I attended a press & industry screening¹ of this documentary about Daniel Ellsberg, a government official who, during the Vietnam War, leaked some top secret Pentagon documents (the “Pentagon Papers”) that proved that the war was based on government lies. Americans probably know the history of the event, but ignorant Canadian that I am, I was not familiar with it. So on one level, I enjoyed the movie as a history lesson. But what really drove the film for me was Ellsberg’s personality. (He narrates the film and is seen throughout in the typical talking head interviews.) When he speaks, you can tell that he’s absolutely committed to doing the right thing. More than that, he followed his words with actions—actions that put his own freedom at risk. I have great respect for this, and I think that he is a true hero.

On the negative side, I thought they overdid the portrayal of Nixon as a bad, bad man. The repeated use of sound clips of Nixon saying vulgar and awful things almost came off as unintentionally funny because it was so on the nose. (E.g. someone in an interview would say something like, “Surely, the government would not do XYZ.” Then it would cut to a tape of Nixon saying “By God, we better goddamn do XYZ to those sons of bitches.”) I would have preferred a little more subtlety. Minor criticisms aside, this was a very fascinating doc.

3.5 out of 5

Two men kidnap a girl. That’s pretty much all I can say about The Disappearance of Alice Creed without giving away the various twists. What I found interesting about this film was that the three main characters are the only people in the whole movie. Also, almost the entire story takes place within 2 rooms in an apartment, and everything develops from the dialogue and interaction between the characters and the performances, which were great. In that sense, it’s kind of like a play. On the other hand, it’s shot with some stylish cinematography, which gives it sufficient “movie-ness” that you might not even notice how small the scope is. (Some people in the audience actually chuckled when the credits rolled and they realized that there were only 3 people in it.)

Excellent acting, great script, great style, and some very cool and unexpected twists. My favourite of the festival so far.

4 out of 5

I didn’t watch Suck with 100% attentiveness because I was working as an usher/anti-piracy cop for the screening. (It really sucks watching a movie standing up and facing sideways.) But I did get enough of it to form an opinion. The movie is a comedy about a rock band where one of the members becomes a vampire.

I liked some parts, and I would have been laughing out loud had I not been wearing my professional volunteer mask. There is a scene—a flashback sequence involving Malcolm McDowell’s character, which incorporates footage of a young McDowell from some old movie—that was really well done. Ultimately though, the jokes were hit and miss, because it was kind of cheesy, goofy humour which doesn’t always work for me. But I can see this becoming a “cult favourite” type of film with a good fanbase. Oh, and it’s Canadian.

2.5 out of 5

Michael Caine plays Harry Brown, a retired widower living in a bad neighbourhood overrun by drug gangs. And then his friend gets hurt. And then he starts killing gang members. And then the cops get involved. That’s what I felt like when I was watching this movie… it was just a sequence of plot events. I never got a sense of the characters’ motivations and justifications for their actions. The characters were only there to move the plot along, and I didn’t care about them at all.

For example, there’s one scene where the police detective (played by Emily Mortimer) suddenly goes from being confused about the situation to being completely convinced that she’s solved the case, all based on what I think was a very vague piece of evidence. Up to that point, she was portrayed as a fair and thoughtful detective, but then abruptly jumps to a conclusion, only because that’s what was needed for the movie to set up its climax.

Overall, it was a disappointment. That being said, there are some moments of suspense that did work well, e.g., the scene where Harry goes to buy a gun from some nasty people. And Michael Caine delivers my favourite one-liner from the festival so far. After a shootout with a bad guy, he stands victoriously over his injured opponent and says: “You failed to maintain your weapon, son.” Brilliant.

2 out of 5

I was catching up on some Ebert & Roeper shows via their podcast… A couple weeks ago, they reviewed Into the Blue. Richard Roeper gave it a thumbs down for all the expected reasons: ridiculous plot, mindless action scenes, etc. Ebert, on the other hand, gave it a thumbs up, to Roeper’s astonishment. He began his justification of his recommendation thusly (I’m paraphrasing here):

“Jessica Alba is a pretty girl. She’s pretty in this movie. So that’s a thumbs up.”

Can’t argue with that, Roger Ebert. Of course, he tried to give other reasons for liking the movie, but it was altogether unconvincing. I propose that Ebert & Roeper introduce a “thumb down, penis up” rating for just this purpose.