"My Kid Could Paint That”

There are a few budding young artists in my family. And when people see their work hanging in my office they’re often surprised by how mature it is. I mention this because I really wanted to believe that Marla Olmsted, the cute little 4-year-old at the center of “My Kid Could Paint That,” painted all her artwork. At the outset, it’s pretty clear that the director of this documentary, Amir Bar-Lev, wants to believe as well. And there were lots of adults – from gallery owners, to art collectors, to the media – who desperately want to believe. But as the story unfolds, it becomes increasingly difficult to hold onto that belief. I kept thinking about the “Balloon Boy” and how that family manipulated the media. And I couldn’t help but feel that Marla’s biggest boosters, her father Mark Olmstead and Binghamton gallery owner Anthony Brunelli, were somehow doing the same thing. The situation isn’t helped by a searing “60 Minutes” exposé on Marla that airs during the filming of this documentary. From that point on, the Olmsteads never fully recover my trust, even as they flail about trying to prove they’re being truthful, all under the guise of “protecting” Marla, the child they exploited. In the end, this isn’t so much a film about a child prodigy as it is about a fickle media, the randomness of abstract art and our need to insert meaning into things where it may not exist. At least that’s my opinion. I’d like to hear what Marla, now 10, thinks of all this. My Tweet: My Kid Could Paint That - 4-year-old prodigy turns art world on its ear. Art world returns the favor. 7.5 (out of 10)

“My Kid Could Paint That”

Released: 2007

Rating: PG-13

Length: 82 minutes

Cast: Marla Olmstead, Laura Olmstead, Mark Olmstead

Director: Amir Bar-Lev

Genre(s): Biopic, Documentary

“Religulous”

I like Bill Maher. I watch his show frequently, find him an interesting debater and tend to agree with a lot of what he says. But his Michael Moore-like “investigation” into religion, “Religulous” just didn’t work for me. It wasn’t the material. It was Maher – he’s on his own personal jihad. While trying to expose religious fanaticism, Maher comes across as one of them, just from the opposite side of the fence. He is as dogmatic is his disbelief as they are in their faith. “Religulous” would have been a lot more successful if Maher were a bit more playful with his subjects and gave them the rope to hang themselves. This is something “The Daily Show” does quite well and what Bill Maher fails at miserably here. Maher seems content to argue rather than interview and then dismiss his subjects as “silly” or “ridiculous.” This is a manifestation of one of the things that bugs me about his stand-up. When Maher delivers the punch line, he tends to turn to the camera with a knowing expression as if to say, “See, I’m funny.” And in “Religulous” that smugness doesn’t serve him well. I’ll agree that there are a lot of deluded people out there, and that a lot of people, evil and otherwise, have doesn’t awful things in the name of religion. But there are many more people who find comfort and peace in their faith. I’m not sure what Maher’s intention was when he created this film. But he pretty much ends up delivering a long, boring sermon. My Tweet: Religulous-Bill Maher goes looking for God in this comic documentary and commits the ultimate sin – he's not funny. 4.5 (out of 10)

“Religulous”

Released: 2008

Rating: R

Length: 101 minutes

Cast: Bill Maher

Director: Larry Charles

Genre(s): Documentary

“This Film Is Not Yet Rated”

It takes a certain amount of courage for a filmmaker to take on a powerful institution. Think of Michael Moore and his documentaries that ridicule GM (“Roger and Me”), the Bush administration (“Fahrenheit 9/11”) or the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare system (“Sicko”). But in “This Film Is Not Yet Rated,” Kirby Dick pokes a finger in the eye of an authority far more closer to home, at least for a filmmaker – the MPAA ratings board. Like many in the movie-gong public, he’d like to know how the Board comes up with its ratings. Why do movies that feature copious amounts of violence get “R” ratings while movies with nudity or sex (that are clearly not pornographic) receive an NC-17? So Dick goes about finding out. This is more than a matter of making a simple phone call. The MPAA works under an air of secrecy worthy of a military intelligence operation. When the polite methods won’t work, Dick becomes inventive – hires a private detective, sorts through trash, uses hidden cameras – and he chronicles everything. He also interviews filmmakers who’ve “suffered” at the hands of the MPAA, including John Waters, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone and Atom Egoyan, as well as some former members of the Board, who I assume will now be unable to get tables at posh restaurants in L.A. The story that Dick pieces together is surprising, but not shocking. The Board members (yes, he finally identifies them all) are promoted by the MPAA as parents of children aged 5-17, yet most are not. The big studios who fund the MPAA get preferential treatment, while indie filmmakers are often left on their own. And the MPAA, who professes to support a filmmaker’s freedom of expression, is a de facto censor because an NC-17 rating will close off various distribution and marketing channels. But “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” gets really interesting when Dick submits his film to the MPAA for a rating (an NC-17, of course). He presses them for an explanation and specifics, and receives a couple of unfriendly phone calls from their representatives, including an MPAA attorney who threatens to “Cut him off.” Now for a filmmaker, that’s pretty courageous. My tweet: This Film Is Not Yet Rated-Kirby Dick investigates the “even when you win, you lose” paradox by taking on the MPAA ratings Star Chamber. 7.5 (out of 10)

“This Film Is Not Yet Rated”

Released: 2005

Rating: NR

Length: 97 minutes

Cast: John Waters, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone, Kimberly Peirce

Director: Kirby Dick

Genre(s): Documentary, Interview

“Transamerica”

It’s been said (by me, at least) that the pretty actress who plays ugly usually gets the Oscar. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case for Felicity Huffman in “Transamerica.” (She was nominated. But the honor went to Reese Witherspoon for her portrayal of June Carter in “Walk the Line.”) They made a mistake. Huffman’s performance as Bree, a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual, is nothing short of amazing. She captures the man trapped inside the woman’s body in a way that’s so believable, you’ll find yourself forgetting what the real Felicity Huffman looks or sounds like. The plot of “Transamerica” is set in motion when Bree, who’s one signature away from her sexual reassignment surgery, gets a call from the son she never knew existed (Kevin Zegers) and her therapist (Elizabeth Peña) refuses to approve the surgery until she ties up this one last loose end from her prior life. Bree reluctantly flies to New York and then offers to drive the boy back to Los Angeles – while trying to conceal her true identity. There are bumps out on the road (including the revelation of Bree’s status). But over the course of the drive, the two learn a lot about themselves and each other as their relationship grows. That may make “Transamerica” sound like a conventional road movie about self-discovery. But it’s made much more interesting because of the subtle and graceful performance at its center. My tweet: Transamerica-A pre-op transsexual travels cross-country with his son & learns how to be a father just in time to become his mother. 8 (out of 10)

“Transamerica”

Released: 2005

Rating: R

Length: 103 minutes

Cast: Felicity Huffman, Kevin Zegers, Fionnula Flanagan, Burt Young, Elizabeth Peña

Director: Duncan Tucker

Genre(s): Drama, Family, Urban

“Who Killed the Electric Car?”

Everything that's wrong with the American automobile industry, and Generals Motors in particular, is on display in “Who Killed the Electric Car?,” a documentary that chronicles the corporate inertia, greed, short-sightedness, corruption, collusion and just plain stupidity that created, then quashed a revolutionary vehicle. It starts back in the mid-1990s, when GM begins developing the EV1, the first mass-produced plug-in electric car, in response to pending California emissions mandates. While GM's engineers toil away to turn a prototype (which they'd already built) into a practical vehicle, GM's lawyers and lobbyists do everything in their power to defeat the legislation. It seems that GM and their corporate cronies — the oil companies, parts manufacturers and dealers — don't believe they can make as much money on electric cars as they can on, say, Hummers. Well, the EV1 finally arrives and both the car and company get rave reviews and restore faith that Detroit can "do it." But in the end, the lawyers win and the legislation dies. And once GM isn't compelled to "do it," they pull the proverbial plug on the EV1, dismantle the program and start collecting and crushing the cars. They won't even sell them (EV1s were only available by lease) to drivers who beg to buy them. The coda to this story is that while Detroit concentrated considerable resources to undermine the emissions rules, the Japanese carmakers used the opportunity to develop their hybrid technology. So now Toyota has the best-selling Prius and GM, after a U.S. government-assisted bankruptcy, is playing catch-up once again. My tweet on the day GM entered Chapter 11: Who Killed the Electric Car?-The rise and demise of GM's electric program. In a scrapheap somewhere an EV1 is having the last laugh. 7.5 (out of 10) I only wonder where we'll be after the current crisis is over.

"Who Killed the Electric Car?"

Released: 2006

Rating: PG

Length: 91 minutes

Cast: Martin Sheen, Dave Barthmuss, Jim Boyd, Alec N. Brooks

Director: Chris Paine

Genre(s): Documentary

The Top 8 DVD Reviews (so far): “An Inconvenient Truth”

Article 6 of 8

Of the first 100 TweeterFlix DVD reviews, this documentary clocks in at number 3 (so far) in the Top 8 list:

An Inconvenient Truth

Another documentary, this one has Al Gore on tour making his Global Warming presentation. He comes off as human, engaging and apolitical. Everything he wasn’t on the campaign trail. But enough about him. The material itself is seriously scary stuff. Plus, there aren’t many films that have garnered Oscars and Nobel prizes. So it’s definitely worth a look. Here’s what I tweeted about it: Al Gore's global warming campaign. If his run for office was this smart, he would have been the PowerPoint Prez. 9.5 (out of 10)

Number 4: "The Fog of War"

Number 5: “Splendor in the Grass”

Number 6: “Thirteen”

Number 7: “The King of Kong”

Number 8: “The Dark Knight”

Coming up next: "What's Up, Doc?"

“An Inconvenient Truth"

Released: 2006

Rating: PG

Length: 96 minutes

Cast: Al Gore

Director: Davis Guggenheim

Genre(s): Documentary, Political

The Top 8 DVD Reviews (so far): “The Fog of War”

Article 5 of 8

Occupying the number 4 slot (so far) among the first 100 TweeterFlix DVD reviews:

The Fog of War

This Errol Morris documentary features Robert McNamara, who served as Secretary of Defense for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. In something just short of a confession, he discusses the lessons he’s learned from his experience in Vietnam. It‘s a very simple film, weaving together archival footage, documents and McNamara telling his story. As I mentioned in an earlier commentary, It should be required viewing for anyone in the diplomatic corps. My Twitter review: McNamara says everything W & Co should have wanted to know about invading a foreign country but were too arrogant to ask. 9.5 (out of 10)

Number 5: “Splendor in the Grass”

Number 6: “Thirteen”

Number 7: “The King of Kong”

Number 8: “The Dark Knight”

Coming up next: “An Inconvenient Truth”

“The Fog of War”

Released: 2003

Rating: PG-13

Length: 107 minutes

Cast: Robert S. McNamara

Director: Errol Morris

Genre(s): War, Documentary