What Doesn't Kill You

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

Appaloosa

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

The Savages

I had heard mixed reviews for this movie for a while, but I read the script for my screenwriting class and really enjoyed it. The movie was its own kind of pleasure. I think since I can relate to having a loved one in a nursing home with dementia, the character echoed my parents in ways I couldn't see before. The guilt. The awkward, heartbreaking goodbyes after short visits. The struggle to see your parents weak and frail and dying. And family. Another family movie that speaks to the strange ties that bind. Thick blood that sticks to everything even when it hurts. This is strong writing. This is strong acting. Laura Linney has her own brand of theatricity, but she is, to borrow a classic critic cliche, a winning performer. Her acting is specific to her and I can say with a smile that she played her character in a way no other actress could have. She's not imitating anyone. And after seeing Phillip Seymour Hoffman in his spectrum of quality performances this year (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Charlie Wilson's War), I'd have to say that his work as John Savage is my favorite. It's not the gritty drama of BTDKYD, but it offers its own kind of drama. The chemistry between Hoffman, Linney, and the fine Phillip Bosco as their father is palpable. He's able to create a conflicted character that easily could have turned into the "evil brother". Instead, there was a helpless sadness to the guy that seemed all too familiar. There's comedy, but this is really a drama through and through. And rewarding at that.

****

In Bruges

This movie was a very pleasant surprise. The trailers try to pass In Bruges as a madcap, dark, edgy, action picture a la Pulp Fiction or Snatch, but it turns out In Bruges is quite melancholy. It's a character piece, with the two hitmen (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson in excellent performances each) being the chief draw. What makes these men tick? How do they handle conflict? These aren't the questions most hitmen movie even bother asking themselves. Bullets, pizazz, and edgy editing are the norm. In Bruges is anything but.

Sure, all the stuff in the trailer is in the film and it can be quite un-PC and irreverent quite often (sometimes strangely and offensively), but that doesn't distract from an interesting story about two men and the drama that comes in the form of regret, grace, vengeance, honor, and ambiguity.

The film can be a mess at times, but it's a organized mess. Things add up.

There's a doozy of an ending. A surprise without a twist. The kind of ending that leaves you a bit hobbled, stuck considering many things after the credits abruptly begin rolling and the theater lights come up. How many hitman movies can you honestly say leave you really thinking after they're done?

****

Lars and the Real Girl

Lars and the Real Girl is the biggest surprise of the year so far. It somehow manages to take what on the surface seems like a "frat pack" movie (man falls in love with a sex doll) and turns it into something tender, heartbreaking and emotionally resonating.

I am positive that the movie takes mental illness and skews it to its own benefit, but using the doll as a extension of Lars problems proves to be a convincing ploy. By all logic and expectations, I should have no connection to this inanimate hunk of plastic; but I grew attached to her so much, I think, because I knew as the townspoeple did that Bianca was so important to Lars who was important to them.

The film also portrayed the townspeople and Christians as caring, helpful, and decent people. I want to move to that town. It doesn't exist, but write me into a town where people care that much about their neighbors.

The second best film of the year so far behind Zodiac.

****1/2

The Darjeeling Limited

I was drawn into the movie through its characters, distinct from each other in mannerisms, speech, and habits, but connected in a storied relationship crafted with a history that is revealed naturally instead of overtly. The characters' bond with each other becomes all the more clear when a tragic event takes us back into their last shared tragic event so that the audience can see that although these people are tied together chiefly by blood, their love becomes apparent when something hard, sad, and quieting happens.

I also believed that traveling on a train with my two brothers across a foreign country could alternately be the greatest and worst times I've ever had.

****

Dan in Real Life "I was able to relate to this blunt sting of emotion that comes with angst and sharp emotions. Adult angst."

When I was watching this movie with my mom on Saturday the word "saccharine" came to mind. Partly, it was because I wanted to seem smart, even to myself. Partly, it was because it fit. Dan in Real Life is sweet, but not so sweet that it rots your teeth. Instead, it was the kind of sweetness that left my spirits buoyed about the possibility and necessity of love the way only the fictionalized world of film can do (that's both sad and pleasing).

In short, Dan is a columnist, widowed dad of three young daughters, and part of a larger family of brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, and parents that gather together to close down their lakeside house for the year. Dan has a meet-cute with Marie (Juliette Binoche), who he really likes but is dating his brother (Dane Cook). Dan tries to balance his new elation and hope for this woman with his devotion to his brother and temperamental daughters. The emotional turmoil that ensues equals hijinks and emotion that entertain and satisfy that warm, fuzzy part of my being.

The film doesn't stray much from the order of events you'd expect from the set up, but what raises this film above the trappings of a sitcom or cookie-cutter rom-com is its strength of characters (particularly Dan and Marie) and strict believability in the way the characters handle the events while still maintaining the genre's sensibilities.

Steve Carrell continues to show depth and range beyond what he became known as on the Daily show - the clueless but endearing and pleasant buffoon. That continues in The Office (albeit with a more room for development). Now that he's in films that embrace his range, I'm beginning to latch onto his skill and persona. His solid work in Little Miss Sunshine was deserving of more recognition and his work as Dan only serves to further his nuanced forty-somethings. His Dan is going through growing pains normally attached to adolescence - the thrill of impulsive love - that somehow link a diverse audience to this family man. I don't have kids. I haven't lost a wife. But I was able to relate to this blunt sting of emotion that comes with angst and sharp emotions. Adult angst. It makes for a very good character.

Julliette Binoche, whom I must admit I just recently discovered in her small role in Paris Je T'aime, makes up the other half of this interesting infatuation. I am amazed by her subtle specificity. Her face carries so much information on it in action and reaction that I thought I could read her so much better than many of the female characters I have seen in more traditional rom-coms. She's also believable. Even when Dan and Marie's interactions are pulled directly from the rom-com rulebook, she and Carrell are able to give a sense of spontaneity that rings much truer than what I've seen before. The fact that I really, really liked her and Dan made me really pull for them. And because of that, the conflict was all the more involving. Conflict without investment in the characters and situations surrounding it is fruitless.

Eventually, the film does pull off one of those familiar sweet as candy endings, but by then I was so rooted in the characters that I was able to dismiss (well, mostly) the derivitive nature of the moment. The fact that the ending is open and closed shows off some of the films respect for its characters.

That respect extends to the family as well. The family interactions are familiar, but still ring of authenticity in the relationships. Family members are uniquely pleased and annoyed by each other because there is that foundation of love. So, even when characters respond in ways that further the conventions of the genre, I was satisfied that a loving family was being portrayed in that it saw one of its members struggling and reacted in a way related to truth from that ideal.

It's a solid, crowd-pleasing movie that left me smiling. Among all the rough and tumble of the films at the multiplex this time of year, I was very happy to leave a film not only excited about production values, acting, directing, writing, thrills, chills, sadness, and relevancy, but also for the good I felt coursing through me as I walked out of the theater.

****

Ordinary People

For the longest time, the only time I heard about Ordinary People was when people mentioned that it robbed Raging Bull of Best Director and Best Picture Oscars in 1980. Then I saw Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls a while back and tried to find out what he's all about. Turns out he won a deserved Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 1980 for Ordinary People. "Huh," I said. "I oughtta see that." And now i finally have.

Ordinary People is a film boiling over with emotional truth. The ordinary people of the title are relatable. I could know them. I could be them. I certainly saw parts of myself in characters.

The film is about a family struggling to connect and keep a sense of normality after the accidental death of one son and the attempted suicide of another. That's enough to make any family crack. And they certainly do.

Hutton plays the son, Conrad, who attempted suicide. The film starts as he is going back to school at the beginning of a new school year. He received the Oscar for a supporting role, but his story anchors the entire film. He carries it. Everybody else helps, but he shoulders the best of it.

He delivered a big, bright, and amazing performance. Somehow he was able to stare blankly at nothing and convey an avalanche of thought behind his eyes. His awkwardness and anger in therapy scenes with Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch) were accurately and believable performed. What really struck me in those scenes was the details he put into inflection, stops and starts, and change in emotions that were impeccable.

Hirsch played the dream psychiatrist, one who pulls you through your reluctance and resistance to a place you could never have reached on your own. It might be a movie myth - this amazing type of psychiatrist. But it certainly works in Ordinary People.

I liked that the love story between Conrad and a co-ed (Elizabeth McGovern), although helpful and ultimately rewarding, was shown as a brief interruption from troubles, but ultimately not the answer. A lesser movie would have made the journey to revelation for Conrad be with his girlfriend and not his psychiatrist.

Conrad's parents are a mess. They're able to fake pleasantness and stability, even happiness, but it's all just an escape from all the shit that keeps happening around them. The father Call, played by Donald Sutherland, is attempting to address the hardships head-on. The mother Beth, played by Mary Tyler Moore is trying to get over it all and get on with their lives.

The parents are a flip on conventional parental and gender roles. Cal is worried, nurturing, loving, and supportive. Beth is emotionally distant and/or callous, and wants to gloss over the past in favor of a happy future. This displays a characteristic common to all the characters and performances. They are all complicated, layered, and detailed.

I've never seen Sutherland like this before cautious, questioning, contemplative. And his work as a father fits him well. It's hard when an actor's been around so long that and the young people (myself and contemporaries) are only familiar with his work in Outbreak, The Italian Job, and The Puppet Masters. He's good.

Moore is amazing in this role. It's the performance of a lifetime. Her Beth is complicated and maddening but still sympathetic somehow amongst all her transgressions. When her characters was finally revealed as weak, the revelation clarified everything that preceded it and acted like a magnifying glass on Moore's perfect gift for imperfections.

Robert Redford directed the movie and handles his performers exceptionally well. His handling of flashbacks and memories was less successful. The echoed voices, the fuzzy outlines, the quick cuts - it's all too conventional and too showy for a movie that is able to understate other big themes and performances so well.

This movie was like therapy for me. The aftermath of a suicide attempt is familiar. The loss of control. The way others handle you with kid gloves that bothers ya', or bothers ya' when they don't. And most familiar was the struggling with what confronting real, raw, and honest emotions will mean. Ordinary People does it all so well.

Good Will Hunting and American Beauty owe debts to Ordinary People. They didn't steal from it, but they still owe a lot.

****

3:10 to Yuma

3:10 to Yuma is a new western, but it wears the marks of its tried and true forefathers of the genre proudly. You don't have to like westerns to like 3:10 to Yuma, but it will help. There are bad guys in black, stagecoach robberies, ruthless outlaw gangs, downtrodden ranchers, and sons aging much too fast on the hard, dry earth around them.

That is just some of the good news for you western fans (I'm sure at least a few exist on this campus). Certainly it is not bad news for those of you who could not care less about men in cowboy hats trotting about on horses and talking about the men they have killed. If you do not care, it rolls right off your back. What might stick is the psychological game of wits and will between the two main characters played by two of the best actors working today.

Russell Crowe plays Ben Wade, the aforementioned bad guy in black. Christian Bale plays Dan Evans, the aforementioned downtrodden rancher.

Wade is captured dallying about with a saloon gal in town after a stagecoach robbery. One of the men charged with the task of taking him to justice (via the 3:10 train to the prison in Yuma referred to in the title) turns out to be Evans. He is promised a sum of cash in return that could keep his struggling family above the financial waters it is drowning in.

Evans has two boys. The youngest looks at his father with worshipping eyes. The older boy, played by Logan Lerman, has not looked at him in that way for a long time. He does not respect his father, a civil war veteran with a bum leg who has not shown strength and fortitude in the eyes of his wife and oldest child during their recent struggles.

This is the basis of Evan's situation: he has something to prove to himself and his family. Therefore, when he is granted the opportunity to make things right, he takes it.

That means having to listen to the manipulative, suave, and dangerous Wade along the way to the train several days journey away. This allows the writers, director, and actors the opportunity to create the real entertainment. Sure, 3:10 to Yuma is a western, so there are gunfights and explosions. However, it is the interactions of these two men that kept me interested.

Wade keeps pushing Evan's buttons. Unlike the pushover Evans appears to be at the beginning, he begins to push back, meet gazes, make threats, and stand firm although it seems that inside all he wants to do is wobble freely.

Like many interesting villains, Wade is alluring. He draws you in with his charm, mean streak, and wit. What the film does well is establish a comfort with the character only to take away that comfort at will. Just when you start to think he is not all that bad, he strikes. He is kind of like a tiger in a magic show.

The film moves slowly at times, but this is because the film only carries the illusion of a "bang bang" western. Its true heart lies in these two characters on their journey not only to the train but also revelation.

Yuma ends in a shootout, but it is the actors rather than the action that do the heavy lifting. There is so much revealed about the characters within the last half hour that it might be too much.

I was not sure I liked the ending. I rolled it over in my head for a good hour after the credits rolled and I slowly began to see that the film had earned what had first seem forced. The filmmakers offer precedents along the way to the train that explain why the film can end in the way it does with its characters making the choices they do. I am not completely on board with the final result, but I can clearly see what the filmmakers intended me to.

I would be foolish not to mention the work of Ben Foster as Wade's right-hand man in the gang. It is a role ripe with bravado, and Foster takes full advantage of the opportunities given to him to shine. It is a performance I will remember that surely will get looked over by audiences because the two leads do such fine jobs.

These are neither Bale's nor Crowe's best performances, but each delivers solid, commendable work in what could have been a western too old fashioned to allow these wonderful modern actors to shine.

Not everyone shines, however. I have not really been a fan of Peter Fonda in the past, and his work in Yuma does not make me change my mind. I did not believe a word he said. His performance is too weak to hide the fact that it is Peter Fonda the actor pretending to be a tough SOB.

Another weakness is a completely unnecessary cameo from a famous face. He tries to hide behind a beard, but it is useless. His appearance took me out of the reality of the movie. It comes about halfway through. I committed to the reality of the movie. "These are cowboys. They are heading to a train. Good. I've got it." Then what's-his-face shows up and I said, "Wait...is that who I think it is? It might be. It is!" Then I am out. I am back in the world of celebrity rather than the world of pistols, spurs, and horses I am supposed to be in.

***1/2

A Perfect World

I must say that I loved parts of this film. The majority of the scenes between Costner and the young boy were very interesting and unique. The strange dynamic of the ole Stockholm's syndrome takes effect, but the reasons behind it are what make it so interesting. It's also interesting because it takes place with a criminal on the lam and the young boy he took from his house for the ride.

Costner has that reputation for being a bland actor, but I enjoy the guy. I love Field of Dreams. I enjoy Dances with Wolves and so on. I've seen him in bad movies. I've seen him be bad in bad movies. But seeing him as a good/bad guy in A Perfect World gave me new respect for the man as a performer. It's a very good performance, perhaps his best. I marveled how the writer, director Clint Eastwood, and Costner pushed and pulled the audience in relation to Costner's character. He's frightening at first, being a criminal with a gun and all. However, the audience can see he's not all bad as he keeps his accomplice in check from committing the mayhem that character seems destined to commit. Then he takes the kid under his wing, playing the father and the friend when it seems his character never had one before, never a good one anyway. I warmed up to the guy. He seemed good enough. Then, as soon as my comfort with the character had been cemented, the filmmakers choose to make me frightened again and wary of how easily I had been charmed. That choice ends up getting out of hand a bit, but I was impressed with the skill it took to make and start to execute it. I'll get to that moment later.

I like the way the movie incorporated a lost boys type attitude to the main characters - Costner's Butch and Phillip the boy. Each was a man lacking in a father's loving touch. Something that seems so obvious, so straight-forward ended up constructing such interesting characters. You cannot say otherwise when it comes to Butch and Phillip.

There were things that bothered me, namely Clint Eastwood's character and his law enforcement gang's pursuit of Costner's character. I never found that storyline interesting. It was full of Clint Eastwoodiness. He just was so grizzled, cranky, old and wise, tough, but sweet natured under it all that I got a little bored in his scenes. I've seen him do it before. It seems that for the last fifteen years or so, that's all the veteran actor does. I understood the storyline as being a key way of revealing things about Costner's character and his past in a naturally occurring way, but I didn't really get involved in it. I didn't really invest myself in any of those characters that included Laura Dern's.

Another thing that bothered me was the hijinks moments. Some interactions were funny, good-humored bits of time. Others were too light to be in this kind of movie. I half expected for the old The O.C. hijinks music to start pouring through my speakers. That's not a good thing. Clint Eastwood's storyline gets the bulk of the hijinks that allow him to show off his typical aforementioned character traits.

And that ending. That's what I mentioned earlier. It goes on too long. It starts out with a bang - great tension, higher stakes, a bit of exciting character twists, and so on. But then it keeps going. Clint Eastwood shows up with his law enforcement gang and they get to muck it up. The somewhat overly dramatic catalyst at the end in what seemed justifiably dramatic is a head scratcher. The scene was set up for a big finish that would propel the film into memory and provocation of emotions, but Eastwood punches it too much. I never really pegged him as a subtle actor or director (and I like him as both in most) but I don't think I expected him to let it get so out of hand. It goes on too long, it involves a punch line from his character in a moment utterly lacking in humor, and so on.

But I would watch it again, if for no other reason than to spend time with Costner and the boy on their trip to friendship together. It sounds corny, but it was a thoroughly entertaining one.

***

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

The Wind That Shakes the Barley was brutal. It is great movie, but a grave feeling washed over when watching the film. My gut was wrenched with every gut-wrenching scene while the characters fought the good fight against their oppressors and the not so good fight amongst themselves. My gut was all wrenched out by the end of the film. Key phrase: gut wrench.

There is a lot of violence in the film, but it never glorified. It is always awful, even when it seems to be justified. The wages of engaging in violent acts is presented in a realistic light.

The political aspects of the beginning of the Irish Republican Army are not glossed over. All sides are presented authentically, though the British are portrayed as self-righteous, tyrannical bastards. And I guess they were, but I’d have to do the research to make any assured claim.

The brotherly drama that unfolded really hit home for me. I was awestruck at the depth and conflict blood ties were presented with. I was tearing up at the conclusion. I was afraid I was going to have to conspicuously wipe my eyes with my sleeve in front of my friends, but I managed to escape with tear glossed eyes and a wary smile.

The cheers and accolades from Cannes are not unfounded. The Wind That Shakes the Barley is an excellent film.

****

Wonder Boys

SPOILERS



I was thinking about Wonder Boys and its themes. I thought I should write a little about it, but rest assured that a full review will be posted some time this summer.

It took me a few times to really figure out the message of the film. This film used to be my #1 favorite (now it's Magnolia), so I have watched it quite a few times. But it took me three or four times to really get it. It's about making choices. Grady Tripp avoids making choices in his writing (his tenent Hannah tells him so) and he is unwilling to choose a real life with his mistress. His life is a mess, just like the always-growing mountain of pages he calls his book. When he starts making choices, things start straightening out.

There's also the familiar theme of "saving" someone and/or yourself. Grady tells his transvestite passenger that he has to go rescue James Leer. He/she answers that he looks like he could use some rescueing of his own. He rescues and then abandons Leer. But he makes a choice, his first real choice in a series of choices that bring him back around. He rescues Leer again. And this choice starts the road to responsibility. He takes responsibility for his student. He owns up to his affair. He chooses a life with someone he loves. Sure, the film sort of says adultery is okay as long as it's with someone you love, but he comes clean to the husband of his mistress. That's better, right?

Great Movie.

****1/2

Bringing Out the Dead

I was roaming around the Jeffrey Overstreet review website lookingcloser.com and found a review of Bringing out the Dead. I didn't really agree with it, so I thought I'd do the film justice on here.



Bringing out the Dead is about a lot of things: the sad state of the world, the strong hold of hopelessness, redemption. But what I really latched onto when I watched the movie was the theme of saving and being saved. This isn't in the spiritual sense of the word, though I guess it could be interpreted as such. Nicolas Cage needs to save people to save himself. Without that act, the act of bringing people back to life, he is losing his. He is like his patients, each spends a moment in between the living and the dead, waiting for someone or something to push them over in either direction. Cage's Frank has just been spending more time there than the people he loses. Frank needs saving. But he can't be rescued because he can't save anyone else. When he lets a patient die, he "saves" that man from the struggle he (Frank) can't win. And death becomes salvation. While it is easy to think this is when Frank is "saved," I think he truely finds his truth and a gentle push toward hope when he lets himself fall asleep in the arms of Patricia Arquette. He is letting someone save him. That's how I think the film's ending can be interpreted in a spiritual sense - there is nothing you can do on your own to save yourself. You have to let someone else do it for you.

I also think that this works as another form of the Wizard of Oz Syndrome (WoOS). Like the cowardly lion, the scarecrow, and the tin man, Frank is after something he already has. Frank desperately wanted to save someone, and he did, just not in the way he thought he had to. He "saves" Patricia Arquette's character, Marc Anthony's character, and the drug dealer. He doesn't bring them back from the dead, he just keeps them here with the living. And if Frank really saw, actually let himself see, that he was doing what he felt he had to do, the epiphany Overstreet talks about would have happened much sooner in a different way.

Great Movie.

P.S. - Overstreet usually gets it right.

****

Dead Poets Society

Dead Poets Society is great. It's not perfect, but I cannot really deny it is great. Robin William's performance as an unconventional teacher at a prestigious prep school is ripe for poking fun at, but it is also very good. But the big draw is the crop of burgeoning talent from the young cast. Ethan Hawke, Josh Charles, Robert Sean Leonard, and Gale Hansen (among others) shine as students encouraged to seize the day by Williams and a display case full of alumni. By now, the amazing teacher inspires students subgenre is well established and tired. But it feels fresh in Dead Poets Society. Rather than heart-string pulling at the hands of directors and screenwriters, I felt the story and performances really did the heavy lifting here. The ending is one of my favorites.

Detractions: 1) Running through the snow after the death looks wonderful, but rings false when one character emotionally tries to console another. 2) That score. It doesn't really hold up well to time. It has that heavy feeling late 80s. It's instantly recognizable. But I cringe slightly when I think of its sound during big scenes. 3)The actor who played Cameron was bad. I liked him in Way of the Gun when he was older, but he stuck out like a sore thumb here.

****

Reign Over Me

Well, it's pretty good. It falters after a court scene.

Sandler doesn't really receive much love (financially) from his usually supportive fans, but he has some real chops (please, please, please check out Punch Drunk Love). He uses a little kid voice in Reign Over Me, which can be annoying, especially in a emotional scene at a therapist's office. But his interactions with the other lead, Don Cheadle, are good. The two play well off each other. Cheadle doesn't have the showy role, that's left to Sandler. But I appreciate Cheadle's performance more because it's more nuanced, less of a one step dance.

The film had me in its corner most of the way through, but lost me in that court room scene. All the contrivances that could be included were included. The scenes that followed mostly rang false, but the positive experience I had prior to that turning point still earns a recommendation from me.

One of the things I really loved about the movie (prior to the court scene) was how everybody wanted to fix Sandler's troubled character. He had an obvious problem that needed addressing, but the film really nailed how difficult it can be for a person to change (then it blows it after the court scene). The frustration and concern of loved ones felt real.

Damn that court scene.

*** (I struggle with this rating because it's better than 28 Weeks Later, but worse than Barcelona, but I'm not going to go as far as to give it a **3/4 rating. That's a bit picky.)

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints

This is pretty much your standard coming of age film set in Queens during the 1980's. The film's writer and director tells his real life story. The film starts off aimless and confusing. I kept asking myself what I was supposed to take from it. But as the film went on, the drama increased and the confusion settled down. The further the film progressed, the clearer the vision became. At first, when I didn't like it, I likened the film's attempt at realism to be a kin to David Gordon Green's films, although his films are set in forgotten burgs and southern podunks (and are great whereas AGTRYS is merely good). The fact that Montiel's (the writer/director) film was set in the city gave the two filmmakers a stark contrast. Both filmmakers are content to capture bare bones drama - overlapping dialogue, seemingly meaningless moments to elaborate characters, and acting that strives for realism (although the realism in AGTRYS is clearly more stylized/heightened). I ended up liking AGTRYS quite a bit. The acting was very good. I didn't expect much from Channing Tatum because he's a former model whose success as an actor thus far was limited to the dancing romance Step Up. He ended up really creating a volatile character that polarizes and moves your loyalty back and forth. The guy's kind of a jerk. But he's also mixed up and looking for a place in this world (cue Michael W. Smith). He's doomed to be a thug, a charismatic thug, but a thug none the less. And he'll drag Dito down if Dito doesn't make a break away from Queens. That works. That was communicated very well. Shia Labeouf (as Dito) is great. He's the main character, filling the part of a younger version of the writer/director (Robert Downey Jr. plays an older versioN). He, like Tatum, takes an attempt at realism. Like Tatum, the results can be bothersome. We really don't get to know Dito Montiel unitl the introductions are over and problems start happening. Ultimately, his performance rings true. His scenes with Tatum and Chazz Palminteri as Dito's dad are particularly well acted. In truth, not a lot actually happens in AGTRYS until the end, but the characters are so richly presented that it makes a viewing worth while. The film succeeds at creating a sense of gritty realism and jerk cool. Antonio (Tatum's character) is a jerk, but he's cool. It's Dito's story, but you'll be more likely to remember Antonio when all is said and done.

***

Junebug

This was much better the second time around after my initial sky high expectations had lowered and I was able to accept this film for the lovely indie it is. I never questioned the quality of Amy Adams' performance. She is a "firecracker" who alternately warmed my spirits and broke my heart. The ease with which she does both is the mark of a truly talented performer. She is, in my opinion, thbe Best Supporting Actress of 2005. The rest of the performances are very good two. It would have been easy for the actors to put in caractures of southern bumpkins. But each character is felshed out and complex. There's subtext to every action and every word. It's had to put a finger on the reason I'm not giving it a higher rating. I guess I just didn't love it. It's a good movie, no question, but I didn't have that deep connection with the final product.

***1/2

The King

I have to be honest, part of the reason I did not like The King was that the subject matter was too disturbing, even disgusting. I liked some stuff, like William Hurt's performance. I was disappointed with Gael Garcia Bernal's performance. I can grant him leniency because I think very few actors his age could play this role well. The story's real strength is in the questions it asks. They are difficult questions made all the more difficult by the plot's events. What can you forgive? When can you not? What the hell is going on in Elvis' (Bernal) mind?

Paul Dano is good in a small role. The best performance I think comes from Pell James as Hurt's daughter and Bernal's seducee. Where did this actress come from? Where has she been? I'm exaggerating a bit, but she really was the best part of the cast in a cast full of prominent performers. Her sweet, quiet nature ripe for ruining. She's so trusting and oddly rebellious. It's not odd how she rebels. It's more how innocent she still seems after all the drama.

**

Munich

I had seen this movie three or four times prior to tonight's viewing and I had always favored the film. This most recent viewing (as is common with 4th or fifth viewings) revealed flaws I had either missed or glossed over in previous viewings. The writing is wonderful in its quiet conversations and big speeches, but offers tomatoes for Eric Bana to throw at times. Eric Bana is great. This is his best role. He is very talented. For the first time, though, I felt like I was watching him act. I could feel the effort in his words, his accent. Still a fine performance. His hollowed out brokeness shown in his eyes and echoed in his emotionless words. His duty to protect and serve had taken something from him.

I loved the supporting players. They don't get the spotlight scenes and lines that Bana gets, but they all shine. Daniel Craig, Geoffrey Rush, Ciarian Hinds, and Mathieu Kassovitz each infuse their characters with emotion and urgency appropriate to the story.

The film deals with themes of home: loyalty to where you came from, the duty to protect your home, and the get back the one you lost. Everyone is looking for home, or rather to keep it safe and theirs. And to keep it safe, people are killed. The story tries to cover all its bases. It brings light to every end of the terror people cause other people to endure. We do awful things. Sometimes those awful things are right. Sometimes they are necessary. But Munich brings up a valid question: can it stop? Will it ever stop? When does it quit? And that's when I feel heavy and beaten.

I found myself marveling at Spielberg's direction this time. His camera moves with such precise movement that I hadn't really noticed prior to this most recent viewing. He builds suspense with an expert eye. The movie is gritty and bleak, washed down colors and dark city streets abound. All these and more created a sense of dread in me every time someone stood up to move forward. The sex scene intercut with the killing of the Munich hostages bothered me for the first time this past viewing. I get what Spielberg and his writer's were doing. Avner (Bana) couldn't get what had happened and what he had done out of his head. He was a slave to all these overwhelming ghosts. I guess I just don't know why it had to be part of the sex scene. It's the most forced scene of the movie. Second to that is the music drenched, "intense" moment where Avner senses he and his daughter are the targets of a dark car with tinted windows. Bum Bum Bum! Still, the film's action is very intense with real stakes always rising. The men risk their lives, and, though it may sound corny or trite, their souls.

Still the best film of 2005.

****

Half Nelson

Half Nelson is a wonderful film about friendship and making strides. There have been plenty of films about teachers making a difference in the lives of their students, but how many films actually show a real difference a student can make in the life of their teacher. The film can be heartbreaking with generic tear drop scenes that somehow scream authenticity or looks in characters' eyes that linger and are so layered I could take about the resonance for hours. I liked how Half Nelson portrayed addiction. Ryan Gosling just kept making me to yell "snap out of it!" But addiction is harder than that. We forget sometimes. The struggle Gosling goes through is internal. His words betray him. He can handle it, and all that jazz. But the struggle feels real. He's not a bad guy. He can be self-centered and rude and cold, but he genuinely cares about Shareeka Epps. Without that gleem of caring, I think it would have been more difficult for me to sympathize with Gosling's character (like the trouble I had with Nic Cage in Leaving Las Vegas). Gosling's performance is, I think, the best of the year. It was very genuine, sometimes painfully so. And in spite of his character's flaws, I felt justified in rooting for the guy, in part because Shareeka Epps was rooting for him. She is a real find. Her laughs, her little smiles and anger all breathe naturally. The characters needed each other in a way that I think is unique in the portrayals of teacher-student relationship in film where usually one depends more on the other (usually student depends on teacher). The change was welcome.

Gotta' love that open-ended ending. They give you hope without ramming your skull with it. the ending felt so natural to the point where any other possible ending just seems wrong now.

****