Fishbowl

Where the Wild Things Are

2009-12-08T22:19:00.005-05:00

I felt strong pangs of nostalgia during this movie. More awkwardly, I heard the restless wrestling of the youngins' and their regretful parents around me. This was far too deep for humans not old enough to reminisce. Perhaps you have to be older than 18 to enjoy it, to be able to look back at your youth with regrets and longing. Max is a 9 year old to a fault. His haphazard imagination is full of tangents and half-thoughts. It's the moments of passing clarity (Max's fear when his Wild Things avatar, Carol, is off the handle; KW isn't wrong to seek out new friends; emotions are strange) that will fly over the heads of those 9 year olds in the audience. We old timers (at 27, I feel simultaneously part of the target hipster and the silly nonsensical kid demographics without wholly belonging to either) see the insecurities masquerading as confidence in Max. I got a lot out of it. The rivers in the land of the Wild Things run deep. Even as the Wild Things cumulatively lose the plot, I saw value in the confusion it created. It's about feeling alone and out of place even amongst a crowd, even in your own mind.

Spike Jonze steps out of the Charlie Kaufman shadow he helped create to claim his own vision. This is the work of a visionary cued to the artistic instincts of a master getting better, staying true to his gut. The film has moments of exquisite beauty, but the aesthetics are strictly rough around the edges - like Roger Deakins' family vacation home movies. If the film has failed to connect with viewers - I might just have to play the snob card - they just don't get it...or aren't old enough to get it yet. A child's psyche is a place where Wild Things roam. It's not high and mighty to realize I want my mom sometimes, and I don't ever have to say so. I can always go home. Even if cliches always say otherwise.

****

The Men Who Stare at Goats

2009-12-08T00:04:00.002-05:00

This movie wasn't awful. Interested now? Oh, not really? Well, good. You see, after all the characters have ended their journeys, I was left feeling "meh". So what? The character arcs were utterly dissatisfying. George Clooney tried his best, but the script is too preoccupied with it's oddball cast of characters to tell their story. Yeah, they're goofy; but SO WHAT? In the climatic scene, where George Clooney and his mentor free the minds of the too serious, too sad, too capitalistic U.S. Army and its psychic advisers through LSD shenanigans only to disappear into the desert, I just wondered why it was supposed to matter to me. I liked Lynn (Clooney's character). He's about all I really LIKED about the film. Still, his triumph felt shallow. Ewan McGregor's accompanying journalist remarks about the profound effect Lynn had on him, but I can't really see why. What did any of these guys really do in the end? Why is their satisfaction important to me?

Note to producers: do not cast McGregor as your straight man. He can't do it. He's best as the wide-eyed, edgy dreamer. Would he have been better cast as Lynn? Nah. But he's lost to connect with the character he's given.

Meh.

Sadly, I think there was a good story here. If any of the background behind this story is true, I find it fascinating. This journey of enlightenment for McGregor and relevance for Clooney cannot match its potential. I guess I'll read the book.

**

Pandorum

2009-12-07T23:58:00.002-05:00

What was a genuinely engaging sci-fi thriller went off the rails two-thirds of the way through and never really recovered. If you're a Ben Foster fan, see it. If you're a Dennis Quaid fan, you'll rethink things two-thirds of the way through. Pluses: tense atmosphere, scary creatures, Ben Foster, that sleeping creature sequence near the end. Minuses: Too many plot twists. As a straight forward horror movie in space, this movie could have excelled. And why do blood-thirsty creatures show nobility for no reason? Ughh. That last 45 minutes was messy. But I liked it?

***

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

2009-12-07T23:45:00.002-05:00

I've been raving a bit about this film. The pure joy wasn't known to me immediately after the film. It's thinking about the movie now and giggling and smiling to myself that I truly grasp the entertainment that flowed forth out of Wes Anderson's (and ole Roald Dahl's) whimsical mind.

I am not familiar with the source material, but I have to say that this feels like vintage Anderson (whatever that means, right?). That odd sense of humor and peculiar eye is let loose through the animation. It's as though anything that Anderson was unable or unsure of in live-action is up-for-grabs when it comes to animation. Case in point: the strobe-light-like battle between the rat and Mister Fox. In what other film could Anderson justify a fight sequence like that? And it works.

Kudos to Jason Schwartzman for stealing every scene his tiny avatar was in. The voice casting was superb. Even non-actor Eric Anderson (Wes' brother) fit perfectly into the world. I've always felt that lead George Clooney was best rattling off complex chunks of dialogue. Anderson gives him a platform for that. But the wacky side of Clooney that has felt overdone in recent films feels perfectly used here.
The film moves at the speed of light, but I think it's a frenetic energy that comes naturally to the story - as though it was only meant to be told as such. The humor is quick and witty, but also old school quirky in the typical Anderson fashion that he has both been acclaimed and panned for. I laughed out loud of my own accord throughout. The gravity of, say, Rushmore or The Royal Tenenbaums isn't there. However, there are still lessons to be learned and a great story to be told. Joyfully.

****

Brothers

2009-12-07T23:31:00.002-05:00

Out of the way: I haven't seen the original Danish film on which this is based. Therefore, my comments are on this film alone.

I enjoyed Brothers. It's a gut-wrenching film, but I like to have a lump in my throat. The performances from the three leads were uniformly excellent. The subject matter was handled well and I thought Maguire returned to earlier heights. The scene depicted above is my favorite from the film. It's tragic. It's haunting. It's scary. It's sad. It's affecting. That having been said, allow me to nitpick. The script seemed to rush through its dramatic beats. Even though it was 2+ hours long, I felt as though the developments in both characters and plot were rushed. Case in point: Gyllenhaal's quick insertion into his brother's family. It was too quick, too easy. The actors handled it well. I just thought that there were scenes missing. The ending also felt abrupt. If the intention was to lend a taste of ambiguous closure, screenwriter David Benioff nailed it. But to go wide on the two characters with Maguire's voiceover before credits rolled seemed lazy, almost like there was a different ending that was scrapped. Maguire and Portman nail the intense emotions of that scene, so I'm not going to argue otherwise. I will say that we go from those emotions to the credits too quickly. Gyllenhaal's character becomes a footnote when the three of them were of equal importance up to the endpoint. And let me say that Sam Shephard's (whom I love) scenes had an air of artificiality to them. His lines were contrived, and he couldn't save them.

Still, let me call back to the three lead performances and the promising debut of Bailee Madison as Portman and Maguire's eldest daughter. Top-notch work from talented actors.

***1/2

9

2009-09-16T14:23:00.002-05:00

It's bothersome that 9 is getting such mixed reviews. Honestly, this is one of the best films of the year and deserves to be championed as such. It takes 3-D animation in a new, mature direction. The visuals are stunning and the story accessible, with a grand new talent in director Shane Acker sounding his arrival. The casting of the voice talent is impeccable and the story streamlined to start creating awe with the first frame, never diminishing through the final shot and voice over. I like that the film is serious about its content. The characters each have their unique personality, essential considering that these "stitch punks" are the only protagonists we are offered. Their plight versus a machine that has sought to take over the world until there is no human or hope left is familiar. We've all seen it done before in big sci-fi event hullabaloos (The Matrix and Terminator franchises cannot be dismissed during the film), but I've never seen it done like this. There is something refreshingly small-scale to this story, creating an intimacy and mystery even as dazzling visuals and complicated action sequences are used to tell it. It's thrilling, scary, and touching without ever being overly aware of its need to get these responses from its audience. If its too slow or too short for some audiences of critics, I invite them to try to remember a film this "slow" or "short" that entertained this effortlessly.

****1/2

Favorite Movies of 2009 (So Far)

2009-08-29T18:09:00.007-05:00

1. (500) Days of Summer

This may come back to haunt me. Like Garden State in 2004, this might be my flavor of the month. However, with much respect to the cast and crew and screenwriters of (500) Days of Summer, I say that this movie defines my tastes here and now. This is how I wish I could write - moments that only happen in movies grounded in emotional truths (found in the performances of leads Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel and the script). It's witty, sad, funny, conventional and yet altogether new. I grow fonder with each viewing. There are a spade of "indie" movies hitting theaters right now - complete with quirk, hip soundtracks, and stylish aesthetics. I say now that (500) Days of Summer is the best among them - all these staples of the new movement coupled with skill and deep introspection. All props given to Joseph Gordon Levitt (the best male performance of the year to date) and Zooey Deschanel (beguiling and maddening in the best ways possible).

Dear Joe and Zooey,
Work together often and I will never ask a thing of you two again.
Sincerely,
Fishbowl

*****

2. The Hurt Locker

I followed the buzz right into the theater and was not disappointed. I didn't expect much from director Katheryn Bigelow having seen her earlier works Point Break and Strange Days. She, in turn, gave me a true vision of war from the soldiers up. Working from an ace script from journalist Mark Boal, Bigelow creates a real tension that never lets up from the first frame to the pulsating rock of the final shots. It's not all visceral. There's an emotional depth to the plight of the Iraq bomb squad played by Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty. Their job seems to be the most dangerous in the world, and yet is it cyclical in its danger. Once escaping certain death, they return at a moment's notice to face it again. The real drama comes from deciding what kind of men it takes to be under that constant state of duress. It's harrowing to the point where your heart will beat emphatically of its own accord all the way home from the theater.

****

3. Inglorious Basterds

There was a big chance I wasn't going to like this movie. The trailers were fun without promising more than a genre-and-style sendup from cinefile QT. Thankfully, I was given a lesson in grand suspense and astute dialogue and theatrics. Basterds is less an exercise in genre than Grindhouse. Instead, QT makes his own mark in the storied World War II genre. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Basterds was not the star vehicle for Brad Pitt that I had imagined prior to my viewing. Rather, Basterds is an ensemble piece shifting focus from Pitt's Lieutenant Aldo Raines' "Apaches" to the verbose SS Colonel Landa's polite viciousness to the victim-turned-opportunist Shosanna Dreyfus's lust for vengeance. And instead of grandstanding scenery chewing, Pitt's character fits quite perfectly into the tone of the movie. It's (quietly) his best performance in years. And Christoph Waltz's performance as Landa is deservedly generating the biggest Oscar buzz of the young year.

The scene I can't quite help myself from raving out loud about - the slow-paced German bar tension build. LOVED IT!!!

****

4. Duplicity
5. I Love You, Man
6. Watchmen
7. Star Trek

8. Funny People

Has there been a better movie to receive a badder rep this year? I think not. I found Apatow's third film to be another addition to his body of trend-setting comedy with all the heart, guffaw-inducing crude humor, and subtle graces of his past films. It might not be as FUNNY as 40 Year Virgin or Knocked Up, but I find it to be truer and leaner - surprising for a film running nearly 2 and a half hours. Props to Adam Sandler for willing to play an incredibly flawed character. I don't know how much of the real-life Sandler can be found in his fictional George Simmons, but I have to hand it to him for how layered he made a Hollywood buffoon. Seth Rogen continues to improve his chops. He's becoming elastic, able to be both the punchline and jokemaker with equal skill. He's an underdog worth rooting for and an everyman inserted into the zany Hollywood life of Simmons. This was an incredibly poorly advertised film. While I found this film to be incredibly funny, more enjoyment and entertainment is found diving into the lives of FUNNY PEOPLE. They are flawed AND funny human beings operating differently than the casual joke teller. Their interactions are constant rehearsals of material both good and bad. And apparently they are incredibly reliant on humor derived from the discussion of genitalia. That said, there is gravitas to the story here. What other comedy with dick and fart jokes will send you home contemplating your own mortality? Besides Dude Where's My Car(?)?

****

9. Away We Go

Dan Walton, you are correct. This is another one of those quirky indie comedies trying build on the popularity of Juno, Garden State, and Little Miss Sunshine. It may be worse than any of those movies, but let me say now that it is dear to me. I don't understand love or the complex state of home, but I think this movie knows why. It's different for everyone and there are no easy answers. That's an admirable wisdom even in its simplicity. While the cast of characters along the way may be dialed "up to 11", I must say that I was able to stay engaged and intrigued due to the performances of the leads, John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph. Matty Ballgame and Adam K over at Filmspotting can't seem to find any truth or skill to these performances, but I found each to be winning. While the cloud of quirk swirls wildly around them, Krasinski and Rudolph are able to interact and not be sucked into its doldrums. That isn't to say they aren't funny. They are funny "AHA!". But there's a nuance to the performances whereas their friends and casual acquaintances are funny "ha". It's an unbalanced film, but one I found to be touching and funny. And if you're gonna go quirk, it's okay with me to go Mendes.

***1/2

10. State of Play

Killshot

2009-07-18T22:45:00.002-05:00

There were three reasons I wanted to see this movie: 1)Rourke as a hitman, 2)Levitt as a hitman, 3)I enjoyed the Elmore Leonard book on which it was based. The first was the only thing that really panned out.

There is really only one redeeming quality to Killshot, and that is Mickey Rourke's subdued hitman. His character is partnered with a loose cannon criminal played by Joseph Gordon Levitt. Levitt is an amazing talent, but he utterly fails at lending authenticity to the larger than life villain. It starts with the accent and continues through to his twitchiness. The character is supposed to be annoying. But I don't imagine he was supposed to be utterly ridiculous. The story, while entertaining in novel form, loses its step on screen. Carmen, the film's heroine played by Diane Lane, is intimately fleshed out in the book, but her character onscreen feels utterly slight and Lane doesn't do her any favors. Likewise Thomas Jane, as her rough and tumble husband, adds to the ridiculousness of the cast. I like Jane. More recently, I enjoyed his lead performance in The Mist. Here, he's just a lug with a square jaw. I want more. Ditto for Rorario Dawson in her small role. Just skip it altogether.

**

The International

2009-07-18T22:22:00.003-05:00

My bar was set low.

I had heard mostly mixed reviews out of this 09 thriller. It was in and out of theaters before I could see it as it should have been. Still, the film's pedigree (director Tom Tykwer, actors Clive Owen and Naomi Watts) at least warranted a rental. I was pleasantly surprised. Owen is typically solid in his loner heavy role. Watts is solid. Tykwer is uncommonly subdued in his direction, though I thought it was fittingly in service to the story and action. Oh...the action...consists primarily of a go-for-broke shoot out in the Guggenheim Museum. The scene is startlingly violent within the context of all that comes before and follows it, but wonderfully choreographed and executed cinematically. It's stripped of any slow motion or camera tricks or balletic dives and sweeps of modern film. It's thrilling, and in opposition of one good friend's opinion, not mindless. It's key to developing the story and Owen's character - marking a breaking point in his limits. The story itself, while not groundbreaking, was intriguing enough to hold my attention and eerily topical despite being based on the misdeeds of an international bank in the late 80s and early 90s. I love the ambiguous ending, the cynical approach to justice, and the aesthetic beauty of the architecture. There are times when characters speak pseudo-profoundly in circles, but the film is at its core very accessible and entertaining.

****

Public Enemies

2009-07-18T22:02:00.002-05:00

My bar was set high.

Public Enemies is at times mesmerizing and at others overwrought. Each of the principal actors seems to struggle to find their character's voices (figuratively and literally) before hitting their strides. The dialogue can sound foreign at some points and lyrical at others. It's the film's weaving in and out of these increasingly vague extremities that left me lukewarm. What I did love was some of the supporting performances. Jason Clarke as Dillinger's right hand man was subtle and natural in a land of big characters. John Ortiz (he of the "bigger is better" school of acting) lends a quiet touch to his criminal. Stephen Graham and Billy Crudup both take big bites into their characters and somehow remain credible and engaging. I also loved the cinematography. The action and drama is beautifully framed, though I think in this case Michael Mann should have shot on film instead of his beloved HD. There's an odd graininess to the picture that makes the period lose some of its authenticity. As public enemy #1, Depp offers glimpses of brilliance. When there is worry behind Dillinger's arrogant facade, I was riveted. When Depp showboats, it's to the character's detriment. Marion Cottillard does her best to flesh out her gun moll, but there isn't much gravitas that can be drawn out of the character (save for her bitterly defiant interrogation and face-off with Dillinger's killer). Christian Bale looks a bit lost in his supporting role. It's a spare role necessitated by the director's need to cover the other side of the story, so there isn't much room for Bale to shine. It's a good movie that seems to brush off greatness.

***

A Christmas Tale

2009-07-18T21:43:00.003-05:00

This was a very French movie. And though I cannot quite articulate what that means, I am certain that is an accurate statement. There is much to love about this ensemble family drama. Mathieu Almaric adds another richly textured performance to his resume. Although his character is the black sheep cynical loser of the family, he is strangely appealing both with his beady eyes and tiny frame and his relentless and seemingly inherent desire to unsettle his family's gatherings. The rest of the cast is refreshingly natural, headlined by cinema icon Catherine Deneuve. Her scenes with Almaric are wonderfully unpredictable. Indeed, it's Almaric's one on one scenes with each family member that are the keepsakes. Writer/director's stylish and narrative flourishes that distanced me from really connecting with the movie. There were times when I was paying full attention and felt the writer/director was hurling drama over my head. While the French family's dysfunction and morality differs from my own, there were pieces of me hidden in each family member - the distraught Paul, the contemptuous Henri, the lost Simon, the enigmatic Junon, etc.. I could benefit from a second viewing.

***

Role Models

2009-06-06T23:03:00.002-05:00

Look, I've been on a comedy binge lately and I'm about to give Role Models *** right after giving Observe and Report ***. That isn't to say I liked them the same. They're different types of movies. Role Models is more accessible and funnier, though disappointingly conventional. I could see the ending coming from a mile away. It had an 80s nerd comedy feel to it (albeit much more crass).

It has it charms. Its supporting cast is wonderfully fresh and exciting comedically. And while the leads piece together some happy smiles, there isn't anything terribly memorable about the journey to its grand finale on the battlefield.

The language is profane and often so only for laughs, but there are some R-rated hijinks that won me over in spite of my better judgment. These "littles" throw their "bigs" for loops, and it's when Rudd and Scott are reeling in disgust and/or exhaustion that the film won me over. It's a fine little diversion.

***

I Love You, Man

2009-06-06T22:51:00.002-05:00

This is the funniest movie I've seen in years. Paul Rudd is so delightfully awkward that he induces raucous laughter even with a wonderfully failed accent. As good as he is, Jason Segal is even better as the new friend that gets Rudd in touch with his basic masculinity. Apatow movies have played up the Peter Pan complex of modern men, but ILYM plays up a different side - the need for male camaraderie. Is there another movie that plays up male friendship more comedically (or more honestly) than ILYM? (Sure there is, but allow me to play up my gleeful hyperbole.) The fun is watching Segal and Rudd together. A perfect comic duo, each playing off of each others' types while challenging the limits of those types. Segal's character is supposed to have a devil-may-care attitude about life, but he cares. Rudd's character is supposed to out of touch with his primal manhood (and all the shenanigans that includes), but he's better adjusted to adulthood and romance than either will admit. The movie winks at romantic comedy staples - the tearful breakups, breaking up the wedding, first dates - without breaking from its story. And it's a good story well told and well acted. I laughed out loud.

****

Hamlet 2

2009-06-06T22:42:00.002-05:00

There isn't much to crow about in Hamlet 2. It's a sock to the gut of the familiar inspirational teacher movies (and they might have needed a good sock or two), perhaps too obvious to win me completely over. But Steve Coogan as the obliviously optimistic, faux inspirational drama teacher in lame duck Tuscon, AZ (take that, Tuscon) is a revelation. It's one of the single most amazing comedic performances I've seen. There are obvious jokes made by the man, but Coogan always plays it straight to the max. He is funny without playing down to his character. He's a loser, but there's a real humanity there comes out of Coogan's portrayal that you may not have expected from such a farce of a film. Playing to the obvious rise-fall-and-rise of our hero's quest to save drama, gain respect, and become the talent he always hoped to be, Hamlet 2 doesn't offer too many surprises. It how Coogan pushes his character's obvious flaws and winning optimism that kept me glued to my 13 inch TV set. And he dances, too, to a Grease-like rock number for the ages.

***1/2

Observe and Report

2009-06-06T22:29:00.004-05:00

This was a hit and miss, balls-to-the-wall film. It pulled no punches, but in the process went too far or too hard. Subtlety will get you everywhere. This is a dark, dark comedy - perhaps a bit too heavy on the dark. This is Seth Rogen's movie. Everyone else is merely a distraction from him. It's a brave performance. Rogen is a likable guy. His mall cop is not all that likable. He wants to be liked, so at least he's moving in the right direction. It's sometimes too sad to see him trying so hard to be liked, to useful, and loved. Hence the dark in the dark comedy. The best laughs are from the physical comedy. Rogen tearing down opponents on the police academy obstacle course was hilarious. And though it was crude and obscene, the final chase and subsequent shooting at the end were just the sort of absurdist water the fish shenanigans I hoped for. I expected less, and they went further at that moment (for once successfully). The plot is slight and doesn't stretch far. The key is Rogen, who mines his awkward a-hole asides for light chuckles. But a one-man-light-chuckle band does not for a great movie make. The talent is there: Michael Pena has one or two good scenes but mostly falls flat as Rogen's right hand man; Anna Faris is an all-too-familiar slut and tease party girl; and Ray Liotta is a detective pushed past any tolerance of buffoonery. But these are one note characters. And though Rogen's mall cop is beyond abrasive - he at least has an arc, a motive, and intriguing qualities. By the time the tidy bow is tied at the end, he grew on me. The movie had not.

***

Fast and Loose

2009-06-06T22:28:00.000-05:00

updates with corrections to be made later

Star Trek

2009-05-20T20:38:00.004-05:00

It seems weird to give a summer tentpole four stars, especially when it has glaring flaws. But that's the grade for Star Trek. I'm grading the experience, paying tribute to the fun I had. Star Trek moves at warp speed (!), but unlike the previous weekend's boxoffice champ XO: Wolverine, Star Trek is happy to develop it's characters (each and every one). The visuals are exciting, the humor surprisingly amusing (I was expecting campiness), and the science fiction nerdery in the plot just accessible enough not to anger the audience but keep us talking about more than the budget after the movie.

Flaws? Well, Eric Bana has very little to do as the villain. His ship (oh, what a COOL ship!) makes more of an impression than he does. I'll fault the writing over Bana, but still, a film with such rewarding heroes needs villains to match. The acting? Solid, but I still think some of the actors (Quinto as Spock and Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy) were trying to emulate rather than create. Obviously, this was a danger from conception. Luckily, Chris Pine (!) makes Captain Kirk his own. He's charming, disarming, funny, and just badass enough to be an adventure's hero. It's not the calling card of the next great actor of our generation, but it may be a calling card of the next great star(?).

And for the filmmakers, the summer blockbuster earns its stripes. It's epic and sprawling while moving quickly and deliberately while remaining accessible and entertaining. Director J.J. Abrams and writers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman have made me care about a storied franchise that meant little to me before. And they did it with style.

****

The Wrestler

2009-05-20T20:31:00.003-05:00

The Wrestler seems to alternate between very good and mediocre. Mickey Rourke is excellent, but his level of skill isn't enough to lift the film to great heights. And in criticizing it's flaws (as I'm about to do), I don't want to insinuate that The Wrestler isn't a very good film (it is). Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood, while both capable actresses doing solid work in each of their roles, seem to be the movie's weak points. The story, which is often void of underdog or indie drama cliches, seems to gravitate toward mediocrity in Rourke's scenes with either actress.

In truth, the film loses some of its authenticity when Tomei's stripper with a heart races to the arena for Rourke's title characters triumphant return. It's awkward. And even when the wrestler goes the unconventional route in that scene, it feels forced, awkward though clearly true to character. Good final shot though. Ram Jam.

In it's favor, The Ram is a real man. He is sad, incorrigible, sweet, kind, and manipulative in real ways. When he tells Wood his sob story, I sobbed. Rourke earned that kind of genuine response. Even when the story doesn't take us to unexpected places, Rourke is new. He's a completely new (thing). He doesn't look the same. He doesn't sound the same. He doesn't ACT the same. It's a highlight of his career, clearly, but also one of the best male performances of recent years.

***1/2

What Doesn't Kill You

2009-05-14T00:27:00.004-05:00

What Doesn't Kill You is an actors' showcase for it's stars and a fine drama for any interested in honesty over style (or honesty as style). Their isn't much pizazz to the way the filmmakers tell this story, but there is plenty to love about writer-director Brian Goodman's autobiographical tale of men making or avoiding the tough choices that make good men just that. I get a sense this is how "organized" crime really works. Strip away the style and larger than life characters of The Sopranos or Goodfellas and I suspect you'll get WDKY - mid-level lackeys miserable and depraved with only the notion that it's supposed to be better to move them on to each new day.

Ethan Hawke has never been better. The twitchiness to his "method" is toned down and instead of the sniveling loser or dreamy eyed slacker, Hawke becomes a witty, dangerous man with vague ambitions and no smarts to achieve more than he's already know. Lead Mark Ruffalo is excellent as well, lending an intensity and vulnerability to his character. Goodman has an ear for authenticity and a no-nonsense sensibility, but he needs to learn dramatic pacing, editing, and develop a more captivating aesthetic to match his actors' skills. I'll say this - he can cast like a crackerjack. The child actors who play Ruffalo and Amanda Peet's (solid as usual in a supporting role) quietly suffering offspring. They don't show off. They're not playing at anything (over-thinking, over-physicalizing, etc.), they're just being real kids in a rotten situation.

WDKY hit me like a ton of bricks, but it's dramatic finale was stale - a kin to a Movie of the Week. It's as though Goodman, in wanting to avoiding a Hollywood ending, didn't know how to provide any sense of closure to match everything that came before it. Still, for the performances and the real dramatic heft to it's story, WDKY (kudos for ending the title at that) is one of my favorite films from 2008.

***1/2

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-14T00:06:00.004-05:00

While not an utter failure, XO: Wolverine does create a considerable amount of disappointment in this fan's memory. From the opening scene, something was...off. Watching the sickly young Wolvie lashing out in grand fashion was played for drama and shock, but instead introduced the audience to the film's most glaring fault - actors playing for dark, deep drama and missing at most every turn. Nothing about about XO: Wolverine rings with any authenticity. After facing this flaw early on, I was ready and willing to just accept the film on another level - a fun summer blockbuster. That doesn't really work either. The film employs a mess of side characters and a blistering pace to head toward its even bigger mess of a climax. At the point Wolverine learns he's been duped, I said to myself, "Well, duh. It was choreographed a long time ago." When Ryan Reynolds (?!) shows up ragged and mad and evil in the end, I was not surprised nor interested at all. Was he really ever a good guy? Was he ever important to the story before this? No for both. How about after the bad ass surgeries? No. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is really the only bright spot (though the opening credits war montage was stunning in its own irrelevant way). It's clear Jackman cares about the character and brings that interest to the role each time out. But he can't make any new impressions when the director Gavin Hood, writers David Benioff and Skip Woods, and their film editors won't allow their story to find any footing in any given scene before blasting off to the next sequence (even if it's just Jackman and the awful (but awfully attractive) Lynn Collins chatting and/or making lovey dovey eyes at each other. A sense of real weight to ANY (ANY!) of the scenes would have paid huge dividends. Sadly, Liev Shreiber (my great hope for a compelling villain) can't save his dialogue. Likewise, the wonderful, Danny Huston (please see The Proposition) fails to improve or match Brian Cox's performance as General Striker in X2. I'll watch it again with lowered expectations with the hope of new entertainment, buy my first viewing left me hungry for Terminator: Salvation (and McG?!?). Wolverine is a great character. The franchise is far from dead. I just hope new blood behind the scenes can renew my interest again.

**

Transsiberian

2009-04-24T18:19:00.003-05:00

Transsiberian was the not the nail-biter I expected from writer director Brad Anderson, but it was a tense thriller worth checking out if you have patience for plot and characters to develop. Anderson was the filmmaker behind The Machinist. That film made a big impression on me to the point where I'll check out anything Anderson makes from here on out. Transsiberian, his most recent film, doesn't shake me to the core the way watching Christian Bale waste away physically and mentally did, but it does offer another excellent lead performance from Emily Mortimer. Her plight is a traveler's nightmare's ditch that only gets deeper as she stands quivering with a shovel wondering if she'll ever make it home alive. Transsiberian is not Hostel. It is not Saw. Its scares and thrills are earned. And even when the plot zig zags haphazardly to a close, Anderson knows how to satisfy his viewers at the end. I've been thinking "Hitchcock" since I've seen the movie, but maybe that's just because of the Russians, trains, and women under duress. And honestly (don't stone me in town square) I'd rather watch an Anderson movie than Hitchcock's best.

***1/2

State of Play

2009-04-24T17:58:00.003-05:00

There's nothing mind blowing about State of Play, save for the fact that it is a tightly plotted, well-acted, all-around solid thriller. I kept going back into my head during the movie to compare and contrast with All the President's Men. Both seem geared toward that Watch Dog journalism heroism that made Woodward and Bernstein icons both of their profession and popular culture. Russell Crowe is not nearly as noble a man as either of the Washington Post reporters. That's because while the conspiracy in questions is on a grand scale it is on more personal level for our hero. His old pal Ben Affleck as U.S. congressman is caught up in a scandal that may or may not be of his own doing. The other theories point toward a soldier-for-hire corporation under the congressman's scrutiny. The situation allows the filmmakers to comment on the current state of the flailing newspaper medium, corporate politics, corporate espionage, and other hot-button topics. But again, it's the personal interests of Crowe's potbellied reporter that make for an above average thriller. Ben Affleck, that much maligned actor, has long been a guilty pleasure of mine, though I'll stand proud next to him now that he's taking his career seriously again. He CAN act, and when he chooses the right projects (State of Play, Changing Lanes, Dogma, Good Will Hunting, Chasing Amy) to allow him to flex those acting muscles, I'll be there to watch. There's no performance here that's going to get any award season attention, but it's a great cast doing solid work on a good project that deserves attention from adult audiences. Three screenwriters worked on the script at different stages, all of whom are writers of note. Tony Gilroy of the Bourne franchise, Duplicity, and Michael Clayton fame took over after the director wanted to separate this version from the BBC version. Billy Ray of Flightplan, Breach, and Shattered Glass fame made unknown contributions. But it's ole Matthew Michael Carnahan of Lions for Lambs and The Kingdom fame who brings his liberal politics to the project. I'm not against what State of Play has to say about politics, but it's not surprising that a conservative republican senator is a shady bastard in a Carnahan script. The script's twists are surprising, but if you really want to surprise me, present the issue objectively.

****

Milk

2009-04-16T18:37:00.002-05:00

A brave turn for Gus Van Sant, not for the film's honesty or subject matter, but rather for allowing the story to unfold according to its subjects needs rather than experimenting with minimalism and vague profundities of past pictures under his direction. He doesn't play it safe by any means visually or thematically, but he shows restraint where restraint is due. Though it only follows 8 (?) years in the life of Harvey Milk, Dustin Lance's screenplay and Sean Penn's performance paint a detailed portrait of Milk's essence. He's alive on screen. When first viewing the trailer, I began to worry that Penn's performance would be overly mannered (that he would play at the character rather than "being" Milk) as I've seen in other roles. That worry was unearned. It's really a great performance. I was also impressed by James Franco and James Brolin in supporting roles. The hoopla surrounding their roles seems a bit much though. As supporting actors and characters, they serve well to tell the story. In my opinion however, recognition should be given to the best performance in a supporting role, not the best supporting performance (best at supporting to be more specific). A small gripe that takes nothing from the film. It's a great biopic that never glamorizes, play down, or sensationalizes for its own sake. And while it's bias on homosexual rights and morals is clear, I did not find it offensive. While Dan White is clearly wrong and disturbed, I sympathized with his plight and confusion - to the film and fimmakers' credits.

****

The Newton Boys

2009-04-16T18:27:00.003-05:00

The Newton Boys makes for an interesting story, but not an entertaining movie. While it's clear fun was had making the film, the thrills are scarce beyond that notion. A whimsical entertainment along the lines of The Sting seems to be the goal, but Matthew McConnaughey is not up to the task as lead. He's playing at charisma instead of exuding it, and I've seen his real charisma come through before. Ethan Hawke and Vincent D'Nonfrio, while both fine actors, fail to make impressions as two of the brothers. Though their crime spree spans years and various locations, there isn't more for these performers to do other than play types and stick to them. They don't really change. Skeet Ulrich, whom strikes me as the least talented of the top-billed cast, does some good work as the reluctant but loyal youngest brother. In the end, I didn't care in their fates. And rather than rooting for their success (as in such films with charismatic criminals as Catch Me if You Can and The Sting), I thought they deserved all the punishment they could get - a death sentence for this type of film.

**

Taken

2009-04-16T18:15:00.002-05:00

Luc Besson is hit and miss for me. I thoroughly enjoy The Professional and Unleashed, but can't really stand The Fifth Element nor have more than mild amusement from Angel A. I won't even watch The Transporter films. But I had hopes for Taken. Liam Neeson can act. His performance in Les Miserables is astonishing (also check out Geoffrey Rush in the same film). The movie was a bona fide box office hit. However, there isn't much more to enjoy in Taken other than Liam Neeson cracking skulls. The prospect of Neeson as action hero ends up to be more promising than the result. He is a bear of a man and a true intimidating force, but the story and/or dialogue lacks heft. To make matters worse, the film takes 30-odd minutes to set up his skills and relationship with his daughter when 5-10 solidly written minutes would have served the film better. Awkward exposition through needless secondary characters and a pointless interlude with a pop star detract from the positive elements. It's a swift moving ride once it gets going. I can sympathize with Neeson's character's goal - to get his daughter back at all costs, but it seems as though he leaves behind so many innocent victims along the way. And I was left cold by the tied-with-a-bow ending. Everything is not really okay, Mr. Besson. It most definitely is not.

***