88 Minutes

Matt turned me on to "Gone Baby Gone" a few weeks ago, and I thanked him for that. Why didn't someone warn me about "88 Minutes"? You know who you are, you went and saw this movie before me, heard I was planning on seeing it, and didn't warn me. I'm not sure exactly how I would have responded to that warning, but at least your conscience would be clear. There wasn't a level on which this movie wasn't bad. The setup, the characters, the music, Al Pacino's hair, the acting and worst of all the cell phones. They always tell us to turn off our phones in the theater, Al Pacino didn't get that memo. Who's idea was it to have Pacino on the phone for half the movie, and running from university building to university building the rest of the time. If you want to get some good cardiovascular excersise, just piss-off a seriel killer by putting him in prison. The main female character must have been reading off a tele-prompter, there's no other plausible explination for her delivery of dialouge. I was hoping ten minutes into the movie that somehow Pacino's presence would slightly redeem an already horrible movie, but alas this was not to be. I would have said before that Pacino is one of those actors who is aging gracefully and only accepting roles that play upon his strenghts. Based on this movie I would retract that thought, although I hesitate to say much more out of fear that Pacino really scares me and it wouldn't be good to get on his bad side. All this being said, I'm still really looking forward to seeing Pacino and DeNiro together again in "Righteous Kill", and to the brother who didn't warn me in advance, it's alright, nobody's perfect.

Shine A Light

Before I review this film I thought it would be appropriate explain my introduction and consequential relationship with the Rolling Stones. What may make this story more interesting is the notable absence of the Rolling Stones from my childhood. I grew up with The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, The Beach Boys and The Eagles. In high school I went a little further with The Doors, Creedence, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix. I may be leaving out some obvious names here, but in retrospect for me it's the Rolling Stones who should of been there. Had I heard any of their stuff? Sure, but it had never made a big enough impact to encourage me to explore any further. It wasn't until I was in my early to mid twenties that my boss bought the double CD "Forty Licks" and played it at work. Of course as is true with all "Greatest Hits" compilations this set doesn't capture the Stones completely, but it does show a side and a range I hadn't heard before. On top of that, my boss is a big Rolling Stones fan. I think he likes the Stones in the way I like The Beatles, and that's saying quite a bit. When you talk about and listen to music with someone who really loves it, it makes you see it in a different way. So later in life I came to appreciate and more than that, really like much of the Rolling Stones music. Sure I love some of their better known stuff; 'Paint it Black', 'Sympathy for the Devil', 'Brown Sugar' and 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'. But I really like some of the more obscure stuff; 'Shattered', 'A Fool To Cry', and 'Emotional Rescue'. What sucks is that I kind of feel like after discovering the Rolling Stones, it's all over. I've heard everything good ever made now and I'm never going to have that experience again. Rock and Roll isn't dead yet because Keith Richards, Ringo Starr, and Bob Dylan are still alive, but it'll be dead soon.

"Shine A Light" is every rock band's dream; Martin Scorsese directing a film about a concert starring a great band. I'm not sure how much of the film was staged (no pun intended), personally if Scorsese offered to film my life, I would give him full access and control, leaving nothing to chance. Scorsese suggests that the Stones wouldn't give him a song list of their concert until moments before they walked on stage. All that doesn't really matter, the final product is probably the greatest concert film ever. Sure Mick Jagger can't really sing his songs very well any more, and the songs in the movie aren't even the best they have to offer. But none of that matters either. The film is about capturing something for history. We get to see the last remaining Rock band together on stage, pouring out their hearts through their performances. It's not about Mick Jagger, it's not about the music, it's about the band and what they represent. Don't get me wrong, I haven't fallen blindly for what is mostly attractively packaged trash. The Rolling Stones have and always will stand for personal gratification and I admit that's bad. But they also embody freedom and charisma that are qualities to be admired. Scorsese likes the Stones for all that they represent, and it is clear in how he portrays them here. If you want to see one of the last real Rock-n-Roll movies ever made, "Shine A Light" is for you. If you're saying to yourself, "But isn't Creed rock too? then you might as well just stay home and watch some television.

Gone Baby Gone

First off I've got to give Matt credit for turning me on to this movie. I think that back when it was in the theaters I had opted to see "The Assassination of Jesse James by..." instead. My thought then probably was that seeing Casey Affleck in a movie would be alright, but Casey in a movie directed by his brother might be Affleck overload. I went to the wrong movie.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I saw "Jesse James" but just thinking about that movie almost puts me to sleep. Quite the opposite with "Gone Baby Gone". Over the course of the film there isn't a moment when we aren't wondering what just happened, what is going to happen next, or more importantly; what would we do in the same situation? I got to watch it with my friend Rob, and I would highly recommend that it should be viewed with someone who you can talk with afterwards. For me there were two stand-out questions raised, one of which was answered as I would have, and the other was a little bit tougher. Now there were a lot more than two questions raised, and what is interesting is how each answer or decision forced the film to take the next step. I liked that. Unfortunately for me to go into much detail about the questions would ruin the movie for those who have not seen it, so I'm going to finish up this review and in the next paragraph discuss those details. To close, the direction by Ben Affleck was right on, he captured the feel and emotion of the scenes very effectively. Casey Affleck got way more time here than in "Jesse James", and proves that he deserves to have leading roles where appropriate. My one problem was that towards the end the intracacy of the plot seemed a little too contrived, although I understood that it was neccesary to deal with the questions raised. The thing is that when I start understanding that something is a plot device it kind of takes away from the otherwise great storytelling. Of course for different people at different times this can work for or against a movie. "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" knows its a movie but I can get lost in it anyways. And I can't even think of "Gladiator" without intense irritation, so go figure.

Alright so here's what I think for Matt and anyone else who's seen the movie. I hope that without a moment of hesitation I would have taken that guy out upstairs like Casey Affleck did. The only difference is that I suspect I would have unloaded as opposed to the single shot. Now if that's wrong then I'm afraid in that moment I would just be doing something wrong, but I have a hard time seeing how I could live with any other reaction. That's the first question I refered to, the second is once Casey shows up at Morgan Freeman's doorstep, do I make the call or not? I don't think I could have, not after seeing the connection there and the contrast to her previous life. Perhaps there would be an appropriate course of action, but I just don't think I could have done what Casey did. At the same time, I loved how he stuck to his beliefs, and as the film closed he even took responsibility for his decision. Thanks Matt for the good film.

Nothing to see

It's been a while since I've gone to the theater, there's nothing worth seeing. The next movie I'm really looking forward to seeing is "Shine A Light", the Scorsese documentary about the Rolling Stones. Unfortunately that's still two weeks away, so I don't have anything new to write about. This has led me to watch more stuff at home over the the past two weeks, revisiting some old stand-bys and catching some stuff I've never seen before. Our public library is pretty good out here, so I have a good selection to choose from to fill in the gaps of my movie watching past-time. Here's some of what I have seen recently; "The Departed", I think this term is over-used, but this film really is an "instant classic". Twenty/fourty years from now when you want to watch a great film, "The Departed" will be an acceptable choice. "A Knights Tale", this film is fun, it's got charisma, and I just enjoy watching it. Of course it's different now that Heath Ledger is dead, maybe I'm feeling what eailier generations have felt when their young actors have died tragically. "Wimbledon", this was the first time I saw this movie, and it was also fun to watch. It's pretty much your typical, sweet, romantic comedy. What makes it stand out is that even though it deals with two professional tennis stars, overall it is down to earth in how they handle their lives. "Ratatouille", can I say "instant classic" again so soon? If you haven't seen this film yet then I don't know if we can be friends, there's really no excuse. Seriously, if yo have the electricity to be running your computer, then most likely you could figure out a way to see this great film. Each time I watch it I am further amazed by the depth, not just visually, but all aspects, from character developement, acting, sound, story, music, well you get the point. This film deserved to be noted in the Best Film category at the Oscars, that's how good it is. And finally this afternoon, on VHS I watched "The Age of Innocence". On one hand be sure to avoid viewing this film on a Sunday afternoon while lying on a couch, it is very challenging. On the other hand, it was very successful at completely capturing its subject. Daniel Day Lewis doesn't need to talk, and Scorsese knows how to make use of that fact. I was reminded of "Casablanca" where Rick has these feelings, emotions that are overwhelming. We as an audience see his point of view, even if we know morally that he would be wrong to follow through. Great films ask questions, and very rarely give us a clean answer. I was goin to say that they never give us an answer, but then I thought of "Braveheart" and had to change it up a little. "The Age Of Innocence" is kind of a nod to when movies like "Casablanca" were made. Things are left unsaid and undone. Sometimes this was because the standards of the time would not allow things to be said or done, but in the great films it was because the writers and directors understood the power of this technique. Scorsese has proven that he can work in the vernacular at hand. Sure his best has probably been the language and customs of gangsters, but with films like "The Age Of Innocence", "Gangs Of New York", ... what am I doing, this list could go on for a while, so goodnight.

Semi-Pro

Last week I talked about "Vantage Point's" trailer being better than the movie itself. This week I found that the funniest parts of "Semi-Pro" had been compacted into it's theatrical trailer. Actually the Bud Light commercial and the Old Spice spot were probably funnier per-capita than this movie, and that's too bad. When Jess and I went to se "Juno" a few weeks ago, we both were laughing out loud throughout the whole film. I hardly remember laughing at all last night, and the one time I remember was when Tim Meadows realized he had been shot. (As a side note; whenever Tim Meadows says something I laugh). Now I must admit that I didn't go into this movie as a big Will Ferrel, but even when I haven't liked the overall movie (like "Old School" "Anchorman" and "The Wedding Crashers") there's always been a hilarious, memorable sequence in each of his movies. This time it just wasn't the case.

Vantage Point and Charlie Wilson's War

First off I would like to say that "Vantage Point's" theatrical trailer was one of my favorite trailers in a long time. Really it was like a mini movie, providing plenty of entertainment in a short amount of time. But alas, the 90 minute movie fell far short of the mark, and if you have the choice I would recommend watching the theatrical trailer over the film itself. So many opportunities were squandered, and really the multiple perspective theme of the movie turned out to be merely a gimmick. I wanted a clever techno-thriller that took advantage of different points of view to build a compelling story. Instead I had to watch basically the same thing happen six or seven times from different camera angles. Maybe I should have known better, I guess it's just the optimist in me hoping beyond hope to see something new and fresh, well not in "Vantage Point" I'm afraid.

"Charlie Wilson's War" is over at the Dollarr Theater here in Colorado Springs, so I thought no matter what it would probably be worth the price of admission. Considering that some of the actors (including Phillip Seymour Hoffman) are nominated for Academy Awards tonight, I was hoping to nullify the effects of the shallowness of "Vantage Point". Sure the film has a left-leaning political bite to it, but then maybe it makes some good points too. The perfomances from Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and mostly Hoffman were very enjoyable, and it was well worth the price ($1.50 at our Dollar Theater). It didn't ever acheive any level of greatness and probably won't leave any lasting impressions with me, but it was fun to watch. Movies like this don't really bring anytthing new to the table. We all know that our government built-up the Osama Bin Ladens of the world in an effort to fight Communism. "Charlie Wilson's War" is an inside look at the motivations and personalities behind one of those 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions' pieces of history that we just can't seem to learn from.

Juno

I got to go see "Juno" with Jess last night, and we both really enjoyed it. You may remember that we saw "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" together back in October, and that's the last time we got to see a movie in the theater together. Our tastes in film can be very different, but when there is an overlap it makes the expereience so enjoyable. We laughed at many of the same scenes, felt compassion for certain caracters, and of course since we are married we disagreed here and there too. I would like to explain what made this film so good, perhaps even great, but it's not a simple thing to do. "Juno" had depth. Not just layers of writing, or allusion to something that may or may not be there, but true depth. What first tipped me off was early on in the film when Juno (the main character of course) enters an abortion clinic fully intending to have an abortion. Outside she was met by a classmate who is picketing the clinic. There is a short exchange in which the classmate informs her that her baby probably already has hair, a heartbeat and fingernails. Juno has seen the bumper-stickers and picket signs before and continues into the clinic. Once inside she seems to have a tendency to notice all the little details that make us uncomfortable in any clinical enviornment, and she soon leaves, with he baby intact. What's great about the shot is that we get to see her noticing women tapping their fingernails, painting their fingernails, etc. Did her baby's fingernails save it's life? I don't think the movie is so simple as to suggest that, merely it points out that it can be those seemingly insignificant statements, or little details that add up in making us who we are, and help determine the choices we make and the way we approach life.
There a have been quite a few movies made, especially since this low-budget independent film craze began, that attempt to make comedies centered on realistic situations. What seperates "Juno" from what is mostly crap, is that it has real people, dealing realistically with realistic situations, and it's really funny.

Jumper

If I could teleport, I wouldn't have to write about this movie, I could just come discuss it with each of you, and then be back home in time for dinner. Of course I probably would have been tempted to teleport to watch "No Country For Old Men" again for a while, then over to Carl's Jr. for some waffle fries, then to Hawaii for a little attempt at surfing, then back to the movie theater to quietly and respctfully sit through the closing credits before teleporting back home to get a good night's rest. The filmmakers here bite off a little more than they can chew. So far we've seen teleporters in "X-Men" 2 and "The Matrix Reloaded", which used the technique to enhance the action of their respective movies. Here we follow the life of a teleporter and what seems to be an idea full of possibilities turns out to be rather boring. Now I'm not saying it wasn't fun to watch, it's just that there is so much more that could be done with this idea, and here they only scratched the surface. I want ot see a movie where the teleporter truly struggles with the slow pace of life around him. Perhaps a cultural comparison could be made between teleporters and modern technology like cell phones and the interent. Are we really saving time or making life easier with these inventions?
Even with the fact that my imagination surpasses what "Jumper" delivered, I should say that Anikan did a good job with the material, and the chemistry and visual style were entertaining, making this a fun movie, maybe its best quality is that it can spark ideas and conversations.

Rambo and There Will Be Blood

Rob and I were at an impasse on Friday night. We knew that this would be our one chance to see a movie together on the weekend, but he wanted to see "Rambo" and I was set on "There Will Be Blood". So we compromised and saw them both. At 7:45 it was Sylvester Stallone's "Rambo". Stallone directs and stars in this version, and like his most recent take on "Rocky" this was obviously an effort to revisit the character with a focus on purpose. I have a lot of respect for Stallone, recognizing that his earlier portrayals tended to slide towards mindless entertainment in a medium that so easily can be used for good. Now the "Rambo" message is simple; if you're going to go into the jungle and kill a bunch of people with knives, explosives, bows (arrows) and your bare hands, it might as well be for a good cause. So Stallone sets up his film in Burma, where the government is savagely murdering it's own people. Then he adds in a dash of Christian missionaries, in case we couldn't quite relate with the locals. Now we're ready for the action... As the end credits rolled, I told Rob that this movie should have been titled "There Will Be Blood". It was bloody. Now, since this is a "Rambo" movie, that was to be expected, and in a way it was good to see a true action movie after all this pseudo-action, techno, sensitive-male, mindless, unoriginal dribble Hollywood has been putting out since "The Matrix" changed everything. At the same time, the mixture of shocking us with the brutal reality of an evil government rule, with 80's style over-the-top stylized action violence kind of was unsettling to me. Sure I wanted to see the bad guys get what the deserved, and John Rambo dished it out nicely, but maybe this would have been better as two separate movies. So in conclusion, I thought it was a great action film, but maybe Rambo isn't the best person to send in to help spread good in foreign countries. "Rambo" ended at 9:40, and we had five minutes before the lights went down and previews started rolling at the 9;45 showing of "There Will Be Blood". I was a good thing I did my homework and both of these movies were at the same theater. Where should I begin with a film like "There Will Be Blood"? Obviously the title is a great one. Is it a warning or a promise? Then there's Daniel Day Lewis. Is it possible to be disappointed by one of his performances? I tried to avoid any information about this film before I went in, so it was very unexpected from start to finish. Ralph Fiennes plays a monster in "Schindler's List". He does things and orders things done that are beyond comprehension in their wickedness. He is a monster that we can't relate to. In this film Daniel Day Lewis plays a character who is even scarier, because we see it from his perspective, and it touches a little too close to home. This man is selfish to his core, his heart is black. Yet he knows what's right, he knows how to be a good father, and how to talk to people. I've never hated a character in film as much. Yet it was captivating to watch. He was such a smooth, manipulative talker, and he only spoke when it was to his benefit. The first twenty minutes of the film he doesn't say a word, there's no advantage for him to. His son adores him, and he adores his son. Does he adore his son because of his son's adoration? Does he love his son, or is it just nice to have someone around who loves you? In the final scene with his son I believe his true heart is revealed, which made me hate him even more. Then there's the town's young, charismatic pastor (played by Paul Dano). He is the antagonist to Lewis' character, and what a way to compare and contrast two characters! Paul Thomas Anderson's probably has good reason for in using and oil man and a pastor to represent American greed. Personally I thought it was a great film, yet I sense a jab at Christianity that is not representative of my faith. Yet from an outside perspective the comparison that Anderson makes is justified, and I find that to be sad.

Heath Ledger

I would like to say a word about Heath Ledger. Ever since I saw him in "10 Things I Hate About You" I have liked him and appreciated his work. He played a wide variety of roles, and belongs in the same category as the great actors of our time. It is sad to hear of anyone dying young, and maybe because I liked him, and because of my anticipation for his upcoming films, I have been saddened to hear of his passing. Perhaps this is a good time to pray for his family, and for other young actors and actresses. Obviously these people have an impact on society, and it is not beyond hope that God can use them for his glory.

Cloverfield

The primary reason I went to this movie was to see for myself what "it" was before someone spoiled it for me. Now this doesn't get me into all movies, I don't go see any of those horror or slasher type films, but there was something about "Cloverfield's" ad campaign that worked on me. Hopefully if you plan on seeing this film you are smart enough not to read any further because it is impossible to really discuss this film without giving away some important details... The best aspect of this film was how from start to finish our only perspective was from one hand-held camera. Some films have attempted this feel, some have used it as a gimmick, but "Cloverfield" used it convincingly as a storytelling device. Of course you will question how realistic it would be that one person would have so many incidents occur to him in one night, and conveniently he had the camera running the whole time without the battery running out. But then with so many cameras running on any given night of course we would watch the most interesting footage. This film took your typical Godzilla monster movie and told it from a ground level point of view. It did this with convincing, unrecognizable actors who were interesting to spend the time with. The special effects worked well,and were probably most effective considering we only could see them through the lens of a small hand-held digital camera. Usually we would feel jipped if we didn't get clear steady shots of what is going on and what is doing it. But in the context of this film (as in "The Blair Witch Project") there is an explination, and it's actually more scary because we know that's how it would feel to us if we were there too. In closing, there were two things that stuck out that did bother me. First, if you go ito a store, break open a battery package and put it in you phone, won't you have to charge it before you can use it? Also, I think in this kind of film it would have been better to leave some things unseen. Usually what is left to our imagination is far scarier than anything digital artists can create.

Atonement

Atonement has everything that a great film needs , except for the most important element; sympathetic characters. Wouldn't you think that in a tragic love story there should at least be a man and a woman who are in love?

Here is what is good about the film; it is beautiful, and filmed with rich detail. The feel of the film matches the look, creating mystery, tension and anger. The music, piano mostly contributed to the atmosphere without being distracting, actually being incorporated into the film as some of the characters actually play notes on the piano where appropriate. There is one sympathetic character, actually the antagonist is the only character I cared about in the end.

Here is why the film fell so flat that I was actually blown away at how dissapointed I was; everything was without purpose. Almost so much that it could have been used as an inetersting twist. But alas, this film turned out to be a mediocre mishmash of other far better films. James Cameron should get a cut of this film since there is an obvious rip-off of the old lady explaining what happened a long time ago scene. I almost expected Leonardo to come from off screen and give her a kiss. And here's the scene that epitomizes the whole film; as James McAvoy's character walks onto the beach in France, we a treated to a continuous shot that must last about five minutes. The scene shows chaos as Allied troops prepare to retreat, fighting each other, killing horses, destroying equipment, etc. The scene was impressive from a technical standpoint, and reminded me of the bridge at night scene from "Apocalypse Now". The difference is that Coppola's scene contributed to the film and was brilliant, whereas this beach scene in "Atonement" was impressive yet unnecessary, kind of like the whole movie.

I Am Legend and Sweeney Todd

It's been a few weeks now since I have seen these movies, but they deserve reviews. My opinion of a movie changes over the course of a couple weeks, perhaps it is that I've had time to process all the information, maybe it's that the initial emotional response fades. Or the other things (life, discussions, tv, movies) have taken up space in my mind and imagination, therefore nudging any positvie response to the films out of memory. First I'll start with the most recent of the two films, "Sweeney Todd". As time has passed I think I remember the trailer for this film better than the film itself. Unfortunately the trailer contained all the best moments of the film, almost making the film unnecassary. I believe that this happens way too often. I think there should be an Academy Award for best trailer editing. Maybe it's my fault that I buy into a great trailer, hoping the film will match. Almost always the best films have trailers that are so vague, only hinting at the film itself, whereas a trailer that itself is great is a sign that someone compiled all the best stuff into one minute hoping it will be enough to get you to buy a ticket. Don't get me wrong, "Sweeney Todd" was what the trailer advertised it to be, but nothing more.

"I Am Legend" was better than the trailer let on. The reason it was better, and the reason it will stick in my memory is because of Bob Marley. Will Smith's character loves Bob Marley and his music. This may seem like a strange reason to like a movie, but for me it made Smith's character real. In the midst of life alone, fighting for survival, dealing with loss and searching for hope, Smith held on to his humanity with his passion for music. Some special effects were alright. The acting was good. The story was what it was. There was an effectively scary scene in a wherehouse. But what will lead me to have good memories of this film was Marley.

Batman Trailer

I just recently saw "I Am Legend", but before the movie started, they showed a preview that I just had to talk about. Soon I'll get to the "Legend" review, but this is what's on my mind now: The new Batman trailer is more than worth the price of admission. I hesitate to say too much, but let's just say that any aprehension I had about Heath Ledger has been washed away. Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker speaks for itself, and I believe it will stand the test of time. At the same time his performance and that movie only scratched the surface of the Batman and Joker rivalry. Burton explained the situation in relatively simple terms, Batman as tromented orphan searching for revenge, Joker as a twisted killer, hungry for fame and power. What made the film great was Nicholson's Joker, its dark comic storyline, it's tounge-in-cheek humor and of course the beautiful visual style. Christopher Nolan is digging deeper into the mind of Bruce Wayne, and hopefully his approach to Joker will be on par. If the feel of the newest trailer along with Nolan's track record can give us a glimpse into what is coming, then I truly believe that "The Dark Knight" is going to be the film to see this coming Summer.

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.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age, The Assassination of the Outlaw Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and The Darjeeling Limited

Let's get right to it.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" was like the first "Elizabeth", but not so much. It goes without saying that Cate Blanchett did a great job, and this movie was worth watching for her performance, the costumes and well to tell the truth my memory of this movie is already fading. If you haven't seen the first "Elizabeth" then I can recommend watching that film for sure. The combination of story, Blanchett's acting and the character created by Geoffrey Rush made that film very entertaining.

"The Assassination of the Outlaw Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is a film that I'm still contemplating. First off the cinematography was distracting and overdone. Definitely unique and to the point, but overdone nevertheless. It was hot down in Mexico in "Traffic", war was hellish on the beach in "Saving Private Ryan", but how cold and dreary can every day have been in the life of Jesse James? I only criticize so directly beacause I found it to be distracting, for the most part I liked the film. What I really liked was that the movie was about both Jesse James and Robert Ford. Just because one of them was present didn't mean that the other was overlooked. Seldom do films take the time to study two characters, and it was especially interesting since we know from the title the course they are both on. There has been much talk about Casey Affleck having a great perfomance in this movie, and I must say that he did a very good job. At the same time, to me it was pretty much typical Casey Affleck. It's one of those films where the director spend a lot of time just watching the actors in silence, their eyes, their expressions, thinking. My guess is that wether it's Casey, Ben or any other Affleck, if you film them for long enough, you'd get enough footage to make them look thoughtful or whatever state of mind you're looking for. That's not meant to take away from the film, only to say that I think the direction and editing probably is causing the buzz about Casey more than anything else.

"The Darjeeling Limited" was not what I expected it to be. Let's preface this by me stating that I loved Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums". Gene Hackman's character, Luke and Owen Wilson, Gwyneth, Bill Murray, Hey Jude, Alec Baldwin narrating, stabbings, etc. It was funny, it was sad, it was quirky, and it just worked for me. "Darjeeling" almost got there, it's almost like it was intentionally getting close but wasn't willing to go all the way. All the biggest laughs almost seemed to be the cheapest ones, like from a typical comedey. The characters were well cast, and perhaps I was expecting too much. But from the beginning when I realized that the Bill Murray cahracter wasn't even gong to make it into the movie, I was dissapointed. Then there is a death, a broken car, and many close misses with humor. The quirkiness was there, there was some cool music and some interesting cinematography including a classic Wes Andreson transition scene, but overall I was dissapointed. On a side not, the short film by Wes Anderson before the film, with Natalie Portman was actually the best part of the movie, I could have watched a lot more of that.

Michael Clayton and Stranger Than Fiction

Alright, I saw both of these movies about a week ago, but I think it's best to write about them now before I see my next movies.

"Michael Clayton" was one

Let me stop myself right there, I just saw a preview for "Be Kind Rewind" over on the Quicktime trailer site, and it looks super funny, my kind of movie alright.

Anyways, "Michael Clayton" was one of those movies that was good, and I want to write a good review about it, but as you can see it has taken a week for me to get around to writing about it. Geoerge Clooney was very good. Instead of being a invincible star, he plays Machael as a fallible, unsure, older guy. He's been through quite a bit, he's got personal issues, but he has a mission. All that extra baggage makes his character more believable and interesting. I think the ending of the movie is more satisfying because it took so much hard work to get there. The best part of the movie though was the protaganist played by Tilda Swinton. I don't think I've seen such a character before. She was manipulative, calculated and just plain nasty bad. At the same time she wasn't exactly having a walk in the park. The film captured her struggle with decisions and consequences as well. It's not easy being evil I guess.

I had heard good things about "Stranger Than Fiction", perhaps some of you had mentioned it. Sometimes I just don't make it to all the movies, and this was a chance to see something with Jess for the first time on video. I think the measure of great comedies, is how hard I laugh, and let me tell you I was laughing pretty hard at this one. Another measure of my enjoyment of a film at home is how much Jess enjoys it. Jess liked this one too, so it was a fun movie to wath together, and I would recommend it to almost anyone. I think that this is Will Ferrell's best movie. Perhaps this goes hand in hand with the fact that I'm super old now, but range that he demonstrates in this role shows his acting ability off quite well. The supporting cast, the quirky special effects, the music, they all support the humorous, original story, and make for a fun movie.