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?

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.

Where The Wild Things Are

The book "Where The Wild Things Are" was about childhood angst, and the use of imagination to defeat that angst. The book was direct and efficiently and beautifully made its point. Spike Jonze has adapted this classic book into a film that retains everything from the book and expands upon it. Where the book really lumps all of Max's emotions into a group of wild things, the film "Where The Wild Things Are" gives each monster individuality, each of which denotes a specific attribute or feeling that Max has. I liked how throughout the film Max sympathizes with each of the wild things, and we sense that he is actually recognizing his connection to each character and helping based on his personal experience. With all this being said, this didn't really do much for me. I recognized what Jonze was doing, but personally I never had childhood angst. I can appreciate Max's imagination, but imagination for me was always an expansion, never an escape. What I really loved about this film were its visuals. The wild things are amazing technical achievements. Max was wonderfully cast, and his interaction with the people in his life and the wild things was right on. Many times I found that I was lost in the atmosphere of the film, it's as good as the book, yet I never felt it was a gimmick or distracting. Finally I will say that my friend Rob is right, this is a movie for adults who understand and love the book. It's difficult for me to believe that children of unimaginative adults could appreciate this film for what it is. Therefore all children should read the book, grow up, then see this movie.

Zombieland

I rolled out of bed around 9:00 on Saturday morning. It was a cool, crisp Colorado Fall day, so Jess and I decided to head up into the mountains with the kiddos and take in the colors of the changing leaves. We stopped in at Dunkin Donuts to get a well-rounded, healthy breakfast of Maple covered Long Johns, toasted Coconut and Chocolate-filled donuts. I don't know why, but for some reason I was struck by the friendliness on display, first thing in the morning, in a random store in Colorado Springs. The line for coffee and donuts stretched out of the store, into the atrium. This meant that between the store and the atrium a door had to be held open to keep the line in check. As we moved forward, the passing of the responsibility of door-holder was exchanged with extreme politeness. As I passed off my place to the guy behind me, he asked me if I knew when the Rockies game started, and when I answered to the best of my knowledge, he took it as a cue to discuss his favorable opinion of college football versus professional. I remarked that he was correct, and obviously college football is a pure version of what the NFL has so outrageously corrupted. Now this little experience struck me at the time, but the reason I'm conveying it to you is that after seeing "Zombieland" later Saturday night, the events of my morning had an even more significant meaning. "Zombieland" is about a group of four strangers who are the last remnant of humanity. It is about thier interaction with each and how no matter how bad things get there is always something inside that separates them from beasts. Now I'm not going to get into the philosophy (or lack thereof) actually contained in this film. I just found it to be an interesting coincidence that I'd see evidence of human kindness in the morning, then see it so prominently displayed in the unlikely place of a zombie movie. On top of that, if you take into account the political climate that the media is attempting to paint, one of stark contrasts and unjustified disagreements. And on top of that you add a Michael Moore movie attacking the very fabric of our society. Isn't it odd that America chose to come together and see a movie that lifts up the human struggle, instead of on that breaks it down?

Oh yeah, and "Zombieland" was a really funny movie (with zombies doing zombie stuff mind you).

Julie and Julia

I'm going to go and read Mom's post about this movie as soon as I'm done writing this. Mom told me on the phone she really liked the film, and she told me that Pop even went to see it by himself that's how highly she recommended it. Now everyone knows that I am a true Julia Child aficionado, so if anyone is qualified to review this movie it must be me. Maybe I knew this before and I had forgotten, but I was pleasantly suprised to see when the film opened that it was directed by Nora Ephron. She was perfect for this film, and did an excellent job telling a story in an interesting way that didn't feel contrived or distracting. It wasn't a biography either, yet a sweet, inspirational tale of the way lives are connected, and the ways people impact each other without realizing it. The four main characters were all well cast, the modern Julie (played by Amy Adams) and her husband fit well together. There is a definite hint of "You've Got Mail" in their modern, New York lifestyle, but I'm saying that as a good thing. Of course the reason I went to this movie was for Julia, and boy did Meryl Streep deliver. She was that kind of incredible where you're not watching her at all, you're watching Julia Child. It makes me wonder if she believes that she is Julia Child, because I can't imagine it not getting cofusing at some point. It wasn't just here voice, or the way she looks, rather it was everything. Her laugh, her body language and her personality. Even the aspects that I have no way of knowing thier accuracy are just so convincing the way Streep performs. And then there was Stanley Tucci, who delivers an outstanding performance as Julia's husband. I like how he takes this on as a supporting role and does just that, supports his wife, emotionally, with advice, with strenght and with love. This is just a great film, any way you look at it. Probably my favorite film this year, and I wouldn't be suprised if Streep and Tucci get nods around Oscar time.

The Informant

I like Steven Soderberg movies and I like Matt Damon movies. I even like when Steven Soderberg makes a movie with Matt Damon in it. I wanted to like this movie, but I just can't. This was a funny, quirky, original movie. The problem is that it only had one joke and it kept on repeating the same joke over and over again for two hours. I laughed at first. I even laughed an hour and forty-five minutes into it, but I left the theater feeling as though they were mostly wasted laughs. Now I recently watched "Step Brothers" on Netflix. Each and every laugh in that film was wasted, and the movie was really rotten. Here in "The Informant" there was good, pointed, thoughtful writing. There was great acting on Damon's part, he really filled in the character. The actress who played his wife (Melanie Lynskey) did an excellent job in a thankless role, and in my opinion actually made the movie twice as interesting. Unfortunately two times one is only two, and I was looking for more.

Inglorious Basterds

The trailer for this film suggests a gruesome romp through occupied France by a band of guerrilla Nazi hunters. The trailer doesn't lie, they're in here, but it isn't about them. This is a film about victims who don't give in to insurmountable odds, rather they face their persecutors head-on. As the film opens an evil is established. Then a solution to destroying that evil is presented. What follows are the details and the obstacles that are encountered along the way. It all seems to fit within the parameters of your typical war time drama. The story is even told in a completely chronological fashion, this hardly seems worth mentioning, except that this is a Quentin Tarantino film... Tarantino has tricked us royally with the trailer and the title of this film into thinking we're going to see an updated, blood soaked "Dirty Dozen". Instead we get a poignant film that examines the American fascination with adapting history to make us feel good about ourselves. Sure there's the occasional "Valley of Elah" and "Flags of Our Fathers" that demonize the American war effort, but overall war films have been made to make us feel good and proud about what we've done (or wish we'd done in this case). Tarantino has made a classic war picture, with a little bit of classic "Tarantino" splattered about for good measure. The characters, the locations, the story all could be right out of any other World War II film. It's what the characters say and what they do to each other that makes this stand apart. What Tarantino does wonderfully is that he gives us a sloppy mess of an idea, then he throws characters and storylines at us left and right. When it's all over though, the mess and clutter is forgotten, and the conclusion seems to be the only one possible. I think what I appreciated most was that although there were references to other Tarantino films, this film stands alone. "Pulp Fiction", "Reservoir Dogs" and "Jackie Brown" all are cut from the same cloth. "Kill Bill" and "Death Proof" are kind of limited by their source material. But here Tarantino takes on a genre that has an established, distinguished history and makes a film entirely his own.

District 9

After a Summer of movies that disappointed, finally with "District 9" I have seen something imaginative and amazing. Neill Blomkamp directed and Peter Jackson produced a film that remembers how to thrill an audience. First the film sets the stage, and if you've seen the trailer, it to is a set-up. In the onset, characters are introduced, the basic premise is explained, the rules are established. Then all hell breaks loose. Now this isn't a re-invention of the wheel; this film does follow conventions set forth from the beginning of sci-fi action movie, but here it's done so well that it feels fresh and new. At the center of the film is the age old fable where the main character must undergo metamorphosis in order to repair his misconceptions. This story takes place in a setting that while Earthly, seems so foreign to us, making for an interesting mix of the familiar with what is alien. Then throw into the mix a seamless integration of what is real and what is special effects. I've mentioned before how bored I have become with effect driven movies, well here in "District 9" there are characters that are 100% effects, yet they are as much character and as much a presence as the people onscreen. I will admit that at times it is distracting, because I find myself marvelling at 'how id they do that?' But, for the most part it is just so well done that I was captivated by what was going on, instead of how. As I mentioned before, the real strength that Blomkamp and Jackson show is presentation; they know how good their effects are, but instead of overdoing it or showing-off, they take the time to get us interested, to get us anticipating what will happen next. Then they deliver. And when it was all over I felt like I came, I saw, and stuff got blowed-up real nice.

G.I. Joe

Perhaps I will only be restating what has been said over and over again since this movie was announced, but this is my review, so I think it is my right. I grew up on G.I. Joe. As my brothers can attest to, I loved playing with these action figures and their vehicles whenever I could. We didn't have the big ones; the hovercraft or the aircraft carrier. We didn't have an army of vipers or even all the Dreadnaughts. What we didn't have we made up for with imagination. We built bases, secret underground hideouts and even rivers running down our neighbor's backyard. Storm Shadow was the ninja who spread fear into the hearts of all the Joes, until of course he himself turned good. I'm pretty sure Matt had a Hiss, which was the best tank ever made. Matt had The Baroness, I had Zarana, Matt had Scarlett, I had Lady Jay. Then there was The G.I. Joe movie, and I capitalized "The" because it was all we needed. The end all, be all, definitive action adventure movie about these characters that we loved to play with. Just watch The G.I. Joe movie to find out what Cobra Commander, Destro, Roadblock and Zartan are really like.

That unfortunately brings us to the new "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" movie. At least the let down had been prepared for, and I was able to approach it with little expectations. The story and the acting were actually the best thing here. Scarlett is played by Rachel Nichols, who was previously in the last season of Alias. I mention this only because this movie reminded me a little of an episode of Alias; it had alright production values, moved along pretty quickly, and the actors did what they could within the confines of the script. Beyond that, maybe it's just my glorified memory, but Snake Eyes is way cooler back in the day than he is in this movie. I guess I'm just tired of hitting, kicking, blocking and jumping as a character's full repertoire when it comes to fight choreography. Snake Eyes is a ninja! He doesn't just jump out of an airplane and start wailing on people. There should be like 15 people on the ground before you even hear the plane. Anyways, Jude and Jesse loved this movie, and I'm sure if they saw the stuff from my childhood they'd think it was lame. So sad. What sucks the most is that it should have been someone who loved the stuff from my childhood making this move, instead of someone trying to cash in on my memories. Capitalism at its finest I guess.

Where I'll be on October 16th

Funny People

This is by far the funniest Adam Sandler movie I've ever seen. So often in comedies I feel as thought the dialogue is being forced on me, like someone took a stand-up routine and tried to apply it to a real life situation. The reason this film works is that it's about stand-up comedians, and therefore the writing fits perfectly into the context of the story. Last night I thought that it would be fitting for me to write that "Funny People" is the "Annie Hall" of the current generation. That might be a little too strong of a compliment, but relatively speaking it's about as close as we're probably going to see. This is an introspective film, with characters who aren't afraid to examine themselves from the perspective that we see. The Sandler character specifically knows his weaknesses and fears. He doesn't change magically overnight, but we get the sense that his heart desires to lead him to become a better person. Sure, what slows this film down, as in any comedy, is an attempt to be meaningful. At the same time I think it's a smart move to make "Funny People" about both 'people' and 'funny'. I was interested that the filmmakers used Adam Sandler as they did, considering that I've seen him from very early in his career all the way through all his prime, his fame his attempt to be taken seriously. For him to take this role so head-on worked perfectly, and I admire him for it. Finally, as a warning, just as "Annie Hall" wasn't a family film, this isn't either. Keeping in step with the trend of comedies today, "Funny People" is funny without any real sense of boundaries. Perhaps comedians have always been on the edge, saying things that we all think but social standards keep us from saying. Is shocking people, or talking about private matter necessary to make them laugh? I was just trying to think of some Biblical examples of humor, obviously my favorite is pretty disgusting and comes at someones expense; Ehud stabs King Eglon, who is so fat that the handle of the sword gets covered up by the flab. Then to make things even funnier, the Kings servants don't find out until it's too late because they think the King is just taking time going to the bathroom... I'm sure many of you can come up for different reasons that this account is included in such detail in the Bible. As for me, it is either the worst kind of humiliation against the King and his descendants, or it's just plain bathroom humor. I'm not trying to justify all the humor in "Funny People" with this example, I guess I just think it's interesting that there is this base level at which many people are amused, and if there are examples in God's Word, can it all be bad?