Cinema on the Verge

Nope, the review isn’t here if you zipped over to this site from my personal blog.

Although I did just give this blog a big redesign.

Lovely, yes?

But if you REALLY want my take on Grindhouse, it’s not here……but HERE!

 Give me sleaze, give me sex, give me violence!

Yes readers, if you love some good schlock on celluloid then this latest epic by the directing tandem of Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez should do the trick. At least I hope it will as watching the previews reminded me of some of the Z grade films I overdosed on while growing up.

Truth be told, my Saturday’s were filled with low grade horror, kung-fu and action films. I had interest in little else except maybe a game or 2 on the old Atari 2600. An endless parade of these films would be shown on a local independent TV station and when that didn’t fit the bill it was Commander USA’s Groovie Movies on the USA Network. Ah, the memories.

I thoroughly expect these 2 film making pioneers to bring a new twist to the old game and raise it to a level that’s in a class by itself.

Or will they?

Stay tuned and check out this post for a link to my upcoming review of…..GRINDHOUSE!

I enjoy films that attempt to wrestle with some of the real problems that men and women face in the midst of a relationship or after the breakup of one. I don’t care for the recreation of an ideal romance that seems more at home on a greeting card or chick flick. I want to see a film that gets messy with the subject and shows the bleeding wounds that we can inflict on one another in the name of love. Confusions Of An Unmarried Couple is a film by the Canadian brother duo of Brett and Jason Butler that makes an attempt at doing this. Does the film succeed? I’ll save that answer for later in the the review, first some background on the story.

Dan (Brett Butler) is a young gent so shattered by the recent breakup with his girlfriend Lisa (Naomi Johnson) that he’s basically shuttered himself from the world. The film opens with scenes of Dan living off a diet of beer and very little else. He seems to sleep all day and normal things like showering and taking care of himself are too much of an hassle. Dan is not lazy or a pig, he simply has nothing left in the emotional tank to sustain himself. He masturbates to images of Lisa and questions why she did what she did. When done, he wallows in the stench of his physical neglect and mental malaise.

Lisa sits at home creating humorous folk songs chastising Dan for what he did. Her song is interrupted by Dan, who continuously bombards her with crank calls. Lisa’s place used to be Dan and Lisa’s place. We learn that the two were planning to get married but it all fell through when Dan caught Lisa cheating with another woman. And while Lisa may harbor some anger over the breakup, it’s Dan who hurts the most. Lisa still has numerous things of sentimental value at her place and these things motivate Dan to finally go out into the real world to get them back. It’s in the attempt to reclaim these things that the meat of the story is told.

What is the meat of the story? What many dysfunctional relationships are; a battle of semantics and one upping each other. Most of the film takes place at Lisa’s with both she and Dan verbally slugging it out. The action is cut with documentary style confessions of each of them giving their side of the story. Are they right or wrong? Difficult to say because this is not a cut and dry issue. Actually, there are many issues that are tackled in this film that many people out there have done or experienced. There are the mistakes of confusing sex with intimacy and intimacy with white lies. There are secrets and insecurities. There are accusations that men only care about sex. We do care, but sex for men isn’t always about self gratification, it’s about feeling like a wanted man and gaining confidence from that. What better way to get that than from a woman you love or desire? Maybe we place too much worth on the act, but it’s the most efficient way for us because that’s how are minds are rigged. Is it wrong? That issue is always up for debate. Dan is ridiculed for not speaking of other women because he views them as future sex partners. Is the caution a fear of commitment, a cushion for his ego or a natural act of self preservation? Why would Lisa pressure Dan to marry if she still had feelings for this other woman in her past? Is it true love that these 2 seek or power over each other?

Love is not power over someone, this much I know. Therefore what I saw between Dan and Lisa was something more on the side of lust and codependency with a chance for love somewhere underneath it all. I sat back and found myself nodding and laughing over some of the points addressed in this film, and there are many of them. This is a dialog driven film that feels like it’s arguing with itself. This is not a bad thing as the film is attempting to grapple with issues that destroy relationships the world over. Neither sex fully understands the other and each argument draws a deeper divide between them. It made me realize how much time and energy are wasted on the wrong things. Dan returning to Lisa’s place was not so much about getting what belonged to him, but taking away things that could hurt her in a vengeful way. Haven’t we all felt this at the end of a bad breakup? Is this a productive exercise? I feel it weakens us further, but that’s just my take.

I really enjoyed the film but did it succeed in it’s attempt? I think the themes the Butler brothers are dealing with are excellent territory that they should keep exploring. This is their 3rd film that I’ve reviewed and with each one, I see bigger and bigger steps in the right direction. Gone are the homages to their idols and instead we have a more vulnerable and heartfelt outing. It’s not easy to stick your neck out like this but they have. This feels like their vision and it’s a good one. Actually this is their best and most mature outing thus far. So the answer is yes for this outing and no in the bigger picture. I say “no” because I know they have more to say on these topics and I want them to keep digging. The best is yet to come from these men.

If you’ve loved and lost and fought to be loved again, this one may be for you.

I’m deviating from my focus on smaller films to very big ones with Casino Royale, the latest installment in the the James Bond franchise that’s thrived for over 40 years. I’ve been a fan of this series for as long as I can recall so it was a priority to check this one out on opening weekend. The buzz from critics all around has been extremely favorable.

Typically, the Bond films are trashed by both critics and loyalists to the Flemming novels as being too over the top and too reliant on gadgetry. I say that such a formula has worked well over the last several decades with some down cycles here and there, but overall they met most movie goers expectations. This includes yours truly who found himself giggling like a kid over the ice palace and invisible car featured in the last installment, Die Another Day. That would also be the final outing for the long sought after and acquired Piece Brosnan who I found to be great as 007.

Producers, after seeing the stellar results of prequels like Batman Begins, opted for the same treatment for Bond. They would focus on his first mission as a double 0 agent. A Bond less refined and green around the edges but with a heart of steel when it comes to killing and a softy when it came to romance. Casino Royal sets out to give us a Bond in the midst of a steep learning curve who gets hurt physically and emotionally with each mistake made. This would deviate from the formula that worked so well for so many years and be, in essence, a return to the basics. The guide in putting this film together would be the sole Flemming book never made into an official Bond film, Casino Royale. And in a move more controversial than it should have been, Daniel Craig was cast as Bond.

Does the gamble pay off? Yes and, in some ways, no. First, a little about the film. Bond must take down a criminal banker and ace card player known as Le Chiffre (Madds Mikklesen) who weeps blood due to a problem with his tear ducts. Le Ciffre is a mastermind at getting money into the hands of terrorists around the world. He intends to use his card playing skills to raise money for them in a super high stakes poker game in Montenegro. Bond romances the wife of one of heavies connected with Le Chiffre, Solange (Caterina Murino), but is melted away by MI6 money cruncher Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who is sent by M (Dame Judi Dench) to keep Bond in check. Bond must then defeat Le Chiffre at the poker game which will, in turn, bring his criminal network crashing down.

I had to keep reminding myself that this was before Bond really becomes Bond. He does several things that are out of character so to speak when dealing with Vesper. But if you keep in mind that this is the beginning, it will make sense how Bond becomes the type of man that views women as temporary prizes, obstacles, liabilities or disposable. The Vesper character deviates strongly from the typical “Bond girls” of the past. She’s given more to do with her mind rather than her beauty, both of which she has in abundance. She’s not afraid to challenge James and she has the upper hand through most of the film. The exchanges between them are fun and sorely lacking in past films.

The action sequences are fine. There’s a great foot chase through a construction site, another chase through an airport runway and a nasty shoot out in a collapsing Venetian building to name a few. The gadgets are there but seem more pratical than fun, almost pedestrian with the exception of the defibrillator in the glove box of his Aston Martin. If I can wage any gripe about this films action it’s that it felt, at times, like The Bourne Identity series. To be clear, that film and it’s followup are fantastic. I have no problem with them. However, Bourne is Bourne and Bond is Bond. The two are best enjoyed separately and not mixed shaken or stirred together. There’s is also way too much product placement going on in Casino Royale. The rather reserved David Arnold score picks up dramatically as Bond cruises the Bahamas in…….a Ford! Sure he gets the Aston Martin later, but where’s the real music for that. C’mon guys! A Ford!?! I know Bond had humble beginnings, but honestly.

And that brings me to another gripe, continuity. Sure the Bond series is rather dodgy with with this but while I love Judi Dench as M, it makes no sense having her in it since she’s not brought in until Goldeneye. This is where things get a tad precarious in my judgement of this film. I can’t determine if this is just a liberty taken by the producers to keep a woman with incredible presence and ability in the series, or if they are going to act as if the previous 20 films never happened. If the latter, then this film drops from one of my favorites to one of the most hated in the blink of an eye. I don’t mind shaking up the legacy but don’t spit on the legacy.

Overall, we have a new Bond in Daniel Craig that is funny, gritty, dangerous and vulnerable. His attempt at the role is class, this guy nails it. If there is one potential problem that critics seem to be pushing for, it’s injecting too much realism into this series. It doesn’t belong in Bond as his world is that of fantasy. To be too real in the world of Bond is to be boring or something in the realm of Tom Clancy. (Nothing wrong with Clancy, it’s just not Bond) Bond doesn’t need to be human, he needs to be just as mad as the evil maniacs he’s trying to do in. Absurdity and impracticality are not hindrances in the Bond canon, they are necessities. But again, this is the beginning, some of his practical humanity is still left and he hasn’t become Bond we know and love.

To the Bond movie fans out there who are worried about the changes; the exotic locations, beautiful women, glamor, gadgets and guns are still there but they just don’t feel like anything we’ve seen in the past films. You even have recurring characters like Felix Lieter (Jeffery Wright) coming back into the mix. But it wans’t until this films final moments that it really felt like a true Bond film to me. And that sequence was so different from the typical Bond ending that strangely…….it was more Bond than anything I’d ever seen in this series.

And that had me leaving the theater with a smile on my face.

With Halloween in the rear view mirror I can imagine that it’s celebrated all year long for up and coming horror director Richard Griffin who put together of Pretty Dead Things. I was lucky enough to attend the premier this past Sunday thanks to an invite from actor Donald Foley who I’ve gotten to know from zipping around the blogosphere. He plays a porn producer in the film. The event was held at the historic Columbus Theater in Providence Rhode Island, which is where the film takes place and seems to be the heart of Richard Griffin territory.

Being just a 2 hour ride away in Connecticut I figured it was worth not only making the trip to meet Don Foley in person but to see what the indie film scene up in Providence was like. I have to say, if it’s relegated just to Griffin, he’s a party onto himself even if horror is not your cup of tea. Arriving in Providence with my platonic date for the night, we were greeted at the front door by drag queens, treated to a live performance by a local band, and given a few words from Mr.Griffin himself. I was captured on camera entering the theater and asked why I was here. My response, “To see Don Foley.” They asked if I had anything to say to him, I did.

“Don keep pimping it.”

Did he? Yes, he did! As the film rolled Don got some of the loudest applause of the night. I got into it myself because my platonic date and I got into town early and had a chance to bang down some drinks before hand. All worth it. You could tell Don was on an adrenaline high for the night and without it, he’s probably drop from exhaustion. My regret is that we didn’t have the chance to talk more. It was a Sunday night and we all know what follows the next day; WORK.

So how was the movie?

Loads of fun, actually. It’s a nice blend of horror and comedy loaded with plenty of gore and raunchiness to satisfy the bloodthirsty and shock seekers, though it’s not a terribly dark film. The plot centers around a small group of adult film stars who become vampires and live on the run in and around Providence. There’s an angry pizza boy (Patrick Pitu) who was attacked by 2 of the lovely vamps in the film (Danielle Lozeau and Ashley Eaton) who seeks revenge on them. The pizza boy himself is a vampire at this point but wins the help of the cities corrupt mayor (Salvatore Marchese) to hunt the fanged beauties down. Of course there’s loads of sex (straight and gay), biting and nice shots of very attractive women in various states of undress. It’s all part of what the film calls itself, “An unsafe sex comedy.”

Likely to offend the uptight and tickle devious, Pretty Dead Things is a very solid effort by Griffin. He gets very good performances out of his actors and can keep things pacing smoothly. He’s got a good sense of when to be funny and when to tone it down, something other directors can easily struggle with.

It’s not the latest installment of Saw but Pretty Dead Things is a celebration of B-Movie fun. It never tries to be anything more and is happy to be what it is. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if we one day see Griffin’s name attached to a high profile project. He knows what works.

Now if only I can get a non-platonic date for the next premier I attend…..

Alive and Lubricated is another film by Jason and Brett Butler that explores the world of suburbia and all of it’s passive trappings. I previously reviewed another feature put together by this duo from Canada called Bums, which I enjoyed and felt it showed a great deal of promise for these filmmakers. I have to say that after watching Alive and Lubricated, I’ve now become a fan.

The story focuses on Dickey (Jason Butler) who’s just been dumped by his girlfriend Rachel (Lena Morris) and seems to be going nowhere in his life with a dead end video store job. He’s got some friends, Ben (Craig Greenham) who talks a good game but can’t hold a relationship with women and Willy Boy (Brett Butler) who stuck living with his parents. All of these men, like so many other single men out there, want the benefits of sex without the heartache.  The kind of heartache that always surfaces after the implosion of a relationship. The old safety nets of porn and booze are an ever looming presence in the film. It’s something almost every man has watched at one time or another and it creates a nice shield for getting sexual gratification without the emotional hassle. But is it really just an excuse? Other characters in the film have resorted to escort services and massage parlors but gratification there is fleeting and often the women are described as “fat” or unattractive. At the very least, they were able to get their rocks off.

The men of Alive and Lubricated like to spend their time together talking over beers. In the quest to get laid there are humorous comparisons to sports figures and TV shows. You know they (Butler brothers) were going deep when they make mention of former baseball player Steve Balboni. If you’re a baseball fan like I am, then you’ll get a chuckle out that scene and the point they’re trying to make. There’s bragging amongst these men. A constant game of trying to one up one another. The problem is that they’re so far down in the dumps that they need to be supporting each other instead of taking jabs. Stories are told of their sexual prowess but why aren’t they’re more women around them?

Speaking of women, there’s Rachel. Fresh off dumping Dickey, she still want’s to be friends. The problem with this arrangement is that Dickey has to endure stories of her being with other men. He’s not prepared to hear any of it nor does it seem like the final nail is in the coffin as far as their relationship goes. She’s an attractive, liberated woman. She’s not afraid to verbally challenge Dickey’s friends in regards to the questions of love and sex. Can the 2 be separated and can they be enjoyed if so? Is it a collision course with disaster and must sex always be meaningful?

I’m a single man and can totally relate to why Brett and Jason Butler set out to create what they did. The film is funny and should be right up the alley of many Kevin Smith fans. Yes, it’s a rough around the edges and other critics around the web have come down on things like the acting or lapses in the script. But this is the beginning of a long road for Brett and Jason. I look forward to seeing more from these guys.

Bums is the type of comedic film that you have to admire for the simple fact that it’s creators, Brett and Jason Butler, put it together for next to nothing. And I don’t mean a paltry 1 million dollar budget here.  I’m talking hundreds of dollars or maybe a couple of thousand plunked down to make it happen. That’s very little, if anything, in the movie world.

This, in essence, is what independent film making is all about. You have an idea, a script a, decent DV camera and a few actors with a couple a friends sprinkled in and you put the plan in motion. You put everything you have into it and maybe you strike gold and maybe you don’t. But sometimes the risk, the journey and knowledge gained from a modest production put you in a spot where you can swing again from a higher ground and nail it. Again, it’s best to approach Bums with an appreciation that these guys aren’t bankrolled by MGM or Paramount, nor are they getting subsidized by the Sundance institute. They simply have the will to make a film under limited resources and make the most of it. It’s why I started this blog and, again, it’s something to admire. And with that, I’ll begin my review.

Bums takes place in suburban Canada and, like most suburban environments, has a habit of paralyzing people with complacency despite the minds will to be bold. We begin with Dave (Jason Butler) trying to talk himself into breaking up with with his girlfriend, Jill (Tessa Sproule), in his car that’s parked by her house. He eventually walks to the door with swagger and confidence and breaks the news to her. He feels she’s a slut, she thinks it’s over her love for the Beatles. Afterwards, Dave embarks on his first day in a while as a single man. He’s met by his friend Dan (Brett Butler) who’s been single for a spell but down on his luck in the dating department. In the meantime, Jill and her friend Heather (Karen Suzuki) contemplate their hatred of dating men and spew bitterness toward all their past relationships with them. If you’re single and hit the bars looking to meet someone, you’ve seen these women. They’re ready to attack at even the slightest glance and appear to be having a miserable time yet look like a million bucks.

These 2 women have built an airtight defense about how any faltering of a relationship with a man is strictly the mans fault with little or no responsibility on them. They freely discuss wanting men but quickly emasculate them by saying how none of them ever were good enough to satisfy them in bed. They’ll speak of independence and even passive aggressively flirt with lesbian trysts, as we see here in Bums, but would never actually do it. The reality is that they’re afraid of being hurt and won’t let anyone in to experience what they truly want. While Jill and Heather drink the day away, (this film is just a single day in the lives of these characters) Dave and Dan make their way to score some hash from a bathrobe wearing dealer named D.O.P (Jeremiah McCann) and it’s here where we’re introduced to a philosophical young woman named Lucy (Tammy Gerus). Between the toking, pop culture references are made because in the suburban world, it’s inhabitants find meaning and live vicariously through them. It’s easier to cling to the events that unfolded on TV than take a risk.

The characters in Bums are funny and spout some witty and humorous dialog. It’s only upon closer examination that what many of them declare or claim to be are simply masks to cover their abhorrence to being alone. The film touches upon the unhealthy need to be with someone just to be with someone and committing to someone because it’s right. There are 2 characters that, by simply being themselves, find more reward in this single chronicled day than others. I really liked Bums. It reminded me of many episodes that I’ve gone through with my friends and the opposite sex and I estimate that I’ll have more adventures like this to follow. I laughed because the ground it was covering was familiar to me and I don’t mean in the sense that Jason and Brett Butler were rehashing old material. They’ve taken elements of what we see in something like a Kevin Smith film and give it their own personal touch. There’s split screen camera work and other editing touches here and there but what really won me over was the fact that these guys were having fun and telling a funny story about being young, unsure and, at times, Bums. If you’ve ever been single and bar hopping with a wing man or woman, you’ll find a lot to like about this film. Because let’s face it, we’ve all been there.

While it lost out on an Oscar win for best foreign language film, Paradise Now by Harry Abu-Hassad still deserves a long hard look by any film lover with an eye on current events.

The film revolves around 2 young Palestinian men, Said (Kais Nashef) and Khaled (Ali Suliman), who’ve been friends since childhood and live dead end lives in the city of Nablus located in the West Bank. They work as mechanics for an out of the way garage that overlooks the rundown city. Hopelessness is all around them, they spend their days drinking tea and smoking water pipes. There’s anger at their situation and there’s frustration when the anger subsides. There’s a naiveté about them as well. They’re clearly in awe of the Palestinian resistance and the prospect of going to heaven as a “martyr.” All in all, both men feel that it’s better to die rather than live with what’s around them and the choice of death is by suicide bombing. Said and Khaled feel that to show weakness or inferiority to their sworn enemy of Israel is worse than death. And by killing themselves along with Israelis, they are now both equals because they and their victims are dead. Like eager children they ask at one point in the film what will happen after they have detonated the bombs. A leader for the group, in a very matter of fact way, says that 2 angels will swing by and pick them up and they’ll see for themselves when it happens. Both men believe it and are promised that their families will be taken care of financially after the mission is carried out. They come from poor families.

Said meets a beautiful woman named Suha (Lubna Azabal) while working at the garage. She’s worldly, having traveled and learned from it. It’s clear that she’s attracted to him and he to her. There ’s an opportunity for romance but duty calls. Said and Khaled have been selected to carry out a suicide mission in Tel Aviv the very next day. Time is short and Said decides to make one last visit to Suha in the dead of night. His excuse is to drop off the keys to her car which is getting fixed at the garage he works for. Amazingly she opens the door, half asleep but ready to invite him in for talk over some tea. She asks him if he watches movies, he claims there’s no cinema since the last theater was burned down, he partook in it’s destruction. She asks what did the cinema ever do to him and he admits it did nothing. He simply states that they were angry over something the Israelis did and the theater just happened to be there. Eventually they took their anger out on it. He then asks her if she’s proud of her father and what he did; it turns out he was a legendary “martyr” or suicide bomber depending on how you view these things. She assuredly states that it would be better for him to be alive and bring about change another way than be dead.

Those views are examined from every conceivable direction in this excellent Palestinian made film. This is a story about choices, about letting go of the past in hopes that it may bring about a better future. The characters in the film that support the efforts of suicide bombing are caught in a cycle that’s not just destroying Israelis, but themselves. The symbolism of this is very apparent when the mission goes wrong and Said runs back into Palestinian territory unable to remove the bombs fastened to him. There’s also the obvious problem that these 2 men aren’t ready to die at all. At one point, while making a final farewell video, Khaled stops his political rhetoric to warn his mother that she should get her water filters from another store because she’s paying too much going to her store of choice. It’s a small thing but it’s obvious that these men ought to be home, helping their families.

Despite these warning signs, Said and Khaled still believe that they have no other option than to die in a blaze of so called martyrdom. It’s resistance, and resistance, according to Said, must continue for the sake of the Palestinian people. Resistance is their way of showing might against the tanks and jet fighters of the Israeli army. But the battle may not won by showing might, but by showing restraint. Unfortunately, in reality, both sides are airing on the side of showing power through violence. To some, it may be justified but it’s not a means to an end and it never will be. The shots of Said blank face and the lost, exauhsted look in his eyes bring on so many implications that support such a point.

And that’s what makes this film so brilliant. It’s not out to justify suicide bombing nor is it out to place all the blame squarely on the shoulders of Israel. The real change will come when men like the characters of Said and, to a much lesser extent, Khaled (see the film and know why) realize that even in the worst of times, there’s more worth living for than dying for.

I wonder how the premise to Brick was pitched to producers. It’s basically a film noir set in a high school underworld played completely straight. The characters talk the type of slang you’d see in 1940’s detective films without the slightest hint of current vernacular. Sure it takes place in the present but throw a fedora on the protagonist Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and you’ve got a character that would make “Chinatown’s” Jake Gitties blush with envy.

Brick takes place in a southern California town where the local high school houses an array of future underworld figureheads in training. There’s the shady theater starlet Kara (Megan Good) who uses her dramatic chops to manipulate and connive her way up the social ladder. There’s Dode (Noah Segan) who hasn’t got a thing going for him and would basically be your homeless drunk or drug fiend in a more adult version of this film. Crime lords like The Pin (Lukas Haas) supply the drugs that keep the social circles happy and coming back for more and are assisted by bodyguards like Tugger (Noah Fleiss). And the worldly yet mysterious femme fatale Laura (Norah Zehetner) who works overtime to seduce our hero and loner Brendan. He doesn’t have many friends except for The Brain (Matt O’Leary) who has his ears open and finger on the pulse of what’s going down in school hallways. He’ll often provide the necessary intelligence and backup for Brendan’s investigations if you can call them that.

Brendan’s latest adventure is a personal one involving the death of his ex-girlfriend Emily (Emilie de Ravine) who is found dead by him in a massive storm drain. 2 days earlier she hit Brendan with a mysterious call in which she babbled to Brendan hysterically about a brick. Brendan tries in vain to win her back and get he to ditch the new social circle she’s begun to roll with. It’s the dangerous lot I described above and a hardened young lad like Brendan can clearly see she’s in over her head. But she won’t go back and pays the ultimate price, but how and why? And what is this brick anyway? This is where the homage to 40’s style noir kicks into high gear. Brendan can talk smack with the best of them, fight hand to hand with the toughest of them, negotiate his way through clandestine meetings, and evade attempts on his life by people who want him off the trail.

I sat through this film bemused and in awe that such worldly or hardened kids would result in a very satisfying viewing experience. An example; Laura who hosts a lavish party at her parents mansion while playing jazz music (no Jessica Simpson or boy band music) over the stereo and spouting poetry to her guests who actually appreciate it. She possesses the sophistication and refinement of women twice her age. This would normally result in the suspension of disbelief collapsing and me shutting the film off. Even the idea of high schoolers indulging in such activities would be laughable in the hands of anyone else except Writer/Director Rain Johnson. He’s done something very interesting here and I’m willing to bet that others will attempt it and fail miserably.

I’m not saying every high school kid is as dumb as a brick (no pun intended) because that simply isn’t true. I’m merely saying that the traits on display by these well developed characters are things most of us get with age. The film doesn’t care about this and simply tells it’s story with twist after twist in the tradition of classic nior. Adults, by the way, are nothing more than an obstacle in this film’s story development. You’ve got Richard Roundtree as Assistant V.P Trueman who’s the angry police chief of sorts and that’s it as far as significant adult characters go.

Absurd, ridiculous, unbelievable and foolishly bold, Johnson still gets this things to fire on all cylinders. I raise a glass and give a long nod of respect to you.

Well done.

A very solid film out of Israel, Walk on Water tells the story of Mossad agent, Eyal (Lior Ashkenazi), who must befriend the grandchildren of a Nazi war criminal who’s still alive and must be eliminated. Eyal isn’t too excited about the assignment. Most of the younger Mossad agents find hunting down retired Nazis to be so yesterday and would rather sink their teeth into something more current. The film opens up with Eyal taking down a noted terrorist head in Turkey through a deadly injection. It makes front page news and leaves Eyal wanting more high profile missions.

However, there’s more to placing Eyal on this seemingly pedestrian mission than meets the eye. He came home to discover that his wife had committed suicide. Placing him in the middle of a sensitive mission could be dangerous. He’s loosing his edge. Add to this that Eyal is a hardened man, aside from his physical limitations that don’t allow him to cry, he was born with defective tear ducts, he’s also very angry. This seems to cut him off from the small pleasures in life or the bigger possibility of enlightenment.

Enter the German grandchildren. Axel (Knut Berger) is visiting his sister Pia (Caroline Peters) in Israel. She’s working on a kibbutz and Eyal will be Axel’s tour guide in an effort to get closer to the Nazi grandfather. Pia and Axel are both genuinely good people although a bit naive. Eyal and Axel drive around to all of the historic sites in Israel while Pia is working and it’s through these moments that the film gets interesting.

How do todays Germans feel about the Nazis? This is posed by Eyal to Axel. It’s an interesting question that you want to hear the answer on even if the story is fiction. Why do the Palestinians choose suicide bombing? Axel asks of Eyal who dismisses them as savages. The difference between these 2 men is that Axel is still curious and simply can’t let such important things go unanswered. His inquisitiveness is childlike yet sophisticated. Eyal has grown callus to the bombings as such an occasion means bad cell phone service and soft music over the radio for days after. The film has a wonderful back and fourth with these issues and you soon forget about the mission to kill the grandfather.

Director Eytan Fox covers so many great issues, that are both topical and personal, that you could make dozens of films from each of them. It’s in this way that the film disappointed me at first. Great topics are brought up but put down leaving me hungry for more. It wasn’t until later that I realized that Eyal and the issues that seem to be brought up and not followed through are a microcosm for where the nation of Israel is at with them. Fox is attempting to provoke but not answer these questions for us. It’s honest film making and certainly something for the people of Israel and anyone who watches this to discuss.