Owens (Adolescent Frank), Michael Legge (Adult Frank)

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Ang_Ash.htm
Added to blog site: 7/26/09