Fishbowl

Quarantine

2011-10-27T11:33:00.005-05:00

Found footage movies are nothing new. The buzz behind The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield has given way to two or three such movies every year, mostly of the horror genre. Its conventions best utilize the first person camera narratives. With more of these movies, the quality has begun to even out. For every success, there's a dip. Most recently, Apollo 18 came and went. Quarantine ended up right about the middle of the newly found spectrum. For a real time movie, it spends an unusual amount of time developing its characters. That doesn't keep the filmmakers from throwing the same characters to the lions without blinking. Yes, this is a horror film through and through. It's a bloody, scary movie with the obvious trajectory towards a bloody, scary end. It's a B-movie made with the A-list in mind. The ensemble play their parts well. No one phones it in. There's not much to what they have to do, but I thought they did it exceptionally well. The whole movie is a bit ridiculous, but the filmmakers and performers play it straight. The audience benefits. A major scare, but a minor movie. I wonder how a staged performance would play out...

***

Somewhere

2011-10-27T11:10:00.002-05:00

Sofia Coppola has my loyalty. I find her to be an interesting filmmaker. She has a proven track record. I loved Lost in Translation and Marie Antoinette, and really enjoyed The Virgin Suicides. From here on out, when she makes a movie, I want to see it. Somewhere isn't what I expected. It's a VERY atmospheric character-driven movie, which is to apologetically say very little happens. I can be on board for that, but I needed more than what was given. Stephen Dorff is not my favorite actor. Truth be told, I can't find a single redeeming performance in his filmography. He should be perfect in the part of a B-list actor who falls asleep to pole dancing ever other night or so. He kind of is. I can't think of an actor who'd play the part better. The problem is, he doesn't have much to play. He has a few choice scenes where he gets to ACT, and he plays them fine. I wanted more. I wanted Coppola to give him more to do, more to say, and more to be. If the story of an long-absent parent whose new quality time with their child leads them to reexamine their life sounds familiar, you'd be right. Elle Fanning, so full of life and vigor in Super 8, is quiet, sweet and dull as the returning child. Coppola doesn't play it conventional. She's more interested in how the quiet in a noisy scene can convey a character's loneliness or emptiness without hitting you over the head. I want to be rewarded for noticing. I want my attention to be worth something in Somewhere. Instead, Coppola is inching closer to the sparse atmospheric movies of another indie-auteur, Gus Van Sant (Elephant, Last Days, Gerry). I don't like it.

**

The Ides of March

2011-10-27T10:42:00.005-05:00

The Ides of March won't change your mind about politics or offer new insights into the morality of politics. I don't think it tries. Writer-director George Clooney is too concerned with delivering complex characters to care how you feel about them. Ryan Gosling is the lead and is in just about every scene, owning each one along the way. Rather than go with his recently maligned method acting or the minimalist performance he delivered in Drive, he plays his Stephen Myers as a charismatic lightning rod. Even when the plot knocks Myers down a peg, Gosling plays him upright, always pushing his feet forward. My only criticism, one that lowered the movie's impact, was the ending. I can't claim to be an glass-half-full type of person, but after the journey the characters soldiered through, I wanted more leeway. I wish Clooney had let us make up our minds rather than paint Myers into a corner. It might be nitpicking, but the question I've been asking since walking out of the theater is what is more interesting, The Godfather route or something more ambiguous? Is there a right answer? Maybe I'm just mad Clooney and Gosling got me to like their leading man before his ambitions got the best of him.

***

Killer Elite

2011-09-29T18:34:00.004-05:00

Lo and behold, Killer Elite starring Jason Statham, Robert De Niro, and Clive Owen was underwhelming. I was hoping for another surprise a kin to the Statham-led The Bank Job from a few years back. This is not that.

Statham does his thing. He doesn't stretch. No on ever asks him to. I finally convinced myself to check out Killer Elite because Clive Owen was in it and I am definitely a fan. No one really phones it in, but it is also clear no one is able to rise above the material. Start the cliches. Jason Statham plays a hit man who leaves the profession after a child witnesses one of his hits. Check. It humanizes our criminal protagonist. He's pulled back into one last job. Check. He reluctant to leave his new life for the one he left for good reasons. He's in love with someone who doesn't understand what he does or did for a living. Check. Our protagonist needs to be conflicted, doesn't he? The antagonist with the upper hand circles protagonist and delivers needless exposition instead of winning? Oh, oh, oh! Check. I've seen it before and better, even from De Niro in The Score.

To make matters worse, the trio of stars are forced to deliver mediocre dialogue throughout and the story hinges on moments of illogic or convenience to move the plot forward. The film claims to be based on true story, but I'd rather see something I can believe.

I like Jason Statham. He's likable and baddass enough to root for, but after seeing the movie and taking into consideration it's historical roots, I can't be the only one who would rather see a movie starring Clive Owen's former SAS officer protecting former SAS officers and the interests of the secretive "Feather Men" society. Ditch the cliched hitman plot that we've seen enough times to recite ourselves and show us the part of your project that holds real fascination and intrigue. Don't make De Niro run around and take down henchmen. It worked in Ronin, but that was a long time ago.

Somethings work. I can admit to the thrill of seeing a knock-down-drag-out brawl between Statham and Owen. I also enjoyed...well, that's really the highlight. Meh. Oh, and Owen rocks that mustache.

"The script is a mess. It's an object lesson in taking a nonfiction book ("The Feather Men," about a cadre of ex-British Special Air Service operatives) and making a hash of it." - Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune

**

In the Valley of Elah

2011-09-27T13:51:00.002-05:00

Paul Haggis is probably most famous for writing and directing the Oscar-winning film Crash. I was a huge proponent of the film for a long time. Upon repeat viewing and further thought, it doesn't age well. Initially, the emotional impact is huge. Looking back on the technical aspects, one can see how blatant Haggis pushed those responses with musical swells and compression. There's more than one story in the film that doesn't need sandwiched in. It's a good film. I won't argue against that.

Watching In the Valley of Elah, Haggis's followup to Crash, I kept these trends in mind. For much of the film, Haggis shows refreshing restraint. This is a quiet and deeply felt film. For the first two acts, Tommy Lee Jones (as the film's lead, Hank Deefield), anchors a well-told tragedy. It's really only in the film's last ten minutes or so that Haggis can't resist turning the screws on the impact. He was so close to a great movie. He really was. Hank's final moment is almost earned, but is ruined by unnecessary soaring music. It's as though Haggis doesn't trust his audience to feel according to his expectations. There is also a mishandling of the film's metaphorical title. It's from the biblical story of David and Goliath. It gets referenced not once but twice. The second time is too obvious to show the trust from Haggis that he and I had earned up to that point. There's really only one conclusion to come to from its inclusion. Let me come to it on my own.

Tommy Lee Jones earned his Oscar nomination as Hank. It seems like the typical Jones role because it is. His gruff red state man's man who won't back down or take guff from no one is his bread and butter. I think we just take the actor for granted. Casting him is a no-brainer, but that may be only because no one in their right mind would want anyone else playing this role. It needs Tommy Lee Jones.

The cast utilizes several former servicemen in supporting roles. They are not actors by trade, and it shows at times. Yet, there are startling key moments of real force during these performances. I can't dismiss them as non-actors (indeed, all of them have gone on to take more roles in Hollywood), when they can go to those places for the film.

Haggis's stock in Hollywood has slid since his surprise Oscar wins six years ago. He has talent. He just needs to trust his audience. We're smarter than he thinks.

***1/2

Moneyball

2011-09-25T19:52:00.004-05:00

It's hard to think of a more tired cliche than a rag-tag group of under-performing sports players rising together to win the big game/championship/title. If it's done right, that type of sports film can be great. I have seen it before. Moneyball has elements familiar to the genre. The new aspects are more interesting. Moneyball is a political movie without parties. Co-writer Aaron Sorkin created similar character dramas with the White House staff, a sketch comedy staff, and a sports highlight show staff. Moneyball is in that territory, but lacks the usual intelligent zippy dialogue that we know from every other Sorkin script. Credit Steve Zaillian, an Oscar winning screenwriter in his own right, for tempering Sorkin's flair with a believable tone. These people talk like baseball people. It'd be impossible for Billy Beane (the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics at the center of the story) to look like Brad Pitt, but they can sound alike. I can believe that. There isn't a single showboating performance among the cast. I can't call Philip Seymour Hoffman, Brad Pitt, and Jonah Hill a rag-tag group of under-performing actors. I won't. I will say that they blend together like a real team or ensemble. Hoffman in particular is notable for his ace albeit small role as the Athletics stubborn manager Art Howe. Hoffman's previous work with director Bennett Miller won him an Oscar for his title role in Capote. Art Howe is not Truman Capote. They don't require the same level of bravado or acute mannerisms. Both performances have to work. It's absolutely Pitt's movie, but the "role players" fill the gaps effectively. Pitt is given a character with fun dichotomies. He is both immensely confidant and determined, while quietly vulnerable behind those dreamy eyes. He puts his eggs in the science and statistical baskets, but wavers when his presence at a big game might jinx the outcome. Pitt's very good, but doesn't have to showboat the way he did in his last awards-worthy performance as Benjamin Button. This isn't that kind of movie. It's a sports movie not only about its team, but rather about the entirety of sports. It's not a political revolution Billy Beane and his forward-thinking protege Peter Brand (Jonah Hill in a solid supporting turn) are starting, but, onscreen, it's just as engrossing.

"A smart, intense and moving film that isn't so much about sports as about the war between intuition and statistics. I walked in knowing what the movie was about, but unprepared for its intelligence and depth." - Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

****

Jack Goes Boating

2011-09-23T14:29:00.006-05:00

Jack Goes Boating is a somber buzzkill. It does not create the buzz it kills, but is more than willing to quell whatever spark of expectation you bring in. It is a romantic film only in that it deals with romance. I can appreciate the dichotomy of presenting two couples at either end of their romantic entanglements. Yet the struggling couple is too busy and frantic to be entertaining. I don't really like any of the characters. Even the film's protagonist, Jack (Philip Seymour Hoffman pulling double-duty as director and lead actor), becomes difficult to root for as he lets himself become mired in his friends' infidelities. His new romance deserves more of an featured oomph, but is overshadowed by what the filmmakers hope to get across about the entirety of fidelity, love, and their respective behaviors. The humor that was promised was almost nonexistent. There are attempts that don't fail miserably, but I couldn't find a chuckle in my body. Some of the quirks found within the characters are amusing, but I couldn't bring myself to smile the whole time. I found the tone to be quite somber. Even as the quartet of performers reach a rolling boil during a climatic dinner, there's a rain cloud hanging over the entire affair. The film is based on a stage play, but I wonder if seeing the production on stage would change my perception. In truth, some of the cinematic interludes are the most involving. Jack learns through visualizing swimming and cooking. While those moments are a tad out of place, they certainly add some artistry to the film. Also glaring out of place is the film's indie hipster soundtrack. All the songs chosen (save Jack's motivational reggae) are beautiful, but don't fit the film. Some equally subdued Simon and Garfunkel or even Elliott Smith would have been perhaps contrived or overly familiar but more appropriate. There is nothing hip or cool happening on screen. In fact, there isn't really much worth mentioning happening on screen. There are some truths to what the film has to say. Some of the resulting conclusions this new couple comes to are to be admired and embraced, but I was hoping for more of the nuance I have come to expect from Mister Hoffman and his leading lady.

"Ultimately, though, Jack Goes Boating is too much of a banal thing. Jack's a good guy, and you root for him all the way to the end, but, wistfully, that doesn't make him an any more interesting everyday Joe than he is." - Marc Savlov, Austin Chronicle

**

Contagion

2011-09-23T13:51:00.003-05:00

Awesome. Can you recall the last time that you participated in a movie? I got up to use the restroom about 40 minutes into Contagion and covered my mouth with my fist to cough. I felt guilty. I washed my hands thoroughly and took extra care not to touch the door handle to the restroom. It was amazing to be that involved with what I was watching. It's an engrossing ensemble drama that consistently asks a interesting question: When the health of our populace is threatened, how scared is too scared? Terrible things continually escalate in proportionate and disproportionate reactions from the all-star cast. None of the stars play it too strong. I was immediately aware of the skill in direction, acting, and writing. It's a quiet film. It's not a flashy film. It's absolutely stylized. There are a few times when the score clashes its mighty flares a kin to a Hitchcockian melodrama. It looks cold and certainly not unintentionally sick with all it's hospital whites, damp yellows, and winter blues. However, it's restraint and assured pacing shows its pedigree. Contagion seems to frequently be compared to Outbreak, a film to which Contagion only really relates in its most basic conceits. Outbreaks was a medical and military thriller, whereas Contagion is quite content to be a medical and political drama grounded in its diverse characters. Maybe it could have used more infected monkeys, but I don't think so.

"The circumstances depicted in Contagion are terrifying, but the power with which the film is made blends the horror, as only the best art can, with beauty." - Shawn Levy, Portland Oregonian

****

44 Inch Chest

2011-09-23T13:27:00.006-05:00

44 Inch Chest is a mess of movie. It's starts off interestingly enough. It contains richly detailed and wholly specific characters who never quietly say everything on their minds. The script contains some absolutely wonderful monologues, but it also derails in its final act. I wanted to be rewarded for sticking with the film, but the last act grows too convoluted and/or uninvolving to earn that attention. I've heard that it was originally intended to be a staged play. I can see it in the setting and story. It's mostly confined to one room and remains very dialogue heavy. I have my doubts that the psychological aspects could be made any clearer in a playhouse. There's meat to the project, I just wanted to get to it sooner and with less vitriol and posturing.

"It feels very much more like a direct adaptation of a stage play (which apparently it's not). The filmmakers do goose things up by playing with reality in the second half, but it all leads to a payoff that, while perfectly legitimate, feels limp." - Andy Klein, Los Angeles Times

**

Drive

2011-09-23T13:07:00.007-05:00

Wonderful, gritty, pretty, discomforting. It's a beautifully created film where each moment is engineered artfully. It's not an anally manicured film. There's a simple, non-exaggerated dreamlike quality to the whole production. Still, when the story heads into nightmare territory, the style remains constant. While the violence can be startling, I felt the appropriate cringe for the first time in a long time. My connection to these characters, in spite of their quiet nature, was deep enough to instinctively empathize with the danger. It's a flashy brilliant piece of pulp.

"'Drive' looks like one kind of movie in the ads, and it is that kind of movie. It is also a rebuke to most of the movies it looks like." - Roger Ebert

Filmspotting's Thoughts

****1/2

The Social Network

2010-10-24T04:37:00.004-05:00

My review of The Social Network will be pedestrian. I am immune to the film's flaws. I am in awe of Aaron Sorkin's script.

The script is one of the best I've ever seen on screen. His words have a cadence outside my experience. People don't talk like that. I mean, they do. I don't. Not that quickly and with such complex sentence and paragraph structuring. These legitimate brilliant characters might. I'm glad they do. I expected the script to be entertaining. I didn't expect it to be so smart, though. Your attention is rewarded. You're not going to follow all of it, but you will get it.

The Internet coding and legal jargons aren't important. They are to the characters, they don't have to be us laymen. What's better is watching them say these things. Language and intelligence are weapons in a battle of social interaction Mark Zuckerberg is ill-equipped for.

The film is largely about men. To say the film is misogynistic misses something. There's hardly any women in the movie. Two of the only women present (Zuckerberg's ex-girlfriend and legal aide respectively) put him in his place. Yes, some of the other women are portrayed as sexual and/or status objects. I'd argue it's less so than any teen or frat comedy doled out year after year.

Yes, back to the men. To say Zuckerberg is a self-absorbed, egotistical, socially-inept asshole misses the point. He's fascinating. How could someone like THIS become the world's youngest billionaire? Show me. Thank you. That's interesting. Jesse Eisenberg has been pegged as the poor man's Michael Cera. He destroys that comparison. Cera never could have done this. Eisenberg rules the gatling gun dialogue while simultaneously conveying intense layers underneath. There is literally ALWAYS something going on with his Zuckerberg. I loathe and pity the character all at the same time he is loathed and pitied by those caught up in his rise.

The supporting performances are less...flashy (?), but uniformly solid. Andrew Garfield serves as the audience's POV. He's clearly smart, but is always trying to play catch up to these geniuses running circles around him. While he's loyal, his frustration is our frustration. Garfield was twitchy (?) in Boy A and Never Let Me Go, lost and crazy eyed in Red Riding 1974. He's doing something more understated here. Justin Timberlake plays to his strengths. His charismatic Sean Parker carries JT's charisma with him. Only in the third act when he becomes a too obvious villain does the film falter.

It's cliche to say that The Social Network is the film of our time. Up in the Air held that moniker just last year. But the Social Network does capture the new media in a way that no other film has before it. Young people has been shown to be awkward, status-obsessed, and self-absorbed before, but never in this context.

Andrew Gates is now friends with The Social Network.
****

Never Let Me Go

2010-10-24T04:21:00.002-05:00

Never Let Me Go is a cold film. It's beautiful, sure. But it's cold. The only warmth and tenderness (quite intentionally) comes from the interaction between Kathy and Tommy. Circumstances both familiar and strange keep them circling each other, but their affection is always readily recognizable. This is a film of subtlety. Even when you long for it to smack you over the head with grandstanding bravado, it takes its time to simmer slowly. The first act echoes this. It should be slimmer. We spend time with the three leads as children. Even though the adult trio of Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, and Keira Knightly easily overshadow their younger counterparts, the film holds fast to the story and character development.

The story's science and politics didn't interest me. I wonder if they even interested the writers. What kept me involved was that warmth and tenderness in the performances that conveyed those feelings in the midst of cold beauty. Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield are real talents. These two can win Oscars (the new Spiderman be damned). Their work here isn't flashy enough to stick in the minds of the Academy, but it stuck with me. Love found too late, but found nonetheless is the crux here. Its because the science and the politics are secondary issues to their relationships that the film works.

***1/2

It's Kind of a Funny Story

2010-10-24T03:57:00.004-05:00

It's Kind of a Funny Story's chief draw was its writers/directors (the same team that did Half Nelson). That film was raw, immediate, and wonderfully ambiguous. That's mostly lost in their new film.

What it does have going for it is Zach Galifianakis. His performance is actually amazing. It appears effortless in the best way. He slides from quirk to poignancy without showing the seams. He steals the show. Poor Emma Roberts gets a good character only to be slighted with screentime. The impression her Noelle makes on the audience pales in comparison to the one she makes on the film's protagonist.

I related quite a bit to the story the first time through, recognizing bits and pieces from my own life. The story treats mental health issues with heft without ignoring an audience's need to be entertained. If the ending fails to continue that commitment, oh well. That's Hollywood. I smiled. I felt my heart swell. The second time through, the nostalgia had diminished. I saw the flaws. IKOAFS strives for that independent film spirit while trying to straddle the mainstream. I wish I hadn't read a review where the film was likened to the films of John Hughes prior to seeing the movie. Once that seed was planted, some of the film's originality was lost to me.

The fantasy sequences/freeze frames/narration largely don't work. They try too hard. When the film relaxes and lets the characters interact on a real playing field, it hits its stride. Good movie, but I wonder what the writers/directors of a film like Half Nelson could do with this material. Oh...wait...

***

Up in The Air

2009-12-27T22:02:00.003-05:00

I was quick to jump on the bandwagon of director Jason Reitman's last outing, Juno, after seeing it two years ago. I loved it. After reading the script, I loved it less. Reitman and his cast gave these quirked out suburbanites' quotable dialogue nuance that was present on screen and glaringly missing on the page. Simply put, you had to see it to believe it.
Working from his own adaptation of Walter Kirn's Novel of the same name, Reitman's Up in the Air succeeds where Juno lost its footing. Its script is amazing. Its cast is impeccable. And this time, Reitman has raised his own game visually.
George Clooney stars as Ryan Bingham, a "termination facilitor". It means people hire him to fire their employees. He fancies himself a professional. It's clear in early scenes that he excels at his job as much as one could hope to. He's quick on his feet and focused. What I misjudged first as callousness reveals itself later as resignation to the inherent difficulties of his job.
His character has also resigned to the idea that he's better off moving about free of emotional and relational tethers. He's a man without a home by choice.
It's when he's faced with the prospect of staying foot that Bingham starts drowning. His final trip to train an overeager corporate upstart (played beautifully by Anna Kendrick) lays it out for us. Faced with staying put and digging in at his supposed home of Omaha takes a backseat to one last venture out in his beloved airplanes to stay in hotels, eat lounge dinners, and swap drinks and spit with a bewitching fellow traveller (played with deceptive layers by the excellent Vera Farmiga).
It's not terribly surprising that along the way he comes to question his choices, his relationships and lack thereof. What is surprising is how natural Reitman and Clooney make it appear. Even when the answers seem easy, they're not. Even when the glass is half-empty, it remains half-full and vice versa. It's this balance of sweetness, humor, and grim reality that mix to create a film for now. It's been called "The Film of this moment" too often to actually fit the bill. With that in mind, it comes damn close. There isn't a false note to be found in the movie. The emotionally heavy-lifting isn't there. But the movie is more than skin deep, too. It's just right like Baby Bear's porridge. Clooney, Farmiga, Kendrick, and Reitman know well enough that drama comes both from action and reaction. So rather than calling it the movie of this moment in time, let's call it "a reaction to this moment" and soak it in for it what is: one of the best films of the year.

Also, somebody tell Reitman that his half-empty/half-full ending is just what Up in the Air needed.

****

Avatar

2009-12-27T21:43:00.002-05:00

I want to speak in specifics, but I'm left only with abstract superlatives. Avatar blew me away. I was exhilarated in ways few movies have made me. Visually, Avatar was far superior to what I was expecting. I'm not talking about the 3D (though that was fun). I'm talking about the CGI performances of those long blue natives you see runnin' around in the television commercials. They're much better on the big screen. I was surprised by the amount of emoting these Avatars were able to do. Zoe Saldana in particular turns in an amazing performance under the guise of a blue alien. So much reality comes through in her voice and on that blue creature's face (created through motion capture), that you BUY IT. THIS CRAZY NONSENSE WORKS. Sigourney Weaver, however, loses something in translation in blue alien form. Don't know why. What works on both sides of the coin is Sam Worthington's performance. It's not groundbreaking thematically, but he's able to carry the story (an epic one at that) all the way through with ease. It's hard to explain. Let's just say that the awkwardness of his performance in Terminator Salvation is lost. He's at ease as an actor. He's found his stride as a performer.

James Cameron has always excelled more as a visual storyteller and as an idea man than a screenwriter in my eyes. Some of that military grunt and scientific babbling blah blah blah is still here, but the extraordinary visuals have a grounding in these characters. Even as the supporting characters weave in and out of their degrees of value and credibility, Worthington and Saldana are there to bring us back. And don't ever question the visuals. Simply put: they're amazing.

I was surprised at how involved I became in the story. I literally sat on the edge of my seat biting my fingers. I was into it. Whether or not that fascination wanes upon further viewing remains to be seen. For now, I am satisfied in calling this one of my favorite films of the year and the easiest to recommend to everyone. You'll like it. Unless you're stupid. Just kidding. Mostly.

****

The Box

2009-12-27T21:20:00.002-05:00

It's hard to praise The Box. It's so stylized, that any sort of originality or individuality is blurred. Its source material, a science fiction short story, has previously been played out in a Twilight Zone episode. It's that same sort of melodrama and tweaked atmosphere that is played out in Richard Kelly's film. I wouldn't be able to stand the musical score of the film, an amped up pulp orchestration, unless I viewed it as a key component of Kelly's intent. This is not a modern film. Some guy in the late 70's, early 80's could have matched the result (minus some of the special effects). Kelly wants to tell a tale in a slightly more innocent time on the cusp of 80s greed and subsequent immorality. What Kelly has going for him is the conceit. What would you do? How would you deal with the circumstances?

Also working for Kelly is his casting of James Marsden. The former Cyclops has acting chops. He makes the most of the hackneyed dialogue that Kelly gives him. It's his eyes, his urgency, his increasing fear that comes across the best. Unfortunately, Kelly's A-Lister, Cameron Diaz can't save her dialogue. It might be the accent that buries her, but she's hard to believe for much of the film even as the unbelievable happens around her and her husband. Frank Langella acts past his characters facial deformities to create a mysterious villain (?) worth remembering. It's when his intentions become clearer that the film breaks its brakes and nosedives towards its climax that the film loses traction.

It's freaky, intentionally so. In a dark theater with surround sound, it's scary. Still, sitting there I was thinking ahead to watching it at my house on my 13-inch TV. There, it might be silly, laughable even. Time will tell. In his effort to make us scratch our heads, to question what we see and what we hear, Kelly may have pushed the style too far. I shouldn't be giggling. I should be squirming in my seat uneasily. Sometimes at the theater, I was.

The film bends under the weights of its director's need to mind-screw his audience. The final scenes don't work. As far as the questions Kelly raises, I kept asking myself these long after I left. As cinema, The Box is slight. As science fiction, it's intriguing. I would watch it again to see how it holds up. There's good there hiding out amongst the missteps.

***

Carriers

2009-12-27T20:50:00.002-05:00

Carriers comes hot off the success of its star's other big 2009 movie, Stark Trek. Chris Pine has made a name for himself. That name wasn't enough to get Carriers much of a theatrical release, but it was enough to lure me in for a viewing. The prospect is enticing: a unnamed virus is making people sick - not zombies - and two brothers and their respective love interest head for the beach and some notion of outlasting the carriers. Nobody's biting anybody else. But the virus is easily caught and acts quickly. Chris Pine plays a brother quick to dismiss the victims, while his younger bro, Lou Taylor Pucci (of Thumbsucker fame) reacts uneasily at every turn to his brother's callousness. That dynamic creates the friction the film will carry to its uneasy end.

Pine shines in a complex role. It's a bit showy, but Pine shines with these kind of opportunities. His seemingly numskull frat beard has seen some things/done some things that have shaded him differently. It's how Pine lets these unseen experiences compel his character that shape the performance. More so than the poorly titled, Jim Sheridan helmed melodrama Brothers, this film throws two siblings into harrowing circumstances and let's 'em rip. Pine sets the pace, but Pucci can't match it. His character is meant to be a pushover, a well-meaning-yet-toothless intellectual. Pucci just plays it bland. Emily Van Camp plays his maybe main squeeze while Piper Perabo plays Pine's long time girlfriend. Both turn in understated performances, and Perabo in particular impressed me in her scenes mid-film.

In the end, the film has a good setting and atmosphere, but cannot flesh beyond the surface of what could have been an affecting, bleak outing. Their plight is real, but none of the circumstances stemming from that plight payoff quite as much as I'd like them to. The filmmakers teased me. First, we have the scenes with Christopher Meloni and his daughter seeking out a cure at a outpost with the four weary travelers. Heavy stuff. Yet, the filmmakers only dip their toes in danger before moving their characters on. Next, they meet up with a creepy bunch of hazard suit survivors at an old resort. Again, the tension and stakes are high only to be dropped when our four stars head out to the next stop. It's meant to be post-apocalyptic fears played out between four road trippers. What works is their sparring. What doesn't is the lack of stakes outside their car. And please don't have Pucci drip profundities in voice over in the last scene as though it meant more. It could have, but it didn't. Carriers only sweeps the surface.

**1/2

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.

***

Short Circuit

2009-04-16T18:10:00.003-05:00

I can include Short Circuit in that same 80s category as Gremlins - kitch classic and nothing more - if not for Johnny 5. He (or it) is a more interesting creation for me than Gizmo and his more vagrant pals. For all his corniness and glee, he was entertaining. Sadly, Steve Guttenburg and Ally Sheedy are void of chemistry and charisma in their roles, but they're really secondary to the main event - ole Johnny 5. For him, a passing grade.

***

Slumdog Millionaire

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

Whatever questions or wariness I may have held after my first viewing of Slumdog Millionaire are banished by my second viewing last night. For the first time in a good long while, if only for a moment, I forget who and where I was. The moment ended when overly zealous vocal enthusiasts reacted, but to be so immersed in the story was bliss. Also, able to take note of new elements, I found new admiration for the editing - not only structurally cohesive, but also utilizing seamless transitions both eye catching for the trained eye and clean enough as though not to draw attention. A masterwork. I was afraid I'd fall into Slumdog backlash, but I'll save my uncertainties now for my second Ben Button experience.

****

Doubt

2009-04-07T19:35:00.004-05:00

Doubt is the explosive acting clinic you'd expect from its cast. It's almost pitch-perfect, save for director-writer's John Patrick Shanley's inept metaphors hitting his audience over the head. It's not enough us to see for the winds to literally change and lights to go out, but Meryl Streep keeps telling us. And I understand these metaphors would have more effect on the stage, the story's original medium, but it's a film and it's okay to adjust. That gripe having been made, it's still a potent film about doubt and the forces that pull us toward either spirit on opposite shoulders. For Amy Adams, it's Streep vs. Hoffman, but it's never clear which power is wearing the horns, so to speak. And bravo for that, because I am still mulling over the ambiguities weeks later.

***1/2

Revolutionary Road

2009-04-07T19:27:00.003-05:00

Revolutionary Road is the disintegration of marriage and the hopes that lead two people into that union. Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet turn in Award-caliber performances free of pretense and ego. Their fights are intense ands frequent, and in those moments the two performers are at their best. Leonardo Dicaprio has never been better. He's raw, stripped down to his nerves and regrets while trying to maintain some of the manliness he showed off in The Departed and Gangs of New York. Winslet is as good as I've seen her, save maybe for her work in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. In the past and in my estimation, she's been an actress of fantastic spurts who falls under the spell of highly mannered acting. She keeps the manners to a minimum here, and her performance benefits from the absence. Thematically, Revolutionary Road is devastating. I felt awful after watching it, and perhaps so much so because I was so captivated by the increasing sadness and madness of the couple on screen. They're electric to watch together, and I'll take this melodrama over melodrama on a sinking boat any day.

****

Knowing

2009-03-25T16:15:00.003-05:00

There are times when Knowing feels incredibly inauthentic, but admittedly, I am not usually interested in authenticity when I head out to the theater to watch a sci-fi movie. There are times when the capable Rose Byrne and Nicolas Cage cannot make their dialogue believable - make me believe they believe what they are saying. But Knowing doesn't rise and fall with its characters. This is a movie of grand ambition and atmosphere. The air of dread that director Alex Proyas (director of The Crow and the excellent Dark City) creates is what carries the movie to its arm rest clutching suspense thrill heights and popcorn thrills. There's more to Knowing than its entertainment. It raises good questions about if it is better to know your fate or, in contrast, if ignorance is bliss. On a thematic scale, you can place Knowing along with M. Night Shylaman's Signs. Each shows a once religious man turning his back from faith after the loss of a wife. It's only when a strangely complicated holy plan begins to reveal itself that Mel Gibson in Signs and Nicolas Cage in Knowing begin to think otherwise. Knowing is a capable big idea thriller, but doesn't elevate itself to the point of greatness. Proyas' skill cannot hide the screenplay's shortcomings.

***

"Love and hate and 'Knowing' -- or, do wings have angels?" by Roger Ebert 3/22/09

"Knowing" Review by Roger Ebert

"Knowing" Review by Joe Neumaier of NY Daily News 3/19/09

Duplicity

2009-03-21T17:15:00.003-05:00

There's much disparaging about Duplicity being difficult to follow and there being one twist too many, but I disagree. Trying to keep up with the plot is half the fun of con movies. Who knows what when and who can trust who is more than the other half. Add the palpable chemistry between stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen first put to use as one of the bickering cheating couples in Closer, and you have quite the recipe for a fun movie. Writer-director Tony Gilroy has a lot of credit in the fan bank with me after his great Michael Clayton, and he only adds to it with this film. Duplicity is a slick, lean, breezy film adding the unique romance to the genre with wonderful dialogue and plotting. Even when I figured it out, I hadn't figured it out. But if a twist is the only thing you're after, you'll be surprised that the acting and directing are up to snuff as well. There's a great supporting cast that utilizes deft performances from no-name character actors and Paul Giammati and Tom Wilkinson (both past Oscar nominees) in small, but fun roles. Duplicity is the fun kind of movie that's fun to take off the DVD shelf every other month or so that also delights each time out.

****

Mad Max

2009-03-19T14:39:00.007-05:00

I finally saw the beginning of my beloved Mad Max franchise. I have to say, I'm a little disappointed. All the superior elements of the franchise are there: a brooding Mel Gibson, spectacular CGI-less car stunts, crazy (CRAZY) villains, and notable cinematography and style. The problem is that all these elements aren't perfected until The Road Warrior. Mel Gibson, despite of all his charisma, shows his lack of experience. The stunts are still there, but they're certainly less necessary. When the cars and/or motorcycles aren't driving across the endless asphalt, there isn't a whole lot to love in Mad Max. There are some very memorable shots in the movie, but these shots only punctuate the droll interlude between them. Thank goodness for Hugh Keays-Byrne's work as Toecutter, the psychotic leader or a motorcycle gang out for revenge after their even crazier former compadre is killed in the film's opening car chase. Toecutter is the snarling, edgy precursor to The Might Wez and Lord Humungous (The Road Warrior) and Master Blaster (MM: Beyond Thunderdome) of subsequent films. While he feels a bit out of place in Mad Max, it's clear writer/director George Miller is honing his world and style here. It's a good film with great moments, but it pales in comparison to its sequels. A great finish to a lackluster beginning.

***

Push

2009-03-19T14:22:00.004-05:00

Push isn't a necessary addition to the superhero genre, but it is a nice diversion. It looks great with it's bleached tones and vibrant colors. Some of the action pieces are well-photographed and staged (chiefly a short chase in a Hong Kong market). The basis of the plot seems so simple, but screenwriter David Bourla throws in a needlessly convoluted device to catapult the film through its climax. Like a time travel movie, it's hard to follow the movie through each step of its paces. When it ends, it's hard to tell if the whole thing works because you're still trying to figure out if the device works and, more importantly, if it was necessary at all. What Bourla gets right is his lingo. Each super-powered human type gets its own term ("mover", "sniffer", "watcher", etc.) that actually adds a unique aspect to the film. Chris Evans plays the lead and doesn't add anything special, but does prove that his solid work in Sunshine wasn't a fluke. He's not an A-list talent, but he fills this type of role just fine. Dakota Fanning, moving into teenage roles, is not a unique talent anymore. She's a fine actress, but this role isn't tailored for her skills. She's doesn't have the dry wit to pull off the attitude or her dialogue. But she's scores above Camille Bell, the beauty playing the question mark of the film. She's unquestionably beautiful, but she has all the charisma of a mannequin. Djimon Hounsou's talents are also wasted as the head villain. All in all, Push is pretty good; but is only notable for how good it could have been.

***

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

2009-03-19T14:09:00.004-05:00

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans is nothing special and doesn't really have anything working for it other than its fanbase and mythology from the previous two films of the franchise. I count myself as a part of that fanbase, and on that basis, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. If you don't give more than a hoot about any of the Underworld movies, you can skip Underworld:ROTL with nary a regret. I enjoyed seeing Michael Sheen reprise his role as Lucian and fight Billy Nighy (though Nighy has abandoned all restraint he may have possessed). The two actors have fun, even when saying the preposterous dialogue. All three Underworld films share a screenwriter, but something is lost when the dialogue is put back into the Medievalish language. Rhona Mitra is a rare beauty, but she cannot fill the heroine role the way Kate Beckinsale does in the first two films. Kevin Grevioux, one of the orginators of the franchise with a strangely deep voice and muscled physique, reprises his Underworld role. However, his talent is sorely lacking and more apparent with a larger role in this installment of the franchise. In the end, the film is a fun diversion on a Friday night and a welcome pleasure for fans who like their vampire films to take themselves seriously without actually being serious. Are there anymore of us out there?

***

Leatherheads

2009-03-08T16:51:00.002-05:00

I could have sworn that I wrote a review for Leatherheads last April, but I can't find it anywhere. That makes it harder to recant my old star rating. I imagine the gist of the review would have read something like this: An throwback to old school screwball comedies that doesn't have enough laughs to cover up its self-concious stlye." Two stars (**) would have followed.

I purchased the movie for my mom's birthday present (along with a Snuggie) and she wanted to watch it that night. It being her birthday, I agreed while fully expecting to be unamused by the film again. The movie, for me, benefited from a second viewing. It's not a classic or a football lover's dream movie, but for what it lacks in original hilarity, it makes up with its considerable charm. It is self-concious in its style, and not all the comedy bits work, but there was far more to like than I remembered. Clooney hams well. John Krasinki was more natural than I remembered. And Renee Zellweger (!), that oft-talked-about cinematic creation is right at home with this style of movie. She's not a terrific actress, but she is terrific in this kind of specifically-mannered role. Not too many actresses can pull off the look and the talk of a 1920's dame, but Zellweger can.

***

On Watchmen...How This Fan Watches the Watchmen by A. Gates

2009-03-08T14:45:00.007-05:00

About a half hour into Watchmen, as the rude and crude Comedian was being laid to rest with Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sounds of Silence" playing sweetly in the background I thought to myself, "Oh, no. This is self-important pretentious posturing." Then, fairly, I thought back to the source graphic novel - the comic geek's War and Peace if you will. "Was that self-important pretentious posturing as well?"

The truth is, these concerns quickly subsided as I again surrendered myself to the story and, in this oddest of cases for this comic geek. the incredibly reverent storytelling. Watchmen, the graphic novel and the film, are self-important pieces of fiction stemming from the arrogance of the brillant weirdo Alan Moore. But, as anyone who really works through the deconstruction of the superhero myth that Alan Moore laid out 20+ years ago, it is objectively important. A social commentary, epically told superhero story with heroes afflicted with the human condition in all its debilitating glory.

Rorshach, easily my favorite character in both mediums, is a psychopathic sleuth with a brutal, uncompromising sense of justice. He's a jarring character, an socially inept weirdo in a costume who is also a mentally and emotionally scarred deviant working outside the law. On the page, his words are put in scratchy, sketchy balloons and we as readers are left to imagine what sort of unusual voice would deliver such oddly drawn speech patterns. And perhaps that's where the gift of the film begins. Jackie Earle Haley, that newly rediscovered talent from the 70s, was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2006 for his work in Little Children. I thought the whole performance was overrated. After seeing his work as Rorshach, I reconsider. You see, his characters, although both scarred social outcasts, are on opposite ends of the performance spectrum. His brutality, his growl, his stiff anger as Rorshach is the foil for his Little Children's character's weakness, sadness, and quiet anger. And that growl(!), I am more than pleased to say, is exactly how I imagined Rorshach would sound even if it never occurred to me until I heard Haley's first words in the trailer.

But each of these performers in the movie playing these characters firmly placed in my memory is for better or for worse the perfect person to play their part (save maybe Carla Gugino as Sally Jupiter, playing it campy). I say for better or for worse because naturally some of these characters work better on the page than on the screen. Laurie Jupiter (aka Silk Spekter II), is one of those characters. And I won't fault Malin Akerman for any of it, though many reviews I have read turn quickly on her. She fits the part to a tee and executes it wholley reverently. But something about Laurie fits within comic panels better than the confines of the silver screen. As the naive and sweetly sexy ingenue heroine acting as knowing commentary on the comic book medium, Laurie Jupiter works. But that role in a film, that medium where we haven't seen that obligatory gal in spandex to the same effect, the character seems an odd fit. And to see her and her mother as the transition from the Golden Age to whatever the geeks are calling this age makes eerie sense in the comics and very little on film where the Golden Age has all but been ignored completely.

Kudos to Patrick Wilson, Haley, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Matthew Goode for their insight into bringing the pages and characters to life. Each is an uncanny fit for their character counterparts and whomever cast this film has to be pat on the back. Haley and Crudup are the standouts receiving all scant critical praise, and deservedly so. Crudup, in particular, delivers a performance of tremendous subtlety and restraint (albeit through a CGI avatar). His character is more than a comment on superheroes. Dr. Manhattan is a comment on religion and on God seen through a glass darkly. The insights, while not my own on this subject, are fascinating and bracing. It's a difficult character to bring to life, but Crudup and Snyder's team of special effects wizards more than conquer the challenge. Crudup's Dr. Manhattan, perhaps even more so than in his graphic novel incarnation, is an indelible film creation.

Zach Snyder and his screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse are aware of how to tell the story in this medium. The unnecessary parts of the graphic novel (or, for the fanboys who just gasped at the hint of anything in Watchmen being unnecessary, "medium-specific") are left out and the good stuff is left in. The big change to the ending pleased me the most. The crux of the graphic novel is perfect for that medium - a ugly monster spelling possible doom for the world and our heroes. But that doesn't work on the big screen where even the most outlandish of villains (I'm looking at you, Willem Dafoe as Green Goblin, and you, Colin Farrell as Bullseye) are more real than what is depicted in the last fourth of the graphic novel. So, bravo for the change. There's the fact that it is minor yet still makes the whole calamity at end actually work. The Black Freighter allergorical interludes and newstand gang on that iconic corner are largely absent from the big screen version. Good. These were my least favorite parts of the graphic novel and have no place in the big screen story. After all, we're watching the story of the Watchmen and there's enough of that story to adequately fill its runtime and more.

I like Zach Snyder. With Dawn of the Dead and now Watchmen, he has proven to be a visually savvy storyteller with a leaning towards the sensational. But anyone who has seen 300, fans and non-fans alike, can tell you he knows nothing of subtlety. His fetishizing of slo-motion and violence in 300 isn't at full-throttle in Watchmen, but he certainly isn't afraid to push the limits. The violence is brutal and graphic, but he eases up on his slo-mo habit enough to keep Watchmen watchable.

I was worried after I finished reading Watchmen for the first time last Spring. "How can they make this movie? No one will want to see it?" I say this knowing that, like me, there were leagues of fanboys frothing at the mouth at the mere prospect of a big screen adaptation. The "no one" in question is the general public, the ones who go to see the Spider-man, Batman, or (Heaven forbid) the Fantastic Four movies but more than likely would not care to see their heroes deconstructed. There was talk of this public being ready for a movie like Watchmen after the success of The Dark Knight, but I knew and you will know that this is a hasty comparison. Bruce Wayne as Batman is haunted and conflicted, but he is not the deranged Rorshach. If you could love the Joker (and some of us really did), then maybe you'd like Rorshach, but not as hero. In the end of the Dark Knight, after all the darkness and despair, Batman rides off as the "hero" in every sense of the word. In Watchmen, "hero" takes on its own meaning and the term "anti-hero" doesn't fully capture the complexity of its characters. Watchmen is not The Dark Knight, and I expect to see a sharp drop off in box office after all the marketing hoopla and hype dies down and that general public tells their general public pals it wasn't what they wanted.

This calls into question the audience. Who is this movie for? Zach Snyder has said that the movie is for fans first. I believe him. An editor for Rottentomatoes.com, after being told by another reviewer that non-fans won't be able to follow the epic story and mythology, said something along the lines that they, like she, won't care to. That's probably the case. So, what do we have? We have Warner Brothers thinking a $150 million dollar (reportedly) production budget (along with anywhere from 20-35+ million dollars for marketing) for a film taken from a cult comic book with critical acclaim will appeal to its targeting ticket paying audience. And they're wrong. The movie is good for me. I love the movie. And Warner Brothers will likely make enough money through box office receipts and DVD sales and countless special editions to make a profit. But in today's Hollywood, making $100 million dollars domestically isn't enough. Time will tell if Watchmen is viewed as a success for Warner Brothers. My question is what happens when they want to make something faithfully for us fanboys next time? I don't think it'll happen so easily (a joke if you consider Watchmen's 20 year production hell).

Let's just say for now, for me, I love it. I got chills several times. The kind where you see something imagined realized for the first time. And that's a special feeling Watchmen offers me and my geek brethren that we might have to wait another 20to feel again. Watchmen has always been something you finish with your emotions deflated and exhausted and your head spinning around the implications of it ending. Hopefully, not every one will leave the theater talking about what's in the movie and what isn't or what they wish it would have been like, but rather discussing that ending. After all the hoopla and hype are gone, that ending resonates over even the harshest of critics.

****

Joe Morgenstern Wall Street Journal Watchmen Review 3/6/09
Roger Ebert Watchmen Review 3/4/09
Box Office Mojo Weekend Report 3/8/09

Mystery Men

2009-03-03T16:47:00.003-05:00

When the superhero myth is broken down, it seems as though it is often to the detriment of the heroes themselves ala Watchmen (though that is a true literary marvel). They are given the basest of desires, insanity, doubt, and other human weaknesses. Mystery Men essentially takes that conceit and turns it on its ear for the comedic betterment of its genre and audience.

I can't say that I would have enjoyed Mystery Men as much if I wasn't already a comicbook enthusiast (aka geek). The fun of the movie is knowing how these characters and world are supposed to look and then seeing it through its funhouse of mirrors. Its not an artifact of comedic or cinematic genius, but it is perhaps a rarely well-told underdog story for grownups who still read about men in tights.

These characters are funny and unique and its their interactions (often in their favorite little diner) that make the movie worthwhile. Many of jokes in the movie are one-note, such as the Disco Boy henchmen, but it was that sort of lunacy that endeared the film to me. As long as I laugh, I won't argue with how you got me to.

There's nothing groundbreaking here. The jokes are broad enough that you don't have to be a fanboy to get them, but it helps if you are. For gravitas and groundbreaking, I'll wait for the fast-approaching Watchmen film adaptation. For a fun ride while I wait, Mystery Men does just fine.

***

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

2009-03-03T16:19:00.004-05:00

It's hard to praise the third installment of The Mad Max Franchise, because it is essentially a retread of its own now familiar territory. Mad Max is a great character and anti-hero and his journey to stay alive without giving too much of himself to others is an intriguing one. I've read that before starting to plot out The Road Warrior, writer-director George Miller immersed himself in old Samurai and western films. Mad Max certainly fits within those forebearers' walls. In Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome, he is even briefly referred to as the "Man with No Name," a not so subtle shout out to Clint Eastwood iconic character in Sergio Leone films.

But Mad Max places it's anti-hero in an original backdrop - a post-apocalyptic, gasoline and morally starved Australia whose inhabitants have taken to dressing like punks and renaissance fair rejects.

It's an intriguing setting for action, and it seems that, above all, that is the chief component of the Mad Max series.

When Max is thrust into the gladiatorial Thunderdome of the title, it's a sensational set piece - strange because it is used only once and because it echoes the poorly conceived gauntlets of the syndicated 90s American Gladiator show. Then, echoing the amazing final action set piece of The Road Warrior, director Miller sets the reluctant Max driving away from a horde of baddies on his tail. It's a bit too familiar, but still finishes in grand fashion.

Thunderdome features unique aspects, too. Tina Turner (?!) as the head miscreant rivals Lord Humungous for spiteful power. A little person using a masked brute as his vehicle/bodyguard who starts the film as a odd bully grows to be the more valuable of supporting characters. But most important and entertaining of the new additions is a group of Lord of the Flies/Lost Boys tribal kids who think Max is the one prophesied to take them to their own Promised Land. The scenes with the kids and Max eerily echoes the introduction of the Lost Boys in Hook to the point that my brother was blindly shouting "Rufio" over the action onscreen.

As I said earlier, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome isn't anything superbly new or exotic when compared to its prequels, but it is supremely entertaining and opens the Max's world to let more imagination in. And though Thunderdome is softer than its predecessors, it is dark and odd enough to rightfully be claimed a part of the Mad Max franchise.

****

Gremlins

2009-03-03T16:04:00.002-05:00

I caught up with this 80s hit this weekend and half enjoyed it. It has some genuine scares. Those little delinquents with bad skin problems are pretty mischievous (what with their murder and vandalism). I think there's a good horror film there, but old mister Speilberg and Joe Dante (with ole Chris Columbus) decide to place the mayhem in Mayberry on Christmas. All scares and frights are dulled by the Norman Rockwell landscape and small town hijinks. Gizmo himself is a fun creation and when the Gremlins, his offspring, are introduced, it's strange and frightening enough to witness. It's when the Gremlins take to smoking a drinking and laughing incessantly in the town tavern that they lose whatever lurid allure that they once had. They're lunch-box villains with bad attitudes. It doesn't help that the human hero played by Zach Galligan has less charisma than his puppet co-stars. It's nice that Columbus and gang nod to their genre influences (homages to Invasion of the Body Snatchers, etc.), but there's not much to take this above a kitch classic.

**1/2

Judge Dredd

2009-03-03T15:40:00.002-05:00

There are few times that I will intentionally sit down to watch what I assume is a bad movie. Most of those times stem from the weird fascination with Hollywood disasters - what possessed these people to make these movies at these times? Judge Dredd seemed like just such a disaster, so sitting down to watch it last Saturday (with a sore throat and achy limbs) was an accepted diversion.

It turns out Judge Dredd isn't so bad. It is bad. It is a disaster. But it's not the train wreck that I had hoped for. It clear that Hollywood had inserted its formula in place - take the hero, add a beautiful babe with moxie, add a wise-cracking shlub, and let a dramatic actor run amuck through the film as the villain. Judge Dredd has an interesting central conceit - what if there were citizens acting as the enforcers, judges, and juries on our streets? Put that conceit in a dire and drab post-apocalyptic city and you have a possibility for an intriguing film even when Sly Stallone is your hero.

Instead, the filmmakers go for the faux-blockbuster punch of action and comedy (however slight). Rob Schneider offers the comedic (?) relief, and Diane Lane is the beautiful babe with moxie whose loyalty shows Dredd that there's more to life than the law he had based his life on. Lane shows none of the nuance or subtlety she showed in her Oscar-nominated turn in Unfaithful, though I'll place the blame on the screenwriters and director here.

Remember in the 90's when stars would take roles as villains so they could crazy-ham-it-up and chew the scenery in ways they'd never get away with as the heroes. I'm thinking John Travolta in Broken Arrow/Face Off/Battlefield Earth. Well, take Armand Assante (?!) and give him free reign and you have the worst part of Judge Dredd. As Rico (!?), Assante had never met a scene that didn't need a bit more "pizzazz".

This even distracts from the always wooden Stallone who might actually have been the best example of casting for this film. He looks the part, he grunts the part, now if we could just make the part worth playing...And if we could make the super-Judges plot make sense at all. What exactly is the nefarious councilman's end goal? To make the best Judges ever? Not so nefarious.

**

100 Female Performances from Popmatters.com

2009-02-28T23:14:00.001-05:00

I found this list on IMDB's links of the day. It gives me some ideas for netflix choices.

Yes Man

2009-02-23T19:57:00.002-05:00

Yes Man serves as Jim Carrey's return to concept comedy antics ala Bruce Almighty and/or Liar Liar. Liar Liar is a not-so-guilty-pleasure of mine, so I took a trip to the dollar theater with a friend and checked this out.

Yes Man is not as funny as Liar Liar or (I suspect) most of his more successful comedies. It has some charm (mostly from the out-of-place but still sublime Zooey Deschanel) and laughs (Rhys Darby is a hoot doing a take on his Flight of the Conchords character), but is too brisk and simple to make any lasting impression. There simply isn't anything terribly memorable from the movie. When it was over, I had to search deep into my memory to recall why I had guffawed during the movie (it was because of Darby and Deschanel and a neat little role from Terrance Stamp). It's better than most Hollywood comedies, but I must say I enjoy depth with my laughs and introspection from my Carreys. Yes Man has neither.

Highlights - Deschanel sings! Darby theme parties! Carrey and a Persian wife?! Stamp as guru!

**1/2

The Salton Sea

2009-02-23T19:53:00.003-05:00

I re-watched The Salton Sea for the first time in 4 or 5 years and really enjoyed it. I thought of my old review on the Wonderreviews site oh so long ago. Rather than writing something new (I'm lazy), I'll post it here:

It's difficult to do anything innovative with the film noir genre. It's hard to make a film involving noirish elements that's not derivative of all the other movies in the vast film noir history. So, taking this into consideration, "The Salton Sea" is all the more impressive. Sure, it follows the path set by other modern film noir pictures, but it's also highly original in its approach to its converging genres. Besides film noir, it also belongs in the "undercover cop in over his head" sub-genre. Add the "vengeful husband looking for his own brand of justice" sub-genre and you've got a melting pot of storytelling techniques. Stir in a who's who cast of character actors playing off kilter characters and you've got something special.

Val Kilmer ("Tombstone," "Top Gun," "Batman Forever") plays Danny Parker and Tom Van Allen, which one he is at the moment escapes him, as he tells in the opening narration. He is playing a trumpet while flames engulf the room around him. It's freaky and kind of unexpected, especially when the opening narrative is more cryptic than informative. But, like most good pieces of the genre, the script is aware that too much too soon can ruin a good story. So, we are introduced into the world Danny Parker has immersed himself in, that of the "tweaker." A "tweaker," as we find out through visuals and Kilmer's narration, is a crystal meth enthusiast/heavy user.

There are several plot twists and exposition devices that can help you understand the plot and make you want to see the movie, but I am wary of mentioning them even though they are mentioned on the back of the video. Let's just go at this in a general, basic sort of offensive.

Danny Parker/Tom Van Allen/Who Knows[?] has inserted himself into the underground tweaker culture in hopes of finding the men who murdered his wife. He was the trumpet playing Tom Van Allen prior to the tragedy, but that part of him died when he embraced the tweaker way of life, even resorting to large body tatoos and body piercings. Tom Van Allen could not watch himself lose himself, so he became Danny Parker because he needed an alias and, presumably, because it's a cooler name. That's the gist of the plot without giving away the twists and turns, of which there are many.

The film dances around time in a manner similar to that of "Memento," although it stays away from the reverse chronology concept. The visuals are gritty and bleached so that everything appears as though its shadows are about to swallow its light. It's a nice visual approach to such a unusual film.

But the real revelation is that Val Kilmer has not forgotten how to act, or for you skeptics, found a way to act. Kilmer is best utilized as a memorable sidekick or playful nemesis ("Tombstone" and "Top Gun"), rather than the leading man roles he often mistakenly takes at the behest of his ego. As Danny Parker/ Tom Van Allen, he shines in a kind of subdued cool role. He doesn't have the catch phrases and nicknames of past roles to fall back on, so he just has to draw it out naturally. Many may say Kilmer drawing cool out from himself is like trying to draw blood from a stone, but he's actually quite cool. It's one of those roles that can turn around a career headed to the straight to video sections of your local video rental establishment (editor's note: he is that straight to DVD guy now).

To make you happy, the viewer is treated to several crazy characters, mainly that of Pooh Bear (expert character actor Vincent D'Onofrio). Also rounding out the cast are Luis Guzman, Deborah Kara Unger, Peter Sarsgaard, B.D. Wong, Anthony LaPaglia, Doug Hutchison, and Adam Goldberg. I realize the list of names by no means constitutes the stars you wanted to see in some movie, but they are all highly talented actors and will not disappoint you.

The best thing about "The Salton Sea" is that, just when you think you know what kind of movie it is, something surprises you. The only problem is a lack of control that director D.J. Caruso exhibits in certain scenes. His attention span isn't quite as short as Michael Bay's, but he does give you the impression that maybe he could have captured some shots with more direction, perhaps more definition. Alas, it still is a fine film with a nose for something new.

***1/2

Let the Right One In

2009-02-18T14:47:00.007-05:00

Let the Right One In is the vampire movie Hollywood would be terrified to produce. It's a character piece that moves at a slow pace as to allow its hero and heroine to evolve naturally. It has its moments of terror, fear, blood, and gore like anything Hollywood produces, but it is also content to follow quiet and honest exchanges between preteens. One of them just happens to be a vampire.

It's hard to place a horror movie, especially a vampire movie, into the category of realism, but Let the Right One In is the closest to vampires in the real world as I can imagine. Being a vampire is not cool. None of them are proud of it. It's like a mark of shame that separates them from anyone else except for their own kind. Unlike the more recent of successful vampire franchises, these vampires don't hole up in expensive mansions or live in covens or what have you. The young vampire girl lives with an older (and increasingly less useful) vampire in a crappy apartment building. She goes out only at night and is fearful of any real connection and her need to feed on human life (and apparently vampires have an unpleasant odor).

Calling the style "realism" cannot take away from the artfulness of the film. It's cinematography, acting, and plotting are all expertly conceived and executed. It's a lovely film in the midst of the its own carnage.

What sets it apart, among other things, is the care it takes to tell the story of the friendship and young love between a 12 year boy and the vampire girl. It's adorable and frightening. The quality is in the details that could be easily missed. The young boy's nose is always running. She is always quiet and looks sad and lonely, even after ravaging passerbys. Their connection, like most first loves, is awkward. This isn't a storybook romance. And it is a strange tale. You are likely to feel uncomfortable for some if not all of its runtime. But, as a beginning horror genre fan, I was happy to tag along. Even when the film approaches its sensational extremes, I was pleased to see it end the way it did. As it stands now, it is one of my favorite films of the year.

Appaloosa

2009-02-18T14:32:00.004-05:00

I saw this movie with the hope that it would be somewhere between Open Range and 3:10 to Yuma, the two best of the modern westerns (save for the Australian The Proposition). That's kind of a wide gap. Lots of room to fall into. Appaloosa falls behind Open Range and most movies. It's the worst movie I've seen since The Rocker, and this time, I have no excuses for the filmmakers.

Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen are fine actors. I enjoy both of them. But this script (from Ed Harris and a co-writer) offers nothing special for them to do. The plot seems to aim only for the lows of old Saturday afternoon western movies that played on Akron's worst local station. And it gets there. The only slightly appealing aspect of the film is Ed Harris and Mortensen's friendship (or "bromance" under modern terms). Even that falls short, however, because there are times when these two leads act completely out of logic or reason or accomplish unlikely strange feats. It seems that these two peacemakers and their newly sworn enemy Mr. Bragg (the barely registering Jeremy Irons) are only intimidating in theory. They talk a good amount of smack, but rarely do any of them deliver on their idle promises. In fact, I wonder why Irons took the role at all. There's nothing really for him to do. Except for the short burst of unlawfullness in the first two minutes or less, he is ALL talk.

And I'll only touch briefly on Renee Zellweger here. I must admit that my complaints here are less than objective. In Appaloosa, she's an eye and ear sore. I can't stand any moment she's on screen. I am not one to subscribe to the "Zellweger is inherently awful" theory. I enjoyed her in Chicago and Jerry Maguire and to a lesser extent Cinderella Man. But there is no redeeming quality to her work here. Her character offers nothing to the script save for unearned conflict. No one would fall for this character. No one would risk their life for this character.

And finally, Ed Harris must have cast his entire family or old bocce ball comrades in this movie because the bit players are some of the worst actors I can remember. I cringed every time one of them spoke. The only reason possible for casting such talentless actors must be a sense of duty Ed Harris must have felt.

*1/2

10 Awesomely Insane Movie Freak Outs on fasthack.com

2009-01-25T19:33:00.002-05:00

I found this list while looking for pics from Pride and Glory. Fun. Swearing is involved in almost all of them, so if you're short, don't watch the clips. Loooooove number 1. I try to quote it all the time, but fall short every time.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-25T18:38:00.005-05:00

I'm gonna borrow a bit (or completely) from the Fishbowl Facebook thread postings for this one (so wonderfully out of context now):

The lightning guy is my biggest complaint with the movie. And I'm not above pointing out its faults. It can be a tad simplistic for such an extraordinary premise. I keep hearing the fact that it's a kin to Forrest Gump - same screenwriter - in its tone, and I wouldn't disagree, to its fault. But there is something special about the execution of this movie.

Honestly, it's more than just the CGI that's dear to my heart. It features a great Brad Pitt performance (probably his best without comedic undetones, though an Oscar nom is a tad much for praise), and features some wonderful supporting performances (Jared Harris - see Igby Goes Down, Tilda Swinton - this is something new from her, and Taraj P. Henson).

But maybe my admiration is that they pulled it off. They told a story about a man who ages backwards and made me believe it (as much as a dramatic fantasy of this nature can). I won't be mad if it wins Best Picture or director, though it's not my first choice. And about Benjamin's promiscuity...I didn't see it as a detraction from the story or his life. It's obvious that the guy had a lot to learn about love and went about it in wrong ways, but that helps the real love, the big love that he finds with Daisy mean so much.

I could have done without the old Daisy/Hospital/present storyline. It didn't add depth for me. It really only serves as reason for Benjamin to tell his own story.

I really do think that we'll still be talking about TCCOBB in 20 or so years if only to complain about the which and how many nominations it got in 2009. I will look back more fondly. I'll also say that it has a lot more to say (nicely) about life, death, and love than Synecdoche, New York.

****

::SPOILER::

It should have ended with baby Ben.

::END SPOILER::

Pride and Glory

2009-01-25T18:28:00.004-05:00

Pride and Glory is the best thing that has happened to Edward Norton in a long time. He plays it as typical, with his mark of pure talent. This time instead of steamrolling through the process (I'm looking at you, Down in the Valley), he feeds off of others instead of punishing them for being onscreen with him. And he gets excellent help from Colin Farrell (with just a bit too much accent), Jon Voight (who's usually hit and miss and this time hits), and Noah Emmerich (quietly one of the best supporting actors in Hollywood). What makes the movie work isn't the corrupt cops storyline, though that is engaging enough if only overly familiar, but rather the way the corruption affects a family of cops. Now the family of cops genre is almost always tied to a corrupt cops kicker (I was reminded by the trailer and critical reception of We Own the Night from about the same time in 2007). But what works here and will endear the movie to me and enrage me (happily) for years is the family. Their scenes together in and out of uniform are what make the film work on all its other levels. Their history, their present, and the way the corruption tears them apart is the captivating element here. In lesser hands than these actors, this movie might have fallen apart under its "been there, done that" thriller elements. As it stands now, Pride and Glory is one of my favorites of 2008 and one of the most pleasant surprises I've had in the theater for a good long while.

***1/2

2009-01-25T18:27:00.001-05:00

Are you annoyed with the favorable reviews yet? I'm sure to get the reputation of being soft on Oscar fare.

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-01-25T18:06:00.003-05:00

I loved this film, but I felt uneasy along the way to the ending. The film uses a Mumbai version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire(?) as a catalyst for a character to revisit his past and meet his destiny. The problem is...I couldn't take Millionaire seriously. It's been nine or so years since the American version was a cultural phenomenon, and what seems like eons since the whole thing was anything but a joke to me. So, it was hard to get the full scope of the stakes for the lead character as he sat in the hot seat answering often it was his "final answer". The stakes didn't escape me. I was engaged throughout, but the show seemed included only to provide an appropriate reason to tell his story. And his story is amazing and interesting and horrible and fresh and well-told by the actor, the writer, and the director (the wonderful Danny Boyle). His past was my favorite part of the film, but how his past influences his future, nay, destiny is why everyone keeps talking about it and what makes it more special than the average tale of international poverty and other hardships far away from our comfortable theaters. I was fulfilled. I was happy. I was pleased. And I was thankful that Danny Boyle is getting the recognition long overdue to him from the Hollywood bigwigs. Let's just hope he doesn't take his new clout and make The Beach 2: Beach Blanket Bingo starring Robert Caryle and Reginald Vel Johnson.

****

Defiance

2009-01-25T17:43:00.003-05:00

I had mixed expectations for the film. The first trailer was intriguing, but I didn't know what to expect. I was further confused by the mixed reviews from film critics. I enjoyed it. I was captivated. I was eager to discover how this historical movie would end as though waiting for a M. Night twist.

The Entertainment Weekly review said a lot of things right. The truth is, I was more of a fan than an objective observer by the end. I was swept up - with the story, the performances, the time - to the point where even the most obvious of detractions began to blur into admiration. Chief among them, an ending battle with a Hollywood-like surprise that isn't surprising at all. Though, as I was saying, I was so invested in the characters that I was immensely happy and couldn't have cared less if the turn of events was from history or a Hollywood screenwriter's studio notes. The movie is satisfying, harrowing, exciting, sad, beautiful, bleak, and wonderful. You owe yourself the gift of sitting through it.

It's not perfect. Even through blurry admiration, I can see it's flaws. But it's a well above average, underrated film that deserves some attention if for no other reason than to offer D. Craig some love for work other than 007. There are Hollywood conventions that are endearing but annoying if you don't look at the characters rather than their words. There are two intellectuals who become friends in the forest camp of the hiding jews. Their conversations serve merely as way to speak of the world at large, to be more important. But the characters, their place in the camp, the actors' performances are vital. Obviously, though the film is Craig's showcase, his work with the two actors playing his brothers is the heart of the film. I've been a fan of Liev Shreiber's for a good while, but this is his meatiest role yet. He doesn't disappoint even when his interactions seem contrived and scripted. He elevates the story. I've heard oodles about Jamie Bell for years and never really got the hype, but I'm starting to catch on. His performance as the second-youngest of four brothers is special without being awkwardly so. Strong supporting work.

I'm not being true to myself, even with all it's flaws, if I didn't whole heartily urge you to see it. And if you want to see an all around GREAT, similarly themed film see The Wind that Shakes the Barley.

***1/2

Frost/Nixon

2009-01-25T17:24:00.004-05:00

This has been on my list to see since the trailer premiered some time ago. It's a great trailer. I wasn't let down. The chief attraction is the performances from the two leads: Michael Sheen (Frost) and Frank Langella (Nixon, and of Skeletore fame). The whole movie is coated in director Ron Howard's familiar Hollywood veneer. Still, Howard is a good storyteller. He can frame a shot and create drama out of lackluster material. Luckily, his material here is good.

Screenwriter/playwright Peter Morgan makes (not so much with subtlety as glee) a boxing movie out of television journalism and it becomes spellbinding to watch the ole rope a dope in a different arena. Nothing is subpar about the movie, but I do think the movie lacked some heft or weight to the first two acts (as though mirroring its "hero"). I could have done without the talking head interviews with the characters. It really only served to tell the audience what they should have only been told by the chief narrative. In this case, the past narrative.

By the final round, I was sold. I was interested enough to see what happened because early on the two leads were made intriguing characters. Even when what they were doing was not showy or bravura acting (though Langella certainly gets opportunities for that and takes them), I was drawn to the minuscule almost intangible moments with the two men, sparring partners. Sheen spends most of the movie reacting, and those moments when he says nothing with his words and everything with his face are the best part of Sheen's performance. Nixon is a bit of an un-PC chatty Cathy, but he also provides wonderful moments reacting. Though the supporting players (wonderful actors Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, Matthew Macfayden, and Kevin Bacon; and actress Rebecca Hall) aren't the main attraction with Frost/Nixon, all do an above average job filling in the spaces between Frost and Nixon's many conversations with each other.

While Frost/Nixon isn't likely to make my list of Best Picture nominees, I'll remember the time when history (however inaccurate it might have been presented) was fascinating in a new way. I don't know that the film will stand the test of time as well as the controversy on which it was based has. Will future film historians and fans mention it in the same breath as All the President's Men as a vital part of the story?

****

Catchup: Not Pretty

2009-01-25T17:23:00.001-05:00

I'm gonna update with some new reviews, but since there's gonna be a bunch, the writing's not gonna be anything to write home about. Fair warning.

On Ebert...and Movies by A. Gates

2009-01-23T21:16:00.000-05:00

I was thinking last night about the joy of film and how my understanding of this love is in constant transition. I lost some of my fervor for the art of film spending a semester in Los Angeles. It's not a fault of the city, of its people, or the program I studied in. I was just intimately aware of the difficulty in making a worthwhile film and, above all, the fact that movie making is a business. From the independent film industry to "Hollywood", they want to make a profit. It's discouraging when all you want to do is read a good script or watch a great storyteller at work and people keep incessantly (and perhaps rightly) asking, "Will it sell?"
Oscar season is here, and it's a time of discouragement for some. Still, I am increasingly excited by Hollywood's Big Dance. I root for my favorite films, filmmakers, and performers, (and let's certainly not forget the writers) as though they were my beloved Packers in the the Super Bowl. I cringe at the ornamental ceremony and awkward speeches, but thrive when something or someone I admire, whose works MATTERS to me, is given the highest recognition they can receive. Sure, it's kind of a popularity contest and much is considered by voters other than the actual work itself, but it means something to those that receive an Oscar and it means something to me. If nothing else, awards season buzz gives me a list of movies I want to see. As the Academy leans more toward "independent" fare over the Hollywood epics of old (and lose TV ratings along the way), they align themselves with my tastes.
I thought about critics. They tell us what is good and bad. They frame a film by their standards and are both praised and maligned for it. I will say this. A critic whom you trust, one that can say what they mean and back it up intelligently (and whom you believe), is worth his or her weight in gold. It's hard to say if I have a favorite critic. I start and end my search with Roger Ebert. If you grew up in the 80s or 90s, he (or his first TV co-host Gene Siskel) is probably the first critic you had ever heard of even before you knew what a critic was. As the years have passed, he has become like a trusted advisor to me. His passion for movies, even after all the horrible movies he has been forced to sit through, remains untarnished. "Two Thumbs Up" was the first recommendation for a film I can remember hearing, but I now look toward his written reviews for his wit, intelligent analysis, and standards. I want to know what he thinks.
I'll add this: everyone's a critic...and should be. I'll read Ebert's reviews for a starting point on deciding whether or not I want to see a movie, but sometimes I have to decide on my own. Sometimes I disagree with the man (such as on his review of The Usual Suspects), but I trust that he has reasons for what he's saying. Like a friend, I look to him for advice, not answers. Again, we should all do this. If you're having a chat with a pal and they begin talking about an awesome movie that you also think is awesome, pick their brain a while. Are your tastes aligned? If so, ask for recommendations. The best thing a fan of a film can do is tell someone else it is good and why. And like Ebert, you can look toward this person for advice, decide whether or not to see a movie, and come up with your own answer as to whether a movie is worthwhile.
If you love a movie, you have to share it. You could wacth a DVD in your living room painted in team colors or wearing a costume like the most rabid of sports fans (and many do), but remember that a good movie is a terrible thing to keep to yourself. And those who can't do, critique. That's okay, as long as they do it very well.

National Board of Review 2008 Awards

2008-12-04T17:51:00.002-05:00

Posted on IMDB today. I'm kind of shocked that Changeling found its way onto the best films list, but clearly there is some undue Clint Eastwood love circulating there.

Synecdoche, New York

2008-11-25T15:17:00.004-05:00

It's hard to comment on the narrative of Synecdoche, New York because it is as chaotic and dense as Charlie Kaufman would have you believe he intended all along. The truth is, that while Kaufman again offers insights in ways few other screenwriters or artists can, his story collapses into itself as it waltzes to its final fade out. That isn't to say there isn't merit to the chaos. S,NY is rife with themes that will plague your thoughts all the way home from the theater and into the next morning after you decided to try to sleep it off.

It's hard to give anyone a concrete synopsis. Yahoo Movies, Rottentomatoes, IMDB, and so forth all tried, but only managed to scratch the surface. What we watch, in a nutshell, is an artist waiting on a slowly but surely approaching death with the single intense desire to figure out the truth of his life through the fabrication of his life story as it happens past and present in a massive theater piece of which the scope is unfathomable as it increases in size until only the characters are still keeping track of who is who and why. Doesn't sound like a nutshell, huh?

I can talk about it all day and not really give anything away, because one watch isn't enough. It's a rough watch. I was uneasy and/or uncomfortable watching the film. There's plenty of Water The Fish(?) to go for miles. It seems impenetrable and so difficult to empathize or even sympathize with the characters on screen. It seems to go at least a half hour or so past its reported 2 hour and 4 minute runtime. I won't hurry back into the theater anytime soon to revisit the challenge, but somehow the anticipation of facing the challenge of watching Synecdoche, New York is exciting.

I can't really blame anyone for disliking this movie or even hating it. Everything negative you say is probably true, but there is a wealth of meaning and provocation under the dense and enigmatic surface.

On top of that and in spite of all claims otherwise, there are some amazing performances in this film. Phillip Seymour Hoffman carries this film on his weary and wounded shoulders, and conveys the essence of confusion, regret, loss, frustration, and fear that comes with living (though it is heightened dramatically). The best moments in this film are when he is quietly discovering something he had missed so easily while looking for it so very hard. And the truth is that S, NY is a cynical film, but above all a character piece about a man never able to see past himself. Kudos also to the supporting cast including a wonderfully alive and buoyant performance from Samantha Morton amongst the cold and uninviting atmosphere. The always enjoyable Diane Wiest, Tom Noonan, Michelle Williams and Emily Watson also contribute a light in the awkward chaos. And I find it both comforting and frustrating that the entire cast and Kaufman himself seem so sure of their message and film. But it's not altogether serious either. There is an absurdity to the whole thing that never quite allows the audience to fully engage the story. But that story does not exist without that absurdity.

I'll finish this review with a quote from Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly: "The compulsion to stand outside of one's life and observe it to this degree isn't the mechanism of art -- it's the structure of psychosis." Hoffman's character turns inward into himself a seemingly infinite amount of times for the insight to his shortcomings both in health and relationships, but ultimately learns nothing that can satisfy his need to search.

***1/2

Surf's Up

2008-11-20T11:18:00.002-05:00

Surf's Up is a fairly good way to pass the time, but it doesn't offer the same creativity and fun that its CGI friends and competitors offer. It's a sweet story about surfing penguins told in a mockumentary style. In that way, it is special. The voice work of Shia LaBeouf, Jeff Bridges, and Zooey Deschanel utilizes the awkwardness and spontaneity of the genre very well. The animation is beautiful and well-detailed and styled (the ocean is almost too real) and the story well told enough to enjoy, but there is little cleverness or ingenuity to the script. It's a small pleasure, but Surf's Up doesn't earn any more than a fond chuckle or smile or a babysitter's club seal of approval.

***

The Crying Game

2008-11-20T10:58:00.002-05:00

I recently caught up with one of the more buzzed about films of the 1990's. The film is notorious for it's twist. I had long ago had the twist ruined for me in a magazine article or two, but I had always misinterpreted the twist as an ending. In truth, it happens midway through the film. Although it does change the direction of the film, I found it to be quite interesting despite my prior knowledge.

The real discovery for me was the talent of Stephen Rea, which I am apparently the last film fan to know about. He is the soul and center of the Crying Game, and although Jaye Davidson's performance is the one most remembered, it was Rea's portrayal of a disillusioned IRA man that still sticks with me. Obviously, considering the political climate and history of Ireland, a disillusioned IRA man is rife with complexities and conflicts. When he seeks out the girlfriend of a recently deceased political hostage, the story stretches beyond any conventional narrative I could have expected.

The film is not without flaws. Much of the film's believability lies in Davidson's performance. It's a performance reeking of inauthenticity from the first time performer. I was bothered by it, but any number of viewers could easily attribute that the the inherent and necessary inauthenticity of the character.

It's an unconventional non-love romance set against the backdrop of political unrest. It's exciting because it's utterly unpredictable. I've never seen a story like this before, nor have I since.

The DVD offers an insightful documentary about the making of the film, and shows that this unexpected hit was truly a labor of love.

***1/2

Rachel Getting Married

2008-11-20T10:24:00.004-05:00

Be prepared for heaps of praise. I've been overusing the term "organic" lately, but Rachel Getting Married is certainly worthy of such a designation. There is not one false note in this film (perhaps to a fault). It is filled with lived in performances from an excellent cast deserving recognition come awards season. Chief among the standouts is Anne Hathaway. She stunned me with her vulnerability and willingness to leave her character to be interpreted and felt by the audience. Her character is not immediately likable, and she is certainly the catalyst for poking of the raw nerve of the family. She reveals her character slowly. I thought I had her pegged within the first 15 minutes, but there's depth to her and her relationships with her immediate family. Rosemarie Dewitt, as the title character, offers up a great supporting performance full of honesty, hurt, love, and tenderness that notes the breakout of a wonderful new talent. Family tragedy plays a large part to the raw nerve, but director Jonathan Demme and writer Jenny Lumet allow for the details to reveal themselves in fresh, real ways culminating with Anne Hathaway's Kym's harrowing confession to a support group. There's much to rave about when considering this film, but perhaps the biggest praise I can offer is that I not only watched this film but also felt every moment caught in the camera's grasp. Rachel Getting Married is a bare bones indie. There's not much style to it visually, though it certainly isn't bland. Rather, Demme allows the camera to be an unobtrusive voyeur in this family's intimate moment. The wedding rehearsal dinner might have gone on too long, but I chalked up its length to the revelation of these characters through unknown eyes and histories. And you better believe that there was a horror in my heart the moment Kym reached for the microphone. The wedding reception, also, may have run a bit long, but by that point in the film I had given myself over completely to these characters and their moment. I also was wonderfully aware that it was the coolest wedding I have ever seen. Rachel Getting Married understands and portrays the great complexity of familial love, resentment, regret, and heartache like no other film this year.

****1/2

The Rocketeer

2008-11-17T13:00:00.003-05:00

I caught up with this 1991 film over the weekend and really enjoyed it. It had just the right mix of nostalgia, homage, and reverence for the 1930's and the films of the era and those that depict the era. But rather than strictly adhering to the tone and style of its influences (like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow), The Rocketeer works as a film in its own right. It creates a memorable new hero for the silver screen. Billy Campbell plays Cliff Secord/The Rocketeer with classic charm, moxie, and stubborness. When he suits up, it's a special moment because he looks so darn cool and natural, like a product of another time plastered on the screen. His rapport with Alan Arkin is one of the chief pleasures of the film. There is a bit of goofball charm to the whole endeavor, but it fits with its overall aesthetic. I can't begrudge the film much because it's much too enjoyable for me to complain about small annoyances like the dated special effects.

****

Quantum of Solace

2008-11-17T04:54:00.004-05:00

It seems that Quantum of Solace adds up to little more than action filler in between Casino Royale and the next installment of the series. It's an entertaining film, but doesn't pack any of the same emotional payoff as it's most recent predecessor. There is little for Daniel Craig as Bond to do except scowl, punch, drive, shoot, and ruminate in his anger. The film opens with a car chase and doesn't allow the audience a chance to breathe for about 20 or so minutes. And then there's a break that serves only to take us to another action sequence. I'm not naive. The Bond franchise is an action franchise. It obviously has to up the action ante as the sequel to the excellent Casino Royale. At least make the bigger and longer sequences memorable. Save for each of the sequence's finales (and the entire desert hotel sequence), there was little to latch onto. The editing, although certainly less frantic than the Bourne franchise, was too chaotic and quick to follow well during the film's first act. It seems like a lot of grumbling from someone who actually enjoyed the movie. Daniel Craig as Bond, even given very little to do, is still an interesting hero. Judi Dench does well in her small role to create a useful character behind the scenes. But let's go ahead and point out that Mathieu Amalric is not a intimidating villain. Until he and Bond duke it out in the climatic hotel fire, I barely noticed him. It's a waste of a fine actor. And the bond girls - there are really only two. One is barely a hiccup in the plot, though her death does create some danger surrounding Mathieu Amalric's evil-doer. Olga Kurylenko is not up to acting snuff as Bond's revenge-hungry cohort. She's not bad persay, but is certainly a big step down from Eva Green's wonderful work in Casino Royale. A fun, disposable film that leads me to hope for more for Mr. Bond to do in all follow-ups. And he doesn't have to driving or piloting to keep my interest. A pistol and too deadly fists will do more to keep my attention.

***

Be Kind Rewind

2008-11-05T04:55:00.003-05:00

Be Kind Rewind is a completely original movie about making unoriginal art and the community that art creates. One alone could conceive of this movie and direct it - Michel Gondry. His visual inventiveness has come through in both Science of Sleep and now Be Kind Rewind. But he also brings together a cast performance led by Jack Black and Mos Def that is inside its own world, has its own tone, and seems both organic and spontaneous. The film is a living breath of new life. And while the story itself is slight in scope, Be Kind Rewind has big heart and big laughs that are earnestly asked for and received. The story allows Gondry to show off his trademark visual flair, and it begs the question if one can exist without the other. However, it becomes clear that Gondry and his cast believe in its themes and style to the point where the audience needs to surrender its driver's seat and let Gondry take the wheel. He knows where he's going and what he's doing.

****1/2

RocknRolla

2008-11-04T23:57:00.004-05:00

It's nice to see Guy Ritchie get back to his bread and butter, what has affectionately called Mockney crime films. He showed his skill with Lock, Stock and Snatch, then slid away. But RocknRolla, while not necessarily superior to its Mockney predecessors, is again a testament to his exciting talent. The excitement generated is inorganic and a kin to a "fizzy drink." But like my revered can of Diet Coke cooling in the fridge, RocknRolla is exceptionally made. There are a few standout scenes viscerally like the second Wild Bunch robbery, two heavies that won't go down easily, and the Johnny Quid club kill set to the "Rock and Roll Queen" song. Memorable adrenaline shots to the veins. It may not be fair to judge RocknRolla against Ritchie's past filmography. I should judge each film on its own merits, but I'm not gonna. Rocknrolla falls somewhere behind his first two films, but clearly excels over his most recent two ventures. It doesn't have the humor of Lock, Stock or Snatch (you probably won't hear me randomly quoting RocknRolla to pals), but it's a tightly plotted crime picture with finesse and character derived from its writer director and actors. It gets off to a rocky start with large amounts of voice over to hold our hands through the exposition and introduction of the characters, but finds its groove somewhere in the second act. And it just keeps getting better as the characters' situations keep getting worse. The cast's work is memorable and will bring me back for any of the proposed sequels if they ever actually get off the ground. RocknRolla also signals the break through of Toby Kebbel who plays thee rocknrolla Johnny Quid, who is all attitude and mood and a junkie weak enough to crumble and strong enough to strike the fear of Moses into you with a stare and twitch of his pencil.

***1/2

Tropic Thunder

2008-11-04T23:29:00.002-05:00

Tropic Thunder is as irreverent as it claimed to be in its promotion. It certainly works to its benefit. Casting Jack Black and Robert Downey, Jr. in roles that lampoon their peers and themselves is a hoot of the highest caliber, and softens any of the bullseyes painted on their Hollywood peers. This is an in-joke out and out, to the extent that the Hollywood it satirizes was part of its success.

The movie is funny and laugh out loud so. It goes for broke and pushes boundaries, but kept me from cringing 90% of the time with the realization that the people doing these ignorant, bizarre, unacceptable things are portrayed as ignorant and foolish and self-important buffoons for our amusement. We're meant to laugh at them and not feel bad about it. And I did and did not. So mission accomplished.

I could literally spend a couple pages just doing the fan "remember how funny that one scene was" thing, but suffice to say it has enough entertainment to engage all the way through. An unusually well executed movie considering all the hype behind it. My favorite comedy since Superbad from a year ago, and definitely a cut above Pineapple Express.

The cast is good. Sometimes they're swamped in chaos, but it chaos engineered for comedy even if it seems unorganized and mashed together. Props to the three stars: Downey, Jr., Black, and Ben Stiller for flexing their funny muscles (Downey, Jr. in particular goes to the mat to humiliate himself for the good of his audience). Nick Nolte also is appropriately gruff and grizzled in the first role that seems perfectly tailored to his inherent outlandishness. And Jay Baruchel is a capable and winning foil for the zaniness of his co-stars in Tropic Thunder the movie and Tropic Thunder the movie. Note - the hilariousness of Tom Cruise's cameo has been exaggerated. I found Matthew McConaughey to be a bigger surprise after his romantic comedy slumming.

****

Mickey Rourke in Entertainment Weekly

2008-11-03T03:45:00.004-05:00

If you've ever given a hoot about Mickey Rourke (and I sure do - Boogie in Diner, Henry in Barfly - 'nuff said), then check out this awesome feature from EW.

schedule

2008-10-30T18:50:00.001-05:00

expect reviews of Rocknrolla and Tropic Thunder late Sunday night or the early hours of Monday morning

Body of Lies

2008-10-25T23:26:00.008-05:00

Body of Lies is a solid thriller and the first war on terror movie of recent years to put entertainment first. That could be problem number one, but the filmmakers are aware of the need for the audience to stay engaged with the material when others have put messages and political posturing ahead of said entertainment. There are politics involved, but most of the heavy-handedness is left behind in favor of a lesser form of Tony Scott's Enemy of the State's satellite views and board rooms and Peter Berg's The Kingdom's street battles. Leonardo Dicaprio acts through his Southern Twang and curiously bushy beard (you get used to it - you shouldn't have to really, but you will) to play the CIA's man on the ground in the Middle East. Russell Crowe acts through his Tom Cruise in Collateral hair, accent, spectacles and protruding paunch (and more effectively than his counterpart) to play the CIA suit back in the U.S. of A.. And the excellent Mark Strong plays a Jordanian intelligence head. All the performers sink their teeth into their parts, adding considerable bravado to their roles. I bought into it, though the push to ACT may irk some. The film, like writer William Monahan's breakthrough The Departed, is an excercise in genre. Unlike The Departed (a film I still declare is overrated), Monahan's Body of Lies script doesn't have any overtly memorable dialogue. In truth, it entertains without being memorable. It's better than a one-watcher, but doesn't hold up to the shadow of the underrated and already forgotten August film Traitor. And after the entertainment ends in Body of Lies, I'm left to wonder what if anything I have learned, or more importantly if I should (given the setting, plot, and current world politics) be learning anything. Well directed, acted, and filmed but not lasting in impact. And then Traitor comes to mind...The problem is that Body of Lies is entertaining in a fun way - all the violence, backstabbing, and spying I appreciate in a CIA thriller...only it's really happening somewhere in the world right now. And maybe I should rethink entertainment in general. Because Traitor is entertaining AND says something more than just the reality of the complexity and difficulty of international intelligence. Plus Don Cheadle is as fine as any other actor out there right now. Here's me asking P.T. Anderson or Steven Soderberg to cast him in another one of their ensemble dramas again.

Traitor ***1/2
Body of Lies ***

Tell No One - Criticinema

2008-10-18T05:27:00.002-05:00

I missed this one in theaters, but here good things. Dan at Criticinema said this:

DAN - Tell No One is a thrilling French mystery from director Guillaume Canet, based on a novel by Harlan Coben. The film follows Alex Beck, a doctor whose wife was murdered eight years ago. When new details emerge concerning his wife’s death, Beck must run from the law in search of the truth.

After seeing this film, I think it’s safe to say that I’m a sucker for French movies. Maybe it’s the romance of their language, or maybe I just don’t expect to see such well-made films from foreign countries. Either way, I liked this one.

François Cluzet plays the protagonist well. I’ve never seen him before, but I enjoyed this performance. The supporting cast of characters, a few of whom I recognized, also works well.

One thing that I found somewhat odd about this movie was the music. There are a lot of lighthearted songs that don’t seem to fit the story, and it doesn’t help that most of them are in English. The presence of U2's “With or Without You” was especially jarring for me, but it led to a moment that suggested a romantic side of the film.

I loved the stunts in this film. Beck takes a few punches, jumps from windows, and nearly gets run over on a highway, and it all looks convincing. Even something as simple as tripping and falling onto the pavement made me cringe. It looked painful.

There were several points in the movie where characters made references to something I didn’t understand, and I’d say to myself, “What did I miss?” But it would all be cleared up before the end of the film. There’s a particularly lengthy scene of exposition that ties a lot of loose ends together, and it was a relief.

Tell No One threw me for some loops, but it all worked out by the time the credits rolled. I was never certain what to believe, and I didn’t see the twists coming, which is a good thing for any mystery. Good story, good performances, and good direction.

****

Body of Lies - Criticinema

2008-10-18T05:22:00.002-05:00

I'm not likely to see this movie in a timely manner, so here are some trustworthy guys' opinions: from the Criticinema blog.

STEVE - Leonardo Dicaprio and Russell Crowe star in the latest film from Director Ridley Scott. Body of Lies is a spy film set in the middle of the Iraq War. DiCaprio plays Agent Ferris, a solo on the ground CIA spy who tries to stop terrorism single handedly, while Crowe plays as Ferris’s ever watchful boss Ed Hoffman, who is always observing from the sky.

Real locations and sets serve the mise-en-scene in creating Ridley Scott’s dirty and depressing modern day Middle East. The cinematography aids in creating a stylized and fast paced film that unfortunately becomes sluggish due to a creative but Hollywood contaminated plot.

I recall talking to a friend about the overall plot after viewing the film. There where many sideplots and subplots and loveplots and subparplots. And the main plot (for which the title is named) becomes sandwiched between all these other plots and ultimately is left with itty-bitty-little space to breath. I believe when attempting to describe how the main plot was executed the word my friend used was, (insert high pitch voice) “Bloop!” And I think that pretty much sums it up.

Body of Lies isn’t anything special. Good acting and decent cinematography regrettably doesn’t make up for a poor plot(s) that could have been salvaged into something superior. It’s an ordinary, middle-of-the-road, run of the mill film that leaves you with nothing more than a few, fun, distracting hours. The movie attempts to send a message, but it ultimately was lost. After watching I just kinda felt like… well… I’ve had better.

***

__________________________

DAN - Ridley Scott’s latest film is an espionage thriller set chiefly in Jordan. Leonardo DiCaprio plays a CIA operative with a plan to infiltrate a terrorist organization, and Russell Crowe acts as his boss at Langley.

There’s not much more to it. This film follows the recent trend of terrorist-related movies set in the Middle East (Syriana, The Kingdom). Throughout most of the movie, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I’d seen it before. I wanted something new, but this felt like a rehash.

Near the end of the movie, Crowe’s character says, “Ain’t nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There’s nothing here to like.” As far as films go, I tend to agree. I’m bored by the deserts, worn buildings, and warfare.

I didn’t have an emotional investment in any of the characters, and I rarely felt that they were in danger. There’s a romantic subplot that develops halfway through the film, and it seemed out of place.

I was bothered by a couple of things that should have been irrelevant, but they caught my eye. Most of them aren’t worth mentioning, but here’s one example. Ever since I saw the trailers for this movie, I’ve been annoyed by the characters’ hair. I know it should be trivial, but there’s no reason to dye DiCaprio’s hair pitch black (including his goatee). And Crowe’s hair doesn’t need to be grey and spiky. It was noticeably fake and distracting.

I was surprised to see Mark Strong as a Jordanian character, but he pulled it off. Strong has played supporting characters in several notable movies, such as Sunshine, Stardust, and a few Guy Ritchie films. Sure enough, his character in this movie has awkward grey streaks in his unnaturally black hair.

Even with all of my complaints, Body of Lies is a decent movie. It’s just not very inventive. I want more from the likes of Ridley Scott.

***

The Hoax

2008-10-15T04:09:00.004-05:00

I cannot believe I almost forgot to review this movie. This was the most fun I've had with a movie in a long time. Richard Gere gives a standout performance Clifford Irving, as the daring writer of the notorious Howard Hughes fake autobiography. He fooled smart people into giving him a million dollars to make up the famous Aviator and billionaire's life story, and he did it with guts, bravado, cunning, luck, and brilliance. It was an art. The fact that Gere as Irving is also self-centered, a liar, and a bit depraved is not lost in his performance nor the performances of the excellent supporting cast that includes Alfred Molina, Hope Davis, and Marcia Gay Harden. But Gere and Irving are charming and convincing of dubious lies and half-truths in a way that allows the audience to see his attractiveness and winning qualities. For all the lies and ruined lives that he left in his wake, Irving created what may be the most beautiful, complex, and artistic lie ever. His hoax is art. In an age when James Frey is vilified for his inauthentic memoir on Oprah, I wonder if in time and retrospect Frey's hoax will become art. The Hoax's director, Lasse Hallstom is the director of several acclaimed films including Chocolat and The Cider House Rules, yet his talent is often slighted by critics for his tendency toward Oscar-bait and heavy-handed material. Hallstrom guides The Hoax with a subtle hand. I never saw his hands on the film except for a CGI-lite plunge off a hotel balcony. Praise is due because he sculpted the performances, tone, and drive of the film in such a way that I rarely if never left the reality of the film while watching it to gauge his skill. The Hoax is the best forgotten or overlooked film of 2007. And Gere's performance in The Hoax (when included with other standouts roles in Chicago, Unfaithful, and underrated The Mothman Prophecies) cements his status as an actor of note after a subpar romance and thriller-filled decade in the 1990's.

****

Unknown

2008-10-15T03:41:00.003-05:00

The film is a construct of its conceit, and therein lies it's chief attraction. Synopsis:

Five men waking up in a chemical warehouse and realizing they don't know who they are and how they got there. But through time they deduct that some of them are hostages and some are kidnappers. The men now must figure out who is who as they've learned the lead kidnapper is on his way and plans to kill the hostages.
-Yahoo Movies

It brings the best part of the first Saw to mind, but Unknown has a solid cast and better than average plotting. Its setup and thrust into the action and confusion is thrilling, but the film struggles to maintain that level of excitement and believability through the climax. Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Joe Pantoliano, Jeremy Sisto, and Barry Pepper (you go, boy!) are the five men and Bridget Moynahan is the fretful wife of one of the hostages on the outside. The writer and the director aren't aces at their crafts (as evidenced by cliched visual cues and slighted yet prominent characters), but there is enough mystery and slight of hand to keep the audience guessing. Even when I had it figured out, the film had one twist left. Though that last twist may be to the film and audience's detriment. It added apathy to what had been up to that point my mild enjoyment. Still, I can recommend the film to fans of the cast and someone looking for something new on the shelves of Blockbuster (do people still go to video stores?) on a Saturday night.

I will say this: Jim Caviezel's performance in Unknown shows a vague but familiar hint of the untold potential he showed first in Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line. I don't think Caviezel can realize that potential again unless he is revived by another visionary director with the right part.

***

Dreamgirls

2008-10-15T03:22:00.002-05:00

There are many showstopping moments in Dreamgirls. When they're singing, the actors fully embody the full magnitude of their characters' emotional dramatic potentials. When they're not singing (which is rarely), the performances can come off a little stale. I can see why Jennifer Hudson won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar in 2007 for her performance as Effie White: it's for her tumultuous, gut-wrenching, powerful rendition of the song "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going". Wow. Breath-taking. Her handling of dialogue between songs: so-so and equal to the less acclaimed performance of superstar Beyonce Knowles as starlet and Diana Ross avatar (new favorite word) Deena Jones. The knock may be that while the production values, performances, and general entertainment are uniformly solid, Dreamgirls is not transcendent. None of these elements surpass the peaks of the musical genre. And perhaps my biggest knock is that none of the songs remain memorable to me save for Hudson's "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" and Knowles' "Listen". The one surprise for me was that the hype and praise for Eddie Murphy's performance as James "Thunder" Early is earned. It's an exciting, volatile, and entertaining performance that appears just as spontaneous as it does calculated.

***

Kung Fu Panda

2008-10-15T02:56:00.002-05:00

Kung Fu Panda seems slight in substance. However, upon searching my memory, it's endlessly entertaining. The comedy and kung fu makes what probably would have been my favorite film if I was 11 or 12. As an adult, I can still see the seeds of calculated cunning. First, cast Jack Black as our hero Po. It seems an easy choice, and it is: because it's the right choice. He is able to infuse his onscreen avatar with his zany, boasterous humor, but temper it with a vulnerabilty and meekness that shows range (if only in his voice). Second, The script is smart and knowing. It understands that it is a cartoon for today. That's why any hint of self-seriousness is tossed away in favor of good-natured fun. That's why there're action figures with authentic battle damage. There's a lesson, but for the life of me I can't remember what it is. Maybe "believe in yourself"? Meh. Cue Rob Schneider (he's not busy): "You can do it!" The animation is also top-notch with character designs that put Kung Fu Panda in a league above other Dreamworks animated films like Shrek and Shark Tale. It's not up there with the Pixar elite, but it's a belly bounce in the right direction. Skidoosh.

***1/2

The Rocker

2008-10-15T02:39:00.002-05:00

Comedy check: did I laugh? Yes. A lot? Not really. The problem with The Rocker is mainly that every beat is as predictable as the last. There's nothing unexpected to the humor in The Rocker. And the trials and tribulations of the protagonist's mediocre band are as old and tired as a VH1: Behind the Music rerun. The only unique thing about this band is the old guy playing drums. And Rainn Wilson was miscast in his role. He seemed blatantly out of place as the has been wannabe black sheep drummer uncle. I don't want to typecast the guy into his Office persona: Dwight Schrute, but it's clear this direction was not the way to go. Chalk Emma Stone, who was so good in her supporting role in Superbad, up to miscasting as well. Her character's meant to be an awkward-friend-outcast, but Stone's clearly gorgeous and charismatic and eminently noticeable to everyone but supposed teen heartthrob and singer Teddy Geiger. Geiger's as dull as a doornail and must cop to the easily most cliched and boring character. Bright spot - Wilson chasing down his fleeing former bandmates on foot as they make their getaway in a van. An inspired comedic moment that only made the subsequent lack more apparent. Bright spot - Josh Gad as Wilson's awkward nephew. Gad's performance is genuine in a movie reeking of artifice.

**

Get Smart

2008-10-15T02:27:00.002-05:00

I'll preface this review by saying that I have only passing, vague memories of the original television show.

Get Smart as a comedy shall be judged by genuine, well-earned laughs. I don't remember laughing once, though I may have cracked a smile once or twice. As an action film, Get Smart shall be judged on thrills. I wasn't impressed by any of the action sequences. I approached the movie with a certain amount of expectations based on Steve Carrell's starring role. However, it seemed that Carrell was playing at a character rather than embodying a character. His performance was more a kin to his shoddy work in Evan Almighty than the highs of Dan in Real Life or Little Miss Sunshine. He was straining to turn the lackluster dialogue and hijink setups in the script into laughs and the strain showed always. Anne Hathaway was gorgeous and dull and not at all believable as a spy (even in a comedy). Dwayne Johnson should not act. And Alan Arkin made me cry with his grumpy/fuming/hoarse company man routine. He's done it better in better films (i.e. - Glengarry Glen Ross, 13 Conversations About One Thing). In short, I was unentertained by the whole spectacle, and I cannot think of one interesting thing to say about it.

*1/2

Me You and Everyone We Know

2008-10-15T02:12:00.003-05:00

I think this film is best seen through the eyes of its creator - a performance artist. So I see the movie as as art outside the realm of what I am used to in terms of narrative, character expectations, acting, and so on. What it seems to be is an uniquely quirky film about odd-yet-easily-recognizable characters finding their way through love in its various forms. I was never bored. My interest remained peaked throughout. It was not always successful in cohesiveness - each of the "story" threads (July and Hawkes' love, Hawkes loves kids, creepy wannabe pedophile loves girls, online miscommunication) don't add up together despite writer/director/actress Miranda July's attempts. The sum of the parts is not the whole - and yet these are not vignettes. July's dialogue scratches her characters' surfaces, but it's the unsaid hurt and longing and apathy that lend her film gravity. As a performer, July is lacking. As an experimentalist, she's intriguing and refreshingly bold. Me You and Everyone We Know is not a complete thought. And I don't know that I get it all. But I want to know more...about everyone July knows or will know. I want to start with actor John Hawkes who has sparked my interest with tiny but memorable work in American Gangster and Miami Vice.

***

Best Actors Working Today?

2008-10-14T22:56:00.008-05:00

I came upon this article on The Movie Blog (which I have never visited) interestingly enough. Here's the list and the link to the article and comments from yay and nay-sayers. Fun to make lists. Harder to agree.

Movie Blog's List:

#10 - DON CHEADLE
#9 - RALPH FIENNES
#8 - CHIWETEL EJIOFOR
#7 - BRAD PITT
#6 - SEAN PENN
#5 - WILLIAM HURT
#4 - TOM HANKS
#3 - LEONARDO DICAPRIO
#2 - DANIEL DAY LEWIS
#1 - RUSSELL CROWE

Honorable Mention (In no particular order)
- Philip Seymour Hoffman
- Christian Bale
- Edward Norton
- Joseph Fiennes
- Ed Harris
- Johnny Depp
- Tom Cruise
- John Cusack
- George Clooney

It made me recall a similar list I flipped through in my teens in Entertainment Weekly - Top Actors of the 90's (on the cover as "Hollywood's 25 Greatest Actors)

I believe in no particular order:
Sean Penn
Johnny Depp
Harvey Keitel
Nicolas Cage
Anthony Hopkins
Ed Harris
Robert Downey, Jr.
Kevin Spacey
Samuel L. Jackson
Kevin Kline
Jeff Bridges
Gary Oldman
Alec Baldwin
Robin Williams
William H. Macy
Tom Hanks
Morgan Freeman
Denzel Washington
Kevin Bacon
James Woods
Daniel Day Lewis
Laurence Fishburne
Ralph Finnes
Robert De Niro
John Malcovich

MY TOP MOVIE ACTORS RIGHT NOW/TODAY/AS WE SPEAK:
small print:2-3 top-notch performances in the last five years [released in the U.S. 2003-2008] establishes A)more than just potential and B)best work is not just behind them. "Top-notch" is a designation I will leave loosely defined - though I'll admit it must surpass "a lot of fun," "merely charismatic," or "personal favorite," - and is the word most easily and welcomely contested in debate. Choices limited by what I have seen within the last 5 years.

4 round process: each rounds results available upon request

Final Rankings:

1.Phillip Seymour Hoffman (The Savages, Capote)
2.Robert Downey, Jr. (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Zodiac, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints)
3.George Clooney (Syriana, Michael Clayton)
4.Ryan Gosling (Half Nelson, Lars and the Real Girl)
5.Mark Ruffalo (Zodiac, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)
6.Cillian Murphy (The Wind That Shakes the Barley, Sunshine, 28 Days Later)
7.Clive Owen (Children of Men, Closer)
8.Jake Gyllenhaal (Brokeback Mountain, Zodiac)
9.Casey Affleck (The Assassination of Jesse James, Gone Baby Gone)
10.Matt Damon (Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum, Syriana)

11.Leonardo DiCaprio (The Aviator, The Departed)
12.Peter Sarsgaard (Shattered Glass, Garden State, Jarhead)
13.Paul Schneider (The Assassination of Jesse James, All the Real Girls, Lars and the Real Girl)
14.Steve Carrell (The 40 Year Old Virgin, Dan in Real Life, Little Miss Sunshine)
15.Brenden Gleeson (In Bruges, 28 Days Later)

comments are welcome

Anybody have a list they want to post?

WALL-E

2008-07-17T23:23:00.005-05:00

WALL-E is a cute little romp in the way that Charlie Chaplain's adventures are cute -a compliment to be sure. I was entertained by a love story reminiscent in some ways to The Tramp's love stories. When the plot shifted to saving the humans, I was less involved. This is a common complaint. It's the only complaint I've heard. Humans just get in the way of these two robots in their perpetual meet-cute. It's not so off putting as to distract from all the films other considerable quantity of qualities, and must have been added to give the characters something interesting to do. Otherwise, the story could have been kept in short film form and been adequate enough. With all the added shenanigans, we do get a heart wrenching scene between a rebuilt E.V.E. and a hopeful E.V.E. that ends the film more sweetly than a short film with them making blocks of trash could. It's cute and creates two interesting hunks of metal that never utter more than their names and the word "directive." But WALL-E shows how much you can say with so little. And, oh yeah, it looks great, too. It's a good film, but I feel it's becoming overrated. I wouldn't put it in the ranks of Pixar's best.

***1/2

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

2008-07-17T22:53:00.002-05:00

It's hard to point the finger at Hellboy II. I can't quite place my disappointment. I just think that it isn't a strong of a film as its predecessor. The problem may begin with Hellboy and Liz being in a relationship. Hellboy pining after Liz was a hell of a lot more interesting than there current domestic squabbles. Honestly, their relationship was more pedestrian than the participants. The exit of Agent Myers is left unexplained, and like the odd exit of Tank in The Matrix sequels, I was wondering why. Agent Myers was a useful tool in orienting the audience with the freaks, a foothold or familiarity amongst oddities. The same is true for the agent who was close to Hellboy in the first movie that met his demise. There are no human interests in this movie. It's a movie for the freaks. And while it explores these freaks longing for acceptance, recognition, and whatnot, there's no basis that this movie offers me for investment other than "Remember how swell these weirdos are from the first movie? They're back." And that's almost enough. They are all strange and charming enough in their own ways to merit sticking around for the whole runtime, but their adventure is no more relevant to me than Thomas the Tank Engine and certainly not the kind that sticks with you after it's over. That's a bit of a tangent. Regroup.

I understand the use of the Hellboy child on Christmas scene as a way to introduce a lot of information in a way that is more interesting than subtitle cards or scrolling text at the beginning. But Hellboy as a kid A) sounds off B) looks off C) acts poorly. This is not Hellboy as a child. This is a haphazard attempt to approximate how a child's Halloween costume with a budget might look. As for the exposition. It's a bit heavy before any real action has begun. I think it may have been better to let the audience be a bit disoriented along the way as the action unfolded and bits of the legend revealed itself. As is, the story is a bit different than the press coverage has led me to believe. Still, there is enough action, enough charm, and enough fun to keep audience members involved. I will say that I've viewed Del Toro as a visionary director for some time now, with little awe for his dialogue or storytelling. Pan's Labyrinth offered hope to the contrary, but I'm afraid that Hellboy II is more a return to his work in Mimic and Blade II. He knows how to entertain, but doesn't push further. It's fun and worth a night out, but I don't really need to see it again.

***

Cloverfield

2008-07-17T22:26:00.002-05:00

It's an effective thriller - extremely well directed and staged - but it doesn't quite live up to the months of Internet hype. As a new way to tell an old, tired genre story, it excels. This is unlike any monster movie I've seen before, and unlike any other save for the similarly hyped Blair Witch Project. The two films share visual styles, but little else. Cloverfield has a bigger budget, working (but still unknown actors), and special effects that rival or surpass all other star-studded Hollywood blockbusters. There's also effective storytelling. It's streamlined, no information is superfluous even during the extended and meandering opening party scene. The party is our introduction to the cast of characters, and even with little background information or concrete reason to root for them, I found myself very invested in Rob's journey to his loved one in the heart of monster mischief and destruction. And the monster - after months of watching advertisements and trailers that showed no images of the thing (great idea), I was stoked to see the thing in action. A lot was riding on that thing. And...it was okay. It wasn't all that more horrifying than its monster genre brethren and not altogether new. I guess I just wasn't surprised when I saw it. Then again, it might have had to juggle skyscrapers and New York socialites while sporting a top hat. Still, there are scares. The little biting creatures are frightening. The acting may be the least authentic part of the movie that screams its own brand of authenticity, though it is oodles better than any average monster, slasher, horror, thriller in the canon. And this brand of authenticity requires a character to run throughout the movie with a handheld camera. It's completely believable. And at times annoying. It can be difficult to tell what is going on and can be headache inducing. But it's consistent and leads to several genuine moments such as when the night vision flares in the tunnel and Hud sees the monster up close from the helicopter and ground views. An interesting experiment that mostly succeeds.

***

Wanted

2008-07-03T22:37:00.002-05:00

Wanted is the biggest disappointment of the summer - a big, dumb excuse to shoot guns and blow up rats (yes, RATS!). The film takes what it would call a irreverent tone, but it's far too cute to get me excited. It opens with awful voice over that serves as our introduction to Wesley Gibson (James MacAvoy), an office drone searching for himself. We spend the movie with him to the detriment of every other character. No one else has a chance to really do anything (just leap, bend, beat, shoot, and act bad ass). Angelina Jolie barely registers in her much hyped role. Morgan Freeman gets his little speeches, but there's nothing to his character or the other assassins of the secret fraternity. That leaves MacAvoy to keep our interest. And he can't. He can't handle the humor or awkwardness of the character. His line delivery is all over the place. It's truly disarming after his superb work in Atonement. He just seems very uncomfortable in the role and carrying this movie. It's not really worth carrying. The visuals can be fascinating with rather seamless special effects and stunts, but it often undermines this with ill-used dialogue or visual cues. I couldn't bring myself to care about this movie or its inhabitants. The stakes are (I suppose) big, but I can't be invested in the characters' lives so the stakes are moot. These people are willing to kill and die for something bigger than themselves, but I have to care when they do.

*1/2

I am Legend

2008-07-03T16:11:00.002-05:00

Will Smith is a star deserving of a showcase like I am Legend. He's on nearly every frame of film and is forced to dig deep for character in the absence of a supporting cast to play off of. What he does get is a dog. Much like Wilson the volleyball in Castaway, the filmmakers must have realized their solitary man needed someone to talk to. It works. The film exercises a sense of atmospheric dread. It's when the film reveals the source of the dread that the film lost traction. These infected are computer generated baldies that reminded me of a cross between the loose-jawed namesake in The Mummy and the video game zombies of the original Resident Evil. And they weren't real. And I was fully aware of that. It's a flaw when I have to try to make myself believe during all the confrontation scenes. Also, how do people survive a grenade blast two feet away from them to deliver stilted voice over so we can have a sense of closure in this fallen reality? As much as this is a one man show, I wish Smith had more to do. More to stretch him than a dog (a capable actor in his own right) and hundreds of hungry freaks like the stretchy native in Street Fighter II. It's a well made film that knows what it's doing. I wish it just wanted to do more. In the end, there's just not that much to it.

***

Days of Glory

2008-07-03T16:01:00.002-05:00

Days of Glory follows the lives of French/Algerian soldiers during World War II and the class and inner struggles they faced on the front lines. The film centers on the lives of three particular soldiers, though two brothers get an amount of screen time that distracts from the main characters' storyline. As a piece of history, Days of Glory chronicles interesting, new information. As a character piece, I was left wanting more. I couldn't attach myself to these people, so the time I spent with them and their ultimate demises and triumphs were a bit hollow when history would say otherwise. I don't fault the actors. I can't fault the filmmakers. There is care put into the making of this film; I just couldn't muster much. It didn't feel alive to me.

***