Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Jude has read all the "Wimpy Kid" books and Ashley has read a few of them. The movie "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is faithful to the series. Jude and I both liked the animation used throughout the film. Even though the animation is based on the very simplistic drawings from the books, it helped to set the atmosphere for the movie. It's one of those things that I believe is endearing about the books as long as you don't give it too much thought (like thinking about the fact that the drawings are by an adult). I found the movie to be very funny and I laughed throughout. The actors chosen for the main roles were all well cast. This movie had charisma and like "The Sandlot" for example, a kids movie needs that to survive a grown-up viewing. If you've read any of the books you already know that since the story is told from the perspective of a middle school boy there may be some situations and behaviors that adults would consider questionable. There are irreverent kids, mean kids, gross kids, etc. There is an incident that takes place midway through the movie in which the main character faces an important decision. Even though I was unhappy with his decision and many that followed, I like that the story made him suffer the consequences. Sure, as with most movies, kids or otherwise, the ending was nice and clean. Typically I would complain how this cinematic device would jolt me from the illusion of the film and completely ruined a perfectly good movie. In this case it rings true, kids are much more likely to forgive and forget. Perhaps this is a lesson that adults can learn from children. After all, unless you have the faith of a child...

The Blind Side

Jess and I got to go out for her birthday last night and we got to see "The Blind Side" together. This is the kind of movie we both like, this kind of movie and "Ocean's Eleven". There has been much made about Sandra Bullock's likability but poor choice in starring roles. She typically goes for roles that guys like me find irritating. Yet how can anyone not like Sandra Bullock? The buzz was right on, Bullock does an excellent job in "The Blind Side" and this is an uplifting, heartwarming story (if you're into that sort of thing). This is one of those little films that knows what it's trying to accomplish and doesn't overstep its scope. What I mean is that although football is a thread, the movie never tries to be about football. There are just the right number of characters, and theses characters support the story being told. And "The Blind Side" is successful as a film by telling a dramatic, interesting, well organized story, yet feels real because it never stoops to cinematic cliche or forced cause/affect moments. I hope that Bullock takes this film to heart in future role selection. It is proof that you can make a Sandra Bullock movie that doesn't feel like it was written in an afternoon by someone who only ever has seen chick flicks and is under the impression that they are the only kind of film to make. It reminds of of the line from "The Blues Brothers"; Elwood: "What kind of music do you usually have here?" Woman: "Oh, we got both kinds. We got country *and* western". "While You Were Sleeping" was a good movie, cream of the crop in its genre. I just hope with this movie Bullock can finally escape the genre and make films that remind us why nobody really dislikes Sandra Bullock.

The Green Zone

Ben and I have talked about Paul Greengrass' camerawork before, and once again it seems like the ad for a camera operator must have stated that it was an entry level position... Personally I don't think this is a knock against the movie. For the most part the gritty, personal, somewhat spastic camera actually works for the story being told here. The trailer is somewhat misleading, suggesting that this is another "Bourne" action movie. Fortunately Greengrass and Matt Damon take this story a different route. Damon's character is a wise and experienced soldier. Yet he is not without limitations, and the fuel that drives this movie is the story, not the action. I like how Greengrass makes definite statements about details that are undeniable, yet respects the intelligence of his audience when the questions raised drift into the uncertain. For example, we were told that Iraq currently possessed weapons of mass destruction, as a reason for engaging in a war against Saddam Hussein's regime. As of yet these weapons have not been discovered, which means that somewhere there was flawed information. These are all points that the film uses as its base. The questions it raises and theories it presents pertain to how and why such an important piece of the puzzle was flat out wrong. I like that Damon is presented 100% as a patriot, and 100% as a thoughtful, conscientious man. Unfortunately this is also an area where the movie became somewhat unrealistic. Damon's character as an Army Chief Warrant Officer acts in a way that no member of the military would ever get away with. There are acts of insubordination here that would at the very least get him court martialed and most likely get him killed. Then too there is an Iraqi citizen called Freddy, who never rises above the cliche that his character represents. This can sometimes make sense in a screenplay, because of the time limitations in a film you must have simple supporting characters to drive the story. But here it's just real bad. Freddy is a shortcut in every way imaginable. There is actually evidence in my mind that he isn't even a real character, just a jumble of thoughts and ideas. Especially his last moments in the film, which are inevitable made me fell so cheated. As I have said before, when a film, especially one that intends to be believable jolts me into realizing that everything is a slave to the plot, the whole film falls apart. This would have been a very good film if Freddy would have been omitted.

The Princess and the Frog and Alice In Wonderland

I took my daughters to see "The Princess and the Frog" not too long ago, and because I don't review enough family friendly, here I go: I think it's pretty obvious that this movie is an attempt by Disney to make a traditional animated film that appeals to a broader audience, or maybe a more specific, as of yet neglected audience. It does seem odd when you think about it that Disney of all companies has maintained (as they say in Washington) the status quo for so long. This political insight aside, I thought that the movie was a good one. "The Princess and the Frog" continues in the spirit of this style animation from recent memory. At the same time I've been getting the feeling that this style has become a back-burner priority for the studio, and in some ways it feels unnecessarily bland and dated. Another knock against this movie relates to its setting and its villain. Louisiana and a Voodoo witch doctor aren't exactly wholesome family friendly fare. Yet to be fair I think it would be difficult to find any Disney movie that doesn't dabble in the occult or evil of one kind or another that isn't somewhat questionable. So by that rationale, this movie like its predecessors does make a distinction between good and evil, and in the end good does prevail. Now as I said I did like the movie overall. It had that classic Disney fairytale quality. Some of the visuals were very entertaining, and I hope that the studio keeps this art form alive for a long time to come. The music wasn't great, too bad about that, but it fit well into the context of the movie. Maybe it's that it's that I'm getting old, I tend to fondly remember the greatness of "Aladdin", and long for a current film to equal its technical and artistic level. Perhaps I need to recognize that the talent has shifted, moved on to a newer form. "Ratatouille" definitely surpassed the "Aladdin" benchmark, so I guess I just need to go with the flow, enjoy classic animation from its heyday, and appreciate what we have now.

I'm going to compare Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" to Tim Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" Both succesfully take us into a highly imaginitive world as only Burton could bring to life. Both contain a prfomance by Johnny Depp as only Depp could deliver. Each have a story that delves deeper into the human condition than you might expect. These are modern fables in a tradition of storytelling that seems lost upon most current filmmakers. So at this point in the review I would say that I was happy with "Alice in Wonderland", it contained all the elements it should, and the 3D technology used help contribute to the overall visual experience. Unfortunately this movie lacks something that made "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" great. Here is where I should explain exactly what that "something" lacking is, but it's more complicated than that. It may be that Depp's characters, although each original and amazingly realized, are on two different levels. In "Charlie" he really got me to sympathize with his character. Whereas in "Alice" I never became personally involved with his character plight. In "Charlie" Burton was able to establish a flow to the film, and even with the flashbacks everything seemed to progress the story in a fluid and entertaining fashion. In "Alice" there seems to be a more traditional, chronologically strict style, which seems to bog down the screenplay at times. Now none of these critisisms are fatal flaws, yet they detract enough to keep the film from being as good as it should have been.

Cop Out

I realize that my taste in movies is broader than that of some of my readers. Some of you may never have seen a Kevin Smith film before, and if that is the case, maybe it should stay that way. "Cop Out" is by far and away the tamest of anything Smith has ever done, but that isn't really saying all that much. Smith has a distinct sense of comedy, in that he understands the psycology behind base humor. I guess I would suggest that Smith has elevated a form of low entertainment. When people around me talk about certain subjects I find it to be degrading and offensive. Smith has the ability to take far worse and place it into a context that I can relate to, or at least have sympathy for the plight of his characters. Let me be clear though that I do believe that Smith often goes too far. "Dogma" and "Clerks 2" and "Zack and Miri..." all take their subject matter well beyond any line as far as I'm concerned.

Beginning with "Jersey Girl" Smith has been dabbling in mainstream Hollywood movies with mainstream Holywood actors. I have found these endeavors to be somewhat lacking, but only lacking compared to his earlier independent films. Compared to the mainstream Hollywood comedies he is competing with, he is definitely at the top of the game. "Cop Out" falls into the mainstream category. It's funny, it's even Kevin Smith funny. Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan are cast well together, and aside from the fact that once again the trailer gives away too much of the good stuff, this is a funny comedy throughout.

Perhaps I'm allowing my satisfaction with "Shuuter Island" to influence my analasys of this movie too much. I had high expectations from Scorsese last weekend, and this weekend I was looking forward to a Kevin Smith film. You can read the results from last week, but this week wasn't without some dissapointment. Perhaps a brief appearance from Jay and Silent Bob would have upped this review, but alas it was not to be.

Shutter Island

I've been looking forward to "Shutter Island" for quite a while. So far the combination of Scorsese and DiCaprio has proven to be flawless. I have been so disappointed with mediocrity in films of late that I was really hoping for something that could deliver on it's promises... "Shutter Island" is everything I knew it would be. Even though I had high expectations going in, and even though the film achieved greatness throughout, it's amazing how Scorsese still has the ability to surprise and impress at just about every moment he chooses. And of course once again, here's DiCaprio at the top of his game. Perhaps someday he'll lose his touch. Maybe he'll make a poor role selection or slip in his personal life in a way that catastrophically affects his onscreen presence. But right now he seems perfect. I don't want to give too much away about the plot, but here DiCaprio must play such a wide range and he makes the needed transitions take place so smoothly as to be nearly invisible. In a sense you can't fully appreciate everything he's done until the film is completely over. I could use clichés to describe why this film was so effective; I could discuss how the atmosphere, the sets, the editing and the camera work all worked together to create terrifying tension. I could point out the obvious homage that Scorsese was paying to Hitchcock through not only cinematography, but also with his direction of the actors performances and the classic Phyco-esque music. Instead I would suggest that for Scorsese all these elements were a natural, automatic course to follow. When you're making a perfect film there is only one perfect answer to each decision a director must make. Of course unlike other directors who may choose the "easy" course or they feel that their individual style requires them to do something unexpected, so they avoid perfection in an effort to leave distinct trademark. With "Shutter Island" we get the best possible version of the film, which personally I prefer to any excuse others might come up with when they make movies similar in subject yet far inferior in substance.

 
On a side note there were two aspects of this film that I was uncomfortable with at the time. One, which I will not discuss here, though very disturbing, in retrospect I feel was necessary in conveying the emotional power of the film. The other element, which I'm still not sure how I feel about, was the film's Holocaust flashback sequences. I guess that I have become very alert when filmmakers use historical events as backdrops to further their stories. It is very easy to use a setting so horrible as a Nazi deathcamp to establish a sense of despair and trauma. Yet does it take away from the impact those events should have in our lives when they are used for dramatic effect in a work of fiction? I think arguments can be made for and against, and ultimately it probably comes down to how reverently history is treated (and accurately). Just a thought I had. Please feel free to let me know what you all think, I'd love to have your input on this subject.

Crazy Heart

On the road with a legend. Amazing creativity in a time of mediocre drivel. An ability to tap into the rawest of human emotions and connect with his audience. Great music and great actors. These are the qualities of the film "Crazy Heart" staring Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Like "Walk The Line" before it, this film glorifies a lifestyle that if you actually think about it isn't a life you'd want for yourself. Maybe it's one of those ageless questions of what is an acceptable throwing up/writing hit song balance? Personally I really hate thowing up and I try to avoid it as much as possible. On the other hand I really would like to be a great singer/songwriter, so maybe I'd take the bad to get the good. My point is that this film contains not only the strengths of "Walk The Line" but also it's weaknesses. Although, I think "Crazy Heart" does a better job of imparting the idea that even though it's super cool to be a musical legend, it's not all a bed of roses. But really, beds of roses are overrated.

Nominees

"Avatar", "The Blind Side", "District 9", "An Education", "The Hurt Locker", "Inglorious Basterds", "Precious", "A Serious Man", "Up" and "Up In the Air". These are the films nominated for Best Picture this year at the Academy Awards. Now I know that these awards are designed to promote an industry and therefore cannot be seen as unbiased. The list most likely contains certain films added primarily to spark controversy for even being on the list. It should also be noted that a list this year compared to a list from previous years would look very different and that is partly because the pool of contenders vary from year to year. So it would be unfair to say that none of these movies are as good as "Braveheart" because no movies this year were that good. So it really sucks for filmmakers when they release great films in a year of great films because it hurts their chances of being singled out that particular year (personally this is why I prefer a Top 100 List like the American Film Institute puts out, which covers all films from all time). Finally, before I comment on the specific movies nominated this year, it should be mentioned that there are three I haven't seen, including two I don't really have any desire to see...

First and foremost there is one movie on this list that does not deserve to be anywhere near the "Best Picture" category. Now this movie is a great visual masterpiece. It contains everything that the average moviegoing idiot is looking for without a shred of anything that would make it more substantial than that. If "Avatar" wins, then the Academy should officially apologize to the makers of "Speed", "Armageddon" and "Top Gun", because those films all gave us the same visceral rush that "Avatar" achieved, and didn't really give us much more. (I'd like to take this time to apologize to those three movies I just mentioned because they are actually far superior to "Avatar"). Typically the movies that gross the highest, that have the highest mass appeal are the ones that don't dig too deep. Blockbuster movies are an escape, which by definition is a kind of mindless disconnect from the real world. What gets me is that "Avatar" in it's core is a self-loathing criticism of the very system that made it possible, yet it's so gorgeously packaged in vibrant blue 3D action that everyone seems snowed. Maybe in the days of Obama, we deserve a Best Picture like "Avatar".

Secondly, the other nominees. You could go back and read what I thought of the ones I've seen so far. I'm hoping for "The Hurt Locker" to win, because it was a well crafted, effective dramatic film that got me involved and caring for the character. "Up" wasn't the best Pixar film, it really is too bad that the Academy is just now recognizing a Pixar film in this category. I feel that "Finding Nemo" should have been a nominee the year it came out. "Up in the Air", which I saw relatively recently contained a good performance, but I thought the film overall was too contrived. "A Serious Man" was another well made film that in retrospect I just didn't really enjoy. I was surprised to see "District 9" make this list, on the other hand it was a far superior alien movie than "Avatar" and even though the endings are similar, the messages are very different. And finally "Inglorious Basterds". Tarantino is back, nominated again. "Pulp Fiction" lost to "Forrest Gump", is this the film that'll finally give Tarantino some official Academy recognition? Overall the film wasn't consistently good enough in my opinion. I liked the arc that he created beginning with the opening farmhouse sequence and concluding with the Brad Pitt line. Yet it wasn't my favorite, and there was just too much unneeded 'filler' from my perspective. Yet in a year with such a weak competition, maybe Tarantino will get it. As for the three films I haven't seen, maybe "Precious" is as good as the "Godfather" but I'll never know. You know what they put on french fries in Holland instead of ketchup?

From Paris With Love

The best line in this movie wasn't written well enough to deserve being present. When you reference another movie, you're using that other movie's greatness to build up your movie. Unfortunately here in "From Paris With Love" the reference alone isn't enough. John Travolta plays a secret agent who doesn't seem to value his secrecy all that much. I don't mind the shoot/blow/beat-up action movie every once in a while, but sometimes I feel as though some directors want both, a serious espionage thriller and an action movie. Well, this movie was not successful in combining those genres, so it should have stuck with one or the other. It's too bad really, because there was a hint of a great film here. We've all seen the reluctant rookie agent teamed up with the hardened veteran chasing down the terrorist. But what if one of the agents was in love with the terrorist, and what if maybe, just maybe the terrorist was in love with that agent as well. Of course now things start getting sticky and a simple moral line is more difficult to establish. This movie chickened out and answered all the questions in typical Hollywood, dumbed down, average American fashion.

The film that Travolta pays homage to is "Pulp Fiction". Now there was a film that understood that people talking about stuff is way more interesting than the stuff itself.

Edge of Darkness

This film is a triple-threat combination that was so close to working for me. Martin Campbell has directed the two best (which obviously also includes the all time best) James Bond movies, and has shown himself to be a great action director who knows how to rise above the genre. Mel Gibson is a fine actor who is right at home in the rising-above-the-genre action movie. And Ray Winstone stood out in "The Departed" as someone you don't want to mess with, and here in "Edge of Darkness" he gives a similar performance, and gets more screen time to show his ability. Now the film worked better than most, it did rise above the genre for the most part. Yet there were still just enough scenes and moments to jolt me out of the experience. Unfortunately the way the film ended was one of it's weaknesses. Perhaps because of Winstone's presence I found myself comparing this film to "The Departed" quite a bit. This may be unfair, yet it a film sets itself apart as a benchmark, then shouldn't we compare other films to it? In the better film there are surprise twists, there are violent outbursts, there is a tragic hero. Those elements all exist here in "Edge of Darkness", yet Campbell isn't able to bring them together with the same mastery of his craft. The violence itself doesn't have impact, it should be the threat of violence that is effective. Plot twist aren't interesting in and of themselves, it's how they affect the characters. And a tragic hero is only as good as the actor's ability to make you feel compassion for him. When revenge is the only motivation, we feel a shallow connection to what occurs onscreen. "Edge of Darkness" is one of those good movies that really make you appreciate the great ones.

The Book of Eli

Someone in Hollywood slipped up royally. How'd they let this one through? Is this film really what I think it was about, and was the film's final statement really that direct? Denzel Washington is wandering across post-apocalyptic United States with one important book in his possession. He has the only remaining copy of a book that some seek for the knowledge it contains, others desire to wield it's power over the masses. Now no one mentions the name of this book, most of those living are illiterate anyways and wouldn't know what to do with any book they come across. Yet throughout the film Denzel quotes scripture, and will not give up his book at any cost. As everyone knows by now Denzel is not someone to be messed with, unfortunately post-apocalyptic Americans haven't seen any of his movies and therefore meet their demise in an assortment of decapitations, shotgun blasts and just a good old fashioned general loss of blood. Of course Denzel remains unscathed, but how? Is there an invisible force protecting him? To top it all off the film delves into the importance of the book he carries. The words contained within may have been a reason for the catastrophic war that led to the apocalypse. The book was sought after and destroyed for fear that it's message might interfere with the plans of those in authority. And finally in the end of the film the point seems to be clear that although some might try to place this book in a category with others, like The Talmud and The Quran, this book alone is the one that has true power. Did the movie really say that?

So "The Book of Eli" surprised me, and pleasantly so. I think Denzel is a great actor, and a commanding presence, and this film only built upon that. The action sequences were violent and yet not overly bloody, especially considering what was going on. The style of the violence made it's point without overdoing it (in my humble opinion). Some of the other "action movie" stuff, the elderly couple at tea time, the cliche action movie heroine, etc. I could have done without, but all in all it was well done. Also it was hard so close after seeing "The Road" not to be conscious of the post-apocalyptic similarities/differences. Then all those other movies start coming back... "Zombieland", "Terminator: Salvation", "Wall-e" and "I Am Legend". Those are just ones I've seen in the past couple years, and it makes me ask the question; why? Is this a common human nightmare, concern, fantasy? "Eli" probably had the most positive message out of them all. "I Am Legend" captured the loneliness. "The Road" asked some tough questions. But do these films have any real value to us? Is post-apocalyptic America something we should be prepared to face? If I've learned anything from all those movies it's that I want to have plenty of canned goods (and of course a can opener), plenty of automatic weapons (and crates and crates of ammo) an extra pair of boots, a Bible and most of all I'm going to need an ipod.

Up In The Air

I was recently reading an article about an Academy Award winning best picture from a few years back. The author of this particular piece stated that the film was in fact one of the worst films of the year because of it's cheap exploitation of emotions through standard Hollywood devices. Instead of making a strong argument for a specific subject, the film used every cliche and underhanded trick to make the audience feel as though they'd been convinced of something deep and important... Now I must admit that at the time I really liked the movie, perhaps I fell for it. Even though I felt that my emotions were being manipulated, I agreed with the message of the film, and I thought there were some pretty strong performances by the actors and actresses. I mention this, because for me "Up In The Air" reminded me a little of that other movie. There is a very convincing piece of acting by George Clooney, almost so good that you don't notice the weakness of everything else.Unfortunately the primary weakness is also the film's strength; Clooney's character. He basically plays the same guy from "The Wrestler" only instead of an over-the-hill has-been professional wrestler played by Mickey Rourke, we get a middle-aged, on-the-verge-of-being-obsolete professional firer. What I liked about "The Wrestler" was that Rourke's character at least knew who he was, and in the end made his decision and was prepared to live with the consequences. Here Clooney convinces us that his character is real, fleshes out some of the nuances of what makes this frequent flier so unique, but in the end what does it really matter, and what does it all mean? Now the movie was funny, it was interesting, it was a glimpse into a life that is unfamiliar to me, but that's not enough for me. Then to top it off, what could have been the best parts of the film came across as being cliche and forced. For example, when Clooney and his partner sit down to fire a long-time company man who becomes visibly distraught, Clooney gives a beautiful motivational speech on the benefits of being fired, the new opportunities that exist. It was so well written and so well acted that it felt well written and well acted. Whenever I realize I'm being manipulated, when I'm not supposed to realize it, the movie fails.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

It finally got here, so Rob and I went to see "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" last night. I really enjoyed the film, even though it took some getting used to. I had seen the trailer, but didn't really know what the movie was going to be about. I was pleasantly surprised to learn how imagination was so strongly incorporated into the story, thereby explaining the strangeness of the visuals. The unique, fantastical atmosphere also helped soften (actually almost make invisible) the unfortunate fact that Heath Ledger was unable to complete his role in the film. I thought the performances by the actors who filled in for his character, were right on and a respectful tribute. Johnny Depp especially seemed to be honoring Ledger in the way he approached his part. The story as it is here in the finished film was also very well done. I think that if you didn't know the story behind the film, you may never notice the changes that had to be made. Christopher Plummer is just right as Dr. Parnassus, and I actually liked all of the casting. The special effects at first seemed too weird, but as the film went on everything melded together and I found myself enjoying the atmosphere created by the filmmakers. As I said before, this is a fitting tribute to Ledger, and I think worth a view specifically for that reason. Yet, "The Dark Knight" and other of Ledger's films will have a much longer lasting impact.

The Road

I just got home from seeing "The Road". This is a difficult film to review, and I'll tell you why. O yeah, if you've read the book and plan on seeing the film, maybe you should read this later. At the same time, if you've read the book, I kind of wonder why you'd want to relive this story in the theater. This film is difficult to review because it asks some tough questions, and it is effective in creating an atmosphere of dread and despair. Yet it also fails to be convincing in certain areas. There are many holes in the realism of the events that unfold throughout.

The story is about a father and his young son, as the wander through a post-apocalyptic America. As with most movies in this genre they must carefully dodge other survivors, scavenge for food and make decisions that go to the very core of their humanity. The strength of the film was in it's presentation and understanding of those questions. How far am I willing to go to survive? Is survival the most important goal? Unfortunately the events, and the way the main characters react, are the weakness of this film. Do you set up camp in the noisiest part of the woods if you're concerned about cannibals sneaking up on you? Do you walk right into a house filled with items that look like they were taken away from people who really still kinda need them?

All in all I think the film (and I'm guessing the book) had a very strong message. I did feel a connection with Viggo Mortensen's role as the father, and thereby the film was effective in making me ask myself the same questions he faced. At the same time, I can't say I enjoyed the film because it made me feel sick, sad and worried. So this was a difficult film to review.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox (and another venting session)

As I look back over 2009 as it relates to movies, they pretty much sucked. So it's kind of too bad that I saw "Mr Fox" on New Years Day, thereby making what is likely the best film from 2009 be my first film of 2010. I looked back just now over my reviews from the last year. "Star Trek" and "Julie and Julia" probably are the standouts, along with "Basterds", but overall it was a year of blah and disappointments. I know I risk sounding like every other blogger when I point out the travesty of McG's Terminator waste, but that sort of sums up 2009. (And by the way, this wasn't the venting rant, that comes after the "Mr Fox" review...)

"The Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a wonderful, entertaining, imaginative, funny film that retains everything that makes Wes Anderson great, and takes advantage of the strengths of its actors instead of using them merely as recognizable voices. From the opening sequence with Mr. Fox stretching to the Davy Crockett theme song, to the peppered dialogue between Mr. Fox and his badger lawyer and the trademark Wes Anderson cut-away sets, this was a fun movie. The way the characters interact was spot-on Anderson, yet because the some of the characters are children and because the story is about a family, it seemed very fitting as a family film. In contrast, Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums" since it is about grown up children and their family is obviously for grown ups only. The music (as in other Anderson work) was awesome, as I mentioned before, 'Davy Crockett', and also 'Disney's Robin Hood' and The Rolling Stones. I don't know if there's anyone else making films today who could pull that combination off so successfully. George Clooney as Mr. Fox is also perfect. The only other actor who could have done it would be Cary Grant, and I can see how that might have been difficult. Clooney is just the right kind of smooth to play a dishonest, good hearted, slightly absent-minded, stop-motion fox. And as far as the style of the film goes, once again I have no complaints. Other recent films have used effects unnecessarily as gimmicks (much to my dismay). Here I felt like the storybook was alive, and it even had a hint of that old Disney animation, reminding me even more of my fond memories of "Robin Hood" thereby enhancing my appreciation for this film. The one thing I will warn parents sensitive to their children's ears of, is that colorful dialogue runs throughout the film with the word "cuss" filling in for any actual cuss word. Personally I found this to be extremely entertaining, especially when Mr. Fox notes that this is turning into a real (cover your ears) cluster-cuss. Aside from that and some violence towards rats and chickens, you should see this movie immediately.

And now for the venting... Our city has increased the number of screens on which movies are shown daily. We are currently at 80 screens within 20 minutes of my front door. "The Road" is showing on one of those screens. "Avatar" on the other hand gets 13 of those screens. On top of that, "The Road" had it's "wide release" on November 25th, it didn't get here until a week ago. "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" has been out for quite some time now, but nowhere near me. I could watch "The Chipmunks Squeakquel" on a different screen each night for the next two weeks, but I can't see Heath Ledger's final film? I know the reason that movies get made is a business just like any other. If most people will pay for one thing and very few will pay for something else, it's the first product that is going to be widely available. The best I can do is hope, hope that more people will stop putting up with this mass-produced garbage and support quality films instead. I know I'm kinda hypocritical, I went to see "Avatar", "Sherlock Holmes", "Fast and Furious", "Harry Potter" etc., etc., etc... Maybe I should swear off any movie that shows on more than one screen at a time. O yeah, by the way, this new A-Team movie that's coming out this summer is going to be awesome!

Invictus and Sherlock Holmes

Jon and I got to see "Invictus" while he was here for Christmas. It was a solid film, with a great performance by Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. I have been very impressed by most of Clint Eastwood's films. "Letters from Iwo Jima" was amazing. "Gran Torino" was a lot of fun, and "Changeling" was an excellent drama. I think "Invictus" was a very good film, but doesn't stand out like the others I mentioned. It's weakness I believe was in the story. Freeman plays such a intricate Mandela, that the film should have been his. The Matt Damon/rugby storyline wasn't as interesting, and the rugby stuff felt like filler instead of being truly important to the film. "Hoosiers" is about basketball players. It's about the players (and coaches) first and foremost. Because basketball is what they all have in common, it totally makes sense for the film to be about basketball too. "Invictus" is about unity. It's about forgiveness. It is also about the use of political maneuvers to bring about positive change. Sure, Mandela used rugby as a tool early in his presidential term, but the argument to make a rugby movie just isn't strong enough for me. The other complaint I have with th film is Eastwood's music. He forces his own style (and music he wrote) into a film that needs something different. Eastwood's music has worked well in other Eastwood films, but he should recognize that his true talent is film making and his music isn't always right.
That being said, it was a very strong film in it's individual elements. The message was positive and timeless. Damon did good for what his role required. The rugby stuff, although unnecessary was interesting in that it's a sport I'm unfamiliar with. And once again, Freeman's performance was worth the price of admission, and I would recommend a viewing based solely on him. Perhaps he will make a more detailed bio-pic later.

Is "Sherlock Holmes" really Sherlock Holmes? Is "Sherlock Holmes" really Guy Ritchie? "Sherlock Holmes" was an entertaining movie, but the answer to both previous question unfortunately is 'no'. There are hints of he real Holmes in this movie, but too few and far between. Just think of the characteristics you know to be true of Holmes. Not that those may be mentioned or used somewhat in this movie, but more as a device than as character. For example, Holme's skill of deduction is his primary resource for solving crimes. Here we are shown that he has that tool in his arsenal, yet it's kinda used randomly and it seems sorta weak at times and it doesn't always work. Is Holmes really fallible? Secondly, I thought Guy Ritchie was required to give us that 30 second sequence in which the main characters are introduced with quick-cutting flashbacks along with titles like; "Sherlock... Master Crime Rock-n-Rolla". I was lost for the first half-hour... who are these people onscreen? You mean I have to pay attention to what the characters are saying? Not all the information I need will be visually fed to me? Sure there were some pretty sweet, slo-mo, quick-edit effects that reminded me of Ritchie. Personally though, I would have preferred a true Ritchie film. It's like this new "Avatar the Last Airbender" movie that Shyamalan is working on, I want a Shyamalan movie, not him taking on some adaptation of anime. On the other hand, have you seen the new trailer for Iron Man 2 (I think Matt has a link to it)? This trailer is even sweeter than the first. Pop some popcorn and watch the new trailer, it's awesome!

Avatar

"Avatar" is the first of its kind. My previous post listed examples of sub-par motion capture feature length movies, "Avatar" is nothing like those movies. James Cameron has delivered on the visual hype surrounding this film's release. The use of 3D technology is amazing, it starts out as a really, really cool effect. Yet as the film goes on you become accustomed to it, so it isn't distracting, but it does add a lush, rich layer to the look of the film. About 15 minutes into the film, when we first see the alien creatures, is when the special effects begin to shine, and they keep going all the way through. The technicians and artists truly have created believable characters in a beautiful new world. Where those inferior motion capture films have been utterly unnecessary, "Avatar" has a reason for it's synthetic humanoids. As with Gollum in "LOTR", here the filmmakers show us creatures that we've never seen before, and their interaction with what is familiar to us is so realistic that we buy it all the way. One of the film's strengths is that the indigenous animals, terrain, and plants are somewhat familiar, yet so exotic that we are constantly amazed and in wonder. Nothing vanilla here. I could go on and on about the achievement. I could point out some of the flaws, some of the poor camera, film-effect techniques that detract from the illusion of the special effects. I could criticize Cameron for his white-guilt, self-loathing, "Dances with Wolves" storyline (you should check out Edwardo's review, I think he saw the movie a little differently than I did). Instead, I'll just say that the artistic, technical groundbreaking aspect of this film makes it a worthwhile view, that must be seen as it was intended. If you plan on just waiting for the DVD, I just don't think we can be friends anymore...

A Christmas Carol

Alright, here goes...

It's been over a month since I've seen this movie, and it was the last movie I saw in the theater. I think this speaks to how completely turned off to movies "A Christmas Carol" has made me. Sure, I've been busy too, but I've never been too busy to go to movies. "A Christmas Carol" is a perfect example of unnecessary use of technology. Like "Beowulf" a few years ago, this is a film that could have been made with 90% real stuff and special effects sparingly used to enhance the story. The flight through the rooftops in the opening titles was amazing, and a great showcase of 3D computer animation. Jim Carey's character was just like Jim Carey, begging me to ask the question; why? Why not just put Jim Carey in the movie. Then instead of creepy, close to realistic feelings about the onscreen character, we could have had a fun performance by a talented, flexible actor. Now "A Christmas Carol" wasn't as creepy as "A Polar Express", but it was a close second.

I decided to write about this tonight, just before going to see another motion-capture movie, "Avatar". I am hopeful. I have this strange mixed emotion, pessimism and optimism. I am pessimistic that any film could overcome all the obstacles presented by the idea of convincing my mind that something fake is really real. I am optimistic that one day there will be an exception to that rule, and maybe, just maybe a film will be so good that I will get lost in the experience believe it is real. Will tonight heal my movie aversion?

A Serious Man

Seeing this movie brings up three different issues that I'd like to discuss concerning reviewing movies:

1st When I see a movie with someone who obviously doesn't like the movie does it taint my opinion?

2nd If I heard good things about the movie, including excitement expressed by someone I respect, does that taint my opinion?

3rd What makes a good movie? Do you always have to feel good afterwards? Should you feel challenged by what you just saw? What does it mean if you liked it more at the time than later on, and vica versa?

I saw "A Serious Man" with Rob. Now Rob and I really liked "No Country for Old Men" and he really liked "Burn After Reading" which I thought was good. We also both liked "O Brother Where Art Thou" and that just about covers our joint Coen Brother film experience. Therefore we should both like this new Coen Brother movie right? Well there were many things going against Rob liking this movie; the subject matter, the characters, the setting and the progression of the story. That's just about everything that matters, and I think Rob hated it all.

Review headlines and brothers can be great news for a movie, or bad news. I haven't read Robert Ebert's review of "A Serious Man", but I saw the headline on his website, praising the film and giving it four (out of four) stars. I also has a brother of mine mention his interest in this film, which automatically made it a must-see. Now what did Ebert see that didn't work for Rob? Was he able to detach himself from the slow pacing of this film and see it for what it was meant to be? Did he laugh at the same parts I did and get the irony, even when it was subtle? And my beloved brother, was it past Coen Brother films that attracted him to their newest effort, or was the trailer and effective piece of advertising? Would his opinion of the entire film itself be as high as his anticipated opinion? I hope to find out.

And now to the final question, was "A Serious Man" a good film? As I mentioned above, I was laughing. I was laughing alone in a packed theater. I become very conscious of being alone in laughter, although if the film is funny enough to laugh at I don't hold back anymore. The film deals with the life a Jewish professor of Physics during the 1960s in middle America. He is a man looking for answers. His problems are more irritating than anything else, but the sheer amount of dilemmas that befall him become overwhelming. The details of his struggles, the people in his life and his search for truth are what make of the entirety of this film. Everything here was done well and was done in an interesting way. I also found that the question that is asked more than once about God's role in our lives, specifically in troubles that we face, was especially poignant. So to answer the question directly; I thought this was a good film. What stand out to me about this film though, is that I can easily see an other perspective, and maybe you too might hate this movie like Rob does...

Law Abiding Citizen

This is an effective, thoughtful and gritty thriller that delivers, up until the most important part, the last five minutes. If you have any interest in this movie, you've probably seen the trailer and are familiar with the basic storyline. So you know that Gerald Butler's family has been brutally murdered, and he's out for revenge. The twist is that Butler's character is captured soon after he begins to exact his vengeful plan, yet is able to continue it while in custody. Jamie Foxx plays the district attorney who made a deal with one of the murderers, and now must confront Butler while dealing with his personal struggle with the idea of justice. What saves this from being a by-the-numbers thriller is the emotions and ideas that Butler and Foxx fight over throughout the movie. If Foxx hadn't made the deal with one murderer he risked both of them walking free. Butler, in his quest for revenge holds accountable anyone who obstructs what he sees as justice. If those in positions of power make compromises where the law is concerned, who holds them to task? Alas, it was all too good to be true. In the last couple of scenes, so much that had been painstakingly established for the first 100 minutes of the movie, was casually tossed aside in the name of a clean ending. Dirty, messy, ugly movies shouldn't have happy endings.