The most recent bomb of the Iraq War is Green Zone, the most ingenuous revisionist film about war to come along in recent memory. Being touted as some sort of Bourne WMD, it attempts to be a mainstream action thriller set in Iraq during the war. This is the first collaboration between Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass that is not a Bourne film. It is pretty appalling in its distorted attempt to rewrite history, and it comes as no surprise that Matt Damon stars in it. His constant limited knowledge of history in the roles he chooses to act and/or produce is becoming quite annoying.

Green Zone is not based on, but instead “inspired by” the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. If Universal Pictures is going to go ahead and create an obvious leftist slant on the war, at least they cleverly admit that it isn’t actually based on anything in the credits.

This isn’t to say that the film doesn’t get much of the detail right; the daily life of the early days of the American occupation is convincingly realistic. When trumped-up details invade the storyline, it is very subtle. Ultimately, since we all know the outcome of the plot here (the search for weapons of mass destruction), this is a suspense thriller with absolutely no suspense. When the film should be asking more complicated questions, it simply lays out an implausible story of American military and media blame. No matter how one feels about The Hurt Locker for example, that film’s intellectual ambition makes Green Zone a frustrating experience.

The story focuses on Army Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Damon). He is a skeptical soldier on a single mission: to find the weapons of mass destruction the U.S. government is certain Saddam Hussein has hidden in sites around Iraq. Development of his theory of the Bush Administration’s false premise for the invasion completes the story. Sounds intellectually stimulating. There’s nothing wrong with a filmmaker’s insightful critique of a government’s debatable actions. Unfortunately, it doesn’t create that debate, and Green Zone never lives up to its potential. A film rich with possibility sacrifices credibility for predictability.

Amy Ryan does an admirable job as journalist Lawrie Dayne, a character obviously based on New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Of course, this movie continues its leftist slant by having her work for (of all things) the Wall Street Journal. I guess Hollywood liberals just can’t accept the fact that the sacred New York Times gets things wrong.

Maybe this film will bring an end to the shaky camera school of cinematography. The whole wobbly camera things gets really old fast. Greengrass is one of the worst offenders out there. If it’s supposed to make us feel like we are really there, then I guess one of the casualties of war is constantly feeling like a seizure is coming on. When a film uses this technique ad nauseum, I am usually more aware of the cameraman than I am of the characters on the screen. The truth is, as most cinematographers know, this is a cheap way to shoot a film. And if there’s anything that Green Zone is, it’s cheap.

Often, Burton tackles the issue of human oddity, not just physically, but emotionally.  His offbeat protagonists turn out to be sensitive, lonely creatures in need of a little love.  Occasionally, Burton goes mainstream with films like Planet of the Apes, Sleepy Hollow and Batman Returns.  His mainstream work is more consumer friendly, but still dark (some would say “edgy,” although that word is SO overused these days).  His protagonists have dark clouds hanging over them (not literally) and fight to save the town, the city or the planet.

Having been familiar with most of Burton’s works, I was a little skeptical to see Alice in Wonderland.  I wondered how dark and quirky could you make the story first published in 1865 under the title Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by the beloved author Lewis Carroll.  In addition, the story has been filmed over 20 times in film and television, mostly for young audiences.

My first worry was when I entered the theater and saw all these moms with their daughters.  I thought, oh no, they must not know who the director is, or what he has done.  Although, after seeing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I figured Burton could pull off a children’s movie.  After all, most of the ads and previews before the showing consisted of tween fare, such as DVD releases of Where the Wilde Things Are and Disney’s Sonny With a Chance television series.  There was even a Tide commercial, no doubt aimed at the mom’s.

As the film began, we met the delightfully cute White Rabbit and a whimsically beautiful Alice.  Okay, feels like a children’s movie.  Then, we go down the hole and what was whimsical comes off as downright strange and spooky.  Tweedledum and Tweedledee are artfully animated, but you kind of expect them to sprout fangs at any moment.  The Cheshire cat, instead of charming and suspicious, comes off as dangerous and looks a little like he’s on drugs.  Granted, this is a grown up Alice now, so we can expect characters that have progressed, but the character of Stayne, played to eerie mediocrity (and not artfully animated) by Crispin Glover is just plain creepy.

What delighted me about the film was Helena Bonham Carter, who is delicious as the Red Queen - a joy to watch.  Anne Hathaway’s performance as the White Queen, however, was painful to watch.  For some reason, Burton has her twirling her hands, walking as if she is on her tippy toes, and speaking with this weird early Disney princess voice.  That was sad because she’s a great actress, I can only surmise she was mis-directed.

The uneven performances left me a bit less satisfied than I normally am with Burton’s works. In addition there were some plot points that are never explained, like why the Red Queen’s minions wear fake noses or what the Jabberwocky has to do with anything except creating an action sequence for the climax of the film.

I can take (and even sometimes enjoy) Burton’s quirky style, and love his sense of imagination, but this film misses the mark in giving us either Burton’s wonderful quirkiness or mainstream edginess.

I realize that, by design, Alice in Wonderland is meant to confuse at times. But the real question with this, the latest Tim Burton film, is “What the heck does Disney have on its hands?” Clearly, Disney expects this to be a family film. It has a PG rating, it is shown in 3D, and it carries the Disney logo. But this movie will offer little of interest to kids (It helps if they know the original story, since Tim Burton’s version isn’t always clear), and it doesn’t take on enough of an edge to appeal to most adults. Let’s face it – Alice in Wonderland isn’t exactly new territory.

This Alice is a young Victorian woman with an independent streak. It is a story of liberation. When an aristocrat twit proposes to her at a garden party, Alice dashes off, follows the White Rabbit, falls down the rabbit hole, and lands in Underland, a place ruled by the tyrannical Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter). Alice learns she’s destined to overthrow the Red Queen by slaying her monster, the Jabberwocky. It is the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) who guides the reluctant Alice toward victory. The movie is in 3-D, with an emphasis on the visual effects.

The trouble with the film is that it is the usual unusual Tim Burton visual feast, but it does very little to expand on the classic source material. He forces a Star Wars-like battle between good and evil in what should be an utterly nonsensical storyline. There are shades of The Wizard of Oz, and of course other Burton films as well. Tim Burton’s schmalzfest is tired. Some of us prefer our Alice in Wonderland to remain curiouser and curiouser, thank you very much.

The highlight of the film is Helena Bonham Carter, who gives a delicious performance as the bulbous Red Queen. Playing her as a cross between Marie Antionette and Evita, Ms. Bonham Carter clearly knows how to have fun with any part she plays. The White Queen is played by Anne Hathaway, who hasn’t the inner-goodness the part calls for. Maybe it was the 3D, but in any case, she is strangely self conscious onscreen. As the 19-year-old Alice, Mia Wasikowska is a pleasant heroine, but sometimes is so subtle (not always a wise choice in a Tim Burton film) that she doesn’t leave much of an impression. Johnny Depp gives his predictable awkward performance as a freak of a Mad Hatter. Someone please tell me whose terrible idea it was to have Depp do a little breakdance after killing the Jabberwocky? It was entirely out of place, unless the idea was for Depp to dance on Lewis Carroll’s grave.

There’s also an irritating door mouse character that I simply wanted to step on. It felt like an annoying Disney animated film only at the moments when this insipid little animal sidekick was there, taking up valuable screenplay time by being “cute.” Where’s a Jabberwocky when you need it?

It can’t help that this is the first major 3D film release after the Avatar revolution. Still, one pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small… but this version that Tim Burton gives us, doesn’t really do anything at all.

The bonus features may appear light when looking at the DVD case, but rest assured what is there is worth watching. While we may expect some sort of documentary about the region depicted, there is excellent commentary from the director in two different features. Watching the supplemental material is a surreal experience since the film looked and felt so real.

First, there is a “making of” documentary that chronicles the film’s life from beginning to end. This feature is broken into three parts: inspiration, production, and completion. From the start, this film was planned as an authentic Iranian film. Everything from the actors to the language spoken was accurate to the location depicted. Director Cyrus Nowrasteh had his father (who, like some of the cast, left Iran for a better life) on the set as a cultural consultant for the film which helped the language barrier between the crew and much of the cast.

Since much of the cast and all of the extras were locals in the Middle East, production had to be shut down five times a day to allow for prayer. Besides the language barrier, many cast members were not professional actors which provided some difficulties (Of course, the main characters are professionals, many with inspirational background stories). This speaks to how truly authentic this film is. Cyrus mentioned that the “surrounding craziness helped the film…this [experience] was not make believe.”

We also learn that when the crew had to look outside of Hollywood for funding, they found out that there were many people willing to contribute. Of course, it is sad that Hollywood wouldn’t back such an important film, but it is reassuring that outside funding was possible. This is technically a low budget film, but it’s hard to tell while watching it, which is a true testament of the hard work of Cyrus and his crew.

Second, there is director commentary throughout the film. Cyrus, with his wife and co-screenwriter Betsy, gives us a lot of useful information during the film. It is a great supplement to the “making of” documentary in which we get to hear what the filmmakers feel about every scene. Watching this will breathe new life into future screenings. Betsy gives us her personal feelings about the story and each character throughout, while Cyrus breaks down the film’s technicalities and tells us why they chose each shot, location, camera lens, etc.

One interesting thing we learn is that during the stoning sequence Mozhan Marno’s (who plays Soraya) emotions were her real horrified reaction to what she was experiencing (there is an interesting breakdown of this scene in the “making of” documentary). Remember, she is actually stuck in the ground with an angry (acting) crowd around her ready to throw stones. For a brief time, she was living this nightmare that, even in acting, had to be terrifying. When she finally breaks down emotionally in the film it tears through your soul in a way you will never forget. She is an amazing actress.

Marno gives an amazing performance as Soraya, making the audience fall in love with her before the inevitable happens. The audience connection to Soraya moves us in ways many have never felt. We learn that one extra actually volunteered to dig the ditch for the stoning scene, as he has done it before in real life. This is yet another horrifying reminder that this barbaric practice still goes on today.

The cover art for the DVD is also startling. It is a split shot of Soraya with her head down and rocks on the ground near her. It isn’t easy to look at this picture, but nothing about this film is easy and it shouldn’t be. As hard as it is to watch, the film remains rich throughout multiple viewings. The story is so powerful that even though we know the end result.

This film reminds us that any inequality in our country pales in comparison to what goes on in other cultures (we even see honor killings on our soil). This film is a brave depiction of something that is all too overlooked in this world. The performance of this cast is probably the most overlooked in many years and will leave you with feelings that you will never forget.

Critics and fans alike expressed outrage over the blatant omission of Ed Begley, Jr., from the Academy Awards tribute to actors who died in the past year.

Begley’s family said they were beyond tears.

“How could they include Michael Jackson and not my little Ed?!” said Mrs. Begley, “He was in so many more high quality movies, like, um, that one with the guy who did stuff.”

Academy Awards officials defended their decision, based on the fact that Ed Begley, Jr., is actually alive.

“We felt it necessary to omit Mr. Begley, Jr., in favor of feature more stars who are physically dead,” said Bruce Davis, who was in charge of the Academy’s memorial segment, “Ed may be dead inside and doomed to a lifelong career in crappy census commercials, but he still has a pulse. That’s more than Don Knotts can say these days. Boy do I miss Don Knotts.”

Maybe of Begley Jr.’s peers refused to believe reports that he was still alive, due in part to Begley Jr.’s complete immersion in the “green lifestyle.” Begley, Jr. refuses to buy anything made out of plastic, leaving a cup and string as his only form of telecommunication.

“Look, all I know is that I haven’t gotten a call from Ed Begley, Jr. in twelve years,” said Martin Mull, “If he’s not dead, than he’s in some kind of state similar to death – like being on Hollywood Squares.”

Davis conceded that he had considered Begley, Jr., but he felt Begley, Jr.’s remarkable television work on St. Elsewhere would be better honored at the TV Academy’s Emmys. According to Davis, “Begley, Jr.’s movie career peaked after his role in This is Spinal Tap.”

Critic Roger Ebert agreed.

“Ed put his heart and soul into that performance as John ‘Stumpy’ Pepys,” said an unsettling, disturbing, freakish voice simulation of Roger Ebert, “After that, he must have died in some kind of freakish accident with a food dehydrator, because I didn’t notice a f**king thing from him after that. I also like to wear women’s clothing.”

The Academy ultimately apologized for the omission, but defended the inclusion of Michael Jackson.

“Ed Begley Jr. was in Santa With Muscles,” said Davis, “That makes Michael Jackson’s performance in Captain EO look like Laurence f**king Olivier in comparison.”

Begley was unavailable for comment because he was busy humping the planet.

Read more at The Endive…

**½ (out of 4)

Director: Breck Eisner
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell
Rated: R (strong language, extremely bloody violence)

“The Crazies” is a cautious remake of George Romero’s 1973 classic horror film. It is the story of Ogden Marsh, a small town where the residents go psycho (as the result of a toxin spread via the water system, originally designed to destabilize enemy populations) and the military moves in to contain the epidemic. “The Crazies” transcends the typical horror film experience, while delivering the essentials of the genre. It has a simple message (or two): sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to keep yourself and your family safe and alive (and don’t trust the government to help).

Considering the number of biological weapons that are just sitting around waiting to be destroyed on planet Earth, for a horror movie, it is even remotely plausible. But since this is a Hollywood movie, of course, the big, bad military goes to extremes against the heroes of the story. But by presenting the story from this angle, the film loses some of its power and suffers from predictability.

The director, Breck Eisner, has stated in interviews that this movie is a response to the George Bush presidency. Really? Can someone please remind me at what point during the Bush presidency the military took over small towns in America and soldiers were ordered to shoot American civilians.

Strangely enough, it is 2010 now, and I think this movie opened number three at the box office because it resonates with the distrust they feel for the government today. In George Romero’s day, it was an obvious response to the Vietnam War going on at the time. Today it is more about a lack of trust in Washington, D.C.

The focus of the story is on Sherriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant), his deputy (Joe Anderson), and his wife, the town doctor, Judy (Radha Mitchell). They notice their friends are turning into zombies. But these zombies aren’t just passively rising from the dead – they have an insatiable desire to commit gruesome violence. The first case of this happens at the small town baseball game, and feels appropriately shocking. From then on, the violence gets gorier and goes deeply into horror film territory. (Let’s just say that until this film, I never considered that if a knife if stabbed through your hand into the floor while you are reaching for your gun, it offers you an unexpected weapon).

The basic plot revolves around our Sherriff and his posse finding a way to escape their small Iowa town. There are two types of monsters that they have to avoid to survive; the first monster is the mutant human out to get them, the other monster is the military trying to contain them.

The violence starts within the first ten minutes of the movie and just continues to build and never lets up until the final scene. Part of the success of “The Crazies” comes from its ability to create tension on a psychological level as well as from adrenalin-inducing scenes and cinematography. (For the record, I am sure I’ll feel uneasy the next time I hear someone whistling nearby.)

What distinguishes “The Crazies” from your typical horror film is that the acting here is quite good. The underrated actor Timothy Olyphant shows what he can do with even a ridiculous story. When he is being pursued, it is impossible not to root for him. Given how effective the makeup and special effects are, it is great to see an equal emphasis on the acting.

One nice touch at the start of the movie is a Johnny Cash cover of the classic song “We’ll Meet Again.” The same song, in its original version (sung by Vera Lynn), played at the conclusion of Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 masterpiece “Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Both films contemplate the cost of military blunders, but from different perspectives. But in the Kubrick film people just “go a little crazy in the head,” but the citizens of Ogden Marsh go murderously nuts.

Check it out if you’ve seen everything else. but do it with a friend who can walk you back to your car in the parking lot.

Here is the low down on each of the nominated films for 2009, along with a prediction of who will bring home the gold.

BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT FILM (in order of likelihood of winning):

1) “The Door” (17 minutes)
2) “Instead of Abracadabra” (18 minutes)
3) “The New Tenants” (20 minutes)
4) “Kavi” (19 minutes)
5) “Miracle Fish” (18 minutes)

My prediction is that “The Door” (from Ireland, but in Russian) will win “Best Live-Action Short Film.” It’s poignant, retro-relevant, and oh-so-socially-aware. Oscar voters love this stuff. It’s about a family as they try to escape the fallout from Chernobyl. The cinematography on display is actually stunning, and director Juanita Wilson does a lot with her seventeen-minutes. Even though it is a lopsided film that lacks any subtlety, it reminds us that nuclear power can sometimes result in peeling-off skin, and other things that will ruin your whole day. Hollywood goes for this. Watch.

“Instead of Abracadabra” (from Sweden) is an eccentric film about a geek who lives with his parents and is determined to be a magician. I propose Hollywood consider this as a pilot for a future TV sit-com. In that format, it would be quite odd and spectacular. But that isn’t enough to win the Oscar… also there’s absolutely no nuclear radiation fallout in between any of the laughs.

“The New Tenants” (from Denmark and USA) is from the Quentin Tarantino school. It’s about a gay couple that moves into a residence with plenty of creepy history. Strange visits and several twists keep the stylish film moving along, but ultimately it is more about form than content. Hollywood prefers to award gays in the major categories, so this one loses out.

“Kavi” (from India and USA) is the obligatory “Slumdog Millionaire” wannabe. (We knew the wave of Indian enslaved worker films would come along, of course.) It is sad, well-acted, and generally full of no surprises.

“Miracle Fish” (Australia) feels like a Showtime short film. It is odd and feels unfinished… as if the director ran out of budget, or film, or ideas. It’s about a kid who is bullied in school, and is resilient nonetheless.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM:
1) “Logorama” (17 minutes)
2) “A Matter of Loaf and Death” (29 minutes)
3) “Granny O’Grimm’s ‘Sleeping Beauty’” (6 minutes)
4) “French Roast” (8 minutes)
5) “The Lady and the Reaper (La dama y la muerte)” (8 minutes)

This category provides a welcome contrast to the “Best Animated Feature Film” category because of its conspicuous lack of films produced by Pixar. This leaves room for Aardman Animations’s latest “Wallace and Gromit” short, “A Matter of Loaf and Death” as my personal favorite. It’s a fun film, full of adventure, in which unlucky Wallace falls for a woman with a rolling pin (or three). But the Academy voters will no doubt vote for the edgier film, the French “Logorama,” an animated film full of sex, violence and foul language. Oo-la-la, how subversive – an animated film with swear words. “Logorama” creates a world where everything is a corporate logo… another tired idea. But at least the Michelin Man gets skewered as much as Ronald McDonald. And if there’s anything the Oscars love, it’s the obvious, so hold your nose and cast your ballot for “Logorama.”

Both “French Roast” and “The Lady and the Reaper” are silent pieces, relying solely on visuals. And talk about “short” – both films are only 8 minutes long. However, there’s a similarity to both, but “French Roast” stands out as the more accomplished film.

“Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” provides an alternative take on the fairly tale, but that is not very novel, and this film is just too condensed (it runs only 6 minutes) to leave much of an impression. That, and it’s fairly unpleasant to have to watch.

For the past five years, Shorts International has packaged the five live action and five animated shorts into one cohesive experience on the big screen. This has been a brave and rewarding trend, and you should check them out if they make it to a cinema near you. If not, all of these shorts have also been made available on iTunes starting this week.

Continued from Part One.

Chris Yogerst: I was also pleasantly surprised with Marno’s performance, I won’t soon forget it. You did a magnificent job with your entire cast and it shines through in this film. How has “Soraya” been received by Iranian and other Middle Eastern audiences?

Cyrus Nowrasteh: The film was banned in Iran prior to its release last Summer. Achmadinejad’s “cultural council” condemned it. Recently, however, we’ve learned that bootleg dvd copies are on the streets of Iran by the thousands. Reports have come out that people are eagerly watching it in their homes in defiance of the regime. Big Hollywood recently had a terrific piece on this.

I believe you are referring to the piece by Mark Tapson, which can be read here. I’ve read words such as “propaganda,” “exploitation” and “phony” to describe this film. Why do you think some critics condemn a film with such a powerful message that fights for women’s rights in Iran? With some of them it feels like they are trying to play left and right with this film when it’s really about right and wrong.

Overall we received very good reviews. There were a few detractors who cried “propaganda” or condemned the violence, but they were in the minority. As to their motives, who can say — sometimes we found that multiculturalism was more a sacred cow to these people than abuse of women in 3rd world countries. Even in the UN stoning is protected from debate because it comes under the heading of “religious practice” — that’s how ridiculously politically correct people can be. But one thing’s sure because I’ve seen it at too many screenings, when people come out of this movie there is no doubt in their mind what a brutal practice stoning is and why it needs to stop.

I was not aware that stoning was protected by the UN under “religious practice.” That is truly disgusting. This film puts no doubt in viewers mind that stoning needs to stop. On a lighter note and out of curiosity, what are some of your favorite films of the last ten years or so?

Favorite films of the last ten years, wow, interesting question…can I extend beyond ten a bit? I’ll list some all-time faves, then a separate list of recents, how’s that…no particular order –
1-Lawrence of Arabia

2-The Wild Bunch
3-Straw Dogs
4-Doctor Zhivago
5-A Face in the Crowd
6- Breaker Morant
7-Dr. Strangelove
8-Network
9-Treasure of the Sierra Madre
10-The Man Who Would Be King
11-Jaws
12-Dog Day Afternoon

Of recent years:

America- F*** Yeah!!

1-Downfall
2-Team America: World Police
3-The Passion of the Christ
4-The Lives of Others
5-Valkyrie
6-The Baader-Meinhof Complex
7-Oliver Stone’s Nixon
8-Sixth Sense
9-The Bourne Identity
10-Fight Club
11-The Aviator
I could list many more (in both categories) but I’ll stop there…

Some excellent picks! I find that not nearly enough people have seen Downfall and Team America never gets old! Who are some filmmakers that inspired you to get into the movie business?

The film-makers that inspire me are varied… David Lean, Sam Peckinpah (both of whom I met), John Huston, Elia Kazan, Sidney Lumet, John Frankenheimer, Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and early Tarentino, the Coen Bros., Wes Anderson, Mike Nichols, Stanley Kubrick, Bruce Beresford, Peter Weir… could list more but won’t…

A good group of inspirational filmmakers! I definitely share your admiration for Peckinpah and Lean and I’m jealous that you got a chance to meet them! Do you have any upcoming projects that you would like to discuss?

I’m currently working on a project about Bobby Kennedy based on the Thurston Clarke book, THE LAST CAMPAIGN, a story of RFK’s redemptive 82-day  campaign in 1968 to win the Democratic nomination for President until he was shot by Sirhan, Sirhan –
I’m also working on a secret project to help steer the Muslim world away from extremism. It’s historical in nature, would be a big movie, and I think cause quite a stir…

Wow, that is quite the tease! I look forward to your upcoming projects. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I recommend that everyone takes the time to see The Stoning of Soraya M when it arrives on DVD and Blu-ray on March 9^th.

Director: Kevin Smith
Starring: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan
Rated: R (strong language, violence, sexuality)

With “Cop Out,” director Kevin Smith (the guy recently kicked off Southwest Airlines for being too heavy) attempts to bring back the buddy-cop genre and fires a blank. Usually he does a good job directing his own writing (“Clerks”), but for the first time he is directing someone else’s screenplay. All of which makes it clear that Mr. Smith is no director. Or maybe he’s only good at directing a bunch of people sitting around and just talking. But “Cop Out” demands greater energy and, frankly, more action than Kevin Smith can deliver.

This movie seems like it should have the number “4” or “5” at the end of the title. It feels like one of those late installments in a film sequel series when it is clear that the sequels should have stopped at “2.” If only he had a strong enough cast to make the movie enjoyable. But the two stars are as mismatched as the characters they play. The other problem is that the meandering, cliché-ridden storyline keeps stopping the movie from ever gaining any momentum. I went to an afternoon screening and at one point I counted three people actually snoring.

Jim (Bruce Willis) and Paul (Tracy Morgan) are a team of mismatched NYPD detectives trying to get information on a drug dealer. They make a mess of things and end up with 30 days’ unpaid suspension.

This is terrible timing for Jim, who needs to pay for his daughter’s wedding soon. He decides to sell his prize possession: a rare, mint condition baseball card. Just at the moment the card is being appraised, there is a hold-up and the card is stolen. This is just one of an ongoing series of narrative conveniences that are unbelievable.

Just when we really need some comedy, along comes Dave (Seann William Scott) – the chatty thief who stole the card to trade it for drugs. And get this – Dave dealt with the same drug dealer that Jim and Paul were casing in the first place. Wow – New York City never seemed as small as it does in this movie. But no matter how small things appear on the screen, it still takes forever to get there. Seann William Scott is hilarious in his role, but his scene stealing only points out the lack of comedic chemistry between Willis and Morgan.

There’s something wrong with a movie when the smallest characters come across with the largest impact. Susie Essman (“Curb Your Enthusiasm”) has a field day as a suburban gun-waving mom. But it’s just more of the same stuff she does on the small screen.

The same could be said for Tracy Morgan. While Bruce Willis tries in vain to create a sympathetic movie character, Morgan is only interested in the sort of sketch comedy that can be found on late night TV. I’ll hold my opinion about any acting ability Morgan has, since I don’t think I saw him do any actual acting in the entire movie.

Imagine “Lethal Weapon” without the wit, the action sequences, or even a single good car chase. Replace all that is missing with bad improvisation comedy, and you have a movie that you can skip. Instead, Netflix one of these classic buddy-cop films: “48 Hours” or “Another 48 Hours” (with Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy); “Lethal Weapon” (with Mel Gibson and Danny Glover); “Turner and Hooch” (with Tom Hanks and Beasley the dog).

Cyrus Nowrasteh is a graduate of the prestigious USC film school and is a screenwriter and director in Hollywood. Nowrasteh both wrote and directed The Day Reagan Was Shot (2001), which starred Richard Dreyfuss and was produced by Oliver Stone. He has spent decades in the industry and has been in the headlines in recent years for writing the 2006 ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11. He has also worked with Steven Spielberg and is the director of the last year’s The Stoning of Soraya M which comes out on DVD March 9^th. He recently won an NAACP Image Award.

Chris Yogerst: What was your artistic inspiration for The Stoning of Soraya M?

Cyrus Nowrasteh: THE STONING OF SORAYA M. is based on a book written in 1990 by Freidoune Sahebjam, an Iranian journalist who published the book while living in exile in France. It is a powerful depiction of an actual stoning incident in a village in Iran. My wife, also a screenwriter, and I read it and were profoundly moved by the story. We both felt it could make a very strong movie that would shed light on an often overlooked problem: stoning in the Islamic Republic of Iran and other countries.

It is a powerful film and I recommend it to everyone. What made you want to tackle a difficult subject such as a barbaric stoning?

The story spoke to us and no one had ever done a film about the horrors of stoning. It seemed overdue for someone to tackle the subject and let the world know what’s going on.

I know I am not the only one who is grateful that you took on this challenging subject. Why did this film not get the wide theatrical release it deserved?

Any theatrical release in today’s climate is extremely difficult. The studios have shut down many of their “specialty” divisions that handle indies and foreign films. Because our movie is with subtitles and deals with a difficult subject we knew it would be a challenge. But thanks to Roadside and Lion’s Gate we were able to open across the country. Our release was primarily in arthouses. We did play all of North America and Europe, Israel, and even a handful of countries in the Middle East. Of course we’d have loved to break out into the multiplexes, played many more theaters, and done “Avatar” business but that wasn’t the case nor did anyone expect it. The reality these days for many “difficult” films is a limited release. With our dvd release (from Lion’s Gate) on March 9, 2010 we’re hoping for a long life on dvd shelves.

I also see that a new copy of Freidoune Sahebjam’s book is not available, is this related to the lack of support that the usual Hollywood suspects had for this film project?

The publisher of Mr. Sahebjam’s book was well aware that a movie was coming out and it was in their hands to re-release it. Apparently they thought it a financial gamble and did not come out with a movie tie-in. The book can be ordered off Amazon and I urge people to get it as a companion piece to the film

I will certainly look for it. Tell us a little about the cast of the film, I remember you saying that many of them are Iranian exiles now living in Los Angeles.

This is an extraordinary cast led by Shohreh Aghdashloo (Academy Award-nominated for HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG, and Emmy-winner for HOUSE OF SADDAM). I had met Shohreh socially but didn’t know her well. When we sent her the script she came aboard without hesitation. Of course, having her helped us get interest from other Iranian actors. I had worked with Navid Negahban (who plays Soraya’s husband, Ali) on THE PATH TO 9/11. I had also worked, years ago, with Ali Pourtash who played the Mullah. I also knew Parviz Sayyad who played Hashem the mechanic. Parviz is a renowned actor, comedian, and film-maker from his work in Iran. All these actors live in exile and Los Angeles and came aboard enthusiastically.

Mozhan Marno, who came in through the audition process, was a welcome find to portray the title role of Soraya. She delivers an incredible performance and I’m so very proud of her.

Mozhan Marno as "Soraya"

Look for part two tomorrow!