Shadows & Lies (2010)

This is not a gangster movie.The above point is so important it deserves its own paragraph. Really, this is as much about gangsters as "2001 A Space Odyssey" is about space monsters and laser battles. So if you're looking for a gangster movie then you might wanna find yourself a nice wholesome De Niro movie where he does batting practice on peoples brains.So what exactly is this movie? "In Praise of Shadows" (the film's original title before some marketing bonehead changed it to the flashier yet utterly meaningless "Shadows & Lies") is a film for shadow lovers. No, I don't mean goth chicks who sleep in coffins, although those folks are certainly invited to the party. I mean, in the tradition of the Japanese essay "In Praise of Shadows" from which this film derived its rightful title, it is for those of us who choose dark subtlety over bright glitz. As a line in the film goes: darkness allows us to focus on details that would be lost in bright light. And so, literally as well as symbolically, this is a story that's told against a dark, unknown, mysterious backdrop.James Franco, in his best role ever, is a mysterious drifter with many similarities to Camus' "The Stranger". He is morally ambiguous, neither kind nor cruel, neither good nor bad, but simply what he is. He takes a job as a criminal henchman almost out of curiosity (or boredom) rather than any other motivation. His first day on the job he meets the boss's mistress, and that leads to... shall we say... complications.The plot is certainly a tense one, and whoever wrote the DVD packaging (probably the same bonehead who renamed it "Shadows & Lies") had a field day ramping up our expectations for a wild thrill ride of Scorsesesque proportions. But, here I go again, this is not a gangster film.Sure there's blood, drugs, prostitution and a bullet or two. But there's also hummingbirds, trees, prehistoric jellyfish and a frog or two. WTF, you say? Yeah, doubtlessly anyone expecting a gangster flick will say WTF. But I would sooner compare this incomparable film to the works of Japanese master Takeshi Kitano ("A Scene at the Sea", "Dolls", "Fireworks") or maybe even Kieslowsky. If you aren't familiar with those directors, don't worry; I'll try to explain...Here director Jay Anania (NYU film professor who taught James Franco) takes a deliberately slow and very visually vivid approach. You won't find any jumpy Mtv edits or grandiose camera flourishes to upstage the raw simplicity of the moment. Neither will you find a lot of quippy one-liners or drawn out monologues to express what is sufficiently done with a facial expression. The story being told here is not a flashy, action-packed romp (although, like I said, there are some tense action scenes) but instead it's the story of how one man with no identity, no past and no future, methodically observes his world and forges a sort of identity for himself through actions that can only be described as if he were playing out a dream, one episode at a time.And dreamlike, this definitely is. With a fractured narrative that jumps back & forth in time and often to odd, seemingly irrelevant characters, it disrupts our expectations of a straightforward story. It becomes a challenging mystery--not necessarily how the plot will play out, but who the main character is. What is his nature and what will he turn out to be? And the same is to be said of the surrounding characters: who will they turn out to be, and will they be guided by free will or predestination?Well, it's been a long ramble but if you made it all the way through I think you'll enjoy this movie as much as I did. In closing I'd like to say it one... more... time...Aw hell, why don't I just quote a scene from the movie.WILLIAM: You're talking as if you're in a movie, Victor. A gangster movie.VICTOR: Do you think you're a gangster?WILLIAM: No!

Okay, first of all, I gotta say that I don't think the rating of this movie is very fair.The rhythm of the movie is slow, so if you're not the type of person who could sit still for two hours and adore the visualization of a slow film, just let it go.After the ending, I began thinking how the movie had no purpose at all and that it wasn't sending out a message. And then I thought, maybe it wasn't supposed to. Maybe it was just trying to show a small part of a depressed, not-finding-a-meaning-in-life guy's life. And even so, it still lacked something, it was a little lost, like there wasn't much thought behind the story. It wasn't very well figured out, neither were the characters.But the good news is, it gets you thinking. The photography is beautiful, and so is the acting. James Franco does a great job in this one, every expression on his face has a meaning behind it, the tone of his voice, how the characters linger before saying something, that is All very good. Not so many great lines though, it's mostly body language.After all, I think it's worth watching. There are many beautiful scenes that you wouldn't want to miss, regardless of the not-so-good story.

OK this movie is SO slow, if you are making a noir, you must demand excellent writing and story, not some mash up half-done gangster plot. A mopey Franco , a lot of meaningless blank stares. don't attempt things with this bad effort. "you sound like you're in a movie" was used twice, Really? I thought Lucas was a good villain, and martin Donovan held there own, but the leads had no real chemistry. Franco wasn't pulling his weight, although not totally his fault given the substandard script. If you're into a lot of good camera shots over accordion music with odd fragmented cutaways that lend little to pushing the story forward than the movie is for you.

'SHADOWS & LIES': Two Stars (Out of Five) James Franco stars in this unbelievably slow and uneventful artsy indie film about a man trying to free the woman he thinks he loves from a New York City organized crime syndicate. It's written and directed by Jay Anania who was one of Franco's teachers at New York University. The film also features Josh Lucas, Martin Donovan and Julianne Nicholson. It's the perfect example of too much style over substance.In the movie Franco plays a small time crook named William Vincent who picks people's pockets and often throws it away. He draws the attention of a local New York City drug runner (Lucas) who is impressed by his skills and apparent lack of humanity. He offers William a job and then a night with his woman, Ann (Julianne Nicholson). William falls for Ann, even though he knows nothing about her, and this of course causes complications with his new employer.The movie is extremely slow paced and very moody. There's very little dialogue and the film is instead content with just giving the viewer long camera shots of the actor's blank faces (mostly Franco). If you're a big fan of Franco and into his looks this might be enough for you but most others will be extremely bored. The directing is kind of cool, the cinematography is beautiful and the music striking but the screenplay is so poorly written. Nothing much ever happens, we learn almost nothing about any of the characters and as a result the film seems very pointless. It starts promising, it's beautiful to look at and it's nice to see Franco taking some different projects but he's not given anything really to work with here. The movie is almost a total waste of time with nothing to offer anyone except some nice photography and some long mug shots for die-hard fans of prettyboy Franco.Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nse6Wm1EtZU