A Blogwork Orange

Horrible Bosses (***)

2011-07-20T21:17:00.000-04:00

HORRIBLE BOSSES
Directed by Seth Gordon

***

Horrible Bosses totally works because it accepts how absolutely preposterous it is. Everything in this film happens in a way that's convenient to the characters and the story arc. In a way, that's part of the screenplay's charm. To say that this film doesn't take itself seriously is a gross understatement. It takes all thoughts of an efficient, more functioning structure and totally chucks it out the window. Why would it do that? Well, it just makes for a funnier movie.

The film circles around three close friends: Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day), and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis). All three men are plagued with hellish workplaces because of their horrible bosses. Nick is a subservient suit at a major sales corporation under the manic control of the megalomaniacal Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey). Nick has worked under the scrutinizing and manipulating thumb of Dave for close to eight years, but all will be well when Nick gets his much expected promotion to VP of Sales (a job equipped with its own office). But when Dave ends up absorbing the promotion himself, Nick thinks that he has finally crossed the line.

Dale, on the other end, has a much more different problem with his boss, Dr. Julia Harris, D.D.S. (Jennifer Aniston). As her dental assistant, Dale is forced to endure many suggestive advances from the sexual Julia, which would be fine if Dale weren't engaged to a woman whom he loves very, very much. Lastly, Kurt loves his boss boss Jack Pellit (Donald Sutherland) like a father, but when he dies of a sudden heart attack, the chemical company he works at is left to Jack's bloated, incompetent and cocaine-addicted son, Bobby (Colin Farrell). In his first day on the job, Bobby asks Kurt to fire people because they are fat or handicapped and then informs him that he only plans to suck the company of all its profits so he can fund his own drug habit.

When both Dale and Nick are blackmailed by their respective bosses so that they're trapped at their jobs, Kurt jokingly proposes an idea. All three of their lives would be so much better if they didn't have their bosses around, so why not have them murdered? None of them seriously consider it, but as time goes by and the idea continues to creep in their mind (and their bosses become increasingly evil) they decide that they are really going to go through with it. First, they get in contact with a murdering consultant, tellingly named Motherfucker Jones (Jamie Foxx) and then they go off and try to do the dirty deed which sets off a series of preposterous and ludicrous events which (as I've said before) only work because of the film's level of whimsy.

In the end, the reason that Horrible Bosses is so funny is because of how inept Nick, Dale, and Kurt are at all aspects of murder. The film's less interesting moments come in the first thirty minutes, where we're supposed to believe things like the impish Dale being able to resist the powerful seduction techniques of Julia (and might I add, Aniston, who sports an unbefore seen dark hairdo, may never have looked as stunning on the screen as she does here) or that anyone would be able to work under the psychopathic, dictator-like conditions that Dave Harken institutes. It is once the prospective murders begin that the film's best moments arrive and they come equipped with some of the best laughs you'll have in a movie this year.

This is a film that is totally created by its cast and it served itself well by casting stars that were willing to buy into the film's loopy concept. As the three bosses, Aniston, Spacey and Farrell really lay on the camp (though I was left wondering how much of Farrell's work was on the editing room floor since he has an approximate ten minutes of screentime) and take their three characters to the highest levels of hyperbole. Spacey, as unleashed as we've seen in a while, seems to relish his chance to play a man as evil and temperamental as Harken and does so with a quirky flair that adds an extra level of deviousness. Aniston totally undoes her America's Sweetheart image in this role as the ultra sexy dentist with the extra large libido. Half the fun in her performance is hearing those words come out of her mouth (kind of like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder), but she still delivers the racy dialogue with razor sharp wit.

As the three murderous employees, Bateman, Day, and Sudeikis wonderfully adapt their everyman images to play these three buffoonish men. Bateman brings his usual stock of charm and terrific timing. Day and Sudeikis, known mostly for their television work (Day in the cult comedy show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Sudeikis on Saturday Night Live, as well as a brief but brilliant run on 30 Rock) deliver wonderfully funny performances in their first major film roles. The three's chemistry together generate some of the film's biggest laughs, especially when they're forced to match wits with Foxx who, as Motherfucker Jones, has one of his best comedic roles in close to a decade (it's almost hard to remember that he began as a comedian).

I won't pretend to hide the fact that I was openly rooting for this film to be fantastic. Day and Sudeikis have been two of my favorite television actors of the last few years, and who doesn't already like actors like Bateman, Aniston, or Jamie Foxx? The film takes an interesting dynamic of taking three performers (Bateman, Day, and Sudeikis) and putting them in roles that are very familiar for them, while taking three larger film stars (Spacey, Aniston, and Farrell) and placing them in awkward, against-type, supporting roles. The result is a film that always feels unbalanced and untidy, yet also always feels funny and fresh.

Beginners (****)

2011-07-09T19:43:00.000-04:00

BEGINNERS
Written and Directed by Mike Mills

****

There's a certain charm behind the kind of film that would give a dog subtitles for dialogue. This is an act that could always come off as campy if done gratuitously, and worse yet, could seem pretentious if done more tastefully. Beginners is a film filled with small details and motifs that could be construed as reaching and silly if not executed with very precise delicacy. Yet, director Mike Mills so expertly weaves through all the fuss, crafting a wonderful mosaic and telling a beautifully melancholy tale about a man reaching forty who still can't seem to find out why he's so unhappy.

That man is Oliver (Ewan McGregor), a graphic designer working out of New York. In 1999, his mother died of cancer and only a few months after, his father Hal (Christopher Plummer), admitted to him that he was gay and had been gay throughout his entire 45-year marriage. In an instant, Oliver fully realizes what was behind the lovelessness he had witnessed for his whole childhood. He watches as Hal evolves into an open and enthusiastic gay man, changing his styles and sensibilities, while finding true happiness. Four years later, Oliver learns that Hal has Stage Four cancer and that his case is terminal.

The discovery of both his father's sexuality and his health is a bit to take in such a short amount of time, and Oliver finds himself dedicating much of his time to being with Hal and later taking great care of him as he gets more and more ill. This cuts into his personal life in a pretty severe way, but perhaps Oliver prefers it this way? His entire adult life, he has worked hard to sabotage nearly every serious romantic relationship he has had, to the point that even a decaying Hal begins to notice his lack of female companionship. Then, in 2003, Oliver meets Anna (Mélanie Laurent), a French actress with Laryngitis, at an eccentric costume party where he's dressed as Sigmund Freud and she as Charlie Chaplin.

The film weaves back and forth through time indiscriminately, tracing the evolution of Oliver's relationship with Anna, his relationship with Hal, and occasionally touching in on his childhood connection with his detached mother, Georgia (Mary Page Keller). It swirls around all these aspects of his life in an attempt to find out one thing: why is Oliver so sad? He seems destined to destroy things with Anna, even as their love together grows quickly and passionately. Still, thoughts of the lack of passion in his parents' marriage plague his mind, causing him to end things before they can ever get to that point.

Mike Mills (director of the 2005 film Thumbsucker and various other short films and music videos) has been said to have drawn on a lot of life experience for the penning of this screenplay. He himself had an elderly father who came out as gay after decades of marriage, which makes sense when you consider how expertly the intimacy is portrayed between Oliver and Hal. Mills has described the film as the thesis on his life, exploring various issues, images, and events within his life in an attempt to make sense of what seems like an endless string of sadness. But in his attempt to make a personal passion project, he's created a film that also possesses a universal appeal and a quiet optimism despite it's occasional mopeyness.

Is there a lot going on in Beginners? Totally. It's focus is not always very targeted and it has the meandering nature of a film with a much looser narrative. Very few films can spend time focusing on an intimate father-son relationship and also focus on the Gay Rights Movement of the 70's and 80's without seeming bloated, but Mills is able to weave in and around all of these ideas efficiently and in a way that feels natural. It keeps itself grounded because it stays so close to Oliver. The mosaic nature of an individual's personality (especially one as tortured as Oliver's) is usually the product of many different people and moments, and that stream-of-consciousness-like path helps enhance the lived-in nature of the film.

Ewan McGregor gives one of his greatest performances, consistently downplaying all of Oliver's insecurities and depression, but always allowing a small peak above the surface. It's a thankless performance that was perfect for the film. A showier performer could have sunk this story. As Anna, Laurent continues the excellence she showed in Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. Anna possesses nearly the same amount of neuroses as Oliver, but Laurent must show this in much less screentime and even less backstory, but she does so wonderfully while still making Anna endearing and enchanting. Christopher Plummer, the film's elder statesman, also does excellent work here. As the newly freed Hal, Plummer fills the role with such light and humor, while still able to show the melancholy, and later, the despair when he's met with impending death.

It should be said the film also contains fantastic supporting performances from both Keller as the perpetually embittered Georgia, and Goran Vinsjic as Andy, Hal's much-younger and occasionally oblivious lover. The film is filled with wonderful performances all across the board. But the real star here is Mills, who fills this film with such quirk and self-deprecating humor that it's hard to remember that it is, at it's heart, a human drama. I'm sure many will see Beginners and box it in with other, more pretentious, independent film character studies, but I feel it's modest tone and heart raise it above the usual downtrodden character piece. What Mills crafted here may end up being the best film of the year.

Larry Crowne (**)

2011-07-08T23:28:00.000-04:00

LARRY CROWNE
Directed by Tom Hanks

**

I feel like I can say this with certainty: anybody who doesn't like Tom Hanks is probably a very unhappy person. Growing up in the 90's, it was hard to miss him as he starred within some of the decade's biggest hits and won himself two Oscars. There's something noble about a star the size of Hanks willing to take on directing, and Larry Crowne is his shot at it since the surprisingly peppy and enjoyable That Thing You Do! in 1996. His debut was a good but not great film, while his sophomore effort is okay but not good. In many ways, Hanks is both the best and worst part of his own film.

Consider a scene very early in the movie. Larry Crowne (Hanks) has been a great and loyal employee of UMart for many, many years despite being passed up for promotions year after year. In this particular scene, Larry is called to the break room where he thinks he will get his ninth Employee of the Month award. Instead, he is told by four of his employers that because of his lack of a college education, he will be let go. The scene is played in two different tones. Hanks plays Larry as a man devastated, perfectly bending the expressions of his face to elicit sadness of the audiences. But the bosses play it like slapstick, cruelly commenting on Larry's dismissal without much empathy. It feels like the actors had rehearsed the scene separately and this sets a befuddling tone throughout the entire movie.

Issues like the ones in that scene are the pure responsibility of the director and they pop out throughout film at times when they're least welcome. It doesn't help that many points throughout the film's screenplay seem preposterous and characters seem to make rather large decisions based on very little motivation. After being let go, Larry decides to take classes at a local community college. While there, he becomes good friends with Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), an incredibly extroverted scooter rider who gives Larry the nickname Lance Corona and inducts him into her band fun-loving scooter friends. I never quite got the sense of why Talia felt the need to befriend Larry other than the fact that the screenplay kind of needs her to.

But the more important development in Larry Crowne's new college life is the people he meets in his Speech class. Most importantly, his professor, Mrs. Tainot (Julia Roberts). She's an incredibly cynical alcoholic who's more than happy to cancel an entire semester if she's not satisfied with the amount of students enrolled in the course. She's married to irascible blogger (Brian Cranston) who can't stop looking at porn, and she spends almost her entire time in the classroom debating whether or not she's making any impact at all. Larry finds it hard not to be attracted to Mrs. Tainot, no matter how rough her exterior, and with the help and stylings of Talia, he may be in the position to pick himself up and go after.

Of course, the script works hard toward pushing Larry and Mrs. Tainot together and doesn't seem to care if student-teacher ethics get in the way. The script doesn't even seem to work hard toward making a relationship between the two make sense, instead relying on the audience's need to see the two leads end up together as enough to justify it. The screenplay was written by Hanks along with Nia Vardalos who, despite one great success (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), has had trouble writing and producing anything watchable - let alone good. Too often we find ourselves having to simply buy into a certain contrived plot point because it would be too much work to fight it otherwise.

Because the truth is, this is the kind of film that you really want to like, because it's so hard not to like Hanks (or Roberts for that matter) in anything that he's in. Throughout the film, I questioned why Talia or Mrs. Tainot really enjoyed being around Larry. He's unemployed, a middle-aged man of the withering variety, and seems naive to the point of impishness. I'd totally understand if any of these women wanted to be with Tom Hanks, but there wasn't enough done to translate that love into the character. I guess they figured just having Hanks in the role was work enough and perhaps for most, it is.

As Larry Crowne, Hanks does have several great moments of charm (how could he not?) and both Roberts and Mbatha-Raw make the most out of characters that don't really have much dimension. The three of them alone help keep Larry Crowne from being unbearable, but they don't stop the film from being incredibly bland. Many will see this as an indictment on Hanks as a filmmaker, and he certainly does have a handful of mistakes that cause the film to swerve all over the map. I don't make business out of telling people whether or not they should make films, but I think Hanks can take solace in the fact that he was able to make a script as unwitting as this and make it bearable. But then again, he wrote the script. So I guess he can't win.

The Tree of Life (***)

2011-07-02T01:00:00.004-04:00

THE TREE OF LIFE
Written and Directed by Terrence Mallick

***

I defy anybody to give any kind of definitive opinion on The Tree of Life based on one viewing. Anyone. The film is too slippery. Too unwilling to stick to its own narrative which so desperately hangs around the film like an unwanted child. No, this is not a film that is meant to be consumed and then dissected by intellectuals - though, there is no doubt that that is what is happening across the country as the film makes its steady expansion to different theaters - but it is instead meant to be marveled as one of the single most transfixing visual experiences in a very, very long time.

To describe the plot seems to be an even more tedious task than trying to decipher it while your watching, but I'll give it my best shot. Jack (Hunter McCracken) is a young boy growing up in the rural South. His father (Brad Pitt) is a stern, old fashioned man who has taken a very hard line with him in an effort to quickly turn him into a man. His mother (Jessica Chastain) is an almost exact emotional opposite. She's kind and gentle; maternal in every sense of the word. Along with his two brothers, Jack is torn between these two opposing forces as he grows and learns, debating the meanings behind certain events. Debating the force of God which he has been taught to fear for his entire life.

As a grown man, Jack (now played by Sean Penn), is still fighting those demons, debating those life lessons. He sleepwalks through life, walking aimlessly through the over-modernized world where lights blur and architecture stands high. He's reached his forties, yet he is still as confused about the meaning of life as he was as a young boy. So he travels. Travels into the deeper crevices of the world, searching and searching for an answer. I'm not exactly sure an answer is ever found, though I don't think that was what Mallick really wanted to show. In the end, the creation of life always has the same exit ramps, whether it be Jack's life or the creation of the universe.

If that sounds vague as hell, just consider that this was me doing my best to make things simple. The Tree of Life is not a film that is highly concerned with a structured narrative. In many ways, it's cinema by James Joyce. It's constantly shape-shifting in a way that makes it difficult to get a tight grasp of the arc of the story that's being told. But perhaps there isn't an arc at all. Perhaps that's the point? In our day-to-day lives, we are not held prisoner to the contrived constructs of a movie screenplay. Is that Mallick's over-arching thesis? Only a fool (or a pompous pseudo-intellectual) would stand up and say that they have absolute proof of what Tree of Life is actually about. Creating your own interpretation seems inherent here.

Perhaps I'm dodging my reviewer responsibilities, but I just think I'd be doing myself a disservice trying to pretend like I have one strong, thorough opinion about this film. I certainly liked it to a certain degree. It did innovative things with the camera that I felt like I've never seen before (if Emmanuel Lubezki doesn't get that much deserved Oscar for this, I don't know if the Academy would ever be able to forgive itself) and it was edited with a brilliant flourish of movement that helps push the film's sometimes stagnant 138-minute running time. These are two amazing traits that the film has that cannot be ignored. But debating the thematic meaning? I have a feeling I could watch this film twenty times and still have issues with that one.

But this isn't really anything new when it comes to a filmmaker as cryptic as Terrence Mallick. Having been making films for over 35 years, he's developed a reputation for being particularly pensive (some would say slow) with his stories, but always Earth-shattering with his level of filmmaking. Nobody shoots landscapes better, and I feel like I can say that pretty definitively. Whether it be the rural spaces of Badlands and Days of Heaven or the WWII terrain of Japan in The Thin Red Line, he has always considered the atmosphere as a key component to the stories he tells. With The Tree of Life, Mallick is using the entire Earth as his canvas, and the impressive ways with which he able to showcase various sections leaves you worrying little about how shady the storyline may be.

This is eerily similar to my initial viewing of A Serious Man, but with that film I was trying to decide simply what the narrative meant. Here, I'm just trying to decide if there is any narrative at all. There are things that I know. Fabulous cinematography, fabulous filmmaking in general, and despite one of the loosest stories in the history of American cinema, it actually holds a bevy of fantastic performances, including Pitt, Penn, McCracker and especially Chastain, who single-handedly brings a heart to this otherwise chilly film. Other than that, my opinions on this film are as unpredictable as life itself. Perhaps, like a tree, it will grow on me.

Super 8 (***)

2011-06-10T12:14:00.002-04:00

SUPER 8
Written and Directed by JJ Abrams

***

The similarities are obvious. The allusions are there. There's a reason people continue to talk about Super 8 as if it's some hybrid of The Goonies, Close Encounters, and E.T. That's not just because of the content (group of child protagonists, unfamiliar - possibly dangerous - alien visitors, the late 1970's), but because of the atmosphere. There was a certain mixture of adventure and innocence that came along with all those films from the 70's and 80's and Super 8 does its best to capture that feeling. It's one hell of an effort, a story straight out of the early Spielbergian fantasies equipped with the more sophisticated special effects of today.

Four months after his mother died in a steel mill accident, 12-year-old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) lives plaintively with his still bereaved father, police deputy Jackson Lamb (Kyle Chandler). Jackson has become irascible, slightly depressive and all Joe can do to escape this home of mope is hang out with his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) and help him on his homemade horror movies. Joe is the make-up artist. Based on the evidence we see, Joe's work is the only thing keeping Charles' work from looking totally amateur, as he carefully transforms his other young friends into murderous zombie flesh-eaters.

One of those friends is Alice (Elle Fanning), a 14-year-old girl whom Charles drafts to play the part of a newly created wife character. Joe quickly becomes smitten and is almost completely taken with her when she gives the performance of a lifetime during one of their rehearsals. These productions are obviously not used to quality acting. The small production team sneaks into a small, rickety train station to shoot their scene, only to be interrupted by an incoming train. Charles seizes the opportunity to increase "production value" and shoots the scene with the train roaring in the background. All is well, until Joe sees a truck board the train tracks and collide head on with the train and create the most high-flying train derailing in the history of man.

The children barely escape injury as steel train cars land around them, but are able to escape before a group of military officers charge the scene. What follows is a strange series of events around the town, including dogs and people disappearing, loss of electricity, and of course, the appearance of small, white Rubik's Cube looking things. While Jackson is left to deal with a town growing in hysteria, Joe and company continue on trying to make their film while slowly learning more about that mysterious train wreck. Soon, that same group of military officers invade the town, searching everywhere for something; some creature that has been taking all of these missing people. It soon becomes obvious that what happened to that train was not just some freak accident.

It will come as no shocker to anyone who reads me regularly that I found the story of the children to be far more interesting than the story of the mysterious creature/alien/whatchamacallit. The film is at its best when it's following this group of ragtag filmmakers as they weave themselves in and out of trouble. The performances from Courtney and Fanning exude a sophistication that far surpasses their years, and their romantic subplot evolves with a sweet tenderness that is both engaging and innocent. The other children, including Charles, as well as Martin (Gabriel Basso) and the pyromaniac Cary (Ryan Lee), instill the film with an excitable humor that permeates throughout the film. One of the reasons why the film keeps its sunny feel despite its sometimes dark content is because the comedy from these group of talented young performers (particularly Lee) keeps coming without much interruption.

It's hard not to catch the half-veiled glimpses of the creature from Super 8 without thinking of the other numerous, equally-obscured monsters in Lost and Cloverfield (both Abrams-produced projects). It would appear that gruesome monsters behind trees are where Abrams' heart lies, which is a shame, because in both this film and his 2009 film Star Trek, he showed a strong gift for working with ensembles and balancing storylines between the numerous captivating characters. Myself, I would have appreciated it if the story of the children wasn't so frequently interrupted by a grumbling alien snatching people off the street without much prejudice.

Super 8's third act disappointed me in some ways and captivated me in others. On the one end, it seems to devolve into a rather mindless Summer action film, nearly abandoning the strong characters that it worked so hard to establish. It also contains a sequence that contains some supreme special effects and exquisite filmmaking. Supreme talent behind the camera is probably something that we come to expect from Abrams, and this is probably the main area where which the comparisons to Spielberg are most apropos. Abrams is often dynamic and audacious with the camera and with the help of cinematographer Larry Fong, he makes what will likely be one the of the most beautifully crafted films of the year.

Super 8's screenplay does rely a little too much on easy set-ups and payoffs, and too often it settles on sentiment and cheese when it could delve deeper into the darker territory that it introduces. At the end of the day, Abrams intended to make a flashy, entertaining Summer film and Super 8 is one of the better ones you can see in the theaters right now. I do feel like it holds its own as a film, even though it does hold true to a familiar formula seen throughout numerous films made decades earlier. It felt more like thrilling homage than hacky theft, and while I could probably go the rest of my life without seeing a film that has an alien in it, this one wasn't too bad.

Midnight in Paris (***1/2)

2011-06-09T12:19:00.000-04:00

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
Written and Directed by Woody Allen

***1/2

In the world of American cinema, there are two constants: over-saturated summer films and Woody Allen. The 75-year-old filmmaker has just about made one film per year since 1969. Through he 70’s and 80’s, he was the most proficient and consistent filmmaker of his time, continuously churning out modern classics like Love and Death, Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, and Crimes and Misdemeanors. Over the last two decades, it has been more hit-and-miss, with a lot of spectacular misses during the 2000’s. His latest film, Midnight in Paris, though, may be his best film in a very long time, with its return to familiar thematic material and its injection of great, dyanmic performances.

When Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) decides to accompany his flighty fiancé Inez (Rachel McAdams) on a trip to Paris to visit her businessman father, Gil is immediately taken with the city. Gil is a classic romantic, dreaming of walking through the French rain and listening to Cole Porter. He’s a successful Hollywood screenwriter but feels like his scripts are the work of a lazy hack, totally lacking of true artistic substance. He’s trying to write his first novel, but finds the work to be a struggle and won’t allow anyone – not even Inez – take a peak at it. He hopes that more time in this beautiful city will help spark some inspiration. Gil is also struggling wih Inez’s pessimistic attitude and her equally skeptical parents, who are constantly questioning his need to create art when he can so easily make money churning out average screenplays. It doesn’t help that Inez insists on them spending time with Paul (Michael Sheen), her friend from America and an over-stuffed über intellectual of the highest order.

It’s not long before Gil finds excuses to spend more time by himself and work on his book. While walking alone drunkenly through the streets at midnight, he sees a classic car stop on the curb, filled people asking him to join them. Naturally, Gil obliges them. He’s transported to a strange party where everyone is dressed like 1920’s flappers. As he moves throughout the party, he manages to meet Zelda Fitzgerald (Alison Pill) and her husband, the F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston). They let him know that the piano player in the corner of the room is Cole Porter (Yvez Heck), and they later take him to a bar to meet a stern Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll, in a rollicking and hysterical performance) who agrees to give Gil’s novel to Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates).

Gil is so overwhelmed by being surrounded by his biggest heroes, he barely the insanity of it all. Then he meets Adriana (Marion Cotillard), a mistress of Pablo Picasso, and is immediately taken by her. So, every night, Gil continues to find a way to excuse himself from Inez so he can find the same car and be transported to his dream era. As he spends more and more time with Hemingway and Stein, he begins to learn more about the strengths and weaknesses of his novel. More importantly, though, as he spends more and more time with Adriana, he begins to question the quality of his relationship with Inez. Can he give it all up to live in a different time with his closest idols? Is his real relationship with Inez worth jeopardizing with the fantasy of Adriana?

This is not new territory for Woody. You can go all the way back to Annie Hall to see begin to address the concept of romantic dissatisfaction and the fear of stagnation. And, of course, you can watch his great 1985 film The Purple Rose of Cairo to see him talk about the human fight of fantasy vs reality. Midnight in Paris doesn't really attack any of these themes in new, insightful ways, nor does it have the stern reality check that Purple Rose contained in its powerful conclusion. Instead, Woody allows the film to speak for itself while throwing glowing homages to the greatest artists of the 1920's. Midnight in Paris is a deliciously fun film because it doesn't have that heavy hand. Instead, it finds comfort in being a terrific story with captivating characters set in an intoxicating locale.

This fascination with European landscapes has been a trend in Woody Allen’s work since 2004’s Match Point, but Midnight in Paris is the only time when Allen has treated a city with the same romantic nostalgia as his beloved Manhattan (in fact, an opening montage of Paris locales has a suspicious familiarity with the opening montage within Woody’s 1979 classic, Manhattan). You can definitely see a lot of Woody himself in Gil, which comes as no surprise, but this is probably the first time since 1999’s Sweet and Lowdown that it seems we are watching a film that Woody has a true emotional investment in. Woody fans have had to deal with a decade and a half of what has seemed like half-hearted efforts (though, I guess that really depends on what you thought of Vicky Christina Barcelona – I was not a fan), but this one feels like Woody at his 70’s-80’s best.

As the obligatory Woody surrogate, Owen Wilson does a terrific job, efficiently encapsulating that familiar character we've seen in all Allen's films, while still maintaining the boyish charm that has made Wilson a movie star. As the magical siren drawing Gil back in time, Cotillard is adorable and captivating as the "art groupie" Adriana, continuing her fabulously consistent work in American cinema. Both Sheen and McAdams are both fantastic and hilarious in their supporting roles, constantly undermining Gil's romantic dream of a life in Paris. It's nothing new that a Woody Allen films are filled with wonderfully nuanced characters that all actors would love to chew on, but this is the first time in a long time that he has been able to find a cast to really do it justice.

I'm totally biased when it comes to Woody. I've probably seen more films by him then I've seen by any other filmmaker. Even with his lackluster work over the last decade and change, I still continue to come back every year and see his newest film. I believe I'm content with the fact that he will probably never make another film that isn't terribly similar to another he has made. The guy has directed forty films in forty-two years, so perhaps it's a little much to ask for something brilliant every time around. So, I'll live with the silliness of a film like Small Time Crooks or the incompetence of last year's You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, because we now have Midnight in Paris, a return to greatness. But I don't expect it to start a trend.

The Hangover Part II (**)

2011-06-08T15:48:00.000-04:00

THE HANGOVER PART II
Directed by Todd Phillips

**

I guess no one should ever question a winning recipe, and lord knows the filmmakers behind this sequel to The Hangover have any qualms with it, even though it tastes so familiar. The Hangover Part II is a near carbon copy of its predecessor in all types of ways, matching the smutfest humor of the original while still having the audacity to go even further. I'm not totally sure why director Todd Phillips decided this time to take minor detours into more sadistic material, but it almost kind of works since it's the only thing that stops it from being the exact same movie.

This time around, it's Stu (Ed Helms) that is getting married, to a cute Thai girl named Lauren (Jamie Cheung - who I was surprised to find is only nine years younger than Helms, because she looks 15). His closest pals Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Doug (Justin Bartha) are more than happy to fly all the way to Thailand to be there for Stu, but things get a little more complicated when they're forced to, once again, bring along Doug's infantile brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifinakis). Alan has still not gotten over the "awesome" time he had with Stu and Phil in Vegas, and has been sitting pathetically in his room waiting for the Wolfpack to come together again. Against his best judgment, Stu concedes and invites him.

In Thailand, the four men are greeted by Teddy (Mason Lee), Lauren's uber-smart and incredibly kind teenaged brother. Alan sees Teddy as an immediate threat to the livelihood of the Wolfpack, but Lauren begs Stu and the rest of them to keep Teddy company since he rarely gets to cut loose, spending all his time studying. Of course, there are other issues present, including Lauren's traditional, domineering father (Nirut Sirichanya) who goes out of his way during the rehearsal dinner to compare Stu to a boring bowl of rice. After the emasculating display, Stu and Teddy join the rest of the guys for a couple of beers out on the beach where they toast to the upcoming festivities.

As we expect, the night flashes forward at a blistering pace and the next day, Stu, Phil and Alan wake up in a seedy Bangkok motel room without Teddy and not remembering a single thing. The only details that they have are a friendly monkey, a severed finger sitting in a bowl of water, and a face tattoo implanted on Stu's left temple. The three men spend the next two days desperately searching around Bangkok for any clues to the whereabouts of Teddy. They have run-ins with several drug dealers, police officers, and strippers (not to mention another appearance from Mr. Chow - played again by Ken Jeong, who's totally afraid to let it all hang out) to try and put together the pieces of yet another otherworldly night.

That this film relies so much on reproducing the structure of the first one is regrettable since its best moments come when it tries to separate itself. The Hangover Part II is a lot dirtier and grimier, and while a lot of that might have to do with the Bangkok location, it's hard to imagine the original film getting away with moments involving monkey fellatio and transsexual sodomy. Phillips has always been a filmmaker who relied heavily on the sight gag to get laughs - hell, the guy made his career by filming Tom Green eat a live mouse in Road Trip - but in this film he really pushes things further than most could have really imagined.

The disappointment I've always had with the Hangover films is their over-reliance on that type of comedy. With a cast that includes to performers as comedically gifted as Helms and Galifinakis, I always wondered why you wouldn't let them handle the comedy, instead of Mike Tyson or Ken Jeong's penis. Sure, there are a few times when they're allowed to use their charms (or in the case of Galifinakis, their lack of charm) to create humor, but it's too few and far between. The film is funny, but very few of the jokes are actually any type of clever.

The Hangover Part II did humongous business like its predecessor, in part because it stayed so close to the formula that the original had created. So the story goes, you can't knock a hit. There were a lot of moments during watching this that I laughed a lot - and sometimes I felt like a bad person for doing so. Often, I found myself wondering if this one was better than the first one, but then I dismissed the entire discussion. Because to dissect them as two different movies would be totally deviating from what the filmmakers had in mind.

Everything Must Go (**1/2)

2011-05-21T13:28:00.001-04:00

EVERYTHING MUST GO
Written for the Screen and Directed by Dan Rush

**1/2

Will Ferrell has taken only a precious few ventures into dramatic territory, but Everything Must Go certainly counts amongst his darkest characters. There are no traces of Ron Burgundy or Ricky Bobby here, but instead the portrait of a drowning man. We are told that this film is based on a short story by Raymond Carver, but we've seen through various examples that Carver's brilliant but dry and internalized style rarely translate to visual medium of cinema. Everything Must Go shares a lot of the issues that those other films possess, but it does have a rather pleasing performance from its lead star and several other sweet moments.

Ferrell plays Nick Halsey, a struggling alcoholic who has just been let go of his job of sixteen years, and when he comes home, he finds that his wife Katherine has locked him out of the house and left all of his belongings on the front lawn. Nick responds by sucking down cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon and sleeping on a recliner outside in full watch of all his neighbors. He's awoken when sprinkles spray his face and later, he's told by his friend and AA sponsor, Frank (Michael Peña), that he cannot live on his lawn. Frank authorizes Nick's behavior as a Yard Sale, but that only gives Nick five days to sell all his belongings and move away from his lawn.

But Nick is hesitant to get rid of all his stuff. After all, he has a wide collection of vinyl records that he never listens to and a variety of dated outfits that he hasn't worn in decades - indispensable stuff here. But to humor Frank, he decides to put Yard Sale signs around the neighborhood. He even hires a young kid, Kenny (Christopher J. Wallace), and teaches him selling techniques. Kenny agrees to help Nick sell his stuff, but only with minimum wage and some baseball lessons in return. They don't do much of anything in the way of actual "selling", though, as Nick finds it impossible to part with even his most trivial belongings. He even haggles over a half-empty bottle of mouth wash.

At least one of his neighbors sympathizes with his situation. Samantha (Rebecca Hall), a pregnant young woman who's just moved in across the street, comes by the lawn to check on him every once in a while. Her husband is conspicuously absent, so occasionally they'll share an exotic meal or converse about the doom and gloom of a fading marriage. As his five days wind down, Nick slowly realizes the importance of letting go, as he begins to take the sale of his things a little more seriously. With the help of Kenny and Samantha, he may just be able to rebuild his life. But can he get his wife back?

I've often said that I find Farrell to be the funniest Saturday Night Live cast member that I ever watched on the show (I barely watched the show before he was on and haven't watched it since he's left). His films, like Anchorman or Talledega Nights, were always amusing and occasionally hilarious, but I don't think they ever really captured the seemingly effortless comedic approach he had on display in SNL. I've often said that I'll laugh more at any Will Ferrell interview than I will at Blades of Glory. But I think he has shown a nice niche in his (very) few dramatic roles. In Stranger Than Fiction and Winter Passing he began showing glimmers of it, and in Everything Must Go he gives his most fully realized "serious" performances yet.

Sure, Everything Must Go is not a "serious" movie, at least not in the sense in which we usually consider dramatic cinema in this day and age, but it does house some very dark and embittered personalities. None more bitter than Nick, whom Ferrell is able to instill with rage with just a twitch of the eye. Ferrell doesn't rely on cheap tricks to create this internalized anger, but instead does it with pure acting. This will come as a surprise to anyone who's ever seen any other Ferrell film, since he has become the master of getting the cheap laugh. It's a very sweet, thankless performance and Ferrell pulls it off gracefully.

It's a shame, though, that the rest of the film can't live up to it. For anyone who's ever read a Raymond Carver story (and if you haven't - what are you waiting for?), it seems obvious that his limited style would be difficult subject matter to supply an entire feature film. But people keep trying (for what it's worth, Robert Altman's Short Cuts is a fantastic adaptation of several of his stories, but the film only follows those stories very liberally - as in, not at all) and we always end up with screenplays that have to scramble to fill in all the spaces. So many subplots, including Samantha, Kenny and Frank, that it ends up making a 96-minute film feel long.

There are plenty of nice moments in this film, but its flaws are open to the world and they are glaring. At the very least, you can say that you get an interesting, ultimately watchable dramatic performance from one of the country's top funnymen. In the end, there still hasn't been a filmmaker that has been totally committed to recreating Carver's dry sensibilities and commit it to film. There are reasons for that - it probably wouldn't make a very interesting movie.

Bridesmaids (***)

2011-05-05T12:11:00.002-04:00

BRIDESMAIDS
Directed by Paul Feig

***

It seems like Kristen Wiig has been the funniest lady in the room for the last few years. Whether it be her consistently brilliant work on Saturday Night Live or her four minutes of pure comedic bliss in the 2007 film Knocked Up, she's always been able to be a stand-out, even when surrounded by comedy's heavy hitters. In Bridesmaids - a screenplay she co-wrote with fellow comedic actress Annie Mumolo - Wiig is finally given the opportunity to stand front and center and carry her own film. It's hard to come out of the film saying anything particularly negative about her, with her spot-on timing and overall likability on full display.

Wiig plays Annie, a talented baker who's bakery failed during the recession. Now, she's left to work at a tacky jewelry store and is sharing an apartment with two bizarre English siblings. Her romantic life consists of the occasional sexual randevouz with her buffoonish ex-boyfriend Ted (Jon Hamm). Her life is a mess, and even her mother (Jill Clayburgh, in her final role) notices, and she's a woman who pretends to be an alcoholic so she can listen in on all the juicy stories from various Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The one thing that is working for Annie is her relationship with her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph), but even that has become more inconsistent now that she has moved in with her long-term boyfriend. When Lillian finally tells Annie that she has become engaged, it seems almost too obvious that Annie be the Maid of Honor.

Soon enough, Annie is introduced to the rest of the bridesmaids. As you would expect from this type of broad comedy, it is collection of oddball types and quirky personalities. Rita (Wendi McLendon-Covey of Reno 911 fame) is a bitterly married woman with three obnoxious sons; Becca (The Office's Ellie Kemper) is a chipper newlywed with an obsession for anything dealing with Walt Disney; and Megan (Melissa McCarthy), the groom's sister, is a rotund woman filled with aggressive sexuality and a total lack of self-awareness regarding her own bowels. Lastly, there is Helen (Rose Byrne), an extravagant, beautiful woman with whom Lillian has become incredibly close with only very recently. Helen's regal presence puts Annie on the defensive immediately, as the two women instantly begin competing for top friend status within Lillian's inner circle.

What follows is a series of events in which Annie's neurotic personality proves unstable to the role of Maid of Honor, with even her best ideas becoming undermined by the resourceful Helen. This is when the film lost a lot of it's momentum for me. Too often, these scenes seem satisfied with being a female version of The Hangover, allowing easy sight gags to take the laughs as opposed to the wonderful wit of Wiig and Rudolph. I love a good poop joke, but jokes that involve actual poop (and vomit... lots of vomit), not so much. And perhaps most egregious was the wasting of certain members in a fantastic supporting cast. Kemper and McLendon-Covey, in particular, are shoehorned into roles so limited (both in terms of dimension and screen time) that they're true talent are never able to make a real appearance.

But perhaps that is the fault of my own expectations, but it doesn't help when the poster shows all six women in equal stride. In reality, this film is almost entirely Annie's story and the moments where the film realizes this are the moments of the story that most succeed. Particularly, the relationship she creates with a Scottish police officer named Rhodes (Chris O'Dowd), who was a big fan of her former baking career and a charming, friendly alternative to the chauvinistic Ted. O'Dowd, an actor I'll admit to being totally ignorant about before this film, plays Rhodes with a doughy, endearing charm, sort of like a Scottish Paul Rudd. That it takes Annie nearly the entire film to realize how good a guy he is is not a surprise in this kind of a film, but it is a surprise to find that the good guy is actually a pretty likable everyman.

This is a very funny movie in moments. Wiig shows that she is certainly capable of carrying an entire film, competently weaving through the film's clunky narrative and never having too much trouble transitioning from the film's more serious moments back to being hilarious. And she is hilarious. A scene where she must break as many laws as possible to try and get Rhodes' attention is a perfect example of why she is one of the top funny ladies in the business today. Rudolph and Byrne aren't given many opportunities to act upon their gifts with humor, but they succeed when they do. One standout is McCarthy who takes what should have been a totally one-note role (if we're talking in terms of the female Hangover, she is totally Zach Galifianakis) and turns it into a character who actually comes out of the box with some surprising moments of heart.

The film was directed by Paul Feig (the creator of the cult classic television show Freaks and Geeks) and has comedy godfather Judd Apatow listed as one of the producers. Both of their influences can be seen clearly on this film, even in the cases of the film's shortcomings (it's flaws bare striking resemblance to the flaws within Apatow's "cancer comedy" Funny People). But the main mind of influence here is Wiig, as the star and co-writer. After years of being the one stealing the spotlight, she was now given the spotlight all to herself and shows that she is totally able to stand up with the rest of them. I have a feeling that this is a movie (interestingly enough, like Funny People) that the more you watch it, the less you care about it's flaws and just laugh at all the funny ladies. It's been a while since there has been a good, non-rom-com comedy built totally around women (Mean Girls, perhaps?), and Bridesmaids is certainly the best one in a while.

Hesher (***)

2011-04-17T14:02:00.001-04:00

HESHER
Directed by Spencer Susser

***

There's something particularly sweet about how bizarre a film like Hesher is. Think about this: here, we have a movie led by a character that speaks in so many non sequiturs that we eventually just get used to it, as if we're reading a novel by Anthony Burgess. Also, we meet a young man, our protagonist, who tries to pry off his enemy's toe with a pair of pliers. I mean, what does this all mean? Throughout its story, Hesher gives the audience a dumpster filled with dots and no way to connect them all. Yet, somehow, with the some wicked funny dialogue and a slew of touching performances, the film is able to rise far above its rough, transgressive appearance to become a wonderful, sometimes touching tale about grief.

TJ (Devin Brochu) is a young boy who lives at home with his depressed father, Paul (Rainn Wilson), and his sweet but senile grandmother, Madeleine (Piper Laurie). The family is still having trouble recovering emotionally from the death of Paul's wife - TJ's mother - two months earlier. Paul spends most of his day lying on the couch, vapidly watching the television. TJ often tries to speak to him, but Paul can barely mutter a response through his unkempt beard. When Paul decides to sell the old car in which TJ's mother died in, TJ is irate. He tries to go to the impound and get the car back, but all he gets is an unneeded rivalry with impound manager's bully son, Dustin (Brendan Hill).

Then TJ meets Hesher (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a scraggly-haired, heavy-metal-loving arsonist with a habit for bad language and a penchant for explosives. How does he meet him? When TJ throws a rock through the window of an abandoned building, Hesher storms out in anger for disrupting his home. TJ is able to escape this scary looking individual on their initial meeting, but it isn't long before Hesher shows up in TJ's house unsolicited, demanding to use the laundry room. Paul is too apathetic to care about this new unwelcome visitor and Madeleine is too out of it to even notice the difference. With that, Hesher makes himself at home with this self-loathing family, camping out in the living room to watch porn in his underwear. TJ seems to be the only person who objects to Hesher's presence, but when when he confronts the strange young man, Hesher usually responds to another question entirely or threatens violence in a very calm, collected tone.

At school, TJ still has to deal with Dustin and his cruel tactics (it is quite an accomplishment to stand out as the strangest character in a film like this, but this gel-haired, yellow teethed bully may take the cake). When Dustin attacks him in the parking lot of a grocery store, TJ is rescued by a cute, but frumpy check-out girl named Nicole (Natalie Portman). She gives him a ride home and TJ develops a crush on her, following her and watching her in the store. It's not long until Hesher notices this and begins to heckle TJ for it. Soon enough, Hesher begins to introduce himself in almost every aspect of TJ's life, as the greasy-haired metal head soon proves himself to be endearing, if still mysterious to both TJ and Madeleine. As it soon turns out, Hesher may end up being the very best thing that ever happened to this grief-ridden family.

There are times throughout Hesher where I felt out of sorts, trying desperately to understand what overarching metaphor director and co-writer Spencer Susser was trying to convey. It's not always clear what's being said here, but Susser, in some way, is able to keep this story humming despite all that. All of the characters are interesting, compelling people - each with their own arc, even if the story doesn't have one. At some point, I found myself caring less and less about mechanical screenwriting issues (as a film student, we're often taught to worry about those kind of things too much) and more and more about the people wandering across the screen. And what a troubled group of people we're given here. Even the settings in which they inhabit seem to be dead and molding.

Of course, this collection of misfits is brought to life by several fascinating performances. Both Rainn Wilson and Piper Laurie do terrific work, both representing the two opposite sides of mourning that TJ must face every day of his life. Laurie, in particular, gives one of her greatest performances in decades, perfectly encapsulating Madeleine as the true heart of the entire film. As Nicole, Natalie Portman is excellent as expected (in a role she apparently shot before her Oscar-winning work in Black Swan). It's a testament to her talent and commitment that she's always able to become such a wide array of characters, without distracting audiences with her starpower alone. That Portman plays Nicole with nerdy unattractiveness and is able to pull it off is quite the achievement.

But you cannot talk about Hesher without speaking about it's two lead performances. Namely, Gordon-Levitt is a revolution in this grungy, angst-ridden role. It's one of his most fully-realized performances, unlike anything he's ever done before. His ability to take this despicable individual and make him funny, watchable person may be the highest accolade of Gordon-Levitt's young, but promising career (in a quaint scene between Gordon-Levitt and Laurie - in which Hesher teaches Madeleine to smoke from a bong - you will see perfect execution in screen acting, with two talents perfectly conveying context and subtext simultaneously). As TJ, Devin Brochu may have been asked to do a little bit too much, yet this young man (how old is he? I can't seem to find it out and he seemed about two years younger than his character was supposed to be) is able to deliver a performance with so many emotional twists and turns that most professionals would not have been able to pull off. You never want to put too much enthusiasm into the acting of children, but Brochu's tour-de-force work is something to behold, for now and the future.

Hesher has spent over a year trapped in distribution hell. It has been doing the festival circuit and will finally get it's release in the coming weeks. Hard to believe that a film starring one of Hollywood's brightest up-and-comers (Gordon-Levitt) and a recent beloved Oscar-winner (Portman) would have so much trouble, but such is the case with a film that has this sort of subject matter. This is the first feature from Susser, and I'm interested in what we may see from him in the coming years. He's obviously unafraid to defy audience expectations and has a touch for working with talented performers. Sure, the film is uneven, but it's consistently uneven, to the point where that is what makes the film. It's a ballsy move. One that probably will not produce huge box office numbers, but will usually produce very interesting films if given the right talent.

Sidney Lumet (1924-2011)

2011-04-11T12:43:00.000-04:00

Sidney Lumet (1924-2011)
Sorry for posting so late about this great filmmaker. Sometimes you want to write so much and it's hard to meet the deadline.

Three weeks ago, Elizabeth Taylor - one of cinema's greatest in-front-of-the-camera talents - passed away. On Saturday morning, one of cinema's greatest behind-the-camera talents left us a well. Lumet, an incredibly accomplished and astonishingly prolific filmmaker, made movies for six decades and was responsible for some of the most Earth-shattering cinematic experiences this humble little blogger has ever had. I was shocked to find out that I'd only gotten around to seeing nine of his films in my life. Perhaps it felt like so much more because I've seen all of them (save for one) so many times. Perhaps an unfortunate run of mostly forgettable films in the late 80's and 90's has caused Lumet's name to fall out of the pantheon that included Scorcese and Coppola, but it's hard not to argue that Lumet's peak was not right up there with his greatest peers. If there is one consistent part to all of Lumet's films, it's a love for explosive drama and pyrotechnic-like acting, but his films never managed to feel over-the-top, even when they were the very definition of it.

Lumet did a lot of his early work in television, directing episodes for various television programs such as the murder mystery drama Danger and the historical re-enactment program You Are There. His breakthrough in movies came in 1957 when he released his debut feature, 12 Angry Men. It was nominated four three Oscars (Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay) and contained a phenomenal collection of performances from some of the top actors of the time. The story of jury meeting, it recalls how one lonely juror (played by Henry Fonda) is able to convince the other eleven men in the jury (to name a few from the stupendous cast: Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, and Lee J. Cobb) that a young teenager is not guilty of murder. The film was a powerful statement from the rookie director, showing his ability to handle incredible talent and hold tension and interest in a 96 minute film that takes place in real time.

Henry Fonda's turn in 12 Angry Men still stands amongst his greatest screen work.

And Lumet never stopped working with powerful acting talent. In 1959, he directed Italian movie star Sophia Loren in That Kind of Woman and a year later, a young Marlon Brando in The Fugitive Kind. It was his 1962 film, though, that solidified his status as a filmmaker that all actors wanted to work with. He tackled Eugene O'Neill's legendary stage play Long Day's Journey Into Night, and cast it with Jason Robards, Dean Stockwell, Ralph Richardson, and the already legendary Katherine Hepburn. Filming without a screenplay - Lumet used the O'Neill's play as the film's script - Lumet allows the film to stretch into a 174-minute exercise in dialogue and stupendous acting. Hepburn got a much deserved Oscar nomination for her portrayal of the drug-addicted matriarch of the troubled Tyrone family, and the film established Lumet as having one of cinema's biggest pair of balls. Lumet had many other hit films from the 60's, including the Sean Connery, WWII film The Hill and the groundbreaking Rod Steiger-led picture The Pawnbroker (which comes off as incredibly dated today, but was important for being one of the first mainstream films to deal with Holocaust survivors, as well as being the first film to receive the Production Code seal while also having nudity).

Lumet had what was arguably his greatest streak of films in the 1970's, beginning in 1973 with Serpico, his first of two combinations with Al Pacino. Sure, Serpico is much more of cultural phenomenon than it is a great movie, but it does contain a forceful performance from Pacino and some of Lumet's most daring filmmaking. A year later, he adapted the Agatha Christie novel, Murder on the Orient Express. A sharp turn from the gritty, documentary style of Serpico, Orient Express was a period piece, murder mystery with a vast list of unique characters. Albert Finney (as Christie mainstay, Belgian detective Hercule Poirot) led another impressive cast that included Lauren Bacall, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud, and Ingrid Bergman (in an Oscar winning performance).

In 1975, Lumet directed Dog Day Afternoon, his other collaboration with Al Pacino. It tells the "true" story of a run-down New Yorker (Pacino) who decides to rob a bank with his troubled friend (John Cazale) in order to pay for a sex change operation for his lover. When everything in their plan falls apart, the situation turns into a stand-off/hostage situation with the police, quickly evolving into a circus sideshow, all caught on television cameras and broadcasted across the city. The film was huge hit, getting nominated for seven Academy Awards (and won one for Frank Pierson's funny but tragic screenplay) and gaining Pacino worldwide acclaim for his frazzled portrayal of the poor man's bank robber with his back against the wall. It is career-defining work for Pacino, a gold highlight in a career filled with excellent performances, and with Lumet's immediate, personal direction, the film's twisted underdog tale connected with audiences and continues to do so today.

Peter Finch died just days before winning the Oscar for his incredible performance in Network.

There are many who thought Dog Day Afternoon was Lumet's peak, so how did he respond? The very next year, he made a film that was even better. The Paddy Chayefsky-penned Network, a scathing satire about a struggling television program and it's demented head newsman. Chayefsky's sickly funny screenplay won an Academy Award, by writing the story of Howard Beale (an Oscar-winning turn from Peter Finch) a man who is "as mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". But it was Lumet who tells this story, and while there is nothing that is spectacularly cinematic in Network, Lumet was once again able to show his excellent ability to manage a large and accomplished cast (including stellar work from William Holden, Robert Duvall, and a Best Actress winning Faye Dunaway). Network has become one of the most important films in American cinema, almost perfectly predicting the degeneration of American television media from thoughtful and insightful, to empty segments pandering for ratings. Chayefsky is the one who usually gets the credit for it, but Lumet deserves a whole lot more for standing back and letting the script and the actors tell the story. Other filmmakers may not have been so patient, and the film would not have been as good.

In the later part of the decade, Lumet made Equus (which garnered its lead star Richard Burton his final Oscar nomination), and then The Wiz, the cult favorite and Afro-centric re-visualization of The Wizard of Oz. He would not have another hit film until 1982, with The Verdict, a very downplayed tale of a run-down lawyer (played with precise grittiness by Paul Newman) who gets the case of a lifetime. The film was nominated for five Oscars (Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor - James Mason, Best Actor - Newman, and Best Picture), and even though it lost all of them, The Verdict has gone down as some of the best work from both Newman and Lumet. After this, it seems that his prolific style harmed his stock in the pantheon, as he made a film just about every two years. While a few of those films were very good (Running On Empty), many of them were disappointing flops (Guilty as Sin, A Stranger Among Us). Lumet did have one last push in him, making the much talked about Before The Devil Knows You're Dead in 2007, his final film. I was not as big a fan of the film as others were, but it was a sharp reminder of what Lumet was always capable of: a dark, twisted melodrama filled with excellent performances.

Sidney Lumet never won the Oscar himself himself, despite all his achievements, though he was awarded the Honorary Oscar in 2005. It's hard to say what made Lumet stand out as a filmmaker, because what made him so great had very little to do with the camera. Lumet never tried to deconstruct his stories cinematically. He didn't have Scorsese's dynamic eye or Spielberg's gift for attempting the impossible. Coming from television, Lumet seemed to believe that the characters tell the story and it was his job to stay out of the way. Perhaps this is why, when you look through his IMDb resume, you see a lot more underperforming disappointments than seminal achievements. But few filmmakers have ever made films as good as Network and Dog Day Afternoon, and then say that their "secondary works" were as big 12 Angry Men, The Pawnbroker, or The Verdict. The loss of Sidney Lumet is a sad one, if not an altogether surprising one (he was very old at 86 and very sick). There have been few as committed to filmmaking as he, and there are few that have left the stamp that he has placed on American cinema. Here's a clip from Dog Day Afternoon just to get your blood boiling:

Source Code (**)

2011-04-11T02:00:00.000-04:00

SOURCE CODE
Directed by Duncan Jones

**

I cannot say whether or not Duncan Jones is a fan of the 1993 Bill Murray film, Groundhog Day, but I may suggest to him to check out that film's screenplay. In it, Phil (a character played by Murray) has to relive the same twenty-four hours over and over and over. In Source Code, the film's protagonist has to relive the same eight minutes over and over. A large gulf in between those two allotted timeframes, I'll admit, but both films use similar tactics in order to convey the repetitive notion of the story. Yet, in Groundhog Day, the film takes the preposterous nature of this repetition and allows it to add a real charm to the story. Not the case in Source Code and I kind of wish it had.

Now, I realize how unfair it is to compare a goofy comedy directed by Harold Ramis to a sci-fi action film, but I'm using Groundhog Day as a reference point to illustrate my main issue with Source Code: as the plot unfolds, the story actually becomes less interesting. The film begins with military officer Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) waking up on a train heading for downtown Chicago. He has no idea how he got there. A woman named Christina (Michelle Monaghan) is in the midst of making small talk with him about her future plans. She keeps calling him Sean. He looks in his wallet and sees the ID for a man named Sean Fentress. When he goes to the mirror, he does not see his own reflection, but one of another man entirely.

At this point, you are very confused, but confused in a way that makes Colter (or Sean?) compelling. He's trying desperately to figure out what is going on. And this is when the train explodes and everyone inside it is engulfed in flames. This is the peak of out interest here as an audience member. After the explosion, Colter wake up in a dark capsule. A scientist named Colleen Goodwyn (Vera Farmiga) speaks to him on a monitor and informs him: he must relive the last eight minutes of Sean Fentress' life in order to find out who put the bomb on the train. Discovering the bomber will help Goodwyn and other officers find the culprit and prevent him from other dangerous activity. Of course, Colter is very confused about all of this, but he doesn't have much choice in the matter. As soon as Goodwyn calls the order, Colter is sent back to the train, waking up just in time to have the same small chat with Christina.

Colter tries and fails several times to find the bomber, always returning to Goodwyn with more questions. Why is he there? How are they doing this? Why Sean Fentress? Eventually, his stalling is confronted by Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright), who explains to him that he is not experiencing a simulation, but that he is in the source code of the deceased Fentress' mind and he must use those last eight minutes to find the bomber. This is explained in technical jargon that Rutledge himself states is a little too complex to formulate into something as simple as a conversation. But he is able to explain one thing clearly: Colter will have to keep on going back into the source code until he discovers who the bomber is and report it to Goodwyn and Rutledge. This bomber plans to cause further destruction, so his ultimate capture his of the upmost importance.

There are times when Rutledge's force-feeding of the source code on Colter seems like torture, and I guess there isn't a better form of torture on the planet than making a man explode several times. Over the course of all of Colter's attempts, the details of this seemingly impossible mission come into focus and he learns things about the world he left behind that may alter his perception of the mission. This is where the movie begins to get a little a silly. But I guess it's silly to challenge the preposterousness of a science fiction film. After all, we never question Star Wars even though the inhabitants from a galaxy far, far away look exactly like us humans and Han Solo has a hairdo straight out of a 70's issue of Teen Beat. But that Source Code pokes and prods its audience with its preposterousness felt a little flagrant to me. Perhaps most other viewers will feel differently.

In all honesty, I found myself enjoying Source Code for it's first half, but the more I began to learn - the more twists and turns the screenplay (penned by Ben Ripley) threw at me - the more I found my mind wandering on other things. That the film feels it necessary to wrap the story up into a tidy ending that actively defies the already ridiculous logic cooked up in this loopy world is a testament to how many holes the screenplay had dug itself. The first two acts work like a true Hitchcockian thriller, leaving the audience in a hazy mystery that makes us want to watch more and more. As it develops, I don't feel like Source Code really delivers on that potential, instead relying a whole lot on standard movie pitfalls and a need to try please everybody. I'm sure there were a lot of moviegoers who weren't happy with seeing Janet Leigh die halfway through Psycho, but Hitchcock always knew how to keep us on our toes.

That's another unfair comparison, I know, but it's not like this film was put into incompetent hands. Director Duncan Jones (son of David Bowie - a small piece of trivia I find myself repeating often, only because it's so damn cool) handles the thriller aspects in an exceedingly effective fashion, but he cannot be given a free pass for the disappointing way in which this story develops. This is his second film, after 2009's Moon which was another movie that had an ending that felt all too tidy considering the serious moral complications it brings up. But Moon was always a simple movie to begin with, never getting bogged down in over-complication, so that was a pill that was easier to swallow. Source Code spends a lot of time trying to explain itself when it should just be getting back to Colter's dangerous mission. It's no coincidence that the film's best sequences are on the train.

But if there's anything that works well in Source Code it's its performances. Gyllenhaal brings real warmth and charm to this trapped man, endearing with a debonair quality that few other than him can provide. Farmiga, Wright, and Monaghan also do formidable work here, all adding dimensions to characters that could have easily been limited in dimension. Jones showed his ability to seek out good acting when he got the performance of a lifetime out of Sam Rockwell in Moon (a performance I still feel is underappreciated). I'm genuinely excited to see what Jones does in the future, because he's tackling science fiction in a way that few others are in film. The moments in Source Code that work, work really well. It's just too bad that there's such a steep fall.

Win Win (***1/2)

2011-04-10T01:11:00.002-04:00

WIN WIN
Directed by Tom McCarthy

***1/2

When I originally saw the trailer for Win Win, I turned to a friend of mine and asked, "Does that movie look really good? Because I'm at a point in my life where anything that stars Paul Giamatti looks absolutely awesome." So, at least you know where I'm coming from. The film comes equipped with enthusiastic fanfare (not loud, but consistently positive) out of the Sundance Film Festival and is supplied with a terrific cast supporting a very funny, heartwarming screenplay. In case you wanted to just stop reading now, I guess I'll just tell you: I really liked this movie. Now, for anyone who wants to dive in a little deeper, follow me.

I go out of my way to say I really liked this movie because I truly feel that one of this film's strengths is its effortless likability (all my P. Giamatti biases aside). Giamatti stars as Mike Flaherty, a very likable lawyer with a modest practice stationed in New Jersey, and loving family in the suburbs. But his practice is struggling to make ends meet because of financial pressures and certain home improvement burdens (including a faulty boiler in the basement of his office). The stress of it all is giving Mike occasional heart palpitations. It doesn't help matters that the local high school wrestling team - of which he is the head coach - has yet to win a single game.

To help ease his financial burden, he decides to become the guardian for one of his clients, a Dementia-addled curmudgeon named Leo Popler (Burt Young). Without a guardian, Leo would be taken care of by the state government, so Mike decides to become the guardian himself and collect the monthly commission checks that come with it. But Mike knows he will not actually be able to make the effort it takes to be a true guardian for Leo, so he puts Leo in a home. Sure, Leo would rather stay in the house he's lived in for decades, but Mike takes advantage of Leo's compromising situation. After all, Leo is probably better off in a home to begin with and Mike needs the cash. But one complication that arises in the form of a sixteen-year-old named Kyle (Alex Shaffer), Leo's grandson who's run away from home.

Kyle is eager to free himself of his troubled mother and wants to live with his grandfather, but upon arriving, finds himself living in the basement of Mike's home instead. Mike's wife, Jackie (a particularly inspired Amy Ryan), is concerned about this rough young man's appearance in their lives, but her concern soon turns toward helping Kyle. One day, Kyle decides to join in on one of Mike's wrestling practices and lo and behold, he's actually really good. When it becomes obvious that Kyle will be staying with them for a while, Mike has him enrolled in the high school and become an official member of the team. Overnight, the wrestling team goes from a dreadful also-ran to a scrappy winner and Kyle's greatness is all the reason. This talented young man then manages to work his way into the Flaherty family, but will his rocky past ever come back to haunt him?

This is the third film from Tom McCarthy, after The Station Agent and The Visitor. Both films were gentle and poignant character studies, detailing stories of hermit-like protagonists brought out of their hovels by strangers who end up changing their lives for the better. I felt The Station Agent's gentle soulfulness was exquisite - while I was less enthused about The Visitor. Win Win follows in the traditions of those two films - though Mike Flaherty is not nearly as introverted as the other two protagonists - inhabiting a tone entrapped in the subtle nuances of the human condition. After all, it seems like the human condition is what McCarthy is most fascinated in exploring.

Sure, there are conflicts in Win Win that resolve themselves too easily and there is never any moment where you're ever truly worried that things will end up terribly wrong, but the beauty of this film lies in its ability to work without depending on that kind of stuff. Much like his previous two films, McCarthy takes what could be a sitcom pilot and makes it a refreshing, touching tale littered with sharply defined characters. We are also given a host of highly entertaining supporting characters, including Vig (Jeffrey Tambor), Mike's grumpy business partner and underachieving assistant coach. There's also Cindy (Melanie Lynskey), Kyle's problematic mother who stands as the film's main antagonist. Lastly, we have Terry (Bobby Cannavale), Mike's best friend, who's become so preoccupied with the sexual escapades of his ex-wife that he decides to become another assistant coach just so he can distract himself. You may remember Cannavale also having an effective, equally-funny supporting performance in The Station Agent.

McCarthy has shown a talent for creating a trusting connection with his actors and an ability to squeeze the best out of them. It may seem obvious that Alex Shaffer was likely casted for his wrestling ability and not his acting chops, but he works his way into the role of the internally tormented Kyle in a way that felt effortless. His rumbling, almost monotone delivery and quiet intensity was probably not an intentional character quirk cooked up by Shaffer himself, but it works incredibly well for the character and McCarthy never puts Shaffer in a position in which he can't succeed. That the film's third act is comprised of the hackneyed "final match" plot poing is a bit disappointing, but that it then turns it around and makes it about Kyle himself was a pleasant surprise.

And then there's Giamatti. Usually accustomed to more cantankerous characters (like in American Splendor and, most recently, Barney's Version), he plays Mike with some sweetness, but not without the roughness around the edges. A family man and dedicated father, but he's still very capable of double-crossing his unstable client and stealing a secret smoke behind the convenient store. Giamatti is able to pull off this dual-loaded role with ease, but then again, that's not surprising. Add some fantastic supporting performances from Ryan and Cannavale, Win Win ends up being a rather terrifically acted film as well as formidably written one as well. It's a win win.

Jane Eyre (***)

2011-04-03T17:27:00.001-04:00

JANE EYRE
Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga

***

Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre is considered to be amongst the greatest of the Gothic-Romantic novels of its time. When you read it, with its underlying sexual tension chastising the hypocritical nature of 1840's culture, you almost have to scoff at the faithless attempts that books like Twilight take to imitate it. It's a classic tale about a strong-minded, independent woman who comes from emotionally abusive childhood, that Hollywood has been trying to fully recreate on film for many years. There have been several versions made on both films and television but this latest film version is an excellent visualization of Bronte's brooding tale.

After years of hurdling between several young actresses to play the iconic Jane Eyre, the filmmakers decided to choose budding Australian movie star Mia Wasikowska. Wasikowska (only 21 years old) has shown an ability to embrace a wisdom far beyond her years in films like last year's The Kids Are All Right and That Evening Sun (we'll forgive her headlining participation in Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland, because I'd imagine that it's nearly impossible for someone her age to turn down that kind of role). This is an ability that is instrumental is trying to play a character like Jane Eyre, who is a young woman who spends the first twenty years of her life learning to fight for herself.

Jane's biggest obstacle in her road toward freedom comes in the form of Rochester (Michael Fassbender), the towering owner of the Thornfield Estate, where which Jane finds herself a governess after graduating from her emotionally abusive boarding school. Entering the ominous Thornfield, she is acquainted with all its inhabitants, including the friendly housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench). She is also quickly acquainted with the mansion's more frightful spaces, with groans and shrieks filling the halls in the middle in the night. But it isn't until she stumbles upon Rochester himself, riding on his horse amidst the murky woods, that she is acquainted with the home's most forceful presence.

Jane's affair with Rochester is one of intrigue and mystery, and one that shouldn't be spoiled by any kind of summary here. What Fukunaga's film probably does best is structure Bronte's expansive narrative (which stretches well over four hundred pages) into a two-hour film that didn't feel scrunched or incomplete. Fukunaga (director of the 2009 hit film Sin Nombre, which I embarrassingly admit I've never seen) shows a gift for telling so much by showing so little. It helps when you're working with actors - like Fassbender and Dench - who are so adept at translating emotions with the most subtle of moves. Often, the film takes only a single scene to translate what took Bronte's prose took a great many pages to show.

Of course, there are times where Fukunaga downplays the emotion a little too much. Wasikowska, such a skilled young performer, had moments where she seemed to missing the passion and rebellion that is such a calling card of this willful character. There is never a moment of great melodrama in Jane Eyre, which is strange considering that is a story of inherent melodrama. But I do have respect with Fukunaga's more subtle storytelling, though I can question his occasional use of it with a story such as this. With a man as brooding as Rochester - played by an actor as exquisite as Fassbender - you should not shy away from allowing explosiveness.

Jane Eyre is a rather quaint film, in the end; expertly made and acted. There were a few moments where my interest wavered, but only a few. I'm sure lovers of the book will embrace it, since it's dedication to the spirit of the test seems unwavering. General audiences may have some trouble since its own chastity is real and does not have manipulated sexual tension the way certain films do. But the performances (especially from Fassbender and Dench) are superb, and it never becomes stuffy or pretentious as some English costume dramas are wont to do. It definitely isn't the masterpiece that some people will want it to be (all literary adaptations come equipped with its own group of rabbid fans), but it is certainly a welcome alternative to most of the dribble in theaters early this year.

Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011)

2011-03-23T15:43:00.010-04:00

When you hear people talk about Elizabeth Taylor, there's one expression that is always brought up: movie star. No one better quantifies the role of American movie star than Taylor. Of course, 'Liz' Taylor was not an official American, herself, being born in Hampstead, London, but it's her breathtaking ability to captivate an entire nation both on and off the screen that has established Taylor as one of the greatest movie stars in American cinematic history. Now, when you see people like Ashton Kutcher and Megan Fox being labeled "movie stars" these days, it's hard to dispute how much the term has been depreciated after decades of watered down talent reaching the silver screen. There are very few true movie stars left, at least not in the vein of old school Hollywood, where slapping a name like John Wayne or Carol Lombard was just enough to send the audience screaming for tickets. Taylor was one of the last great ones, bridging the gap between the classical star and the modern day, publicity fueled celebrity. But all the while, she still managed to be one of the most devout, hard-working screen actresses for over six decades, producing several mesmerizing performances, while also taking hand in some of the most publicized Hollywood scandals of her time.

Like many larger-than-life stars of the past, the more eccentric elements of her life were what captured the minds of most people my age when they heard the name Elizabeth Taylor. They knew a lot of her eight marriages (including twice to Richard Burton), her several near-death experiences, and her reputation for being a difficult personality with the higher-ups at the movie studios. Her tumultuous relationship with English actor Richard Burton spanned for over fifteen years, and their level of public overexposure over the course of that time would put "Brangelina" to shame. Their affair propelled the careers of many a gossip columnist and spurned several films in which they starred together (most of them forgettable, but one of them an all-time classic - but we'll get to that soon enough). Then, of course, there is the tale of Cleopatra - the film in which she became the first screen star to gain a $1 million salary - a project that Taylor spear-headed where the budget became overblown and became one of the biggest studio flops of the Twentieth Century. Sure enough, the film is more remembered for establishing the beginning of the 'Liz & Dick era' (she met Burton on the set - he playing Marc Antony). Now, entire books have been written about Taylor's off screen fiascos, as well as her relationships with tormented stars Montgomery Clift and Michael Jackson, but I'd like to take several moments to discuss where she produced her greatest work, in movies.

Taylor alongside Monty Clift in A Place In the Sun. Their first of many together.

Taylor began her career as a child actor, starring in such films as National Velvet and the 1949 version of Little Women. Her star rose as she starred along Spencer Tracy in the classic comedy Father of the Bride and it's sequel one year later, Father's Little Dividend. Very early, Taylor showed a charm and a natural quality in front of the camera, performing effortlessly across from seasoned movie actors and standing strong. But it wasn't until George Stevens' 1951 film A Place In The Sun (which was released when Taylor was all but nineteen years old), that Taylor established herself as true, dominant film persona. Playing opposite Montgomery Clift (who she'd become great friends with), Taylor steps throughout the film, radiating sensuality and heart, captivating audiences with her great beauty, but also showing herself to be a matter-of-factual adult performer, an owner of the thoughts and minds of American viewers.

Throughout the 50's, she starred in many films including another George Stevens epic, Giant, alongside fellow movie legends Rock Hudson and James Dean in 1956. A year later, she was nominated for her first Academy Award for Raintree County, a Civil War drama where she played a Southern woman who captures the heart of a poet and teacher (played by Clift). In 1958, she starred alongside an up-and-coming Paul Newman in the film version of Tennessee Williams' Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. She received her second Oscar nomination for playing the sensual, but frustrated wife of an injured football All-American. It was a strict cementation of Taylor as the most glowing beauty in the movies, but was also a wonderfully controlled performance (in fact, Taylor and Newman's honest work in this film almost make up for the nearly unforgivable white-washing of Williams' controversial play). The very next year, she starred in another Tennessee Williams adaptation, Suddenly, Last Summer. She received her third (consecutive) Oscar nomination for playing the tormented young woman at the heart of this daunting tale, playing opposite of Katherine Hepburn and (once again) Montgomery Clift.

Taylor's sensuality was on full display throughout Suddenly, Last Summer.

One year later, Taylor finally won her first Oscar for playing the model/call-girl/man trap at the heart of Daniel Mann's Butterfield 8. What came after, was the infamous fiasco of Cleopatra. The film's disappointing performance at the box office did little to sully her stardom, particularly since it was the beginning of the public obsession of 'Liz & Dick'. They starred in The V.I.P.s and then The Sandpipers before joining together to star in the film version of Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. The powerful couple fought hard to get the meaty roles of George and Martha, and then later were able to convince skeptical studio head Jack Warner to hire theater-savvy Mike Nichols to direct (despite him never directing a film before). Combining the famed stories surrounding Virginia Woolf's Broadway run with Taylor and Burton's overt fame, the film's production began a buzz. And when the film challenged the Production Code with its brash language, Taylor and Burton pushed Warner to push it forward, and even threaten to release it without the seal. They won that battle, winning a seal, while leaving the destruction of the Production Code in its wake.

Liz & Dick in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

The performances within Nichols' vision of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? are something to wonder at. Keeping almost all of Albee's script intact, Taylor and Burton flourished while using their palpitating chemistry to construct a heartbreaking portrait of a fraying, middle-aged marriage. Playing a woman twenty years older than she was at the time, Taylor gained thirty pounds and wore a flustered, gray wig. But it was her performance, filled with crushed dreams and scowling anger, that disposed of any doubt that Taylor really became Martha. It's a virtuoso work, completely disposing of Taylor's previous image of only playing glorious beauties, capturing Martha without judgment, but still keeping the abrasive acidity at the forefront. Taylor won her much-deserved second Oscar for her performance, and it has gone on to be considered, generally, the star's greatest work (and on several occasions she has said that it was her favorite film that she'd worked on).

After that, Taylor's personal life outweighed almost all she did in films. Not that she didn't work. In 1980, she starred in the Agatha Christie adaptation, The Mirror Crack'd alongside Maggie Smith, and she even had a short stint on the television soap opera, All My Children. But between her second Oscar and today, people usually discussed her in respect to her relationships. She divorced Burton, than remarried him a year later, only to get another divorce months after that. She was married (and divorced) twice more after that, but has often stated that Burton was the true love of her life. The final years of Liz Taylor were marked by illness, staying out of the limelight due to serious heart conditions. On this morning, she finally passed away from heart failure. So, today, we toast to a beautiful woman and a tremendously talented actress. More than anything, though, we close the door on one of the most captivating lives in American history. We say goodbye to a true movie star.

This is one of my favorite clips of Taylor in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. I apologize for the subtitles. Other than that, the video quality's quite good. Here it is:

Cedar Rapids (***1/2)

2011-03-18T00:34:00.005-04:00

CEDAR RAPIDS
Directed by Miguel Arteta

***1/2

In Cedar Rapids, we are given a group of insurance rep misfits that couldn't be any more buffoonish, yet couldn't be any more sincere. There's a certain level of warmth within the people we meet in this wonderful little comedy that make them endearing, even when they're making lewd sex jokes, drinking copious amounts of alcohol, and taking a seemingly wholesome insurance convention and turning it into a smorgasbord of excess. That this occasionally-rambunctious group of miscreants can reach into the audience and develop a seminal wisdom is a revelation I've rarely witnessed in a movie theater.

The film is focused on Tim Lippe (Ed Helms), a Midwestern, forty-something-year-old man who works as an insurance agent at the Brown Valley Insurance Firm that is highly renowned for winning the coveted Two Diamonds award for excellence three years in a row. He lives in a world of befuddling innocence, and his only guilty pleasure is a weekly sex rendezvous with his former grade school teacher, Mrs. V (Sigourney Weaver). After his successful co-worker, Roger (Thomas Lennon), dies in a rather embarrassing fashion, Tim's boss (Stephen Root) picks him to represent the firm at the insurance convention in Cedar Rapids and bring home the Two Diamonds award for the fourth straight year. Tim's not sure if he's ready for this kind of job, but when he gets onto the plane headed for Iowa, he can't hold back his excitement.

When Tim arrives, he befriends three convention veterans. The first one is Ronald Wilkes (Isiah Whitlock, Jr.), a soft spoken, eloquent teddy bear of a man who tells jokes that are as unfunny as he is black. Shortly after, he meets Dean "Dean-zy" Zeigler (John C. Reilly), a sharp-tongued, hard drinking troublemaker who quickly pounces on Tim's impishness and defeats all of his inhibitions in only two nights. Lastly, Tim meets Joan (Anne Heche), a married woman who uses the Cedar Rapids convention to free herself from her burdensome family. I'm sure that Joan looks at this weekend as the annual highlight of her sex life, tracking down various opportunities to further forget the suburban life that has forced her into the insurance lifestyle to begin with.

At first, Tim is hesitant to their devilish charms, but when Dean tips Tim off about a petition trying to strip Brown Valley of their Two Diamonds awards, Tim quickly realizes that these three are the only people he has on his side. The ultra-conservative convention is run by Orin Helgesson (Kurtwood Smith), a polished but self-righteous man who insists that God be at the forefront of all insurance companies, but his congenial appearance a much more sinister truth. There's nothing more Dean would like to do than expose Orin and his moral hypocrisy, and when Tim realizes the false virtue of the entire event, he decides to join him. As Tim slowly gets sucked out of his comfort zone, he finally begins to comprehend his self-worth, and Cedar Rapids becomes the greatest ever coming-of-age tale about a man in his forties.

When we look at our cast a protagonists, we have an alcoholic, a television connoisseur, an adulteress, and a man who frequently has sex with a woman thirty years older than him. That these characters coexist is a wonder on its own. That screenwriter Phil Johnston is able to take these people and make them an empathetic, Midwestern Wild Bunch is quite the achievement. This is Tim Lippe's story, but it's their partnership that really sets Cedar Rapids apart from other low-brow comedies of this ilk. We really believe that these people care about each other, that there's a real bond here. That Heche and Reilly play their parts without judgment helps a lot, as Joan and Dean are rather up front with their flaws and their sins, never allowing themselves to be one-note or empty.

The film was directed by Miguel Arteta, of The Good Girl and more recently, Youth In Revolt. We can see early that he has a gift within comedic films, not because of how funny they are (though they are that), but because of his attention to his characters. He never settles for the easy joke; and in the case of most of his films, it would be pretty easy to take a character like Tim Lippe or Dean Zeigler and laugh at him. But Arteta really cares about these people, and it shows. It helps to have some wonderful performances. Helms, always a talented supporting player in comedies like The Hangover and the TV series "The Office", really holds his own as a lead. He plays Tim with such brilliant naivete, we really believe him when he gives Mrs. V a promise ring for, you know, whatever happens. The film is also filled with wonderful small moments and minor characters, particularly a young prostitute named Bree (Alia Shawkat) who sways Tim with her charm and her crack pipe.

They always say that no good films come out in the first four months of the year. They say that because, for the most part, it's true. But Cedar Rapids - an independent film that is still stuck in limited release - is a gem among cobblestones, a truly great comedy filled with romance, fight scenes, and more than one reference to the HBO program, "The Wire". I'll admit that I'm a sucker for low-brow comedies with heart (when they're done well), but I do feel like Cedar Rapids was the first great film of 2011, even if it probably won't develop that reputation. But that's fine, the Tim Lippe's of the world never get the credit they deserve.

The Adjustment Bureau (**)

2011-03-09T22:50:00.006-05:00

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU
Produced, Written and Directed by George Nolfi

**

Somewhere within The Adjustment Bureau is a very compelling romance, and even better, a wonderful farce. Furthermore, the film stirs serious moral questions about predestination and existentialism. These three aspects (the romance, the farce, the existentialism) are the most interesting parts of the film, but it never really divulges into any of the three too far or deep. They're left twisting in the wind while we're sucked into a more generic plot line involving a cat-and-mouse chase between chess pieces and the chess players. In this case, the pieces are the human race and the players are the Adjustment Bureau.

David Norris (Matt Damon) is a hot-shot politician running for Senate in New York. After losing the race, he meets Elise (Emily Blunt) in the men's room. Why is she in the Men's room? She says that she's hiding from a group of security guards that were supervising a wedding that she just crashed. In actuality, she was arranged to be there. She was meant to meet David, have a tender conversation with him, and inspire him to make a rousing speech that would spring board his political career toward the White House. Who arranged this? Unseen men who create the plan to David's (and everyone's) life. And it's important that David (and everyone) stay on the right track.

But David is not interested in the plan. He's interested in Elise. When he sees her again on a public bus, he makes sure to get her number. This is when the Adjustment Bureau steps in. A group of men in hats explain to David: he was supposed to meet Elise in the bathroom, but he is not meant to see her again. Any prolonged relationship that they have will have serious consequences on their plan, and change the course of their lives irreparably. These men can walk in and out of doors that seem to break natural physics laws and can always keep their eyes on him. If David dismisses them, they'll erase his brain. That there is room for tinkering in a system that's supposed to be run by a larger-than-life being seems strange. Everyone's life has already been written, but when the Adjustment Bureau tells David that he must never see Elise again, aren't they suggesting the possibility of free will?

Small questions like this bothered me throughout. Not because they felt like holes, mind you, but because the film takes itself so seriously that it made me begin to question the logic behind an idea that is inherently illogical. It makes a lot of sense that this film is based on a Philip K. Dick short story. Dick never focused on the wonder of the outer worlds he created, but the horror, and The Adjustment Bureau has some underlying questions poking mercilessly at the afterlife and the "higher power". One of the adjusters, Harry Mitchell (Anthony Mackie), openly questions The Chairmen - the ominous name given to the one who runs the Bureau - in a way that feels suspiciously like Loki questioning God for his delusions of grandeur. But director/screenwriter George Nolfi doesn't have enough interest in really upsetting anybody, and instead this question about the man upstairs becomes a red herring for the plot.

Which leads into another issue I saw. The adjusters, all equipped with trench coats and fedoras, are put into positions that are so preposterous that I feel that their very existence was prime material for a farce, a satire about predestination. But Harry is morose and questioning what it all means, while other adjusters, like Richardson (John Slattery), are despondent, not willing to challenge the system because they know that the towel has already been thrown. Then there's the appearance of Thompson (Terrence Stamp), a higher official who's brought in when David's constant search for Elise becomes out of control. Stamp is a terrific actor with virtuoso abilities, but he plays Thompson with such strict seriousness that it's almost hard not to laugh at how hard he's trying. That Nolfi is unwilling to make these adjusters a damning metaphor, nor make them exploit their comedic potential, is unfortunate.

There are some elements here that work. Almost all of them have to do with the combination of Damon and Blunt. They have wonderful chemistry, which makes you root for them. It's an interesting occurrence when you care for the racers while hating the race, but that's a testament to how good Damon and Blunt are together. In a less high concept screenplay, their natural connection could really be the basis for a love story that is very effective. Not that the love story in The Adjustment Bureau isn't, but the obstacles that they face become distracting. Their tale feels like it's above running in and out of doors that lead to Yankees Stadium and The Statue of Liberty.

Trying to adapt Philip K. Dick to the big screen can be hard. Blade Runner didn't work till it's director's cut was released, and outside of Minority Report, there wasn't another adaptation that really clicked (Total Recall works, but for other reasons, mostly having to do with Ah-nuld). That a movie studio would even attempt a cerebral sci-fi is commendable, but Dick's vision of the Adjusters is a lot more challenging toward a stubborn inland sensibility. The Adjustment Bureau is too tame, too happy to settle for being a thriller rather than raising questions amongst its viewers. It does have some fantastic work from its two lead performers, which may be all that most audiences will have wished for. I would have liked to see a little more balls.

The 4th Annual JC Awards

2011-02-22T17:28:00.005-05:00

In celebration of the upcoming Academy Awards this Sunday night, I will unveil my 4th Annual JC Awards for the films of 2010. These are in individual categories, for my top films of the year, just scroll down.

BEST ACTOR

Gold: Javier Bardem, BIUTIFUL
Silver: Ryan Gosling, BLUE VALENTINE
Bronze: Paul Giamatti, BARNEY'S VERSION

Filling out the ballot:
Colin Firth, THE KING'S SPEECH
James Franco, 127 HOURS

BEST ACTRESS

Gold: Natalie Portman, BLACK SWAN
Silver: Annette Bening & Julianne Moore, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT*
Bronze: Michelle Williams, BLUE VALENTINE

Filling out the ballot:
Nicole Kidman, RABBIT HOLE
Tilda Swinton, I AM LOVE

*Two separate performances? Yes. But it's the symbiotic performance from the two of them that make 'The Kids Are All Right' a near masterpiece. I can't logically say that either one is better than the other. So... deal with it.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Gold: Mark Ruffalo, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Silver: Andrew Garfield, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Bronze: Christian Bale, THE FIGHTER

Filling out the ballot:
Geoffrey Rush, THE KING'S SPEECH
Justin Timberlake, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Gold: Lesley Manville, ANOTHER YEAR*
Silver: Olivia Williams, THE GHOST WRITER
Bronze: Rosamund Pike, BARNEY'S VERSION/MADE IN DAGENHAM

Filling out the ballot:
Marion Cotillard, INCEPTION
Dianne Wiest, RABBIT HOLE

*True, Manville has stated that she is a lead performance, and I agree with that. To be totally honest, I wanted to give her the gold, and I couldn't do that in Best Actress. In the end, she was absent from the screen long enough for me to legitimize putting her in Supporting.

BEST ENSEMBLE

Gold: The Kids Are All Right
Silver: Another Year
Bronze: Black Swan

Filling out the ballot:
The King's Speech
The Social Network

BEST DIRECTOR

Gold: Darren Aronofsky, BLACK SWAN
Silver: Danny Boyle, 127 HOURS
Bronze: Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION

Filling out the ballot:
Derek Cianfrance, BLUE VALENTINE
Luca Guadagnino, I AM LOVE

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Gold: Derek Cianfrance, Joey Curtis, & Cami Delavigne, BLUE VALENTINE
Silver: Stuart Blumberg & Lisa Cholodenko, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Bronze: Michael Arndt, TOY STORY 3

Filling out the ballot:
Mike Leigh, ANOTHER YEAR
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Gold: Aaron Sorkin, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Silver: David Lindsay-Abaire, RABBIT HOLE
Bronze: Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy, 127 HOURS

Filling out the ballot:
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, TRUE GRIT
Alex Garland, NEVER LET ME GO

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Gold: Matthew Libatique, BLACK SWAN
Silver: Wally Pfister, INCEPTION
Bronze: Jeff Cronenweth, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Filling out the ballot:
Roger Deakins, TRUE GRIT
Yorick Le Saux, I AM LOVE

BEST EDITING

Gold: Lee Smith, INCEPTION
Silver: Rodrigo Cortés, BURIED
Bronze: Kirk Baxter & Angus Wall, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Filling out the ballot:
Jon Harris, 127 HOURS
Andrew Weisblum, BLACK SWAN

BEST ART DIRECTION

Gold: Guy Dyas, INCEPTION
Silver: Dante Ferreti, SHUTTER ISLAND
Bronze: Jess Goncher, TRUE GRIT

Filling out the ballot:
Therese DePrez, BLACK SWAN
Eve Stewart, THE KING'S SPEECH

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Gold: Antonella Cannarozzi, I AM LOVE
Silver: Louise Stejrnward, MADE IN DAGENHAM
Bronze: Amy Westscott, BLACK SWAN

Filling out the ballot:
Jenny Beaven, THE KING'S SPEECH
Mary Zophres, TRUE GRIT

BEST SCORE

Gold: Clint Mansell, BLACK SWAN
Silver: Pasquale Catalano, BARNEY'S VERSION
Bronze: Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Filling out the ballot:
John Adams, I AM LOVE
Hans Zimmer, INCEPTION

BEST SOUND

Gold: Inception
Silver: 127 Hours
Bronze: Black Swan

Filling out the ballot:
The Social Network
True Grit

BEST HAIR/MAKE-UP

Gold: Barney's Version
Silver: Black Swan
Bronze: True Grit

UPDATED! My Ten (er, Sixteen) Best Films of 2010 (now - finally - as a list)

2011-02-15T01:10:00.001-05:00

As mentioned when it was previously posted, when I made my original list that I hadn't seen all of the films that I wanted to see for 2010. Having totally satisfied my list of films that I had wanted to see, I decided to update the list to include those that I thought should have made it in the first place. I decided not to remove any films because... why not? They're all stupendous films. And since I've had a chance to re-watch films, I feel a lot more comfortable placing them in the classic list format. So, mostly everything is the same as before, but if you're interested in the four (yes, four!) new entries, feel free to take a look.

Happy New Year, everybody! Like everyone else, I too am looking forward to 2011, but you can't move forward without taking a slight glance back. And what better way to do that than a good ol' 'Best of' list? Hope you enjoy.

1. BLUE VALENTINE
Original Review Here

I hope that my inability to formulate a legitimate "top ten" list isn't being confused with me being unable to pick a "best film of the year". Blue Valentine is definitely that. No film in 2010 was more honest, more appropriately directed, and more complete story. That story is simple: Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy (Michelle Williams) meet by chance and fall in love. Six years later, they're married with a young daughter, and with time, have fallen out of love. It's a transition from total devotion to total detestation, from seeing the hope in the future, to being in the future and not liking what you see. From the joy of blossoming love to the life-crushing sorrow of divorce. Directed by Derek Cianfrance - his first narrative feature film - the story swings back and forth between the budding and crumbling love, often juxtaposing the moods and feelings in a way that's sometimes poignant, sometimes heartbreaking. The film's gritty, handheld, Cinéma vérité style is apt as it strengthens its gaze on everything in love that is not beautiful. It has stark sexuality that really presents love making for what it really is, equal parts erotic and painful. There's sex of passion and then there's sex of routine, and Blue Valentine is able to show both in authentic fashion. Blue Valentine is, as I said in my initial review, a modest masterpiece; so carefully told, but still filled with such abrasive, unforgiving energy. It's not the most uplifting tale you'll see in theaters, but it sill make you think about love unlike any other film in years.

2. THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Original Review Here

Marriage is hard. This is the thesis of Lisa Cholodenko's The Kids Are All Right. And just because Cholodenko's film is about a married lesbian couple, doesn't mean she pulls any punches. The original testament still stands strong. Following Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore) as their children decide to build a relationship with their sperm-donor father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo), it follows these people with such careful grace that it feels pretty damn real. As Paul works his way into their family - much to the chagrin of the two mothers - his effect on all of them turns out to be larger than any of them could have imagined. The main cast shines brightest here with Bening, Moore, and Ruffalo all doing an extraordinary job encompassing these simple yet multi-faceted people. Nothing is exploited for dramatic effect, instead the veteran actors play everything with subtlety, making it seem like they are actually embracing the own characters' instincts. The film got some unfortunate, misguided publicity when certain writers claimed to be a politically-motivated piece, which couldn't be farther from the truth. The wonder behind The Kids Are All Right is how well Cholodenko (herself, a lesbian) is able to stay away from glorifying Nic and Jules, and letting them speak for themselves. Bonus points to Alice In Wonderland's Mia Wasikowska and future Spider-Man prospect Josh Hutchinson for playing the two children with the appropriate amount of angst and humor to make the unconventional family seem authentic. After all, this film's main theme is the American family dynamic. It will still have all the same issues, even without the standard patriarch.

3. BLACK SWAN
Original Review Here

On initial viewing, Black Swan may baffle. The second time around, it will mesmerize. After that, Darren Aronofsky's ballerina thriller will leave you awash in some of the most courageous cinematic storytelling you will ever see. In his follow up (or as he would say: "companion piece") to 2008's The Wrestler, Aronofsky again focuses on a person's ugly inner struggle to find glory and beauty in her performance art. This time, it's not about wrestling, but the New York ballet. As Nina, the newly anointed Swan Queen in the Lincoln Theater reprisal of Swan Lake, Natalie Portman breaks hearts in a performance that is played with the ultimate intensity and physicality that the role calls for. As Nina faces performance pressure from her maddening mother (Barbara Herschey), sexual advances from her authoritarian director (Vincent Cassell), and sarcastic jokes from her rival dancer and understudy (Mila Kunis), Portman showcases her emotional disintegration in an agonizing, sometimes disturbing fashion. As Aronofsky shows Nina's journey from the ethereal, virtuous white swan, to the unadulterated passion of the black swan, he takes you on a ride of thrills, a few low-rent scares, and several moments where you cannot look away - even though you want to. But whatever you may think of Black Swan's reliance on hackneyed horror movie tricks, you cannot deny that its story unfolds with zeal and rebellious stubbornness. Now, all of this legitimized by the work from Portman, whose brilliance here cannot be understated, as she truly makes Black Swan what it is.

4. ANOTHER YEAR
Original Review Here

With the kinds of protagonists that Mike Leigh has, who needs antagonists? From the well-meaning abortionist in Vera Drake, to the all-around naughty boy in Naked, Leigh always tends to endear us toward the most complicated (or more flatly, flawed) characters. In Another Year, we have Mary (played with fiery grace by Lesley Manville), whose connection with reality is so disjointed that she becomes horribly depressed when she finds that her nephew (about twenty years younger than her, no doubt) isn't sexually attracted to her. Mary is a train wreck, belonging in the pantheon of wonderfully dreary Mike Leigh creations. Leigh's striking ability to remove any judgment from his camera leaves us to our own devices and allows us to see these people on the screen for who they really are. But Another Year is mostly focused on the senior marriage of Tom (Jim Broadbent) and Gerri (Ruth Sheen), and how their long, deliriously happy relationship is contrasted by the crumbling lives of their friends and family around them. When everyone is struggling to keep their head above water, they must do their best to latch on to that stable buoy, so that they don't drown. But Tom and Gerri are genuinely good people. They don't mind helping Mary and others in their time of great need, and it's that great wisdom that keeps them from sinking along with the others.

5. EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP
No Original Review (got lazy with this one)

Banksy is considered to be amongst the most revolutionary artists of his time, specializing in high concept street art, moving well past the low-rent graffiti that tattered the art form's beginnings. But Exit Through The Gift Shop is not a film about Banksy. It's a film by Banksy about Thierry Guetta, a French, former clothing retailer who has evolved into a budding filmmaker and an opportunistic street artist. Through Guetta (and is eventual alter ego: "Mr. Brainwash"), Banksy documents the evolution of the wondrous subculture most know little about and introduces us to some of the best artists of the genre: Space Invader, Sheppard Fairey, and of course, the notorious Banksy himself. All these artists thought Guetta was putting together the ultimate documentary to legitimize their work, but that wasn't achieved until Banksy got a hold of the thousand hours that Guetta compiled over the years. With Guetta, he instead hurdles toward an ego-driven explosion, changes his name to Mr. Brainwash and becomes his own kind of street artist. The film is startlingly funny; a scathing review on the bastardization of the modern art scene in America. With exclusive footage of all these reckless, felonious men, it's quite a feat that Thierry stands out as the biggest eccentric, but he's one of the most magnetic film characters I've seen in years. Like Catfish, there are many who think Exit Through The Gift Shop is just an elaborate hoax - Banksy's most expansive, ambitious project yet. If that were the case, it wouldn't surprise me, but Thierry Guetta would be his greatest creation yet.

6. TOY STORY 3
Original Review Here

I can't remember the last time I saw a good "part three" of anything. So, needless to say, I walked into Toy Story 3 with some reservations. By the end, I concluded that it would've been difficult to make anything closer to perfect than this conclusion to the Pixar franchise. All the usual characters are back, but Andy is now gearing up for college and the whole gang is wondering what will become of them once he's gone. The stakes here have risen quite a bit since the days when Woody and Buzz had to find their way home from Pizza Planet. Addressing themes ranging from maturity to loyalty, even mortality is tackled in this supposed "kid's film" (including one powerful moment with the entire gang that will have you clutching the edge of your seat). Not that that laughs aren't there anymore. Watching Mr. Potato Head fit himself into a tortilla, or seeing Buzz get switched into "modo español", gave me some of the best laughs I'd ever had from any of the three films. But I'd dare anyone to keep a dry eye while watching this, especially during a particularly touching moment by the film's end where Andy has to make his final decision about what to do with his most cherished friends. It's fitting that Toys Story 3 ends up being the last film written about on this post, because watching this film was the moment that I realized that my childhood had ended. I am now an adult. The film perfectly encapsulated the spirit of the series - a series that freely encapsulated the spirit of my maturity up until then. With this breathtaking film, that part of my life was closed, but a new door was opened. Toy Story 3 opened it.

7. RABBIT HOLE
Original Review Here

Grief is something that is universal to everybody, but few films really visualize it better than John Cameron Mithcell's Rabbit Hole. Six months after the death of their young son, Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) are still struggling to cope. Through group therapy sessions and visits with various family members, we see how hard they try to make everyone think that they're doing alright. Sometimes, the harder you try, the more obvious you become. Credit incredible performances from Kidman and Eckhart for making Rabbit Hole sincere and honest, while still keeping the emotions explosive. Mitchell, known for his kinetic (if not eccentric) independent films, dials it down a bit here. He keeps the visual motifs solemn and intimate, setting the stage for his actors and letting them work. Which is a successful approach when you have such a great cast. Beyond some of Kidman's best work, the film gets great performances from Sandra Oh as a veteran in group therapy, Dianne Wiest as the wise, sometimes boozy mother of Becca, and Miles Teller as an artistic young man who has a lot more to reveal than we realize at first. The screenplay was written by David Lindsay-Abaire (based on his Pulitzer Prize-winning stage play), and is filled with a lot of pain, but also has a surprising amount of warmth.

8. BARNEY'S VERSION
Original Review Here

When describing a movie like Barney's Version, I think it should be noted that it is so unapologetically Canadian that it never had a real chance of becoming a hit in the United States. Now that we've gotten that off of our chests, lets get to the movie itself: a brilliantly told, wonderfully acted tale about a man so grouchy that opening the flip on his cell phone feels like a burden. That man is Barney Panofsky (played with the brilliant wit we expect from Paul Giamatti), an Alzheimer's-riddled soap opera producer who had to marry two different women before meeting the love of his life. Based on the much-acclaimed novel by Mordecai Richler, the film is meant to represent Barney's version of a life story that has painted him as a lousy curmudgeon to everyone he has ever loved and cared about. Not that it means that Barney will show himself as a terribly sympathetic figure - far from it. Director Richard J. Lewis, along with Giamatti, combine to make the sinning Barney much more compelling than any saint could ever be. The film is with wonderful supporting performances, including Rachel LeFevre and Minnie Driver as the first two victims of Barney's hand in marriage. Dustin Hoffman plays Barney's father with great humor and provides the film with some unorthodox wisdom. But special attention should be paid to Rosamund Pike's performance as Miriam, Barney's true love. So beautiful and patient, Pike's portrayal of such open-heartedness helps you totally realize Barney's lovestruck feelings for her.

9. INCEPTION
Original Review Here

Christopher Nolan is able to do something that sometimes feels impossible: he makes large, commercial action films that actually provoke introspective thought. When you consider that Nolan is behind the brilliant, non-linear psychological thriller Memento from 2000, you could see that intellectual approach early on. With Inception, though, the English writer-director is at his high-concept best, creating a labyrinthine plot centered around dreams, and dreams within dreams, and dreams within dreams within dreams... do you understand the kind of movie we're dealing with now? On the surface, the entire idea seems over-the-top and too clever for its own good, but credit should go to Nolan and his all-star cast - led by Leonardo DiCaprio - that it is able to unfold without ever befuddling those watching. This is a talent that Nolan showed with both his Batman films, and here he is really at his element. It helps that the film is impeccably made, with career-best work from cinematographer Wally Pfister, and Nolan crafting some wholly dazzling fight sequences and car chases. But car chases are always more interesting when you care about who's being chased, and Nolan's screenplay is so invested in its characters, never allowing the strict rules of the film's universe to bog down their development. With a superb supporting cast that includes Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and a particularly exceptional Marion Cotillard, Inception is the best studio action film in years.

10. 127 HOURS
Original Review Here

When I spoke to a friend about Danny' Boyle's 127 Hours, they complained: "If there was any film that was made to have all the credits in the end, it's this one. When you see 'Based on the Book by Aron Ralston', it kills all the suspense!" I respectively disagreed. A lot of the charm within this beautifully executed film with how it plays with our expectations. I had imagined that we were all aware (though I was surprised to find out otherwise) with the story of Ralston, an adventurous, sometimes mischievous mountain climber who had to amputate his own right arm after it became trapped underneath an immovable boulder in the Blue John Canyon in Utah. By letting us know at the beginning that he definitely survives, we're able to admire so many of the smaller things that this film does so well. Like showing Ralston as a man, and not a victim. Played with fantastic wit by James Franco, Ralston's bright, life-affirming attitude in the face of ultimate doom is infectious and something to behold. Franco does it right, displaying Ralston's glowing sense of humor without ever trying too hard or becoming contrived. But the main star here is Boyle, who followed the Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire with a return to what made him so unique: creating films with frenetic energy and a breakneck pace, blurring though a screenplay that is composed mostly of Ralston being trapped at the bottom of a canyon. It could have been methodical and solemn and no one would have complained, but Boyle makes it a rambunctious, sometimes funny story of a man's will to live.

11. I Am Love
No Original Review (got lazy with this one)

In 2009, Tilda Swinton gave a virtuoso performance in a grossly under-appreciated gem of a film called Julia. A year later, the remarkably talented (and fearlessly ambitious) Swinton seems poised for the same fate. Luca Guadagnino's I Am Love is a highly-stylized melodrama, fraught with wondrous images and settings (beautifully shot by cinematographer Yorick Le Saux) and pulsating with a sexual ferocity that would put Leonardo Bertolucci to shame. There's very little that can disrupt the powerful Recchi's; an Italian family that heads a highly influential corporation in Milano. Emma (Swinton) is the heart of the family, a German woman who married into the business, and is a gentle and gracious mother to her three children. She has no problem fading into the background and taking the thankless role. But when her son befriends an intensely passionate chef named Antonio (Edoardo Gabbriellini), and introduces him to Emma, she is overcome with emotion for the first time in a very long time. What follows is a lucid affair that shakes the foundation of the Recchi familt unlike anything they've ever experienced. I Am Love is an impeccably made film in all the ways it should be. Like Todd Haynes' Far From Heaven, it references images from the early Hollywood melodramas of Douglas Sirk and Mervyn Leroy, calling on the Golden Age of Hollywood to further impress its European austerity. But the biggest star here is Swinton, who continues her trend of taking a collection of eclectic, challenging roles and transforming into fully-fledged, compelling characters.

12. CATFISH
Original Review Here

I many ways, Catfish really embodied the kind of film that I had wished The Social Network would have been. So slick and ominous in showing how Facebook has really changed the way we communicate with each other. It has completely transformed our lives, but as this film shows, it also allows some to completely transform into a totally different person. The is a documentary effort from the two, young filmmakers Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost. When Ariel's photographer brother, Yaniv, develops an email relationship with a talented, eight-year-old painter named Abby, Schulman and Joost decide to document it. But the more interesting relationship is the Yaniv creates with Megan, Abby's older half-sister. Text messages and phone conversations are exchanged, but when the three young men try to meet Megan and Abby face-to-face, they are not prepared for what they find. Most of the thrill behind Catfish comes from not knowing what to expect, so I'll cease from telling anymore details, but suffice to say, it goes places and meets people you would have never imagined. Some have accused Catfish of a being a fake - to which I'll respond with how little I care. The story within Catfish strikes me as too uniquely bizarre to be made up, but it's captivating no matter how real or not real it may be.

13. THE KING'S SPEECH
Original Review Here

This is the kind of film that fits right into the Academy's wheel house: period piece, uplifting, respected cast, World War II (if only for a few brief moments). So, it has that going for it. It is also one of the most fulfilling cinematic experiences of the year. As the stammering, socially inept Prince Albert ("Bertie"), Colin Firth gives a captivating performance that perfectly dictates the film's formal, but off-kilter style. Directed by Tom Hooper, the film's sputtering (my friend described it as "constipated") visual approach is surprisingly arresting and executed exceptionally. It becomes smoother as Bertie's relationship with his speech therapist, Lionel Logue (a terrific Geoffrey Rush), becomes stronger. As co-leads (I dismiss anyone who would consider the part of Logue a supporting one), Firth and Rush work beautifully together. With opportunities to exploit the more over-the-top aspects of their characters, neither actor takes advantage. Instead, they rely on - and expound upon - the words written in the exquisite screenplay (penned by David Seidler) that bridges this odd couple into a real friendship that does not feel contrived or put-on. Boosted by a wonderful supporting cast, that includes Guy Pierce, Michael Gambon, and a warm, humurous turn from Helena Bonham-Carter as Bertie's wife Elizabeth, The King's Speech takes full advantage of its talented cast and produces one of the year's better acting ensembles.

14. THE GHOST WRITER
Original Review Here

Roman Polanski's taut, intelligent thriller The Ghost Writer, came and went in American theaters earlier in the year (to its credit, it was a success in foreign markets), but those who went out of their way to see it, were able to see something that hadn't been accomplished in decades: a ripe, well-told Film Noir. Ewan McGregor is ominously credited as "The Ghost", playing a downtrodden writer who decides to ghost write the autobiography of a hot tempered, former prime minister (an excellent Pierce Brosnan) who's caught in the middle of a political scandal. In the minister's Long Island home, that's when he's introduced to Ruth (Olivia Williams in a wonderfully nuanced, ferocious performance), the minister's abrasive, sometimes adulterous wife. As The Ghost is lead down the rabbit hole by Ruth, a complex conspiracy begins to reveal itself. Trying to write, The Ghost uncovers secrets that have been hidden for years, and in trying to find out the truth, a flock of oddball characters come out of the woodwork (featuring some nice supporting work from Kim Catrell, Tom Wilkinson, and Eli Wallach), and more complications present themselves as others are resolved. The Ghost Writer's greatest achievement is its ability to take formal Noir archetypes and present them as fresh and intriguing - and it helps that it's buoyed by a handful of excellent performances, including a mild-mannered, precise turn from McGregor, and the sometimes charming, often explosive work from Brosnan. But Olivia Williams steals the show with a performance that is equal parts allusive and creepy, dominant and dormant - and she has the biggest surprise for everyone.

15. The Social Network
Original Review Here

I have budged - and I have expanded this list long enough to include the zeitgeist film of 2010, David Fincher's The Social Network. It didn't feel right to talk about '2010 - The Movie Year' without including it. A film about Facebook - at least, on the surface. More specifically, it's a film showcasing the dynamo effect that Facebook has presented in our everyday lives. It's about Mark Zuckerberg (a wonderfully nuanced performance from Jesse Eisenberg), the computer whizz who borrowed an idea from twin, blonde, All-American rowers (both played by Armie Hammer), and creates the most popular website in the history of the internet. It's about the flies in the ointment; including Napster creator Sean Parker (played with deviant charm by Justin Timberlake) who bursts in quickly, wines and dines Zuckerberg, and steps in to cash in on the big prize. It's about the casualties of war, including Mark's best friend Eduardo (a brilliantly subtle, but complex performance from Andrew Garfield) who helped build Facebook as the CFO in its earliest stages, only to have it taken from him by the naive Zuckerberg and the conniving Parker. It's about the heartbreak of being rejected; being rejected by college Final Clubs, the popular clubs, and even Elizabeth Albright (Rooney Mara), a smart, beautiful girl who wants to like Mark, but struggles to keep her ahead above water around his smug. It's about a lot of things. But what's really fascinating about The Social Network is not the ascendance of Zuckerberg, but its display of the contemporary American construct and how much Facebook has contributed to the creation of that.

16. LEAVES OF GRASS
Original Review Here

Few films in 2010 were as funny, perplexing, audacious, or generally interesting than Tim Blake Nelson's Leaves of Grass. It stars Edward Norton in two different roles: the renowned thinker and classical philosophy professor Billy Kincaid, and his drug-dealing, Oklahoma-accented twin brother Brady. When Brady fakes his own death in order to get Billy to come back home to Oklahoma, Billy is already furious. When Billy discovers that he's really supposed to be a live alibi while Brady makes a high stakes drug deal, Billy cannot believe it. What follows is a stunning, sincerely unpredictable sequence of events that includes crossbows, literature, and lots of weed. The film bares little resemblance to Walt Whitman's classic book of poetry of the same name (though it does make an appearance in the film's final scene), except when you consider how thought-provoking both pieces are. Writer and director Tim Blake Nelson (who also stars in the film as Bolger, Brady's loyal but dimwitted best friend) crafts a screenplay filled with extreme eccentricities, and makes a film that fully embraces them. There isn't an over-the-top note that isn't exploited, but Nelson is able to take the film's tonal imbalance and make it work, because he believes totally in the story that he's telling. He never lets up and you never know what is going to happen next, and that's why watching Leaves of Grass is so fascinating. Add nice supporting performances from Keri Russell, Melanie Lynskey, Susan Surandon, and Richard Dreyfuss, and Leaves of Grass becomes an intoxicating movie experience.

HONORABLE MENTION
There are still more films that I struggled with leaving off the list. Here they are.

-David O. Russell's The Fighter is a dynamic ensemble piece about boxer Mickey Ward and his tumultuous family. Combining wonderful performances and inspired direction, it is one of the more enjoyable sports films in many years.

-Noah Baumbach's Greenberg was a terrific comedy with a woefully under-appreciated performance from Ben Stiller.

-Buried was a wonderful experiment in cinematic storytelling - limiting the entire film to being inside a coffin.

-Debra Granik's Winter's Bone has an incredibly nuanced performance from soon-to-be movie star Jennifer Lawrence and creates one of the most eerie movie atmospheres in a while, set in the drugged-out shadows of the Ozark mountains.

Another Year (****)

2011-02-04T23:48:00.008-05:00

ANOTHER YEAR
Written and Directed by Mike Leigh

****

You may never see a film that appreciates faces the way that Another Year does. Not the kind of faces we're used to staring at in most Hollywood films, but a different kind. Faces with cracks and crevasses, absent of protruding chins or perfectly slim noses. The film opens and closes with two spectacular shots of faces that express such a bevy of emotions including: despair, heartbreak, loneliness, perhaps a slight glimpse of hope. Mike Leigh has never been interested in manipulated movie beauty, and Another Year's list of faces includes many English acting veterans like Jim Broadbent, Ruth Sheen, Lesley Manville, Peter Wight, and Imelda Staunton. Some may prefer the faces of Megan Fox or Chaning Tatum, and those certainly are more aesthetically pleasing faces, but Mike Leigh can't tell this solemn tale with those faces, because those faces can't tell this kind of story.

Tom (Broadbent) and Gerri (Sheen) are married, and we can tell that they have been so for many decades. Their dependence on one another is not needy or uneven, but complimentary. They garden and cook together. Tom is an engineer and Gerri is a behavioral counselor at a hospital. They have a son named Joe (Oliver Maltman) who visits ever so often and is filled with as much joy and charm as his parents. They are a happily married couple, possessing a sense of stability that seems almost impossible to most people. So, it makes sense that they have a lot of unhappy friends who latch onto them in an attempt to acquire some of that happiness; namely Mary (Manville), a secretary who works with Gerri, whose desperation to cure her loneliness constantly clouds any sense of reason she may have with reality. When invited to a dinner with Tom and Gerri, she comes prepared with a cleavage-blooming outfit... just in case.

After a few drinks, Mary usually will expound on her woeful tale on getting married too young and finally falling in love too late. But Tom and Gerri have heard this story before, so they just let her bottom out and send her to bed. Tom and Gerri also have a friend name Ken (Wight), who smokes too much and carries a belly in front of him the size of a wrecking ball. He can't seem to find a shirt that'll fit him. But he's a funny, jovial sort of fellow, and Tom and Gerri are more than happy to have him over. Ken likes Mary and his eyes light up when she arrives at the home. But Mary doesn't fancy herself someone who would demean herself with someone like Ken. Instead, she wastes her time trying to cozy up to Joe. It doesn't matter that she's known him since he was a ten-year-old boy. In several cringe-worthy moments, Mary embarrasses herself flirting with and grabbing Joe, and he does his best to humor her, but mostly because he doesn't want to hurt her feelings.

I can understand why these people would connect themselves to Tom and Gerri. Their modest home is like a haven for good spirits, and their own unbelievable chemistry and unflinching commitment after so many years seems like an ideal in a time where most marriages crash and burn. They are very similar, both incredibly warm and kind. But their slight differences make their relationship stronger. Gerri is more patient and its easier for her to stand Mary's advances toward her son, while Tom is more outspoken, never being able to buy into the B.S. that certain people like Ken and Mary display in their search for self-pity and compliments. They're a solid rock in a field of hollow stones. They're not walkovers either. You should see their seamless expressions of disappointment when Joe brings home his new girlfriend, Katie (Karina Fernandez), and Mary decides to use that moment to make an ugly scene. They're there for their friends, but never ahead of their family.

This film was recently nominated for the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award (as Leigh has been several times before), though Leigh's dependence on long-winded improvisations from his actors makes you wonder where the screenplay is. Does it matter? Maybe if this material were in other hands, but Leigh is a true cinematic master and he shows it with this film. Consider Secrets & Lies, Naked, or the more recent Happy-Go-Lucky. All films that were more interested in observing its characters than having them follow some hackneyed plot point, and Another Year follows that tradition. Do Tom and Gerri represent stability? Does Mary represent regret? Does Joe represent exuberant youth? If you're looking for that kind of stuff, I'm sure you can find it. But Leigh's films doesn't let that overtake what he's most interested in. Leigh is more interested in having Tom represent Tom and Gerri represent Gerri.

When the film premiered in Cannes in early 2010, most of the noise being made was about Lesley Manville's performance. And in a film that is wall-to-wall with tremendous acting from Broadbent, Wight, and everyone else, Manville is able to stand out. Mary is a total train wreck emotionally, doing her best to hide her real age, even to herself. She throws fits like a sixteen-year-old, but always comes crawling back like a haggard dog. It probably seems like quite the achievement to upset the mild-mannered Tom and Gerri, but she does have moments of charm. It's a testament toward the greatness of Manville that this pathetic person never becomes uninteresting or redundant, always making room for a bit of warmth to shine through. That Manville wasn't able to crack through for an Oscar nomination is a bit of shame, but its a rarely seen English film, and the Academy only likes England if its the England from WWII (**cough**The King's Speech**cough**).

The film is broken into four segments: Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter. Each part with a different tone and visual look. With each rotating season, things evolve and people fall in and out of trouble. The only thing that stays the same throughout is Tom, Gerri and their lovely home. Another Year is so poignant and graceful in its swaying through themes of growing old and friendship. And my God, those faces. At the beginning, it's a tight scowl coming from a disgruntled insomniac (Imelda Staunton, in a very brief but effective appearance). Before the film's end, it's the wallowing, depreciating face of Mary. It's the kind of image that sums up this kind of film perfectly; the kind of film that tells the truth about life. As Gerri wisely says at one moment in the film, life is not always kind to people, but Tom and Gerri is a testament to one thing: if you look hard enough, real happiness is possible.

Barney's Version (***1/2)

2011-01-28T15:29:00.004-05:00

BARNEY'S VERSION
Directed by Richard J. Lewis

***1/2

Barney Panofsky is the kind of character that is tailor-made for an actor with the talent of Paul Giamatti. Grumpy, condescending, always quick to jump to judgment. How is it that Giamatti is able to dig so deep and find the inner charm, the shining humanity that's been hidden away? He's done so with films like American Splendor and Cold Souls, and more specifically in an incredibly dense performance in the 2004 film Sideways (one of my own personal favorites). Hell, he's probably the only actor that could have done so well in John Adams, the HBO miniseries that covered the life of one of history's greatest curmudgeons. He does it again in Barney's Version, a film that chronicles the perpetually rough-around-the-ages (and fictitious) life of television producer Barney Panofsky. We're talking about a man who can't even open his flip cell phone without making it seem like a burden. Yet, somehow, Giamatti makes him captivating.

The film is based on Mordecai Richler's 1997 novel of the same name - and bares a striking resemblance to his most beloved work from 1959, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz. We get a snapshot of Mr. Panofsky's most formative years, as a man with a penchant for kicking back cigars and an obsession with professional hockey. When we first meet Barney, he's in Paris, he's there with his friends, Leo (Thomas Trabacchi), a provocative painter; and Boogie (Scott Speedman), a brilliant writer with a weakness for various vices. Barney's about to get married to Clara (Rachelle LeFevre), a crass, mentally disturbed woman with a flair for the dramatic and a talent with painting. He doesn't particularly love Clara, but he feels obligated because she's pregnant. This is a running theme in Barney's Version: getting married out of obligation and not for love. Needless to say, that marriage is short and taxing, getting off to a bad start once certain secrets are revealed.

Barney's second wife (Minnie Driver) is a verbose, obnoxious woman with an insanely rich father and a Master's Degree in which she's particularly proud of. This is an even shorter marriage (as far as commitment is concerned). At his wedding reception, he meets Miriam (Rosamund Pike), a beautiful woman in a ravishing blue dress who is kind and smart. Barney thinks he may have finally fallen in love, and when she updates him on the Montreal Canadians hockey score, he knows she'll have his heart forever. So, he does his best to rid himself of his second wife, all the while sending flowers weekly to Miriam's office in New York. When the second Mrs. P decides that a sexual ran-de-vouz with Boogie is in order - an event that leads to Boogie's sudden, unclear death - Barney finally has a reason to get a divorce.

That Miriam is even able to warm to Barney is a testament to her unbelievable heart. This was a man who successfully sabotaged to marriages and professed his love to her on their first meeting - on his wedding day. But she is able to love him and marry him and Barney may have finally found the woman that can make him happy. We never question Miriam's decision to be with him, mostly because Rosamund Pike fills her with such grace and wisdom. Pike is a woman who is beautiful in a regal sort of way (which made her perfect casting for 'Jane' in Joe Wright's version of Pride and Prejudice), and it makes sense that Barry would fall for her so instantaneously. But credit must go to Pike for detailing Miriam with such patience and attractiveness. She loves Barney because she sees how she's able to bring the love out of him.

The film is told in a retrospective format, as an aging Barney, struggles with Alzheimer's Disease. He must deal with the publication of a dastardly novel written by a detective convinced that Barney murdered Boogie. Whether or not Barney did actually have a hand in Boogie's death is left fuzzy until the film's end, where Barney puts together a story that seems perfectly sensible to him, even if it might not to others. What matters in particular is that the audience buys this explanation, and this leads to the film's central achievement. Director Richard J. Lewis is able to make Barney endearing and fascinating. We don't groan when we see him make another bad decision or speak too soon, we genuinely feel bad for him as he steps on his own toes once again. Not since last year's Julia have I ever rooted so strongly for such a wrongheaded human being.

I've heard that Barney's Version barely scratches the surface of Richler's novel and I'm sure that may be true. It's swift and sudden in certain moments where a book is sure to be delicate and patient. From what I've read, the film's screenplay adds the character of Izzy (Dustin Hoffman), Barney's loudmouthed father who's able to have moments of wisdom slip through in between naughty stories about his younger days. It's no surprise that Hoffman is terrific in the role, providing mounds of comic relief and showing wonderful chemistry with Giamatti. Having never read the novel, I can only say that the film spans time in a way that's efficient and effective, glossing over the usual details that make books what they are: not films.

Paul Giamatti recently won a Golden Globe for his performance in this film and while it's not career best work, it certainly deserves to be ranked amongst them. What he does with Barney is so pure, often forceful, but with enough general reticence to make him bearable. When Barney begins to depreciate from Alzheimer's, it's a sequence that is truly heartbreaking, but not in the usual manipulated movie way. It's heartbreaking because watching Barney fade is to see someone we know ourselves fade. That's how well we feel we've known him by the end. Does the film's final act become a bit of a tear-jerker? Why, yes, but its earned that right. It showcases the illness in a way that's personal, but not merciless, and all the pain we feel comes right from the eyes of Giamatti who really makes you love this schmuck.

I don't imagine this film will hit it off with American audiences. Unfortunately, a man of Giamatti's physical specimen will probably never be able to lead a hit film. The film was just nominated for an Academy Award for its make-up, a nomination that is so just that I'm surprised that it actually happened. But the film was made in Montreal, so perhaps those Canadians care little for Oscar gold, since a formidable campaign was never really shown. It is the kind of film that is right up the Academy's alley: quirky and unique in its own way, but dealing with topics (disease, dated costumes, marriage) that they love to dig their teeth into. Well, like Barney, I don't exactly see Giamatti enjoying putting on the tux for a Sunday night.

And the nominations have arrived...

2011-01-25T16:21:00.007-05:00

Yesterday morning, alongside the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, a very vivacious and enthusiastic Mo'Nique stood upon a stage in front of a flood of reporters announcing the nominations for 2011 Academy Awards. Not many surprises overall. Much has been made of The King's Speech and True Grit being the big winners, thanks to their total number of nominations (12 and 10, respectively). Some have even been as bold as to say that front-runner The Social Network underachieved with eight nominations - this speaks to how touted this film has been throughout precursor season, that eight would be considered a disappointment. I personally don't think that total number of nominations matter a whole bunch in the grand scheme of things (The Hurt Locker and Avatar were both tied for nine nominees last year). I'd like to think that people don't change their mind based on something that superficial (and if The King's Speech does eventually win, it would establish a change of heart). So, here's the list of nominees announced this morning, but if you'd like to stick around for a little deeper analysis, here you go:

BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky, BLACK SWAN
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, TRUE GRIT
David Fincher, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Tom Hooper, THE KING'S SPEECH
David O. Russell, THE FIGHTER

**4/5 on my predictions**
Let's just go ahead and jump in with what is probably the biggest snub of the morning. For the third time, Christopher Nolan received a DGA Best Director nomination, but did not get the same respect from his fellow peers in the Academy. I did mention that Nolan was the only one of the predicted five that felt the most vulnerable, considering the Academy's somewhat aversion to him. His film Inception was a high concept Sci-Fi unlike anything most moviegoers have ever seen, and his devoted fan bases are still licking their wounds from the Dark Knight fiasco in 2008. So, I'd imagine that this latest snub seems particularly cruel. Instead, they opted to reward the - interestingly, now prestigious - Coen Brothers for their megahit True Grit, which while good, seemed very middlebrow for the Coens, no? Well, perhaps that's how they'll finally get blanketed with praise and commercial success (which is what happened). Russell, Hooper, Fincher, and Aronofsky all walked away with their much expected nominations, so there's not much to say about that.

BEST ACTOR
Javier Bardem, BIUTIFUL
Jeff Bridges, TRUE GRIT
Jesse Eisenberg, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Colin Firth, THE KING'S SPEECH
James Franco, 127 HOURS

**4/5 on my predictions**
There were rumblings that Bardem would sneak in. The reason? Because he's really fucking good in Biutiful. I worried that nobody would get around to seeing it, considering that it's in Spanish and it has a very goofy release schedule. I guess everyone did a good job watching their screeners. Of course, this came at the expense of my beloved Ryan Gosling, whose wondrous performance in Blue Valentine went unnoticed. We'd all like to think that Jeff Bridges' overall solid, but unimaginative work in True Grit would get sidelined to take on both of those fantastic performances, but we all know that the Best Actor category likes to scale older, so they couldn't go under the age of fifty on all of the nominations. But this is all a race to see who will finish second to Colin Firth who is stampeding toward his first Oscar. Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network and James Franco's version of Aron Ralston in 127 Hours round out the rest of the nominees.

BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Nicole Kidman, RABBIT HOLE
Jennifer Lawrence, WINTER'S BONE
Natalie Portman, BLACK SWAN
Michelle Williams, BLUE VALENTINE

**4/5 on my predictions**
I was so genuinely afraid that Nicole Kidman's fantastic performance in Rabbit Hole would get snubbed that I tried to smoke screen it in my predictions by making a terrible prediction of... Julianne Moore (my all-time favorite actor who, realistically, never had a shot). Well, even though I do think Moore is deserving, I'm glad to be wrong on that one. And despite being a fringe candidate most of the season, Michelle Williams was able to sneak in and get a nomination for her great work in Blue Valentine (her co-star wasn't lucky enough to have the same fate). Jennifer Lawrence's subtle, but daunting work in the tiny indie Winter's Bone (which had a huge day) was able to sustain it's buzz from July, and get the young actress her first Academy Award nomination. Rounding out the five, were the two Golden Globe winners: Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right and overall front-runner Natalie Portman for Black Swan.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale, THE FIGHTER
John Hawkes, WINTER'S BONE
Jeremy Renner, THE TOWN
Mark Ruffalo, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Geoffrey Rush, THE KING'S SPEECH

**4/5 on my predictions**
There had been a lot of talk that John Hawkes would get a nomination for his gritty performance in Winter's Bone, and that conversation only got stronger when he received a SAG nomination. I thought The Social Network wave was strong enough to keep Andrew Garfield's humble performance in the race. I was wrong. I was afraid that Mark Ruffalo would be the culprit if Hawkes made his way in, so I didn't go for him. Luckily (well, unluckily for Garfield), we were able to get both. Jeremy Renner's fiery performance in The Town was able to get the actor his second nomination in as many years. The rest of the list is comprised of the two front-runners: Geoffrey Rush in The King's Speech and Christian Bale in The Fighter.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, THE FIGHTER
Helena Bonham Carter, THE KING'S SPEECH
Melissa Leo, THE FIGHTER
Hailee Steinfeld, TRUE GRIT
Jacki Weaver, ANIMAL KINGDOM

**5/5 on my predictions**
Still having trouble trying to grasp the fact that the Academy considers Hailee Steinfeld's role in True Grit as "supporting", but it is a pretty terrific performance, and her strong-minded cowgirl was able to bump out more high-profile candidates like the Mila Kunis and Barbara Herschey from Black Swan. Jacki Weaver was able to withstand Animal Kingdom's incredibly low profile and get a nomination (I'm told that it's a much deserved nomination, which is why I can't wait to get it on my netflix queue). The two Fighter girls, Adams and Leo, were able to keep their strong run growing (and I expect Leo's string of good fortune to continue - even though I'm genuinely surprised that she's not splitting votes with Adams). And Helena Bonham Carter fills out the ballot in a no-brainer nomination (has there ever been such a lock that has no chance of winning? Seems odd to me).

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Mike Leigh, ANOTHER YEAR
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION
David Seidler, THE KING'S SPEECH
Scott Silver and Paul Tamasay & Eric Johnson (& Keith Dorrinton - story), THE FIGHTER

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Michael Arndt (and John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich - story), TOY STORY 3
Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy, 127 HOURS
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, TRUE GRIT
Debra Granik & Anne Rossellini, WINTER'S BONE
Aaron Sorkin, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

**9/10 on my predictions**
Nothing too surprising here, unless you count Mike Leigh's nod for Another Year - but when Leigh is always the surprise screenplay nominee, doesn't that stop being a surprise? And despite getting snubbed once again as a director, Christopher Nolan gets his second career nomination as a screenwriter (the screenplay should be nominated just for the screenplay alone, because the screenplay itself has its splotches). Out of all the major categories, Original Screenplay is the most up in the air, since The King's Speech's David Seidler hasn't exactly pulled away, with The Fighter and The Kids Are All Right having a serious shot at winning. In adapted, all good work is represented. Even though I'd like to hope that Michael Arndt's script for Toy Story 3 has a real shot, this is really just a contest for who gets second place to Aaron Sorkin's extraordinary screenplay for The Social Network.

BEST PICTURE
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

**9/10 on my predictions**
127 Hours held strong, much to my (pleasant) surprise. And Winter's Bone finished off its magical run from a small Summer indie to a four-time Oscar nominee. True Grit rode ten nominations to a Best Picture bid, while Inception made the list (though when Nolan was forgotten once again, there was some real nervousness coming from the Inception camp) as well. The rest of the list went as expected, setting off a moderately enticing showdown between The Social Network and The King's Speech (not sure why I'd call something as arbitrary as an Oscar race as a "showdown", but that's what I heard Meredith Viera say on the Today Show). The two biggest snubs here? My beloved Blue Valentine was left off, while Ben Affleck's The Town was also snubbed despite strong evidence otherwise was beginning to arise before the nominations came out.

Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with their decisions. You can't make everyone happy - and in the case of Gosling, Moore, and Garfield, they certainly didn't make me happy - and the Academy did a relatively solid job of spreading the wealth. And for those of you wondering, I finished...

**82/105 on my predictions** That's 78%, ya'll. Easily the best I've ever done.

Final 2010 Oscar Predictions

2011-01-23T17:54:00.010-05:00

Official Oscar Nominations will be announced bright and early on Tuesday morning, and with that comes the final nomination predictions on this blog. What does it mean to correctly predict those nominated in each category. Absolutely nothing. But what does it matter at this point. It's all good fun, like picking which team you'd like to win the Super Bowl. As I do every year, I'll try to supply each category with at least one wild card choice because what's the fun of having the same choices as everyone else does? Oscar rarely goes chalk, so you might as well have fun trying to guess which surprises there may be. So, without further ado, here are my picks:

BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges, TRUE GRIT
Jesse Eisenberg, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Colin Firth, THE KING'S SPEECH
James Franco, 127 HOURS
Ryan Gosling, BLUE VALENTINE

I'm sticking to my guns: the Academy will not nominate two old men in Westerns, even if they are as legendary as Duvall and Bridges. Earlier, I was sticking with Robert Duvall's overall dull work in the overall dull Get Low, but since then, True Grit has turned into the highest grossing Western in what seems like decades (not to mention it is certainly the highest grossing film within the filmography of the Coen Brothers), so I'm going to go with Jeff Bridges rebirth of Rooster Cogburn. With that open spot, I'm predicting (hoping) that Ryan Gosling's brilliant performance in Blue Valentine gets to sneak into the top five. Eisenberg has become a lock over the last few weeks as The Social Network has dominated all precursor awards, while Franco and Firth have been sure things for months. Other possible spoilers: Javier Bardem, Biutiful; Paul Giamatti, Barney's Version; Mark Wahlberg, The Fighter.

BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Jennifer Lawrence, WINTER'S BONE
Julianne Moore, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Natalie Portman, BLACK SWAN
Michelle Williams, BLUE VALENTINE

I know, I know. You'll say that I've let my Julianne Moore obsession blind me. Well, that's true - in a way. Lesley Manville's performance in Mike Leigh's Another Year was a hot commodity ever since the film premiered at Cannes in March, but a lukewarm box office showing (not helped by a puzzling release schedule - still haven't gotten a chance to see the film) has really derailed her candidacy. Nicole Kidman's work in Rabbit Hole has consistently been recognized throughout the season, but that film has also had an underwhelming commercial showing. I would not be surprised if Julianne Moore, every bit as good in the film as Bening, gets her fifth career nomination here. Portman and Bening, both Golden Globe winners, are certified locks now, and Jennifer Lawrence has surprisingly sustained her awards attention this late in the game - which means she's built up good will, so I feel she's safe. Michelle Williams isn't a slam dunk (though she should be), but if I'm considering Manville and Kidman last minute scratches, then she should easily take the fifth spot. A few long shots that might spoil the party: Tilda Swinton, I Am Love; Noomi Rapace, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo; Hilary Swank, Conviction.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale, THE FIGHTER
Andre Garfield, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Jeremy Renner, THE TOWN
Mark Ruffalo, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Geoffrey Rush, THE KING'S SPEECH

This is the easiest category to predict, I feel. Even the winner seems obvious at this point. Since the beginning of awards season, Christian Bale has won close to every award for his portrayal of crack-addicted Dickie Ecklund, brother and trainer of boxer Mickey Ward, in The Fighter. Mark Ruffalo's astounding work as the free-love sperm donor in The Kids Are All Right may be dangling dangerously on the fence, but they couldn't possibly live with themselves if they didn't nominate that great performance, could they? I say he's still in (hopefully). Renner and Garfield both garnered unexpected traction once their respective films became commercial/critical smashes. As for Rush, his fantastic speech therapist in The King's Speech is the only thing standing in the way between Bale and his first Oscar. He likely won't come out with the win, but Rush will definitely get the nomination. Additional possible challengers: Justin Timberlake, The Social Network; John Hawkes, Winter's Bone.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, THE FIGHTER
Helena Bonham-Carter, THE KING'S SPEECH
Melissa Leo, THE FIGHTER
Hailee Steinfeld, TRUE GRIT
Jacki Weaver, ANIMAL KINGDOM

Based on things I've heard people say, if you've actually seen Animal Kingdom, then Jacki Weaver should be a slam dunk. But most people haven't - including me, but I have it coming soon in my Netflix queue. I'm gonna say her loyal supporters give her enough to sneak her in. Then there's the curious case of Hailee Steinfeld, who is the main character in True Grit, in almost every scene, yet she's being campaigned as "supporting". Hmmm. Well, she is very good in the film, so I think that she's in, but the level of category fraud here is pretty astronomical (all-time category fraud: newcomer Timothy Hutton as the protagonist in Ordinary People wins Best Supporting actor - pretty shameless). The two Fighter girls are locked into the top five and deservedly so, and Bonham-Carter's charming performance in The King's Speech has seemed like a lock for months, despite not really winning any of the precursor awards (it helps her, though, that The King's Speech is peaking at the moment). Still have a (long) shot: Mila Kunis or Barbara Herschey in Black Swan; Dianne Wiest, Rabbit Hole.

BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky, BLACK SWAN
David Fincher, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Tom Hooper, THE KING'S SPEECH
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION
David O. Russell, THE FIGHTER

I was sticking with Danny Boyle's directorial work for a long time in 127 Hours, but the film has faded quickly, and since many were turned off by Boyle's showiness to begin with, I'm going to have to leave him off this late in the game. Thanks to The Fighter taking off in December, David O. Russell has a cozy spot in the top five. The other four seem relatively safe, and I feel confident that this will be the five names announced tomorrow morning. The only one who may be slightly vulnerable is Nolan who, in a post Dark Knight universe, is always at risk with being left as a bridesmaid on nominations morning. Other candidates: Debra Granik, Winter's Bone; Roman Polanski, The Ghost Writer; and (duh) The Coen Brothers, True Grit.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Derek Cianfrance, BLUE VALENTINE
Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumber, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION
David Seidler, THE KING'S SPEECH
Scott Silver and Paul Tamasay & Eric Johnson (& Keith Dorrinton - story), THE FIGHTER

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Michael Arndt, TOY STORY 3
Simon Beaufoy & Danny Boyle, 127 HOURS
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, TRUE GRIT
Debra Granik & Anne Rosselini, WINTER'S BONE
Aaron Sorkin, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

As you may have noticed, I'm predicting a surprisingly nice pick-up for Blue Valentine on nominations morning. As much as I love Black Swan, its screenplay is its weakest point and I see it being dropped from the top five, and Derek Cianfrance's script manages to slip in. Inversely, I'm seeing a rather disappointing turnout for 127 Hours, though I do think it's clever, limited script will get recognition. The rest of the nominations feel pretty safe to me. In Original, Mike Leigh's Another Year or the Austrailian Animal Kingdom could be a possible spoiler. As for adapted, the race to lose to Aaron Sorkin could possibly be joined by Roman Polanski's contemporary film noir The Ghost Writer or David Lindsay-Abaire's script for the severely under-appreciated Rabbit Hole.

BEST PICTURE
Black Swan
Blue Valentine
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

So, yes, I am saying that the long shot Blue Valentine will make it onto the top ten. I see 127 Hours falling out, and with that I think the small, brilliant film from Derek Cianfrance will be able to sneak in. Most people have been claiming that The Town will take that open spot, but perhaps its my own ambivalence toward that film that ceases me from including it. Having ten nominations leaves the door open for mediocre crowd pleasers to make it in, which is what happened last year when The Blind Side was able to endear Academy members enough to a shocking nomination. That could happen again with The Town (though I'll admit that it's head-and-shoulders a better film than The Blind Side is), but I'm holding out hope. The rest of the nominations are somewhat predictable. True Grit's surprise commercial success has vaulted it into the picture, and Winter's Bone surprising endurance despite a small release back in July has seemed to have worked. But, I mean, The Social Network is going to win anyway, right? Well, the Producer's Guild awarding The King's Speech might have thrown us a curve ball.

Here are the rest of the categories:

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Danny Cohen, THE KING'S SPEECH
Jeff Cronenweth, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Roger Deakins, TRUE GRIT
Matthew Libatique, BLACK SWAN
Wally Pfister, INCEPTION

BEST ART DIRECTION
Guy Dyas, INCEPTION
Dante Ferretti, SHUTTER ISLAND
Jess Goncher, TRUE GRIT
Eve Stewart, THE KING'S SPEECH
Robert Stromberg, ALICE IN WONDERLAND

BEST EDITING
Tariq Anwar, THE KING'S SPEECH
Kirk Baxter & Angus Wall, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Jon Harris, 127 HOURS
Lee Smith, INCEPTION
Andrew Weisblum, BLACK SWAN

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Coleen Atwood, ALICE IN WONDERLAND
Jenny Beavan, THE KING'S SPEECH
Louise Stjernward, MADE IN DAGENHAM
Amy Westscott, BLACK SWAN
Mary Zophres, TRUE GRIT

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Alice In Wonderland
Harry Potter and The Deathly Gallows Part I
Inception
Iron Man 2
Tron: Legacy

BEST MAKE-UP
Alice In Wonderland
True Grit
The Wolf Man

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Alexandre Desplat, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I
Alexandre Desplat, THE KING'S SPEECH
John Powell, HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON
Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross, THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Hans Zimmer, INCEPTION

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"You Haven't Seen the Last of Me" from BURLESQUE
"Coming Home" from COUNTRY STRONG
"Sticks and Stones" from HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON
"We Belong Together" TOY STORY 3
"Shine" from WAITING FOR 'SUPERMAN'

BEST SOUND MIXING
Black Swan
Inception
Shutter Island
The Social Network
True Grit

BEST SOUND EDITING
Black Swan
Inception
The Social Network
Tron: Legacy
True Grit

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Biutiful (Mexico)
Dogtooth (Greece)
Even The Rain (Spain)
In a Better World (Denmark)
Incendies (Canada)

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Sptzer (dir. Alex Gibney)
Exit Through The Giftshop (dir. Banksy)
Inside Job (dir. Charles Ferguson)
Restrepo (dir. Tim Hetherington & Sebastian Junger)
Waiting for 'Superman' (dir. Davis Guggenheim)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
How To Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Toy Story 3

I could waste your time trying to predict categories the shorts category, but seeing as the only "finalist" that I've actually seen in all three of the categories is the animated Day and Night, I don't want to be silly and just post guesswork. Lord knows I already feel ridiculous predicting the two sound categories. Here's to nominations morning!

Made In Dagenham (**1/2)

2011-01-22T13:06:00.004-05:00

MADE IN DAGENHAM
Directed by Nigel Cole

**1/2

There are certain film actors that are imbued with such wonderful likability that they fill their screen characters with such unavoidable watchability. I think Sally Hawkins is the newest member of this group and in Made in Dagenham she continues this trend. As the Women's Rights activist Rita O'Grady (not a real person in history, but real enough for the movie I suppose), Hawkins charms the audience so much that it is almost enough to distract from the film's by-the-numbers screenplay and mundane, often scattered direction. She's able to make the movie a pretty fun experience when all is said and done, and even though we've seen a hundred movies just like this one before, at least we can appreciate the wit.

Rita is one of 187 women working for the famed Ford Company factory in Dagenham, England. They may not put the actual car together, but they sew and hem the fabrics and the leathers for the seats and the armrests. Doesn't seem like the greatest responsibility until you sit in a car seat that's busting at the seams, and you realize just how uncomfortable an improperly manufactured car seat can be. What these women do is skilled, complex labor, but yet, the Ford company does not feel like paying them as if it is. It doesn't help that the head of their union is more interested in indulging in free meals and round trips through Europe, than actually furthering their cause. But when the Ford Company treats them as merely a burdening issue that will soon go away with a little patience, Rita and her group of strong-minded, sharp-tongued girls leave the plant and go on strike.

Albert (Bob Hoskins), the girls' factory manager, brings up one point to Rita that they'd never considered. They will never get paid fairly because no matter what happens, women will always be paid less than their male counterparts. Why? Because the companies can do so, they will do so, and that is how it has always been. So, Rita, along with her witty group of girls decide they will not come back to work until equal pay amongst men and women becomes legislation. This alienates the men, who get laid off once the car plant cannot produce seat furnishing. This includes Rita's oafish, but lovable husband Eddie (Daniel Mays) - whose character has one of the single most hackneyed character arcs in movie history: love wife, made nervous by said wife, dismiss wife, challenge wife, break and come begging back for mercy; we know as soon as we see him.

It's not long before their equal pay strike and hits the news, and even captures the attention of Secretary of State Barbara Castle (a fiery performance from Miranda Richardson). Feeling a kinship to these women, Castle legitimizes their cause and stands behind it - but even she has political hurdles she must cross before making equal pay a reality. Made In Dagenham is the kind of movie where you do not even fathom there being a solemn note by the end, and seeing Barbara Castle's appearance only strengthens that. It's the kind of film that strategically moves all of its heartbreak to the middle - men berating them, trouble at home and in society for shutting down the plant - so that the ending is even that much more uplifting. Which is fine in the overall scheme of things, but it certainly leaves the movie without any real feeling of suspense, and when the screenplay itself decides to tell the story without any real edge or innovation, you walk in knowing what you're going to see once the opening credits come up.

But there is one major subplot that has real heart. It includes Lisa Hopkins (Rosamund Pike), the wife of one of the Ford agents trying to break the women's strike. When Lisa and Rita strike up a kinship, it seems a bit like an odd pairing, but Lisa presents a personal, realistic window into the world that these women are fighting against everyday. "I've got an Honors degree from Cambridge University," she tells Rita, "but my husband speaks to me like I'm a fool." In only a handful of scenes, Rosamund Pike's performance is gentle, but powerful, allowing a seemingly superfluous character make an indelible stamp on the film. So much so that I almost wondered what a film solely about Lisa would have been like, but I guess that's besides the point.

The film does have terrific performances. The factory women (including great work from Andrea Riseborough, Jaime Winstone, and Geraldine James, amongst others) are a hoot, not subscribing to the usual ladylike behavior that's expected from their fellow Englishwomen. They make snarky remarks, cuss, and have sex, and this group of actresses fills them with enough unapologetic charm that it doesn't seem like a put-on. And Hawkins (who I've loved since her masterful work in Happy-Go-Lucky) does do a good job in a kind of role she'd never tackled before. Does director Nigel Cole fully exploit her greatest qualities? Not all the time. I sometimes felt towards the end that Rita spent so much time crying that it made it hard for me to believe she could accomplish anything. But Hawkins is able to dig deep and bring soul out of a very sweet, overtly emotional woman.

I can't imagine anybody walking out of Made In Dagenham disappointed. It opened with a giant thud in America, which left its Oscar chances fleeting, at best. It's satisfying in the kind of way that fast food is, but certainly you could eat something a lot better - and surely Made In Dagenham could have had a lot more spark. As it stands, all of its excitement stems solely from its cast, which wasn't afraid to be bare of ethics and embrace crassness. I feel like there were a lot of wasted opportunities here. Perhaps too much time was spent trying to shoehorn the film into a lighthearted comedy. Either way, Dagenham is worth seeing for the performances from Hawkins, Pike, and James alone. And Miranda Richardson does score occasionally when she is on the screen. It's also a bummer to find out that Rita O'Grady never actually existed, but who knows, perhaps the real story could have been even duller.

Looking Back: Malcolm X (1992)

2011-01-21T11:17:00.004-05:00

LOOKING BACK: MALCOLM X (1992)
Directed by Spike Lee

Looking back on some of the best films from past years.

Few men are more larger-than-life than Malcolm X, and so it would seem that few men are more equipped to have a movie made about them. He was provocative, incendiary, memorable, but more than anything, he was a powerfully influential African American leader during one of the most tumultuous racial times in this country's history. But what director Spike Lee did with his film Malcolm X was smart; he did not make it a film about the Civil Rights Movement, but about the man Malcolm was. History has painted Malcolm X as an extremist, the inflammatory response to the peaceful preaching of Dr. Martin Luther King. Lee doesn't try to ignore Malcolm's more notorious moments, but rants become a lot more clear when you have a real understanding of who's doing the ranting.

I think Malcolm X may be the greatest biopic ever made (Sure, Raging Bull is probably a better overall film, but when you consider the true definition of the expression "biopic", Malcolm X embodies that phrase better than any other movie). It helps that the man behind the reigns is Spike Lee, because he was perhaps the only filmmaker at that time who wasn't afraid to make a film that will dutifully alienate white audiences. Malcolm X is an easier pill to swallow than his other masterpiece, Do The Right Thing, but it still holds in it that unapologetic braggadocio unique to Lee's filmmaking sensibility. As if to say, "This is a black man making a film about another black man, and that very film is for black audiences. If whites decide to appreciate that, well, that's just gravy."

The movie covers Malcolm X's entire life: from his beginnings as a two-bit hustler in Boston to leading millions of African Americans as the lead minister of the controversial Nation of Islam. It chronicles each and every evolution (which there were many) that Malcolm took which led to him becoming one of the most important Afro-American leaders in history. Lee does not focus solely on his most prosperous moments, but in fact, an entire hour and a half passes before the Malcolm X we know and learned about appears preaching on the streets of Harlem. And here is where I think the film is it's most audacious. When you look at other great biopics, such as Raging Bull or Lawrence of Arabia, the window of time covered is limited to the moments of the person's highest visibility. Malcolm X isn't only interested in the Muslim Malcolm X, but the criminal and convict that was Malcolm Little, and the more passive Malcolm X who emerged near the end of his life after taking a pilgrimage in Mecca.

But Malcolm X is a political film, or at the very least, it questions some of the political leaders of its time. It flatly shows the CIA playing a role in the assassination of Malcolm. It displays the Nation of Islam, led by the human deity Elijah Muhammad, as a double-crossing, insecure organization. The only person who is able to make it out of the film unscathed is Malcolm X. Many have given their displeasure that the film takes such a gracious stance with a man who has become so polarizing in the history books. But I don't mind it much. This is a film about the man Malcolm X, but more than that, it is a film told almost entirely from his point-of-view. When he's robbing and running numbers early in the film, we're with him. When he's a disrespectful, highly penalized prison inmate, we're with him. Even when he's a misguided, self-righteous spiritual leader, we're with him. Spike Lee's screenplay (written along with Arnold Perl) does such an excellent job of empathizing with this powerful personality, by casually showing us his flaws and insecurities, but never judging them.

Which leads me to the performance from Denzel Washington, which rises above simple imitation and physical transformation. Sure, it's admirable that Washington is able to embody Malcolm's essence to the point that we forget that we're watching a performance on the screen. But what makes this the greatest performance in this formidable actor's career is the transitions that he reenacts so effortlessly. Malcolm Little's transformation into Malcolm X in this film is not gradual (or else this movie may have been even longer), but rather violent and striking. But Washington is such a skilled performer and so honest, that he's able to find the true core of the character and make it feel gradual. And of course, he recitations of Malcolm's famous speeches (sometimes word for word) are engrossing and above all entertaining. Washington only lost his much deserved Oscar at the 1993 Academy Awards because people needed to finally award Al Pacino for his good, but pacifying work in the middling Scent of a Woman. History has shined kindly, though, and most realize that Washington really did have the year's best performance.

Is Malcolm X too long? At 202 minutes, perhaps. I would think that when you're capturing the essence of a man's entire life, a three-and-a-half hour movie is probably too short. You could probably have a valid argument against Lee tacking on a ten-minute epilogue to the film's end (you could say that it only restates what the previous three hours already had), but I think that is an example as to how personal and how important Spike Lee saw this film to be. I don't know if any other filmmaker would have been able to make this movie without it becoming stuffy and generic. Lee fills it with so much charm and energy, and he sustains it for such a long, arduous movie. It never slows down. So, yes, as a number, 202 minutes is too long for your average movie. But for Malcolm X? It's the appropriate length for one of the best historical films ever made.

2010: A (Film) Year In Review (with links!)

2010-12-28T18:37:00.010-05:00

So, here we are. On Friday night, we'll count down the minutes until the year of 2010 is finished and 2011 is upon us. Depending on how you look at it, 2010 was either the beginning of a new decade, fresh with its own new personality and cadence; or it was the tag end of the millennium's first decade, rounding out the Aughts with its own brand of wisdom unique to the other nine years. I've always been the kind of person who counts the "zero" year as the beginning of a decade, and not the end (it's hard for me to wrap my head around the concept that some people still consider the year 2000 as the end of the 90's; I imagine that's what Sports Illustrated was doing when they called this year's The Fighter the greatest sports movie of the decade), so for the sake of this post, we will count 2010 as the beginning of its own decade, but that does not mean that this year doesn't owe some credit to years previous for the creation of one of the better film years in quite a long time.

Earlier this year, The Hurt Locker won Best Picture at the Academy Awards and its director, Kathryn Bigelow, became the first female filmmaker to win the Best Director award. Sure, Bigelow's win was historical, considering the male-dominated world that film tends to be (not only was she the first one to ever win, but she was only the fourth one to even get a nomination. For those counting, that's 4 out of a total 410 slots - a whopping 1% ... barely). But The Hurt Locker's February haul (6 Oscars altogether) meant a whole lot more than breaking down gender walls. This was an action film, and more specifically, a war film - a genre that is almost always ignored no matter what the quality of the film may be (remember how many Oscar noms 1999's Three Kings got? 0). Watching it walk away with a bundle of awards felt like a changing of the guard in prestige Hollywood films, but I still wasn't totally sure if it was only going to be a one-year trend. 2010 has shown that it wasn't.

Guy Lodge of the website 'In Contention' wrote a nice little piece about how 2010 was a continuation of the 'Year of the Woman '. Considering the high Oscar chances for Lisa Cholodenko's The Kids Are All Right and Debra Granik's Winter's Bone, it's obvious that Lodge has an excellent point (Lodge's article does a good job of bringing attention to more female-helmed films than just those two). But I think if 2010 stands out for anything, it should be declared as the 'Year of the Actress'. I hate to judge a collection of films and performances in terms of Oscar, but this is true: seldom are the women's acting categories overflowing with choices, while the men are finding trouble, trying to scrap together a handful of performances worthy enough of a nomination (I mean, Christ, I've heard that Robert Duvall is still in contention for Get Low). Led by Natalie Portman's virtuoso performance in Black Swan, there were upward of ten wonderful performances from our leading movie stars, including both Annette Bening and Julianne Moore in The Kids Are All Right, Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine, Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit, Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone, Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole, amongst others. This wonderful collection of talent will have to be widdled down to five, and I'm not sure how you can make a case against any of these women getting in (though SAG has made it a bit simpler by referring to Hailee Steinfeld as a "supporting" performance - she's the film's protagonist, mind you).

This is the face that Bening and Moore make when someone asks them, "What are the chances of BOTH of you getting nominated?"

And 2010 was also a great year from auteur filmmakers being able to find critical and commercial success. Two years ago, both Danny Boyle and David Fincher were getting showered with awards for two watered-down films that were not at all indicative of those filmmakers' bravura - Slumdog Millionaire and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, respectively. In 2010, they returned with sharper, better films; more challenging and less crowd-pleasing. And alas, they find themselves in good position again. For Fincher, he's probably made the most talked about film of the year with the "Facebook Movie", The Social Network, which was a wondrous display of spitfire dialogue and American vanity. It was smart and funny, but was a steady return to Fincher's slick sarcasm which was unfortunately mellowed out in Benjamin Button. For Boyle, 127 Hours was a return to the fast, abrasive style that gained him recognition for films like 28 Days Later... and Trainspotting. Far from the Cinderella storyline of Slumdog, he made a film filled with such unstoppable energy that it makes up for spending almost the entire film in a mountain crevice in Utah.

Sure, 2010 was also delivered the terrible news of the disaster that became of Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, which crumbled just before the beginning of production. With every death, though, there is a resurrection, which is what we got in Roman Polanski's The Ghost Writer. His best film in years, Polanski showed that even in the face controversy, he's still skilled enough to make a smart thriller and one of the best Film Noirs in decades. Not to be outdone by his 70's filmmaking brethren, Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island was a beautifully shot, well-tempered suspense that had some of DiCaprio's finest acting. Darren Aronofsky's highly-anticipated Black Swan was another big auteur moment, as he released his first movie since 2008's brilliant The Wrestler. These were brave filmmakers getting recognition for the kinds of films that made them unique to begin with. Too often, these guys don't get recognized until they make a film that conforms to broad, Academy standards (case in point: Scorsese, The Departed; Roman Polanski, The Pianist), but not in 2010.

The one unfortunate part of 2010 was the still growing disparity between moviegoing audiences and the true quality moviegoing experiences. As Nathaniel Rogers of The Film Experience hilariously put, it seems like general audiences only really go to see four types of movies. Great movies like Toy Story 3 and Inception cracked the Top 5, but the rest of the Top 10 is a tightly woven collection of broad, effects driven films - often in connection with some type of forthcoming franchise (while the latest Harry Potter was certainly a well-executed picture, it's hard to ignore just how much of a gluttonous action it was to split the seventh film into two parts). While The Social Network and Black Swan have both performed well in their box office runs, their returns are graded on curves. Expectations for character-driven, auteur-produced films will always be low in terms of box office.

Why are bad movies made? Because people go to see them. Thus explaining that there will be a THIRD Transformers movie.

In independent film, there was the return of a couple guys who've been quiet for a few years. John Cameron Mitchell made Rabbit Hole, his first attempt at a mature, narrative-driven drama. While Noah Baumbach, seemingly hiding out since he made the atrocious 2007 film Margot at the Wedding, came out with the Ben Stiller vehicle, Greenberg, early in the year. Tim Blake Nelson, who hadn't directed a feature film since 2001's O, came out with the trippy Leaves of Grass which was one of the more under-appreciated movies of the year. Then, we had new arrivals on the indie scene, with filmmakers like Rodrigo Cortes making his first American film with the excellent Buried (or as some have gone on to call it, "The Coffin Movie"). Of course, we cannot forget Derek Cianfrance, who made his first feature length narrative film in Blue Valentine, filling it with such gritty brilliance that it ranks amongst some of the best love stories of the young 2000's.

I spoke with a friend earlier this month who explained to me why he thought 2010 was not a very good year in cinema. I guess it's a subjective matter. Sure, there was no movie this year that was as good as 2007's No Country For Old Men or 2004's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The kind of movie that is so good that you know once you've finished it, that it is a masterpiece. I think it's unfair to judge a year by how many "masterpieces" it produces, because how often do "masterpieces" come around anyway? I know this: seldom can I say that I was able to see a quality film every month of the year. In a film industry that unfairly scales all the greatness toward the Fall season, it's rare that you can go to the movies in February and see something exceptional (Shutter Island), and the same in March (The Ghost Writer, Greenberg), and the same in April (Leaves of Grass), etc. Even the Summer, so often derided for it's pandering toward box office favorites, had some quality stuff. Think of this, three likely Best Picture nominations (Inception, The Kids Are All Right, Toy Story 3) will have come out before Labor Day. We still have the usual December-heavy releases, but with such a great balance throughout, how can you deny 2010 its awesomeness?

I know I won't.

COMING IN THE NEW YEAR:
My Ten (Kinda) Best Films of the Year

The King's Speech (***1/2)

2010-12-26T19:59:00.009-05:00

THE KING'S SPEECH
Directed by Tom Hooper

***1/2

I'm sure that it's tough being royalty. It no longer holds the political stature that it did throughout history, but it still carries with it the emotional burden of being the face of an entire empire. You represent the present, while providing a glorious reminder of the fruitful past. The King's Speech is one of many films that deal with that burden, but it attacks the subject matter in a way that I've never seen done before. It funnels it through speech therapy - through the coverage of a debilitating stammer. It seems so inconsequential on the surface, but it's a testament to the film's stellar cast and excellent, exciting direction that this story becomes about so much more. It becomes a story of a man's search for self-purpose.

Prince Albert (Colin Firth), the Duke of York, has had a tough stammer for as long as he can remember. His father, King George V (Michael Gambon), has tried to cure him with ruthless pressure, trying to scream at Albert until his speech corrects itself. Surprisingly, this doesn't work. It doesn't help that George forcefully pushes Albert into positions where he must speak publicly. The film opens as Albert tries to make an address during the closing ceremony at the Wimbley race track. He can't even finish the first sentence. So Albert concedes his place, stepping back in fear of speaking, in fear of his father and the pressure of his position. After all, Albert is not the heir apparent - that position belongs to his older brother, Edward VIII (Guy Pearce). As long as George and Edward hog all the attention in front of the microphones, Albert will never have to worry about people teasing him for his impediment.

But Albert's headstrong wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter) does not approve of this form of resignation, though, and takes it upon herself to find someone who can help her husband. They've gone through all the royally-suggested options, but they were left with bull-headed physicians who try meaningless tactics like stuffing Albert's mouth with marbles or advising him to smoke cigarettes because it will "relax your throat". Nothing has worked. Elizabeth must go off the board, looking for a man that was referenced to her from a friend. This man is Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Australian man and former actor whose methods with his patients have been described as unorthodox and controversial. When Elizabeth explains that it is the Duke of York who will be the patient, Lionel gladly accepts to meet with him and help cure him. But it has to be under his rules.

Upon initial meeting, Albert is his usual curmudgeon self, dismissing Lionel when he says that following his strategy will help cure him. Lionel demands equality and trust. He calls the Prince by his family's pet name, "Bertie" - which Albert finds particularly distasteful. But when Lionel starts showing results, Albert is more keen to listen. He needs Lionel's guidance even more when King George V passes away, and soon after Edward abdicates the throne in order to marry his notorious, American mistress Wallis Simpson (Eve Best). Very swiftly, Prince Albert has become King George VI and with the threat of a Second World War coming right around the corner and Hitler quickly swarming across Europe, the British people need a king that they can stand behind. As Albert states, he is not needed to pass laws or declare war, but just to speak for the people. And with the help of Lionel, he hopes that he can do so softly and clearly.

The King's Speech has been one of the most anticipated films of 2010 (which is funny since it may very well be the last film I see of 2010). The film was directed by Tom Hooper, whose made a name for himself mostly in television, including the ingenious HBO miniseries John Adams. He directs The King's Speech with an energy that is much unlike most English costume dramas, using odd lenses and leaving actors out of center frame. He's unafraid to leave the image in imperfection, putting the audience in a place of unbalance, perfectly reflecting the discomfort of Albert's crippling stammer. In collaboration with cinematographer Danny Cohen, Hooper drenches the film in muted gray-bluish colors, creating the image of the bleak, cloudy England that is rarely showcased in most English films (that usually prefer to represent the UK as a world of wondrous colors - this film and Children of Men are the ones that got it right).

The film has received a lot of traction early in awards season, especially for the beautifully mannered performance from Colin Firth. The fifty-year-old actor is at his emotionally-reserved best, executing the stammer in a way that is effective without ever becoming distracting. But the best moments all lie within his weathered face that is able to show so much underneath the tough, elitist exterior. He should have no trouble receiving an Oscar nomination, but if he should manage to win, I would not object to it. But it should be noted that Firth's amazing work is boosted greatly by Rush's funny and poignant portrayal as the speech therapist. He doesn't play Logue as the snarky, sarcastic sidekick, but instead as a man with real confidence... and real insecurities. He believes in his methods, and not even an abrasive royal figure will change his mind on that. A key scene involving the two of them rehearsing before the King Ceremony is played with real conflict and intensity. Both actors hit exactly the right notes, leading fluidly to the speech that is the emotional highpoint of the entire movie.

There is also a slew of excellent supporting performances here, including Gambon who, while only limited to a couple of scenes, fills George V with such oppressive aggression that we instantaneously understand Albert's fear of him. Guy Pearce, as the liberal, womanizing Edward VIII, allows his character to be a bit of a wild card while never becoming an absolute scoundrel. He did, after all, abdicate out of love. Then there's Bonham-Carter, whose performance as Albert's wife is wonderfully comic and stern at all the right moments. It becomes obvious rather quickly that Elizabeth is the real mind and heart of their family, but she always allows Albert to think that all that responsibility lies at his feet. Bonham-Carter deserves a lot of credit for pulling this aspect off without ever drawing direct reference to it. Behind every king is a great queen, and Bonham-Carter makes Elizabeth seem like the best (certainly the most supportive) queen that any king could ask for.

The King's Speech is, in its heart of hearts, a genuine crowd-pleaser. It never goes in a direction that we don't expect it to. Every character that we expect to crack joke does, and every character we expect to deliver a brooding monologue delivers one right on schedule. In a way, that's part of its charm. Hooper doesn't make this film under the illusion that it's anything more than that, but he directs it with enough vitality that it seems different anyway. The performances here by Firth, Rush and Bonham-Carter are truly dazzling, but it's how they work together that really makes this film one of the most complete and satisfying viewing experiences of 2010. When we come to the end, and the rousing speech is made, we don't feel manipulated into celebrating what Albert has overcome. Because we've been able to connect with him so well, it's as if we truly understand him. Now, let's see if Firth can deliver that Oscar speech with as much spirit.

Blue Valentine (****)

2010-12-23T02:09:00.007-05:00

BLUE VALENTINE
Written and Directed by Derek Cianfrance

****

If you can play "You Always Hurt The Ones You Love" on the ukulele, you might as well use it to your advantage in your romantic ventures. It's the kind of talent that is humble and endearing, showcasing your unique ability while still holding a modest grip on its simplicity. In Blue Valentine, we see a man who is able to perform this act during a date with a young woman, and he gets the girl. Go figure. But the film from first-time feature filmmaker Derek Cianfrance is not about the finding and wooing of the young woman. It's about the finding, the wooing, the consuming, the marrying, the loving, the conceiving, the discovering, the hating, the forgiving, the loss of forgiving, before finally leading to the divorcing and the eventual destroying. It's a long, drawn-out process that could have become bloated and cold if put into to the hands of less capable actors and a much more pointed writer-director.

Dean (Ryan Gosling) is a high school dropout, who's a charming young man and has the ability to give an abundance of love to anyone who is willing to accept it. He cares about people, and enjoys doing so. He begins working at a moving company, and he has to help an old man move into his new home at an assisted living center. There, he meets Cindy (Michelle Williams), who is there to visit her sickly grandmother. She is a student studying medicine, and has a boorish jock for a boyfriend, named Bobby (Mike Vogel). She lives in an emotionally abusive home, with a father that's abrasive and a mother that's defeated and who has had all the emotion beaten out of her after decades of it all. But when Dean and Cindy first catch glances with each other, they make each other smile, and every thing else seems to fade into the background. They begin spending more time together, and Cindy leaves Bobby for Dean. There's one thing they know for sure: they are madly in love with each other.

Years later, they're married. Dean is still working as a laborer, but now he paints houses. Cindy has found work as a nurse, but she doesn't have a degree (we never learn what actually did happen with that). They have a daughter named Frankie (Faith Wladyka), for who Dean may or not be the father. They are bitter, going nowhere. Dean resents Cindy's career-minded behavior, and Cindy can't stand Dean's inability to rise above basic labor work. Dean has to practically beg Cindy to make love, and when they do, it's sterile and uneventful. Cindy leaves the gate open and their dog, Megan, gets away. Dean never stops drinking. It doesn't help that Frankie shows much preference for Dean's laid-back attitude, as opposed to Cindy's strict disciplinary measures. On the few occasions that they do catch glances of one another, all they see are old memories and dreams that they aborted for this family. They know one thing for sure: they are no longer in love with each other.

The film goes back and forth between these two times in their relationship: their meeting and eventual marriage, and their disintegration and eventual divorce. It's up close and personal, shot with handheld immediacy. The film cares very little about following a strict plot structure, and would instead rather spend two hours following Dean and Cindy as they waver in and out of love with each other. The "break-up romance" is a sub-genre of the romance film genre - which was invented by Woody Allen's masterpiece, Annie Hall, in 1977. The comparisons to Annie Hall are bound to be made by many because of it's non-linear storyline that goes back-and-forth between the good and the bad. But Blue Valentine is not a romantic comedy, even though it does have a plentiful amount lighter moments. It's filmed in a bleak, Cinéma vérité style that makes their romantic implosion that much more real and more heartbreaking. But despite the abrasive visual style, Cianfrance is careful and delicate in the way he portrays the content, making sure we understand the people and their actions.

By allowing most of the backstory to be inferred, Blue Valentine is able to cut out useless exposition and get straight into the story. We learn enough about Dean and Cindy by seeing their actions, how they act around certain people, and Cianfrance's screenplay does a superb job really forming the two of them with small details and telling lines of dialogue. When we see Dean sit down for a job interview at the moving company, we know within two minutes that he is a free-spirited, blue collar guy. When we see how Cindy cares for her grandmother, especially in the more personal matters, we can tell that she's a caring, dedicated individual. It's a spectacular balancing act that Cianfrance pulls off, but Gosling and Williams are talented enough to really make it work. Their performances are raw and arresting, some of the best screen acting of the year (and they didn't even get noticed among their own brethren for SAG nominations - what a shame), and if neither of them walk away with Oscar nominations, it would be terribly disappointing.

Blue Valentine is brilliant in its simplicity. My only worry is that its modest stature amongst the other gargantuan Fall movie releases will lead to it being unseen. It's never great when your main source of publicity is an NC-17 rating controversy (it was re-adjusted to an 'R' after Harvey Weinstein personally showed up and lectured the MPAA appeals board about how not explicit the film is). The film's stark sexuality is one its highest achievements, as it is able to accurately both display sex of passion and sex of routine. Truth be told, there is nothing actually explicit in Blue Valentine, but there are few films that show sex in such a realistic way. I can see how it could scare the MPAA, because they like to think that sex in movies is done on tables and counters (and nobody's hair ever gets messy). But Blue Valentine is about all the messy parts of love, and it doesn't leave the sex out of that equation.

Love stories come and go in cinema, but seldom do we get something as honest as Blue Valentine, with such wondrous performances and inspired directing. Often, films like this are dismissed as "having no plot". I don't believe this is a fair criticism, because it does have a very real plot, it just decides not to structure the entire film around it. Instead, the characters are behind the wheel here, and when you get such beautiful work from your two lead actors, you tend to flirt with perfection. There are a lot bigger films coming out toward the end of 2010. Films that will dwarf Blur Valentine in terms of attention and box office receipts. But Derek Cianfrance's film doesn't strike me as the one that will only strive if people go out to see it. It's a humble masterpiece.

True Grit (***)

2010-12-23T01:56:00.006-05:00

TRUE GRIT
Written for the Screen and Directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

***

Chances are, if you're watching a John Wayne film, you're watching a western of the highest quality. Stagecoach, The Searchers, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance are all amongst the best of the most American genre. But if you've seen 1969's True Grit (for which Wayne the Oscar for Best Actor), you've seen one of the worst of the genre. So, when I heard that the Coen Brothers' newest film was a remake of one of my least favorite films, I felt a bit dismayed. The 1969 True Grit was campy and sentimental, which seemed like everything that Coens had well avoided throughout their careers. But their reinvention of this classic revenge story has some freshness to it, and is made with such delicate care and grace that it almost allows me to forget what an unpleasant experience watching the original was. Almost.

Based on the all-time classic novel by Charles Portis, True Grit tells the story of Mattie Ross (played here by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld), who seeks to find the man who cowardly killed her father. That murderous man is Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). She's a very capable young girl. She's able to hassle an old horse trader into paying $120 more than he wants on a pair of ponies. So, when she is told by the town's deputy sheriff that Tom Cheney is near the end of a long laundry list of accused being searched for at the moment, she decides to go out on her own and hire someone whose sole purpose will be to find Cheney. She asks who is the best US Marshall for the job. There are many good trackers who could get the job done, sure, but the meanest is Rooster Cogburn (the John Wayne role, played here by the one and only Jeff Bridges). He's a man with "true grit", as they say. It's fitting that when Mattie first sees him, he's sitting in a courtroom recounting how many men he's killed - it's 23.

Bridges' Cogburn is the key to what makes this film flourish where the original floundered. Jeff Bridges is playing the role of Rooster Cogburn, where John Wayne was playing (no real surprise here) John Wayne. The Cogburn of 2010 is much more grizzled - much more gritty, if you'll excuse the obvious adjective. He's more cold and calculating, yet a little more open. He allows us to get inside. It's odd that a man who seems more cut off can also seem more approachable, but that is the wonder of Bridges. The Cogburn of 1969 was brash and unafraid, but was also whimsical, bordering on campy. I wondered why he was tagging along with Mattie, and vice versa. I did not have that problem in 2010. Bridges delivers the comic lines with so much of a dry sensibility, yet they're so much funnier. The Coen Brothers did a great job of stripping the character down to its bare essentials, and let Bridges embody it fully.

Rooster and Mattie are joined by LeBoeuf (Matt Damon), a Texas ranger who has also been searching for Tom Cheney, but for murders he committed in the state of Texas. He tells them that his expertise on Cheney - he's been searching for him for months - will help Cogburn's expert tracking. But Leoeuf wants Cheney taken back to Texas and tried for his crimes, while Mattie specifically wants him taken to Arkansas to be hung specifically for the crime of murdering her father. Cogburn is only concerned about getting paid, so to hear Mattie and LeBoeuf bickering is not an ideal start to their trek. Finally, they come to a mutual agreement and head out toward Cheney who is likely to be hiding out in Indian Territory as a member of the gang led by Lucky Ned Pepper (played by the aptly cast Barry Pepper).

The Coen Brothers have often dabbled in classic film genres, usually making allusions to 1940's Film Noir (Miller's Crossing and The Man Who Wasn't There) and 1930's Screwball Comedy (The Hudsucker Proxy and Intolerable Cruelty). They've never made an all-out Western, though No Country For Old Men had some of the characteristics. As usual, they attack the genre in a way that's loyal to its sensibilities, while still holding onto their own unique style and voice. Like most Westerns, it relishes in its scenery. Here, it's the wooded terrain of Texas. Along with their usual cinematographer Roger Deakins, they photograph the surroundings with gorgeous, yet dry, brittle colors. It's probably an academic thing to say that a Coen Brothers film "looks good", but True Grit is really a wonder to watch, capturing a way that is harsh, authentic, but still aesthetically beautiful.

One of my main objections of the 1969 film was its uneven screenplay, which was so heavily slanted toward its bloated first act that it felt terribly slow. The Coens chop it down, though, and tighten its entire plot to make it move smoother. There are times when the plot moves a little too smooth (there's very little in the way of suspense here), but once we get to the end, we feel like we've seen everything we needed and are comfortable with everything we've watched. This is the fourth film by the Coens in the last four years, but the previous three were all brilliant dissections of the darkness and absurdity within American culture (No Country, Burn After Reading and A Serious Man). This is a bit of a vacation from that: a straight genre piece that's impeccably made and capably acted. It's the lesser of the four films - definitely the least ambitious. But it's still a very engaging as an action film, and very captivating as a drama with characters that draw you in.

A lot of Oscar noise has been made about Bridges and Steinfeld getting Oscar nominations for their performances (though Steinfeld is running a 'Supporting Actress' campaign, which makes no sense, since she's the film's main protagonist). I wouldn't object to either of them getting nominated, since both performances are slick, well-written, and mannered without seeming histrionic or melodramatic. Steinfeld, in particular, is incredibly capable as the strong minded young woman with revenge on her mind. When she has her big showdown at the end with Cheney, none of her actions surprise us, and she's able to hold her own amongst such brilliant performers as Bridges and Damon. True Grit is not amongst the greatest within the Coens' resume, but that's not exactly saying anything bad. It is a lot like the Coen Brothers to think that they could make a successful film in a genre that hasn't succeeded in decades. I guess they have true grit.

The Fighter (***)

2010-12-19T12:25:00.007-05:00

THE FIGHTER
Directed by David O. Russell

***

Sports movies are by the books. They always follow the same storyline: beaten underdog must overcome enormous odds to make it to the top of the mountain. And there's only two outcomes: either the underdog defies all the odds at the last second, reaching his ultimate goal (Miracle, Major League) or falls at the last second, still filled with pride to have gotten the opportunity (Rocky, The Bad News Bears). Even the gritty, realistic The Wrestler followed this blueprint. David O. Russell's The Fighter - the story of boxer, 'Irish' Mickey Ward - is no different (interestingly enough, Darren Aronofsky started working on The Wrestler after dropping out of this film). It's an almost seamless translation of the American sports film tradition, but it still works incredibly well. In order to rise above the usual the usual well worn archetypes, you have to have great actors embodying interesting characters, and there's plenty of that in The Fighter.

It certainly should be said though, that the story is less about boxing and more about family. If this film is rooted in even an ounce of truth (and Mickey Ward, himself, has said that it's as close to reality as it could be), then the Ward/Eklund family is like something out of Shakespeare - a motley crew of tragic, almost vaudevillian misfits that are all scratching for their own interests. At the center of everything is Mickey (Mark Wahlberg), who's trying his hardest to invigorate a young welterweight boxing career. His climb is frequently undermined by his family with his half-brother, Dickie (Christian Bale), also being his trainer and his mother, Alice (Melissa Leo), is also his manager. Together, Dickie and Alice send Mickey into a slew of bad fights and he develops the reputation of being a bum. A stepping stone. The kind of boxer that other up-and-comers like to chew meat on before getting to the fight that they really want. But Dickie and Alice are family, and if Mickey knows anything, it's loyalty.

A former boxer himself, Dickie has always been Mickey's best sparring partner and has taught Mickey everything he knows. Once upon a time, Dickie got his own shot to fight Sugar Ray Leonard and was able to knock him down. Over time, he's evolved into a local legend within his town of Lowell, MS; garnering himself the nickname "The Pride of Lowell". Since then, though, he's fallen on tough times, developing a harrowing addiction to crack cocaine. When HBO approaches him to make a documentary, he thinks its going to be about his big boxing comeback. In reality, it's about Dickie's catastrophic descent, allowing his drug dependence to totally swallow what could have been a successful career. Dickie is so oblivious to his role in his own disintegration, and it doesn't help that Alice, along with the rest of the family (which includes seven sisters), still treat him like the Pride of Lowell and not the junkie he's become.

So with Alice more concerned about Dickie's reemergence in boxing, and Dickie preoccupied with getting his junk, Mickey is often left to fend for himself, getting thrown into fights that usually lead to him getting pulverized. He doesn't even think to speak up, until he begins a relationship with Charlene (Amy Adams), a strong-minded bartender who does her best to convince Mickey that he will only move forward if he leaves his family behind. So back and forth Mickey goes, struggling to choose between the logical advice from Charlene and his own blood. I'm not sure most people would have trouble with this decision, but it says a lot about Mickey that he actually struggles with it. It's an interesting dynamic that The Fighter has, in that Mickey may be the most passive boxer I've ever heard of - he's certainly the most passive one in the movies. Alice and Dickie and Charlene are so dynamic when they're on the screen, that Mickey often becomes an afterthought.

And so we come to The Fighter's biggest flaw, and that is that Mickey may be the fifth most interesting character in the movie. We don't necessarily root for Mickey, as much as we root against everything that has held him back. Too often, I found myself frustrated by his inability to make the film's tougher decisions - instead, usually leaving them for Dickie or Charlene. And too often, I found myself wondering how different a film about Dickie may have been (perhaps, better?). To say that this is a movie about Mickey Ward seems misleading. It's a movie about the entire Ward/Eklund family, and their collective effort to rise to prominence again. Well, at least, that's the more interesting part of the movie. In the credits, we have a small scene with the real Mickey and Dickie, in which Mickey claims "I never get a word in, edgewise." I guess I can applaud the film on its authenticity, but to headline a film with someone so unwilling to make a statement sometimes left me a bit numb as how to feel about him.

But there is a collection of wonderful acting talent here. Even Wahlberg is good, he's just not given particularly juicy material. The real star is Bale, who is all kinds of mannered and jumpy as the strung-out Dickie. Eklund is not malicious, and does care very much for Mickey and his boxing career, he's just clueless. Bale does a fantastic at showing subtle glimpses of the soft mama's boy underneath the gritty addict. He may be vocal about his boxing comeback, but we can always see it in his eyes - he knows that his boxing days are over, and all hope that he has is invested in Mickey. As the horribly misguided Alice, Melissa Leo plays the film's strongest antagonist, fighting shamelessly for all the glory she has little to do with. If she can't get her champ with her favored son, Dickie, she's willing to settle on Mickey, even if it means selling him down the river. Leo's performance is appropriately wicked, but warm at all the right moments, never letting Alice walk down the path of complete monster. As Charlene, Amy Adams is fiery, defying her meek, virtuous reputation in what is one of the finest performances of her young but impressive career.

This is easily David O. Russell's best film since 1999's Three Kings (which has become one of the most unsung film masterpieces of the last three decades - beautifully blending action comedy with politically-fueled drama). He's spent the last ten years trying to overcome negative responses to his films (2004's I Heart Huckabee's was oddly brilliant at times, but never really found its audience; 2009's Nailed never got released) and bad publicity from altercations with various actors on set. You really only need one good film to leave all that behind, and The Fighter may just be the broad-enough crowd-pleaser that could do it. A lot of the visual technique here is taken right out of the book of Martin Scorsese (though, oddly enough, not from Raging Bull; but more alluding toward Goodfellas and Casino), while some other moments borrow from more classic Hollywood sports movies. It seemed odd that Russell - who's always kept style consistent in all of his films - decided to go all over the map on this one, never really settling on a specific storytelling device (or a protagonist, for that matter) to steer the ship.

I can see The Fighter taking off with American audiences, because it exploits the underdog storyline better than any sports film in many, many years. And by telling Mickey Ward's story through the prism of his family, it manages to rise above the cliche. I'm still wondering if a Dickie Eklund movie may have been even more interesting, but the chances of that happening may not be very likely (not to mention that The Fighter pretty much is a Dickie Eklund movie - he dominates the screen). It'll never surprise you, but it's charming, brimming with warmth and suspense in all the right moments. It has a prime collection of professional actors who all bring some inspired work to the screen. Every year, there is a film that will make you groan with its shameless pandering toward end of the year awards. At least The Fighter will make you smile.

Black Swan (***1/2)

2010-12-17T03:19:00.007-05:00

BLACK SWAN
Directed by Darren Aronofsky

***1/2

On the surface, it seems odd to hear Darren Aronofsky talk about his latest film, Black Swan, as a "companion piece" to his 2008 film The Wrestler. One is a gritty journey of realism that is told from the abrasive world of the wrestling mat. The other one - the newer one - is a surreal psychological thriller about the ravishing art of ballet. But there are a lot of similarities, both thematically and visually. In The Wrestler, Aronofsky stripped down one of the more brutal physical activities (professional wrestling) and really exposed some of its beauties, showing how the form can be seen as an art form. It's the inverse in Black Swan, though, as the alluring grace of ballet is broken down into its most unattractive and emotionally demanding. And both show the kind of obsessive personality it takes to perfect either activity... and neither is too pretty.

Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a perfectionist, which is a very valuable asset in the New York City Lincoln Center Ballet in which she performs. Her meticulous dedication to her craft has vaulted her to the very top of the dancers in her troupe, and this has captured the attention of her sultry, but punishing French instructor, Thomas (Vincent Cassell). Thomas' latest show is a modest, but visceral "re-imagining" of the classic Swan Lake, and he chooses Nina to play the lead role: the captivating Swan Queen. The part is broken into two sides: the virtuous White Swan, and the seductive Black Swan. Thomas knows that Nina has the innocence and precision to master the White Swan, but does she have the passion and emotion to create a palpable Black Swan? Thomas hopes to bring it out of her, but finds it hard to overcome Nina's stringent, almost too perfect, mechanics. She's spent her entire life consuming herself in her dancing, so when Thomas asks her to "let loose", it doesn't come terribly easy to her.

That Nina never obviously comes across as the archetypal "naive girl caving under the pressure" is a testament to Portman's technically proficient performance. Nina's not a deer in headlights, but is in fact someone becoming harassed by her own mind. When Thomas uses his own pulsing sexuality to bring the Black Swan out of Nina by kissing her passionately in his office, she bites his lip. This is not the behavior of a girl who is shy or tentative, but someone whose own sexual repression runs very deep. Thomas asks her if she's a virgin, and for a second she has to think about it, before responding meekly, "No". It's pretty hard for the audience to believe her. Any passion that she may have comes through in her technique but not in her execution, and to everyone else in her life she's cold and unresponsive - careful to light up her beautiful, but fake smile to anyone can see it. In trying to become the allusive Black Swan, Nina's biggest obstacle is herself.

Of course, the people in her life don't make it any easier. In addition to Thomas' various advances, there is the arrival of the ethereal Lily (Mila Kunis). She's friendly, but also wild and fierce, with an exotic tattoo nearly covering her entire back. Basically, she's everything that Nina is not. Thomas and Nina watch as Lily moves through her routine on the practice floor, not nearly as skillfully as Nina, but certainly more effortlessly. "She's not faking it," Thomas tells Nina. In terms of a screenwriting concept, Lily works pretty brilliantly as a foil, and is embodied in an entrancing performance from Kunis. Lily works to bring Nina out of her steel shell, but her threat in the dance house sends Nina further down the rabbit hole of fanatical practice. When Thomas casts Lily as the Swan Queen's alternate, Nina becomes convinced that Lily is trying to destroy her.

The script to Black Swan (which is credited to three different writers, though none of them seemed to have worked on it together - for the sake of this review, though, let's just credit Andres Heinz, who apparently created the script's "story") is exposed by the end of the film to be a pretty generic psychological horror film. I guess it's up to individual viewers to decide to whether or not that's a bad thing. But Aronofsky is able to kink the storyline to make sure that the haunting brutality of ballet stays one of the main themes. It goes beyond the physical toll of practice. A sub-plot including Thomas' former main star and lover Beth Macintyre (Winona Ryder) is important, showing the possible fate of these professional performers. Thomas has cast her aside for Nina, but Beth isn't particularly supportive of Nina's newest venture as the Swan Queen. The flip side of that is the character of Erica (Barbara Hershey), Nina's mother. She was a former dancer who now lives solely to see her daughter succeed on the stage. But her maternal love is extreme, transitioning from unrelenting support to controlling oppression, making sure that Nina's obsessive behavior does not change. Making sure that Nina lives out the dream that she was forced to leave behind.

If you look through Aronofsky's films, from The Wrestler to Pi and Requiem for a Dream, we can see that he enjoys characters with that have radical, sometimes draconian behavior (do you remember Aronofsky's other film, The Fountain? The main character is trying to cure cancer). Black Swan is not much different, as we see that Nina's meticulous preparation leads to her own mental disintegration. I found it to be unnecessary that the film occasionally relies on the convenient crutches of the thriller genre (moving still figures, characters popping up from out of nowhere), especially considering how well the intensity and suspense is ratcheted by simply following the frightening transition happening within Nina's mind. Frankly, Black Swan's flaws are prevalent and real, not imagined or subjective to the viewer.

Perhaps, it is Aronofsky's own comparison to The Wrestler that put expectations of Black Swan so high. The film's themes cross over, but they're also shot in a similar fashion, utilizing handheld 16mm throughout. But that worked to supply The Wrestler with the gritty realism that it really needed. Cinematographer Matthew Libatique does some truly beautiful work in Black Swan (and it is important to point out that the two films did have different DPs), but it clashes at moments with the film's ethereal surrealism. By the end, the film evolves (or devolves, based on your interpretation) into a 'Is it in her head or isn't it?' psycho-drama, and the shaky, docudrama shooting style is not exactly a perfect match with that. I know it's unfair to compare Black Swan (a film I've seen for the first time just recently) to The Wrestler (a film I love and have seen upwards of twenty times), but it's hard to separate the two. Especially after Aronofsky went out of his way to call them "companion pieces".

Watching this film reminded me greatly of the viewing experience I had during Danny Boyle's 2007 film Sunshine - which was basically Boyle's masterpiece until an unfortunate third act that allows it to tumble into a place that's far less sophisticated then anything that preceded it. Black Swan is a better film than Sunshine, and Portman's performance here is far more outstanding then any of the acting in Sunshine as well. But they both share that same flaw. But do the flaws within Black Swan in fact make it a 'flawed film'? I feel like I'd have to see the movie again in order to answer that honestly, but my early answer is no. Whether or not you care for its sometimes easy thrills (I blow hot and cold on it), Aronofsky's film is a truly intense experience all the way through that is careful to show the beautiful and the savage behind the elegant art of ballet. It contains a collection of excellently casted actors, led by transcendent work from Natalie Portman. It is probably the most interesting film of the year, if not the most hyped; and whenever you can get career work out of someone as talented as Portman, you have no choice but to take a look, don't you?

Rabbit Hole (****)

2010-12-16T00:31:00.006-05:00

RABBIT HOLE
Directed by John Cameron Mitchell

****

Everyone grieves differently. Some turn to rage, some turn to silence... others turn to misery. Some will get over it, some will die trying. Rabbit Hole is a film that addresses grief in a pretty interesting way, allowing us to take peeks at several perpetually nuanced characters who must deal with the death of their children - and how they do so in different ways. It's a well-worn film theme, but John Cameron Mitchell's new film manages to tell the story in a refreshing way that feels painful and poignant - never allowing the heavy content to overpower the overall good-natured ideals of the characters we see. Based on the Pulitzer Prize winning Broadway play by David Lindsay-Abaire (who also penned the film's screenplay), it'll be hard to find a film in 2010 that is as emotionally-gripping as this one.

The film follows a young married couple, Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart), who are struggling with the death of their young son, Danny. It's been eight months since the accident, but it still doesn't seem like closure is anywhere nearby. Howie tries to be constructive, inviting Becca to accompany him at local support groups filled with grieving parents. But Becca is unresponsive. Even worse, she's abrasive and attacks those who try to console her. Every step she tries to take toward any kind of catharsis is always thwarted by a memory, a bleak reminder of the young boy she used to have. "Does it ever get easier?" Becca asks her mother, Nat (played with exquisite grace by Dianne Wiest) who has also had to deal with the unfortunate death of a son. Nat responds, "No... but eventually it becomes bearable."

Danny's school artwork laces the refrigerator and his room is wall-to-wall with colorful clothes and noisy toys. A stay-at-home wife, Becca becomes bogged down by all these images and the weight of his death. She begins to wonder if life will ever be able to go on. But life does go on, whether she wants it to or no. Howie is able to continue on at work, playing squash with his friends and trying his best to maintain a normal life - the life he had before Danny's death. Not that he's forgotten Danny. He still watches old family videos that are saved to his phone and he quite enjoys looking at Danny's artwork. But the weight affects him in a different way, and his burden seems to manifest itself in frustration and perturbation. He works hard to help Becca cope, but she'd rather cope on her own and that divide has left Howie in a negative place that he fears very much. The divide is taking a toll on their marriage, as their tempers become short and their arguments become very, very explosive.

Many of the scenes within the screenplay are set-up to present Becca and Howie with harsh reminders of what they've lost. It's a testament to the skill of the actors and the delicate balance of Lindsay-Abaire's script that it never seems that way. The real flow of the film is in how they both react so differently. When Becca's rambunctious sister, Izzy (Tammy Blanchard), announces that she's pregnant, the young couple are both forced into positions of fake happiness and helpfulness. When Gaby (Sandra Oh), a friend of Howie from the therapy group, admits that she and her husband have been going to therapy for over eight years, they both become visibly fearful of their future despair, but Becca is open about it, while Howie is quiet and polite. I'm not totally sure that Rabbit Hole shines light on moments of grief that haven't been in countless other films with the same theme, but it's the film's powerful characterization that sets it apart. We really feel for these people. When Howie and Gaby smoke weed before one of their meetings and subsequently laugh at one man's recounting of his rage in dealing with his daughter's death from leukemia, we somehow feel like we like them all the better for it.

This is the third film from independent director John Cameron Mitchell, who previously made 2001's Hedwig and the Angry Inch and 2006's Shortbus. Both of those films dealt expertly with sexuality - though mainly the search for sexual identity (which may be why Mitchell sometimes gets pigeon-holed as a "gay filmmaker"). Rabbit Hole is a very effortless change of pace in both theme and tone. It's his first film that is based on a script that he didn't write himself and is also the first time he's been able to work with legitimate Hollywood actors (the main star of Hedwig? Mitchell, himself). We can see that Mitchell trusts his actors and allows them to fire up and simmer down appropriately, staying out of their way in the more important moments. Some of his technical choices (Mitchell and cinematographer Frank DeMarco employed more handheld camera then I think was necessary) were puzzling, and expose some of the few flaws that the film has. In Mitchell's attempt to draw less attention to the camera (a whole lot less then Shortbus and Hedwig), he actually creates what most be his most off-balance film, camera-wise. Oh! The irony...

It may be silly to talk about a film as thematically powerful as Rabbit Hole and get stuck on technical minutia, since that is not the focus of this kind of film. Surely, Mitchell is able to put his own visual stamp on the film in other ways. One way, is through the character of Jason (Miles Teller), who is a young man with a budding talent in graphic art that has captured the attention of Becca. She follows his school bus to his home and stalk him all the way into a library. SPOILER ALERT!! (not really) When they finally begin talking face-to-face and develop a relationship, he surprises us with his true relation to the story. Jason's artwork appears several times as a visual motif, reflecting perfectly the anguish and twisted emotions that travel through all the characters. Animation is common in Mitchell's films, and while subdued here, still allows the movie to have a very John Cameron Mitchell-y feel.

But Rabbit Hole is most definitely an actor's film, though. Which is why it's wise that Mitchell allows them to roam freely. Kidman and Eckhart, playing so well off of each other, really execute something very difficult: they play the grieving parents with occasional histrionic emotion, while never allowing the performances to become over-the-top. Both characters grow exponentially through the film, almost to the point that their roles in the relationship completely switch by the end, but the two actors make it feel natural and realistic. I've never been a huge fan of Kidman, whose always been so emotionally cold and distant in her approach, but really instills the character with a dynamic resourcefulness and legitimate warmth in what may be the best performance of her storied career. And veteran actress, Dianne Wiest, so kind and wise as Becca's mother, really gives the film some much needed tenderness and perspective. The supporting turns from Teller and Oh are both effective, adding dimensions to the characters of Becca and Howie, respectively.

Rabbit Hole may get eaten alive by critics for its occasional visual miscues, but doing so will be ignoring what is truly powerful here. In John Cameron Mitchell's short filmmaking career he has established a reputation for being a talented visual director, but that takes a backseat throughout this film. And because of all that, I may have enjoyed Rabbit Hole more than any other film from 2010. It's honest and carefully told. It surprised me in moments where I least expected it to and contained performances that affected me deeply. It's not a perfect film aesthetically, nor is it flawless thematically, but it gives the audience an emotional experience that was absent from any film I'd seen in a very long time. It's unlikely that Rabbit Hole will attract much awards attention outside of a Best Actress nomination for Kidman (perhaps an adapted screenplay nom for Lindsay-Abaire?), which is a shame. But it should definitely be ranked amongst the best films of the year.

Biutiful (**1/2)

2010-12-14T00:01:00.008-05:00

BIUTIFUL
Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu

**1/2

It would appear that the very talented Mexican film director Alejandro González Iñárritu loves making his audience gloomy. He's never made a bad film, but he's never made a particularly happy one neither. 'Who cares?' many may ask. I don't, particularly. Especially when you consider that this process has lead to films as excellent as 2003's 21 Grams and 2006's Babel. With his latest film, Biutiful, Iñárritu really pushes the boundaries of how much sorrow a single audience can take, and may have pushed clear off the map. His talent behind the camera is very much present - as well as a terrific performance from it's lead star, Javier Bardem - but Biutiful never really takes the time to acknowledge how good these two aspects of the film really are. Instead, it prefers to wallow in its own anguish.

Bardem plays Uxbal, a father of two young children who uses his vast resourcefulness to provide for them. He's so resourceful, in fact, that when he's pricked too hard by a nurse who needs a blood sample, he snatches the syringe away from her and extracts the blood himself. His business ventures aren't totally legitimate; he helps foreign immigrants find work in urban Spain. He bribes police officers so they can allow immigrants from Senegal to have open street vendors in the city, and he pays a Chinese sweat shop owner (Cheng Tai Shen) to hire needy Chinese immigrants in his warehouse. And Uxbal gets a hefty piece of all profits made. He does a careful job of teetering between helping and exploiting these people, but he always has the utmost respect for all them. He also has one specific, mystical talent: he has a connection to the afterlife. Many hire him shortly after the death of loved ones and he can speak with them briefly. This also gets him some cash on the side.

But Uxbal also has cancer, which has already spread so rapidly throughout his bones and organs that doctors can only hope that chemotherapy sessions can provide him with a few extra months of life. He's been forced into a position of vulnerability, which is difficult for him, because he's so used to being in control. His erratic ex-wife named Marambra (Maricel Álvarez) struggles with bipolar disorder and has an issue with drug abuse, but he's still in love with her. He's a good father, knowing the delicate balance between good-natured fun and discipline. He's sure to take his young son and daughter to school every morning, but with Marambra's constant and disruptive interruptions in their life, he's finding it hard to keep his control over them as wel. We can tell very early that Uxbal has given Marambra many chances, and throughout the film he gives her a few more.

There are other subplots. One involving Marambra's affair with Uxbal's brother and business partner Tito (Eduard Fernández). Another involving the Chinese sweat shop owner and his tumultuous relationship with his partner and lover (Luo Jin). These side steps are usually what allows the film to dip into its more indulgent moments, exploiting miserabilism to its fullest potential. Iñárritu is known for creating films with multiple story lines, but there's no debate as to who's story Biutiful is. Uxbal, as well as the performance from Bardem, dominate this entire film. It is the story of this man's need to discover he must ask help from others. That he must learn that all the problems that encompass his life cannot be solved by him alone. Everything that works within Biutiful has to do with this character.

That Biutiful meanders so often on tangents that have nothing to do with Uxbal is probably the fault of Iñárritu. For the first time, he works without his usual screenwriter, Guillermo Arriaga. Arriaga has shown a masterful talent for layering various conflicts within a screenplay so that they work together as one. With Iñárritu being the primary screenwriter here, things are not flowing quite as smoothly. For all intensive purposes, it probably would have helped if he wasn't such a revered film director, because someone would have had the balls to tell him that he should make this script a lot (a lot) tighter before shooting it. The fact that relatively minor characters are filled with such rich details and backstory is honorable, but there comes a point where I no longer care about the Senegalese and Chinese immigrants, and want to see more of Uxbal.

And the reason for that is because Bardem's work here ranks amongst the finest screen performances of the year. Already a well-respected actor, Bardem only solidifies his status with a performance that is such a brilliant mix of emotional torment and brutal physicality. Throughout Biutiful, Uxbal is decaying in several different ways, and as an audience, all we have to see in order to know this is Bardem's wonderfully controlled expression. The Spanish movie star has worked so often in American films lately (including an appearance in the very commercial Eat, Pray, Love), that it's almost a revolution to see how comfortable he becomes in his native language. In No Country For Old Men (for which he won the Oscar), it was his enigmatic, androgynous look that did a lot to help the performance. But Biutiful (along with his other brilliant, Spanish-language performances in Before Night Falls and The Sea Inside) is all Bardem and the raw emotion he's able to scrap up from deep inside.

I believe that Iñárritu is a fantastic filmmaker, but in his first break away from Arriaga, he seemed to struggle greatly in telling such a complex storyline. He's a member of that boom of talented Mexican filmmakers that also includes the likes of Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men) and Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth) - and he may be the most consistently exceptional out of that group. I liked Biutiful overall, but its flaws are not subjective and pondering, but glaring and real. And while Iñárritu has never made the most uplifting films, Biutiful almost seems to relish in its own depressing content. Bardem, as all brilliant actors can do, really drags the material out of the dregs and makes it bearable. But Iñárritu is not always going to have actors as good as Bardem - especially if the scripts continue to be this unfocused - so let's hope that Biutiful is not the start of a trend.

Love and Other Drugs (**1/2)

2010-12-05T14:51:00.006-05:00

LOVE AND OTHER DRUGS
Directed by Edward Zwick

**1/2

You don't see many mainstream American films that are as open about sex as Love and Other Drugs, and for that alone, I guess the film deserves some credit. Of course, it's a little easier to get away with making a film about sex, when your two leads are as fabulously beautiful as Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway. America loves beautiful people, they love beautiful naked people, and they especially enjoy two beautiful naked people having sex with each other (remember when Julia Roberts married Lyle Lovett?). But is Love and Other Drugs really about sex? Is it just a crutch to get people interested in the film? If that's what it's about, why isn't it called 'Sex and Other Drugs'? I'm not totally sure about any of those questions, and I'm not sure that the movie itself knows either.

The film takes place in 1996. We know this immediately because the film opens with the song "Two Sisters" by The Spin Doctors (major movie pet peeve: obvious soundtrack choices). There's Jamie Randall (Gyllenhaal) working at a consumer electronics store. He's flirty with the female customers (of all ages), chummy with the male customers, and overall a pretty shameless salesman with a very ample talent for charming people into smiling. Is he particularly good at selling things? Not really, but he's exceptional at using that charm to sleep with women. Before the end of his work day, he'll be fired for sleeping with his co-worker (and his boss' girlfriend)... in the store's stock room. It's obvious that his main focus in life is finding physical love with many, many women. It seems to get in the way of the development in the other aspects of his life.

Unemployed, he decides to become a pharmaceutical representative at Pfizer, doing his best to sell Zoloft to doctors who are more interested in, you know, helping people. He's mentored by Bruce (Oliver Platt), an eccentric, Tumms-chugging sales veteran in pharmaceuticals who thinks Jamie is the key to the top of the business. Eventually, Jamie uses his greatest gift (his libido) to get his foot in the door with Dr. Knight (Hank Azaria) who's willing to sell Zoloft instead of main rival Prozac if Jamie is able to get him some quality women (I'd like to think that this is an area in the film that is poorly generalized, but in the Age of Cynicism, I don't think I can be too confident in that). When Jamie poses as an intern when Dr. Knight goes in to see a patient, Jamie meets Maggie Murdock (Hathaway). She says she needs a renewal on her Parkinson's medication and would also like Dr. Knight to examine a spot on her breast, and Jamie isn't shy about peeking in on the examination.

Very, very soon afterward, Maggie discovers Jamie's fraudulence and attacks him in the parking lot. Their tension resolves itself quickly, though, as they escape to Maggie's apartment and have very tempestuous sex on her floor. At first, it's simply a physical relationship, with Maggie pulling away every time Jamie tries to treat her like some kind of girlfriend. She keeps her distance knowing soon enough that he'll be uninterested once her Parkinson's becomes more prevalent between them. A new drug is introduced at Pfizer, rumored to help men who have trouble performing in bed. Yes, Viagara. Bruce thinks Jamie is the guy to sell it, and pretty soon, Jamie is at the top of the drug market. He tries to hang on to Maggie and have her accompany him on the springboard to success, but she has her doubts. Now, Jamie finds himself choosing between a skyrocketing career and a woman he may be falling madly in love with.

I'm totally sure that Viagara would even be in this film if the script weren't a technical adaptation of the Jamie Reidy book, "Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagara Salesman". I'll simply claim ignorance when it comes to my knowledge of Reidy's book, but I will say this: if his book is anywhere near as vapid on the issues of the ethics of pediatricians or the reality of living with Parkinson's Disease, then I will have to say that this is a book that is terribly drab. Sure, Love and Other Drugs does contain a much-needed scene where Maggie attends a meeting with a collection of people sharing their own personal suffering at the hand of Parkinson's. It's the only time when the film truly embraces the disease - until then it's really only a tertiary plot point that occasionally makes cameos between montages of Jamie distributing boxes of boner pills. Sure, there are a few finger tremors from Maggie, but there's not much else.

And then there's the character of Josh; Jamie's fat, obnoxious brother. The role is played by Josh Gad, who is a bit of a Jonah Hill look-a-like and fills the character with such boorish, inane piggishness. Because director Ed Zwick felt the film needed a punch of immaturity, Josh finds his way into Jamie's life after getting kicked out by his wife. He sleeps on Jamie's couch, but gives the film such a high number of disruptions that his very existence in this story could be questioned. Which is the film's central issue: too often, it finds itself tied between the boyish, laugh-a-minute sincerity of Judd Apatow and the swaying romanticism and melodrama of Cameron Crowe. The overall identity of this film is mystifying to me, because it's blending of raunch and victorianism made the movie feel totally off balance. When we're finally getting into the thick of Maggie and Jamie's relationship, we don't need a scene of tubby Josh masturbating to a home video of them having sex. But we get it nonetheless.

But there are certain things in Love and Other Drugs that work very well, including the performances from Hathaway and Gyllenhaal. Their ability to overcome the seemingly shallow way that the film covers subjects such as degenerative disease and the medical process says a lot about their ability. There is a dangerous imbalance between the comedy and the drama, but the two actors never fall into the awkwardness. Gyllenhaal has never been more charming, and even though Jamie is a real shitheel to start the film, his transformation doesn't feel too hokey - though he owes the script no favors for that. Hathaway, already established as one of the finest American screen actresses of her generation, has one of her more adventurous roles. The fact that the two have exquisite chemistry together doesn't hurt, because the film's greatest moments usually involve the two of them on the screen together.

A lot of the lukewarm reviews have singled out the performance of Josh Gad as the thing that neuters the film's effect. That is a bit unfair, because for all the indelicacy that Gad brings, he does do what he's asked to do: bring sophomoric humor. And I'd be lying if I said he didn't make me chuckle here and there. But his performance is a microcosm of where this film goes astray: it's screenplay. It wants to be Knocked Up and Terms of Endearment and Jerry Maguire all wrapped up into one, and by making all those tones balanced, the film itself becomes unbalanced. That said, I still like the concept of a studio film embracing its own liberal sexuality, but the issue is that Love and Other Drugs doesn't always embrace it. A small part of Zwick's film still wants to be the safe, adorable romantic comedy that appeals to a broad audience. You can't have it both ways.

127 Hours (***1/2)

2010-11-29T01:08:00.006-05:00

127 HOURS
Directed by Danny Boyle

***1/2

In telling the story of Aron Ralston, there are few film directors I would have preferred more than Danny Boyle. When you know that the majority of a movie is going to be a guy stuck in the same spot for an hour and a half, you'd like the guy making the movie to bring a lot of energy. And that's what Boyle has brought to any film he's ever made: a great abundance of energy. In his first film since the Oscar winning Slumdog Millionaire, Boyle moves toward a more singular story - even if the visual style isn't much different - in telling the harrowing and infamous tale of Ralston's journey at the bottom of a canyon.

Played with stunning physicality and captivating charm by James Franco, Ralston is displayed as a rambunctious thrill-seeker, taking very little time to think before his next great (or dangerous) adventure. When we first see him, he is waking up in the middle of the night, preparing for his morning hike through the Blue John Canyon in the Utah desert. He rides his bike haphazardly over small hills and valleys, looking for nothing in particular. Hiking is not about the destintion for Ralston, it's about the adventure itself. So, who cares if your front bike tire ramps off a small bush of dry grass which catapults you twenty feet through the air, landing on your back. For Ralston, that's all part of the fun. And he always makes sure to take pictures.

So hungry for excitement, Aron approaches two young women (played by Kate Mara & Amber Tamblyn) who are lost near the canyon. He volunteers to help them and tells them that he's a guide (in reality, he's just an engineer), leading them to a spring at one part of the canyon that you have to slide down a crevice to get to. It's something of a make-shift water slide, and this act endears him to the two girls. But as soon as his guide duties are finished, he does not follow them elsewhere. They invite him to a house party where they promise free alcohol and a giant inflatable Scooby Doo. He accepts the invite... tentatively. Then he's off.

Trekking deeper into the canyon, the space gets smaller and smaller. The walls start to close in on each other and the sun begins to hide. As Aron tries to climb over a boulder, it slips out and he falls. The boulder has trapped his arm underneath it and he cannot get it out. He screams the names of the girls he'd been with moments earlier, but he's so deep down that no one can hear him. At this point, I'm sure most of us know the story. Aron Ralston has run the media gambit telling his queasy story of survival, but part of the greatness of 127 Hours is how it tells us just about every thing we didn't know - and that's all in Aron's mind. How do you survive 127 hours with only a burrito and five hundred milliliters of water? We already knew how Ralston survived physically, but Boyle's latest film shows us how he did it mentally.

A picture of the actual Aron Ralston with his arm trapped under the boulder. Proof of the film's impeccable attention to detail. Franco and Boyle used the actual, seldom seen recorded footage of Ralston stuck in the canyon to make the film further more true to the actual story.

Everybody knows one thing about Aron Ralston: he amputated his own arm so he wouldn't die in a Utah canyon. We can imagine the kind of spirit and will that a person must contain in order to perform an act like his - we can also imagine the desperation. If there's one thing that I appreciated about 127 Hours, was that it did not default toward histrionic melodrama to visualize that desperation, as it would have been so easy to do. We are not shown a man with an unbridled will to survive - we see a charming, adventurous young man who's put in a very foreboding situation, who has to make difficult decisions about whether or not he even can survive. Ralston's story has become the stuff of folk tale, but this film does its best to present him as a very engaging human being not a back-against-the-wall hero. This makes his actions - even though we already know what they are - seem even more heroic.

You can credit the screenplay (written by Boyle and his Slumdog co-scribe Simon Beaufoy), which does an excellent job of forming an empathetic character without having the flexibility of being able to set up a strong backstory. But I feel all of the power emotes from its director and main star. Danny Boyle takes a chance by giving the film a very steady, borderline upbeat tone, utilizing his usual breakneck editing style and inspired soundtrack choices (a montage scored by Bill Withers' "Lovely Day" is particularly exceptional). And James Franco also rolls the dice with his stunning performance here. It would have been so easy to play Ralston with a brave desperation that lionizes him (you want to try and convince me that Daniel Day-Lewis wouldn't have played it that way?), but instead makes him a bit reckless, slightly nonchalant, almost unaware of the severity of the situation. It's hard to do a scene where the main character has to drink a bag of his own sterile, days-old urine without making it seem histrionic, but Boyle and Franco downplay it almost gracefully. I fully expect Boyle and Franco to receive Oscar nominations for their work (if they don't, it would be criminal).

The film was a bit of a Slumdog Millionaire reunion of sorts, since both films have the same production designer (Suttriat Larlarb), cinematographer (Anthony Dod Mantle), and film scorer (A.R. Rahman) - in addition to Boyle and Beaufoy. This shows in much of the visual aesthetic, t
where the two films are very similar throughout. Both films have a very strong forward movement that are manifested in camera effects, quick shots, and an astonishing use of color. But 127 Hours hit me a whole lot harder between the ears than the 2008 Best Picture winner did. Perhaps the character of Ralston just stuck with me more than Slumdog's Jamal did. One thing that can't be disputed, James Franco is a much more seasoned acting talent then most of the no-names in Slumdog, but this film goes beyond just the performance from it's lead actor. All the glitz and style was used to serve the story and the character, which I don't think was always the case with Slumdog.

I really feel like 127 Hours will get better with repeated viewings. The film's final moments felt long to me and there were some storytelling decisions in the last act that I may have questioned. Perhaps that has more to do with my own heavy anticipation of the ending, than it does with the ending itself. Despite all that, we still have this: the work that Boyle and Franco combine to do here makes one of the best movies of the year. It's a story of survival, sure, but a psychological survival more than anything. As a member of the audience, you expect a big physical release by the time his arm has become detached. But you don't get that. What you get is something you never saw coming.

Thanksgiving Oscar Predictions

2010-11-25T13:22:00.010-05:00

We're coming close to December. On December 3rd, The National Board of Review will give out their awards for the best films of the year and Oscar season will have officially kicked off. By that point, we'll be drowning in various critics' top ten lists and various organizations listing off nominations. Simply stated, we'll have less speculation at this point, and more solid predictions will arise. So, while we still can, less throw caution to the wind and make some (not so) educated guesses about how things will plan out when the Academy announces their nominations on January 25th. There have been very little changes in the last month or so. The King's Speech and The Social Network are still the two biggest Oscar sure things (at least as far as Best Picture goes), but soon Black Swan and 127 Hours will be heading toward general audiences soon. There are too many films (like Blue Valentine, Another Year, and Barney's Version) that are coming out in late December to January, so picking them is still pretty much a shot in the dark. But, since we still have no precursors to go on, I'm still going to take a shot and say they'll be in there in the long run. After all that, here's my Thanksgiving picks:

Best Actor

Robert Duvall, GET LOW

Colin Firth, THE KING'S SPEECH

James Franco, 127 HOURS

Ryan Goslong, BLUE VALENTINE

Mark Wahlberg, THE FIGHTER

There are two performances that I'm still clinging two, even though I have my reservations: Duvall and Wahlberg. I've seen Get Low and I know how unremarkable the performance and Duvall's performance is, but I still think there is a lot of good will developed between Duvall and the acting community in Hollywood. If he could win an Oscar for his sleepwalking performance in Tender Mercies, I think he has a good shot getting nominated here. That being said, there is always an old man slot in the Best Actor category, and this year it's between Duvall and Jeff Bridges' performance as Rooster Cogburn in True Grit. One of them will get nominated in 2010, but not both. With Wahlberg, I'm really going on the trailer for The Fighter, which look terribly uninspired (and Wahlberg seems to be absolutely dominated as an actor by Christian Bale). But people have been talking about how good Wahlberg could be in this film for so long, and sometimes people don't like to admit when they're wrong (evidenced by Angelina Jolie getting a nomination for the mediocre Changeling in 2008, while Sally Hawkins' excellence in Happy-Go-Lucky got snubbed - still haven't gotten over that). Firth and Franco both seem pretty cemented in their two spots, but that fifth spot is still uncertain. I'm giving it to Ryan Gosling for his seemingly stripped-down role in Blue Valentine, but I'm not confident in that pick whatsoever right now, and could easily be supplanted by other candidates. Other candidates: Javier Bardem, Biutiful; Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network; Paul Giamatti, Barney's Version.

Best Actress

Annette Bening, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

Sally Hawkins, MADE IN DAGENHAM

Jennifer Lawrence, WINTER'S BONE

Natalie Portman, BLACK SWAN

Michelle Williams, BLUE VALENTINE

I guess I'm further proving that I still haven't gotten over Hawkins' snub in 2008 (Happy-Go-Lucky was one of the best films that year and she's basically the main reason why), because I'd like to think that the Academy still feels bad about it and are going to throw her a bone for her supposedly inspired performance in Made In Dagenham. She's far from a sure thing at the moment. There are only two of those at the moment: Annette Bening and Natalie Portman. People have been raving about Black Swan since its Venice Film Festival premiere, and Portman in particular. The same could be said about Annette Bening after The Kids Are All Right's modestly successful box office run this summer. The other three spots are really just a crapshoot. There's Hawkins, who I think will become more of a sure thing as we move forward (the film looks fantastic, despite the fact that it seems like prototypical Oscar fodder). Other than that, there are two modest performances in small, independent films. First is Michelle Williams, who is said to be incredible in Blue Valentine, but will anyone be able to see it with its December 31st release? Then there's 21-year-old Jennifer Lawrence, whose stunning work in Winter's Bone (which I've seen) has kept steam despite a modest July run in theaters. In a fair world, Lawrence would be a lock. Other candidates: Anne Hathaway, Love and Other Drugs; Julianne Moore, The Kids Are All Right (Category fraud? We'll get to that later); Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole (who I'd put in the final five, if it were 2004 - but she's still has to prove something after the last few years of mediocrity).

Best Supporting Actor

Christian Bale, THE FIGHTER

Sam Rockwell, CONVICTION

Mark Ruffalo, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

Geoffrey Rush, THE KING'S SPEECH

Justin Timberlake, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

It's a bit disappointing that Mark Ruffalo's fantastic performance in The Kids Are All Right has been losing nomination momentum, but I still have faith that it'll work out in the end. Other than that, only Rush and Bale feel like safe bets in what is probably the most unpredictable of the acting categories. For the final two spots, I decided to side with two more unconventional predictions (though, with such lack of clarity in this spot, I don't think any pick should be considered to controversial). I'm in the minority with thinking that Justin Timberlake has a better shot for a supporting actor nomination than his Social Network co-star Andrew Garfield. It's certainly a more showy performance and you can't overstate Timberlake's overall popularity (will not be surprised at all if I end up being wrong about this, though). Then, there's Sam Rockwell heavily admired performance in Conviction as the wrongfully jailed brother to Hilary Swank's hard-nosed attorney. The film itself got a lukewarm response, but there was nothing but praise for Rockwell. Other candidates: Ed Harris, The Way Back; Bill Murray, Get Low; Bob Hoskins, Made In Dagenham. Yeah, it's a weak year.

Best Supporting Actress

Helena Bonham-Carter, THE KING'S SPEECH

Lesley Manville, ANOTHER YEAR

Julianne Moore, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

Miranda Richardson, MADE IN DAGENHAM

Diane Wiest, RABBIT HOLE

I'm taking a bit of a leap here, thinking that Moore and Manville (two Best Actress candidates) will hop over to the categories that they have a better shot in. Moore is fantastic (and she is a co-lead, not supporting), and I feel like people are going to find a way to get her nominated - but there's too much of a logjam in the lead category. I haven't seen Another Year (though it's #2 on my list of anticipated 2010 films - if you care), but I've heard that Manville is only a lead in terms of screentime, but is not the film's main star or protagonist. It's a flimsy line, obviously, but I'm exploiting it. The other three are simply obvious choices; three famous actresses in particularly bait-y roles. Richardson and Wiest are two veteran performers (of course, Wiest has already a two-time winner in this category) who are getting great marks for their turns. There hasn't been that much said yet of Bonham-Carter in The King's Speech, but if the film strikes gold on nomination morning like everyone expects, she's just popular enough to get a generous sweep into a nomination (think Alan Alda's puzzling nomination for The Aviator). Other candidates: Rosamund Pike, Made In Dagenham (might bump out Richardson); Amy Adams or Melissa Leo, The Fighter; Jackie Weaver, Animal Kingdom.

Best Director

Darren Aronofsky, BLACK SWAN

Danny Boyle, 127 HOURS

David Fincher, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Tom Hooper, THE KING'S SPEECH

Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION

When in doubt, just pick the five most talked about films and pick the directors. That's basically what I did here, trying to balance out the directors who are helped by the film (definitely Hooper and, to a point, Nolan) and the great autuers who've already made names for themselves (the other three). The one limb that I'm going out on: all five are (relatively) young guys and only Boyle has won one before. Usually, Oscar doesn't want to spend too much in uncharted territory and nominating both Aronofsky and Fincher in the same year seems a little good to be true (the only time Fincher ever got a bone was for the atrocious Curious Case of Benjamin Button). But I'm going to stick with them. The only one that gives me some trepidation is Tom Hooper, who is a relative unknown for The King's Speech, and it feels much more like an "actor's movie". Not that filmmakers shouldn't get nominated for making performance-based films, but other than Mike Leigh, when has that ever happened? Other candidates: Mike Leigh (hey now!), Another Year; Lisa Cholodenko, The Kids Are All Right; David O. Russell, The Fighter.

Best Picture

127 Hours

Another Year

Black Swan

The Fighter

Inception

The Kids Are All Right

The King's Speech

Made In Dagenham

The Social Network

Toy Story 3

If I haven't made it obvious enough already: I've almost completely lost faith in the idea of The Fighter being a great film, but I still think it could make a strong run at some Oscar nominations (after The Blind Side debacle last year, I guess nothing is impossible). As for everything else, the only big leaps I'm making is Made In Dagenham making the cut over more critically acclaimed films like Winter's Bone or heavily-hyped Christmas releases like True Grit (I adore the Coen Brothers, but the original John Wayne film was horrendous, so my expectations have been lowered quite a bit because of that). Black Swan is on thinner ice then I'd like, but I would find it hard for the Academy to snub it in a category that is now ten spots wide and Another Year should make the list based on Mike Leigh's reputation alone. The easiest choices: The Social Network, 127 Hours, and The King's Speech. They can be considered retroactive locks pretty much. Then there's the tenth spot, which we've learned from last year will probably be reserved for the Best Animated Film. Toy Story 3 has been the greatest film of 2010 so far (still have so much left to see in only one month), and if it's Best Picture status isn't considered cemented at this point, it would be a travesty. Other Candidates: The Way Back; Rabbit Hole.

Here's the rest of my predix (w/out exhaustive commentary). Enjoy!

Best Original Screenplay

Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumber, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

Andres Heinz and Mark Heyman & John Mclaughlin, BLACK SWAN

Mike Leigh, ANOTHER YEAR

Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION

David Seidler, THE KING’S SPEECH

Best Adapted Screenplay

David Lindsay-Abaire, RABBIT HOLE

Michael Arndt, TOY STORY 3

Simon Beaufoy & Danny Boyle, 127 HOURS

Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini, WINTER’S BONE

Aaron Sorkin, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Best Cinematography

Jeff Cronenweth, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Matthew Libatique, BLACK SWAN

Anthony Dod Mantle & Enrique Chediak, 127 HOURS

Wally Pfister, INCEPTION

Eduord Serra, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I

Best Art Direction

Stuart Craig, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I

Guy Dyas, INCEPTION

Jess Gonchor, TRUE GRIT

Kalina Ivanov, THE CONSPIRATOR

Eve Stewart, THE KING’S SPEECH

Best Editing

Tariq Anwar, THE KING’S SPEECH

Kirk Baxter & Angus Wall, THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Jon Harris, 127 HOURS

Lee Smith, INCEPTION

Andrew Weisblum, BLACK SWAN

Best Costume Design

Coleen Atwood, ALICE IN WONDERLAND

Jenney Beavan, THE KING’S SPEECH

Louise Stjernsward, MADE IN DAGENHAM

Janty Yates, ROBIN HOOD

Mary Zophres, TRUE GRIT

Best Score

Carter Burwell, TRUE GRIT

Alexandre Desplat, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I

John Powell, HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON

Gustavo Santaoalla, BIUTIFUL

Hans Zimmer, INCEPTION

Best Visual Effects

Alice In Wonderland

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part I

Inception

Iron Man 2

Tron: Legacy

Best Make-Up

Alice In Wonderland

Black Swan

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part I

Best Animated Feature

How To Train Your Dragon

The Illusionist

Toy Story 3

Somewhere (***)

2010-11-22T23:36:00.005-05:00

SOMEWHERE
Written and Directed by Sofia Coppola

***

I think we can safely assume that Sofia Coppola doesn't think much about a life of Hollywood excess. Much like her fantastic 2003 film, Lost In Translation, her latest movie Somewhere follows a famous Hollywood actor at a crossroads. Of course, this crossroads sits between copious amounts of alcohol and fancy prostitutes. I imagine that it's incredibly difficult to make a film about an irresponsible, bloated, over-praised actor and make him seem likable. Now, having just finished Somewhere, I can say pretty confidently that Sofia Coppola has pulled off this feat twice and pretty effortlessly to boot. Of course, Somewhere isn't on the same level as Lost In Translation, but it has some truly great moments.

Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) is a successful American actor who lives out of a hotel room at the infamous Chateau Marmont in Hollywood. His life is pretty simple: he invites people over for parties, everybody drinks, and he does his best to sleep with one of the women there. During the day, he may have the occasional press junket for his latest action film, but he's such a professional at this point that he can sleepwalk through all the questions and get home in time to view a pair of blond twins perform a choreographed striptease in his bedroom. There's very little of substance in Johnny Marco's life, but it doesn't seem to bother him much. Even when he breaks his arm, he walks around plaintively with his short cast as if it wasn't even there.

But Johnny does have some responsibilities. He has an eleven-year-old daughter named Cleo (Elle Fanning), who always seems to arrive at unscheduled times. Johnny's not a great father, but he's warm and loving. The fact that he can play Guitar Hero competently and orders Italian gellato in the middle of the night seems to make up for the fact that he isn't even aware that Cleo has been a practitioner of ice skating for three years. He also lets her spend an abundance of alone time with his funny, but occasionally sleazy friend Sammy (Chris Pontius, in the least surprising performance by a non-actor movie star I've ever seen). I thought more would be made about Sammy's ominous hovering over Cleo, but nothing materialized. That's a theme in Somewhere: things not materializing.

When Cleo's mother decides to skip town for an ambiguous amount of time, Johnny is left to take care of his daughter for the first time in what is probably a very long time. How does Johnny cope? Well, he just has her tag along. He even takes her on a trip to Italy, where his film is having its overseas premiere. Cleo cooks for the two of them whenever she can, but when she can't they just have room service. They play Wii, they listen to songs, and swim in pools. All very usual stuff for the two of them. Even when Johnny invites a former lover to stay in his room (the same room he shares with Cleo, mind you), the momentary conflict between them fades softly away. When they return to the States, Johnny prepares to take Cleo to her Summer camp, and all the while tries to reexamine the totality of nothingness that has consumed his life.

It's pretty hard to talk about the film's plot without making it seem boring, and perhaps that is the point. Johnny's life is a stream of endless vapidity and boredom. Long, meandering pauses permeate the film, while loud alternative rock music blares in the background. It's a testament to Sofia Coppola's talent as a writer and a filmmaker that Somewhere doesn't turn itself into pretentious monotony (I feel I may be in the minority here - if many found Lost In Translation uneventful, then this may feel to them like a shot of Valium). Her ability to craft such poignancy and character in such little moments is rather exhilarating to watch. The fact that she is able to show so much about Johnny and Cleo while having such limited dialogue between the two of them is interesting. It's certainly not a recipe for box office success.

I found myself so heavily drawn toward those great, smaller moments that it allowed me to forgive the more methodical, pondering sidebars. You know a scene or a shot has become too long when you find yourself asking as a viewer, "Well, we've been looking at this thing for such a long time; how come I can't figure out its symbolic meaning?" Luckily for Coppola, there are plenty of pithy, overzealous film students who are ready to grasp at straws and find the "meanings" for her. Myself, I just notice that Coppola is admirer of what many may see as mundane. She finds it endearing. And it's that warmth toward what many dismiss as "boring" that makes her films feel so endearing. But Somewhere really does challenge its audience, and sometimes even I was left scratching my head. Perhaps it's Coppola's defiance that will go on to define her filmmaking career, but it's hard to think that any of her films would even be made if she didn't have a certain movie legend as her father (you'd like to think that we could write about Sofia without mentioning Francis Ford Coppola, but it may take a few more films before that happens).

As I've always said, I prefer to see a filmmaker swing and miss then take the pitch. Somewhere was a giant porn hack, and I believe there was a lot more ambition here than the apathetic tone may allude to. If anything, it gets fantastic performances from its two main stars, Dorff and Fanning. Fanning, especially, plays the part with a much needed vibrancy, adding the occasional valley in a film that feels like an emotional plateau. The film is also is one of the more damning portraits of celebrity that I've ever seen, displaying the facetious life of American movie stardom as little more than free drinks and fake compliments. Not that many audiences are that interested in watching a man be miserable despite his numerous riches. Simply stated: Somewhere is about as great as a film that suppresses conflict can be.

So, where does that leave us? You may remember that I had Somewhere ranked #4 on the list of films I was most excited to see in 2010. I don't think it completely lived up to that ranking, but it did win the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, so I don't think my enthusiasm was totally unwarranted. I fully expect this movie to get swallowed during its release at the end of the year, but I hope its not totally forgotten at the theaters. There's a certain segment of Hollywood that still seems to care about trying something different and I feel like America needs a movie like Somewhere every once in a while. Audiences need to get challenged now and then.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (***1/2)

2010-11-21T22:40:00.005-05:00

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I
Directed by David Yates

***1/2

It's weird to tag on to a phenomenon as late as I have with the Harry Potter films. Only within the last twelve months have I seen all the films that came before this year's Deathly Hallows Part I, and for the first time I've come to realize what all the fuss was about. It's easy to dismiss the decision to break up the last story of the series into two parts as shrewd money laundering by greedy studio heads who look to squeeze as much as they can from enthusiastic Potter maniacs (and - still waiting on the second half - you could still make that assumption if you well wish). I wouldn't go that far, since it's obvious that the splitting into two parts has allowed a dedication to J.K. Rowling's prose that was not in any of the previous Harry Potter films.

Things are about as dark as ever for Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and his pals Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint). The Ministry of Magic, as well as Hogwarts School of Magic, have been taken over by Voldemort and his band of dark magic minions. In a cryptic meeting led by Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), the Ministry of Magic discuss their main goal: find and kill Harry Potter. More specifically, Voldemort wishes to finish off Harry himself. We can only guess how much bad karma Harry has built up amongst these people, as Voldemort goes as low as to snap Lucious Malfoy's wand in half during the tempestuous discussion. He's not messing around this time.

As for Harry, he's finally been abandoned by his burdensome muggle family, the Dursleys, and sits in fear of returning to his world of magic since everyone there either hopes to kill him, or report him to the Ministry to be killed. But then the group of the usual suspects - including Ron & Hermione, as well as Hagrid (Eddie Coltrane), Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), and the rambunctious Weasley twins (James & Oliver Phelps) - come to Harry's muggle home and decide to escort him on the very dangerous journey through the menacing Death Eaters on their way to the wizarding world. Their trip is quite the tumultuous one when the Death Eaters are tipped off about their arrival and not everyone makes it across free of scars.

With Dumbledore (Michael Gambon, appearing occasionally in flashbacks) out of the picture, the three young wizards drop out of Hogwarts while Harry plots as to how to destroy the remaining Horcruxes and bring down Voldemort's newly established reign of power. When Death Eaters attack the wedding of one of the Weasley sons, the three take a port key into an isolated wilderness where they can hide away and further plan how they can find and destroy the Horcruxes. They discover that they must find the lost sword of Gryffindor to destroy them, but drama bubbles between the three (as they are now mature young adults) as they bicker amongst themselves and have frightening meetings with Death Eaters that come across their path.

I'm not totally sure how much a non-obsessive Potter fan could appreciate Deathly Hallows Part I. The film totally ignores anyone who may be introducing themselves to the series, listing off characters at the film's start with lightning rapidity. But I guess if you decide to start following a film series on the seventh film, confusion is what you deserve. As we trudge toward the end, Deathly Hallows Part I is a methodical film that moves drearily, as if it knows that it has an entire second movie to fall back on. That being said, it is incredibly dense and has an attention to detail that no other Potter film has been able to approach before. Say what you will about dividing the final chapter, it allows them to make very careful storytelling decisions that lead to some compelling revelations of character.

As the story has unfolded, the Potter tale has gotten darker and darker with each film, and Deathly Hallows Part I continues that trend (one could only hope that the second part coming up in July of 2011 isn't just thirty minutes of action followed by a Lord of the Rings style epilogue of joyous family making). Aside from the dangerous trip to the wizarding world at the start, we have snake attacks, knife-wielding witches, and the unexpected ends of certain characters that seemed invincible. More then anything, it's emotional pull stings hard, as the relationship between Harry and his two friends reach all types of awkwardness (including a **SPOILER ALERT** CGI make session between Harry and Hermione, which, while passionate, is a lot more innocent then it sounds).

I could probably fill this entire review just by naming all of the magnificent English actors who appear in the Harry Potter series - many of which are in this film. Helena Bonham Carter, Bill Nighy, John Hurt, and Timothy Spall, just to name a few I haven't already mentioned (and let's not forget Richard Harris, who would have certainly reprised his role as Dumbledore, had he not died after the second film). But it's the performances of Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint that really stand out here. The young movie stars always had moments amateurism in their performances as the three wizards in training. Of course, it doesn't helped that they were surrounded by a superfluous amount of veteran acting talent, but that problem doesn't present itself here. It seems their talents have fully bloomed finally and their comfort level with the characters at this points allow their acting to flourish. One things that should be mentioned: the continued superb work from Ralph Fiennes as the one who should not be named, really giving the noseless beast a vicious cadence that can occasionally come off as charming.

After Part II is released next summer, it'll be strange to think that the decade of Potter has finally come to an end. The books have been finished for a great while, but it's almost uncanny how much the films themselves have evolved over the last ten years. Deathly Hallows Part I does not have the unbridled thrills of 2004's The Prisoner of Azakaban, nor does it possess the overlying gravitas of 2005's Goblet of Fire. But it does contain the heavy burden of being the final piece of this story, and it takes that responsibility very seriously. I would say with great confidence that splitting Deathly Hallows in two was a great storytelling decision (whether or not that was the true inspiration for the split, once again, is up to you), and a decision that Peter Jackson should have thought of when making Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. There's a lot of story to be told here, and this ensures that no Potter fans will miss an ounce of it.

Blog Update

2010-11-21T22:37:00.002-05:00

Totally realize I have been completely absent for over a month. Busy times. Haven't had a chance to see a single movie. But that should be changing very soon, especially with some of the better, more anticipated films of the year looking to come out in the next few months. At the very least, expect some reviews to come soon. Starting with the new Harry Potter film, I will soon get the chance to see Fair Game, Somewhere, and 127 Hours. Thanks readers!

Waiting For 'Superman' (**1/2)

2010-10-12T23:39:00.005-04:00

WAITING FOR 'SUPERMAN'
Directed by Davis Guggenheim

**1/2

I grew up in a suburb outside of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and spent my entire education in a public school system that I was convinced was teaching me close to nothing. I graduated from McArthur High School in the Class of 2007, in which only thirty-two percent of the seniors actually were able to pass and get their diploma on time. I'm currently a senior at the University of Central Florida, and according to the new documentary Waiting For 'Superman', this makes me a statistical marvel. The film takes aim at the American public school system and exposes some grave gaps in the institutions that teach our children and presents very poignant examples of children and families that are bucked by the system. It also gives us a bevy of information that pushes a specific agenda led by good teachers.

The film begins with its director, Davis Guggenheim, talking about he film he made in 1999, entitled The First Year, which chronicled the year of three dedicated public school teachers in an attempt to prove the values of the American public school system. But these days, with his own children, he fears placing them in mediocre schools with dilapidated buildings and sub-par teachers. He'd rather shell out the extra cash to put them in a private school and secure that their education is first-rate. But how did his ideals change so drastically? As a man who preached the value of public school, how could he not practice his own sermon? Guggenheim explains that he has the advantage of having the choice, and in Waiting For 'Superman', he attempts to show the stories of families that aren't so lucky.

We see three children and their families. All of them come from disadvantaged neighborhoods, and all three kids have parents or grandparents who have trouble raising money just to put food on the table, let alone take their children to a private school. They seem doomed to a public school system that pushes less then intelligent students early on without proper attention, and allows them to fester once they get to the tougher grade levels. There is one hope, though, and that is the publically financed, but independently owned charter schools that rank amongst the best schools in their respective districts. Because these charter schools are high in demand, there are not enough open spaces for all the applicants, and students are chosen not by performance, but by a random lottery.

At the end of the film, we watch five separate children as their academic lives are held by the random sequence of either a lottery ball or Tupperware box filled with names or a computer that picks names through an equation. It's the emotional high-point of the film, if only because we know that its a documentary and the happy ending isn't confirmed like it is in narrative films. We become relatively close to these children throughout the film, and it seems almost humiliating that their opportunity for getting into a good school is showcased by a public display that is guaranteed to send close to all the families home disappointed. Should being able to attend a good school be this difficult? Why are the odds be so stacked against lower-income families? These are the various questions that Guggenheim attempts to address in his film.

Much like Guggenheim's 2006 Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, the filmmaker is able to show us a plethora of graphs and statistics to prove how disfigured our public school system is. When giving us a stat that says over sixty percent of high school dropouts end up in prison, he also summizes that simply sending that same sixty-percent to a better school for four years and giving them a proper education would not only be better for society, but it would save over $100,000 in government money. Now, I'm not crazy about the concept that all high school dropouts are going to prison (we have tons of evidence that shows otherwise), or that any criminal given a proper education can be rehabilitated, but some of the statistics that we are shown are flabbergasting.

We are shown interviews with various interviews with education bureaucrats, including Michelle Rhee, the public school Chancellor of Washington, D.C. - one of the worst counties in the country for education. She made news by closing twenty-three schools and firing nineteen principals, and while her radical methods were heavily criticized at first, but slowly her ideas were adopted and D.C. students are slowly getting better educations. We also hear from Geoffrey Canada, a pioneer for the idea of charter schools. He's established 'Kipp Academy' schools across the country, usually in the poorer neighborhoods in the country. Canada's love for teaching and children is obvious and infectious, and though the charters are forced by government law to accept students via random lotteries, basic stats show that students going to these independently run charters are getting exceptionally better grades.

One thing is obvious to everyone inside the film and outside the film: what makes a school work is good, passionate teachers. As Canada explains, a great teacher is as rare as a professional athlete; it needs dedication, work, and consistency. Too often, Guggenheim's film takes aim at the Teacher's Union for sticking up for mediocre teachers and public school tenure (isn't that what a union is for?), instead of adopting Canada's line of thinking. Not that teachers can't be blamed, since I know first hand that a bad teacher's damage could be irreversible. I'm just not in agreement with the idea that breaking the strong Teacher's Union holds the key to making public schools better. Too much of Waiting For 'Superman' shows teachers slacking off, waiting for tenure, and then taking it easy. Not nearly enough time is shown of good teachers working hard for their students, who not only earn their tenure, but continue to work hard after they get it.

If we're looking for a sole reason as to why education has dipped in our country, one stat that Guggenheim shows us seems shine some light on it. Compared with thirty major nations across the world, we rank near the bottom in almost all school subjects. But we rank first in confidence. I guess the children of our country need a serious humbling. Guggenheim has shown his ability as a filmmaker, and Waiting For 'Superman' has some incredibly touching, occasionally crushing moments. All of that, unfortunately, has to do with the children whose hope dangles helplessly in a random process. It's when Guggenheim tries to use statistics to push his own misguided agenda where the message starts to get muddled. Schools can be better, I agree. But I went through that same system, and I came out okay.

'Blue Valentine' Gets Smashed by MPAA

2010-10-12T14:34:00.005-04:00

I'm coming on a little late to this news on December release Blue Valentine, but seeing as the film's first trailer has just been released, I figure I can compound the two announcements. Once again, the MPAA has come out in controversial fashion when they handed the film by first-time director Derek Cianfrance an NC-17 rating. Many who've been able to see the film at festivals earlier this year have all decried this decision as erroneous and unfortunate (most of the wrath from the MPAA seems to be coming from a scene where the two characters go down on each other). If anything, it's a box office kiss of death, but that isn't a particularly big deal since I'm not sure how big the audience for this film will be to begin with. But combine that with its misguided December 31st release date, it seems like this modestly-scaled romance, with two incredibly talented young actors in Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, might get completely swallowed by the Christmas glut of more showier films like True Grit and The Fighter. More then anything, it complicates any possible path toward an Academy Award. Seeing as Cianfrance doesn't seem compelled to appeal or cut the film for a more amicable 'R' rating, I guess gold statues isn't the first thing on his mind. Which is fine, but I would have enjoyed the Oscar season a lot more, I feel, if Blue Valentine was going to be a big part of it. Well, whatever happens, the film will come out at the end of December.

**Update (10/14/10)**: The film's distributor, The Weinstein Company, has decided to appeal this rating. Here's Harvey Weinstein's statement: "We want to express our deepest gratitude to our colleagues in the industry and in the media for their recent outpouring of support for Derek Cianfrance’s Blue Valentine after the film surprisingly received an NC-17 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. We are taking every possible step to contest the MPAA’s decision. We respect the work of the MPAA and we hope, after having a chance to sit down with them, they will see that our appeal is reasonable, and the film, which is an honest and personal portrait of a relationship, would be significantly harmed by such a rating."

Here's the first trailer of Blue Valentine:

Never Let Me Go (***1/2)

2010-10-08T18:56:00.004-04:00

NEVER LET ME GO
Directed by Mark Romanek

***1/2

I guess I understand why the posters and trailers for Never Let Me Go try to hide the fact that it's a science fiction film. It's a genre that has become overloaded in various cliches (usually involving space ships and extra-terrestrials), and when films like this (dealing with human emotions and love) come along, it's hard to really market it successfully. There was a similar issue in 2006 with Children of Men, a sci-fi masterpiece that also dealt with more humane characters. Universal botched the marketing on its release, and though it's now considered a contemporary classic, you couldn't pay someone to see it when it first came out. I don't know if Never Let Me Go will have the same fate, but you can't blame the promotions for pushing the "We have an amazing cast!" angle. Especially when you consider that the cast includes three of the most talented and exciting English actors working today.

In Hailsham Academy during the mid-1970's, a large group of children are taught and housed in a very strict, intentional fashion. Every child is watched over by the academy's headmistress Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling) with a terse eye. They're never allowed to leave the estate or interact with any other children who may be from outside of Hailsham. Three of those children are Kathy, Tommy, and Ruth, whose intelligence seems to be higher then the rest of the students. Tommy is an outsider amongst the rest of the boys and is known for throwing wild, violent tantrums, but Kathy offers him friendship because she finds him to be a sensitive alternative to the rest of the rowdy boys and takes a liking to him. Soon after, with almost spiteful haste, Kathy's best friend Ruth offers Tommy her heart and he accepts as Kathy watches with rampant jealousy.

The children are not totally privy as to why they are holed up in at Hailsham, but when a new guardian, Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins), comes to teach their class, she becomes overwhelmed by what she has seen and spills the truth to them: they are clones created to give organs for people who may otherwise die. They are part of a medical system developed in the last century that has helped create cures for many terminal illnesses, and they will likely not even live to middle age. Immediately after stating the truth, Miss Lucy is dismissed, but Kathy, Tommy and Ruth never forget what they've learned. Later, when they're eighteen, Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Ruth (Keira Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield), are moved to The Cottages where they prepare for their lives as "donors".

By this time, Ruth and Tommy's relationship has matured sexually but not emotionally. Kathy watches them from afar, still hurt that her friend would steal her crush, but still too timid to disrupt their relationship. In The Cottages, the three learn of a rumor: if two donors can prove that they love each other, they can request a "deferment", which can give the two in love at least a few years of freedom to be together before they're sent off for surgeries. Ruth and Tommy seem genuinely interested in the idea, but Kathy has grown weary thinking of their future and applies to become a "carer", which is someone who looks after the donors as they depreciate during their surgeries. But being a carer doesn't totally dismiss your donor responsibility. It only postpones it, and Kathy begins to see if she can find a way to experience this "deferment" she'd heard of, before she loses her chance.

The film is based on the acclaimed novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. Like the film, the book is broken into three equal parts: the Hailsham childhood years, the teenage years at The Cottages, and lastly, the adult years before "completion". I'm not sure how much the film benefits from having such a strict adherence to the source material's structure. The film's few pace issues could have been solved by shaving quite a bit off of the first segment. But then again, I've never been a fan of the thirty-minute childhood prologue (which explains my distaste for the 1996 film Shine), so this could be just a matter of taste. I do think it helps my case, though, when you consider how much more exciting and interesting the last two-thirds of the film are.

A lot of that has to do with the tremendous collection of acting talent. Mulligan, Garfield, and Knightley all deliver first-rate performances and each perfectly create a distinct, nuanced character, complimenting each other exquisitely (in a fair world, both Mulligan and Knightley would be in line for Oscar nominations, but that doesn't seem like the forecast). As other films like The Island have shown, it's difficult to tell the story of a "clone", but Never Let Me Go doesn't really seem to get hung up on problems like that. Instead, the film treats them as they should be, like real people. The fact that they are not de facto people doesn't prevent screenwriter Alex Garland (also wrote the two Danny Boyle films 28 Days Later... and Sunshine) from treating them as though they are. For all the hangups I may have felt hampered the first third of the screenplay, Garland's script is incredibly absorbing, filled with just enough drama and intrigue to allow the viewer to really care.

The film was directed by Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo and more interestingly - as I found on IMDB - the music video for Michael Jackson's "Scream"), who is able to successfully pull off the balance between the sci-fi and romance elements. Any trailer would have someone figuring that Never Let Me Go was just a stuffy romantic costume drama, but it's a lot more dense then that. There are several levels of emotional turmoil here and Romanek balances all of the thematic elements pretty competently. Sure, it helps when you have Mulligan, Garfield, and Knightley to express the emotional core of your themes, but there have been other films with better casts that weren't able to generate the emotional reaction that this film does.

I can see some people seeing Never Let Me Go and being a bit disappointed with its science fiction elements. If all I knew about the film was from the trailer, I would have figured it to be a well-cast period romance. Not that the film isn't a period romance, but when you bring any kind of clone into the mix, you're bound to trigger certain prejudices from the audience. Whatever category you may try to shoehorn the film into being, it succeeds because it deftly defies both romance and science fiction. It carries various aspects of genre while being earnest enough to rise above it. The best way to break away from genre pitfalls is to make sure that the characters come first, and Never Let Me Go makes sure that they're telling a story about people - well, kind of.

Buried (***)

2010-10-08T18:16:00.005-04:00

BURIED
Directed by Rodrigo Cortés

***

It takes some serious sack to pull off a film like Buried. On the surface, it just seems like a giant, suspense film gimmick - even its throwback poster seems more like homage then actual serious filmmaking. An entire film taking place in a claustrophobic coffin, and all we see is one man with a lighter, a flashlight, and a cell phone. Doesn't seem like it works, but it does here, thanks to a great performance from Ryan Reynolds and creative, at times innovative work from director Rodrigo Cortés, cinematographer Eduard Grau, and music composer Victor Reyes.

The plot is deceptively simple. Paul Conroy (Reynolds) is an American contractor working in Iraq in 2006. He wakes up in a wooden coffin, with only inches of space in each direction. He's bound and gagged, but he's able to get out of them pretty quickly and effortlessly. All he has is his zippo lighter to light the inside. He tries to punch and fight his way out at first, but he recognizes rather soon that all of that is futile. He begins to notice small grains of sand seeping through the cracks in the wood, and he realizes that he's underground. The stress of it causes him to have an explosion of hysteria, while attempting more pointless escape attempts.

But the story kicks in when he notices a cell phone ringing by his feet. He kicks the phone up to his head and begins calling various people: his wife, his boss, the FBI. Occasionally, he's able to speak to someone who can offer him very little help. More often, he's only able to get someone's voice mail, leaving panicked messages without a contact number. He gets a call from an Iraqi man demanding $5 million in less than two hours in order to get him out and Paul scrambles to see how he can accomplish that. He begins talking to another man who's responsible for rescuing hostages overseas, but this man says that there is no negotiating with terrorists. Paul's paranoia begins to grow as Brenner searches for him unsuccessfully and Jabir continues to give him threatening phone calls.

A movie like this only works if you get a virtuoso performance from your lead actor, and that's exactly what Buried gets from Ryan Reynolds. I highly doubt that Reynolds spent the entirety of filming in a tiny wooden coffin, but watching the film you would think that he has. His performance encompasses high anxiety and yet has a stubborn wherewithal to keep you interested for an hour and a half. We understand his flare-ups and empathize with his occasional lack of tact. I've always liked Reynolds despite his penchant for making films (Smokin' Aces, Blade Trinity, and Van Wilder) that I've thought were way below his talent level. But for anyone who's watched those performances have known that he's capable of greatness, and Buried is the first time we've seen that potential materialize.

Now, to be fair, this film is an actor's dream; it's a film totally dependent on your performance, and if you nail it, then you're bound to create something tremendous. It's easy to get caught up in the gimmick of the coffin, but you would never buy into it if Reynolds wasn't as good as he is. Not that the director, Cortés, is not just as exceptional. As hard as it may seem to act inside a coffin the size of a pillbox, I imagine it would be just as hard to direct a film inside of one. The film sits at 95 minutes and it doesn't feel a second longer. With the help of cinematographer Eduard Grau, Cortés keeps the film moving both figuratively and literally. We are so far into Paul Conroy's point of view, that we ourselves feel the time ticking away, all the while still aware of the inventive shots that are spread throughout the film.

Cortés is careful to recognize his influences, as Alfred Hitchcock's fingerprints lay all over this film. Everything from the descending/ascending title sequence, to the manic Psycho-like score by Victor Reyes. While I'd never compare Buried to Vertigo or Rear Window anytime soon, I don't think Hitchcock ever visualized claustrophobia and panic as well as it's done here. It is really a brilliant display of suspense, since it never allows itself to relax. Even in its slower, more precise moments (a scene where Paul calls his Dementia-afflicted mother is particularly effective), the constant mania of the situation is always apparent and driving the film in a solid forward movement.

It's hard to write a lot about a film that has essentially one actual scene. But it may seem strange that after praising the film as mush as I have, that I only gave it three stars. Well, I have a very deliberate reason for that. SPOILER ALERT: This film would be damn near perfect if it weren't marred by a final three minutes that is more cruel to its audience then anything else I've ever seen. I don't mind somber endings, but when a filmmaker goes out of his way to manipulate the viewers' emotions for little more then his own amusement I simply get upset. I enjoyed the first eighty-five minutes of Buried more then I enjoyed most films that I've seen this year. I did not like the ending. That's right, I didn't like it that much.

Catfish (****)

2010-10-02T17:38:00.005-04:00

CATFISH
Directed by Ariel Schulman & Henry Joost

****

As much as I loved The Social Network, there was an aspect of the film that I felt was missing. It's not a film's fault if it doesn't address the concepts that I wanted it to address, but it can cause a viewer to feel a bit empty when you hope for something that never comes. I was hoping the film would discuss the more dangerous aspects of Facebook, its leading to the downfall of true identity. Secret lives are now created all over the internet, using various Facebook-like social networking sites. We delude ourselves into thinking that we know more people then ever before, but the quality of our "knowing" has now depreciated because of Facebook, and I hoped that the "Facebook movie" would ponder a bit on that. Instead, we got a film about a young man trying to find a way to impress and win back a girl he briefly dated. And that film was exceptional, even though it wasn't what I wanted. Catfish, on the other hand, gave me exactly what I asked for.

**Before I write anything, I should probably say that most of the charm of Catfish comes from the absolute shock of the events that unfold. The more you know about the elements behind it, the less the film will reach its fullest effect. So, I feel its my responsibility to tell you that if you plan on going to see the film and truly enjoy it, you should go in with a blank slate. This may mean that my review here may be detrimental to that. I'll do my best to avoid spoilers that could harm the intended reaction of the film, but if you are spoiler-phobic (and there are many of you), feel free to leave now and come back after you've seen the film so we can discuss.** Now, that the housekeeping is finished, I'll continue.

When photographer Yaniv Schulman is sent a painting of one of his published photos by an eight-year-old painter named Abby, he's astounded by how good the work is. Yaniv and Abby begin an open correspondence over email, and Abby begins sending him numerous painted copies of his photographs. This captures the eye of filmmakers Ariel Schulman (Yaniv's older brother) and Henry Joost, and they decide to film Yaniv as his relationship with the young girl begins to blossom. They film as Yaniv keeps getting paintings, but then Yaniv gets a chance to speak to Abby's mother Angela, who is just as surprised as everyone else with her daughter's brilliant gift in art. Yaniv becomes friends with Angela on Facebook.

As Yaniv continues his transactions with Abby, he gets deeper into her family. On Facebook, he becomes friends with Abby's father Vince, her brother Ryan and several other cousins and family friends, including her half-sister Megan. Megan sends Yaniv personal messages thanking him for his interest in her little sister, and soon she is actually sending him flirtatious text messages and having long conversations with him over the phone. But (for reasons I won't explain here) Megan's actions begin to become more and more suspicious, leaving Yaniv, Ariel and Henry to question the peculiar nature of this cyber-family. Frustrated and confused, Yaniv takes Ariel and Henry with him to Abby's home in Michigan to confront Megan and Angela on their strange behavior. What they uncover upon their arrival is something that is as astonishing as it is heartbreaking, proving how little they knew about Abby's family after all.

We live in a climate of cynicism, and in the era of Joaquin Phoenix's disastrous coup I'm Still Here, that cynicism has spilled into the world of documentary cinema. But whether or not Catfish really is 100% legitimate doesn't really effect my response to the film, because what it says about our society is incredibly potent and effective either way. As The Social Network explains expertly, all of Facebook's popularity is based upon people trying to get closer to other people they're sexually attracted to. It's voyeurism that's legal because we put ourselves out there to be spied on. There are people who live their entire lives on Facebook, but there is also a more ominous minority, whose lives are Facebook. Catfish is about that minority, and the dangerous nature of developing relationships with people within that minority. You never know what's going to come out in reality.

I could probably praise the filmmaking of Schulman and Joost, but what's great about Catfish has very little to do with them. If anything, the film does a good job of showing that their fear came very close to sabotaging their own uncovering. It's the people in front of the camera that really fascinate us. As I sat in the theater, there were many people who chuckled at some of the experiences in the film. This was not an indulged laughter coming from something funny in the movie, but a chuckle bubbling up from a brewing storm of discomfort welling inside of them. Facebook has totally sucked in most of the country (and, I can only assume, a lot of the world), and a lot of the attraction comes from the ability to act cryptically in a way that we haven't been allowed to before. I've got a feeling that more people can relate to Yaniv's complex online relationship than I'd like to think about.

I really feel that documentary cinema has been at its peak in the last decade, thanks to guys like Michael Moore, Alex Gibney, and Charles Ferguson, who have imbued the usually sterile genre with real heart, passion and (that dirty word) bias. This film was produced by Andrew Jarecki, the man behind one of the greatest documentaries I've ever seen, Capturing The Friedmans, that excelled because it repelled the oncoming style of making documentaries more cinematic. In Alex Gibney's and Michael Moore's films, they are the stars. In Catfish and Friedmans, their subjects are the stars, and their lives are so interesting and at times depraved and shocking. Closer to Terry Zwigoff's masterpiece Crumb. Now, I won't go as far as to call Catfish a masterpiece, since there are times when it takes its own technological wrinkle and overexposes its own cuteness. But it is relevant and it is good. I think more people will go see Catfish as opposed to most documentaries, but I'm not sure too many will learn the lesson. That lesson that was missing in The Social Network.