Rent It or Leave It

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

2010-08-10T17:55:00.000-04:00

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an excellent suspense/mystery/thriller about a troubled computer hacker, Lisbeth, and a disgraced investigative journalist, Mikael, joining forces to solve a 40-year-old murder mystery revolving around a powerful yet eccentric family. It is a foreign film adapted from a popular series of novels and also set to be remade by Hollywood (Daniel Craig has signed up to play Mikael. No word on who will play Lisbeth yet, but I heard a rumor it might be Carey Mulligan, who is a great actress and could pull it off.) The film is a dark thrill ride that is full of great twists. It is subtitled, though, in case you are opposed (and even if you are you should suck it up; you get used to them).

What stands out the most for me about this film is the acting. Noomi Rapace literally transforms herself to play Lisbeth, the dark, brooding, tortured heroine. More stunning than her physical transformation, though, is her ability to display a vulnerable, gentle femininity hidden deep beneath the grizzly, disturbed character she outwardly portrays. Through the violent, angry acts she commits, she still manages to keep a gentleness in her eyes that reminds us of her victim hood, and, without it, her character would not be nearly as sympathetic or interesting. The rest of the cast is also excellent. Michael Nyqvist reminds me of and, to some degree, resembles Daniel Craig in his role of Mikael. He does an excellent job and sets the bar high for Craig (as well as builds the excitement for seeing him in that role).

The story has its tough moments, but, overall, it’s a great adaptation from a novel. It manages to introduce and set up everything necessary for the film without it feeling like the film drags on. We start right in the middle of the story with Mikael, as he is set to go to jail- a very telling introduction to his character. Lisbeth takes a little longer to set up, but it is done well. There are parallel disturbing scenes involving her that, at the time, I didn’t quite understand in the context of the story, but actually prove to be crucial towards explaining later, very important character motivation. Also, we see the connection between Lisbeth and Mikael early and can see how they will be running into each other in the future. I get the feeling that had I read the novel, I would be saying this set up is done efficiently (and I think it is), but it does take a little longer than normal to really get into the heart of the story.

Where I have issues with the story is towards the end. It appears the filmmakers took the time in the beginning to properly set up the story, but tried to quickly jump around and tie up loose ends at its conclusion (which, given its length, it had to). There are significant jumps in time as well as a puzzling resolve to the relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael, given how prominent each character is. I would say that these not so tightly tied loose ends will be investigated further in the sequel, but, as a stand-alone film, there are questions. (As an aside, there is a foreign sequel and I believe Hollywood plans on completing a trilogy- much like the Bourne Trilogy.) Also, as with most thrillers, some of the clues seem very convenient (such as someone’s pension for rewearing the same sweater), but I give it a pass because the story is gripping and the reveal of the clues is sincere and truthful enough.

This film is a highly entertaining, dark thriller that is very enjoyable. I would recommend this film to anyone who is not squeamish or easily rattled. By this, I mean there are some scenes and images that are disturbingly violent and sexual. I am not one to be prude, but a younger, less mature audience should probably sit this one out or at least have it screened by a trustworthy adult first. Also, for those of you who simply do not enjoy such scenes, they very well may ruin the film for you. However, if that doesn’t bother you and you’re willing to suck it up and live with the subtitles, I highly recommend this film and believe you’ll be very entertained.

If you like this, check out: The Black Dahlia (Widescreen Edition) or The Usual Suspects (Special Editon)

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4

Buy The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Wifey's Chick Flick of the Week- Easy Virtue

2010-08-05T18:00:00.000-04:00

Easy what?... I know, that’s what I said too when my wife brought Easy Virtue home from Blockbuster. I checked out the cover- Jessica Biel (well, the guys have something to look at)… in a time period piece (never mind). Colin Firth and Kristin Scott Thomas are in it (okay, some good acting) and a Chihuahua with a plume feather on his head is somehow being promoted over these two actors (yikes!). Needless to say, I had my reservations and, alas, they were fulfilled as Easy Virtue tanks pretty badly.

I don’t really know where to start so I guess I’ll go to the beginning. The opening image shows Larita (Biel) winning a car race then making eyes at John (Ben Barnes) then they cut to an artsy, graphic-driven make-out session between the two characters. So, we know she races cars and they’re a couple… oh, and it’s some time in the early 1900’s. This opening image proves to be the only true set up in the entire movie, though. The next twenty or thirty minutes are characters talking out the plot and trying to reveal exposition through dialogue. A few quips are thrown in, but they’re hard to really appreciate because the characters are not set up well. They express their motivations, but we never see it… at least not until over half way into the movie. Much of comedy is set-ups and pay-offs and this film never seems to set up its jokes. That alone dooms it.

However, that is not the only problem with the film. The score sticks out like a sore thumb. It’s a corny, show tune type of horn instrument ensemble that overwhelms every scene and does not come close to matching the action or even contrasting the action so as to create irony. The film shows stodgy people bickering and then it plays show tunes over it. It could be funny if it is a more lively fight or if the music is subtler, however, neither is true. It’s calm, dry British type humor and Jessica Biel’s “American” character does little to alter the mood and create the opportunity for a big, loud show tune to be appropriate. Ultimately, it feels like the music is just haphazardly thrown over the scenes to try to keep the tone light and quirky when the action is anything but.

The storyline is erratic. There is not real character development or story growth. Rather, the characters all stay the same throughout the entire film and simply alternate between fighting and trying to make up (or in some cases, just avoiding a fight for a while) until eventually the end occurs, which is both predictable and just strange. Making matters worse, very little actually happens in this film. Few characters actually try to do something about what is troubling them, especially our leads. Larita shows up and complains from the beginning that she does not want to be there and does very little to try to change her circumstances. There is a brief period about half way through the film in which Larita and her husband’s mother (played by Scott Thomas) get a little back and forth battle going. That aside, though, Larita just bickers and does nothing until the finale. The same goes for her husband, John. He does nothing, other than saying he wishes Larita fit in better.

I could go on, but why beat a dead horse? Frankly, the film is not very good.

My ratings so far must show a severe prejudice against chick flicks, but I assure you, my wife has agreed with each rating. I have given her a hard time about her choices, so far, and she has taken it in stride. She considers herself 0 for 3, but I think she has good taste in movies and her average is bound to improve, so hang in there with us.

If you like this (or want a better recommendation), check out: Pride and Prejudice (Restored Edition)

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 0.5

Buy Easy Virtue

Crazy Heart

2010-08-04T20:34:00.000-04:00

Crazy Heart is an excellent film about a drunk, washed up country singer on his path to redemption. The storyline is a little unoriginal and predictable (I found it strikingly similar to the previous year’s hit The Wrestler), but it gets a pass because it serves a greater purpose for the film, which is to get out of the way of its stronger points: the acting and the music.

While the storyline is formulaic, it is still well written and very well done. It follows the story beats you would expect in a story about personal redemption versus substance abuse. The hero, Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) meets the catalyst to his change in the form of sweet reporter Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal). A romance buds and, from there, you can probably predict the ups and downs of the relationship and Blake’s struggle. However, the dialogue and writing is understated nicely and the drama is not blown out of proportion. Also, it does an excellent job of using simple, but meaningful little scenes to show both sides of the main character: the sweet, loving man and the destructive substance abuser suffocating him. These qualities of the writing give the film a much realer feel as well as accomplishing its most important task: creating a vehicle for great artists to perform.

There are two well-deserved Oscar wins from this film: Original Song and Best Actor. I’ll start with the acting. Jeff Bridges is outstanding. He has an easy manner about him that makes him likeable even when he’s behaving irrationally or destructively. It is evident in the very beginning of the film, when he gets a drink on his “expense account” only to discover no such account exists… even after he agreed to perform at a bowling alley. Rather than making a scene, he swallows his pride (and his drink) and pays (even though he’s broke). While the writing is there with a nice, subtle exchange to show he’s a good guy deep down, Bridges’ performance is what sells it. The writing is very subtle, and, without the performance, the likeability of the character doesn’t register, and, without that, we have no rooting interest in this character’s struggle, and, therefore, we don’t care about the story (see how fine that line can be?). In this film, Bridges finds himself square on the correct side of that line, though, and the film shines because of it.

While Bridges is extraordinary, he does not do it on his own. Gyllenhaal is excellent. She is charming and likeable from the second she appears on screen, which is crucial to her being the catalyst for Blake’s change. The rest of the acting is excellent as well and I must say I was impressed with Colin Farrell. Since Miami Vice, it seemed like he had dropped off the face of the planet and his previous pension for high concept flops made me wary of his acting ability (or role selection) heading into the film. However, he is very good and, surprisingly, pulls off being a pop country star despite having a real life Irish brogue (not in the movie,).

What really sets this film apart for me, though, is the music. I’ll admit I’m not a country music fan, but I’m a huge T-Bone Burnett fan (producer). The man just seems to get music and he is in top form with the soundtrack for Crazy Heart. As you might expect, it is pretty crucial for a film about a country music star to have some good music in it. Some films would try to skirt around the issue and play as little original music as possible because, well, not all actors can sing and it’s hard to make hit songs. In this film, though, music is embraced and celebrated, as it should be. The only thing that has lasted as long in Blake’s life as alcohol is his music. It’s integral to his capacity to change, so, in order for this story to make sense, we (the audience) need to see his connection and love of music. Thanks to Burnett and the great work by the music department, this film delivers on that front.

Crazy Heart is a touching film of redemption with solid writing, great acting, and great music. Even people who don’t have a taste for country music (like me) can appreciate it in the film and even enjoy it. Further, all the aspects of the film are sound and it is a very entertaining, enjoyable experience. I highly recommend it.

If you like this, check out: The Wrestler or Walk the Line

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4

Buy Crazy Heart

or Buy its soundtrack Crazy Heart: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack (Ltd. Deluxe Edition)

Wheez's Vintage Movie of the Week- North by Northwest

2010-08-03T15:30:00.000-04:00

I’m going to start out by being honest… I don’t think North by Northwest is that great (collect yourself…. Good.) I’ll now qualify that statement by saying it’s not great by today’s standards. However, for its time, it clearly was a masterpiece as elements of the film can be found in the bedrock of today’s action/thrillers. Much like Citizen Kane, North by Northwest should be viewed with the restraints of its era in mind. If you watch it through that perspective, you’ll be awed, if you watch it through a modern perspective, you’ll be entertained, but not blown away.

The story is excellent. It carefully crafts a mystery, thriller of government and international intrigue that is full of action, some suspense, and comedy. I say some suspense due to a pet peeve of mine that is prevalent in films of this era: talking out the plot. The film does a great job of not letting on to what’s happening early on until, finally, it gives in and has a government alphabet soup agency meeting in which someone dryly states all the painful exposition. It’s actually pretty comical because the character is literally saying exactly what everyone in the room commonly knows. I couldn’t help but think of Basil Exposition in Austin Powers. However, the film avoids prolonging the exposition as it blurts all or most of it out in that one scene, which makes the rest of the film enjoyable, but not too suspenseful because we already know what to expect. This is what kills it a little for me- being on the edge of your seat results from not knowing what to expect and, well, you know what to expect.

That aside, the story is fabulous and parts of it have been parodied and copied in films over the past fifty years. Some of the more memorable scenes include a dive-bombing crop duster and a suspenseful chase down Mount Rushmore. More impressive, Alfred Hitchcock and writer Ernest Lehman are way ahead of their time on how to construct the storyline for a mystery/thriller. The film masterfully navigates twists and turns to keep the audience hooked while also progressing the story and not losing the audience. It sets up crossing and double-crossing characters. It makes us question if the lead character is crazy or everyone around him is. It does what a good action/thriller should do.

Further, the film mixes in some relevant themes of the time. Being a government thriller from the late 1950’s, the Cold War is involved in the storyline. Further, the film uses the traces of the Cold War in the film to question how far is too far when it comes to war- a theme that is definitely still applicable today.

The film has a distinct Hitchcock feel as well, even though it’s not a typical Hitchcock genre. The directorial style mirrors other Hitchcock films, but doesn’t rival the direction of his better films, such as Psycho. The acting for me is hot and cold. There are scenes that are excellent and very well acted. However, there are other times when the film cuts back and forth between actors in a conversation, who appear to be reading off cue cards. Cary Grant is a classic actor, but in this film he really bombs some scenes. While some scenes are great (like when he acts like a dopey drunk), in other scenes, he seems to rely solely on his accent to present charm and he doesn’t put much into his performance other than saying the lines he memorized (or is reading).

North by Northwest is a classic film and groundbreaking for its time. It’s not Hitchcock’s greatest, but it’s still an entertaining Hitchcock film, and that says something. It’s both a great trip back in time to the foundations of modern filmmaking as well as an entertaining film to watch in your living room. It’s a must see for film enthusiasts, but is closer to just another film for the casual movie viewer (especially for younger viewers). Either way, it’s a classic and is worth checking out.

If you like this, check out: Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (Special Edition) or Strangers on a Train

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3.5

Buy North by Northwest (50th Anniversary Edition)

Babel, and why it's way worse than Crash

2010-08-02T14:18:00.000-04:00

Babel is an attempt at an international version of Crash in which a group of intercontinental characters are all loosely connected through fateful events, but all suffer as a consequence of fate and the harsh realities of the real world. As the title hints, it uses language as a means to show division between people and cultures. However, despite its clever premise and lofty aspirations, Babel falls flat due to a disconnected, meandering story, impersonal characters, and extreme melodrama.

The story is a mess. It jumps around amid three places and groups of people: Morocco, Japan, and California/Mexico. In order to show simultaneous suffering that does not happen sequentially, the film shows these three stories that occur at different points in time as if they are occurring simultaneously. Even by the end of the film, I wasn’t quite sure what the timeline was.

Further, the three stories drag on too long and are quite unrelated (even the common theme of communication isn’t common as there’s no language barrier in the U.S./Mexico story, just prejudice). Where Crash is successful, is in not hanging around too long in a scene unless something very dramatic is happening, and even then it moves quickly. Babel, contrarily, indulges in countless, documentary-style, unnecessary establishing shots for EVERY scene that just slow the entire pace of the movie down to a crawl. Further, the film lingers with one story for way too long so that when the film cuts back to another of the three stories, it takes us (the audience) out of the film because we’ve been engrossed in the other story for so long. There is no sense that these three stories are all working collaboratively towards some similar, relevant conclusion as in Crash, rather, it seems like there are three, disconnected short films being jammed all into one using the cliché theme that “the world’s a cruel place” as the excuse for doing it.

Now, a big reason it is easy to criticize the story is because we (the audience) have no rooting interest in its characters. Keeping with the Crash comparison, the (only) reason Crash is such a great film is because it saved the cat… a lot. “Save the cat” is a term coined by screenwriter Blake Snyder and it refers to a scene or part of a scene in which the (main) character or hero/heroine does something endearing (like saving a cat) that defines the character and also gives us reason to like him/her. Some examples from Crash are the racist cop (Matt Dillon) helping his father to the toilet in the middle of the night and the locksmith (Michael Pena) giving his young daughter the invisible, impenetrable cloak. We see these scenes and we think, “Oh, Matt Dillon is such a pr**k because he’s up all night helping his dad deal with his enlarged prostate” and “That locksmith isn’t a gang banger, he’s just a hard working father trying to provide the best for his family”. In other words, we’re hooked. We care what happens to these characters now. In Babel, there’s no trace of saving the cat, which makes it difficult for us (the audience) to care about any of the characters because the film is too busy juggling three stories. Further, all the characters are markedly flawed to the point that the tragedy that befalls them is less tragic because their issues, to some degree, cause it: the Moroccan boy is dumb, his father is negligent, the Mexican nanny is weak-willed and cracks under pressure, her nephew is brash, sarcastic, and drives drunk, the Japanese girl is a weird sexual deviant, her father is negligent, Brad Pitt is aloof, and Cate Blanchett is arrogant. I’m not saying characters shouldn’t have flaws, but they should have redeeming qualities, shouldn’t they? As the story progresses, we see some of those redeeming qualities, but not enough to outweigh the flaws that got them into this mess in the first place (except for with Pitt and Blanchett, but their story is so stagnant that it is boring- they literally sit in the same place doing nothing for the majority of the second half of the film.)

Some films such as This Is Spinal Tap are dubbed mockumentaries because they use a fictitious story in a documentary-style to make fun of documentaries. Well, I would call Babel a melomentary because it uses a fictitious story in a documentary-style to dramatize a news story they couldn’t get actual footage for and never happened. The film tries so hard to be poignant and dramatic in every scene that it smothers you (and smothers you without you having a rooting interest in the characters). What’s worse, in doing so, when the final, really dramatic scenes present themselves, they just get lost in the fold as another melodramatic scene instead of standing out as the climax of the rising action.

This film has a good premise, but comes across as a haphazard splicing of three short stories. It isn’t really worth checking out unless you are the type that really wants to fight for the cause and are already incensed at the happenings of the world (and the U.S.’s activities therein).

If you like this (or want a better film), check out: Crash (Widescreen Edition)

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 1

Buy Babel

Wifey's Chick Flick of the Week- Remember Me

2010-07-29T15:44:00.001-04:00

Okay, so, Remember Me technically wouldn’t really qualify as a chick flick, but my wife was fooled by the cover with Robert Pattinson hugging the Australian chick from Lost (Emilie de Ravin). Clever marketing if you ask me. Anyway, the film is a drama (melodrama) about two characters that have undergone tragedy in their lives meeting and falling in love- all within the perspective of the “bigger picture” as revealed at the end of the film. I love the concept the film goes for, but, unfortunately, I found it to be too haphazard a screenplay with too little character development to really unlock its potential.

The problems start with the film’s set up. First, Ally, the child version of the female lead (played by de Ravin), witnesses her mother murdered in the New York subway. Obviously this is haunting for a child and, as it turns out, her father is the police officer assigned to the case. He simply picks her up and walks off. That’s it. Next time we see her, she’s in college and a normal, well-adjusted girl whose father has become an abusive, aggressive cop. The father’s character makes sense- his wife was murdered, he’s pissed. The girl, on the other hand, makes no sense based on what we saw. How and why is she so normal? As the film progresses, she comes across as a strong, street-savvy woman who can see through Tyler’s tricks (Pattinson) and whose only emotional hang up is taking the subway (which I’d assume would be an issue for many solo young women in New York).

However, that isn’t my biggest issue with the film. Ally isn’t the main character and, as far as I’m concerned, she shouldn’t even make an appearance until ten to fifteen minutes into the film. The bigger issue is the introduction of Tyler, the main character in the film. He is introduced AFTER the flashback to Ally’s mother’s death. This is a big issue for me. If we’re not going to see our main character first, there better be a very good reason, and, as I said earlier, the flashback scene doesn’t even really explain Ally’s character so how good of a reason is it? Anyway, once we do finally see Tyler, we see him drinking and having a smoke on his fire escape. The phone rings and he stumbles inside to answer it after a few rings. Pop quiz: what do you know about this character?... (my answer: he’s like 95% of guys his age in New York… we know nothing unique about him). Next, he’s at a graveyard (the deceased is not revealed until later) and then lunch with his family where his dad’s being a jerk. Basically, without the necessary introduction to explain who this character is and what he’s all about, we’re left trying to piece together clues (very obvious ones in retrospect) throughout the film as to why he acts the way he does.

As a result of the audience not understanding the main character, everything he does comes across as very melodramatic for at least the first half of the film. Further, just about everything everyone does borders on melodramatic (except for Tyler’s roommate, who provides much needed comic relief).

I know I sound harsh right now, but the reason is that this film is very close to being very poignant and very good. I think if the characters’ motivations are sorted out earlier, and it’s done through action rather than forcing it in through dialogue, this film could have been great. Like I said earlier, it has a great, romantic premise of two wounded individuals finding each other and finding love when they least suspected it. There is definitely heart in the film, and, while I’m not a Twilight fan, I’d say Pattinson is effective. Ditto for de Ravin (I am a Lost fan). Their performances won’t take your breath away, but they definitely have a believable chemistry working on screen. What’s more, the film has a great theme that really would have hit home if it had been set up properly. Instead, the final resolve seems cheapened to me- like the filmmakers put it in there to manufacture emotion when it really should have worked within the context of the film.

Overall, my review may be overly harsh, but it’s because I see potential in the film that, sadly, I think was lost. Too many of the beats in the film seem to be a means to the filmmakers’ end rather than explicable actions by the characters. In other words, the characters are underdeveloped and, therefore, their actions seem random and not well defined. The film is watchable and somewhat enjoyable. If you like indie, melodramatic types of films, you might want to check this out. Otherwise, save it for a rainy day… a very rainy day and maybe check out one of my suggestions instead.

If you like this (or want a different suggestion), check out: Donnie Darko - The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Edition) or Across the Universe

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 2

Buy Remember Me

Snatch

2010-07-28T15:05:00.000-04:00

Snatch is Englishmen Guy Ritchie’s second feature-length directorial gig and, as with most of his work, deals with the English crime underground. In this film, gaggles of seedy mobsters find themselves chasing a gigantic diamond, somehow getting mixed up with an unlicensed boxing kingpin, a pair of boxing promoters, and gypsies in the meantime. As I’m sure you can tell from this description, the movie is a light-hearted (albeit violent) jab at the English organized crime underground.

As with most of Guy Ritchie’s other films (such as Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Rock ‘N’ Rolla), he utilizes a unique directorial and story-telling style. The story is non-linear, but does involve some symmetry from beginning to end in this convoluted maze of characters chasing a diamond. Despite its lengthy list of characters, Ritchie does an excellent job of making sure we (the audience) keep everyone straight by using mainly two techniques. First, he gives at least one character in each group a distinctive trait to set them apart: the boxing kingpin as the bug-eye glasses, the “Jewish” diamond dealers wear their Yamakas, and the gypsies have their accents (and Brad Pitt). Second, Ritchie makes sure to introduce and reintroduce characters using his first person voice over by the main character (if you could really say there is a true main character), Turkish (Jason Statham). This technique fits within the style of the film, but is really used to cheat in some dry exposition and explain the story for us- not really great writing, but effective and stylistic nevertheless.

Also similar to Guy Ritchie’s other films is the sense of humor. Despite the story involving multiple murders, feeding human bodies to pigs, theft, arson, cons, and boxing without a license, Ritchie finds a way to make the whole story seem laughable. He makes the characters so goofy and such Lehman, that we Lehman (the audience) actually can sit back and laugh at their stupidity. Every ill that befalls the characters seems to be directly attributable to that character’s individual idiocy. As a result, we laugh at them, just like we laugh at someone who angrily punches a wall and hurts his hand. It’s funny because they did it to themselves. It’s not quite that simple, though. In order to keep this light tone, Ritchie carefully avoids showing anything too gruesome or gory, often not even showing people being killed, but just letting us assume it based on characters’ reactions. It may seem trivial, but not actually seeing the dead person makes all the difference. Seeing pain and suffering inherently elicits emotion in people. Knowing pain and suffering occurred just doesn’t have the same visceral response- something Ritchie uses to avoid drama and keep the story light.

Another talent of Ritchie’s that shines through in this film is writing very interesting characters with great, quirky banter. While these characters can all basically be considered similar or the same when you boil them down to their motivations and shake off all their bells and whistles (such as accents, appearances, which group they’re with, etc.), they are still very entertaining to watch. Mickey (Pitt), the scrappy, gypsy boxer, shines through for me. His slick, country dumb manner mixed with his hideously incomprehensible accent make every scene he is in both hilarious and challenging (only to understand what he’s saying), and Pitt does a great job in the role.

Ultimately, though, Ritchie’s films are the type you either hate or you love and Snatch is no different. It has an interesting, convoluted heist story line that is surprisingly easy to follow, some slapstick humor poking fun at gang related violence, action, and hordes of colorful characters all with similar motivations. If you’ve never seen a Guy Ritchie film, it’s worth checking one out and Snatch is a great example (although I slightly prefer Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels). However, if you’ve seen a Guy Ritchie film and you thought once is enough or you absolutely detest profanity and violence, then maybe you should pass on this one.

If you like this, check out: Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Layer Cake, or Pulp Fiction

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3

Buy Snatch (Widescreen Edition)

Wheez's Vintage Movie of the Week- The Hustler

2010-07-27T12:59:00.005-04:00

The Hustler follows “Fast” Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) as he hustles his way through pool halls on his path to become the greatest pool shark in the country by taking on and beating the great Minnesota Fatts. The film (1961) comes from a different era of filmmaking, which is a bit of an adjustment, but one thing that transfers across any era is great acting and an intriguing character study.

Paul Newman is incredible in this film. The story follows his character and his bull-headed resolve to become the greatest pool player in the country no matter the costs… and there are great costs. So, just from the premise alone, you know Newman’s going to be on screen a lot. Compounding that is the era of filmmaking in which this story takes place. There are large gaps between cuts and a lot of shots that solely consist of following Paul Newman as he does something as mundane as walking from a train station locker to the bar, ordering a drink, and walking over to a table to sit down. This type of direction would tend to be boring and would be blasted if it were done today, but Newman is so good and so interesting, that you hardly notice the simple direction when you’re watching. It is literally easy, better still, preferable, just to watch him on screen rather than cutting away (and I have no physical attraction to the guy, so just think how the ladies must feel!)

Aiding Newman’s great performance is his very interesting character, “Fast” Eddie Felson. What makes this character so interesting is, ironically, the simplicity of him. The filmmakers establish early on and very clearly what this character’s need is: to be the best. It’s that simple, but knowing that simple motivation allows the audience a window into the character’s mind when he faces a dilemma. We (the audience) know throughout the entire story what drives Eddie so we can understand that every action, every word he utters comes into context with that motivation. Every mistake he makes, makes sense to us because we know why he does it. We can appreciate his mistakes because there’s nobility in being true to yourself in spite of all the chips stacked against you. We (the audience) get that and can relate to that struggle, which makes for a very intriguing, interesting character and a great launching pad for character growth.

Despite the great character, the story does stall slightly in the middle, which I attribute to the romance in the story. I’m not opposed to romance, but it just seems forced in the context of this story. It seems like the story hops off its linear path and on to a side street to set up this romantic relationship, only to pick up right where it left off and use this relationship as another opposing force for Eddie. In the end, it pays off, but I think it could have been set up better and more efficiently so as not to pull so much focus from the main storyline.

That small critique aside, the story is written very well. There is a great arc to it and the character development is fantastic. In some parts, the story skips ahead in time (mostly from the start of a pool match to its conclusion). I let this pass for two reasons: the story introduces what hustling pool is in its first two pool scenes so there’s no need to keep beating a dead horse by showing it over and over again and, also, it’s pool- not exactly a spectator sport, so go ahead and skip some pool to keep the story moving.

Also, the dialogue is great. It’s very punchy with many witty quips back and forth between pool sharks or Eddie and his romantic interest. The only exception to the great dialogue is when some exposition is forced into the story. There are definitely times when you hear a few lines and just think, “Well, you had to get it in there, I guess you just bit the bullet and spit out all that bland exposition you needed to.” Other than that, though, there's great dialogue that adds to the story and helps build the characters.

Overall, The Hustler is a very enjoyable film about a very interesting and very well acted character. The subject matter may seem a little dry to some, but the film does a great job of focusing on the characters so as to keep the story entertaining and interesting. Should you watch it? Well, it was good enough to warrant a sequel directed by Martin Scorsese (The Color of Money with Newman and Tom Cruise), so what do you think? (Just to be clear, I think you should rent it.)

If you like this, check out: Color of Money, Wrestler, or Crazy Heart

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4

Buy The Hustler (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)

Seven

2010-07-26T15:30:00.000-04:00

Seven is an all-around excellent film. It starts with a great premise: what if a serial killer decided to target victims based on the seven deadly sins (as in the sins that early Christianity deemed Hell worthy). Throw in a well-thought screenplay, great acting, great direction, and a stylistic film noir feel and you have all the makings of a great film. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir for many of you, but this film is 15 years old (hard to believe, I know) and is worth revisiting for those of you who haven’t seen it for over a decade or those of you too young to have heard of it.

Director David Fincher (who apparently is a big Brad Pitt fan seeing as how he directed him in this film as well as Fight Club and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) directs an excellent film. He presents an interesting visual style: sprinkling in dirty shots (shots in which something is out of focus in the foreground) and interesting angles, particularly with close-ups. Rather than just filming what you see, he adds some interesting visuals to enhance the story. He also uses a unique, semi-noir style. The film cannot be classified as a true film noir since there is no “femme fatal”, however, the film has a bleak, dreary, colorless look to it and several shots have distinctive contrast between dark and light, which are trademarks of film noir. This very interesting visual style works in accordance with the themes of the film and contributes to its dark mood.

The cast is excellent as well. As I mentioned earlier, Brad Pitt stars alongside Morgan Freeman (and his voice, I swear I could listen to that man read the dictionary), but the big names don’t end there. Supporting them are Kevin Spacey, a young Gwyneth Paltrow, and several excellent, recognizable character actors (like Dr. Cox from Scrubs). Much of the character development of this film (especially Brad Pitt’s character, David) is accomplished through dialogue, which requires good acting to be effective. Fortunately, that acting is present and the characters’ feelings (mostly those of Pitt and Freeman) shine through conversation (most often through the subtext).

The idea that the characters develop heavily through dialogue in an action/thriller may seem odd, but that is directly attributable to the story being more than just action. The film has its fair share of suspense and a well-crafted story with several twists, but it’s clear that the murders and action are meant to be more than just entertainment. It’s meant to make you think. I mean, why else would you choose a premise with such a heavy religious overtone? Ultimately, as the detectives proceed through their investigation, we are left wondering, ‘Are these the desperate, meaningless actions of an attention-seeking psycho, or can they actually be considered justifiable by even the slightest amount?’ If the seven deadly sins are a direct ticket to Hell, does it give someone the right to stamp that ticket a little early? These are obviously dark, morally ambiguous ideas, but interesting to consider in a fictional setting.

Driving these ideas home is the intermittent conversations between the detectives. Somerset (Freeman) being the one who won’t just write off the killer as being entirely insane and without purpose and David (Pitt) being the detective who cannot find reason or logic in such heinous crimes. Their banter throughout the film helps to raise many of the aforementioned questions, and, just in case you didn’t pick up on the theme throughout the film, its conclusion drives the point home. While there’s some forced dialogue preceding it, the conclusion is an excellent twist and a great, fitting end to the film.

This film is fantastic. It executes its premise masterfully and really maximizes the potential of the story in my opinion. It’s entertaining, but also works on a level beyond shear entertainment, which at times approaches being a little forced but is saved by the acting. If you haven’t seen this film, rent it. It’s easy to sit down to watch and very enjoyable, regardless of your religious views. If you’re not Christian/Catholic, there’s enough exposition to explain what’s going on, and if you’re like me and you don’t think we should kill everyone who makes a mistake, well, I still liked it, so there ya go. If you have seen it, maybe it’s time to pop it in your DVD player again for another viewing. I did, and it didn’t disappoint.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4.5

If you like this, check out: Boondock Saints (Unrated Special Edition) or The Silence of the Lambs [Blu-ray]

Buy Seven (Single Disc Edition)

Wifey's Chick Flick of the Week- Dear John

2010-07-22T15:23:00.000-04:00

Dear John is the latest Nicholas Sparks romance novel turned movie. It is touted as being up there with other Sparks book to movie classics such as The Notebook, but I’m going to go ahead and burst that bubble for you right now and let you know it is not The Notebook, not even close, really. While the film shows flashes of that “Notebook” magic, overall, there were too many story hurdles (more like mountains) that simply were not overcome.

The biggest problem the film has is its premise (kind of hard to write or shoot a great film when the idea itself poses huge problems). The story focuses on a couple that falls madly in love over the span of a two week Spring break and then must part ways for a year, with John (Channing Tatum) going overseas with the Army and Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) going back to college. However, they vow to stay together by writing each other letters back and forth, hence the title. Now, I’m sure the first thing you’ll want to point out is, “Who ever falls in love on Spring Break?” Yes, MTV Spring Break definitely elicits more images of binge drinking and drunken flashing than romance and love, but that’s not even the biggest issue with the premise. The character development and relationship are driven forward through letters. Letters. What’s supposed to happen when they’re separated? We just cut back and forth to each of them reading letters? Not exactly an appealing film.

Despite this glaring obstacle, the filmmakers actually do a pretty decent job of keeping the story moving through these months and years of separation. They do what they must: have montages of the two lovers living their separate lives and pining for each other. In order to make the montages work, they force their way through the intro, planting set-ups such as the moon and coins to reap pay-offs later on. The film also seems to manufacture the attraction between the two characters. Nothing that actually happens when they’re together comes across as being special for the characters and neither of them really make a leap of faith to go after the other until about 20-25 minutes into the movie, right before they are about to separate.

Once they separate, though, the movie starts getting good, and you can start seeing that heart-warming “Notebook” magic sneaking up on you. The film accomplishes this largely through smart (albeit unimaginative) directing and great acting by Seyfried (she truly is a fantastic actress and I don’t know if the film even makes theaters with anyone else cast in her part). The direction is not groundbreaking, but it understands the story’s limitations and effectively navigates around them. Overall, it’s fine except for two shots (really the same one at different parts of the story). To simulate the disorientation of battle, the camera starts turning, flipping upside down, and moving in and out. It’s very discombobulating, but instead of drawing us in to the character’s perspective, it is so disorienting it takes us out of the film. Other than that, the direction’s okay for the most part (it misses some key shots), but does a good job of placing meaningful visuals with the voiced-over letters or scored montages (this entire sequence when they’re separated seems to be scored with the sappy, romantic music that builds a sense of longing: kind of obvious, but effective nonetheless).

At this point, about two-thirds into the movie, I was thinking, “Okay, this might just be good after all.” However, that all came crashing down in an instant when the film’s major twist hits. While this twist is, sadly, very realistic, I felt the film was so concerned with showing montages to get through the part in which all the two lovers really had was letters, that it didn’t properly develop the relationship or the characters to explain the twist. This twist makes no sense based on what the film has shown us and the allowances it has asked us to give it (such as believing people will fall madly in love during a two week Spring Break in which they don’t do anything too special at all). From there, it doesn’t really give us any insight into what either character feels or thinks about this twist until much later, and that explanation doesn’t satisfy. The film then proceeds down a rather predictable, yet untrue to the characters, finish for the last ten minutes. When it ends with the final resolve, my wife and I looked at each other and said, “Really?... that’s it?”

The film has some potential and for the middle third, it flashes what likely makes the novel great. However, the forced introduction and unsatisfactory ending really make it not worth bothering. I don’t doubt the novel is excellent, but in converting it to film you could just tell the filmmakers had to leave out huge chunks of very important story and character development. That on top of a premise that is not action-driven at all, makes this a nearly impossible book to film conversion. While the filmmakers tried hard and probably did the best anyone could do, I still don’t think Dear John is a good movie, and there are plenty of better excuses (and movies) to use as a means to curl up on the couch with your significant other.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting, if you're bored

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 2

If you like this, check out: The Notebook (New Line Platinum Series)

Buy Dear John

Nine

2010-07-21T16:45:00.001-04:00

Before I get into my review of Nine, I want to express my prejudices going into the film and also tell you I did my best to disregard them at fade in as well as in writing this review. I’m not a fan of musicals. I’m also not a fan of theater being converted to the screen. I believe there’s magic to theater. There’s a feeling of being present and physically experiencing a work of art as much as seeing it. I grasped desperately for that magic in Nine, but, ultimately, I only came up with air as I simply did not feel the film.

This was not for a lack of trying by the filmmakers. They assembled a superstar cast, including: Daniel Day-Lewis, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren, Kate Hudson, Marion Cotillard, and, yes, even Fergie! Simply witnessing this eclectic ensemble almost makes the film worth seeing on its own. I mean, when was the last time you even saw Sophia Loren act? (I think she may be the female version of Benjamin Button, by the way, because I swear she looks younger than she did in Grumpier Old Men… yes, that’s a Grumpier Old Men reference.) However, in spite of the collective talent assembled, I couldn’t say it was really cast well. These actors are Hollywood stars, but only one of them is Italian (Loren) and many of them make no attempt to even sound it, which really detracts from a film about the world’s most famous Italian director trying to make a film entitled, “Italia”. That aside, the acting is good. It’s not any of these actors’ best performance, though. (I’ll accept an argument for Penelope Cruz or Marion Cotillard.)

To further the level of grandeur of the movie, Director Rob Marshall infuses a big Broadway production feel into the film. He does so with some magnificent shots, whether it is great use of contrast between dark and light or simply well framed, well-timed close-ups. Further, he does a great job of showing the creative process at work within his main character’s (Contini) head by orchestrating elaborate daydreams and fantasies. However, this proves to be a double-edged sword for me as, in staying true to a stage, Broadway feel, much of the direction results in boring wide shots that leave you wondering, ‘if I’m just getting a wide shot, why shouldn’t I just see this on Broadway?’ It’s not necessarily bad direction, just the cost of trying to bring Broadway to the screen.

As you’d expect in a glitzy Broadway production, as well, the film has its fair share of big, elaborate song and dance performances. All of them are excellent for their production value. I especially thought Marion Cotillard’s songs (“Take It All” and “My Husband Makes Movies”) were both powerful and beneficial to the story’s progress. However, there were way too many songs and I felt many songs, while good, sounded the same and only served the purpose of expressing an individual character’s thoughts or feelings (thoughts or feelings that just as easily could have been expressed with a line of dialogue or even a look). That, or it was another lark into one of Contini’s procrastination induced fantasies. Either way, the sheer number of songs lessened each individual song’s impact for its respective character. By this I mean, it didn’t seem like the progress of the story drove the character to explode into a frenzy of passionate song because there were so many songs that we knew there’d be one about every five minutes regardless of what happens. It made the songs feel manufactured within the context of the film and removed some of the film’s genuineness.

Maybe it’s because there really isn’t much of a plot at all. The plot literally consists of a famous director given a deadline of ten days to write a script and just procrastinating and daydreaming instead. There is not much character development or change in the story at all. Rather, the film relies on these big song and dances performances to infuse some sort of feeling into the characters and the film. I didn’t really buy it.

Ultimately, I feel this film has something missing (or several things missing). Maybe there are too many songs or the songs are too long. Maybe there are some key shots missing or key plot points missing. Whatever the case is, I found myself thinking, “this should be good”, but not feeling it was, and isn’t that the point of great theater? Again, I must reiterate, this is not my preferred genre and, although I attempted to withhold any prejudices I have against it, my prejudices could have influenced my analysis. (I mean, they are prejudices, isn’t that what they do?) If you are a fan of musicals and theater (and aren’t diehard enough to scoff at seeing it on screen) I think you’ll enjoy this film because it is very well done, both visually and auditorily. However, don’t pick this up and expect to be engrossed by the story.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3

If you like this, check out: 8 1/2 (Single Disc Edition)

Buy Nine

Wheez's Vintage Movie of the Week- Chinatown

2010-07-20T14:57:00.001-04:00

In this series, a contributor, “The Wheez” (don’t ask about the origins of the name, no one really knows), suggests a vintage movie to be reviewed by yours truly. These films are classics and shouldn’t be forgotten, so, hopefully, through this series you’ll remember some films you haven’t seen in decades or learn of some new classics to check out. This week’s choice sets the gold standard for “who done it?” films: Chinatown. Starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway (both received Oscar nominations), this film follows a private eye who stumbles upon a city conspiracy involving millions of dollars and murder while investigating a claim of adultery. It is extraordinary and reminds us that no level of technology or quick cuts can replace a clever, well-told story.

The first thing that struck me about this film as I sat down to watch it was its direction. Say what you will about Roman Polanski and his personal life (if you don’t know what I’m talking about, go to any news site and you’ll probably see some headlines about it), but the man can use a camera! As I watched, I marveled at how every shot, every frame is so carefully crafted to be visually interesting. Polanski doesn’t throw away frames or use a shot as a means of getting from A to B. No, every shot seems to be calculated to please the eye like a good photograph. Further, he is clever in setting up many of his shots, sometimes going minutes without needing a cut. While this style does tend to slow the film down, it’s just so magnificent to witness that, frankly, I don’t care.

Undoubtedly, the excellent acting allows for these rather long shots that Polanski prefers. Both Nicholson and Dunaway are so adept at telling a story with their face and eyes, that often, their close-ups are more interesting than anything Polanski could cut away to. They both do a remarkable job and deliver performances that truly allow for Polanski’s style choices to be so effective.

Great acting and direction aside, though, this story truly elevates the film to the plateau it resides upon. A habit of mine whenever I watch a film is to try to figure out the major turning points (or beats) and see if they follow the standard structure for screenwriting (many of them do, especially the newest films). While this may sound unoriginal, it just reflects the fact that there are principles to good storytelling, but I digress. As I watched Chinatown, I tried to find these moments, but, there are so many turning points, so many twists, that I gave up about two-thirds of the way through (This isn’t to say it strays completely from the structure, just that it packs a lot of punch into each scene or beat). It really is incredible how convoluted the story gets without completely losing the audience, which proves to be perfectly fitting in proving the theme that Gittes (Nicholson) states early in the film: “Sometimes it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie.” As Gittes delves deeper into his investigation and uncovers more corruption, it often seems that all parties would have been better off if Gittes never even bothered. This sense snowballs all the way to the end, which contains an excellent and fitting resolve.

As exciting as that story may sound, though, it’s not an edge-of-your-seat thriller (although, if it were made today, I’m sure it would be!). Rather, Polanski focuses on good filmmaking and highlights the film’s great assets: the screenplay and acting. If it were made today, I conjecture there’d be at least twice as many cuts (maybe three or four times) and there would be more of a sense of foreboding infused into the film either through sound mixing (you know, good ole ominous tones) or story changes (and I really hope it would be through sound seeing as how this film won best original screenplay). That being said, the technology used to make this film clearly isn’t on par with today’s technology and it is evident at times (but hardly noticeably). Anyway, it’s a vintage movie! Are you not going to drink a vintage port wine because the label’s outdated? (If not, please mail it to me. My address is…) Along the same lines of the older technology, the film comes from a different era of filmmaking. It has a slower pace (especially compared to films in its genre today) and doesn’t grip you through tricky editing. However, as with most things, film and the mystery/thriller genre have evolved to become the fast-paced, intense beast it is today. Even if it were made today, though, I wouldn’t want to see it changed because that would mean changing Polanski’s direction, which truly is the work of an artist.

What many of today’s films lack, especially in the mystery/thriller genre, is the excellent, original story of Chinatown. It truly is great filmmaking at its best and, that, in my humble opinion, cannot be replaced by any level of technology or modern editing. I highly recommend seeing this film, especially if you fancy yourself a bit of a film connoisseur.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4.5

If you like this, check out: L.A. Confidential (Two-Disc Special Edition) or Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (Widescreen Edition)

Buy Chinatown (Special Collector's Edition)

2009 Best Film Nominee #1- Inglorious Basterds

2010-07-19T08:23:00.000-04:00

I believe Inglorious Basterds is the best film of the 2000’s (kind of by default), one of the most poignant displays of the paradoxical American psyche towards war ever demonstrated through film, and also one of the cleverest screenplays ever written. (There, go crazy!) It will be difficult to fully support all of these points without spoiling the film, but I promise to try.

I’m not a die-hard Tarantino fan, but I do appreciate his work and I also agree with his assessment that this is his masterpiece. All the technical and production aspects are what you come to expect from a Tarantino film- excellent. He writes characters better than anyone (maybe) and he delivers some bigger than life characters in this film as well, namely: American Ltd. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and German Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Landa delivers the best performance by a male actor of the year, hands down. He should almost get it by default considering he spoke four languages in the film, but, on top of it, he delivers a performance that is both absurdly ridiculous and powerfully terrifying (I didn’t even know you could do that.).

All that aside, I want to get to why I make such bold assertions about this film… its story. It’s a bit of a paradox that I love this story so much because it absolutely is not based in reality (where as I criticized several best picture nominees for straying from the realistic). Much to the contrary, Tarantino boldly creates a fictional, alternate ending tale to World War II. So, he gets a pass about the unrealistic parts because he intentionally falsifies them to prove a point (which he does so brilliantly, but I digress). Ironically, though, he also approaches a World War II film in a much truer sense than most other World War II films… the language. The film explores the notion that the two sides fighting each other, for the most part, look the same and the only barrier preventing them from being totally indiscernible (other than uniforms) is language. In the film, every character is true to his or her native tongue and, as the Americans and British try to infiltrate the German ranks, language proves to be a realistic barrier. (You know us, we hate speaking other languages and refuse to do so on principle [at least that’s my excuse]) So, I give it a pass on stretching reality because it’s intentionally fictional and yet it’s also truer than more factual World War II movies. It’s a paradox wrapped inside a paradox. (yay!)

What makes this story so clever, though, is the deception it pulls on us (the old one-two). The entire film is presented as one thing: a fun, action-packed war movie about the good guys going after the bad guys, who revel in their success and propaganda as the story snowballs and gains momentum towards the predictable (based on history), but triumphant outcome. On this premise and entertainment value alone, this is still a good movie, maybe even still deserving of an Oscar nod. However, Tarantino pulls a twist on us in the end that is completely audacious and just blew me away. It ripples through the film, affecting every character and also actually including the audience as an active member of the story. That’s what gets me about this film. It not only has a huge twist that is unexpected, brilliantly set up, and ripe with great payoffs, but that twist also alters (more like creates) the meaning of the film. It flips the entire thing on its head, and, if you catch yourself during it and pay close attention to your emotions and, most importantly, your perspective, you’ll realize how Tarantino completely just played your emotions and revealed something about you and your nature that you may not have realized about yourself. (Hint: if you find yourself applauding or wanting to applaud, that’s it! That’s the moment!) Yes, that is a very bold statement, but I believe it to be true… and that’s why this film is so amazing.

In case you haven’t noticed yet, I really like this film and really think you should see it! Tarantino’s films can be incendiary and graphic, but this one actually stays pretty clean (for Tarantino standards) on both counts. It’s far less graphic than any film he’s made since Jackie Brown, so even if you’re a bit squeamish I think you can find this enjoyable. Also, if the above paragraph sounded like lunacy to you, don’t let it deter you from seeing the film. I don’t think you need to get all the subtle, deeper meanings to enjoy it. Tarantino, for the most part, makes exciting films full of great dialogue and great characters and, on pure entertainment value, it nears Pulp Fiction. It also might cure the common cold, make doughnuts healthy, and pay off your student loans (I don’t care if you’re 45. You’re still paying them!). (Have I left anything out? Any other hesitations you may have?... well, I can’t think of anything.) So go rent it!

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 5

Buy Inglourious Basterds (2-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray]

2009 Best Film Nominee #2- The Hurt Locker

2010-07-17T15:01:00.001-04:00

The final shock: I disagreed with the Academy over the best picture of the year, bravely placing their selection, The Hurt Locker, all the way down at 2. I’m not going to pretend like this is an ‘inferior’ film and try to blast holes in it for my own sake, rather, I believe this was an excellent film, much like Precious, that simply got outdone.

I LOVE the premise of this film. The opening quote states it so perfectly: “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” What a great twist! Every war movie seems to follow the same cookie-cutter format now a days and this one comes along and completely bucks the trend. It presents war not as a heroic enterprise, but as a fix for an adrenaline junkie. This is not to say that soldiers are not heroes and the men and women fighting overseas are not offering the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Rather, it bravely offers the counterpoint to mainstream thought about members of the military: some people like fighting, further; they’re addicted to it.

This innovative premise is then maximized due to excellent direction and great acting. Director Kathryn Bigelow certainly is deserving of her Oscar as she had the tall task of infusing nervous anticipation and intensity into every second of the film. Her direction allowed for the perpetual feeling of impending doom that is necessary to get the audience’s adrenaline pumping enough for us to actually feel what the theme presents- that the rush of war is powerful enough to be addictive- even if it’s only the tiniest microcosm of reality. Without that direction and that edge of your seat anticipation, the film does not connect and the theme and everything so great about the premise is lost. Fortunately for the viewer, Bigelow delivers an excellent film.

Even with the great premise and excellent direction, the film still would not have been nearly as powerful if it weren’t for great acting, particularly from Jeremy Renner. His Oscar nomination was well deserved as he accomplished what every actor or filmmaker strives to be able to accomplish- he communicated his character’s thoughts through actions and looks, no words. There are so many times in the film in which his character does something taboo and the only explanation the other characters get (and the audience for that matter) is a close-up of Renner’s face. He does an impeccable job of not over-acting nor remaining too flat, but finding that perfect middle ground in which his eyes and expression tell the story in a very real, human way.

All the other aspects of the production are very well done also. From the writing to the sound editing to the cinematography, it is clear that a lot of talent worked on this film and it is reflected in the end result.

However, if I were to critique (and I am) I would argue that there are some minor story issues. First, I felt that, based solely on story, the film would have dragged at parts if it weren’t for the excellent direction of Bigelow. The story never really progresses. It just changes scenery: a new bomb, a new impending danger, and the same protocol for dealing with it. Obviously, it’s not that mundane considering it’s people’s lives at stake, but for the sake of argument, the story stalls.

My other point of contention… the ending. There are two ways of ending this film, in my opinion, different than how it ends (I’ll try not to ruin it). One (and my preferred way), leave him standing in the grocery store towards the end, trying to process his decision. I felt that picture spoke a billion words towards what was going through the character’s mind and the contrast perfectly proved the theme. Two, extend the film by at least 30 minutes to properly show him acclimating to his new surroundings before the ‘relapse’ that ends the film. (Sorry for being vague, but I am trying not to spoil the ending if you haven’t seen it.) The way it actually ends feels rushed to me and I could easily do without the last 5 or so minutes after the grocery store.

The Hurt Locker is an excellent movie and a must see for any and all viewers. It ambitiously tackles a non-mainstream idea about war and executes that idea tastefully and effectively, leaving the audience with a sense that this is a real issue in the real world. Any time a film can achieve that transcendence, it’s done something right. (I guess it helps that it’s based on real life experiences, but I won’t get into that…) If you haven’t done so already, check out The Hurt Locker.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4.5

Buy The Hurt Locker

2009 Best Film Nominee #3- Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire

2010-07-15T14:36:00.000-04:00

Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire is a beautiful tragedy about a young woman who is dealt every bad card in the deck, yet still manages to cling to hope and aspire for a better life. I loved this film for many reasons: its great acting, great direction, great writing, and, mostly, its heart. Despite the potentially cliché premise (poor girl from a bad neighborhood is beaten and unloved), the film never flirts with the cliché and is powerfully moving.

The film is delivered from the perspective of our heroine, Precious, and much of her characters’ development occurs without any dialogue and little action. This seems contradictory- how can a character change without doing or saying anything? Two ways to make it happen: a good director and good actors. I’ll start with the direction. Lee Daniels does a fabulous job of getting the shots and the performance out of a very green, but very talented lead actress, Gabourey Sidibe. He accomplishes this by effectively taking us into the lead character’s head by using great close-ups on Sidibe matched with what she sees and is thinking (in the form of a voice over). I am normally skeptical of voice over- I think it is often used to try to gloss over a weak story- but in this film, it is used as it should be and the film would not only be impossible without it, but not nearly as well done.

The other reason this film worked so well and the main reason it had so much heart is the acting. I could gush this entire blog about it, but I’ll try to confine it to a few sentences. Sidibe, I touched on, is tremendous; I look forward to following her career. Mo’Nique delivers one of the most powerful, terrifying, real performances I think I have ever seen. I went into the film not realizing she was in it, and, only being familiar with her comical exploits, had no idea Precious’ mother was played by Mo’Nique until I saw the credits- she’s that out of character and that good. The rest of the ensemble was also magnificent, even Mariah Carey in her most glitterless form delivers.

In discussing Blind Side I criticized the film for having a passive main character and referenced Precious as being an example of making it work. Well, here it is. The writing was fabulous and, despite Precious being so passive and shy she borders on being a mute when the film begins, she drives the story forward. It took creative screenwriting to do it: incorporating fantasies, witty voice-overs of Precious’ thoughts, and many seemingly small turning points. Even more impressive than that, though, scribe Geoffrey Fletcher manages to keep the story fresh and interesting so as to keep our attention throughout Precious’ evolution without falling into the pitfalls of being cliché or over-indulging in pity- both easy to do with this premise. (I don’t want to leave author Sapphire out. Although I haven’t read her book nor do I know the dynamics of Fletcher’s adaptation, I have no doubt many of my compliments are attributable to her and her great novel.)

With such a glowing review, you must be wondering why I only have Precious ranked 3 at this point. Well, it’s out of no fault of the film. Ultimately, I just felt the other two films were better, for reasons I’ll address in the next two blogs. If I were to critique Precious, though, it would mainly just be about the premise. The story has been done and told before- not in this way, but it isn’t a new concept. The themes of the film are not new and the story is one that feels familiar. I didn’t leave the film thinking, “Wow, that’s like nothing I’ve ever seen before.”

That critique aside (which I really had to dig for), Precious is a fantastic film and a must see. Despite its gloomy premise and potential, the story shines with heart as this downtrodden character refuses to submit to her cruel fate, and she doesn’t do it with fanfare, but through silent strength. It is moving and I know I left the theater counting my blessings.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4.5

Buy Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire

2009 Best Film Nominee #4- Up in the Air

2010-07-14T14:36:00.000-04:00

Up in the Air is the definition of perfect timing. What better environment could there be to release a film about a lonely traveler whose job is to fire people than our current economic climate? The premise effortlessly sets up the theme that, basically, when things are going bad, don’t forget to count your blessings because odds are you still have some to count, and maybe even more (albeit different) than someone you’d consider “more fortunate”. It was absolutely brilliant timing and, moreover, delivered a touching, bittersweet tale that seemed to transcend the screen and provide some sort of perspective on the worst recession in this country since the Great Depression.

None of this works, though, unless the filmmakers turn the good premise into an excellent film, which they do. I’m a fan of director Jason Reitman’s work (Thank You For Smoking, Juno) and think he was an excellent match for this film. The subject matter is very dramatic and can be depressing, but Reitman excels at delivering a light-hearted, quirky sense of humor through his direction, which he does just enough of in this film to keep the mood light and stray from a dark path of depression. However, to prove he’s not so insensitive as to make light of an awful situation, he allows honest to goodness citizens to sit in front of an interview camera and vent their feelings about actually being fired… in the real world. What an awesome touch! The bookend interviews of people that were fired in the real world expressing their feelings about being fired then explaining how they deal with it instantly makes this film more real. It also does a great job of bringing perspective and, hopefully, solace to the masses that have been fired or laid off (in the film or, to some degree, real life) and it was done in a brief enough way to avoid pulling focus from the actual film (bravo!).

Further, the acting is tremendous! George Clooney delivers and does a great job of showing his character’s progression from a lonely man who has convinced himself he’s happy to a man that has come to terms with his loneliness (seeing no other alternative) and seems resigned to accept it. Both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick nail their characters as well and are deserving of their Oscar nominations.

Coinciding with this great acting is excellent character development through story. I don’t know if you can attribute the character development to the great acting or vice-versa (probably a symbiotic relationship), but we get these characters. They progress and change through their actions and reactions to the circumstances that befall them.

Not to beat a dead horse, but, again, what makes this film special is its timing. I firmly believe that Hollywood trends according to the economy. The Hollywood films in the boom era of the late ‘90’s and pre-911 2000’s are much more independent-minded films meant to challenge our institutions and social structures. Films like American Beauty were hits in the box office because the economy was good and people were generally happy, so they could afford the mental fortitude to take on a movie that challenges their way of life. However, in a recession, when people already have so many troubles (job security, financial security, strains on relationships, etc.) the last thing we’re looking for is a film that gives us more things to worry about. That’s why you see more comedies, children’s movies, and action/thrillers, because people want that escape. Up in the Air takes an alternative route. It directly addresses the problem at hand (unemployment and massive layoffs) in a manner that those afflicted can relate to. Better than escaping is seeing people that feel your pain and can truly empathize with you (like other people that were really fired). This film does a masterful job of providing this release while also providing the perspective that the people doing the firing may very well be depressed too! We get people to empathize with and bosses to feel better than. It’s a win-win!

Ultimately, though, this film does not rate higher because the premise, while great, is a little limiting. The film is very well done and is a very good story, but it just doesn’t have very many turns it can take. The first half of the film is great. It moves quickly and is intriguing, but, once it passes the midpoint, I feel like it limps a little bit on its way to the third act break. This is no fault of any of the filmmakers, but just the simple fact that there are only so many things you can show when all the main character does is fly around and fire people (not to say that that’s all that happens, it’s not, but just to put it in the simplest terms). This slight redundancy aside, the film maneuvers around this hurdle masterfully and is extraordinary. I highly recommend checking this film out!

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4

Buy Up in the Air

2009 Best Film Nominee #5- An Education

2010-07-13T16:19:00.000-04:00

We made it, the top 5 films nominated for best picture! Seeing how this year was the first year the Academy expanded to ten nominees for best picture, you could say the remaining five films are my personal nominations for best picture in the traditional format. I have so much influence! (haha) Anyway, I really enjoyed An Education. It’s a bittersweet, but ultimately pleasant coming of age story about a young girl in London in the early 1960’s who is courted by a much older man who seems to have the world on a string. It is well done, subtle, and, premise aside, actually quite sweet.

The story is well crafted. One major mental leap aside, every beat and scene makes complete sense and the story is engaging and has a nice, steady flow to it. The introduction provides all the necessary exposition in a palatable way and the filmmakers do a good job of getting to the story quickly without making it seemed rushed. In hindsight, the major turning points seem a little obvious, but as the film progresses, each one does surprise, which I think is due to incredible acting.

I’ll attempt not to gush too much, but the acting in this film was very good. Carey Mulligan is fantastic and every bit deserving of her Oscar nomination. Her performance is understated, yet she has a presence every time she is on screen. Further, she manages to portray a sweet, well-meaning girl with her quirky, pleasant smile, while also displaying her inner wild side through mischievous eyes. Notice I mentioned no words. Much of the time, she simply didn’t need them. Next to her, Peter Sarsgaard was tremendous at his part. He probably had the most challenging role in the film and he pulls it off magnificently. His character is basically a pedophile- he takes an interest in a 16-year-old girl. Yet, he is so innocent and well intentioned in his manner that he comes across as a genuine nice guy so much so that we, the audience, actually kind of want it all to work out between he and his much younger counterpart. Without these two stunning performances, I’m not sure that this film works.

The film also has a distinct indie style and direction. It was well directed and more imaginative in its direction than the standard blockbuster. We don’t see the camera cutting back and forth to whoever’s talking too much and there is a distinct effort to frame shots in a creative, out of the box way. In general, the direction effectively tells the story and adds another level of enjoyment. Some of the more ambitious shots, though, do not work as well as simpler shots.

Earlier I mentioned a major leap in the story, well, it was definitely a big one. Our heroine, Jenny, has an overbearing, strict father who seemingly trusts Jenny with absolutely no freedom, even when it comes to dating the most harmless, bumbling boy. However, when the much older man (Sarsgaard’s character, David) comes knocking to woo Jenny, he is instantly charmed and caves to any request David makes. Now, David is supposed to have this sort of touch on people, as evidenced by his line of work. However, I find it hard to believe that someone presented as such a strong character could so easily do a complete 180.

Ultimately, I know why the filmmakers made the leap. They had to tell their story and this was the way to get to it quickly. They pull so few other shenanigans that I’m okay with it. However, what ultimately keeps An Education towards the middle of the pack is that the film is just too easy. Without spoiling the ending for you, I’ll just say that the way the film is resolved takes some of the purpose out of the journey. When I watch the film, I walk away with the sense that the “education” that Jenny receives is that the world is a harsh place full of people doing what they gotta do as a means trying to reach a desired end. That being said, I believe the film resolves itself appropriately along those lines. Jenny does learn this lesson from her experiences. However, the stakes suffer as a result of the ending and it tiptoes the line of reality. I’ll leave it at this: if a lesson is learned due to the consequences of one’s actions, then I’ll say there must have been no lesson learned here.

Overall, I think this was a very pleasant and enjoyable film. It is easy to watch and the acting is fantastic! It is well written and well directed and a nice little story. While it lacks some of the higher stakes of the films ranked ahead of it, it is definitely worth seeing.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4

Buy An Education

2009 Best Film Nominee #6- Avatar

2010-07-12T16:42:00.010-04:00

Surprised? Yeah, I know, but give me a break, I couldn’t rank the top grossing film of all time any lower than this (zing)… It may seem harsh, but I feel Avatar deserves a little criticism after it paid hundreds of millions of advertising dollars convincing us it’s the best film ever made (baaaaaa-zing). Personal qualms aside, though, no one can argue the immense success of the film and it is spectacular in 3-D, IMAX (hope you crammed one of those in your living room [zing]).

Zingers aside, when the top business minds of the country are discussed, I feel James Cameron has earned a mention. Take this film back to its concept and think of what he must have had to sell to Fox. I imagine it went something like this:

Cameron: “I’ve been working on this script for a really long time and the technology has finally caught up to it, so let’s do it!”

Fox Exec: “How much?”

Cameron: “Well, did I tell you about the story? It’s a mythological tale of human conquest and exploitation of a foreign land in order to mine its rich minerals. Then-“

Fox Exec: “It’s about the U.S. invasion of Iraq?” (zing… okay, I’ll stop)

Cameron: “No, you didn’t let me finish. A disenchanted Marine takes sympathy with the natives’ plight and turns into one of the local blue cat-people and fights against the corrupt oil (cough) mineral drillers.”

Fox Exec: “So… it’s Dances with Wolves- wait, did you say blue cat-people? Doesn’t matter. How much?”

Cameron: “It’s going to be totally awesome and you’re going to make a killing!”

Fox Exec: “How much?”

Cameron: “Conservatively… $300 million.”

Fox Exec: “I don’t know…”

Cameron: “Titanic.”

Fox Exec: “Deal.”

And both Cameron and Fox were absolutely right! It did make a killing! What they had the foresight to see was that 3-D and IMAX are the only point of differentiation for watching a film at the theater rather than on your beautiful, HD, LED screen at home. People still like going to the movies and they want excuses to see a film in theaters, but, for most films, the people that can afford to go would probably just as soon keep that thirty bucks (including date and popcorn/drink/whatever) in their pocket and wait until they can put it on their queue (like you wonderful people who read my blog!). However, 3-D and IMAX are a whole different can of worms. There was no 3-D in anyone’s homes at the time. If you could utilize that technology so that the theater experience is unique from anything you could see at home, then… then… $2,734,434,940. F*** me, it worked!

So, why do I dislike the film? First and foremost, it was an awful screenplay. There’s not much redeeming about it at all. Early on it became clear to me that the story served only as a vehicle to show off Pandora (and all the time, thought, creativity, and money put into it, which is impressive) and to promote an environmentalist message that eerily bordered on crossing into cult territory.

The story line is completely recycled. I’m a realist. I know storylines get recycled all the time, but this one really had no twists or turns that mark it as original. Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas are the same story, just a different setting. So what does this mean? The film is completely predictable. The entire time you’re watching it you’re just waiting for the final battle scene, which we all know is coming due it being in the trailer (hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, remember?), but, oo, that flower’s pretty!

Along the same lines, the setups were very forced. I don’t want to spoil it, but the panther early on, the terydactyl skull, the whole “seeing” thing (I could look up the actual names of these things, but would you really recognize them in Na’vi?) are obviously planted early on so as to get a payoff later on. What’s more, everything ties back in at the end of the film. It is far too convenient to be considered realistic. Obviously, we know none of Pandora is anywhere near real, but, once we’ve learned the world, it would be nice to think, “Well, in this world, yeah, I could see that happening.” Bows and arrows taking down helicopters, animals fighting on behalf of humans without any training, and blunt knives being thrust through foot-thick glass from the year 2154 just don’t seem realistic, even in Pandora.

Finally, the acting was average and the dialogue was horrible. Sam Worthington seemed flat to me in the film, but, in fairness to him and the other actors, there was not a lot to work with. Characters were either flat and undeveloped or just switched sides without an explanation (Jake Sully being the only exception to both, and even his development seemed forced). Further, the dialogue was bad. I laughed at the most dramatic parts of the movie because the dialogue was so painfully awkward. I just wish that they had said, “Peek-a-boo” in front of “I see you”…

Overall, Avatar was a brilliant business move. I believe it was really the first film to unlock the potential of 3-D, IMAX and it has obviously opened the floodgates. Further, the attention to detail and beauty of Pandora is truly remarkable. Its stunning backdrop resulted only due to the hard work of dedicated artists and visionaries. However, the actual story is very forgettable and passable. If you saw it in theaters or haven’t spent upwards of a grand on your home entertainment system, don’t bother renting this (again). However, if you have a good TV and you want to see what all the fuss is about, go ahead and check it out. Hopefully your lowered expectations will enhance your enjoyment of it.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3.5

Buy Avatar (Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo) [Blu-ray]

2009 Best Film Nominee #7- Up

2010-07-10T18:05:00.007-04:00

Is there a studio more consistent than Pixar? Year in, year out it delivers family films that not only entertain the kids, but operate on a level palatable to adults. Now, it’s had a film nominated for best picture and, as you can see by my ranking, I think it was a quality enough film to compete with some of the other nominees. This evaluation contrasts my criticisms of The Blind Side in which I claimed it is not a best picture caliber film and, therefore, shouldn’t be in the category. Ultimately, I would also concede that neither is Up. However, I rank it ahead of District 9 and A Serious Man because it is simply executed so tremendously.

Sometimes when you watch a film, everything just seems to work and everything just fits. I felt that way watching Up. The animation, as we all have come to expect with Pixar, is fantastic. The story is cute and the themes of adventure and love match it perfectly. Everything in the film, all the way to the score, fits together in the same unique style. I’m not saying this film will change your perspective, but it truly is the definition of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

What allows for this harmony of intermingling aspects of the film is its solid backbone of a well-structured, well-told story. Its set-up manages to cover a lifelong relationship from its inception to its conclusion in a heart-warming, efficient manner so that when Ellie dies and Carl is left alone, we understand why he is such a bitter old man, and, therefore, we’re okay with it. That incredible crafting of the story’s introduction allows Carl room to grow so that his journey is relevant to him for more than the adventure. It is literally life changing. From there, the story moves along at a good pace. It doesn’t speed through character development and it doesn’t loll between the more exciting action scenes. Every single beat of the story hits at the appropriate time, which makes it easier to follow and easier to lose yourself in. Every single turning point makes sense and the ending is both fitting and touching. I honestly cannot look at any part of the movie and say it should have been done differently.

With such high praise, you must be wondering why I only rank it as number seven. Well, despite the incredible execution of the film, the premise is not that strong. To sum it up in a sentence, I’d say, “A grumpy old man attaches thousands of balloons to his house to fly away on the adventure he and his late wife never took, but he finds an unwelcome guest in the form of a boy scout has come along for the ride in Up.” After you get past the idea of helium balloons lifting a house from its foundation, you get a story that isn’t really fresh- an old guy reliving his childhood and going on an adventure. That movie came out recently and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull flopped. Just ask Shia LaBeouf. On top of it, the adventure is to find an exotic bird. Really, that’s an adventure? Well, at least give us a menacing enemy. Nope- An even older man and a pack of talking dogs. Who green-lighted this flick?! And look where it ended up. Like I said, incredible execution by a trusted studio.

Along the same lines of the weak premise, I do handicap Up because it’s a children’s movie. This handicap is not some sort of personal, statutory limit I’ve imposed on kids movies, like ‘no movie under PG-13 will ever make my top 5”. Rather it is because the themes are dealt with on a more childish, elementary level… as they should be. Generally, children’s films can’t be entertaining and understandable to children as well as challenging and thought provoking to adults. In this film, an elderly man tries to move on now that his lifelong partner and soul mate has passed, and he does so pretty easily, without much heartache. I can’t imagine the anguish someone must feel when they lose a partner of roughly 60 years, and, the film ignores that entire dynamic, which it really must do because it is a children’s movie.

To sum it up, this is simply just a good movie. It is charming, funny, and heart-warming and the story will keep you entertained and involved regardless of your age. If you have kids or are one and you haven’t seen this movie yet, let me be the first to welcome you back to Earth and suggest you hop in the car (or online) and go pick it up. If you don’t have kids, I’d still recommend you rent it if you’re in the mood for something a little lighter and easier to watch.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3.5

Buy Up (Four-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo + BD Live) [Blu-ray]

2009 Best Film Nominee #8- A Serious Man

2010-07-09T17:55:00.007-04:00

It pains me to put the Coen brothers this low because I admire their work, but this particular film, A Serious Man, just didn’t do it for me. I wanted to like it. I tried to like it. I re-watched it hoping I’d like it more the second viewing. Alas, no, it was simply too dry and mundane for me. I know this may be blasphemy to some (process of elimination tells you an animated film beat it), but please hear me out.

I admired the film for all its technical aspects and production. I love the way the Coen brothers set up a shot and they do it well in this film. The acting is excellent. Michael Stuhlgard masterfully played a helpless victim unwilling to accept his victimhood, but also too nice and meek to really do anything about it. The supporting cast shines as well. The Coen’s also plant good set-ups early on that they use to reap the benefits of comedic payoffs throughout the film (particularly Larry’s son’s obsession with the aerial).

From a story perspective (you know how much I love story!), the Coen’s accomplish what The Blind Side could not: they take a passive character and make him move the story forward. Larry even exclaims in exasperation multiple times throughout the film, “I didn’t do anything!” This is a bit of a paradox because Larry indeed does nothing to cause the misfortunes that befall him. However, he moves the story forward by actively trying to find meaning in them. Despite not appearing to be particularly pious, Larry embarks on a spiritual journey of sorts and visits rabbis to find answers to his crumbling life. He doesn’t simply roll with the punches and carry on with business as usual.

The story also effectively conveys a darkly humorous tone. It is brilliant in its subtlety (I love the scene in which Larry first comes home only to be attacked by an angry wife and daughter for reasons that he doesn’t know and are not his fault, all while his deadbeat brother shouts from the bathroom, “I’ll be right out!”- genius). The film also exposes the ugly side of life’s institutions such as family, marriage, and religion in an amusing way. Don’t expect to fall out of your seat though! The humor is so subtle and downplayed that, in my opinion, it is lost at times. In order to really get the humor and really enjoy it, you have to have a very dry and pretty dark sense of humor.

I also think part of the reason I missed out on some of the humor is due to my own ignorance. I am not Jewish and am not an expert on the religion or culture. As a result, I got the sense that some of the potency of the humor was lost on me because I am an outsider. Since much of the humor was satirical, and the “who” is often the most important aspect of the humor in satire, my unfamiliarity with the Jewish religion or culture left a gap for me. I believe this may have been true of the story as well, particularly in the opening scene. To me, it seemed very unnecessary to have that scene as a sort of fable that, bluntly, shows that s*** happens. They easily could have expressed all relevant information in a more concise, story-centric way, but they didn’t. I assume it was for the entertainment value, which, being an outsider was less effective to me. That’s not to say it was the wrong choice for the film. I just didn’t get it.

My biggest critique, though (and the reason I rank A Serious Man this low) is that it is a story about ordinary people living ordinary lives, with every day, ordinary things happening to them. It sounds kind of boring, right? About half the audience could claim to have an equally exciting life story, maybe even more compelling depending on the audience! Why should I invest my time and energy into a story about fictional characters that is no grander than my own life story? I’m not saying I need Pandora to be entertained, but do something to draw me into the story! Going into a film, I have nothing invested in its characters or story. It is the story’s job to grab my attention and make me care about it whether I want to or not. Unfortunately, I found so many of the scenes to be so ordinary and dry that I just found myself getting bored and waiting for the film to end.

So, there you have it. Chalk the low ranking up to personal preference. The film is very well done. The acting is great and the writing is witty. If you like the Coen brothers, you’ve probably already seen the film and aren’t awaiting my recommendation with bated breath. If you consider yourself a bit of a movie buff who enjoys indie films and enjoys films that aren’t high concept, go ahead and rent it. However, if you really only enjoy the Hollywood blockbusters, then this one probably isn’t for you.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3

Buy A Serious Man

2009 Best Film Nominee #9- District 9

2010-07-08T17:05:00.006-04:00

No, I didn’t rank District 9 number 9 to match the title. I put it here, ultimately, because I liked the idea of the film more than the actual film. District 9 is a very ambitious movie that deals with themes ranging from apartheid to Christianity: all encompassed in a sci-fi thriller. I love the scope it tried to cover, but unfortunately the pursuit of that scope hurt the story.

First, I criticized The Blind Side in my last post for not having the best picture style, something that is a non-issue for District 9. Aesthetically, the film works. The handheld style and bookend documentary-style segments contribute to the film’s goal of making this hypothetical world seem all the more real, a great choice for those purposes, but at the cost of the storytelling.

I love story, and I think the documentary style segment up front crippled the film’s story. In this segment, the film shows all the necessary exposition explaining how the world came to be the way it is. It explains how the aliens arrived, how they were discovered, how they are treated, etc. It reveals all the possible reveals of the story so that by the time the story begins, we the audience already know every interesting aspect of this imaginary world. This choice allows the film to jump right into exploring its themes, but it blows the opportunity to gradually clue us in on how this world differs from our own, making the story drier as a result.

The documentary style approach also leads to my second point: the media in the film. Starting with such a long, documentary style segment allows the audience to remain arm’s length from the story and the main character (Wikus) for two reasons. First, rather than feeling like we’re being drawn into the story and building a level of intimacy with it and its characters, we are reminded through the opening documentary that we are sitting on our couch watching characters on a screen. It’s like watching the Discovery channel if you knew that everything was fake. You may care about the people you’re watching, but only if you really force yourself to, which leads to my second point. Why should we? If the terrible treatment of these creatures is commonplace for this new world (as the distribution through media would suggest), then what’s the big deal? Why should I care what happens to these people and in this story. I can flip on the news and see similar things happening to real people in the real world and not care enough to do anything about it, so why should I care about these fake people in this fake world? I understand that is one of the points of the film, but it sacrifices the uniqueness and effectiveness of the story in order to make the point. It makes the film more of an academic hypothesis rather than a movie with a gripping story, which is fine, except that if the goal is to make the themes resonate with the audience, the latter of which is a much more effective vehicle.

Finally, I think this film simply bit off more than it could chew. It has so many themes and so many allusions that they dominate the entire movie. It set up this hypothetical world: what if aliens arrived and they were non-violent and, for the most part, submissive? Rather than choosing one aspect of that story and running with it, the film seemingly tries to cover EVERYTHING that would happen. It covers corporate and government corruption, apartheid, religion (any time a character’s name has the initials “JC” or the word “Christ” in it, look out for a literary “Christ figure”. This film’s two for two: Christ-opher Johnson - initials flipped), organized crime, drugs, prostitution, etc. It seems so concerned with shedding light on human nature and how our societies and governments work, that the story is simply meant to serve these themes, instead of the themes organically arising from a well-told story. The approach the filmmakers took is not wrong; I just think it is very difficult to cover the breadth of topics they take on in less than two hours. I would like to have seen this film approached as a television series along the lines of The Wire. I think with the added time, characters could have been developed to the point that the aforementioned topics would have more significance when they occur to and around our characters and, ultimately, I think the themes would have resonated more.

Overall, District 9 swings for the fences and, I won’t say it struck out, but that ball definitely stayed in play. I love the topics it deals with and it approaches them in a fresh, imaginative way. The film quality is superb and fits the goals of the film and the acting is good as well. On the other hand, it might be the most boring alien invasion story ever told. If you enjoy watching a film with your mind instead of your heart and/or you love any and everything sci-fi, I highly recommend this film. However, for the average movie-goer looking for an entertaining story, this one might not be for you.

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster

2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3

Buy District 9 (Two-Disc Edition)

2009 Best Film Nominee #10- The Blind Side

2010-07-07T20:04:00.007-04:00

Surprise! (Just kidding, I suspect many of you saw this one coming). In adhering to the compliment sandwich for, well, criticism, I’ll begin by telling you what I like about the movie. Sandra Bullock appears as charming and likeable as I hear she is off screen. She clearly elevates the movie and nails her role. Further, I was impressed with the supporting cast. There weren’t any truly moving performances, but all the actors were convincing and played their parts well. I was impressed with Jae Head (S.J. in the film). I thought he showed good timing, sharpness, and presence that most child actors struggle with. More than anything, though, the best compliment I can give The Blind Side is that it delivers on the premise it promises. It is exactly what it claims to be: a warm, heartfelt, family movie about redemption, triumph, and family. The problem is, it’s not what the Academy nominated it to be: a best picture caliber movie.

I could speculate and throw out unfounded theories all day about why I think The Blind Side was nominated, but I’ll spare you the headache and just tell you why I don’t think it’s on that level. First, the story doesn’t challenge me at all. What makes it so easy to watch and great for the family is that you know the entire story when you see the trailer (or, in my case, watched the 2009 NFL Draft- yup, they covered the whole thing). It shies away from anything unpleasant or any of the grittiness of the story: Michael’s background in the projects, his relationship with his mother, etc. I’m sure these elements occurred in the true story (which is amazing and inspiring) and would have made the movie sizzle with more conflict (much like Precious). Rather, the filmmakers went the Disney route.

Secondly, it doesn’t have the best picture “style”. This is hard to specify, but you can tell when you see it. Some examples I see where it lacks the style are: the football stock footage and voice-over which explain the title before the movie even really starts, the parade of groveling real life college football coaches (coaches aren’t Oscar worthy actors and I see Lou Holtz drooling enough on the set of ESPN during football season), and the fudging of reality in a story based in reality (Sorry, I don’t buy a mother getting away with stopping practice to lecture her son. I especially don’t buy the fact that her lecture about protecting his family transforms him from a bumbling backup to a technically sound, blue chip recruit. That’s just one example.)

Finally, the story isn’t crafted and executed THAT well. It’s a good story overall, but it suffers from a crisis of identity. By this, I mean: whose story is it? Who is the main character taking us through this journey? The obvious first choice is Michael Oher. He has the furthest to go and is in the most need of change, so he sets up to be an interesting main character. However, his timidity makes him very passive. He’s a tag along in the film. He goes with the flow. The first major decision he has to make is made for him. He doesn’t want to spend that first night at the Tuohy residence; Leigh Anne tells him to and this proves to be the rule, not the example to it. He does not drive the story forward at all and, therefore, is not the story’s hero (unlike a similar character who DOES drive the story forward in another Best Picture nominee that may have been mentioned earlier…)

Anyway, The Blind Side was NOT Michael Oher’s story and it’s a shame because his story is the most interesting one. Rather, it is Leigh Anne Tuohy’s story, which has potential, but there was a lot of meat left on that bone. To put it shortly, Leigh Anne is too perfect and everything goes too smoothly for her. There’s no struggle and her character is flat- meaning she does not change or evolve throughout the film. Where’s the fun in that? Part of what makes a great story is the struggle of the main character- her ups and downs and how she must adapt to her unforeseen circumstances so as to persevere and not crumble. At the heart of change is conflict and without conflict, there is no story. Sadly, I think a lot of the conflict and change that exists in the true story was absent in the film.

Now, it’s time for the other piece of bread in the compliment sandwich. This may seem like a very meaty sandwich, but keep in mind I’m judging this film on the best picture level, which I think is unfair. Further, if the only good movies were best picture quality, we’d only get a handful a year (if that) and Hollywood probably would have gone out of business decades ago. Like I said in the beginning, this is a good movie for what it is. When you watch it, you can’t help but get a goofy smile on your face and feel all warm and fuzzy inside at times. It’s extremely easy to watch and the characters come across as genuine, good people- a refreshing lark into the metaphorical world of white-picket fences and smiling neighbors. The Blind Side provides this type of reprieve and if you like that type of movie, this film’s for you! If that’s not your preference, I think there are plenty of films out there that'd you prefer more, but I can pretty safely guarantee it’s not the worst way to spend two hours. (You could have spent it listening to Tim McGraw “Over and over again…”)

Scale:

1- Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster
2- Might Be Worth Renting

3- Rent It When You Get to It

4- A Must Rent, at some point

5- Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3

Buy The Blind Side