Master Haas Movie Reviews

It's Full Of Movies

2011-01-24T17:00:00.000-08:00

Well, after 4 years here at Blogspot, I've decided to try my hand at a full fledged website. Starting today you can find all my content at It's Full Of Movies. The Blogspot will remain open for posterity, but there will be no more posts here. Please follow me on this new adventure, one I hope will last for many more years to come. Thanks!

The Green Hornet

2011-01-17T19:18:00.000-08:00

We're in the early stages of the downfall of the superhero genre. Of that fact I am certain. I don't hold any illusions that the genre will ever die, and I'm sure it will find a resurgence again one day, but if the first era of superhero began with Batman and ended with Batman & Robin, then the second era that started with Spider-Man seems to be nearing it's end. The Green Hornet is a perfect example of why. Much like we saw in the 90's with The Shadow and The Phantom, studios are now scrapping the bottom of the barrel in search of any properties to adapt. Where once we got X-Men, now we get The Green Hornet. Certainly not a horrible movie, Hornet is still so by the numbers that it is little more than an afterthought of the genre.

The Green Hornet treads familiar waters here. When a young playboy's father is killed, he realizes he's been wasting his life aimlessly chasing women and decides to become a superhero and fight crime. He enlists his father's mechanic Kato to help him, and Kato ends up being the real hero. It's a cross between Batman and Big Trouble in Little China, halfheartedly aping both. Really, the issue is that there is no story here. In retrospect, it feels like the duo never actually fight crime. Sure, they talk about the fact they're fighting crime, and we see newspapers claiming that they're all over the city, but aside from a showdown at the end of the film, they only have one, maybe two moments where they actually tangle with street thugs. instead, much of the film focuses on the banter between The Hornet and Kato. You'd think that would be a good thing in a Seth Rogen film, but sadly that's just as halfhearted as everything else.

The chemistry between Rogen and Jay Chou as Kato is severely lacking. Maybe it's the fact Chou isn't very good with English, maybe it's because Rogen seems out of his element in a film like this, but the comedy is often as weak as the action. The only highlight is Christoph Waltz as the villain Chudnofsky. Chudnofsky is an incredibly generic crime boss, and he knows it. The biggest laughs came from him grappling with the fact that in a world of superheroes, no one finds a businessman in a suit especially frightening. His slow descent into madness is amusing, as is his complete misunderstanding of what makes a supervillain scary. He rechristens himself Bloodnofsky, dresses in a red suit and a gas mask, and looks completely foolish. While it would have been nice to see what Waltz could have done with a really interesting villain, he does enough with Chudnofsky to make him amusingly forgettable, which is kind of the point. The rest of the cast is utterly wasted. Tom Wilkinson is removed from the film almost from the start. Edward Furlong and Edward James Olmos are wasted in roles beneath them. And Cameron Diaz seems to come in from a completely different film. It's clear that she's there just because a studio executive didn't think a superhero movie can work without a love interest, no matter how perfunctory.

Director Michel Gondry seems at times to be at odds with the material he's been given. His ability to film action is clearly lacking. Many scenes are shot too close up or too darkly to make anything out. The few set pieces the film has all feel incredibly generic. But when the film isn't trying to be an action movie, he will throw in flourishes that seem like they deserve to be in a much better film. One moment in particular really made me wonder how they pulled it off. A henchman tells another henchman to find The Green Hornet, and the screen then splits in two without cutting, following both men as they pass the word along. Each person they come into contact with then splits off without the film cutting. The screen fills with numerous different panels, none with any discernible cuts, leaving us wondering how Gondry accomplished the image we're seeing. It's a creative way to illustrate a normally mundane aspect of a film like this. Gondry would throw in little touches like this every once in a while, almost as if he was bored by the material and needed to do something to keep himself challenged. While these moments can't save the film, they make it at times more watchable than it otherwise would be.

With a number of big superhero franchises falling apart (X-Men, Spider-Man, Superman), and an upcoming onslaught of low tier superhero movies (Thor, The Green Lantern), things seem dire for the genre. Certainly not the worst film the genre has produced, The Green Hornet still suffers immensely from a lack of identity. It wants to be Batman, but it needs to be its own thing, whatever that thing may be. It fails at being either, and as a result it just comes across as tired and forgettable. The Green Hornet was once a major property in the days of radio, but the transition to the modern age doesn't suit the character in any way. If studios can't show some restraint in greenlighting movies like this, they're going to make the genre as a whole a lot less special. Movies like The Dark Knight are becoming the exception, not the rule.

Remembering Pete Postlethwaite

2011-01-03T16:42:00.000-08:00

1946-2011

What a sad way to start the new year. Pete Postlethwaite has passed away, and while the name may not be immediately recognizable, he is certainly one of the great "That Guy" actors. While he would often take small roles in movies, you knew a director was going the extra mile to flesh out their characters when they cast Postlethwaite. When you look at the films he played a part in, you begin to realize that he is woven into the fabric of the last twenty years of cinema: Inception, The Town, The Usual Suspects, The Lost World, Romeo + Juliet, Amistad, The Constant Gardner, Alien 3, and of course In the Name of the Father, among many others. It was that latter film for which he got a well deserved Oscar nomination, breaking out of his reputation as just a character actor and getting the recognition he richly deserved. A few years later, Steven Spielberg even proclaimed him to be the best actor in the world. Because he wasn't a marquee name actor, you never knew when he might show up in a film you were watching. I always found myself delighted when Postlethwaite would show up unexpectedly in a film, and going to the movies won't be the same knowing he won't be there to provide some much appreciated gravitas.

Top 10: 2010

2010-12-31T16:00:00.000-08:00

If 2010 can be defined by a genre, then for me this was the year of the documentary. In my six years of doing this website, I can think of none that had as diverse or engaging a crop of documentaries than 2010. Although you could certainly argue that some of the best documentaries weren't actually documentaries at all (but we’ll get to that later). While the big budget fare and the prestige pictures certainly had some great entries, it was the documentaries that will stick in my mind.

Before I break it down to the 10, I wanted to highlight a few titles that fell just short. The film that came the closest was Four Lions, a pitch black comedy about British terrorists with some of the funniest dialog of the year. Animal Kingdom, another strong contender for the top 10, is a gripping Australian crime saga less about the rise and more about the fall of a family of criminals. Comparisons to Scorsese aren't unfounded.

Finally, before I begin I should note that two films I would have liked to see before compiling this list were The Illusionist and Another Year, but due to poor release plans, neither were viewable before year's end. Alright, without further ado:

10. Shutter Island

The pairing of Scorsese and DiCaprio has resulted in some of the best films of the last decade. In this, perhaps their final outing together, they have crafted an over the top dark psychological thriller. The whole cast is electric, but it is again DiCaprio who steals the show, giving one of his best performances to date. It’s a performance all the more captivating when you see the film a second time knowing who this man really is. And Scorsese, freed from looking for an Oscar, goes for something big and crazy, which is a nice change of pace for him. While it’s inevitable that your reaction to the ending will color how you feel about Shutter Island as a whole, there’s no denying that the craftsmanship on display is uniformly excellent.

9. Catfish

One of two documentaries – or are they? – to make my top ten, Catfish is a film best left unexplained to the uninitiated. Much of the film’s power comes from the sense of discovery, as three friends travel across the country to meet a woman in person that one of them has been romancing online for months. By turns scary, thrilling, funny, and deeply moving, this is a film that captures the way we use (and misuse) the internet. It’s interesting that while the internet has been a common thing in most of our lives for 15 years now, cinema is just now starting to look at it with a critical eye. While I am still torn as to how I would feel about Catfish were it to be revealed that the filmmakers were manipulating their subject in order to make this film, there’s no denying that what they found was one of the most fascinating people of 2010.

8. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Edgar Wright doesn’t seem capable of making a generic movie. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is almost certainly the most singular film experience of the year. Indeed, no other film comes to mind that is quite like this. Much like in the comics it is based upon, Scott Pilgrim sees the world through his understanding of video games, comics, and TV. It is so specifically about a generation born into the 70’s and 80’s that it will probably alienate those not of that generation. And to my mind, Scott Pilgrim features the most revolutionary use of editing since The Matrix. Wright’s editor has crafted an entirely new way to tell a story, cutting out the fat and moving things forward at such a clip that it threatens to leave behind those not prepared. To see something that feels so new is exhilarating, and one can’t help but think that this kind of editing will be the future of cinema (for better or worse).

7. Monsters

If Scott Pilgrim felt like the future of cinema, Monsters is a classic throwback to the days of Spielberg at his most scrappy. Shot for little money entirely on location, it follows a pair of Americans as they try to get out of Mexico after it has been infested with giant aliens. While many are put off by the fact that a movie called Monsters has so few actual monsters, it often feels just as much a creative choice as it does a financial one. When we finally see the monsters in all their CGI glory, it is unexpectedly moving. The final moments of this film remain one of my absolute favorite scenes of the year, as what it reveals about the reality of the movie and the world these characters live in is profound and touching in ways you would never expect from a monster movie.

6. Winter's Bone

Perhaps the most stripped down and basic film on my list, Winter’s Bone is not for everyone. The plot is threadbare at best, and it is the atmosphere, characters, acting, and themes that really drive the film. When Ree’s father disappears after putting the family house up for his bail money, the sheriff informs Ree that she has one week to find her father or they will take the house. The journey this young girl takes is harrowing and shocking. Jennifer Lawrence is a wonderful new find as the lead here, but it is John Hawkes that steals the show. One of those great character actors that never really got his due, Hawkes is finally given a chance to shine as Ree’s uncle Teardrop. And that ending is wonderfully confounding in the way it seems both hopeful and hopeless.

5. Blue Valentine

A film simultaneously about the hope for a promising future and despair for lost time, Blue Valentine follows both the beginning and ending of a relationship. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams create two wholly authentic characters, and the feeling of a shared history between the two adds so much nuance to their relationship. The film never falls into the trap so many relationship dramas do, which is to wallow in the despair of a failed marriage. Blue Valentine is always engrossing, and it is intelligent in the things it has to say about relationships. It's refreshing to see a movie like this done with some semblance of subtley, and it never points the finger at one person and says they are to blame for the failure of the marriage; they each shoulder equal blame. It takes a strong filmmaker to make you not take sides in a film like this, but director Derek Cianfrance pulled that off, and he is someone worth keeping an eye on.

4. Exit Through the Gift Shop

While Catfish makes me want to believe it is real, Exit Through the Gift Shop makes me hope it is a scam. If Banksy really did pull off a hoax of this magnitude, it would be amazing. And if it’s all true, then it is still one of the most engaging and delightful films of the year. As a documentation of the world of street art, it opened my eyes to something that was all around me but I completely ignored. The people and the culture of this world are intriguing, and the fact that many of these artists are now creating galleries of their art seems inevitable. But the film asks us to consider if the art world is embracing these artists because of the quality of their work, or because they’ve been told to. Does paying to see and own this art make it any more profound than if we were to see it sprayed on the side of a building? If I fill a warehouse with junk and call it art, then charge you to see it, are you more or less inclined to agree with me that it is in fact art? The film doesn’t seem to want to answer these questions, instead simply putting them out there for us to ponder.

3. Black Swan

Somehow the three most interesting filmmakers of this generation made the three best films of 2010. You would expect at least one to falter, but they didn’t. My top three represent, to my mind, some of the most exciting works in recent cinema. Of the three, Black Swan is certainly the most daring. Darren Aronofksy winds his audience up so tightly with his films, that the end is as much a catharsis for us as it is for his main characters. Natalie Portman, as the increasingly insane Nina, is the best she has ever been here. While the film takes its time showing you how crazy things will become, you need that early lull in order for the film as a whole to work. As a companion piece to Exit Through the Gift Shop, it might serve as an unexpected answer to Banksy’s question as to what makes something great art. The more the art takes out of you, the better it becomes. Nina’s final performance of the film, in which she let’s everything go in order to fully become the black swan of the story, represents the pinnacle of what she will ever achieve as a dancer, and she knows it. When reading the ending through Nina’s eyes, it becomes less dark and more profound.

2. Inception

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the state of the film industry today is that there is no market for independent filmmakers. On a regular basis you see great indie directors abandoning personal projects for mainstream success. This almost never works out, as these filmmakers don’t try to adjust the big budget to their sensibilities, instead adjusting their sensibilities to the big budget. Not so with Christopher Nolan, who has thrived greatly within the blockbuster model. Inception is everything a big summer release should be: thrilling, original, fun, challenging, and debatable. On top of that, Nolan was able to tap perhaps the two best actors working today. One consistently on top of his game (DiCaprio), and one on the rise to superstardom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). And is there a more amazing moment in 2010 than Levitt jumping around that hallway as gravity starts to shift? Impeccable filmmaking all around.

1. The Social Network

I rewatched The Social Network again before writing this to refresh some things. What struck me the most was how incredibly watchable this thing is. Right from that wonderful opening scene you’re hooked. The film is a marriage of the year’s best script, one of our best filmmakers on top of his game, and a cast that delivers career best performances. Jesse Eisenberg has been delivering subtly nuanced performances for a few years now, so it’s nice to see him finally get such a meaty role to showcase that talent for the general public. And special mention must be made of Armie Hammer and the Winkelvi. Such a great, funny dual performance that isn’t getting the credit it deserves. He is able to make what should have been the villains of the movie into perhaps the only characters with any real honor or integrity. It’s hard for me to define what makes this the best of the year over my numbers 2 and 3. I guess the best way to explain it is that not only is every aspect of this movie great, but all those aspects work so perfectly in combination in a way that no other film did this year. Who would have expected such immense greatness from a film about Facebook?

True Grit

2010-12-15T13:37:00.000-08:00

Watching the Coen Brothers' remake of True Grit brings to mind a question I think a lot of filmgoers have been wrestling with lately: what is the point of a remake? The remake is becoming a major part of cinema, and it could be argued it is the laziest form of film making - even moreso than sequels. There seems to be two kinds of remakes: one is the retelling of a story for an audience that may not have seen the original. The other is a reinterpretation of a film, filtering it completely through a new director's point of view. There is probably more nuance than those two options, but largely most remakes fall into one of the two camps. The Coen Brothers would seem like the ideal candidates for the second category, but True Grit never seems to have much in common with their darkly ironic worldview to begin with (The Searchers always felt like it would make more sense for them). And indeed, True Grit lacks a lot of what one might expect from the Coens, ultimately feeling more like a retelling of the original John Wayne version than anything else.

So then, I ask, why? Why spend a year of your life remaking a fairly well known, Oscar winning Western, and not update the story in any real way? What is this film meant to offer us? The answer seems to lay with two things: the acting and the technical components. If nothing else, the Coens have so finely tuned their craft, that they make some of the most fully realized films each year. From sound to visuals to editing, they seem incapable of making a technically deficient movie, and True Grit is no exception. With each gunshot that rings out, you will jump in your seat. Every set looks so real you would assume they found authentic locations to shoot in. The costumes run circles around those in the original. The score, inspired by hymns from the era, is enchanting and memorable. In pretty much every technical aspect, this is the superior film to the 1969 original. But is that enough?

The acting, with apologies to Mr. Wayne, is unanimously better here. Rooster Cogburn, as portrayed by John Wayne, was little more than an extension of the Duke's persona. He played a type, and this character was that type to a T. Jeff Bridges, on the other hand, has created a wholly original character. Mumbling, foolish, aggressive, bitter - Bridges fills what could have been a stock hero with so much nuance and energy that you can't help but be entertained by him. And while he is very good, even better is newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as young Mattie Ross, the girl who hires Cogburn to avenge her father's murder. She takes the delightfully archaic and wordy dialog and runs with it effortlessly, making you forget she is acting at all. As head strong as Mattie is, Steinfeld never lets you forget than you are watching a young grieving girl, and she lets that aspect shine through at just the right moments. It is one of the best performances of the year.

And yet, for all this, the film still suffers from its inability to shake the original, to be something new. The pacing often feels very off, dragging right when it should be speeding up. There is a long sequence early on in which Cogbrun is on trial for murder. While this is meant to serve as our introduction to just who Cogburn is, it ends up stopping the momentum of the movie and tells us little that we wouldn't know just from watching how this man behaves around others. And the climax of the movie seems far more rushed than in the original. While we are never meant to really know Tom Chaney, Ned Pepper, or the other villains of the film, it feels like they get even less screentime here than in the original, making the climax feel more perfunctory than it should. And speaking of endings, they seem to be the most divisive aspect of any Coen Brothers movie. Here will be no exception, but for the opposite reason of A Simple Man or No Country: it doesn't know when to end. We get a flash forward on top of another flash forward, telling us every last detail we could ever want to know, when a little more ambiguity might have served the story better.

If you have never seen the original True Grit, this may well be a very good movie. I have seen the 1969 version, so it becomes more difficult for me to appreciate this version. The things that stand out here really stand out, but the things that fail are pretty glaring. In the end, I cannot judge this movie as if I hadn't seen the Wayne version, any more than a newcomer could judge this in the context of the original. Which again begs the question, why remake this film? As much as I liked the aspects I liked, I probably would have enjoyed them even more in the context of an original story. It often felt like the Coens were spinning their wheels instead of trying to be innovative. This movie can be fun at times, but it never really rises above that, and occasionally dips below it.

Black Swan

2010-12-04T08:54:00.000-08:00

Darren Aronofsky, more than any other director working today, seems utterly fascinated by the self-destructive nature within people. Indeed, there is perhaps no more interesting aspect of human nature than one's willingness to self inflict pain and turmoil in the pursuit of personal happiness. Be it drug use in Requiem for a Dream, wrestling in The Wrestler, and now dancing in Black Swan, there is always a dangerous balance between transcendent joy and complete physical and mental destruction for his characters. As such, he is often able to make us feel a very deep and profound connection to his characters, and his films have resulted in some of the great screen performances of the last decade. Natalie Portman joins that list with Black Swan, a film that demands more of her than any film she has ever done, but demonstrates more potential from her than one might ever have expected.

Portman plays Nina, a ballerina of indistinguishable age. Nina lives with her mother, speaks with a childlike voice, and has no real grasp of the world around her. Sheltered her whole life by her mother, she simply doesn't have the confidence and darkness that is required if she wishes to play the dual leads of both the White and Black Swans in the upcoming performance of Swan Lake. Yet the director sees something in her and plucks her from her obscurity, forcing her to confront her fears, desires, and inner turmoil. Played by Vincent Cassel, Thomas the director is an uneasy balance between artistic genius and sleazy manipulator. There is never a clear sense of whether he is trying to seduce Nina, or if he is really trying to mold her into a more confident artist. Also tearing Nina apart is the new dancer in the troupe, Lily (Mila Kunis). It's hard to tell if Lily idolizes Nina or wants to destroy her, and Kunis finds the perfect balance between the two with her performance.

Portman is an actress who is known for her likable, intelligent persona. Here, like Nina, she is forced to stretch beyond her limits, to try and encompass both her nice girl persona and something far more powerful and sinister. It is brilliant casting, and Portman makes every beat work. For much of the film, Nina feels like something Natalie Portman would normally play, there isn't much barrier between actress and role (aside from increasing the childishness). But when she makes her metamorphosis into a Black Swan, she becomes unrecognizable. Confidant, strong willed, and frankly frightening, Portman is suddenly like you have never seen her. This is the kind of rare performance where an actress is able to tap into her heretofore unseen potential and do something you never would have expected. It will certainly be the role that defines Portman's career, and hopefully it opens up a whole new door for her.

Is there a more confidant director working today than Darren Aronofksy? With every film he aims for greatness and achieves it. His films are both of a piece and radically different. He gets the strongest performances he can out of his actors, utilizes music like no other, and can create a visual representation of every character's mind with ease. In Black Swan he creates a world of a nightmare, were the seeming simplicity of Nina's world is deliberately torn down as she struggles with her art. The way he uses his camera to film the dancing is thrilling and intimate, and the use of color is unusual to say the least. Evert set and costume is either black or white, except for Nina's very colorful room. As Nina grows as an artist, the color of her world begins to drain, melting into the blacks and whites found everywhere else. And is there a more wonderful pairing of director and composer right now than Aronofsky and Clint Mansell? Mansell's score here is an overwhelming recreation of Swan Lake, filling the film in an operatic way. It is chilling and powerful in the exact way this story should be.

Black Swan lures you in with its examination of the world of dancing, before pulling the rug out from under you as Nina's mind deteriorates. Much like he did with The Wrestler, you get a great behind the curtain look at what goes into the art of dancing. I have no real knowledge of dancing, but Aronofsky and Portman were able to make me see the difference between competent dancing and transcendent dancing. Nina is a very strong dancer, but she is mechanical. You can see that she simply cannot lose herself in her art, there is always a barrier of thought there. But as she grows into herself, the dancing become more fluid, more honest. The final sequence of the film, in which we see her finally perform Swan Lake, is one of the great scenes of 2010. The dancing really is beautiful, and in combination with everything else going on, it becomes the kind of transcendent experience that Nina has been looking for her whole life.

This is certainly one of the stranger films of the year. The literal and the imaginary intertwine with little explanation as to which is which. Aronofksy is able to combine all the elements of his film into a mind trip that is both sobering and uplifting. It's a film that requires some patience from its audience, but it grows into a thing of unexpected beauty by the end. There is honestly so much going on here that I am unable to really unpack all my feelings on it after one viewing. To me, there are few rewards of cinema greater than when a film defies an easy explanation, that it demands to be seen over and over in order to discover new things. Such is the case with Black Swan, a film I will certainly be revisiting over the years with new interpretations each time.

RIP Leslie Nielsen

2010-11-28T20:25:00.000-08:00

1926-2010

I'm sure I speak for a number of people from my generation when I say that Leslie Nielsen is one of the cornerstones of modern comedy. From Airplane! to The Naked Gun trilogy to my childhood guilty pleasure Surf Ninjas, Leslie Nielsen was a shinning example of deadpan comedy. No one could do it as well as he could, and even when he was slumming in films that were beneath him, he would still bring his A-game to each role. It's truly sad to hear he has passed away today at age 84, but he leaves behind an indelible legacy. The roles he created, specifically Lt. Frank Drebin and Dr. Rumack, have become icons of cinema, and he will surely be delighting people with those and his many other roles long after he is gone.

The King's Speech

2010-11-26T15:28:00.000-08:00

The King's Speech is like a film from a different era. So often when you hear that kind of statement, it's referring to that ineffable time when they made good movies, the likes of which we don't see anymore. This isn't one of those cases. No, The King's Speech harkens back to the 90's, when Miramax could get away with making the blandest movies imaginable and reap Oscar glory because of it. Shakespeare in Love, Chocolat, The Cider House Rules, and others of their ilk were all big Oscar players in their time, but none left any kind of lasting impression after their day in the sun. In the 2000's, the Oscars started to turn away from this kind of middle of the road mentality, instead favoring singular visions of bleakness and honesty. No one seems to have informed the brothers Weinstein of this fact, as they still pump out bland period piece films in the hopes of winning more awards. Based on critical reception, they may have finally stumbled onto something with The King's Speech, and for the life of me I don't understand why.

Colin Firth plays King George VI, a man who never expected to be King of England, but found himself thrust into the position after his brother failed to reconcile his personal life with his duties as King. King George has the problem of not being able to speak without stuttering uncontrollably. To the film's credit, Colin Firth does a great job with this part. The film is always trying to manipulate us with scenes of him stuttering as people look on in embarrassment, but Firth digs a little deeper, giving us glimpses of him as more than just a man who stutters. There is anger, resentment, and a deep shyness underneath his stuttering that is far more interesting than his need to speak in public. Assisting him in his quest to speak is Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue. Rush is usually a really great actor, but he can have occasion to go over the top when not properly directed, and such is the case here. He is the period piece equivalent of the manic pixie girl found in so may romantic comedies - the one who is able to dig deep inside the hero and bring out the best in him simply by being different from everyone else around them. While the character of King George has facets thanks to Firth, there seems to be no real dimensions to Lionel. We see him try to audition for a part in a play, and fail by virtue of his age, but otherwise he has no dichotomy. He is so self assured that he fails to ever be engaging on a human level.

The film is beautifully made, and if movies simply had to look good this would be one of the year's best films. The art direction in particular is exceptionally well crafted. The office Lionel inhabits looks like something Wes Anderson might have done were he to make a British period piece. And the shot compositions are distinctive enough that one could very easily make a recognisable King's Speech spoof, were someone strange enough to want to do such a thing. King George is almost always framed in the bottom left corner of the screen, with much of the rest of the frame just filled with dead space. It's a strange, yet interesting way to film the story. One of the first things you learn as a DP is to frame your action in the center, so by moving the action to the corner it gets you into the mind of King George, how he hates to be the center of attention, shying away from it. And of course, the costumes are exquisite, as one would expect from a story about a King in the 1930's. But does any of that make you want to see this movie? Probably not, unless you are a big fan of art design.

Perhaps what stuck me most about how utterly unnecessary this movie was, is how it sets this man's struggle against the backdrop of World War II. It is this period of time, if in no other, that the story of a man's speech impediment would seem frivolous by comparison to what is really going on in the world. Millions of people were being persecuted, incarcerated, and executed. The entire world nearly fell apart because of the whims of a power hungry mad man with a vendetta. Some of the most interesting, heartbreaking, unexpected things to happen in the last century happened at this exact moment in time. So while I appreciate that England needed to have a leader they felt they could trust a this dark hour, overcoming a stutter - no matter how severe - is simply not that engaging or important in the grand scheme of things here. And the worst part is that this story, told in a better context of the world around it, might actually have been really interesting. Juxtaposing the speechless George with the master orator Hitler could have been a unique way of examining George, but instead we get a throw away line about how Hitler sure speaks with conviction.

A film like The King's Speech really confuses me by its existence, even more so by its embrace by audiences. No one involved with this picture took any real risks, nothing is extraordinary, and I never got the sense that this was a story that had to be told. Like I said, it exists solely because those involved want to win Oscars. And they might very well pull it off. But a part of me thinks that the Academy has moved on at this point, that they wouldn't need to take a step backwards and embrace the kind of film that made them the butt of a number of jokes for so long. If you want something challenging and thought provoking, this isn't your film. If you want something that can be easily consumed and forgotten, check out The King's Speech.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I

2010-11-19T20:43:00.000-08:00

I realized I haven't reviewed a Harry Potter movie since 2005's Goblet of Fire (still my favorite entry in the series), and that's probably because they are a hard bunch to discuss. What can I really say about Deathly Hallows (Part I) that's all that different from the past six movies? Sure, the various directors have had differing takes on the world of Hogwarts, but since David Yates adopted the franchise, it has all felt a bit too bland for me. He doesn't seem to have any particular vision for these movies, so his entries feel especially interchangeable. His films, more than any others, have each been little more than a buildup to the next in the franchise, which makes it hard to enjoy the film at hand. That goes doubly so here, with a film whose sole purpose appears to be as a setup for the conclusion to the series. While this creates a number of narrative and pacing issues for the audience, it does allow, finally, for some actual character development in these later films.

I haven't read a single Potter novel, nor do I expect I ever will. I come to this franchise purely as a curious spectator who wants to see what the fuss is about. So I suspect that I am missing out on a great deal of character development found in the last few novels that is largely being exorcised in favor of plot movement and set pieces. By splitting the final novel into two movies, however, it allows this film to slow down a bit and reexamine the central three characters. For the first time in the series, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint are allowed to take center stage without the support of a bevy of well known actors. Sure, most of the ever growing cadre of acting legends are here, but usually only in cameos. The three leads mostly do a good job anchoring the film. They still have their weak points, but they've come such a long way over the last decade. Grint, in particular, really does a fine job of conveying all the conflicting emotions going on within his character. And it was nice to see Harry actually wrestle with his parents' deaths again, something that seems like it should have played a bigger part in his psychology in past films. Watson has the most difficult character of the three to play, the uptight know-it-all, and as always it's a bit difficult to suss out the acting from the writing. Still, the three work well enough together at this point that you will likely forgive any missteps on their parts.

The film does have serious issues with a consistent pace. It will spend twenty minutes on an undercover heist, then follow that with twenty minutes of the kids hiding in the woods doing nothing particularly interesting, just talking and morosely dancing. This format is repeated a couple times; action beat followed by dead weight, making it hard to become all that engaged in what should be the most rousing entry in the series. This is it, the end of the story. Surely it should be a tad more exciting, dangerous, and conclusive. But, as always with Yates, Deathly Hallows is more about setting up the next film than it is about telling the story at hand. I will forgive the movie its ending, which I am in the minority of feeling was a decent way to end the movie on a cliffhanger. Others have claimed it is an abrupt ending, but to me it felt like an appropriate culmination of the preceding two and a half hours.

The action, as always, is great. Indeed, it is some of the best of the series. The aforementioned heist scene, in which our three heroes disguise themselves as adults to break into the Ministry of Magic, is probably the stand out. But what also struck me was how unrelentingly dark and violent this series has become. When Harry Potter began it was lighthearted and glossy, but ten years down the line it has become something I don't think I would take a kid to see. There is one scene in which Harry finds a room covered in blood, flies swirling over a decomposed body. I applaud the filmmakers for following their convictions that the audience needs to grow up with Harry, but it still comes as a shock to see where this series has ended up thematically.

Like I said, there's not a lot to be said for Deathly Hallows. It's a good movie that fails to reach the levels of originality of parts 3 and 4, but still perhaps better than the previous Yates films. If you've made it this far into the series, there's no reason to give up here. I suspect and hope that the final film will be among the better in the series, as Yates will finally have to focus on the film at hand, and not spend the two hours he has left setting up yet another sequel.

Monsters

2010-11-04T18:04:00.000-07:00

Monsters is the kind of movie tailor made for a cult audience, the sort of film you'll kick yourself for not seeing sooner. While it will never attain the same level of awareness of District 9, its audience will only continue to grow as years go by. It's one of those deep cut sci-fi films you pull out to impress your less movie-literate friends. Endlessly inventive and visually arresting, it is all the more impressive for what it is able to accomplish with its minuscule budget and limited production crew. With scenes of pure suspense and unexpected beauty, Monsters is Spielberg on a micro budget.

Monsters follows a photographer named Andrew (Scoot McNairy) as he tries to transport his boss's daughter Sam (Whitney Able) out of Mexico and back home to America. Easy enough, if it weren't for all those 100 foot aliens that crash landed in Northern Mexico six years ago. Together, Andrew and Sam make their way North through the "Infected Zone," hoping they'll make it back to America in one piece. Director Gareth Edwards has an extensive background in visual effects, and he puts it to great use here. The titular monsters, like giant land locked octopuses, are a sight to behold. Edwards, knowing his budgetary limits, keeps the creatures hidden for much of the film. For some audience members, this might be frustrating, but for those with patience, it makes the film all the more rewarding in the end. People never complain that the aliens in Close Encounters don't show up until the end, and to show the aliens here would severely undermine what Edwards ultimately reveals about the aliens in the film. There's something to be said about a subtle monster movie.

While the monsters are seen sparingly through the film, their presence still looms over everything else. There is constant tension that something lethal could happen at any moment, and the visual style of the film reflects a world in which giant aliens have taken over. Shot entirely on location in Mexico, the film takes advantage of hurricane devastated locations to impress upon the audience what kind of world the characters now exist in. And the performances are all informed by their shared history of six years of alien infestation. Some characters use the aliens as a way to make money from desperate travelers, others see the aliens as something almost religious. Just because the monsters are elusive doesn't mean they aren't the dominant force in this movie.

The two central performances work well in an understated way. Scoot McNairy plays Andrew as a man worn down by the world. He recognizes the inherent absurdity of his job, noting that he will make more money if he photographs a child killed by a monster than if he photographs a child smiling. Whitney Able takes what could have been a spoiled heiress character and infuses her with a basic humanity that makes Sam a fun character to be around. And the two (who are a real life couple) have a strong chemistry that helps carry the movie during scenes where the two are simply trekking across Mexican wilderness. It is a true testament to these performances that as the end approached I was sincerely bothered by the idea that there was a very good chance that neither character would survive the film. I simply enjoyed being in the presence of these two people for an hour and a half, which isn't something a lot of films can pull off.

A film like Monsters isn't going to work for people looking for the next Cloverfield. It's about characters, it's about a very detailed setting, and it's ultimately about the idea that what we think we know about something isn't always true. The film ends on an ambiguous and strangely stunning moment that ranks as one of my favorite scenes in a movie this year. What that scene, and indeed the whole film, says about the way people look at the world around them is interesting and moving. At its heart, Monsters is a movie about the beauty of relationships, in more ways than you might expect.

Catching Up: Mini-Reviews

2010-10-31T19:01:00.000-07:00

When 2010 is over and done, I feel like it will be the B-pictures that will frame much of the narrative, at least for me. With delightful oddities like Predators, Kick-Ass, The Other Guys, Splice, and the schlock masterpiece Piranha 3D, the year has had plenty of gulty pleasures to fill in for the lack of great prestige films and blockbusters. October continued that trend with another surprisingly engrossing B-picture to add to that list, in addition to a few other odds and ends worth looking at. Here's a look at some of the things I saw in October.

Paranormal Activity 2

For those keeping score, Paranormal Activity was in my top 10 last year. A perfect blend of cinema verite and genuine chills, I adored it in a way I haven't adored a horror film in years. A sequel so soon screams "cash grab," so I was a bit dismayed to see them churn this sequel out. Thankfully, they seemed to have kept much of what made the original work. While I do have some major qualms (too much back story to explain how it connects to the first movie, no interesting characters, a feeling of been there, done that), it is still a frightening movie in its own right. I was on edge for most of the film, and the style still works wonders in creating fear. As you'd expect with a sequel, it never rises to the same level of horror as the first one, but there is at least one moment where it rivals the original for unexpected terror. Not great, but better than you'd expect considering the circumstances.

Jackass 3D

What an unexpectedly fun movie. I'm not really a fan of the Jackass crew, so I had no real hopes for this film, so color me surprised to find it as engaging as it is. These guys have so finely tuned their "craft" that they know precisely what to do and how to interact with each other in order to elicit the most extreme reactions from their audience. While there were some bits that simply don't work, the hit to miss ratio for this film was definitely much more on the hit side. Johnny Knoxville in particular has so much charisma that he can make even the most feces laden skit a winner. The use of 3D is also quite innovative, with the opening and closing credits real standout examples of how much fun you can have with 3D technology.

The Social Network

I struggled with how to put my thoughts on this film into writing, simply because it is so good. To say that literally every aspect of The Social Network is top notch doesn't do justice to this film. Everyone from David Fincher, to Aaron Sorkin, to the entire cast, to the editor and sound mixers, to Trent Reznor's score, to the seamless digital effects - I really do mean everyone is on top of their game here. I wouldn't have expected a film about the creation of Facebook to be very interesting, but it rises above a simple biopic to become a sort of document of the times we live in and how much our world has changed in the digital age. You've probably already read about how great Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, and Jesse Eisenberg are in this film, so I want to shine a light on the performance I found to be by far the best: Armie Hammer. Playing the role of twins perfectly, he was a revelation. He takes what would have been two villainous characters in the wrong hands and made them likable, honorable guys with endless charisma. He may not be the best part of this masterful film, but he is the part that has stuck with me the longest.

Catfish

2010-09-18T13:50:00.000-07:00

What is Catfish?

That is how they're selling this documentary: a big mystery that you can't have spoiled for you. The film starts with photographer Nev receiving a painted recreation of one of his photos in the mail, sent by a young girl named Abbey. Nev contacts the girl and her family on Facebook, and they become online buddies. Nev befriends many of Abbey's family and friends online, including her older sister Megan, and the two eventually become romantically involved. But after 8 months, something happens that makes Nev question how honest Megan, Abbey, and their family have been with him. What's astonishing is that this has all been documented by Nev's brother and his friend. Where the film goes from there, I can't say. Suffice to say, it is emotional, surprising, frightening, uncomfortable, funny, and utterly engrossing.

Few - if any - films have been as much of the moment as this one is. Much of the film is made up of clips of Facebook, Youtube, Google Earth, GPS maps, and other Internet tools we take advantage of every day. The film is just as often shot on camera phones and flip cams as it is on actual cameras. It's an investigation into the way we meet and interact with people, and how it has completely changed in the last decade. Even without the secret final 40 minutes, it is a great piece of film making. But when the ending comes, it really brings to light just how much of a brave new world we live in, how the Internet can bring together people that never otherwise would have connected with each other. That often, we simply want to believe what we're told, because the truth would probably hurt too much.

Our guide through it all, Nev, is a great figure. Funny, charming, quick to let his guard down. Perhaps it is because he didn't think the footage being filmed would become a movie, but Nev is always open and exposed to the audience. The film probably wouldn't have worked with a different person at its center, and the ending might not have been handled with the care it was had he been even a little more cynical or angry. There is a humanity to Nev that you don't normally see in documentarians (be it Michael Moore pushing an agenda, or Werner Herzog going on about the contrast between man and nature), and it makes for a refreshing and vibrant experience.

If I've convinced you to see this movie (and you absolutely should, it is one of the year's best), stop reading here. I need to get something off my chest that, while not a spoiler, would almost certainly change how you experience it.

I am not entirely sure this documentary is real, or at least wasn't staged to a large degree. I never once thought this during the film itself (maybe I am as naive as Nev was), but reading about the film afterward, there are simply too many things to ignore about it. My first reaction to that idea was anger and disgust. If this film was fake, there are certainly some ethical questions to be raised about the treatment of the subject at hand. But the more I though t about it, the more interesting the film became. There seem to be two camps when it comes to the reality of this film. One camp thinks the entire film is not real. What they find when they go in search for Megan isn't a person, but more actors in on the joke. If this is true, there is a central performance in the film that is among the best I have ever seen. Ultimately, I find this angle too hard to believe, and what we learn about Megan's brothers would shed a despicable light on the whole film if this was true.

The other camp is one I find more and more likely. Nev and his friends knew right away that Megan and her family weren't who they seemed to be (the clues were a bit too obvious to ignore, honestly). They decided to frame a documentary around this discovery, stringing along Megan and her family for months in order to get good material before going to find them. Nev and co had no idea what they would find at the end, only that it would be interesting. What they found certainly was interesting, and I think they quickly realized upon this discovery that a careful, tactful approach would be needed. If this is the case, it doesn't necessarily diminish the movie, but does bring into question just how much we can trust the film as a whole. But in a way, isn't that the point of the film anyway? How do we know what someone is telling us is the truth? How do we know they aren't just telling us what we want to hear? In this 21st century digital age, where anything seems possible, is there anything we won't believe? Which brings me back to my original question:

What is Catfish?

Never Let Me Go

2010-09-02T20:45:00.001-07:00

Through all of cinema, one cliche has stood the test of time to aid the lazy storyteller. If you have a bad movie, you simply start the movie at least halfway through the story with some shocking or intriguing snippet, then jump back and show us how the film got to that point. It shows that the filmmaker either knows they have a dud, or simply do not trust the audience to appreciate their film without a carrot at the end of a stick. You could probably count on your two hands the number of films that have pulled this gimmick off with any shred of dignity. Never Let Me Go is not one of those films. We start with Kathy (Carey Mulligan) standing wistfully in a meadow, as her voice over recounts the mysterious and tragic events that just maybe could have been avoided. If only they'd known back then what they know now. Etc, etc. Why does the film do this? Because the film then spends the next chunk of the film with a bunch of child actors no one knows and doesn't come out and say what is going on right away. We're simply too dumb to appreciate the film unless we know Carey Mulligan will show up and lend us her star power as she faces tragic circumstances. But Never Let Me Go would not be a bad movie if this cliche was the only thing wrong with it. No, there is plenty more wrong with this film than that.

Never Let Me Go revolves around a central concept that is conveyed to the audience fairly quickly if you pay attention, and it is given away in the trailers, so I will delve into it here as well. It's almost impossible to dissect what went wrong with this film without doing so, so you are warned. Kathy, as well as Ruth (Keira Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) are attending a school for clones. These children are raised to know nothing of the outside world, so that they can easily be harvested for parts later in life. It's actually a really interesting concept, and the film invites questions about a society that would allow this to happen. Unfortunately, it also makes for some of the least interesting characters in recent memory. See, because they've been raised to not understand basic concepts or emotions, these characters are all hollow, empty vessels. There is simply nothing engaging about any of them, only their situation. Often they do things only because they are aware it's what people do. For example, Kathy finds and reads a porno magazine at one point, but she simply stares at it and flips through it. She is neither excited by it or repulsed. There is no emotion at all. These moments (and they come often) are creepy and not engaging.

It's frustrating because we should care deeply that these human beings are going to be killed for their body parts, but I started to feel like they really will be more useful as parts than as human beings. It also makes for three boring central performances (and in Andrew Garfield's case, notably awful acting). All three turn in impenetrable performances that make it hard to care or be engaged. Ruth and Kathy have a bit of a feud over who will get to be with Tommy throughout the film, but with only a few exceptions it feels like neither character really cares about Tommy. Nor do we really understand why anyone would care about him. He hardly talks, and seems to be mildly retarded. And yet both women love him simply because he is there. That isn't enough. There is a moment near the end of the film where Tommy finally gets a moment to emote, but instead of having any sort of gravitas, it elicited laughter from my theater. Garfield's low monotone line readings and inability to engage with his costars makes Tommy into a pitiful fool of a character, and it sinks the core character relationships throughout.

In spite of all this, visually the film stands out. The writing and acting may not have gotten to the heart of what emotions this story should convey, but the alternately sparse and dreamy cinematography certainly did. The film looks like it takes place long ago, only to slowly reveal itself to be more futuristic than we expected. One shot in particular actually stands out as one of the more memorable of the year: a lone boat stranded on an empty beach, mirroring the isolation and displacement these characters must be feeling in the world outside of their school walls. But smart visuals don't make a movie good, they just draw attention to how much everything else seems to be lacking.

I've not read the book upon which this is based, but it seems like the kind of story that works so much better on the page. It's certainly a great concept, but those very basic emotional flaws make it nearly impossible to do with any justice. The core idea of the film is we're supposed to care about these people, to be outraged by the things our society would do to improve life for the wealthy at the expense of others. But at no point did the film engage me with its characters, ideas, or story. And that opening is just the insulting cherry on top of it all.

The Town

2010-09-02T16:54:00.001-07:00

Is Ben Affleck the most underrated man in Hollywood? With every passing film he makes, it seems more and more true. The man won an Oscar for writing, has reinvented his acting career the last half decade, and has now become a serious director. Affleck made a string of bad decisions in the early years of the last decade, and it has haunted his career ever since. While his latest directing/acting job won't wash away that ill will for most, it is still another solid step in the right direction. The Town may not be the most original movie (or title), but it is such a solid example of the genre that it's worth watching.

Affleck stars as career criminal Doug MacRay. Doug, along with a collection of lowlife childhood friends, robs banks. After their latest job they kidnap the manager of the bank (Rebecca Hall) in order to make a getaway. They let her go soon after, but she is very shaken by the experience. When they realize that she lives a few blocks away from their usual haunts, Doug decides to approach her to see if she can ID any of them. While she doesn't recognize him, he sees how affected she is by what they put her through. He begins to regret his actions, and she starts to fall in love with the man he pretends to be. The film follows Doug as he tries to balance his old life as a criminal, and the new life he wishes he could live.

Like I said, this is a film you've probably seen before. What makes it pop in spite of that familiarity is the acting and the visual storytelling on display. Affleck is very good as a man split between loyalty to his lifelong friends and his desire for a greater life. He allows a bitter anger to boil under the surface for so long, that whenever it bursts out, it is both shocking yet not really unexpected. The real standout, though, is Jeremy Renner as Affleck's increasingly disturbed best friend. Locked away for nine years for murder, he feels the world owes him something in return for the life he lost. With his grip on reality fading as the film progresses, you both hate him and sympathize with him. And then there is Jon Hamm as the man trying to take these boys down. It is a thankless role, but he makes it his own. He delivers exposition and banters with his partner like a champ, but we never really care about him. When will Jon Hamm get the vehicle he deserves? The man has the charisma and charm of George Clooney, and seems destined to be the next big movie star. The Town doesn't solidify that fact for him, but it seems to be only a matter of time.

Visually, Affleck seems to have grown since Gone Baby Gone. Where as that film had an often flat visual style, he takes some risks in The Town that pay off. One great little touch is the way in which he matches an early shot of a flashback of Renner murdering his best friend with another shot later of him arguing with Affleck. It creates a sudden sense of dread that hits you unexpectedly, making the stakes seem higher than they otherwise would. And the heist scenes, especially the climactic one, are electric. While they often seem to take a page from Point Break (the masks, most notably), they are still thrilling. You get the sense that anything could go wrong at a moment's notice, and the film could take a sudden turn into dark, unexpected territory.

I really just wish that all the pieces had been in support of a stronger story. After Gone Baby Gone, which had an air of importance and originality, this just doesn't feel like a step forward for Affleck as a director. And yet Affleck's visual sense is arguably stronger here than it was there. Ultimately it's a good deal of fun, which can never be argued with, and all the performances are as strong as one could hope for. The Town may feel like a place you've been before, but you won't mind going there again.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

2010-08-13T19:28:00.001-07:00

I think it's safe to say that there is no other movie like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. It's one of the most madcap, high energy, relentless films I have ever seen. And it may also be brilliant. Films simply aren't told the way Scott Pilgrim is, so to see a film completely ignore the rules of film making so brazenly is liberating, if not a bit difficult to come to terms with. I've read the books upon which this is based, but even I was unsure of what to make of the movie for the first fifteen minutes or so. It was as if director Edgar Wright was incapable of letting a scene finish before he had already started the next one. Hell, sometimes it seemed as though one scene was simply happening on top of another. And yet, once I embraced the way the film was being told, it was exhilarating.

Michael Cera is Scott Pilgrim, a twenty-something layabout who meets the girl of his dreams (literally), Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). The catch is, she comes with a lot of baggage in the form of seven evil exes that Scott must defeat. What follows is a cacophony of fights, songs, split screens, Vegan Police, giant sound wave monsters, explosions of coins, a studio audience, 8-bit studio logos, and more. And yet, it all serves a point. Unlike a film like Speed Racer, which assaults you for the sake of being abrasive, Scott Pilgrim uses its visual style to give us a better understanding of how Scott sees the world. His life is shaped (and stunted) by the video games, music, and comic books he enjoys. When he enters his apartment after a night with Ramona, it makes sense that in his mind he would enter to applause and cheers.

The film is fast paced, to say the least, but it gets across a lot of information and emotional depth as well. I was surprised how long it took the film to even get to the first fight scene, allowing us to meet our hero and his friends. The world in which Scott exists is fully realized and explored even before the first evil ex shows up to ruin the party. I will say that if there is one problem with the film, it's that Ramona remains so unknowable up until the end of the picture that you will find it hard to care for her. Now, that could be because we are seeing everything through Scott's eyes, as he himself isn't quite sure what to make of her. But that doesn't make it less difficult when you're trying to understand why Scott would put up with all the evil exes for her. The film ultimately comes to a point where he is fighting them more for himself than for her, but it still would have been nice to understand what it is that these two characters see in each other.

If the visual imagination on display is the high point of the film, the acting is a close second. Considering the genre, that's actually pretty amazing. While I was left cold by Mary Elizabeth Winstead (the point, I understand that), I was actually quite charmed by Michael Cera. While he isn't the Scott Pilgrim I envisioned when reading the books, he also isn't the Michael Cera I've seen in everything else Cera has made. He is rude, selfish, and aloof, and yet that makes him all the more endearing when he tries to come to terms with what is being foisted upon him. The various exes steal their limited screen time, with Brandon Routh and Chris Evans bringing a level of narcissism to their characters that make their downfall all the more hilarious. But the best performances in the film come from Kieran Culkin as Scott's gay roommate Wallace, and newcomer Ellen Wong as Scott's underage girlfriend Knives. The two throw themselves at their characters with such abandon that they rise above the goofiness to feel like the most fully realized people in the movie.

Edgar Wright is a man still early in his career, and yet it feels like he is a master of cinema in a way few people his age could ever hope to be. His vision for Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is so fully realized that you never doubt the choices he makes with the film. And that is absolutely vital with material like this. If for even a second you don't buy what he is doing visually, the whole film collapses (again, Speed Racer). This is the kind of material that simply shouldn't translate to screen well, and the fact that Wright figured out how to translate it perfectly makes the film feel mildly revolutionary.

Catching Up: Mini-Reviews

2010-07-12T17:22:00.000-07:00

The summer is flying by, and the movies keep on coming. I wanted to make sure these films got some ink before they get overshadowed by Inception, so it's time for another round of mini-reviews (and at this point, if Inception doesn't overshadow the rest of this summer's fare, this truly will be the worst summer for film ever...)

Predators

I should not have found this film to be as charming as I did. The original Predator is a film whose enjoyment level for me rarely rises above "loathe," so take this review with a grain of salt. I found that most of the performances worked very well, especially Topher Grace (perpetually underrated) and Walton Goggins (perhaps the best character actor working today). The film smartly takes the Jaws approach, hinting at what's out there without showing it for probably half the run time. It's ultimately little more than a violent, crass, silly action film, but it's one of the better films of its kind we've gotten in a while. The film does take itself a bit too seriously, and the running joke of not telling us Adrien Brody's character's name is misguided, as I couldn't name any of the other characters either. Still, this film is exactly what it sells itself as, and you can't really go wrong with it if you're looking for an above average creature feature.

Life During Wartime

What exactly constitutes a sequel? That's one of the many questions Todd Solondz grapples with in Life During Wartime. A sequel of sorts to his masterpiece Happiness, it recasts every character, often turning them into someone completely different from who they were originally. And yet, the film so explicitly continues all their stories from the first film, you'll be lost if you've never seen it. It's a fascinating, if ultimately hollow experiment. Few actors are able to achieve anything approaching what the original actors did, with only a few trying to make the characters completely their own (Paul Rubens and Ciaran Hinds making the biggest impacts). If you've never seen a Solondz movie, you really shouldn't start here. The things I love about his style are still on display here, though a bit more subdued. It's ironic that this might be his most mainstream film yet, but it's also the least accessible due to its constant callbacks to a film most people never saw from 12 years ago. I'd recommend you see Happiness instead, but it is probably too shocking for 99% of audiences out there.

The Kids Are All Right

Here's a film that tells a familiar story, with familiar themes, yet it works so well because of the actors on display. All five lead actors give career best performances, and while the adults might be getting all the awards talk (Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, and Mark Ruffalo), I found the two children to be far more interesting and nuanced. Mia Wasikowska, fresh off of Tim Burton's recent disaster, is infinitely charming here as the daughter. She gave such a wooden performance in Alice, so it comes as a bit of a shock to see her flourish in a real role. And Josh Hutcherson is an actor I've had my eye on since Bridge to Terabithia. Here he realizes his potential as the confused and lost son of two lesbians. His story is the one I wish had been explored more. His need to find out who his father is should have played a much bigger role in the film, but it often gets glossed over in favor of bickering between Bening and Moore. Had this movie put the kids front and center, it might have been a much more original and interesting film.

Cyrus

Jonah Hill makes it 3 for 3 this year with great films. Here he absolutely nails the role of Cyrus, a strange man-child who still lives with his mother. What really could have been a one note performance is given a lot more depth by Hill, who had to improvise most of his dialog, along with the rest of the cast. John C Reilly is just as good as the man wooing Cyrus' mother. I found the loose style of this film very refreshing. While it hits some familiar beats, it hits them with wit an charm. You can almost certainly guess where this film will end up, but how it gets there is pretty fun. The women in the film haven't got as much to do, but Marissa Tomei and Catherine Keener (two of my favorite women in film right now) both give it their best. Cyrus very well might be the best comedy of the summer, one one you should check out when it comes to your neck of the woods.

Toy Story 3

2010-06-18T22:48:00.000-07:00

The day I was born, my Grandma gave me a stuffed monkey, which I fittingly named "Monkey." Monkey was my first toy, the first of many. A lot of toys came and went, but Monkey was always there. When I finally outgrew playing with toys, Monkey was one of a small band I deemed worthy to stay in my room as decoration. But at some point, probably when I went to college, Monkey had to be packed away like all the rest. Since then, my parents have moved a few times, and all the boxes of my old stuff have long been shuffled away. Now I don't know where Monkey is, probably stuffed in a box in a shed in Oregon. It's sad that something so important to me at one time could be forgotten so easily, but it happens to everyone as they grow up. Toy Story 3 seems bound and determined to make us all feel truly horrible for having done that to our toys. Indeed, I suspect this film will cause a lot of kids to cling to their toys far longer than they ever should, for fear of betraying the things they loved so much. I'm a grown man and it made me regret not knowing where Monkey is!

Toy Story 3 is a movie that fills me with conflicting emotions. On the one hand, it is a moderate step backwards from their previous string of truly mature features (Ratatouille through Up). On the other hand, it created emotions in me no other film ever has. Toy Story 3 uses the fifteen year history of the franchise to truly pull at your heart strings in ways I don't think any other franchise has ever attempted. By allowing young Andy to grow up, by spacing this film out so far from the last two, it really gives you a sense of the loss these toys are going through as their owner prepares to leave them behind. By film's end, I was in tears. Not sad tears, nor happy tears, but tears of recognition, of understanding. The love Andy has for his toys is palpable, even if it's a bit unrealistic considering his age. And yet, I couldn't shake the thought that the ending didn't feel entirely earned.

See, because this is a sequel, it relies more on familiarity with characters than allowing them to continue to change and grow. The first movie introduced us to these characters, allowed them to develop before our eyes. By the time the third film rolls around, it's just not possible to do that again. So when the film's climax happens, I was affected because of how well developed the characters were in other movies, not in this one. The film basically tacks on the most emotional ending ever to what was otherwise an adventure film. The kind of character development on display, were this an original film, would be unacceptable by Pixar standards. Woody is the only one allowed to grow and mature, while the others are nothing but vehicles for jokes and set pieces up until that ending. Even Buzz, the co-lead character, is pushed to the background, used more as a plot device than as a character.

And yet, the adventure works, the comedy amuses, and the new characters are a delight. I definitely had fun while watching the film. The new characters of Ken and Lotso were certainly entertaining. The staging of the prison escape was thrilling and inventive. And the image of Mr. Potato Head as something other than Mr. Potato Head is comedy genius (as well as raises some strange metaphysical questions about identity). The film tries to balance between these aspects and the emotions inherent in the story, but it errs too much on the side of popcorn entertainment. There's nothing revelatory here, which is really about as slight of a knock as a film can get. Yet I can't shake the feeling that this is as close as Pixar can get to phoning it in.

Whatever my qualms with the structure of the story, I can't deny that the last ten minutes or so are among the best Pixar has ever produced. In a storied history filled with stunning images, none come close to seeing Woody and friends holding hands, waiting for the inevitable. You'll know what I mean when you see it, and it is a breath taker. I've never seen characters come to terms with their uncertain future in such a profound and moving way. If the whole film had been that powerful, it would certainly be the best film in Pixar's repertoire. As it stands, Toy Story 3 has to settle for incredibly uneven: fun and slight, yet powerful and moving just when you need it to be. And when it all comes to an end, you'll be left thinking not just about these characters, but about yourself and your own toys. Those bonds you made however many years ago were important at the time, and Toy Story 3 asks you to remember and embrace them while also moving on.

Winter's Bone

2010-06-14T16:36:00.000-07:00

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that in perhaps the most boring summer movie season ever, the best film of the summer is not a blockbuster, but a small independent film. In many ways, the twists and turns of a film like Winter's Bone far surpass any excitement to be found in the paint-by-numbers blockbuster mentality of Iron Man 2. It might be blasphemous to suggest that you should skip seeing The Karate Kid or The A-Team this week in favor of a movie with no explosions, no quippy dialog, and no kung fu atop the Great Wall, but that's what I'm going to do. There's no denying that Winter's Bone isn't for everybody, but those who will appreciate it will get infinitely more from Winter's Bone than anyone could ever get from any other blockbuster released so far this year.

From the opening shots, you get a good sense of the kind of film you're in for. Lingering shots of the Ozarks, set to the haunting vocals of folk singer Marideth Sisco help to give us a sense of both mood and place. From this opening, the film wastes no time setting up the stakes: Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) is a 17 year old taking care of two younger siblings and a mother who is a shell of her former self. When the sheriff comes by and informs her that her father skipped town while on bond, she has a week to find him or lose her home. It's a simple enough premise, and the premise itself is simply a way to explore the world and characters, as well as explore the darker side of family bonds. By about halfway through the film, I was caring less and less about the resolution to the plot, and more and more about the details of the world of the film.

Indeed, this is a film so filled with intimate details about the world the characters live in, it may take a few viewings to take them all in. The cinematography is starkly beautiful, soaking in all the nuances of the Ozarks and its people. One of my favorite moments has nothing to do with anything, and yet it will stick with me all year: aforementioned Marideth Sisco and a group of compatriots simply sit around in a circle singing folk songs in a rundown little house while Ree wanders in looking for her father. Any other film would have made this scene about what Ree might learn about her dad, but Winter's Bone makes it as much about the people populating Ree's life as it does the plot details.

The film works for any number of reasons, but reason number one is Jennifer Lawrence. Tasked with the job of carrying the entire film, she soars. So much of the performance is internal; as we watch the events of the film take their toll on the heroine, we can see how it is wearing her down mentally. Ree never comes across as outwardly desperate, but we can see in here eyes just how little hope she has of finding her father in time. Facing one obstacle after another - many of which take the form of menacing estranged family members - Ree is so determined yet sorrowful. It's not the kind of performance that has an easy Oscar clip, instead keeping a consistent and engrossing tenor throughout. If there is one standout moment, it would surely be when Ree goes to see a military recruiter. So much is going on in that scene: a desire to simply escape the life she's been forced into, the need to take care of her family financially, and the way it reveals how young and naive she still really is. The last few years have seen a plethora of great young actresses emerging - Gabourey Sidibe, Ellen Page, Carey Mulligan, Saoirse Ronan to name but a few- and Lawrence is as good as any of them. Let's hope this is the start of a long career.

The other half of the acting equation is John Hawkes. Hawkes has turned in stellar work in supporting roles for years, but here he has truly great material to work with. We initially think he is nothing but another obstacle for Ree. His character of Teardrop is the brother of Ree's father, and his connection to his brother slowly consumes him. Like Ree, he can't let his brother simply disappear, becoming desperate to know where the man went. Where Lawrence is internal, Hawkes gets to be a bit more showy. Anger and rage permeates the character, but beneath it all is a deep sadness. We get the sense that Ree never knew her father as anything other than a failure, but Teardrop knew him as a brother, and as such he feels protective of him. Hawkes makes you feel as though Teardrop's very soul is on the line, that he needs to find his brother more than even Ree does. It's powerful and understated work.

Director Debra Granik has constructed a well done thriller, tapping into ideas of family bonds, revenge, and the fulfillment of one's potential. There are moments here that will rank among the year's most memorable. The film's chainsaw wielding climax is the kind of sequence that sticks with you long after the film is finished. Winter's Bone is not an action movie, and it's not a high octane thrill ride. What it is, though, is a strong character piece that knows how to scare you, shock you, surprise you, and entertain you.

Splice

2010-06-05T15:50:00.000-07:00

There was a time, long ago, when horror movies were more than just jump scares and loud noises. More than a lot of other genres, horror has allowed filmmakers to address social issues in unique and exciting ways. By taking current political issues and combining them with monsters and thrills, a director could smuggle his message out to audiences without them explicitly knowing it. Everything from race relations (Night of the Living Dead), to religion (The Exorcist), to Communism (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), anything was fair game for the horror genre. Sadly, that seems to have faded since the 90's. Now we are inundated with torture porn and hollow remakes that miss the point of the originals. But once every so often a film will sneak through in the same vain as classic horror cinema. Such is the case with Splice, a film with a lot on its mind, even if it's never quite sure what to do with all that creativity.

Taking a page straight from Cronenberg, Splice is pure body horror. What would happen if someone combined the genes of a human with those of other animals? Such is the question two award winning scientists ask (Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley), resulting in the creation of Dren. Dren is human-like in appearance, but animalistic in nature. Instead of aborting the creature when they realize how dangerous it is, they adopt it as a surrogate child, trying to help it tap into its human side. Much of the fun to be had comes from the tension between Dren's opposing sides. Dren seems to have human emotions, but also has a very violent side, and you're never sure which side will win out in a given scenario. Armed with a poisonous stinger in its tail, Dren can wreak bloody havoc when it wants to.

Brody and Polley play the parts of surrogate parents perfectly, with Polley especially standing out. Polley is so protective of Dren, she seems willing to sacrifice everything she has for Dren. There is an obsessive, almost deranged quality to the character, and you can see why she would latch on to Dren so strongly. The movie has a lot of fun playing with the idea of these three characters being a deformed family of sorts. All the problems they have with Dren are like perverted inversions of the kinds of things a normal family would deal with when raising a child. The film can often be as funny and silly as it can be scary. Indeed, it's often much more of a dark comedy than a horror film at times. This is a wise choice, as playing this deadly serious would not work at all. The tone can still have some issues, but it mostly works, often because the actors understand what kind of movie they are in.

Because the film doesn't simply go for cheap thrills, but actually allows its audience to think and consider what is happening, Splice works. Stem cell research is still a complicated and divisive topic, and Splice has some interesting things to say on both sides of the argument. On the one hand, using human genes to create Dren results in some serious medical breakthroughs. On the other hand, it causes far more damage than it may be worth to those who create Dren. If the film does have a problem, it is the ending. For the majority of the run time, the film is content to be a character piece with grotesque visual moments and dark humor. But the end suddenly changes tone completely, turning into something other than what the film was before. The end feels cheap and unearned, and more than that, unnecessary. We spend so much time getting to know and understand Dren, that when something changes in Dren, it undermines what time we spent with the creature. It feels like the filmmakers couldn't figure out how to end the film they'd started, so they switched gears and took the easy way out. Too bad, as an ending in a similar tone with the rest of the film would have been much more satisfying.

Why is it so hard for horror films to be about something more than just violence? Splice is able to have some great bodily horrors in addition to interesting characters and thematic arcs worth thinking about. While it won't likely appeal to those looking for simple thrills, it is definitely more engaging than any other horror film released so far this year. And at its center is Dren, certainly one of the more complex movie "monsters" of recent memory.

Micmacs

2010-05-29T11:16:00.000-07:00

It's been far too long since we last saw Jean-Pierre Jeunet's special brand of crazy on the screen. Best known for Amelie, he has made a career out of whimsical, off kilter films about outsiders struggling with the strange world they've been dropped into. Whether it be the new tenant in the cannibalistic apartment complex in Delicatessen, or the mercenaries in Alien: Resurrection, it is a common theme throughout his work. Micmacs offers more of the same, so if you enjoy his brand of storytelling, you will probably find more to like here. If not, be aware that he is at perhaps his most whimsical with Micmacs, arguably to the film's detriment. Inspired by both the slapstick comedies of the silent era and the films of Jacques Tati, Micmacs follows Bazil, a man who is accidentally shot in the head and still has the bullet lodged in his skull. He one day discovers that the manufacturer of the bullet in his head is operating near where he lives. Not only that, but the company that built the landmine that killed his father is across the street from that building. With the help of some eclectic friends, he decides to take down both companies at the same time.

One might argue that Micmacs is the logical conclusion to the idea of the eccentric loaner in Jeunet films overcoming the fantastical world around him. Never has one of his protagonists been quite as much of an outsider as Bazil, who literally has nothing to his name after being shot. But through the discovery of others like him living in a junkyard, he is able to achieve something like a perfect existance by film's end. Bazil's struggles aren't simply against a butcher (Delicatessen), an Alien (Resurrection), or a war (A Very Long Engagement), but against society itself. Only the other rejects will have him, and he ultimately abandons all connections to reality to live out his junkyard fantasy with people that could politely be called "caricatures." It's a simplistic way of looking at life, which fits Bazil's very simple nature throughout the film. Bazil is often portrayed as little more than a man-child. He says little, watches videos all day, and likes to play games with his hands. That he would find bliss in a junkyard filled with misfits makes sense.

Due to the nature of the kinds of films Jeunet makes, the acting can rarely be called subtle. There is a lot of mugging, a lot of shouting, a lot of broad physical comedy. It makes sense in the context of the genre that Jeunet is working in, but it can become insufferable to those not in tune with what he is doing. The two most engaging performances, interestingly enough, is that of the two weapons manufacturers. While they don't exist in much more of a realistic world than the protagonists, they do have layers to them that are lacking from all the supporting players. I often found myself enjoying the film most when it spent some time with these two men, often oblivious to the machinations of Bazil and company. The things Bazil does to get revenge on the two ends up looking more like corporate subterfuge, so the two men suspect each other and not Bazil, providing the film's best moments of comedic paranoia.

This is almost certainly the slightest film Jeunet has done, but one can't deny the infectious goofiness on display. While Jeunet's worldview can some across as regressive at time (abandon the difficulties of society and enjoy life with friends!), he does populate his films with amusing characters, visual splendor, and numerous sight gags. The plot is nothing more than a MacGuffin to provide a framework for the characters to exist in (the bullet in Bazil's head is mostly forgotten, even though we are lead to believe he could drop dead at any moment). Let's hope that this was a necessary recharging film some directors need in order to get back on their game. Whimsy is fun once and a while, but to make a whole career out of it doesn't seem feasible.

Iron Man 2

2010-05-09T20:14:00.000-07:00

Rereading my review of the original Iron Man from two years ago, I was struck by the fact that all the minor issues I had with that film are also what I took issue with in the sequel. But where those issues were minor annoyances in the first film, here they become almost unbearable. It's as if Jon Favreau took all the wrong lessons from the first film. Where once there was a loose structure, now there is no structure. Where once we had villains with little screen time, here we have villains who make little sense and essentially do nothing. Where once the actors not named Robert Downey Jr. felt underused, here they are wasted. It's a shame, because this seemed like such an easy film to knock out of the park. I ended my review of Iron Man confident that the sequel would easily surpass it, as most comic book sequels seem to do. Sadly it was not to be.

One of the things I found so interesting about the first film was that Iron Man wasn't a small hero: he was essentially a man out to protect the world. The stakes in an Iron Man film should be huge. So the fact that the only real drama comes from Iron Man's personal demons is a major letdown. Iron Man alter ego Tony Stark fears he is dying (the only clue to this is the infection we see around his arc reactor, as he never displays any signs of weakness). The film follows his struggles to cope with this fact. The main villain, as such, is not the megalomaniac Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) or the vengeance seeking Whiplash (Mickey Rourke), but his own failing body. Because that's what we really want from a summer blockbuster. For the first hour or so, I didn't mind this fact. I figured they were laying the personal stakes for Tony so that there would be more weight to the drama when the S hits the F. But by hour two, you realize that no, there is no other drama. This is it.

So what of these villains? Well, Whiplash is a joke. He has so little screen time that you'd be forgiven if you forgot he exists during the middle section of the film. He has the most stock of villain motivations: revenge. Now, this could be treated in an interesting way if the film allowed him to actually share any screen time with the man he is seeking revenge on. But because his motivation is so weak, the filmmakers decided to keep him and Tony Stark separated for the whole film. They meet twice and talk to each other even less. And that's the "main" villain. The other villain of sorts is Justin Hammer, the main competitor of Stark Industries. Rockwell makes him into a fun character, but again, there is little motivation for him beyond corporate rivalry. He ultimately comes across as a child who is mad he isn't getting all the attention.

Why do you hire all these really great actors if you aren't going to use them? I get that they want to focus on the sublime performance by Robert Downey Jr. but part of what makes him so much fun is seeing him play off of these other actors. Stark is by himself for so much of the film that even he becomes dull after a while. Don Cheadle gets a fun, if obvious joke when he is introduced as Rhodey, commenting on the fact that he is not the person we remember from two years ago. But beyond that he is put in the background with Gwyneth Paltrow, only allowed to pop in once in a while. And Scarlett Johansson is the biggest waste of the whole film. She exists only because they want to continue to build up the Avengers film. And there in lies perhaps why this film was doomed to fail: it's one big advertisement for another film.

Iron Man 2 is not allowed to have its own plot. Instead, it's a constant reminder that there are other movies that Marvel wants you to see in the future. Why is Nick Fury here? To remind Stark that they want him on their superhero team. The film ends on a note that adds absolutely nothing to the film, and is only there to advertise the big Marvel movie coming out next summer. It has zero to do with anything that has happened in the film previously, or with anything that will happen in any future Iron Man movies. It's all excessive, and is simply filler for a film that otherwise has no interesting plot threads of its own.

I'm not sure what anyone involved here was thinking when they made this film. There is almost no action, Tony Stark rarely dresses up in the Iron Man suit (and when he does, it is often as a joke, such as when he throws a birthday party for himself). The final fight is perfunctory and short (mainly because it's obvious that no villain they came up with was really any match for Iron Man, let alone Iron Man and War Machine). It's just such a nothing film, you can't help but wonder why it was made (besides to advertise other movies). Were it not for Robert Downey Jr. delivering his usual great performance, this would be a total waste. All in all, this is not how you start the summer movie season.

How to Train Your Dragon

2010-04-10T09:32:00.000-07:00

Perhaps it is because I am spoiled by Pixar every year, but I have never been able to really enjoy a Dreamworks Animation movie before. Sure Shrek was ok at the time, but it has not held up well over the years. Indeed, that is the problem with all of Dreamworks' movies: they are so invested in pop culture jokes that they can feel dated only a few years later. How funny, really, is a Who Wants to be a Millionaire joke or an American Idol spoof now? Not very. And yet, Dreamworks continued to allow these films to be made, not caring about any sort of longevity. So along comes How to Train Your Dragon, and I brush it off, in spite of the glowing reviews. Kung Fu Panda got good reviews, and that wasn't very good either. But after hearing from many people that this is the anti-Dreamworks Dreamworks movie, I finally gave in and watched it. And I am so glad I did.

How to Train Your Dragon is in the tradition of Pixar's best: it's about the characters first and foremost. Any story, jokes, or emotions all develop from the characters, not the other way around. The film tells the story of Hiccup, a Viking child who is training to be a dragon killer. One day he comes across a downed dragon in the forest, but can't bring himself to kill it. In letting it live, he learns that everything he thought he knew about dragons is wrong. Naming it Toothless, the boy and dragon become friends and try to change the Vikings' view on dragons. It's a simple enough story, but it is told with such weight and emotion that you really care about the characters. Key to this is the voice talent, or lack thereof.

Jay Baruchel plays Hiccup, and his performance hits the right notes. But it wouldn't work if Toothless wasn't mute. The most surprising thing about this film is the fact that they allowed the dragons to not speak English. Toothless isn't a wisecracking sidekick; he's a pet. This allows us to project on to him the things we need to in order to empathize with him. The voicelessness gives all the dragons a noble, sad quality that is vital to making them sympathetic. The rest of the voice talent is a bit more hit and miss. Actors like Jonah Hill and Christopher Mintz-Plasse feel a bit out of place, like something left over from an older Dreamworks film. But then Gerard Butler uses his persona to great effect as Hiccup's disappointed father. And America Ferrera disappears into her role of the love interest, making her into more of a tough girl than a damsel in distress.

This film simply would not work if it wasn't about the story and characters first. Some really funny moments come out of who these characters are, and the connection between Hiccup and Toothless is palpable and fun. Visually it is stunning, especially during the flying scenes. All in all, it is a far better movie than I ever would have given Dreamworks credit for. I hope they learn from this movie and continue to grow in the right ways. Is it too much to ask that Shrek Forever After is the last of a dying breed, and that How to Train Your Dragon is the future for Dreamworks?

Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-03-28T15:57:00.000-07:00

When a movie has a title like Hot Tub Time Machine, reviewing it almost seems futile. Movies like this come down to whether or not you find it funny. Unfortunately, it seems that the movie had most of its jokes ruined by the trailers, so I found myself laughing less than I would have liked to. Sure, there were a few surprises, and the characters were occasionally entertaining, if not a little stock. Still, if you like knowingly dumb comedies, you could do worse than Hot Tub Time Machine.

Do I even need to explain the plot? Four friends get into a hot tub and it takes them back to the 80's. It's the barest of premises, and it serves to give us a lot of riffs on both the 80's and the 00's (Indeed, while there isn't a lot of 10's culture yet established for a film to make fun of, this film seems most comfortable with jokes about things that are more than a few years old, like "Let's Get Retarded" by the Black Eyed Peas). Like any good 80's satire, everything is extremely exaggerated. People all wear ridiculous clothes, love Red Dawn, and listen to the most on the nose 80's songs. The 80's are such an easy target, it can often make for very lazy jokes (what color is Michael Jackson?). It would have been nice to see the film try a little harder. Still, when the jokes do work, they work well. The running joke about Crispin Glover's character is probably the standout.

The cast is strong for this kind of film, even if they have little to do. John Cusack seems so out of place here, and as our de facto lead he is probably the only dull spot. His straight man routine doesn't really provide any real comedy, he is mostly there to comment on what is going on. Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry are, as expected, very reliable. While we've seen the Corddry character a thousand times before - the boorish friend who seems to have no boundaries - Corddry takes the guy to new and outlandish heights. And Clarke Duke, as the youngster of the group, is surprisingly amusing as the only person who seems to be aware of how much damage they could cause to the future. Realizing he was conceived the very weekend they end up in, his neurosis over erasing his birth is very funny. And then there is the cameo by Chevy Chase. Chase seems to be in the midst of a very minor comeback, which is a wonderful thing. Sadly, his talent is squandered here in a borderline non-sequitur performance. He is apparently some sort of time traveling God who only speaks in riddles, but he is so insignificant to the plot and is clearly only there because he is a familiar face.

Your mileage may vary, but I found the film to lack the big laughs and truly memorable characters of something like the similar Hangover. Still, it does have some nifty riffs on time travel, and the callback to the "Johnny Be Good" sequence from Back to the Future is a clever moment that doesn't hit you over the head about being a reference. Again, when you call your film Hot Tub Time Machine, you aren't exactly delving into the intricacies of time travel or the profundity of life.

Greenberg

2010-03-22T16:50:00.000-07:00

What is it that drives Noah Baumbach to create some of the most unlikable characters in recent cinema? Greenberg is his third film in a row that centers on how an essentially irredeemable misanthrope ruins the lives of those around him. If that doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun, you wouldn't be mistaken. While The Squid and the Whale was saved by some truly great performances, Greenberg does not have Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney to depend upon. Instead, it has Ben Stiller and Mumblecore queen Greta Gerwig at its center. They try their best with such difficult material, and they ultimately save it from being as passionless as Margot at the Wedding. Still, not being as bad as Margot is damning with faint praise.

Stiller plays the titular Greenberg, a man who had the world in the palm of his hand fifteen years earlier, but let it slip away. Now he is a socially awkward, angry, bitter man with only one tenuous friend and no real prospects. He meets Florence (Gerwig), who is sort of an errand girl for Greenberg's brother. The two don't exactly hit it off, but for some reason Florence is intrigued by Greenberg. The two start an on and off relationship, which often results in some demeaning moments for Florence. Baumbach doesn't really seem to think people can change who they are, so we know from the beginning that this relationship can never really work. That's a big part of why it can be such a slog to sit through.

Stiller does a good job of being unlikable, but he isn't able to make being unlikable interesting. Aside from a few uncomfortably funny quips ("That's the worst story I've ever heard. Bye!"), he is difficult to watch. Gerwig, on the other hand, is kind of a delight. Her Florence is the opposite of Greenberg, a bit of a doormat that lets people use her. She's such a sad and endearing person, and Gerwig gives her just the right amount of spark to make you care for her. Gerwig helps you understand why this girl would settle for Greenberg, even if you don't agree that she should.

To say this film offers nothing new to Baumbach's oeuvre wouldn't be totally fair, but not entirely off the mark, either. It's certainly got some of the funnier moments in any of his films, and Gerwig is enjoyable to watch. But if you've seen The Squid and the Whale, this isn't something that ever reaches the same heights. It's not easy to endure the kinds of characters and situations that Baumbach likes to create, so I simply can't recommend sitting through this one if you've seen anything else he has done.

Cop Out

2010-03-08T20:49:00.001-08:00

I think I'll keep this one quick, as there's really little to be said about a film like Cop Out. Director Kevin Smith has made a film that plays homage to the classic buddy cop comedies of the 80's. Everything is there: mismatched partners, a synth score, a ridiculous plot driven by a MacGuffin. Indeed, the only thing Smith left out is the actual comedy. Cop Out is simply a dreadfully dull film. Everyone involved seem to be either bored or don't care. The performances are lifeless, the story is tedious, and no amount of riffs on a genre can change that.

Smith is better known for his scripts than his directing, and he has said he took this as a way to test out what it would be like to direct a film he didn't write. Well, he should stick to his own scripts. It would appear that, when he doesn't write out the film himself, Smith has little to no actual ideas as to how he wants the film to flow. People, including Smith himself, have knocked the directing style of his previous films, but his directing always served the writing. His films may not look good, but the directing never got in the way of telling a good story. Not here. Smith seems so hung up on trying to prove he can create a visually interesting film, he ignored one of the real keys to being a director: pace. Scenes do not flow well together at all, the film feels disjointed and sluggish, and subplots either go nowhere or pop up at the wrong times. A funny running gag could have come out of Tracy Morgan's character trying to determine if his wife is cheating on him, but there is no rhythm to the way these jokes are parsed out through the film. This lack of pace kills any chance of someone like Morgan or Bruce Willis creating memorably funny characters.

I think Smith's concern over being a visual director is holding him back from making truly great movies. Chasing Amy looks really bad, but it is still one of the best films of the 90's because it is an interesting story told well. Anyone who has listened to the guy talk knows he is a pro at telling a story. For a man who holds the words of the script so high, it's shocking how little he cares about them here in Cop Out, focusing too much on what looks cool and little else. Let's just hope that now that he got this experiment out of his system, he can go back to crafting intelligent and insightful character pieces.

Another Oscar Season in the Books

2010-03-07T21:00:00.001-08:00

And there you have it, the lowest grossing film (ever?) to win Best Picture. And you know, I think that's pretty cool. I'm sure there will be a lot of Avatar fans who are disappointed by the outcome, but hopefully they will give this thrilling and unique film a chance. And special kudos to Kathryn Bigelow for becoming the first woman to win Best Director. As for the rest of the categories, it was all pretty clear who would win. The big surprise, certainly, was Precious shutting out Up in the Air for screenplay. Not entirely in agreement with that decision, but at least it was surprising. Anyway, some stray thoughts:

Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were awful. Really, really awful. Which is a shame, since these guys are usually very funny. You'd think given ten nominees, they'd have a wealth of material to work with.
Indeed, the whole show was a big letdown. From the strange dance sequence during the score nominees, to the return of the supremely awkward acting presentations by other actors, this year was, dare I say, a disaster. It was becoming clear these last few weeks that Adam Shankman, the producer, had no love for the Oscars at all, so this wasn't all that surprising.
Jeff Bridges finally won! He has True Grit, with the Coen Bros, coming out this Christmas, maybe there's a chance he will be the first consecutive winner since Tom Hanks?
So, of all the people who have died since Stanly Kubrick in 1999, none have been more worthy of a standalone In Memoriam than John Hughes? I like the guy's films plenty, and his impact is undeniable, but that's just silly.
Less silly? The horror montage. I was doubtful when they announced it, but damn if it didn't make me want to go watch a bunch of scary movies. Good on them for recognizing it in the show.

So it seems the 10 was a big success for the Academy. I'm sure the ratings this year will be huge. Hopefully the Academy will make as good of a selection in their picture choices next year as they did this year. If they continue to show good, varied taste, this could be an experiment I can get behind.

Alice in Wonderland

2010-03-06T11:57:00.000-08:00

Normally I would review this movie like I would any other: the good, the bad, the ugly. But three years ago, in my review for Sweeney Todd, I declared Tim Burton to be my favorite filmmaker. I feel that statement needs to be further examined, and what better place to do so than in my review for his latest movie? Suffice it to say, I do not stand by that statement any longer, and it is not Alice in Wonderland that makes me reconsider. But it is Alice in Wonderland that so perfectly exemplifies why I can't stand by that statement any longer. Alice in Wonderland is a bad film, and it's a bad film because it is a Tim Burton film. It exemplifies what exactly is wrong with the career of my once favorite director.

There was a time when Tim Burton made original films - or at least films that weren't remakes/reimaginings. But ever since Sleepy Hollow, he has felt the need to remake everything that sounds vaguely like a Tim Burton movie (he is even reimagining one of his own next, the short film Frankenweenie). Perhaps no story sounds more tailor made to Tim Burton's sensibilities than that of Alice in Wonderland - and that's exactly the problem. When Burton gets his hands on these properties, he immediately goes into autopilot. There is no challenge in taking a story that sounds like a Tim Burton film, and then turning it into a Tim Burton film. One has only to look at the various elements of this film to see how much they mirror everything else he has ever done, and how little thought he had to put into it.

The most obvious autopilot choice Burton always makes is the casting. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are both fine actors, but his reliance on them repeatedly results in tamer and tamer performances on their parts. Depp especially seems lost here. After seven collaborations, I can't imagine that Tim Burton has a lot of new directorial ideas for Depp to try out. As such, we get a performance that never takes off, relying too much on silly makeup and bad character quirks. Carter fares better, taking her character to some really silly places, but all too often she seems to rely on quirkiness and not actual performing.

The score is exactly what you would expect. Where once a Danny Elfman score would jump out at you, now it seems to just serve as a placeholder. Nothing about the music is memorable because it hits the exact Elfman beats you would expect from a collaboration with Burton. While music shouldn't be a make or break element in the quality of a film, it is certainly a piece of the film, and in this case it serves to illustrate the lazy mentality that seems to go on when someone teams up with Burton for the umpteenth time.

But what Burton is most known for, of course, is his visual style. When someone says a story seems like a perfect fit for Burton, it is usually this element they are referring to. Here is no exception: Burton's love for German Expressionism is once again on display, but filtered through copious amounts of CGI. And it looks really bad. Perhaps this aspect of the film is the one I would have most easily given a pass, as his visual style still entertains me, but it is done so poorly here, I can't ignore it. Maybe it was the 3D, but this is one of the most visually repugnant movies I have seen in some time. One has to look no further than Johnny Depp's makeup design to see what I mean. It is harsh on the eyes, garish and without reason. It's weird simply for the sake of being weird. Why is the Red Queen's head so big? Because it looks weird. Why does Crispin Glover appear to be stretched out vertically? Because it looks weird. That seems to be the length of thought process Burton has been putting into his visuals, and the bad CGI here does him no favors.

The best films Tim Burton has done are among my all time favorites. But it has been a long time since the days of Ed Wood or Beetle Juice. It's strange to watch a man I once wholly respected so completely tarnish his image and credibility. Between the Frankenweenie remake and his stated desire to tackle the Sleeping Beauty story, there is no reason to think his decision making will improve. And when his movies make as much money as Alice in Wonderland has so far, why would he risk making something as uniquely personal as Edward Scissorhands again? As long as Burton continues to make the films people expect him to make, his creative decisions in each film will probably become more and more bankrupt of creativity. Tim Burton is a man in need of a comeback, but he'll need to step outside of his comfort zone again to achieve it.

Green Zone

2010-03-06T09:23:00.001-08:00

Paul Greengrass is one of the most exciting filmmakers working today. He is one of those very rare directors that can straddle the line between populist entertainment and political film making. With past efforts, he tended to lean more heavily on one aspect while infusing it with the other. The Bourne films were entertaining while being moderately political, United 93 and Bloody Sunday were political while being moderately populist. With Green Zone, he blurs the line more than before. Here he tries to make a film that is both very political, and pure entertainment. The results aren't quite perfect, but they are an interesting step forward for a man who seems on the cusp of being one of the most important directors of his generation.

Green Zone is a fictional spin on the way we got into the Iraq War. One might initially assume he is going for a purely political film here, but that notion is very quickly brushed aside. From the beginning, this thing is an action picture. The film opens with an explosion (many of them, actually), and ramps up the tension from there. Matt Damon stars as Miller, a soldier who has been assigned the duty of finding the elusive weapons of mass destruction. After coming up empty handed again and again, he starts to suspect that the Intel he is being given is fictitious. He sets out to find the source of the information, with the help of a local man named Freddy (Khalid Abdalla, who also appeared in United 93). Jumping from location to location, never sure who he can trust, Miller is racing against time to find what he needs to know before things get out of control in Iraq.

What Greengrass appears to have done is make a modern version of All the Presidents Men, and turn it into an action film. Miller jumps from lead to lead, clue to clue, trying to uncover a conspiracy that reaches the highest levels of government. Where some might take umbrage is with the fact that this is a fictional account on a real story. None of these people actually exist, nor was there ever any conspiracy uncovered. For those who don't take kindly to speculative historical fiction, this might come across as smug finger pointing. For those who can enjoy that sort of thing, Greengrass infuses it with many great details and ideas. Personally, I don't think there was a grand conspiracy, but the film does give ample evidence to support the idea that information could have been knowingly falsified to get us to war. And at its heart, Green Zone isn't about the specific details, as much as it is about the bigger questions of why we go to war, and what ultimately justifies it.

It can't be left unmentioned that Greengrass brings his traditional documentary style camerawork to the film. I personally have no problems with this style, as it lends itself to creating a level of intimacy that more conventional camerawork doesn't. At the same time, though, I think he overindulged. There are a great many scenes where it is almost impossible to see what is going on, especially early on. Some shots go out of focus, others miss what is happening entirely. It can be frustrating. On the other hand, it helps the audience get into the mind of these soldiers who were the first to arrive in Iraq. They too are lost and confused, and the camera is a great facsimile of how overwhelming the experience for them was those first few days of war.

The film's one big flaw, sadly, is the characters. The style of film Greengrass usually makes requires a bit of detachment from the characters, much like you would have in an objective documentary. Here, though, it stops being detachment, and starts being stock characters. Everybody is a character type, not a character. As such, they are only vessels for exposition. I have not mentioned the fact that the film also starts such great actors as Amy Ryan, Greg Kinnear, and Brenden Gleason. That's because none leave any impact on the viewer. Even Damon as Miller is a bit of a nothing character. His righteousness never feels backed up by anything, and when he gets his big moment at the end where he claims that the reasons for going to war always matter, it feels less like a character and more like a screenwriter saying it. But there is one shining performance, that of the aforementioned Freddy (Khalid Abdalla). He is the heart of the film, and you actually care what happens with his story more than anyone else. Part of that is the film playing on our fears that this Iraqi trying to help the government will get screwed for doing the right thing, but most of it comes from a strong performance on Abdalla's part.

While it doesn't achieve the same levels of greatness that his best political (United 93) or pulp (The Bourne Ultimatum) films did, Green Zone is still an interesting step forward in his attempt to fully fuse the two types of films. Had a bit more work been given to the screenplay and characters, it might have been to that level. It's interesting to see that in the last year, Hollywood has finally started to figure out how to tell Iraq War stories. While this isn't quite up there with The Hurt Locker, it is certainly an entertaining alternative. Let's hope Hollywood continues to find new and interesting ways to mine this material.

Oscars: Final Predictions

2010-02-27T11:10:00.000-08:00

I'm still not entirely sure what to make of the 10, but I think it will largely depend on how the show goes next Sunday. If the new voting system is as flawed as we are hearing, something completely unexpected could show up as the winner. Up is a good example here. Not many people will place it at number 1, but how many would honestly place it in their bottom 5? So if the front runners really are as divisive as they seem, something no one hates could slide in for a win (no offense, Up!). Ultimately, this seems like a pretty cut and dry season, and I doubt there will be a surprise like that, but it will be interesting to see in future years how this plays out when the front runners aren't so certain.

Picture

Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

This is seemingly a two film race: Avatar vs The Hurt Locker, a battle to the end. At the moment, it appears as though The Hurt Locker has this easily, but it is still very hard to ignore the fact that no film has ever made so little money and won the big prize. I do love the idea that the year the Academy makes such a blatant attempt to draw in mainstream audiences, it will award Best Picture to the smallest film in their 80+ year history. Still, Avatar has the advantage of being seen by everyone, which can't be ignored.

Winner: The Hurt Locker
Surprise: Avatar

Actor

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
George Clooney - Up in the Air
Colin Firth - A Single Man
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

Some years just belong to certain actors. It's kind of funny to think that up until November, Crazy Heart was not a 2009 release. Jeff Bridges has so completely wrapped this one up, it's hard to imagine who would have benefited had he stayed in 2010. My guess is Renner would have snuck away with it a la Adrien Brody in 2002. Still, no sense in debating it now, as Bridges finally gets his long deserved Oscar.

Winner: Jeff Bridges
Surprise: Jeremy Renner

Actress

Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

I wonder how much of the support for Bullock this year comes from the notion that she probably won't be nominated again, so if they want her to ever win, they better vote for her now. Streep seems to suffer from the fact that she will probably just be nominated again next year or the year after, so they will have ample opportunities to award her again. Personally, I think it'd be cool if Mulligan or Sidibe won, but it's clearly not going to happen. Bullock has this pretty locked down, but I think there's a contingent of folks who want to see Streep win another one. It's the closest thing to a real race in the top categories.

Winner: Sandra Bullock
Surprise: Meryl Streep

Supporting Actor

Matt Damon - Invictus
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

While in other categories, the winner seems so certain because of how beloved the performance is, here it seems to be certain due to how forgettable the competition is. No knock against Waltz, who is indeed amazing, but his competition is extremely meager. Woody Harrelson is the only one who actually makes sense being here, the other three are the very definition of place holders. Nothing special to see here, Waltz gets this with ease.

Winner: Christoph Waltz
Surprise: Woody Harrelson

Supporting Actress

Penelope Cruz - Nine
Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air
Mo'Nique - Precious

Now here is a category filled with strong performances. I haven't seen Nine, but the other 4 performances are all worthy ones. Which makes it probably harder for someone to upset Mo'Nique: the support for the performances are pretty evenly split. When all the competition is so equally good, the obvious one is usually the smart bet. I still can't believe that Mo'Nique is soon to be an Oscar winner, but she deserves it.

Winner: Mo'Nique
Surprise: Maggie Gyllenhaal

Director

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
James Cameron - Avatar
Lee Daniels - Precious
Jason Reitman - Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

You've probably heard it by now, but no woman has ever won a directing Oscar. That statistic seems destined to change this year with Bigelow. This usually goes to the Best Picture, and in the rare times it doesn't, it goes to the person whose film is usually looked back upon as the one that should have won (Saving Private Ryan, Brokeback Mountain, The Pianist). Regardless of what film wins Picture, I think Bigelow gets this one. Cameron might have been a bigger threat had he not won for Titanic.

Winner: Kathryn Bigelow
Surprise: James Cameron

Original Screenplay

The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
The Messenger
A Serious Man
Up

Perhaps the most uncertain category for me, I can't choose between The Hurt Locker and Inglourious Basterds. Logic dictates that a Best Picture winner needs to rack up a few smaller wins to justify being the big winner, and screenplay is usually a gimme along with editing. Still, the writing in Basterds is what makes it work so well, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who want to give Tarantino another writing Oscar. My head says The Hurt Locker, my heart says Basterds, so in this case I will go with my heart.

Winner: Inglourious Basterds
Surprise: The Hurt Locker

Adapted Screenplay

District 9
An Education
In the Loop
Precious
Up in the Air

This seems pretty easy to call for Up in the Air. Reitman has been turning out well loved films consistently since the start of his career, and it is time to award him for that. Precious is probably a bit too melodramatic and unpleasant to win here, but it's the closet to competition Reitman has. The other three have no shot, though some of them are certainly wonderfully unexpected nominees.

Winner: Up in the Air
Surprise: Precious

Cinematography

Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The White Ribbon

Our two eternal combatants, Avatar and The Hurt Locker, appear to be at it once again here. Unfortunately, they each have some pretty strong things going against them. The Hurt Locker is very dreary looking, there aren't a lot of pretty visuals to speak of. It's simply down and dirty film making, as it should be for this kind of film. Avatar, though, is CGI cinematography. What will voters make of that? Will they even count it as cinematography? Could a third party sneak in here? I don't think so, but it's so hard to tell what voters will make of these two films. I will go with Avatar simply because it's big and pretty, something that voters seem to like.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: The Hurt Locker

Editing

Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious

The easiest award to win for a Best Picture winner is usually editing. This goes to The Hurt Locker, which is able to sustain long stretches of tension through its expert editing. Occasionally big blockbuster action films can win here if the editing is really great (The Bourne Ultimatum), so Avatar is certainly still in the conversation. I think the fact the film is almost 3 hours long will hurt it in the end, though.

Winner: The Hurt Locker
Surprise: Avatar

Art Direction

Avatar
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Nine
Sherlock Holmes
The Young Victoria

Another of those more difficult ones to get a feel for. I just have a hard time believing that voters will embrace Avatar in these technical categories where CGI is usually frowned upon. Can entirely computer generated environments really win an art direction award? I think yes, but if they snubbed Avatar here I wouldn't be too surprised. The problem is, what wins instead? Having seen none of the competition, it's hard to say. I would say Sherlock Holmes would be the threat, based on the stylized period recreation that film needed to create.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: Sherlock Holmes

Costumes

Bright Star
Coco Before Chanel
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Nine
The Young Victoria

If the last one was hard to call based on my lack of knowledge of the nominees, this one's even worse. Having seen none of these films, it is especially hard to call. Coco is about a fashion designer, so it certainly must be in the mix. But The Young Victoria is the prototypical winner here: period costume drama. I think they will stick to the norm, but just maybe Coco can eek out a win?

Winner: The Young Victoria
Surprise: Coco Before Chanel

Sound Mixing

Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Now we start to get into the Avatar sweep zone. Sound awards are an easy win for a mega blockbuster like this one. There are exceptions, like last year with Slumdog Millionaire, so watch out for the more beloved film in the race: The Hurt Locker. Still, it's hard to imagine Avatar not getting this.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: The Hurt Locker

Sound Editing

Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Up

See above. No reason to think Avatar can't take this one. Had Up had a nomination in both sound categories, it might have seemed a bigger threat. The Hurt Locker does have the benefit of being an action film of sorts, so it certainly has a shot in this race as well, but it seems less likely than Sound Mixing.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: The Hurt Locker

Visual Effects

Avatar
District 9
Star Trek

I know I am in the minority (perhaps I am the only one?), but I think District 9 has the best special effects of 2009. Since I am the only person who thinks this, it won't win. But it's nice to imagine.

Winner: Avatar
Surprise: District 9

Makeup

Il Divo
Star Trek
The Young Victoria

They don't usually nominate two aging-makeup films, so Divo and Victoria will probably cancel each other out, allowing Star Trek to take this.

Winner: Star Trek
Surprise: The Young Victoria

Song

Crazy Heart - "The Weary Kind"
Nine - "Take It All"
Paris 36 - "Loin de Paname"
The Princess and the Frog - "Almost There"
The Princess and the Frog - "Down in New Orleans"

A lot of people like to badmouth this category, but I think the voters do a good job 90% of the time in picking winners. As such, Crazy Heart will win here. The Princess and the Frog might have won here if this was 1994.

Winner: The Weary Kind
Surprise: Down in New Orleans

Score

Avatar
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Hurt Locker
Sherlock Holmes
Up

Will Michael Giachhino finally win his much deserved Oscar? It looks like it. Up is such a unique and memorable score, helped by the fact that it is pretty much the only thing you hear during the opening montage of the film. But Avatar lurks in the shadows, as it does in so many categories, hoping to steal a win from a more deserving choice.

Winner: Up
Surprise: Avatar

Documentary

Burma VJ: Reporting from a Closed Country
The Cove
Food, Inc.
The Most Dangerous Man in America
Which Way Home

Because you have to watch all 5 nominees if you want to vote, this is one of those categories where it really helps to see all of them before you predict. I have only seen The Cove, but it seems like a very solid choice - it's thrilling, informative, and powerful. I've heard a lot of good things about Food, Inc, so it might pose a threat.

Winner: The Cove
Surprise: Food, Inc.

Foreign

Ajami
The Milk of Sorrow
A Prophet
The Secret in Their Eyes
The White Ribbon

The obvious choices would be A Prophet and The White Ribbon, the two high profile films. But high profile has nothing to do with it when all 5 must be seen in order to vote. That apparently really benefits The Secret in Their Eyes. Add to that the fact A Prophet was apparently the film that had to be shoehorned into the nominees by the special jury (this is the only category where the voters can't be trusted to choose good movies, so a jury is in place to make sure at least one good movie gets in), it seems like only The White Ribbon can compete with Eyes.

Winner: The Secret in Their Eyes
Surprise: The White Ribbon

Animated

Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells
Up

It would be silly to bet against the film also nominated for Best Picture. Still, Pixar fatigue is inevitable, and a viable option actually exists for a change. Fantastic Mr. Fox is certainly a threat here, and were I willing to go out on a limb, it would be my wildcard choice this year to go against the grain. But ultimately, I don't think Up will be the Pixar film voters finally choose to shun.

Winner: Up
Surprise: Fantastic Mr. Fox

As for shorts, my money would be on The Door, A Matter of Loaf and Death, and The Last Truck. It looks like The Hurt Locker will not only be the lowest grossing winner ever, but also one with only 3 wins. Hopefully it will win 1 or 2 more than that, and if it does, it will be pretty clear that a Best Picture win is inevitable. Still, I can't help but wonder how, if at all, the preferential voting will affect the outcome.

Shutter Island

2010-02-20T23:29:00.000-08:00

Shutter Island finds Martin Scorsese at his most delightfully unhinged. Having chased the Oscar for the last decade, it is exciting to see him let loose a little bit. With Shutter Island, he marries his visual and thematic styles with a pure horror/thriller picture. Much like he did with Cape Fear twenty years ago, Scorsese is able to mine a great deal of psychological thrills and depth out of what could have been a simple genre picture. While some might be put off by how the film's plot progresses, there is no denying that Scorsese tells this story with appropriate flair and wit.

Two federal marshals - Teddy (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) - are sent to an island housing a mental institution to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a patient. From this simple premise, Scorsese weaves an intricate and confounding story of mental illness, memory, and justice. To say that the premise is a bit misleading would be true. The film quickly goes far beyond what the trailer implies, and we realize that film is less about the investigation and more about Teddy. That is a smart choice, as a film of this kind would not work without a great central character to examine in contrast to what is happening around him. Teddy may not be the best character Scorsese has put to screen, but he's certainly one of the more heartbreaking and unsettling.

The fourth collaboration between Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio, Shutter Island continues the escalation of DiCaprio's talent as an actor. While many decried the decision for Scorsese to "adopt" DiCaprio all those years ago, it is clear that under Scorsese's tutelage DiCaprio has become one of the most exciting, refined actors working today. Shutter Island represents perhaps his best work to date. The reason it is such a good performance might not be immediately apparent as you are watching, but by film's end you will realize that DiCaprio has had to work on many different levels through the whole film, some too subtle to notice until after the fact. The premise of the film doesn't initially seem to lend itself to a lot of depth for its characters, but DiCaprio is able to mine some great material out of Teddy. We learn that his wife died years ago, and the man responsible may also be on the island. DiCaprio plays Teddy as a man just this side of unhinged, so we aren't sure what will happen when he finds who he looking for. Add to this the fact that he has nightmares of his time in World War II and the death of his wife, and Teddy seems to be just as damaged as some of the patients on the island.

Scorsese has crafted a film that is in full service of his central character, not the mystery at hand. What we get is a waking nightmare of a film. The editing is often off by a few beats to throw us off, the music is ludicrously overbearing, the art direction is engrossing and haunting. Teddy is a troubled guy, and Scorsese doesn't shy away from that. Perhaps most interesting is the way he will blend the past and present for Teddy, like creating nightmares of Dachau that are filled with modern details and characters. Much like Teddy, we are always on edge, our nerves a bit frayed. We are just as afraid of what's around the next corner as the characters are.

If the film can be faulted, and I suspect it will be by many, it is in the end. I would agree that the end is problematic, but not for the reason many would claim. I had no problem with the direction the plot went in as the film wrapped up, but with how it was told. When a character had to break out a white board with information on it pertaining to what was happening, it was clear that Scorsese was concerned that his audience might not buy what he was selling. On top of that, we get an extended flashback that is used to seal the deal. While this scene features perhaps the best moments of acting on two actors' parts, it still felt extraneous. The film should be quickly rapping up with its final revelation, not reveling in it. But then, it's clear that a major influence here is Hitchcock, and Hitch ended his most famous movie with a similarly long denouement explaining a character's mental history, so perhaps it is intended as homage. Still, the ending is a small misstep in an otherwise utterly engrossing, haunting, and thrilling movie. Maybe not up the usual classy standards of his more revered films, it fits better with his more bizarre - and I would argue, more rewarding - films like Bringing Out the Dead, Cape Fear, and The King of Comedy. If you like your Scorsese a little rough around edges, this can't be missed.

The Wolfman

2010-02-12T19:40:00.000-08:00

Much like the Wolfman himself, Joe Johnston's The Wolfman is a conflicted film that doesn't know what to be. On the one hand, it tries to be a moody period piece in which atmosphere is key. On the other hand, it wants to be a loud and visceral horror film filled with gore. By trying to have it both ways, it achieves neither. It's a shame, too, because the film shows glimmers of promise in both aspects, making its failure all the more frustrating.

Benicio Del Toro plays Lawrence Talbot, a man who has returned home to England in order to investigate the murder of his brother. Shortly thereafter, he is attacked by a werewolf, turning him into the very creature that killed his brother. From a story perspective, The Wolfman does not try to add anything new to the genre. It hits all the notes one would expect from a werewolf picture. What bolsters that, though, are the visual details. The low hanging fog, the unusual sets, and the costumes all evoke a Victorian feel that seems right at home with this kind of Gothic horror. Though, strangely enough, the cinematography is terrible. At times everything is so horribly lit, you aren't sure what to look at. Early on, for example, two characters in the foreground are talking about someone in the background. The person farther away is - naturally - out of focus. Yet the closer two having the conversation are back lit and thus also inscrutable. It's just one example of what was often unforgivably bad cinematography.

But most of you don't go to a horror film for the cinematography: you go for the thrills. Which The Wolfman has... occasionally. When the blood starts to flow, it gets pretty gruesome. Limbs fly left and right, viscera litters the floor. But those moments come few and far between. Instead, we get long character beats that go nowhere, failing to either flesh out the characters beyond stock types, nor adding any connection to these people that will have to make hard decisions later in the film. When the violence does happen, it is all the more rewarding because we've sat through so much nonsense.

What also disappoints are the ways the film tries to scare the audience. Often director Joe Johnston resorts to the cheapest possible tactics to make his audience jump. Overly loud noises and things popping into frame are this film's bread and butter. At one point, a character wakes up and sees some sort of Gollum-like creature at the foot of his bed for no reason, only to really wake up. This is bad on two levels: resorting to dream sequences to create fake dramatic tension never work, and by having a creature never seen anywhere else in the film suddenly show up simply because it is creepy looking is ridiculous. And this happens a couple times throughout the film. Maybe I just don't know enough about werewolves, but are they known for having bad dreams about Tolkien characters?

The acting is very hit or miss, but I don't think that is entirely the fault of the actors. Benicio Del Toro seems like a great choice to play a tormented werewolf, but the script and the director let him down. He has nothing to work with, and as a result he becomes an afterthought in his own movie. Anthony Hopkins needs someone who can guide and restrain him in films like this, and Johnston is not up to that task. Hopkins sleepwalks through the film without giving any choices he makes as an actor a second thought. But then, about a third of the way into the film, Hugo Weaving shows up and decides to steal the movie from everyone else. As a Scotland Yard investigator he is funny, commanding, and strange - the exact kind of thing you would expect from a Wolfman movie! While he also has little to work with, he tries his hardest to make it all enjoyable, and comes closest to pulling it off.

Considering the werewolf genre has been so under utilized of recent years, its shocking just how tired The Wolfman feels. Had it gone for straight gore thrills, or for pure atmosphere, it might have worked. Instead, we get a hodgepodge of cheap shocks, dull speeches, and under developed characters. A film that pulls off this kind of horror so much better is Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow. If you go in to The Wolfman expecting a good horror film, you will be very disappointed - and kind of bored.

And The Nominees Are

2010-02-02T05:54:00.000-08:00

It's Oscar time again! Some initial reactions to the nominees:

I keep flipping back and forth about the 10 issue. On the on hand, we get dreck like The Blind Side. On the other, my top 3 favorite films of 2009 are all BP nominees, something that's never happened before.
Also worth noting, you get films like A Serious Man and The Blind Side as Best Picture nominees with only 2 total noms.
A lot more autopilot noms this year than normal: Cruz, Damon, Mirren, Freeman. I was really disappointed with the acting nominations in general this year, although there were a few pleasant surprises (Maggie Gyllenhaal).
It's nice, after the last 2 years, to have an actual race for Best Picture. Granted, one of the 2 big contenders is a bland summer blockbuster masquerading as quality cinema, but I prefer excitement in my Oscars!
You did it Pixar!

Best Picture

Nominees:

Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up In The Air

Which ones I've seen: Much like last year with The Reader, I got a last minute hunch and forced myself to watch The Blind Side yesterday. It's as awful as expected, but I have seen all ten.

Who should win: Inglourious Basterds

Who will win: The Hurt Locker seems like it is in the lead, but no movie has won BP with that small of a gross. The fact it tied for most nominations is a good sign, though.

Possible upsets? Avatar is just as much as in the running, so it wouldn't be a surprise (but it would be upsetting...)

Best Director

Nominees:

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
James Cameron - Avatar
Lee Daniels - Precious
Jason Reitman - Up In The Air
Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

Which ones I've seen: All five (with the ten in place, will we ever see a lone director again?)

Who should win: Tarantino, though Reitman and Bigelow would not bother me at all.

Who will win: Bigelow will go down as the first woman to win Best Director, something long overdue.

Possible upsets? Again, it's a race between Avatar and The Hurt Locker. Cameron already has his Oscar, so hopefully they will pass him over. The sheer size of his film may garner him a lot of votes, though.

Best Actor

Nominees:

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
George Clooney - Up In The Air
Colin Firth - A Single Man
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

Which ones I've seen: All but Firth

Who should win: Clooney has never blown me away as an actor because he usually plays the same part in most films, but here he makes that signature style work in perfect service of his film.

Who will win: Jeff Bridges. I wasn't amazed by his work in Crazy Heart, but as a career achievement award of sorts, I can't argue: he's a great actor.

Possible upsets? I really don't see any, but perhaps Renner if they love The Hurt Locker a little too much.

Best Actress

Nominees:

Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Gabourey Sidibe - Precious
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

Which ones I've seen: All but Mirren

Who should win: It's funny, but the two front runners are the two worst performances here. I'd prefer to see Sidibe win, but Mulligan would be just as nice.

Who will win: I think it's Bullock's year. I don't understand it, but that's fine.

Possible upsets? The perennial question; when will Streep win another Oscar? The only reason she isn't leading this race anymore is because she already won twice. Were it not for that, she would have no problem beating Bullock.

Best Supporting Actor

Nominees:

Matt Damon - Invictus
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Which ones I've seen: All but Plummer. Seriously, I live in Hollywood, it shouldn't be that hard to find The Last Station and A Single Man at a nearby theater, and yet it is.

Who should win: What an awful line-up. Thankfully, the one brilliant performance will win: Waltz.

Who will win: Christoph Waltz has this locked up.

Possible upsets? Woody Harrelson is the only other deserving person here, and he is long overdue for some serious recognition.

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees:

Penelope Cruz - Nine
Vera Farmiga - Up In The Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick - Up In The Air
Mo'Nique - Precious

Which ones I've seen: All but Nine. I don't think I will rectify that.

Who should win: I don't know where Mo'Nique found it in her to give that performance, but that Oscar has been hers for a while now.

Who will win: Mo'Nique

Possible upsets? Wow, I honestly don't see any threat here. The Up girls will steal votes from each other and Cruz won last year, so maybe Gyllenhaal?

All in all, not too many surprises this year, which I think we have the 10 to blame. Still, when films like Up and District 9 can get Picture nominations, it's not all bad. We'll see if this sticks around for a while, or if they ditch it in a few years. But they definitely achieved what they set out to do, with five $100 million films in the lineup, and Up in the Air likely to join them thanks to it's awards tally today.

Nominations Tally

Avatar - 9
The Hurt Locker - 9
Inglourious Basterds - 8
Precious - 6
Up in the Air - 6
Up - 5
District 9 - 4
Nine - 4
Star Trek - 4

Youth In Revolt

2010-01-10T12:16:00.000-08:00

The Michael Cera persona, once endearing, has become somewhat of a stigma for the actor. Can Cera keep this persona going as he ages, will he change it up, or will his career fade because no one can accept him in anything other than this one role? I don't know that Youth in Revolt answers this question, but it certainly gives him a chance to both play into his signature style, as well as tweak it at times. I myself adored Cera's work in Arrested Development, but have found myself growing tired of him in the years since. So I was pleasantly surprised to find him once again endearing in Youth in Revolt. It's not a film that will change your opinion of the guy, but if you are alright with that, you will find a film that is at times unexpectedly delightful.

Cera plays the unfortunately named Nick Twisp, a boy who can't figure out where he belongs. All the kids his age seem so insufferably immature, yet the adults are no better: his mother only wants him around so she can collect child support, and his father is too busy with his floozy new girl to notice Nick. So when Nick meets a similarly disaffected youth in Sheeni Saunders, he falls for her. But fate seems destined to keep them apart. Not satisfied with that, Nick develops a split personality in the guise of Francois Dillinger. These two personalities work together to get Sheeni, but at what cost?

What makes Youth a breath of fresh air is that it takes a tired genre - the teen sex comedy - and infuses it with some personality. Sure, by the end it still hits the usual notes, but it does so with a unique flair. Director Miguel Arteta dresses the film up with a number of touches from European films, most notably those of the French New Wave, in order to take the film in different directions than most films of a similar ilk. The way in which he contrasts Cera's personality with that of the kind of guy someone like Belmondo would play is very silly and enjoyable to watch. Cera is clearly no rebel, so to frame him in such a way heightens the absurdity of the situation he is in. Where Belmondo would be effortlessly cool, Nick's attempts at cool go in increasingly bizarre directions. A real rebel would storm into his loved one's home, her parents be damned. Nick has to dress up like a woman for fear of being caught. Things like this are goofy, but Cera makes them work.

Youth in Revolt isn't a film intended to break new ground, although from what I've heard of the source material, it very well could have had it been adapted right. But what it does do is make a recognizable story fun again. Michael Cera's deadpan delivery works well when he is playing alter ego Francois, and for that alone it is worth seeing. And while Cera isn't shaking his usual persona, for those curious to see if he can, this film offers glimpses of that possibility in the future.

2010: An Experiment

2010-01-09T16:13:00.000-08:00

In 2009 I saw over 60 new films, but I only reviewed about 1/3 of them. I find that some movies are either too challenging to write about mere hours after watching, or they simply don't deserve a lengthy analysis (did Paul Blart need to be reviewed?). But as I wrote up my best of the year list, I realized that many, if not most of the movies I loved last year never got a proper review. I've decided to try and rectify that this year, so I present myself with a challange: to review every 2010 movie that I watch this year. Some reviews might be very short, others might come months after release because I caught a movie on DVD, but I will try my best to comment on each and every film you see in the sidebar to the right. So join me throughout the year, let's see if I can really pull it off.