No Country For Old Men

I'm going to begin this review by telling a story. Once upon a time there were two old men who lived in a land forgotten by time. Trailers came and went, as did raving reviews and pre-Oscar hype. These two old men had to endure the hardships of stupid, mindless movies filling the halls of the cineplex while the cream of the crop passed them over time and time again. The decision-makers in Hollywood believed that the common movie-goer was a complete idiot, and that "Saw 4" and "The Bee Movie" were the best we deserved. Through a simple twist of fate, or perhaps an accounting error, one day, much to their surprise, on one of their city's 73 screens, finally a film of consequence appeared. So without a moments hesitation these two old men sped north through the howling cold to see what the hoped would be the first really good movie in a long time. The End

Rob and I went to see "No Country For Old Men" on Wednesday night. I had seen "Fargo" with Rob way back in the day, and that is one of those movies that sticks with you for a long time. If you've seen and appreciate "Fargo", this film will be familiar and will not disappoint. If you haven't seen "Fargo", I don't really know how to gauge what your opinion will be. It's not more of the same, or a copy of "Fargo", rather it's a similar look at a similar subject. Instead of the hard cold loneliness of North Dakota, this time it's the southern wilderness of Texas and New Mexico. For those of us whose neighbors are right next door, or even within walking distance, the way of life portrayed in this film can be as foreign as living in another country. The mood of the film is established early, and although we may become attached to certain characters, and we may hope for certain outcomes, we pretty much know that the filmmakers aren't that optimistic. I'm trying to explain this film without giving too much away. This is one of those films that you almost have to see before I can talk to you about it. It's not so much about specific circumstances or plot points, rather it's about atmosphere and symbolism. Rob and I are the two old men from the story. Hollywood has a love/hate relationship with us, and even that is complicated to explain. We spend enough money at theaters for Hollywood to love us, but we spread as much negativity as we can about bad movies, so Hollywood must hate us for that. We both love good movies, from Rob's "A Christmas Story" to my "Casablanca" both of which are straight out of Hollywood. But we both hate Hollywood for lumping us all into a category full of morons. What are we going to do about it? I don't know for sure, but "No Country For Old Men" gives me a glimmer of hope.

Beowulf

Zemeckis is first and foremost a groundbreaking director. "Back to the Future", "Forrest Gump" and "Cast Away" all did something unexpected, storywise and visually. In "Beowulf" he does it again, but this time I question why he would do it the way he did. First off he chooses to retell one of the oldest stories, one that is important but not very interesting. Most of what fills in the details of the film seem contemporary, as if the writers were trying to make the story applicable to today. Maybe my perspective is just limited, but I've always seen Beowulf to be a pure and simple story of heros vs. monsters. It's not really even good against evil, or anything deeper than that. So I didn't like that the retelling got preachy and forced. The second aspect of Zemeckis' attempt to break new ground cinematically, is his use of the visual style. He used a similar animation technique in "The Polar Express" which I found to be creepy. Tom Hanks animated just didn't work for me. Here Zemeckis does take it up a notch, which was fun to watch. Angelina Jolie, a dragon, camera swoops and water effects were all great. But why couldn't we have a real Angelina Jolie, a real dragon, camera swoops and real water? A film like this is one step closer to an animated film that you can't tell apart from a live action film. But I don't want any more films that a in that blurry zone, I want to be convinced that what I'm seeing is real, not wowed by technical ability. In closing I will say one good thing and one bad. First the bad; Anthony Hopkins should never be portrayed as inebriated in an animated film ever again. The good; as in "Back to the Future" Crispin Glover proves that he is one of the most interesting actors of our time.

Lions for Lambs

Let me start out by saying that even though there were some cheap shots and an obvious slant towards the left in this movie, overall I found it to be suprisingly balanced, and at the very least respectful concerning the opposing views. Tom Cruise plays a slimy, polished Republican Senator. Meryl Streep plays a somewhat frumpy, expereinced journalist with a conscience. Robert Redford gets the best role as a thoughtful, good hearted professor. Most of this film takes place in offices, where conversations determine what is going to happen out in the World. I think that Redford's intention (as Director) was to make Cruise's character out as the villian, someone who represents everything Liberals hate. Now for me, as in Moore's "Farenheit 9-11" some of these scenes backfired. When a man who is a leader of our Country asks wether we want to win the War on Terror, as a 'yes' or 'no' question, or when he points out that "Rome is burning" and the time to act is now. I tend to agree with a character like that. I believe in absolutes and I like a leader who takes a stand. The response that Streep's character has to the 'yes' or 'no' question was right on, and I was suprised to see it in a Redford film. Streep did seem to have some over-reaction in her acting, although in this case I would tend to blame the editor, since the few moments that I can think of were actually unnecassary in the film. Finally, Redford's character although somewhat cliche (there I could use that sqiggly thingy over the "e" again), was a very interesting performance as well as some good writing. I like there were two parallel storylines going on that Redford basically was involved in, and that even though he had strong opinions in one direction (based on his characters personal experience) he was able to respect others and their decisions. On th day after September 11th, I was as cut and dry in my desire for retribution as the next guy. As time has gone on of course my thoughts on the matter have adjusted based on information avaliable. Regardless of my opinions of those in power, or specific cirumstances, I think it would be wrong to turn our backs on commitments we have made as a Country. From what I can tell, Redford would not justify surrender, but most likely his solution would fail because sometimes we need a dirty, slimy Republican making decisions that we hate before they're even made.

American Gangster and Bee Movie

Nate's been looking forward to "American Gangster" ever since he first heard about it. Personally I'm not such a big Ridley Scott fan, but whenever Nate is excited about a movie I want to see it too so that I can discuss it with him. In this case the combination of Denzel as a bad guy and Russel Crowe looked like an interesting combination, so I was looking forward to it from that perspective as well. Overall I was pleasantly suprised with the result. In a film that could have very easily been cliche (does anyone know how to put the little dash over the "e"?) Ridley Scott took a very interesting approach; he actually let us get to know the characters and understand their motivations, on a human level. One of the problems I've always had with "Scarface" is that it's a glorification of a monster. I can't identify with the "hero" because he has no morals. Now that isn't to say that Denzel's character in "American Gangster" has morals like he should, but Scott has taken the time to explain where he's coming from. In contrast to the bad gangster, there's the good cop played by Russel Crowe. This is another well devoloped character in the movie, who isn't just an obstruction for the main character, but is a real flesh and blood man himself. This film was almost perfect in its approach and examination of its subject and characters. The only weakness I found was in the way in concluded. Perhaps it was limited by the fact that it was based on a true story. Sometimes the perfect ending for a movie isn't the one that really happened. Therefore I've got to say that in a comparison of two very different movies; "American Gangster" and "Training Day", if you want to see Denzel at his very finest, in a movie that holds up all the way through, it's got to be "Training Day". Nate I'm looking forward to talking to you about this one though, I think my favorite and least favorite scene was the one where Denzel gives his 20%. It worked and it failed to work both at the same time.

"Bee Movie" was colorful, and sometimes funny. It also was a little disturbing after seeing the public service announcement that ran beforehand. Before the movie strarted they ran a spot about Colony Collapse Disorder, which in a worst case scenerio could lead to all of us dying because there's no more plants left because bees can't pollenate if there aren't any bees left. Alright, then they show us a movie which has for its main plot bees deciding not to pollenate plants and make more honey. Now it wasn't as bad as the political browbeating they threw at us in "Little Feet", but in a way it was just as disturbing. Now at the opening of this review I said that it was a colorful and sometimes funny movie. It was like candy for the eyes, and it'll look great on a HDTV. Seinfeld and the supporting cast were funny, not like "no soup for you" or "Kramer stopped short with me" funny, but funny enough. If you got kids, this is better than taking them to see "American Gangster", but it for the most part it'll just make you remember how great "Ratatouille" was.