Secrecy (2008)

AT WHAT PRICE FREEDOM? In these days of the Patriot Act and suspect profiling, it’s something we all wonder on occasion.

In Secrecy, directors Peter Galison and Robb Moss explore when American citizens should ask for transparency from their government – and maybe, when they shouldn’t.

Plot:
Secrecy's plot can be summed up as a question: Where is the line drawn between telling the American public what they have the right to know, and what needs to be kept secret for the sake of national security?

Critique:

Galison and Moss fill Secrecy with interviews of people who have first-hand experience with the touchy subject of government secrecy: journalists, former government agents, even lawyers who defended accused terrorists.

In addition to covering the current debate over government secrecy, the film gives earlier instances:
• Woven throughout the film is the 1948 “Reynolds Case,” where a top-secret B-29 bomber crashed over Waycross, Georgia. (The government wouldn’t provide essential documents to the widows of the dead, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.)
• The reasons behind the secrecy of the Manhattan Project and the development of nuclear weapons in the US was interesting, to say the least.

For each pro-secrecy opinion offered, an anti-secrecy one is also provided. Some examples:
• A former chief of information for the National Security Agency (NSA) blames the 1983 bombings of the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon on media leaks discussing how the NSA was tracking the terrorists before the attacks (he even implies that media people who leak sensitive information are “traitors”).
• A Washington Post journalist uses the absence of WMDs in Iraq to prove his point that the people have a right to know what their government is doing.
• A former CIA exec says that prior to 9/11, press reports on how the government was tracking Osama bin Laden’s communications caused bin Laden to change his methods, and the CIA’s surveillance dried up.
• Providing a media openness for the Unabomber, by publishing his screeds in major newspapers, is what caught the attention of his brother and led to the Unabomber’s arrest.

The film shows many angles to the argument – providing one head-shaking instance after another where secrecy, either kept or leaked, caused an unfavorable incident for the US or its people. All the subjects interviewed provide clear, articulate reasons for their cause, which makes it that much harder to come down on one side (though one expert’s declaration that these secrecies have a sexual connotation feels like a bit of a stretch).

In Secrecy, a lot of questions are asked; no easy answers are offered. And that’s a large part of what makes this film so compelling.

Secrecy is available on DVD Tuesday, September 29.

Rating:

Will your kids want to watch it?

Secrecy’s subject matter doesn’t seem like something that would capture children’s attention, which is fine because there are some grim images and footage – including the aftermaths of 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the US Embassy and Marine barracks bombings; a couple of shots of dead US soldiers; and pictures of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

Will your FilmMother want to watch it?

Much like Escape from Suburbia, Secrecy makes for great debate. I’d say not only have your FilmMother watch it, but make it a group viewing with friends or colleagues. Talks may get heated afterward, but it’ll simply be a testament to Secrecy’s material.

Trailer:

Secrecy
• Directors: Peter Galison, Robb Moss
• Stars: Mike Levin, Tom Blanton, Melissa Boyle Mahle, Ben Wizner, James B. Bruce, Barton Gellman, Steve Garfinkel, Patricia J. Herring, Wilson Brown, Siegfried Hecker, Steven Aftergood, Neal Katyal, Charles Swift, Judy (Palya) Loether
• MPAA Rating: N/A


Buy Secrecy for less at Half.com >>
Rent Secrecy from Netflix >>

ffolkes (1980)

LAST DECEMBER, there was a great article by Entertainment Weekly's Chris Nashawaty about Roger Moore, where Nashawaty mentions how people his age (children of the ‘70s, including yours truly) see Moore as the James Bond. Sure, we go back and watch Sean Connery’s Bond films out of obligation, but Moore will always be 007 for our generation.

Which makes ffolkes – and Moore in the title role – so refreshing to watch…

Plot:
• On the North Sea, a team of terrorists led by Lou Kramer (Anthony Perkins) hijacks the Norwegian ship Esther and two British oil platforms, Ruth and Jennifer – planting bombs on all three.
• Kramer then anchors Esther next to Jennifer and tells Jennifer’s commander his demands: The British government must pay him £25 million in five different currencies (“the money market is so unstable these days,” he quips). If he doesn’t get the money in 24 hours, he blows up Ruth. Four hours after that, he blows up Jennifer.
• The British military can’t get close to Ester, Ruth, or Jennifer without Kramer’s team getting wise, so they call on Rufus Excalibur ffolkes (Moore) – leader of an elite special-ops team who’s also an eccentric, cat-loving misogynist.

Critique:
• Rumor has it Moore felt he was miscast as ffolkes, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. He’s deliciously perfect as the dapper, egocentric ffolkes, and it’s fun to watch him in a decidedly different role from his then-current James Bond gig (he shot ffolkes between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only). He fires off commanding dialogue from a script by Jack Davies (adapting his own novel), featuring several great zingers you’ll be repeating to yourself for days.
• Perkins is highly effective as head terrorist Kramer – starting as a bold, emotionless villain who slowly unravels as the standoff drags out. Veteran James Mason also appears in a supporting role as an apprehensive admiral of the British Royal Navy who goes along with ffolkes’ plan of attack.
• Some of Michael J. Lewis’ musical score is a bit overdramatic, but nothing that gets in the way of enjoying the film.

In Moore’s autobiography, he dedicates a few pages to filming ffolkes – talking about how Perkins was a walking encyclopedia of film knowledge, and relaying a funny anecdote about the film crew trying to sedate the overly frisky cats without cat-lover Mason finding out.

Bottom line: ffolkes is a unique, overlooked little gem. I highly recommend seeking it out.

aka North Sea Hijack.

Rating: 4 stars (out of 5)

Will your kids want to watch it?

I highly doubt your children have ever heard of ffolkes, but when you watch it, do so without young kids in the room. Though ffolkes is largely bloodless, people are shot, poisoned, harpooned, and thrown overboard. Also, a terrorist tries to get frisky with a female hostage.

Will your FilmMother like it?

ffolkes has more of a “guy” feel to it, and Moore’s title character is quite the he-man woman-hater. Though if she likes characters who like cats, maybe she’ll give it a chance.

That pizza should've been here by now...

ffolkes
• Director: Andrew V. McLaglen
• Screenwriter: Jack Davies
• Stars: Roger Moore, Anthony Perkins, James Mason, Michael Parks, David Hedison, Jack Watson
• MPAA Rating: PG


• Buy this movie for less at Half.com >>
• Netflix

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (1974)

LIKE MOST PEOPLE MY AGE, my first exposure to legendary actor Robert Shaw was his role as Quint in Jaws. But his previous film, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, is one that any fan of Shaw’s should also check out – not just for Shaw, but for a well-crafted heist/thriller with great performances, believable plot, and an unmistakable point (and location) in time.

Plot:
• From the film’s opening – featuring composer David Shire’s marching drumbeat and staccato horns, coupled with the stencil font of the credits – Pelham screams “1970s New York crime drama” (in a good way).
• After being introduced to a bunch of working stiffs at the New York Transit Authority, we watch four men step onto the Pelham 1 2 3 subway train – all with identical hats, coats, glasses, and mustaches.
• The men – comprised of team leader Mr. Blue (Shaw), ex-transit worker Mr. Green (Martin Balsam), loose cannon Mr. Grey (Hector Elizondo), and stammering young gun Mr. Brown (Earl Hindman) – take the train and its 18 passengers hostage. Their demand: One million dollars. And for every minute the ransom is late, they’ll shoot a hostage.
• Trying to negotiate the situation at the transit command center is lieutenant Zachary Garber (Walter Matthau), who uses stall tactics, occasional humor, and a few white lies to keep Shaw and his team at bay.
• Meanwhile, it’s up to the mayor (Ed Koch lookalike Lee Wallace) to decide whether to pay the ransom – and if so, can it be delivered in time?

Critique:
• Director Joseph Sargent effectively captures the ‘70s grittiness of New York City, from the screech-filled platforms of the subway system to the un-PC work environment of the Transit Authority.
• Shaw is amazing to watch. His Mr. Blue never gets rankled during the standoff (he passes the time doing crossword puzzles). His tone and facial expressions remain constant and in control, even when aspects of the heist turn tragic or he’s dealing with the growing tension between himself and Elizondo’s Mr. Grey. (Blue vs. Grey: a play on Civil War colors? Discuss.)
• Peter Stone’s screenplay (adapted from John Godey’s novel) does a superb job of tying all aspects of the story together, leaving little room for loopholes or what-ifs. He creates a thrilling yet believable atmosphere and plot, making you feel like the events in the film could actually happen.
• The supporting cast, from the transit workers to the unnamed patrons of the Pelham subway car, all do a commendable job in creating an environment dripping with Noo Yawk attitude. Special kudos to Tom Pedi for his hilariously profane turn as “Fat Kaz” – a grouchy transit supervisor who, when told to watch his language in front of a woman, replies, “How the hell can you run a goddamned railroad without swearing?”

Odds and ends:
• The color-coded names of Shaw and his team undoubtedly influenced Quentin Tarantino when naming his crew of criminals in 1992’s Reservoir Dogs.
• Earl Hindman, aka the stuttering Mr. Brown, found fame two decades later as Tim Allen’s facially obstructed neighbor Wilson on TV’s Home Improvement.
• Pelham is name-checked by the Beastie Boys in their 1994 hit “Sure Shot.”
• The name of an actor who plays a subway guard? Jim Pelham.
• Watch for Jerry Stiller (Seinfeld, King of Queens) in a supporting role, plus a bit part by Everybody Loves Raymond's Doris Roberts as the mayor’s wife.

A remake of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 opens this Friday (June 12), and I’m rooting for it for a couple of reasons:
• It’s written by Brian Helegand, co-writer of FilmFather Favorite L.A. Confidential.
• Fellow dad-blogger John Wildermuth worked on it as first assistant director and associate producer (read my interview with John here).

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is the kind of filmmaking indicative of its era – a gritty crime drama with just enough levity and camaraderie to create a fun, satisfying film experience.

Rating: 3.5 stars (out of 5)

Will your kids want to watch it?

Older kids (teens) may think it’s a cool concept, and if you think they can handle gun violence and a colorful array of profanities, then they should be fine with it. I’d keep pre-teens away from it, though.

Will your FilmMother like it?

If she likes thrillers, crime dramas, or any of the stars listed above, she should enjoy the movie. Otherwise, make it one to watch alone or with the guys (or older sons).

Ah, the lost art of the movie poster...
anybody else miss one-sheets like this?

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
* Director: Joseph Sargent
* Screenwriter: Peter Stone
* Stars: Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo, Earl Hindman, Dick O’Neill, Jerry Stiller
* MPAA Rating: R


Buy this movie for less at Half.com >>

Interview with John Wildermuth, First Assistant Director, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

FILMFATHER: As a first assistant director (AD), what are your roles and responsibilities?
JOHN WILDERMUTH: Someone asked me that once and I simply said I’m responsible for helping the director by managing the crew. A producer was nearby and said, "Are you kidding? He tells a crew of 300 mooks what to do every day!"

As a first AD, I’m the director's right hand. The director is responsible for overseeing all of the creative aspects of making a film, and it’s my job to help him or her realize their vision. I’m responsible for making sure everything and everyone is there for each scene. I begin two to five months ahead of the start of photography, breaking down every scene in the script and creating a shooting schedule. It’s like a giant puzzle that’s continually changing and evolving as locations are found and actors are hired.

On Pelham I had five months of prep, beginning with a two-week scout of New York City locations with [director] Tony Scott, executive producer Barry Waldman, production designer Chris Seagers, and location manager Janice Polley. We started with an MTA track safety class so we could scout subway stations and tunnels with active trains all around us. I also worked on hundreds of versions of the schedule as we continued to scout and figure out how to shoot each scene in the most exciting and efficient manner.

Once principal photography begins, I’m by Tony’s side every minute of the day, helping manage all the elements needed to shoot the scenes on the schedule. I have a staff of 10 ADs and production assistants to help speak to the crew and direct all the background action, cars, and stunts. Often, the script is being re-worked and I continue to change the shooting schedule to accommodate any revisions. For Tony, I type up notes each night to help him prepare for what we’re shooting the next day.

FF: What’s the biggest difference between the new version of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and the 1974 original?
JW: The original Pelham is a quintessential New York film and set the template for action movies that continues to this day. It’s a classic film, but today's audiences are different and Tony was looking to do a "re-invention" rather than a traditional remake.

The new Pelham takes place in a post-9/11 New York City. There are no longer Transit Police [like in the original Pelham] because the NYPD now has authority over the MTA. Also, Denzel Washington did not want to play a cop. Tony is notorious for his extensive research, and he’s always looking for real people to base characters on for his movie. Denzel's character is an MTA executive under investigation for taking a bribe on new train contracts. He's demoted to a train dispatcher pending the outcome of the investigation, and he just happens to be on [duty] when the call comes in that Pelham 123 has been taken. John Travolta's character is also based on a real person, a smarter and more dangerous man than the classic Robert Shaw character. I won't say any more because I don't want to give away too much.

FF: In addition to being an AD on Pelham, you’re also an associate producer. What additional responsibilities come with that?
JW: This was my seventh film with Tony, and my involvement in his projects is on a much deeper level than just being an AD. Most films today have an executive producer, the hands-on person overseeing the project from start to finish. Usually, this person is a former AD, having learned the nuts and bolts of filmmaking from the ground up. Although I desire to direct my own movies, I do help produce [the films I work on], and the associate producer credit is a recognition of the role I play on Tony's films.

FF: You mentioned you’ve made seven films with director Tony Scott (including Crimson Tide, Man on Fire, and Domino). What draws you to work with him so often?
JW: Tony is the most challenging director I’ve ever met. He’s also the hardest-working director in Hollywood. I’ve been drawn to him time after time because he challenges me to be at the top of my game every single day. The experience I’ve gained standing at his side and helping him make his movies for 14 years has given me a lifetime of experience from one of the modern masters. I’m planning on using that experience to direct my own films and follow in my mentor's footsteps.

FF: At your blog, you often write about time spent on film locations versus time spent with your kids when you’re home. How hard is it balancing the two?
JW: When my children were young, it was hard to be away from them, but it was also easier for them to come with me. I was still married to their mother and, for example, on Spy Game they came and lived with me in London for six months. As they get older, I’m finding it increasingly challenging to be away from them. They are 10 and 12 now, and it’s painful to go so long without seeing them. I’ve tried to take several months off between projects in recent years to give me more of a balanced life, as movies with Tony are 7-day-a-week jobs. I’m doing a movie now which shoots in Vancouver – a shorter project with a director who doesn't work 7 days a week and is allowing me time to fly home to Los Angeles on some weekends.

FF: Your IMDb page says you worked on 1992’s School Ties. My wife has a huge crush on Chris O’Donnell, so she’d kill me if I didn’t ask what he was like on the set.
JW: Chris was great, a super-nice guy! I was able to re-schedule some scenes so he could go to New York to audition for Scent of a Woman, and you know the rest. I'm happy that he’s gone on to have so much success, because I think he really deserves it.

FF: What’s your next project? You mentioned on your blog last month that you were scouting locations for a movie based on the Marmaduke comic strip…
JW: Yes, I’m working on Marmaduke; we start filming in July in Vancouver with some scenes to be shot in southern California in September. We’re using real dogs, and the visual effects team from Beverly Hills Chihuahua will animate their mouths to make them talk. It’s a lot like a 1980s John Hughes movie, with the dogs playing out their high school scenes at a local dog park. This movie is way outside the box for me, but my kids have been asking me for years to work on a kids’ film and I just couldn't pass up the opportunity. The movie comes out around Easter 2010 and I’ll write about my experiences on my blog this summer.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 opens Friday, June 12.

Iron Man (2008)

Ask any dad their favorite superheroes as a kid, and you’ll probably get stock answers: Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, etc. What you probably won’t hear often is Iron Man. We boy-men all remember him and how cool he looked, but in the pantheon of favorite superheroes, he probably falls somewhere between Ghost Rider and She-Hulk.

Still, there was a big buzz when it was announced there would be an Iron Man movie, though some of that buzz was concern about the players. Robert Downey, Jr., a superhero? Jon Favreau, the director of Swingers and Elf, at the helm?

Iron Man opens with playboy zillionaire, whiz-kid inventor, and military weapons industrialist Tony Stark (Downey) riding with a US Army unit in Afghanistan to demonstrate his latest weapon of mass blowing-crap-up. When his convoy is ambushed and he’s kidnapped (suffering a severe heart injury), he’s forced by his captors to build a weapon based on his own creation. Instead, he creates a power suit to save his life, escape, and help those who fall prey to oppression and terrorism.

Iron Man is, in a word, fun. It’s a straight-up popcorn movie that’s a welcome alternative to the broodiness and borderline sadism of The Dark Knight. Watching Stark’s trial-and-error construction of the Iron Man suit is very engrossing, and occasionally hilarious. And yes, I’ll admit, I did “nerd out” a bit when they showed Downey don the (albeit unpainted) Iron Man suit for the first time (goosebumps then layered on top of my nerdiness when the suit is shown in red and gold). And seeing Iron Man in action during several exciting sequences gave me the same exhilarating feeling as when I first saw Spiderman come to life in Sam Raimi’s 2002 film.

It may be too much to say that Robert Downey, Jr. was born for this role, but he was born to say the lines (the script is very witty and intricate without tripping over itself). Downey’s likable swagger makes him a perfect fit to play the self-confident yet flawed Stark. Terence Howard is game as Stark’s close friend Col. James Rhodes, Jeff Bridges is effectively shady (and nearly unrecognizable) as Stark’s business partner Obadiah Stane, and Gwyneth Paltrow serves her purpose as Stark’s assistant Pepper Potts (the adulation surrounding her as an amazing actress still dumbfounds me).

And for you true comic book nerds, keep watching after the credits for a little surprise…

FYI: Iron Man was released on DVD and Blu-Ray this past Tuesday.

Rating: 3.5 stars (out of 5).

Will your kids want to watch it?

If your kids are of a certain age, this could be a fun one to enjoy together. I say “of a certain age” because Iron Man is rated PG-13, though I wouldn’t call it as “hard” of a PG-13 as the aforementioned Dark Knight. This film does include mild language, superhero/villain mayhem, and some scary scenes involving baddie terrorists.

Will your FilmMother want to watch it?

Doubtful. While Iron Man is a blast for dads and their kids (of a certain age) to watch, FilmMother will probably do at least two of the following: yawn, roll her eyes, or leave the room.

Iron Man
* Director: Jon Favreau
* Screenwriters: Matt Holloway, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum
* Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow
* MPAA Rating: PG-13 (some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content)


Buy this movie for less at Half.com >>