Where the Wild Things Are

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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.

***