Reviews - Body of Lies, Religulous and Changeling

Body of Lies - ***1/2

In short: A well-made modern spy film that will easily satisfy genre enthusiasts, but it never really excels or surprises.

Excellent production value and a solid espionage script that's full of twists without really becoming confusing, but I just can't help comparing it to 'Traitor,' which used a lot of the same tricks to better overall effect. It's a good summary of the logistical problems of the war on terror and the intricacies of cultural conflict between West and Middle-East, but the utterly cliche love story side-plot strains belief, some of the more obvious cinematic devices (like Crowe's constant attention toward his family contrasted with DiCaprio's ongoing divorce) come off as shallow, and the pacing is pretty methodical although it doesn't get boring. If you watched the trailer, you'd be left with the impression that the film centers on the antagonism between Crowe and DiCaprio's characters, but that's really not the case. The film wisely doesn't paint its characters as good or evil, just people fighting for their own personal causes. Crowe's biggest accomplishment in this film is finding a way to incorporate the word 'buddy' believably into every sentence, but Mark Strong should really be getting top billing here, his character gets more screen time than Crowe's and his performance goes further toward selling the film than either of the other leads. For modern espionage, you could do way worse, but Traitor is still the forerunner.

Religulous - *1/2

In Short: Ideology aside, the only question that really matters is "Is it funny?" To me, the answer is no, but I'm just one guy. If you're interested in the subject, you should give it a watch just to be part of the conversation.

The heart of the film is an appeal for reason over faith, acceptance of doubt over steadfast certainty, but the film doesn't exactly practice what it preaches. Maher has exactly zero interest in understanding or even communicating with the people he 'interviews' (there's a scene with a pair of openly gay muslims where the interviewees don't say more than two words, they just sit there and nod while Bill makes wisecracks). Maher is just as unshakeably certain that his view is the only valid one as his subjects are of theirs, so not one single idea gets through in either direction. This film isn't going to change anyone's mind about anything. Its only visible purpose is as some kind of flickering applause sign for demagogues, an excuse for anyone who identifies with Maher's fringe attitude to pump their fists every time he 'scores.' Maher's attacks for the most part aren't new, and a lot of them have been floating around since the Renaissance. The few original points he makes are lost in a sea of foolish ones (Why doesn't God destroy the devil? Why did God let the holocaust happen? Even when these questions are answered CORRECTLY in the film, Maher laughs it off as stupidity.) At the end of the day, it's a poor documentary which giddily uses the most manipulative kind of interview editing techniques in a bid for cheap laughs. If you're looking to be informed, it's not going to happen. Maher doesn't want you to think for yourself, he wants you to think the same way he does, and if he could see past his 'I'm the smartest man who ever lived' arrogance, he might be able to actually participate in the discussions he starts.

Changeling - **

In Short: A fantastic performance and an immersive 1920s setting aside, the film reduces 'true events' to comic-book level browbeating morality, leaving an overwrought and unsatisfying film.

The first two-thirds of the film are adequate if not excellent, but I could tell there was something missing. It was not until the movie ended on a perfectly appropriate note and then proceeded to linger on like a lonely houseguest, awkwardly repeating itself without a whiff of conflict or tension for a pointless and frustrating 45 minutes that I knew exactly what went wrong. For that was when the credits rolled, and the words "Written by J. Michael Straczynski" burned my eyes with angry photons. Let me tell you about J. Michael Straczynski. He's a lot like Joss Whedon, in that he knows that scripts grab hold of people by way of fierce dramatic climaxes, only while Whedon is guilty only of being somewhat too verbose, Straczynski is a total hack. Thanks to him, we have a film where everyone is either GOOD or EVIL, and the characterizations stick steadfastly to those labels with little else to cling to. The story's inherently interesting, there's some great acting and the direction is sound, but it's all built on a foundation of hackery, with John Malkovich playing a selflessly one-dimensional crusader for justice, aligned against a bunch of moustche-twirling supervillains who strap Jolie to an electroshock machine as if it were a pair of train tracks. There's a reason Eastwood had to rescue this script after nobody else showed interest in it, and he's done more with it than a lesser director could have, but that's all the more reason he should have known to lop off the meaningless courtroom scenes like a gangrenous limb. I just hope Jolie's fully deserved Oscar nomination doesn't lend the film itself too much prestige.