Salt and Inception revisited

Rob didn't get to see "Inception" with me on opening night, so this past Friday we saw "Salt" and then stayed to watch "Inception". I can quickly say that "Salt" was better than I had expected it to be. I would have thought that it would be like Tom Cruise's most recent "Knight and Day", which was entertaining, but predictable and shallow. "Salt" has a few surprises, nothing earth-shattering, yet enough to keep it interesting. Let me take a moment to talk about surprises. Sure "Knight and Day" may have had its twist and double crosses, just as "Salt" does, but the difference is how those twists affect the plot and more importantly how the characters react. Angelina Jolie has done this stuff before, her biggest movies are probably the action movies. She has also proven herself time and again to be a great actress, and I think it helps to make this movie captivating, even though its not believable. Talking about believability, this is not a movie that contains much, if any of that commodity. What I find to be the most irritating is that here, as in so many other action movies, the heroine gets 50 1-shot kills in a row, followed by a climactic shootout in which she can hit no one. I would ask the filmmakers to please establish a set of rules, I'll ascribe to them for the course of the movie no matter how outrageous they are, but please, never break your own rules. All in all I liked this movie, it leaves room for a sequel, but as is true with most movies, it would be far better to leave it as is. If they make a sequel, it'll just detract from this movie.

Perhaps you could tell that my thoughts on "Salt" seemed rather flat and maybe you could tell that I'm distracted. Yes, and watching the movie, all the while knowing that a far better film lay waiting on the other side may in fact have influenced my viewing of "Salt". The second viewing of "Inception" only built upon my admiration of the film and those involved in its production. Today I went to a site that was discussing the chronology of events and their meaning in this film. I find that to be somewhat amusing. Perhaps I am just not a detail person. If you've read many of my reviews, you will have noticed that I care very little for what happened at any given moment in a film, rather it is the big picture, the meaning that I am interested in. The author of this other blog broke down the film by its individual scenes, then explained the three possible conclusions that could be drawn from the ending. Sure I find this kind of discussion interesting, it's probably one of my favorite things to do, but where this film is concerned it feels a like a waste of time. The movie isn't at all what it's about. To examine the details, as this blogger said; (and I paraphrase) "open it up and find out how it works", misses the whole point of the film. My fellow blogger did acknowledge that Christopher Nolan was 10 steps ahead for the whole movie. I liked that (I actually said that myself, not that anyone cares), this is a masterpiece of a film. Nolan didn't sit around watching the Smurfs for ten years, he wrote draft after draft of this script. Each rule that he establishes, each character and the relationships between characters, all of these are important. Sure, the plot, the images, even the sounds of a passing bicycle are all important. When the screen cuts to black, those details are no longer elements of a film, rather they have successfully fused together, bringing us to a conclusion that is greater than the sum of the parts. I could have ended with that cliché of a statement, but I will explain. Nolan knows that we as an audience are bringing our own pre-conceptions to the theater. As with "Memento" and "The Prestige" before, Nolan is not attempting to trick us, he is willing to explain a whole lot more than most directors would. No, he wants us to piece the puzzle together and then reach conclusions as though on our own. The final statement of the movie is not meant to frustrate us or trick us, rather to remind us who's puzzle this is.

Inception (Initial Review)

With "Inception", Christopher Nolan has taken ideas and crafted them so smoothly into a film that definitely is greater than the sum of its parts. At a number of points I noticed that the dialogue was simplistic, too explanatory. Yet later, when the film was over I recognized why this was necessary. The characters onscreen weren't explaining it for us, rather they were trying to wrap their own minds around some pretty heavy ideas. I thought the casting was excellent, I really was pleasantly surprised with how well Ellen Page was able to fit into the film without me thinking about "Juno" (too much). Perhaps it is because I most recently saw him in "Shutter Island" but there were some scenes where DiCaprio's performance was too familiar. Unfortunately there is a similar plot-line between this film and "Shutter Island" so in a way similarities in acting will be present too. That is not to say that DiCaprio wasn't amazing as usual, he was, and this will be added to an impressive streak.

Ideas are what this film is about, but in films ideas must be conveyed through images. This film was beautiful. A perfect combination of expression of ideas and the visual representation thereof. I liked that there wasn't need for explanation of the technology behind linking to dreams. We've all seen by now plenty of movies that have spent countless hours treating us like idiots by showing us how to "plug in". No, this film isn't about connecting to others dreams or fighting the Matrix. This is a film about the life of a thought. Where does that idea come from? How does that idea grow? What are the consequences of having one little, harmless thought? For Nolan to take those ideas (as the screenwriter)and so clearly conceive of ways to represent them visually is truly amazing. I think that one of the interesting facts about "The Matrix" is that most of the questions that movie sparks aren't addressed in the film. The film makes some interesting statements and sets up certain parameters, yet the audience is far smarter than the movie. With "Inception" Nolan has blown "The Matrix" out of the water. There is always the sense that he is a few steps ahead of us. Nolan knows the answers, all the possible answers, yet he is able to keep everything comprehensible and tightly interwoven with the story. Sure, once again you will walk out of a movie with plenty of questions, perhaps even some doubts about the answers you've been given, but don't doubt for a moment that anything was unintentional.

The Last Airbender

I had high hopes for this movie. I don't want to regurgitate what must be going around all the message boards these days, but M. Night Shaymalan has let down his fans for the first time. Up until now I have liked all of Saymalan's films. I have thought that in many ways his films have become progressively better, with the exception of "Lady in the Water" which wasn't as good as "The Village" which came right before it. When I heard Shaymalan explain that his kid had turned him on to "Avatar: The Last Airbender", and that he (Shaymalan) was excited about making it into a film, I was excited too. I was excited because I knew that he, if anyone, could make anything interesting. Up until just last week, no matter how many times I saw the trailer, I knew that Shaymalan has the ability to make a quirky anime kids show into a great visual cautionary tale. But alas, it was not to be so. Instead I saw a movie with poor acting, poor dialogue, a run-of-the-mill New Age plot, and sub-par special effects. The worst of it was realizing that this movie is a setup, most likely for two other movies. Are we going to be deprived of a true Shaymalan film for four years? Has Shaymalan lost it? Is this just some great pre-amble to an even worse second movie, followed up by a great masterpiece, which could only be truly appreciated by being disappointed by the earlier two films? I know I'm probably reaching there. It would be far healthier to forgive Shaymalan this one error, maybe even a trilogy of errors, and hope that he gets this out of his system and goes back to who he was meant to be.

Knight and Day and Twilight 3

As I told my friend Rob, "Knight and Day" is one of those movies that is slowly but surely chipping away at my desire to see movies. It's not that it was a bad movie. It's not that it was without it's moments of humor or action. It's fault was that it was bland. It is a poor copy of what has already been done. I hesitate to recommend the following, because it has faults of its own, but "Grosse Pointe Blank" is the king of this genre. The everyday guy who is really something different and the innocent woman who is in love with the everyday guy, or is she in love with the bad boy? They're both the same guy so it doesn't matter, right? Anyways, "Grosse Pointe Blank" truly understands what is interesting about this pairing, and the relationship is the focus of the film. Here in "Knight and Day", plot devices, action scenes and a poor attempt at witty dialogue are all we're really given. Sure the action was good. Sure Tom Cruise is a smooth action hero, one of a kind. But I want "Mission Impossible 4", not some generic genre retread to hold me over. Have you ever noticed that when I spend most of the time talking about another movie, most likely it's because I don't want to talk about the movie I'm supposed to be writing about?

There is nothing I can compare last night's experience to. As I looked around, I could count the number of men in the crowd with my fingers (on one hand). A Taylor Lautner cell phone screen saver to my right. A small group of women huddled around a laptop screening of "New Moon" one row ahead of me. Excitement in the air. "Do you know what trailer we get to see before the movie starts?" I hear from a couple rows away, and then oohs and ahhs as the questioner reveals "the new Harry Potter!" Of course conversation then turned to the travesty over splitting one book into two movies, which of course led to the a conversation over the far deeper travesty of splitting the final "Twilight" into two movies. Yes, there I was waiting for the midnight showing of "Twilight: Eclipse" My sister Jill and her friend fit right into the faithful fans waiting for the movie to finally begin. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I prepared for this moment a while back by watching the previous two films on DVD. I will admit to you, and not easily, that I actually liked "Eclipse". First let me say that I am fully aware that the energy of a midnight crowd and viewing the movie in a theater are automatically going to give any movie and advantage. The added fact that I was with my sister, and I knew how excited she was must also be considered. All of that aside, I believe that I am able to achieve some level of objectivity when watching any movie, and I can say without any hesitation that I did like the movie and it was by far the best of the three. One of my main complaints about the previous two movies was an apparent lack of self awareness. What I mean by that is that the subject matter is pretty far fetched, and even withing the context of the legends it deals with, it has broken quite a few rules. Some may feel that "Twilight" is "redefining" what vampires and werewolves are, but I am of the opinion that "watering-down" is a better way of stating that point. Finally this move acknowledged that vampires don't have blood pumping through their veins, they are cold, lifeless creatures. The exchanges between the main vampire Edward and the werewolf "Jacob" finally seemed real, instead of controlled by the plot. Even Bella's explanation for her stubborn position felt understandable to me. Instead of just being a girl who wants to be a vampire, I finally got the sense that this is a decision that she has made for herself. Everyone around her knows that it is the wrong decision, but with the limited perspective on life that she has, it is right in her mind. On top of those previous points being addressed, I also liked that the film makers took the time to explain some of the side characters and their motivations a bit more. The last movie especially was so bogged down in back and forth territorial bickering, that having everyone "get along" for the most part was a nice change. I will also say that the special effects, although distractingly PG-13 were significantly better in this installment. At one point Bella gets to pet a wolf, a pretty big wolf, and I personally couldn't spot the line between real and effect. So in conclusion, if some girl tries to get you to see this movie with her, of course you'll want to say "Please, not another chick flick!" "Can't we rent a musical or something?" But when you're sitting there in the dark, you can secretly enjoy it, while at the same time earning brownie points for when the next Tarantino movie comes out...

Toy Story 3

The film makers over at Pixar have once again delivered an entertaining, beautiful and moving movie that's good for the whole family. Instead of making a children's movie or animating a grown up's movie, Pixar just makes a great film, combining all the elements necessary, without adding or subtracting according to some notion of what would appeal to certain age groups. One of the film's strengths is character development. Sure, we know the central characters from the previous film, but there is always room for growth, and new characters are introduced who are vital to the plot and the conclusion of this story. As in the previous films, "Toy Story 3" brings back memories of childhood, showcasing even more toys that are bound to spark nostalgic feelings and plenty of laughs. This movie is very funny, some jokes the kids might not get, but there's plenty here for everyone. I really liked how "Toy Story 2" was told from the perspective of the toys, and captured that bittersweet relationship between toy and child. The story of "Toy Story 3" does a wonderful job of actually exploring that relationship deeper, swinging the camera around and allowing us to see it from the child's perspective as well. This is interesting considering that I feel that Pixar's weakness has always been capturing humans. I think as the company and its artist continue to grow and mature we will see even more groundbreaking, and hopefully plenty of great stories and amazing visuals for years to come.

The A-Team

Except for the last major sequence, this was all in all a pretty good movie. Some of you might not know (Mom) that I grew up on the A-Team. Part of an episode here, a few brief flashes there. I seem to remember a very small black and white television in the corner of my parent's room as being our primary viewing location. (This is also how we watched Dukes of Hazard I believe). You didn't have to watch every week, or see a whole episode to quickly get the gist of the show and understand the characters and their relationship to each other. In television this is an attribute. Understand your viewers and give them entertainment. And in the case of A-Team it wasn't a bad thing. What kept us watching was the action and the funny dialogue. Colorful characters and a variety of locations also kept the show fresh from week to week. Then of course there was Mr. T, Hannibal, Face and my personal favorite Murdoch... Has ever a better team of mercenaries ever been assembled? This brings you to my perspective when approaching the movie last night. How could a 2 hour Hollywood movie compare to childhood memories formed over some of the most impressionable years of my life? Let's just say I had fun. It was kind nostalgic trip down memory lane. Liam Neeson paid tribute to Hannibal, which some of you will read as a kind of ridiculous waste of time, but that's what old people think about things they don't understand. The rest of the cast also did a great job of portraying familiar characters, while at the same time making them their own. The screenplay captured the main elements of the television series (there's a problem, A-Team fixes it). And it was funny script with plenty of nods to what I remembered most about the show. I won't spoil the best part of the movie, but I will say that it completely captured my feelings about current film making trends and made fun in a good old fashioned A-Team way. Would it be too cliche for me to say that I pity the fool who doesn't see this movie?

How To Train Your Dragon and Shrek 4

"How To Train Your Dragon" was a fun adventure. Unlike other recent releases ("Iron Man 2") this movie actually has a sense of wonder. We are transported to another place and time. We meet a interesting cast of characters and variety of unique dragon species. There is a simple story, yet this isn't so much about what or why, rather it's a movie about who and how. The relationships, between father and son, girl and boy, and human and dragon, this is the good stuff. The fact that the people here are vikings made everthing all the more entertaining. The voices, the attitudes and the beards, all made this movie better. The main dragon and his human counterpart are the center of the movie, and I liked them both. The drogon reminded me of Stitch (from "Lilo and Stitch") and since I really love that character, it worked here as well. The emotion and communication is so dependent on facial expression and body language, I believe that can either make or break the effectiveness of a film, and here it works amazingly well.

"Shrek 4" may not be as bad as "Shrek 3" (it's hard for me to say since I've tried to erase most Shrek from my mind). Sure there are funny moments. The filmmakers know the funniest material because they actually use a time warp element in order to ensure we return in time to see the funniest part a second time. Unfortunately, like with so many sequels, what made the first one truly original, barely exists in this fourth installment. Should I talk about the animation or the voice work or even the music? What's the point? Blah, blah, and a little more blah. How in the days after "Ratatouille" can animators make "Shrek 4" and bare to look at themselves in the mirror? I guess (to answer my own question) it must be the paychecks sitting on the table next to the mirror in their grand hall of their Hollywood mansions. Maybe if I didn't help support these second rate artist wannabes, crap like "Shrek 5" won't get made...

Lost

Here's my problem tonight...

I believe that there is no ambiguity when it comes to eternity. I believe that peace can be found through only one path. And when the end comes, it will not be subtle, no one will doubt at the end.

Now I have enjoyed "Lost" with all its twists and turns. I like wondering what's going to happen next, then after seeing what happpens, wondering what in the world I just saw. I enjoy that the show always left room for discussion and it was refreshing to see television that was truly interesting.

In the end I'm afraid that the show took the easy way out. Kind of like the Obama advisor who will not acknoledge Islamic extremism as a threat. It would be nice to live in a world where every belief leads to some euphoric afterlife. Can't we all just get along? Unfortunately the truth can be hard to swallow. What do they say about broad and narrow roads? Anyways, maybe "Lost" would have finished better taking sides. I kind of thought that's what the show was about.

Iron Man 2 and Robin Hood

Now most of you reading this probably saw "Iron Man 2" with me, so it'll be old news, but sometimes it's good to make a solid copy as a reminder (or a warning) as a lasting reference... I would guess that there are two basic camps; those who liked the original "Iron Man" and those who didn't. Those who did, should be disappointed by the sequel. Those who didn't like the first will have far less expectations and therefore be less disappointed. Sure I was still disappointed, I believe that I am a movie optimist, I always hope the movie is going to be good. (I'm a realist too, realizing that my hopes are usually quashed by the Hollywood machine). This movie has no style and no substance. Sure it's amazingly crafted, the artists and technicians earned their share of the take. But no matter how many suitcase Iron Man suits transform, no matter how many, wait a minute... This movie wasn't even that cool. The special effects weren't even that amazing. It wasn't interesting, it wasn't funny, it wasn't anything, just blah. Very expensive blah. To top it off, apparently they hired Mickey Rourke to repeat his performance from "The Wrestler". He must have read the script and thought to himself, "This will be a nice little mental vacation". If I can praise the movie for anything it would be consistency. The actors, the story, the dialogue, the setting, etc. all were equally blah.

Let me set up my review of Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" talking about the true Robin Hood for a moment. Howard Pyle wrote a little book called "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" which for me is the standard by which all things Robin Hood should be measured. My childhood had its references too, the Errol Flynn film and of course the wonderful Walt Disney version featuring Roger Miller. That being said, Ridley Scott seems to know a little about Robin Hood. Enough to use him as a cultural reference in telling his own tale and relaying his own message. This very easily could have been very upsetting to me, yet I found myself liking the film and going along with this retelling. I think he avoided making any definitive statements, like "this is what really happened" or "my version is better than that version". Scott tells a story with convincing characters (played well by great actors) and uses the legend for a backdrop. Really this film could have been an original story that took place in the time of Robin Hood and it would have been just as good. My complaints about Scott in the past have been lack of originality ("Gladiator") and frustration to the point of annoyance ("Black Hawk Down"). With "Robin Hood", although it never achieves greatness, he at least makes his own film, and tells a compelling tale that pays tribute to its source material.

David Mamet

Years ago I was blown away by "Glengarry Glen Ross" It was one of the most boring movies visually, yet one of the most captivating to listen to. An eye opening experience (or ear opening I guess) in realizing how important writing is in film. The reason I write today about Mamet is that I just watched "Redbelt" for the first time. It is truly amazing how a little film that is written well can be such a captivating experience. People that react to what has happened. Not in a contrived plot sense. Sure, in the upcoming Summer blockbusters people are going to do and say stuff, but it will all be a slave to the plot. Mamet makes me feel that the plot serves the words. I mean when someone says something it impacts what happens next. Words and actions have true consequences in a Mamet screenplay. The most powerful moment in this film is a slap. But the slap can't stand alone. There must be a build-up and a reaction to the act of a slap. In a few weeks people will be watching Iron Man flying around blowing stuff up. He'll say something and Gwyneth Paltrow will say something funny in return. But in the end I will be left with an shallow memory of having been entertained. "Redbelt" is burned into my memory, and I believe was a worthwhile time spent watching a film.

I look back at other films by Mamet; "The Spanish Prisoner", "Heist" "Ronin", "Hannibal" and "The Edge". I think all of them were entertaining, and very importantly different from each other. "Redbelt" is his latest, and I think his best. So in a world of write-by-numbers, dumb it down for the masses, it's nice to think that Mamet is only getting better.

Kick-A**

Typically I never look at Roger Ebert's review of a movie until after I've written about it myself. I hope that my ideas come across as my own, and then I compare my perspective to his. I mention this only because as I was skimming through his site I caught the first few lines of his "Kick-A**" review. To tell the truth I was going to give an overall positive review of the movie, but after seeing his thoughts I began to question myself. The title character of this movie is an average New York City high schooler, who wants to be a super hero. This is one of those self-aware, self-narrated, tongue in cheek dark comedies that is meant to be funny by being outrageous. I will admit that I liked the movie. It is one of those fast paced, well written visceral experiences that sucks you in, while you're in your seat. Now what Ebert so clearly states is that this movie is morally reprehensible. One of the supporting characters (who steals every scene she's in) is an eleven year old girl. He mother was killed when she was young, and her father has trained her to assist him in their pursuit of vengance. Now on one hand, seeing an eleven year old girl do the stuff she does is pretty amazing. No matter what special effects they used, this is one talented little actress. But (to quote "Jurassic Park") it seems they were so busy wondering if they could make a little girl fly through the air and slice bad guys heads off, that they didn't stop to consider if they should. I am reminded of "The Professional" with a young Natalie Portman, that was a gritty, reaistic glimpse at a similar situation. This is a good example of how the approach to certain subjects is so important. Real life is messy. It is sad that people who are too young often deal with the harsh realities of this world. I think it can be a good thing to make films that address these concerns, but "Kick-A**" is not the way to do it.

Twilight (so far)

So the other night I gave the first "Twilight" movie a chance...(and watched the second one the following night)...

Jess had already seen the first one, and had liked aspects of it, and since I have a feeling I'll be watching the third one this Summer, I though it best to get caught-up. That being said, I heard a comedian not too long ago say that he'd just watched "Twilight". He said that "Footloose" is a better vampire movie than "Twilight", and he was right. The makers of the "Twilight" series display a real lack of knowledge when it comes to their subject matter. I'm sure that this has been discussed in extensive detail elsewhere, so I won't go into it. On the other hand these movies aren't about vampires or werewolves, rather they are about people. Teenage angst. The feeling of being old beyond your years. Frustration that the world is passing you by and the things you long for seem so distant and unattainable. I think the movies do a good job of tapping in to that human condition, and the characters do represent honest emotions. The movies are also lush visually. Sure the makeup and the close-ups and the slow motion are obviously overdone, but hey, it all fits the package. I found myself snickering when wolf-boy takes off his shirt, but then I'm not a fifteen year old girl (no offense to my favorite sister). When vampire-boy and Bella kiss, I can't help but think that his body is ice cold, no blood pumping to warm his lips, how can she enjoy it? But then I guess different things turn on different people, so who am I to judge?
The best vampire movies know why we a both afraid and drawn to the idea of vampires. They possess immortality and supernatural abilities, yet they also represent the dark, addictive, lost nature of man. The moral is that there is a price to pay for selling your soul, and the price always outweighs the rewards.

Now I don't know how this "Twilight" series is going to turn out, my impression is that somehow, if your love is strong enough, even the pitfalls of vampirism can be lessened, and life can be at least bearable for the damned.

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?