The Grace Kelly Review

Ali** (2001) 8.25, 7, 8.5, 23.75

2016-07-01T21:08:00.000-07:00

So, this evening I perused HBONOW alphabetically and quickly found my eyes resting on a film, 2001’s Ali, that seems to be timely given its historical protagonist’s demise recently. So I popped it on and just finished its lengthy two hour and thirty-seven minute runtime. I was a little underwhelmed, as I remember from my first viewing.

As for acting, the real standout here, I feel Will Smith did a pretty great job. The hardest thing for a high-profile movie star like him to do, especially when playing such iconic figures, is to make us momentarily forget that we’re not looking at the original. I had moments when Smith assumed the legendary charisma of Ali and his manic energy so well that I genuinely lost the sense of watching a film and felt like I was watching a man just putting on a great show.

Another person who deserves a note is Jon Voight as Howard Cosell. Both in his dry onscreen persona and in his more tender and personal moments with Ali, Voight managed to maintain that balance of humanity and affability that I have seen in footage of Cosell. Credit should also be given to the makeup department in hiding the recognizable face of Voight, allowing him to inhabit the role more completely. In that spirit, it also seems worth mentioning part of Smith’s accomplishment in taking on this role and inhabiting the spirit of Ali, without really looking that much like him.

A quick shout out to Jamie Foxx as Bundini, Mario van Peebles as Malcolm, and the actors playing Ali’s three main opponents: Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, and George Foreman, seems incumbent on me. Foxx plays the hype man and friend of Ali with a frantic quality that matches the portrayed personality and troubles. Mario van Peebles has the thankless duty of following Denzel in one of his most powerful and pivotal roles. He shows in a limited situation the humanity and tenderness of Malcolm, especially in relation to Ali.

The three roles of the opponents are played well in each case, showcasing the brute strength of these men. James Toney as Joe Frazier has a great moment, switching naturally, in an unnatural moment, between the hardness of his battling personality to the softness of a man having compassion on another and offering Ali money to get him to their fight.

Now, in spite of a number of good performances, even one remarkable one, this film fails to wow me. I lay this to what I assume is a writing issue. The film is well longer than it should have been for one that portrays a shortened version of Ali’s career.

It often portrays situations somewhat impressionistically, which can be done well, as in Stoppard’s Anna Karenina, but this film often seems to lazily try to build the emotional background to a scene through repeated cuts to musical performers. This motif seemed tired before they’d even finished it the first time and they repeated it several times. Numerous scenes of dialogue, especially between Ali and his lovers, seem directionless, the opposite of stilted, over-written dialogue, the characters meander, vaguely addressing the issues between them and then the scene moves on.

The most annoying instance is in the strange post-facto revelation of Ali’s infidelity. There seems almost no indication during Ali’s relationship with his second wife that he has a wandering eye, but when she leaves Africa to attend to their sick daughter, which is preceded by one of the strangest, most poorly written arguments I remember from a movie, he’s suddenly got an eye for everything that moves, or so the first person camera would have us believe.

After his wife returns, they have an argument revealing that he’s been unfaithful before and I was a little shocked, because no mention of it came at any point earlier in the film. We are now over two hours in and during the first hour, Ali yells at his father, insisting he’ll never run around on his wife. This reversal of his ideals of fidelity would have had more effect if it had been gradually revealed, but now it looks lazy and doesn’t have the intended effect.

A couple of other items should be given positive mention after that little tirade. The physical aspect of the numerous, lengthily portrayed fights are extremely well done. I think this film portrays boxing nearly as well as has been done in a film, which is accomplished by telling a clear narrative of the fight and all the lead-up. Yet, A couple of mistakes seem to be made.

As a sports film, I can see the allure of portraying Ali’s prowess and success as coming from on-the-spot genius, but in a little research into things, I can now see that the “rope-a-dope” style was developed from the later rounds of his fight with Frazier and didn’t occur to him at the second round of the “Rumble in the Jungle.” The desire to show Ali as a genius, misunderstood by all around him, which the film goes out of its way to do, makes them show him out of step with his partners in the corner, which is probably false.

A similar thing happens in Ali’s induction ceremony. It seems to portray Ali as temperamentally deciding to refuse induction, possibly because the representative of the government calls him Clay, instead of acting on his genuine conscientious belief, which makes him seem petty, instead of brave, which seems pretty unfair, considering how serious he seems to have taken the whole thing. It also shows him giving his famous quote, “No Viet Cong never called me nigger,” over the telephone in a fit, to the surprise of his friends, making his whole campaign feel very emotion-driven.

Overall, I felt this film failed in a lot of ways to do much more than give good moments to Smith and spur an interest in understanding Ali better. It didn’t accomplish its task in terms of cohesion, thoroughness, or consistency. Moments shine through, rather brightly, but the film as a whole in unspectacular. Its true goal may well have been as a vehicle to propel Will Smith to bigger things. In that way, it was very successful.

Wimbledon** (2004) 8.75, 9, 8.5, 26.25

2016-01-23T08:14:00.000-08:00

So this is one of those middling romantic comedies from my youth that I found for $.50 at a store that was moving locations. It's a simple sports film at its core, centering around an aging tennis pro named Peter Colt playing in what might be his last professional tournament at Wimbledon. He comes in with singularly low expectations, but he gains a new perspective when he meets Lizzie Bradbury, as young tennis phenom who takes an interest in him and makes him embarrassed to lose.
I gave it an 8.75 for wit because though it's charming and has moments of snappy dialogue and beautiful romance, it generally doesn't seek to do anything out of the ordinary acting-wise or in terms of the plot and dialogue.
For wisdom, I gave it a 9, in part because it betrays a little bit of the thought of Andreas Capellanus, a fantastic medieval thinker, whose Art of Courtly Love I heartily recommend. Beyond the -.25 for misunderstanding sexuality, hardly worth mentioning, there's also some nice stuff about family and aging romance I enjoyed, though the ending was a little much, which I'll discuss beyond the spoiler screen for those interested.
For wonder, I gave a pretty standard 8.5, because besides some interesting stuff in the music department, not enough to warrant any extra consideration, there's nothing in terms if cinematography, directing, or effects to warrant anything more.
I can hardly recommend this as prime romanticism, for those not inclined to it, but it fills a need. Paul Bettany is a great underdog everyman. Kirsten Dunst is bewitching, though maybe that's just me.
Enjoy, friends!
===============SPOILER ALERT=============
That was probably hardly necessary, because this came out in 2004, but War and Peace was published in 1869 and it takes I'm taking a lot of care and still having parts spoiled. The only bit worth mentioning is the end. Sports movies have a complex issue, particularly singles sports. If your character begins to be successful, which is practically required to make the movie interesting, how far do they have to succeed to avoid anticlimax? If they're the underdog, as here in Wimbledon, the further they get, the more improbable and the greater stretch on the suspension of disbelief. Having forgotten the end, I wanted him to fail before winning it all, so it would feel more real, but a film like this is built on the improbable. That said, when he, ranked 119th in the world, deep into his thirties, wins one of the most prestigious tennis tournaments in the world, it just snapped for me. The suspension couldn't hold. My disbelief flooded in and so 9 for wisdom. There you go.
Thanks if you made it this far. Enjoyez!

Perfect Sense* (2011) 9.25, 9.5, 9.25, 28

2016-01-23T07:16:00.000-08:00

This one's been on my Netflix queue for a while. I've always thought the idea was interesting, I have a deep affection for Ewan McGregor, and have been interested in Eva Green since Casino Royale. But I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of artistry and imagination this film contained.
I'll begin with a very flattering comparison to La Jetée, a somewhat obscure French film that awed with its simplicity and use of arresting visual techniques. It's only a half an hour, but uses its time economically and accomplishes more than most two hour films. In Perfect Sense, a similar simplicity leaves us with an hour and a half, which sees a beautiful romance unfurl with a haunting worldwide pandemic as a backdrop. This pandemic involves the loss, one by one, of the senses, in each instance preceded by a violent bout of emotion. In this way, it acts mostly like a fable for the blindness of our selfishness, but in such a way as to offer a kind of hope to be found in love.
This beautiful idea and ideal is extracted by means of a fascinating exploration of the importance of the senses and emotions and aspects of our lives connected to them.
Ewan is great at exploring characters that sit outside the regular Joe mold. In this, we have a aesthetically minded chef that's a bit of a cad, but meets a dejected, recently rejected epidemiologist, who happens to be studying our pandemic, just as she is coming down with the first symptoms.
The acting, from them and the rest of the little cast is always good, occasionally profound. But its the fascinating plot that earns it the extra to get to 9.25 for wit. After taking off the standard .25 for profound misunderstanding of sex, a thing films rarely avoid these days unless they simply ignore sexuality, I felt the acting and writing made up the .5 to get us back.
For wisdom, I gave it 9.5 because of the subtle beauty of the pandemic allegory and the idea that love is the thing that allows us to live, even when we're not whole, as well as the wisdom of the portrayals of love, heartbreak, and despair.
I gave it 9.25 for wonder chiefly on account of the interesting techniques used to play with the loss of the senses.
I really enjoyed this little gem. I hope you enjoy it as well.

22 Jump Street* (2014) 9.25, 8.25, 9, 26.5

2015-01-09T19:48:00.002-08:00

My good friend and I sat down and watched this film last week and I thought it definitely deserved a closer look. For the sensitive, this film contains a considerable amount of cursing and some pervasive innuendo. Definitely not for children.
Moving beyond that, this one's a sequel, which is an extremely tricky thing to do, especially for a comedy. This one takes the route less traveled. Just as 21 Jump Street made fun of itself slyly for being a reboot of an old TV show, this film consistently pokes fun at itself for all of the cliches and issues that come along with being a sequel. This is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. A good portion of the film is filled with jokes that compare the police operation with a movie. Jokes about an inflated budget quickly blown on nonsense and the lack of creative insight and courage to try something new are a huge element of the film, far bigger than its predecessor.
But it is an immensely funny film, not least because these jokes, which hurt the film at times by being too pervasive, are at times the funniest moments. Other great moments revolve around the brilliant portrayal of the idiot jock by Channing Tatum and his new frat-boy compatriot, Wyatt Russell. Add to this the continuing beauty of the dynamic between Channing and Jonah, as well as the apt comic stylings of Ice Cube, and you've got a film that flies very close to the original. The aforementioned overdoing of the sequel joke and the sloppy-even-though-satirized repetition keep it from getting a 9.5 for wit. Also Amber Stevens doesn't match up to Brie Larson.
One last thing. Rob Riggle's part in this film was really disappointing certainly because it was needlessly vulgar, but more because it made no sense. I keep realizing I have more, but I'll give it a break because it really is hilarious nearly from beginning to end.
For wisdom, it is again bad news. Like the last one, this definitely deserves the customary -.25 for sex. People in this world disagree greatly with me about sex and this film is no different. Casual hookups, bragging about 'conquests,' etc. Beyond that, the fraternity scene in all its drunken, hazing glory is unsettling to me. The lightness with which hardcore drugs are being dealt at times is frustrating as well. One of its few surprisingly bright moments is Patton Oswalt's professor character helping to undermine the effectiveness of America's "War on Drugs" policy.
Like too much of the positive ideas this movie might pursue, it's cast to the wayside, never to be revisited. And at times, positive ground covered in the earlier installment is lost. Channing's acceptance of his geekiness and passion for things, Jonah's thing with Brie Larson's character, which is conveniently never mentioned again. Not a lot great to say as far as wisdom goes, but it doesn't fall so far as to deface anything sacred and it still works as a buddy-cop movie, so I'll leave it at 8.25.
The wonder is 9, like the last one, because it adds a bit and loses a bit, but gets most of the basics right.
I hope I didn't get too ranty. I appreciate your reading and I hope to be back with something new soon. Enjoy!

Fury* (2014) 9.75, 9, 9.5, 28.25

2014-12-15T19:08:00.000-08:00

So, I had an unplanned day off and managed to find myself close by the theater with time to kill. Fate handed me Fury. This film is one I fully expect to get Oscar considerations, etc. and I will be disappointed if it doesn't. One quick point before I dive into the question of wit. This film was 2'14" and managed to feel like an hour and a half, tops. It had a flow that I'd place up against most movies of its kind.
To wit. One thing that occurs to me now is the extraordinary discretion of this film. Often, in order to avoid being graphic, a film has to water down or at least temper the harshness of its message. On the opposite end, a film like 12 Years a Slave, which I'm certainly not criticizing, in order to achieve a full and honest portrayal of the times and circumstances gives us a jagged realism that occasionally requires very graphic imagery. This film has some really haunting moments of violence, sexual and otherwise, but it includes zero instances of nudity. It isn't without violence. A lot of people die, but the violence never felt gratuitous to me. This was a late add, but I gave it an extra .25 for wit, though it might as well have been split between the three categories because it required deftness in each.
Beyond this, in wit, I find it hard to differentiate between the writing and acting, but the core group and even some of the outliers in this film are outstanding, as characters. Again, it could be down to the actors, to the director, or the writers. The core of this film is split between Brad Pitt and Logan Lerman. These two are really good. Brad's Wardaddy, who's often also referred to as Don, is quiet, but he's a leader. He's also at times the most frustratingly complacent character. He wants a better world, but so callously accepts the bad, at times even spurring it on.
Logan's Norman aka Machine is our little everyman, certain that he doesn't belong at the front. But we're never given any real backstory on this or any character. This might be the most important part of what makes this movie a great war movie. We never see a flashback or any setup. We only see men behaving as they do in the theater of war, pure and raw. One of the great elements of this kind of dirty, grimy war story is that it acts as a heightener. We see men whose virtues and vices have been called into play. A coward will be shown as he really is and so will a bully. A brave man and a scoundrel. And sometimes these come from the same person.
I know this sounds weird. I know I never believed I would say this. But Shia LaBeouf is finally believable as an adult in a movie. Beyond that. This is the first time I've ever seen him command a scene and put together a consistent and enriching performance. He may be the best part of the movie. His character, as far as I know only ever referred to as Bible, is an embodiment of everything I love and hate about evangelical, particularly revival-driven, Protestant fundamentalism. He is sincere, forthright, and earnestly righteous. He is also overbearing, judgmental, and at times callous. He is beautiful and human from first to last.
One more highlight is Jon Bernthal, who I'd hitherto only known from The Walking Dead, playing Coon-Ass. He is the most frightening 'good-guy' in this film, but even he has his moments, little glimpses that remind me that even the bully and the rake are human, for all their faults they have the fire of God inside. He is powerful and frightening in a way that plays like a lesser Joker, but maybe even more so because of those glimpses of light. And in many ways he's a hero, if only because anyone half-decent looks like one when they're fighting the Nazis.
Michael Pena would have deserved some serious praise but he never really gets a scene to himself. Jim Parrack, Laurence Spellman, and Brad William Henke have their moments along with Jason Isaacs, who more or less has a cameo, but a memorable one. Alicia von Rittberg also deserves a word. Her subtle playing with Logan and her background reactions to Jon are very important to selling the whole thing.
All of this feels like it places me near a perfect score, but I did have one serious grievance that brought it down to 9.75. But in order to do it any justice I have to get into some stuff.

=============================SPOILER ALERT==============================
The ending is a little bit cliched. The everyman as the only survivor is a holdover from that obscure time in storytelling when we felt we had to justify how the story got to us. It is unnecessary and cheapens the very real feeling of the movie. I don't mind the sole survivor, but there's nothing gained from and there is a great deal of probability against the youngest and least experienced soldier around surviving a situation that kills everyone else in the whole tank division. And the flashlight under the tank. Silly.
========================================================================

On to wisdom. This one isn't as drawn out or groundbreaking. There is the customary -.25 for some silly comments about sex and being young. It's nonsense, but it's so common some take it for sense.
On the plus side, we have the idea that there were bad Americans and good Germans. Groundbreaking at one time, but pretty commonplace now. We even have the idea that one person, in an extreme situation can be both the good guy and the bad guy in different moments. That's a little deeper. Add to that some flattery about the 'good bits' in Scripture and I round it back up .25. That leaves us just where we were at with a 9.
For wonder, as with most well-made films, I don't have a whole lot negative to say. The positives come from three camps. The director's credit, which is mostly having accomplished the seemingly impossible in coaxing real acting from Shia LaBeouf is worth a little bit.
Beyond that, the two more technical achievements are a solid score that builds the film without taking it over and one strange choice I assume was made in post about gun/cannon fire. A brief perusal of the internet revealed to me that this is a real thing used at the time. One of the bullets in a round was called a tracer and it helped the shooter to see where they were shooting. These were also on the cannon shot, to aid the gunners in tank battles, which is one of the highlights of the film, action-wise. I may be rounding down a bit, but this brings my total here to 9.5.
This is just my fifth 28.25, which puts it in around the likes of Elf, What Maisie Knew, The Life Aquatic, and How to Marry a Millionaire. I believe it also now puts it above two of the three other war movies I've rated so far. This may be high, my first watch ratings always seem to be, but the others might be low, which I often believe to be true of some of my older ratings. We may never know.
If you do decide to watch this film, I hope you enjoy it, not least on my recommendation. Be careful there are intimations, though nothing explicit of unwholesome sexual relations, including sly references to rape. And a lot of dead people and some disturbing war deaths, but those might be obvious. Enjoyez!

Interstellar* (2014) 9.25, 9.75, 9.75, 28.75

2014-11-09T18:16:00.000-08:00

I HAVE RETURNED.

It’s been a while folks. I’ll call it sabbatical. I have returned because my good friend suggested that Interstellar deserved a review if anything did. I agreed. So here we go:
I'd like to begin by sharing a bit from a friend. When it first finished, he said to me that he hadn't thought, after Inception, that Christopher Nolan could get more "outrageous." I think that is absolutely the right word for it. He did something That seamlessly revolutionized the way movies will be done from here on out. And next year, every movie will be trying to copy it, but they will all look pale beside it. I think that's a good place to start.

I’ll begin from the back, because that was key. Wonder is a 9.75. I’ll begin by giving the positives, which are numerous. The music from Hans Zimmer is magnificent as always. I’ll come back to questions of music when I get to negatives, but my limited musical knowledge can say this: Hans Zimmer seems to be able to use music to lead us inexorably to his emotional waypoints and to time it second-perfect with the visuals.

Beyond music, the visuals are perfect. In space, they are glorious, on other planets, they are harrowing, in fifth-dimensional space, they are unique and mythic, but the most masterful stuff may be the way they create the future earth and set the characters in relation to these backdrops.

The negatives are all in the area I would call sound-mixing, possibly for lack of a better term. There are two possibilities here. One is that Nolan has again created a work of genius that mixes the audio from two scenes at a deafening volume and finds a way to make the dialogue still mostly intelligible. That has never been done in this way before, to my knowledge, but my hunch is that the latter is true. In the attempt to create something new and exciting, I think, Nolan has stepped over an invisible line from genius to quackery. It is a subtle thing at times and not every scene like this (there seems to have been a number) fails, but it is often enough a distraction that disables a full view of the film that I wish he hadn’t done it. For that he loses his perfect wonder score in my eyes.

Now to wisdom. Like with wonder, the score is very high because Nolan knows what he’s doing. He knows just how to spin good ideas into narrative. His first major idea, which I did not expect and I hope doesn’t spoil anyone’s enjoyment of the movie, is that of the pursuit of excellence. In his characters voices it sounds more like, “Don’t allow yourself to be bound to what is seen as necessary, but aim for the stars in terms of doing what excites you.” This lesson is, I think, a very important one for a world dominated by the rush to promote sciences and things that are seen as practical over the arts and philosophy, which are often seen as inconsequential in comparison. Nolan’s character’s are scientists, but their interests are seen as extraneous in a world that needs food, but they see the necessity of looking beyond the immediate to the important issues that define humanity. This completely worth +.25 or more to me.

The second idea is possibly even more important and makes up most of the remaining .5 addition. I’m about to head into territory that could be a spoiler.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’ll go ahead and go all out since the spoiler concerned have been shooed away. I think the consistent eschewing of the evil-robot motif for the evil-human version is genius. Characters like Mann, played by Matt Damon, and Michael Caine’s character, who both spin deep falsehoods that condemn others to fates they would never have chosen, are near-perfect exemplars of the power and idiocy of human hypocrisy. They both see themselves as superior for having taken it upon themselves to act for the survival of the human race, but they fail to see the blinding selfishness in their own decisions as well as their short-sightedness.

While I’m at it, I could trace the further development of that first idea in Caine’s lie to Murph and the way she fights through the assumption that it’s hopeless. Throughout the movie, the fight between idealism and practicality finds the idealist the success and the practical man the fool. I think this reversal of how our society often thinks of things is insightful and at times produces great moments of comedy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The rest of the +.75 on top of the 9 is made up by Anne Hathaway’s somewhat corny scene where she tries to convince us that love is quantifiable. It’s corny, but paradoxically somewhat accurate.

On to wit, at last. This was strangely the hardest category for this film. In the past, Nolan has at times struggled here. He gets great actors to work with him and they never really underperform with him, but there are just little structural problems. Here the issues are with pacing and dialogue. As far as pacing goes, he does some brilliant work, with the space shuttle launch, etc., but the development of these long relationship plots falters at times. It skips things sometimes, mostly because this could easily been a mini-series and has a lot to get through in the time allotted. But McConaughey and his daughter, as well as said daughter (hereafter Murph) and her brother’s relationship. So many little relationships develop, but none of them seem very deep in the end. I won’t head into spoiler territory again, but the final scene with McConaughey and Murph is really disappointing and trivializing of interpersonal relationships, reminding me damningly of the break-up scene in Her.

For this reason, some of the dialogue feels really forced or unnecessarily terse. And some jumps are made (e.g. “You’re my ghost”) that are somewhat hard to feel good about.

At this point I feel like we land at an even 9. The extra .25 is about acting, but with this kind of all-star cast, it should be more. Everyone is good. Michael Caine, Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, various other surprise guests, but no one is outstanding. That is really a darn shame. The best performances are McConaughey and the guest who goes to play Dr. Mann.

I think that finds us where we end. A 28.75 is no mean feat, especially for a movie with really visible flaws. It puts it directly in the top 25, which I really will rewatch and rerate and review for you, someday. Be well and watch good movies.

P.S. If you’ve not already watched Shooter (2007) and you’re wondering if you should, I don’t recommend it. It might have been a four star, but Interstellar has not left me in the mood to finish inferior films.

Beginners** (2010) 9.75, 8.75, 9.5, 28

2014-05-24T09:33:00.001-07:00

Hello, and welcome back. I've been away a while. I have seen a lot of things, most of which should get some reference in an upcoming interlude. But let's be to it.

I've very intentionally reworked my rating process yet again and have decided to begin each rating with a 9, which is the medium rating for anything I've already given 5 stars to. Then I will subtract for anything which seems to me a clear flaw, then add for outstanding elements. Previously, especially recently, I've been overrating by assuming a 10 and simply peeling away for perceived flaws. It's important to remember that art can be flawless and yet unremarkable.
So, I gave it a 9.75 for wit. I think this movie truly has a beautiful, and what may be more to me, quirky way of shining light on a variety of human experience. I'll break it down.

As far as acting there is nothing bad to say and a number of possibly great performances here. Ewan McGregor does what I believe to be his best work, though I admit I've not seen a good portion of his work. Ewan simply inhabited this character and find something truly beautiful. From his genuine disappointment at being find out to be sad at a party, which I can certainly relate to, to his loud weeping and sobbing at his father's death, he moves and amazes.

The second standout is Mélanie Laurent. This is only the third film I've seen her in (previously Paris and Inglourious Basterds), but I already feel confident she will be among the best of her generation. Her success in manufacturing intimacy, the genuine sense that we are piercing the veil and seeing her soul, makes her performance really special. Some credit has to be given here to the onscreen chemistry of Mélanie and Ewan. They read each other so well and react with the simple deftness that makes one believe they could really be in love. These two together warrant a +.25 for wit.
The last major player is Christopher Plummer. He's had a storied career that would be notable without small films like this, but his work here is virtuoso. He manages minute close-ups and big wideshots, rarely failing to dominate his time onscreen. His subtlety in expressing overwhelming joy and burdensome sadness, sometimes in the same moment is breathtaking. Overall his performance warrants a second +.25, leaving us at 9.5.

Lastly, I should give some praise to Goran Visnjic, who successfully makes the much younger gay lover of Christopher's character likable and occasionally pitiable without compromising his obnoxious need for validation and his insensitivity to the world around him.
As for the writing, which is no doubt the source of some of the acting here, the film is incredibly funny and also profound in its use of non-realist storytelling to tell a wholly realistic emotional story about death, love, and family. The most notable elements here are the insertion of monologic sections from Oliver's (Ewan) perspective to clarify the ideas and set the tone for major shifts in the film. They could be preachy and out of place, but I think they are well-conceived and set in the voice of the character and grounded in details of the story and thus achieve the status of worthwhile additions.
The last note on wit should be the inclusion of Arthur's character, the dog, who would have been a fun bit if he were simply a vessel for Ewan to speak into, but the choice of having him respond in subtitles, whether intended as a sort of magical realism or a manifestation of Oliver's own habit of talking to himself, is inspired and sets the movie apart in a way that really makes it shine differently.
Beyond these specific instances, the films incidents are fun, original, and yet classic-feeling moments that drive the movie with an plot intensity lacking in most "romantic comedies." Overall for writing I added another +.25 for our total of 9.75.
Now I'll move, however reluctantly to wisdom. I'll begin simply with the ideascape surrounding Christopher's character (Hal) coming out at the age of 75. Overall I took .5 away from the film for its general depiction of sex, bringing it down to 8.5. Hal engages in an "open" and "free" manner of sexuality after his wife dies and, though the film suggests the problems caused by this "uncomplicated" way of treating sex, I think the overall tone of the film is supposed to suggest that there is nothing wrong with this way of doing things. This might also be a slight failure in wit, because though I get the impression from the director in the commentary and some of the characters voices that there is no problem with Hal's late in life promiscuous jaunt, the most basic story logic shows a lot of people being hurt by it. We see Goran's character (Andy) hurt by the way he is kept out of the inner circle by the shallowness of their relationship, but mostly we see Hal harmed again and again by his need to indulge the carefree attitude of his fellow gays, both partners and friends, and trying to keep these relationships carefree and light when you're dying of cancer requires a great deal of dishonesty, which bad in itself for relationships, also creates a real sense of isolation for those in the know.
I will also point out as briefly as I can that I have serious reservations and doubts that homosexual activity is a real positive for the mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical health of any human being. I don't think it is the way we were intended to function. That is all I will say to avoid the discursion which could go far too long for a movie review.
The other negative I'd like to point out is a certain romanticization of lawlessness for which I assessed a -.25, bringing it down to 8.25. A lot of romances tend to include moments in which vandalism, petty theft, and various other activities with real consequences afford a lot of enjoyment. This isn't untrue, but merely lacks circumspection to remember that all of our petty lawlessness ends with work and loss for others, that being the reason it's probably against the law in the first place.

Now, I also found great positives to counter this to an extent. The first is the idea expressed in this formula: Love+Sadness=Love & Sadness. This movie affirms for me the essential principle that love is beyond an emotion and thus beyond the sloshing around of our other emotions. Love, as a thing we choose to do, can coexist, without confusion or loss with things like sadness and fear and desire. Affection, desire, or what is colloquially called "being in love" rarely survive prolonged periods of sadness or competing desires. Oliver says at one point "I don't think this is what I'm supposed to feel like," trying to make sense of pain and depression coexisting with love. Poignantly, when he asks her if she's happy, she says, "Maybe I'm not perfect at it. I don't really know what I'm doing. But I wanna be here." The recognition that it requires work to love and be happy against the entitlement of our sappy and childish world is refreshing. Happily ever after must be earned. His moment of realization coincides with another great line, this time in the mouth of Arthur, "We knew it wouldn't work even before we met her." Seeing through and overcoming that moment is really what makes this movie shine. This insight into love and romance is worth .25.
The second thread of the film is handled with similar precision and the lesson of the child parent relationship can be distilled in one quote. Oliver imagines that a photo of a hand holding out daisies is that of his mother. He says, in her stead, "Here. Here is simple and happy. That's what I meant to give you." It speaks to the ache of parents (as I imagine it, and as, being an uncle, I somewhat know it) in hoping that whatever we give to our children, it distills down to something that makes them happy and eschews the complications of misplaced guilt or unproductive neuroses. This, as well, is worth a solid +.25, bringing the total back to 8.75.

For wonder, I'll return to some of the things that came up under writing and wit, but hopefully from a different angle. The previously mentioned monologues contain many elements both of line drawing and use of stock photos to make interesting and salient points. These sections ended up being some of the most memorable of the film and really showcase the artistic talent of Mike Mills, the writer/director, as well as his ability to meld that into the film in a way that maintains the illusion of wholeness.
The dog's integration into the film is another source of wonder in this film for me. The dog feels like an actor in the film and never appears out of character. This seems like a momentous achievement, because I can't remember it being achieved with this level of believability before. These elements warranted a +.25.
The last .25 that I gave this film for wonder is split between the work of musicians and cinematographers. The music chosen and composed for this movie is astounding. The jazz tunes from Jelly Roll Morton paired with the slightly more classical original compositions accentuate and build on the simple performances of the cast to give the movie great flow and attitude.
Add to this the camera work, particularly the courage to use wideshots and low light in situations where it was appropriate. Some of the best moments are in a wideshot in a darkened conference room with Mélanie and Ewan discussing their future as tiny silhouettes. There are numerous scenes which take advantage of the use of distance, such as when Oliver is informed of his father's death and then weeps over his body, and others which effectively use low light, like the end of the conference room scene in which the two characters horseplay in silhouette. I very nearly added a second .25 for this, but I feel this 28 is more earned than some 29's I've given, so I'll let it stand.
I cannot recommend this film enough. I sincerely hope you enjoy it a fraction as much as I did. Join me soon for a full interlude to discuss my recent sub-reviewable film watching and some discussion of TV as well.

Forget Paris** (1995) 9.5, 9.75, 9.25, 28.5

2014-04-07T14:17:00.000-07:00

This movie is one of my old favorite movies, but I've never bothered to rate it before. It is one of the few movies I've ever watched all the way through back to back. It is truly hilarious. But let me see if I can convince you to pick it up. I'll begin with wit.
I gave the movie overall a 9.5. On this count, it is near flawless. It is packed from beginning to end with jokes. Great little stories and impeccable one-liners. The only negatives come from this exact thing. Occasionally there is just noticeably one too many jokes in a scene and it creates something awkward and slows the natural progression of the movie. This is always the danger of stories that are punched up again and again, but I think this film more often errs on the side of witty than over-stuffed. I took off about a third of a point for that and the rest of the lost .5 is from occasionally awkward moments of acting from otherwise impressive performances by Billy Crystal and Debra Winger.
Comedically, this one works for me in large part due to the fact that its comedy continues to build on itself. Most jokes either call back to a previous moments or are called back later. I can't say many of the one-liners stand out on their own. There is something about joke placement, especially in the mouth of a character that makes it work.

The performances, as I mentioned, are the key to the film. Billy and Debra fill a good part of the film and have the highest moments of comedy and drama, both of which they perform admirably, surprisingly better at the drama than the comedy. Only the comedic lines ever ring false. But the whole film is their love story as told by their best friends to the new female addition to the group. She's played by Cynthia Stevenson, whose character is engaged to Joe Mantegna's. Around them form a whole group of close friends being waited on unforgettably by Robert Costanzo. Robert and Cynthia are the real standouts. She has some of the most memorable moments in the film and her character has an extremely visceral reaction, from profuse weeping to psychotic shouting, to the story of Mickey and Ellen, Billy and Debra's characters. Robert plays a witty, dry, and pushy waiter who makes me feel at home and yet is somehow exotic.
Wisdom is probably the highlight of the movie. What this film has to teach is not uniquely, but classic and rarely presented so well. The -.25 is for a general lack of understanding of sex, that which is "common to men." A brief perusal of our world's sexual ethics leaves me feeling overwhelmingly dirty, not least because of the aspects of it which have subconsciously become a part of me, but I feel is acceptable to set that aside with a nominal knockoff because it is so common and because the extent to which this film is even off is minute. I cannot believe that fornication on a whim has no consequences that would better be avoided, but the film contains just one instance, that then leads to a long and more or less healthy relationship. I know that pornography and auto-eroticism is dangerous to the health of one's sexual understanding, but the film doesn't harp on it. It simply acknowledges that these characters, like all too many people in the world are affected by them. So that aside, let's judge their judgment.
This film has a great deal of insight about interpersonal relationship, not extraordinary, but of the type that we all, I think, need to hear from time to time(de temps en temps). This reaches far beyond duprasses (an alternate code-word for romantic/sexual relationships, mostly better because it has less baggage). I'd like to relate some examples. There's a scene, early in the film, when the two future lovers meet. Mickey(Billy) begins to rant at Ellen(Debra), who is a customer service rep at an airline. Here it is:
Ellen: How are you feeling today?
Mickey: How am I today? I am a mass of good will.
E: On behalf of the airline, l apologize for any problem--
M: Problem? There's no problem. You lost my father. My rear end's molded to a plastic chair and I’ve got gas from eating those almonds. I’m so happy I’m a walking Mardi Gras.
E: That's funny. You have a delightfully sharp way of expressing yourself. A terrible thing has been done to you and we really are sorry. You've every right to insult, belittle and abuse the staff who have tried to help you. In fact, we thank you. And we voted you Traveler of the Month, so congratulations."
This scene is both funny and expresses the simple, but ultimately hard-to-hold-onto notion that, because all the annoying failures and exasperating mistakes that can make our lives miserable are inevitably caused by human error, the same kind that we occasionally make and hate when other point them out and apologize profusely for, our current level of frustration is often understandable but rarely justified.
Another great moment, though admittedly not ingeniously portrayed is when Mickey gets the sudden urge to go to a museum when he's on the road reffing games, because that's what he and Ellen did. The lesson we can see is that great people stretch you. The best kind of friends, lovers, and even family are the ones who force you to confront your assumptions about what is worthwhile. A guy whose only ever listened to genres of music descended from punk rock is done a great service by falling in love with a girl who listens to classical and a man who only eats meat and potatoes is blessed in meeting an intelligent, interesting vegan, because it drives him out of his comfortable place and into a moment of discovery. When we face new things, we can find out how limited the life we've lived is. Of course, the movie shows us our tendency, if we're not careful, to fall back to old patterns and lose all our progress.
But this film gives a more complete picture of what it means to love someone, including but not limited to the pettiness of lovers. One of the best scenes for this is when Mickey and Ellen are out with friends on a double date and begin arguing about whether or not the car would fit into a parking space. Mickey calls back to his disapproval of The Phantom of the Opera, having suggested that it was unrealistic romantic fodder for women and that the main theme is just the song "School Days." He thus tells Ellen, "Maybe the Phantom could have gotten into that spot, covering half of his face like the Phantom's mask, and then begins singing "School Days" in an exquisite moment of passive-aggression. These moments reveal further the awful truth that it's the people closest to us that we are most capable of being cruel and petty towards.

The film's greatest lack may be in wonder. One big knock-off then I'll talk about what they did right. The biggest problem with this movie is editing. My instinct is to lay this fault at the feet of the director, Billy Crystal, who directed just one other feature, and that three years before this one. This movie could have been shortened, not greatly, but a couple of scenes and montages were just a bit too long and some of the jokes probably looked good on paper, but should have been lost on the editing room floor.

Two items really sealed a high rating for this one. First we have the music, a mixed of composition for the film, which uses motifs and themes to create a real sense of continuity throughout the movie, and older mostly jazzy tunes that convey a sense of romance and nostalgia.
The second item is the multitude of cameos by major NBA stars from the period. I'll just list some of the all-star talents: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Isiah Thomas, David Robinson, Spud Webb, Patrick Ewing, Tim Hardaway, Reggie Miller, Chris Mullin, and the most impressive one, in terms of his performance, is Sir Charles Barkley. Overall, the sense of reality and the height of the comedy are greatly improved by this tidbit.
Hopefully I've convinced someone out there to indulge themselves in this beautiful film. It remains one of the funnier films I've ever seen and very dear to my sappy, romantic heart. Enjoy!

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou** (2004) 9.75, 9, 9.5, 28.25

2014-03-25T11:56:00.000-07:00

Dear friends, welcome to my review of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I already had a rating for this one and I can't say too much changed, excepting wisdom, but it will feel good to express my reasoning here. To it!
For wit, I've given it a 9.75, up .25 from before, which was probably implicit in my previous rating. I looked to my favorite Wes Anderson film, The Royal Tenenbaums a lot to compare and contrast this film. They are delightfully different. This film is written differently in some of the most interesting ways. But first I'll note some pleasing similarities. The key to Wes' writing, to my mind, is his characters' open uncomfortability with the fact of living. Too often characters in films live in a way that obscures interiority and emphasizes their action. They live in a way that suggests little conflict and a surprising lack of confusion about what they do and why they do it. The center of this story is inhabited by Steve Zissou and a young Kentucky Airlines pilot who is rumored to be his son, Ned Plimpton. These two are played by Bill Murray and Owen Wilson, respectively.
The relationship between these characters is exactly as one would imagine it, riddled with uncomfortable honesty and false familiarity. For the former I provide a quote, not particularly funny, but important to the tone of the film:
Steve: You're supposed to be my son, right?
Ned: I don't know. But I did want meet you, just in case.
I contrast this with this moment of unnecessary and awkward familiarity between these characters minutes later.
Steve: You think you'll want to change your name?
Ned: Ned?
S: No, not the Ned part. Unless you want to. I meant your last name. I thought you might like to let me give you mine.
N: Ned Zissou.
S: Ned Zissou, exactly. Or, if you want to, you can change the first part too. I would have named you Kingsley, if I'd had a say in it.

N: Kingsley. I don't know. Maybe I'll stick with Ned for now.

S: Sure. That's okay.

I think that the relationship of these two begins as needy and pushy on Steve's part, accompanied by Ned's blind search for someone to fill that paternal role. But the beauty of it is that their relationship evolves into Steve taking inspiration and improving because of Ned and Ned accepting the extent to which he has to be his own man, even with a father.

The story is good, but the acting takes it to another level. I've mentioned part of the genius of Bill and Owen's performances. They bring to life characters that live into the real-life awkwardness of writing one's own dialogue and living moment to moment. They are both born of their own situations, different as those are, but both open themselves with moments of clear plastic falsity and others of unadulterated feeling.
Cate Blanchett inserts the awkward aspect of a love triangle between the possible father-son and she exquisitely crafts her character, Jane Winslett-Richardson, into something of her own, due in no small part to the writing surely, but with great dueling clarity and opacity that matches her male co-stars.
Part of Wes' brilliance is his exciting minor characters and the wonderful actors he gets to take small roles, like Willem Dafoe as Klaus, Bud Cort as Bill the Bond Company Stooge, Anjelica Huston as Eleanor, and Jeff Goldblum as Alistair Hennessey. Willem does his best acting here, I think. Klaus is perfectly needy, passionate, and inarticulate: utterly childish. Jeff Goldblum plays the best upscale prig imaginable. Bud Cort, however, may be the scene-stealer of the film, as Bill the Bond Company Stooge. He begins as a joke before he even appears, only to prove to be the most utterly human person in the film, possibly apart from Ned.
This movie sets itself above by being perhaps the funniest of Wes' films. I've already mentioned, though I can hardly do them justice here, Klaus and Bill, but some of my favorite moments center around Jane's attempt to give up cursing by saying "effing" whenever she has the urge. This is still only my second favorite instance of Wes Anderson finding a way around cursing, though. The rest of my favorite moments center on Zissou's use of interns. Examples:
Steve tries to give Ned a gun.
S: Here.
N: Oh, no, no, no.
S: No exceptions; everyone gets one. Anne-Marie, do the interns get glocks!
Anne-Marie: No, they all share one.

S: (To Pirate) Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern.
From here, I'd like to address moments that might be spoilers. For those who haven't seen this and don't want to know the ending just yet, skip past this.
******************************SPOILER WARNING*********************************
One of the most impressive moments, both from the standpoint of wit and wisdom, is when Ned dies, near the end of the film. This is impressive for Wes as a writer, because he has a tendency to tie things a little too neatly at the end. At the end of most of his other films, everyone is accounted for. The lonely man finds a son in need of a father, the two loners find each other, the estranged couple rekindle a romance of sorts. This often works and I don't mean that this is universally a flaw, but Wes steps beyond that, if only for one film, to explore a story where we have some large gaps. When Ned dies, he was just becoming a son to Steve, a lover for Jane, and a member of the team, possibly a future father to Jane's baby, the last of which is even more important given the importance of father-son themes to the film.
This is impressive from a wisdom standpoint, because it is a reminder that perfect situations like Ned's insertion to this group don't always last, but even when they don't, they can change individuals or groups for the better. A good man can do more good, even in a short time, than it's even possible for him to imagine.
This also leads to another plot-sensitive note that affects the wisdom rating of this film. It is the power of death to work on us. At the beginning of the film, Esteban is lost to Steve and the whole company. His loss sends Steve on a mission that will change his life. This mission of revenge will eventually stall, but not until it accomplishes an impressive overhaul of his character. Ned comes to find Steve because of his mother's death, a decision which will ultimately prove fatal, but also the key to his self-fulfillment and his growing into his own image of a man. Ned's death finally brings Steve, his crew, and not least Jane to a new self-realization that may have been impossible otherwise. This all plays to my growing fellow-feeling with Tolkien's idea of death as a gift of God to Man, that in many ways the power of loss and pain may do good to us that sin did not foresee when it sought to kill us.
One of the absolutely most important ideas in this film for me is that revenge is often crushed by knowledge. Revenge is a primordial instinct and even a possibly misguided pang for justice, but I think that the reason we are so often warned to avoid it is that so much of our bloodlust when it comes to revenge is shallow and unconcerned with justice for the wronged, but more concerned with childishly inflicting pain on that which inflicted pain upon us. Near the end of the film, when the group finally encounters the jaguar shark, we see the foolishness of placing blame with our own narrow perspective. When Steve re-encounters the animal, he no longer wants revenge, but sees that death happened and no punishment is needed. So, when we are wronged, the truth is that wrong is rarely simple, which is why it is so important to leave revenge to the one who sees clearly what is not simple.
I think this concludes the plot-sensitive portion.
*******************************SPOILER ENDED***********************************

A couple more ideas are worthy of note. The first, as I referred to earlier, is the theme of fathers and sons. This film speaks to the importance of that bond in Ned and Steve, even Klaus and Jane, but also to the importance of not relying on it, of forging your own destiny in the absence, inadequacy, or loss of a father (or father figure). Steve captures this in his quote, "I always hated fathers and I never wanted to be one."

The last bit of importance is encapsulated in another quote from Steve. He says, just as they're about to see the jaguar shark, "This is an adventure." He's pointing to the simple idea of life as something to be cherished and enjoyed and not something to be suffered through. It's simple and unprofound, but not a bad way to wake up.

All this equals a move from 8.5 for wisdom to a 9.25. It's far from perfect, but it makes good points and not very many moral castoffs.

Lastly, I move to wonder. I have it a 9.5 like before. Wes' flair for set design and visual attention to detail is no less present in this movie than in his best work. But a couple items

stand out. First, music: this is the most memorable film of his in terms of music for two big reasons. First there is Seu Jorge and his Portuguese Bowie renditions. Bowie is the musical muse of this film, but Seu, both playing the hilariously named character, Pelé Dos Santos, and playing Bowie is the mood setter for the whole epic voyage. Second,

we have Mark Mothersbaugh, who composed most of the rest of the soundtrack, including the highlight, possibly of all movie soundtracks ever, "Ping Island/Lightning Strike Rescue Op." This electronica masterwork is pulse-pounding, hair-raising, get-you-out-of-your-seat music. Listening to this in repeat as I wrote this is probably why it has taken so long. Not great work music, But there's almost nothing I'd rather dance to.

Dance break.

Sorry, I'm back. The very last items of note are the fun uses of claymation to make up crazy non-sensical fish species and the little scale/"production value" items that really sell the world: the boat and the island.

Overall, a great film. I haven't done it in a while, but just in case, for those concerned, the film contains derogatory language along with other cursing, no nudity, only implied sex, and some gunplay. And death. Certainly not for anyone too young.

I hope this film brings you joy and my review can be the cherry on top. Au revoir!

On the Second Day of Christmas: Elf** (2003) 9.5, 9.25, 9.5, 28.25

2014-03-25T09:24:00.000-07:00

          There are two initial points to be made. First, I am aware that it is the third day of Christmas as I write this. I am referring to my initiative to watch my 12 favorite Christmas movies on the twelve days of Christmas.
          I might also note that I watched The Nightmare Before Christmas on Christmas Day and was very disappointed on a rewatch of what I considered a shoe-in for the top 12 list. Why did it fail to make the list? I'll try to briefly explain.
          When I first watched this film, I was definitely in awe of stop-motion animation as a concept. Because of this, among other things, I didn't seem to notice the shallowness of the characters and the way in which the non sequitur of the concept trivializes all holidays and the holy days from which they come. I find the trivialization of Samhain or whatever morphed into Halloween almost as frustrating as the general trivialization of Christmas. And the love story also seems haphazard or worse, terribly unhealthy. Overall, I no longer feel this one deserves 5 stars and definitely falls short of the overall top 12 Christmas films.
          Second, this is the first review in which I've used .25 increments. I feel like this has been coming for a while. I need more room for nuance in my rating system. I am also trying very hard to be harder on movies in general recently, because I believe that the system is currently too top heavy. 9's have been pretty standard for a movie of any quality and there is less and less room for differentiating quality on the top end of my scale. Some will disagree and say I haven't been tough on Elf at all, but hopefully I explain myself well enough that I win some of you over. Brave new world.
          "You sit on a throne of lies." I watched this scene four times, not least for my niece, and burst out laughing every time. I just imagined it and nearly laughed out loud again. Will Ferrell's character, Buddy begins harassing a department store Santa about not being the real Santa. He leans in close, with a child on faux-Santa's lap, and says, "You sicken me. You sit on a throne of lies." No one alive today delivers a comedic line like Will. This film, as is the case with many of his films, could not have happened without him.
          The other acting standout of this film is Zooey Deschanel. Though it's weird now to see her with blond hair, this is The first place I ever saw her and I was sold from the beginning. She plays the whole part from the now seeming standard awkward strange to the now strange aloof, too cool vibe that she uses with Will initially. And her voice is hardly a surprise as her career as a recording artist has become a big part of her public life. But boy does she sing.
          Ed Asner is Santa. I am solidly of the opinion that Santa Clause died many years ago and never had magic powers, but if anyone could convince me otherwise, it's Ed, er...Mr. Asner. A nod of respect to the craft of Bob Newhart and James Caan. They both have significant parts and play them in such a way as to always be useful and dependable.
          Clearly you know, I think the writing of this movie is good, but I could quote another five scenes that made me bust up. For all these reasons, I went with a 9.5 for wit.
          Wisdom is more of a mixed bag. My biggest problem is the sanitized Christmas. Unlike TNBC, which reduced the message Christmas to pure joy, Elf emphasizes faith (if one in something different), love, and hope as the values of Christmas, as well as good cheer. But there is no denying the desacralization of Christmas still bothers me here.
          But this film still has some great messages. One of the best is a balance between work and other aspects of our lives, like family or even simple enjoyment. To that end, it also encourage people to do something they love like they love it, a message very near and dear to my heart.
          But this sanitized Christmas still bothers me. I might have given a 9.5 for wisdom in another time, but I feel it would just have been a 9.27 rounded up. The 9.25 is much more accurate.
          I recently read an article about pratfalls and the cerebralization of comedy. This person argued that comedy has become largely the realm of brainy stand-up types like Woody Allen. They lamented the loss of people who were willing to sacrifice there body for a joke. They need to be watching more Will Ferrell.
           I am a big fan of the great old physical comedians like Chaplin and Keaton. And I think Will is living up to that here. He gets hit by cab two or three times. I've been clipped by a car while walking and it hurts. The pain won't end your life, but it'll linger. And this Anointed of the gospel of joy takes those hits so little kids and I can giggle. God bless him.
          Thanks also to those that created he elaborate sets and animated castoffs from old Christmas stop-motion flicks. Lastly a written applause for the music and Zooey and Will's singing. All in all this stuff earned a solid 9.25.
          I'll admit that I'm watching these Christmas classics in no particular order, but I've no doubt this is among the top 5, maybe top 3. If you haven't seen it, make time for it this Christmas season that ends 6 January.
          God is come among us. Happy Christmas.

La Jetée* (1962) 9.5, 9.5, 9.75, 28.75

2014-03-05T15:11:00.001-08:00

A little while ago, Netflix surprised me by offering me a free trial to the DVD by mail service that I had subscribed to for about six years, but have been too poor for since returning to the US. When my account started back up, they sent me two movies rather quickly and I failed to check my queue. When I saw this film, in its two in a disc pack with Sans Soleil, I wasn't particularly excited. It sat in my queue for most of the time I had Netflix, just waiting until I was up to it. I was so loathe to get on with it that I sat through the other unfortunate get from my queue, The Privileged Planet.
I do not recommend that movie, by the by, because it is poorly made and even more poorly argued. First, I agree with the conclusion that God created us and that we're important to him. Agreeing with that, I find the argument totally unnecessary. There is nothing about the grand story of Scripture or the essential theology of Christianity that requires that we be the whole or even the center of God's great, cosmic plan. This is a return to pre-Copernican fear of heliocentricity. Dorothy Sayers, in her translation of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, suggests that Dante would have found the heliocentric worldview more in line with his metaphors and his worldview, because it keeps man from imagining himself as the center of things and clarifies the fact of God as center. In this same way, I think that imagining man to be special misses the key point to the Scriptures, that man is only special because God loves him, coupled with the manifest fact that just because God is speaking to you doesn't mean he isn't speaking to anyone else.
I find even more frustrating the lack of intellectual acumen used to promote vaguely Christian reasoning. While they make explicit reference to Sagan and other secularist scientists, they fail to note major arguments that shatter theirs advanced by these very thinkers. First, their entire theory is based on the idea that all the intelligent life in the universe looks like us, specifically is based in carbon, needs oxygen and water, etc. Sagan points out that its silly to think that a wide and varied universe might well have very different types of life, suited to their own environments. Second is the anthropic principle, which points out that most if not all of the arguments that suggest our environment is perfectly suited to us can be worked to support an Darwinian evolutionary perspective, because if there are infinite universes and an ever-expanding universe, eventually there would be a perfect place for beings like us to evolve and grow. Our planet/galaxy/universe wasn't designed for us, but we were designed by it. That's why we fit. I don't agree with all this reasoning, but I find it much more convincing than the arguments put forth by The Privileged Planet. Sorry to ramble, but this whole thing is very annoying.
But on Monday I decided to finally sit down and try out this film, La Jetée. I was shocked. This half-hour film, if that term is appropriate (the creator called it a photo-roman, French for photo-novel), is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen. Let me break it down.
For wit, I gave it a 9.5. I should point out that the form and length made me give it an automatic -.25 for each category, each for different reasons. I'll try to explain. My initial analysis of left me choosing a 9.75 for wit. The actors give great "performances," subtly using the handicap of single images to give us a pulled back view of two people falling in love. They do this with no dialogue and only one scene approaching full speed film. The same goes for writing. The narrator is pithy and eloquent, even occasionally funny. It would be a great film, if it had been filmed. But the handicap of the medium, the narrated, timed slide-show, keeps it from being quite as witty.
For wisdom, I again chose a 9.5. Part of the trouble here is the medium. The narrator is so neutral that the majority of it leaves us with little to no message. The incidentals of the story are of a high quality though. Here we have a complex, beautiful love story told all in montage. Two beautiful souls giving themselves to each other in a limited, painfully limited way and coming away with no bitterness or reproach, only sadness when it is over. But no trace of selfish fling love of the post-modern variety, but pure, self-sacrificing, passionate love, without possession, but not without commitment. There is the briefest suggestion of fornication, but very forgivable, under the circumstances. Overall beauty, tinged with the sadness and evil of a post-apocalyptic autocracy that uses everyone and loves no one.
For wisdom, I gave the highest, 9.75. This is in part because I had to do something to counter the -.25's, because though the medium keeps this film from perfection, it is one of the most interesting and beautiful directorial decisions I've ever seen and I wish more people would try it. But this exciting, novel method must get less than a perfect score, because it clearly avoids the trouble that would have accompanied trying to do these same scenes in full speed. This allows the post-apocalyptic scenario to be accomplished with less work and expense, which is a mixed bag. There's definitely some lack of "production value" here, to quote Super 8, but the film is truly fantastically made, from the music to the piecing together of the scenes to the amazing shot of the Arc de Triomphe bisected.
The music, the work of Trevor Duncan, fills in the movement aspect lost within the medium and does it in a way that makes quite a bit more of it than it would be without it. The brilliant use of the still photos to speed up and slow down the pace and to give the film a beautiful simplicity and clarity is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen. The creation of post-apocalyptic Paris from stock photos is also inspired. Overall, this film comes in solidly at number nineteen all-time and thus gets into my forthcoming rewatch project for the top twenty-five.
I hope everybody who takes me seriously about movies watches this film and enjoys it. It truly has taken my breath away. This is easily the shortest turn-around on a review since I've come home. Otherwise look forward to my first in the Rewatch series, the infamous The Dark Knight Rises (infamous only to me, because I chose to give it a perfect score when it first came out) coming soon. Enjoyez!

Blue Jasmine* (2014) 9.5, 9.75, 8.75, 28

2014-02-20T09:07:00.000-08:00

         I wanted to have an Oscar preview event, but I've simply run out of time. I've only seen four best picture Oscar nominees so far; two were busts and two have ratings but no full reviews yet. I will barely have seen all the best picture nominees by showtime, if I'm lucky. My next planned event is to re-review my top 25 of all time so far and establish that as a living list to be kept up to date. I know you're excited. But before I get to reviewing Blue Jasmine, I'd like to begin with some mini-reviews of the two lesser films, Gravity and Captain Phillips.
          I really loved Alfonso Cuaron's work with Children of Men, but even there his writing is weak in its ideas, diluting the wealth of ideas in the source material. In this film, that is highlighted. Gravity lacks any kind of viable character development or plot. Sandra Bullock's character is one of three and the deepest by far. But she is so obnoxious and shallow that I never wanted her to survive the deadly dangers all around her. The most readable ideas in the film are the power of the human spirit and the essential similarity of all religions and people, both of which are shallow ideas at best. But I will try to be fair and give credit where I think it's due.
          First, Sandra gives her second good performance. She's definitely on a late-career upswing. Second, it is the most effective visual use of 3D I've ever seen. Its only the third movie I've seen in 3D, but someone finally recognized the limits of the medium. He keeps the scene in frame, reducing the appearance of a body cut off that I find so which unfailingly takes me out of the movie. But overall I do not suggest it, particularly if you can't see it in 3D. It simply wouldn't be worth it.
         Both that and Captain Phillips disappointed me and help to continue my frustration with the Academy, who choose the two of these while snubbing the titular film of the post. Captain Phillips is far closer to Oscar caliber than Gravity but ultimately fails to live up to that standard. This has an interesting story, but unfortunately one that was all over the news. So much so that not even my news avoidance managed to save me from having this one ruined. The titular captain is kidnapped by Somali pirates and this story isn't lacking in dramatic flair, but the problems lay with inconsistency in the tone.
          It does a good job of setting the stage for a relatable if ultimately villainous antagonist, but jettisons that emotional humanism immediately when the Navy SEALS show up. When the rescue begins in earnest, our becomes an action movie and we never return to the pirates as characters or the questions of conditions in Somalia, which cheapens the initial concern for them. Overall the film could be worth seeing, if only for the two less performances, which both are captivating at times. Barkhad Abdi is very deserving of the Oscar nod, though he doesn't measure up to Michael Fassbender in 12 Years a Slave. Tom Hanks also has Some great moments, particularly near the end.
          Now let's move on to Blue Jasmine. I think this may be my favorite Woody Allen movie since Match Point. Let's begin with wit. I gave this one a 9.5, because it has a nearly perfect script and is fantastically well-acted. Let me begin by stating, without ruining anything, that the reveal at the end of the first scene sets the movie up perfectly without overly foreshadowing and is anyway one of the funniest I've seen in a long while. Like A Beautiful Mind, which I most recently reviewed, this one has a fantastic tempo never bogging down or passing by a great moment. Scenes build tension to a crescendo and then release, making an awful mess.
          The film follows a society wife from Manhattan who's fallen from grace and onto hard times. Jasmine, portrayed by Cate Blanchett, moves in with her sister, Ginger, played by Sally Hawkins, who lives in San Francisco. The film travels back and forth between the present of Jasmine's life, trying to thrive in San Francisco, and the past when she lived in Manhattan, slowly revealing the whole story of how she arrived at this point. Overall, the two sides balance well, building tension by revealing just the right information at the right time.
          The film is even quite funny, maybe the funniest Woody has achieved in recent memory. But it is often black comedy, occasionally so dark I didn't know if I should laugh. But not dirty.
          As far as acting goes, Cate has probably done better, but not often. She achieves the absolute gamut of emotions, from deliriously happy to hysterically miserable, and also has scenes of remarkable detachment. She absolutely makes us feel the misery of being dragged down to a lower socio-economic and cultural level. Sally is almost as good as I've seen her, though mostly overshadowed by Cate. But in one late scene, she played one half of a phone conversation and it equals some of the best I've ever seen.
         Alec Baldwin delights. Peter Sarsgaard is great. Louis C.K. is as good as I've ever seen him and funny as only he is. I shouldn't forget Alden Ehrenreich either, who stands out.
          For wisdom, I gave a 9.75. That's really high, but the .25 off is just for Woody's characteristic lack of understanding of sex and life in general. But otherwise, it's nearly perfect. But to explain, I'll need to be more specific. So...
--------SPOILER ALERT-----------
The movie, to my mind, is structured somewhat like a tragedy. In this case, two foils, the two sisters, indulge in a monstrous self-justification by comparison. This defensive technique keeps them from seeing themselves in a realistic light.
         I think that this fault is not uncommon. We all choose who we will compare ourselves to, often in order to make ourselves feel better. But pacing ourselves by another who is a loser or a cheat only allows us to be more comfortable ignoring our own faults, allowing us to settle for less.
          I kept some fantastic lines almost as proof that Woody really seemed to be making a positive statement. The first is when Jasmine's friends says, "You have to make an effort. Otherwise nothing happens and you blame everyone but yourself." Her friend is very accurately seeing into her soul, but she only hears something to tell someone else, because she's already been better off than her sister. She has a complete lack of circumspection, because she has judged herself already in comparison and judged herself not to be the problem. She can see her sister's fault in settling for less in life, but not her own dependence on others and lack of scruple in obtaining her objectives. I won't say anymore, but the ending is really great. It brings this whole conflict to a head for everyone involved.
------SPOILER ALERT ENDED-------
          For wonder, I've chosen a low 8.75 comparatively (that is, compared to the other numbers I've already given this film). The reason for this is mostly one of originality. That's an overrated concept these days, but it seems silly to judge this the way I judged Match Point almost ten years ago. In that case, Woody, the established comedian, did a new thing, proving he could be as adept at writing drama as he could at writing comedy. Now he directs a movie that is merely a better done version of the stereotype Woody Allen. The writing is better, but the whole movie still feels a little old hat. In a lot of ways this movie is really similar to Margot at the Wedding. He does a lot really well but very little feels a lot better. But let me run down, for those who don't know, the parts of wonder that Woody Allen has down.
          I confirm that Woody makes all the music decisions himself, but I can't find anyone to give credit and someone deserves some. The placement and choice of music is intelligent and poignant. So much so that when my nephew, who get into a lot of heavy drama, saw a particular scene transition and the way the music played on it, he commented spontaneously. Practically a miracle. His use of motif to warn us about repeating patterns in this movie is subtle and brilliant.
          One other flattering comment I can justly give him is that every film he makes immediately takes on the aura of canon for me by the second or third viewing. Everything seems preordained. He rarely makes a directorial decision I can imagine any other way.
          But ultimately this all leaves him short of the 9 for wonder that I have films like Adventureland,Kisses, or Uncertainty.
          So if you see this movie somewhere and wonder if you should see it, my note would be that this is the second best movie that I've seen that came out in the last year.
          The last bit is just too tell you my ratings for12 Years a Slave and Her, with no explanation, but the promise of a review later. Here goes:
12 Years a Slave* (2013) 9.5, 10, 10, 29.5
Her* (2014) 9, 8.25, 10, 27.25
These are subject to change on second viewing, but they are my genuine and considered opinion. That's all I can muster for today. Good luck on your movie watching adventure!

A Beautiful Mind** (2001) 9.75, 9.5, 9.75, 29

2014-02-09T11:51:00.003-08:00

Before I dive into the titular film of this post, let me briefly comment on a lesser film that I stumbled across recently. Some 5 years ago, probably while I was an early undergrad, I used to watch all the trailers on iTunes, to keep abreast of what was coming out. I watched a trailer for an indie picture called The Blue Tooth Virgin. And I would always see it on my list, unobtrusive, especially because I no longer even remembered the trailer. I spent years trying, on occasion to understand the title. Only 24 hours after finally seeing it do I understand it has nothing to do with Bluetooth technology.
I do not suggest it. I can say its hanging just now between 3 and 4 stars, a moot point while my Netflix account remains closed. But it does bring up interesting questions about friends who read each other's work. This may have been the opposite of the film's point (I still don't really know), but I learned always to shoot straight, if only to avoid the complications of backtracking over your previous words.
Now let me move on my main feature, A Beautiful Mind. I chose this now because I remembered enjoying it, but didn't have a rating for it. This film is definitely one of the greats, finding itself in the rather elite category of Best Picture Oscar winners. I realize this accolade can, at times, be dubious, but in this case, it is undoubtedly deserved. I'm going to begin with wit. For wit, I gave it a 9.75. I know this means it's nearly perfect, but let me state my case. To begin, the script is nearly flawless. A Beautiful Mind's singular genius seems to come from its collaborative nature. The perfection of the script is due as much to Russell Crowe's improvisation and Ron Howard suggestion as to Akiva Goldsman's masterful screenwriting. A lot of my perspective on this film comes from a detailed viewing of the special features. A deleted scene that I believe should have made it reveals to me a single serious flaw, which goes more to wisdom than wit, that of focusing on the physical aspects of John and Alicia's relationship.
One of its best aspects is that the pacing maintains tension all the way through. For me, on this second viewing, a lot of the tension is released. I'm about to reveal the main conceit of the film so stop if you haven't seen it.-----------------------------SPOILER ALERT-------------------------------------------------
As a rewatcher, I obviously know that John Nash was schizophrenic and I even knew ahead of time which people that he sees were delusional, but I maintained my interest for two big reasons. The acting is spectacular and the descent into madness is particularly interesting to me. First, on the acting, I believe this is the best performance, so far, in the careers of Russell, Jennifer Connelly, and Ed Harris. This isn't an insult to any of them. All are fine performers, but this is there highest point to my mind.
Russell's portrayal of the descent into madness has a careful subtlety that astounds me. He begins with a sort of quirkiness, an idiosyncrasy that is all too familiar to me and follows it fast and hard to a highly conspicuous mental breakdown. This portrayal frightens me.
Jennifer's arc is similarly fascinating and as well played as anyone could havce done it. She begins with the sort of alluring/alarming direct stare that made me think of "glaukopis Athene." Her eyes are a gift from God, but her use of them is captivating. And she uses them as well to be frightening, terrified, and pitiable as she does to be charming.
Ed plays exasperated and domineering with charisma and chutzpah, but with just enough insanity to reveal hints of his delusional nature. Paul Bettany does something very similar with the wily and carefree roommate. The whole cast works together in beautiful concert.
Now let me turn to the question of wisdom so that I may gush about my own fear of mental illness. I am terribly afraid of slipping into complete and total insanity on a number of levels. I am afraid of my compulsions and the way they sometimes force me to read, watch and do things I later think I probably didn't need to do. I am afraid of my imagination and the likelihood that it could lead to some very involved delusions. I am afraid of my distance, practically and emotionally, from people that makes me feel like a sociopath and that I will spend too much of my life alone. I am afraid of my mind on nearly every level. I can't say this movie makes me feel better, but it does make me scared and yet not alone. Scared and not unique are two of the most productive states for me to be in. Scared is helpful, because I need nothing more than motivation on almost any day. Not unique is essential, because I have a tendency to make my problems and my world out to be one of a kind when I am assured by far wiser individuals that "there is nothing new under the sun."
For its portrayal of something important to me in an honest fashion, with insight, I immediately gave it a high score for wisdom, but one little choice made me bring it down to a 9.5. Ron admitted on the commentary to adding a line about taking newer medications near the end of the movie, despite the fact that John Nash never went on meds again. I am very unsure about the use of medication in the treatment of a wide variety of mental and emotional disorders, but whatever one thinks, it seems dishonest to use the story of a man who chose to live without medication and lived a more fulfilled life because of it as a springboard to promote the opposite approach to mental health. That seems dishonest. I don't mean to impugn the integrity of Ron or Brian Grazer, but this moment felt like a lapse in judgment to me.
Nonetheless, the movie dealt well with mental illness and focused heavily on the healing power of strong, non-emotionally based love to transform human lives. And that is to be applauded.
--------------------------------------------SPOILER ENDED---------------------------------------------
A couple other ideas worth commenting on are Nash's relentless pursuit of what he called his "original idea," which I would restate as the pursuit of greatness. Pursuit of recognition and reward drive a large portion of our society, but the drive that some have or choose to foster in themselves to do something new, something great and innovative is what moves us forward and what changes the world for the better.
One last note should be on Nash's own bargaining theory, with which I am only familiar through the film and for which he won the Nobel Prize in economics. This reevaluation of Adam Smith's theories on the value of competition is unique in my experience as one that draws on it and neither wholly accepts it nor rejects it, but builds something new from it (a rather Aristotelean or maybe Hegelian move). It builds a theory that accepts the self-interest principles but argues that self-interested cooperation is more effective. This idea has a lot to say to me in terms of a bridge between ethics and economics. Now on to wonder.
For wonder, I chose to give this film a very high 9.75. There are a myriad of reasons for this. First, the music is glorious, but much more importantly it is apt. Music is never a distraction from storytelling. This brings me back to Joyeux Noel and the way I praised its music for never pushing the performance, but all being organic. A Beautiful Mind does it completely different, allowing the music to lift simple moments to the height of grandeur. James Horner is a pretty fantastic composer, to my mind, but his decisions here are some of his best. His use of Charlotte Church, who sings beautifully in a way I'm not sure I've heard before, is genius. He chose to use her voice more like an instrument than the way that voices are normally used (I am paraphrasing him here and claim no detailed or impressive knowledge of music).
Second, I feel Ron outdid himself as the director. His use of the flashes of light to signify a breakthrough or making all delusional characters repeatedly appear aurally before being seen are beautiful little decisions that enhance the movie. He managed to use the color palette and tones in such a way to brilliantly create opposing forces attacking Nash's life and maintains that motif consistently and yet creatively. I mentioned before that I feel this film contains the best performances ever from more than one actor and I think that can't be a coincidence. Ron seems to have brought out the best in his cast, both individually and as an ensemble.
Lastly, I'd love to compliment the visual effects people, both in terms of makeup and the complex process of aging the actors minutely through the film and the little visual tweaks that make the film more seamless and perfect than would have otherwise been possible. The makeup department went from making Russell look younger than he was to multi-layered facial prosthetics that genuinely look and move like real skin. More than once I marveled at how young he was back then and at his oral prosthetic that gave him an overbite, never knowing what the behind-the-scenes work was doing. The effects department also gave us some beautiful shots that helped to explain Nash's major bargaining theory, mentioned above.
So, if you haven't seen this masterpiece or just never realized its outstanding worth, sit down with it soon. Or if you just want to sympathize with someone who's having a hard time, enjoy this film. Go in peace!

On the Third Day of Christmas(Wink): Joyeux Noel (2005) 9.25, 10, 9.5, 28.75

2013-12-30T18:39:00.000-08:00

          Before I begin to discuss the film at hand, I should briefly mention that I saw Elysium this week when my brother got it from Redbox. I don't mean to lay the blame at his feet. I wanted to see it, but didn't want to watch it now, busy with Christmas movies and all. I can only say that I was disappointed at its naivete and transparency. It is a paper-thin allegory for universal healthcare.
          Its primary problem is it sets up a very different kind of world from the one we live in. In this world, all healthcare is cheap, simple, and easy with no need for trained professionals or really anything, but machines so plentiful that the rich merely have these magical panacea machines in their homes, lying empty most of the time. If only those evil billionaires would allow the helpless working poor to use their magic machines. Its tacky in a world where healthcare is not a problem of class warfare or rampant injustice, but a real world problem with causes that amount to more than greed and politics, but include wealth and logistics. I'll say no more, but it gets 3 stars. Matt Damon can still do shock and awe.
          Now on to the main event, Joyeux Noel. First off, I'd like to discuss how much more painstaking this process has become. In my determination to be more careful with my reviews, I have to take every .25 I've given before with a grain of salt, as I compare this film to others I've reviewed. It takes longer to make these decisions. I compared JN to nearly every film I've ever rated in wonder to make sure I got it right. I'm still not sure.
          To wit. I gave this film a 9.25. Here's my reasoning. First, the opening nearly brought me to tears. It opens on three children from the three represented countries of the Western Front; Britain, France, and Germany; reciting very real poems about genocidal hatred for their enemy. It reminds us of the propaganda propagated by all sides in this conflict that created the animosity necessary to justify this world war.
          This film is overall marked not by great lines, but by great incidents. Whether it's the excited Scots announcing the beginning of war to an older priest who knows enough to be wary or the German soldier interrupting an opera to give a message from the Kaiser or German and French officers exchanging stories from the same street in Paris, this film has some of the best scenes I've ever seen marked by no particularly memorable dialogue.
          In fact, the overall evenness of tone and charisma in this film is one of its most remarkable features. There are moments of high piety and moments of simple hilarity, but the film is never low or vulgar and never sentimental. In moments that could have been sappy, like a French officer telling his own father that he is a grandfather, they manage to keep the film on track and on message. Men tear up, but the film doesn't cheapen it with a musical deathblow. This is most notable, because the film has great music, but they never use it for emotional momentum.
          As far as wisdom goes, this is where they shine. They make there point beautifully, but the point itself is a beautiful one. Instances of goosebumps abound.
          First, this film is obviously a critique of World War I and all the conflict did and meant. I agree who his wholeheartedly but it is not an original point. The greater point is a critique of the propaganda and misanthropy that accompanies war in general. It helps that the story is true. If this story had not happened, it might be naive or childish to invent it. But here we find a story of humanity triumphing over the enforced power of institutional hate.
          Over and over, the point is made how much these sides distrust each other. They insist well into the story that the other side is trying to trick them, lull them to sleep to slit their throats. But genuine fellowship between people breeds a simple love. Intimate knowledge and humor break down walls and the recognition of each others humanity destroys the ability to wage war.
          The most important part of this for me is the scathing critique of pro-war religion. The insistence of those people who simplify conflict that is often more complicated and the genocidal aspect is laid bare and allowed to speak and sicken for itself. This message could hardly be more important now.
          The most important aspect of this for me is the frightful circumspection of the film in general. It is never one-sided or simplistic. It first ignores any tendency to imagine WWI as a righteous cause for either side, but continues to acknowledge the various sides of war itself. It recognizes that genuine knowledge of the demonized other creates a kind of kinship and also recognizes that the inhumanity of war can destroy our ability to empathize at all. It sees hope in a group of soldiers laying down arms over Christmas and recognizes that one game of football or mass won't end war and that nothing about war is simple. I can't remember a moment when it insists on a point without recognizing the complications and nuances involved.
          For wonder, it received a 9.5 as well. This film is exceptional for its music, for one primary reason. As mentioned earlier, it does not abuse the power. Music is never used here to pump up an otherwise dull scene. It is almost noticeably absent in key moments. But music is used to great effect as the means of initiating the movement of two disparate groups to each other. The Scottish happened and the German opera singers and the French wind instrumentalists combine to perform fantastic music, organic to the story, that sets the tone for this film. An overall theme for this film is the restraint shown by the filmmakers in using powerful tools with skill and precision.
          I am always one for the classics and this film will have hard battle to do to beat out It's a Wonderful Life or Miracle on 34th St., by this film might someday be my very favorite Christmas movie.
          Be well and happy Nativity!

Interlude VI: The Badspel of Flight and Other News

2013-11-27T12:53:00.002-08:00

There are certain moments that make you feel like you need to share them. Christians are, whether they like it or not, made evangelists by the idea that there is a bit of good news not everyone is privy to that they have to share. Beyond that, I am an evangelist for Netflix and Google. Any chance I get, I extol the praises of these brands, because I believe that they will make our collective lives better. Almost as often, I find myself bashing every Apple product I've ever owned for almost the same reason. I have had a negative experience and I want to keep others, those I care about from that pain and loss. Rarely do movies do that to me. But Flight has done just that. This film is so poorly put together that I feel the need to share.
Flight's biggest problem is its plot. This thing is full of absurd coincidence, but more importantly weak characters paired with extraordinary ability and luck. The story follows Denzel Washington, playing a very non-descript alcoholic pilot who wakes up one morning to pilot a passenger plane drunk, evened with cocaine, and then proceeds to drink himself into a stupor after takeoff too. Did I mention that he flies the plane better than most humans can, despite his condition. No spoiler that the plane goes down and he saves almost everyone's life and then has to face the consequences.
I wasn't excited, but I was willing to let the movie roll on, despite the gross overuse of music and the absurd volume of it.
But the last half of the film could've been pulled from an Alcoholics Anonymous pamphlet. The powerless alcoholic that makes good in the end. It was utterly predictable and loathsomely simplifying. There is no nuance, not in the writing, and not in Denzel's eyes. And whoever wrote the scene with the Christian co-pilot in the hospital should know that it was almost a good scene, except for the creepy, emotionless, Jesus-screaming wife behind him. Just in case the Oscar nod or any other parts of this movie made you want to see it, don't. If you value your time, avoid it.
Now let me tell you about some of the other things I've been watching recently. Another movie that was frighteningly bad is Gravity. I heard a lot of things, positive and negative, but I'll break it down for you. The problem was writing again. There are no characters and no story. That's not literally accurate. There are three characters that appear on screen. The first is killed off early. He is a cheap throwaway for effect. Then we have George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. It would be inaccurate to say that they play characters. George is an uninteresting cliche whose fate, which I'll not divulge here, was obvious from the first minute of the film. Sandra's character was so uninteresting and hopeless that I did not even want her to survive.
The most potent messages were all falsehoods, in my humble opinion. Lesson #1: All religions are more or less the same. Lesson #2: Human survival is meaningful in itself. One note, this is the best use of 3D I've ever seen in a movie. Caveat: I've only seen three movies in 3D and one of them was Avatar, but this was much better. Just don't expect a movie. Imagine you're going to the IMAX in 1998 and you don't care what you see.
Two other movies that didn't get 5 stars, but I feel like telling you a bit about. First, Thor: The Dark World was in most ways a good movie. If it hadn't been for the annoying and blindingly unnecessary part played by Kat Dennings, who reprises her role from that crappy sitcom on CBS, this would have been 5 stars, like its predecessor. It was not as good as Iron Man 3, but I was happy for it. Caveat: I am a comic book nerd and I'm just happy to see these great characters on the screen without wanting to gouge my eyes out.
I just got around to seeing Brave last week and it's not five stars, because I found the main thread of the plot unconvincing, but it was another good outing for Pixar overall.
I've been watching a good deal of TV on DVD recently and I would like to recommend the FX show
Justified, which I finished the first season of. It is witty and the characters are well thought out and complex. Overall, I'm excited for more. For another high compliment, it reminds me of Longmire.
I also watched the first seasons of Dollhouse by Joss Whedon and Human Target. I can't say I recommend either, which is a big disappointment for on the former, because I've been such a big fan of Joss Whedon recently.
Lastly, I watched a couple of comedy specials recently and I cannot recommend Aziz Ansari's second special, Buried Alive, which was boring and unoriginal compared to his first. But I can recommend Rob Delaney: Live at the Bowery Ballroom with the proviso that it is pretty filthy. His delivery is funnier than most people's best jokes.
I will finally bid you ado, my good friends. Hopefully soon I will finally finish my review of 12 Years a Slave.

Moneyball** (2011) 9.5, 10, 9, 27

2013-10-31T18:48:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, a story is chosen by God to hit you where you live and help you understand something with which you struggle. For me, Moneyball, though this was my second time watching it, hit a spot that I didn't know was sore and ready for hitting. I'll expound on that as I jump straight into wisdom. I gave this one a 10 for wisdom, which I feel the need to assure you is not common. I'll have to dig briefly into my own philosophy to explain. For quite a while, I have believed that God is intimately involved in the workings of the world. He plans things down to the minutiae. To my mind, he gives us two essential things. Using some language borrowed from a fake religion invented for fiction by Kurt Vonnegut, he gives us wampeters and korasses. A wampeter is some sort of goal or end which we are tasked to achieve and a korass is a group of people with whom we identify. God brings us into korasses to achieve the matter of his wampeters and gives us wampeters to pull together korasses. This philosophy plays out in a very interesting way in Moneyball.
Brad Pitt plays a very real general manager from Major League Baseball named Billy Beane. Beane begins the film as the GM of the Oakland A's. His goal is to take the A's to a World Series championship. At the very beginning he has already come very close, but is limited by his budget. He simply cannot afford to pay the big names as much as it would require to win, or so it seems. He meets a young baseball exec with a degree from Yale in economics named Peter Brand, played expertly by Jonah Hill. Brand has an unpopular theory about how a team might take advantage of the rest of the league's consistent undervaluing of good players. Here we see a simple korass formed to go with the wampeter they both already have.
I would like to point out that if you haven't seen this, I'm going to tell almost all of it to illustrate my point so skip ahead or just watch it and come back
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ALERT!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
But not everyone is in. They have to deal with the world around them not in their select korass, but nonetheless tasked with them, like the owner and the manager and the fans. But they follow the things they have reason to believe in, as well as reevalutate their old ways of doing things and it begins to turn out right. Simultaneously and from early on, we are also made aware of Billy's young daughter. In the end, Billy is very successful but not ultimately successful. He is given a bigger and better chance to accomplish his goal of really changing the game of baseball and he has to choose between the clearest path for his wampeter and the clearest path for the advancement of his korasses, particularly his family and he chooses the korasses.
A lot of people like me, romantics and idealists tend to push for the accomplishment of goals over the relationships that make up our life. We will sacrifice our closeness with the people we've grown close to for the pursuance of a dream. We are taught to, as a part of our idealism. In the musical, Les Miserables, I can remember the line that makes me cringe, the line that drives forward revolutions and movements all throughout history, "Our little lives don't count at all."
But Lewis makes the perfect counterpoint in his sermon, The Weight of Glory, “There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors." The point here is that we are given missions and we are given friends and I believe truly that the highest mission will always be our friends. For me, this means that all of my dreams, goals, passions, and "missions from God" must stop short of the point where they seem to insist that I sacrifice others on their altars. Whether I must simply leave them behind or kill them or snub them or exploit them, no end is worth using another person as the means.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ENDED!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
That is it for wisdom, but I also gave it a 9.5 for wit. Here I'd like to begin by spinning a bit of prose praise for Aaron Sorkin. He's not solely responsible for this story or this screenplay but anyone who's seen The Social Network ought to be able to feel the similarities in style. The conversation is not dominated by big lines but feels free and witty without seeming produced. I can best compare him to Shakespeare, not the same caliber, but a very similar talent.
I am always effusive about Brad Pitt, but he truly hits it right on the head here. His character can be extremely big and flamboyant, but when he's listening to his daughter sing, he melts in the sort of way that would make you melt even if the girl singing wasn't any good (but she is). There are few movie stars like Brad Pitt, that are able to allow a movie to hang around them effortlessly. Most actors who lead a cast look like the weight of the story is on their shoulders, but while this film is very squarely centered on Billy Beane, you almost forget he's there whenever he steps off-screen.
This is the best Jonah Hill has ever been and I only hope we aren't still saying that in five years. It truly revealed actual acting ability under the comedy guise. He has chops not just the ability to make us laugh. By way of a quick hurrah for Philip Seymour Hoffmann (surprise, surprise), he's really good. He really makes me feel for him. Three others worth mentioning are the cameo by Spike Jonze, one of the funniest things I've seen recently, Kerris Dorsey as Beane's daughter, who both sings hauntingly and acts with depth for one so young, and Chris Pratt, who excites me and makes me laugh.
As far as wonder, I also opted for a 9.5. The music was good. I've let my opinion of that out. Beyond that I can think of nothing but the solid and lovely nature of the film as a whole. The director, Bennett Miller, who also directed Capote, does a subtle but impressive job of bringing it all together.
Well, I'm about to get kicked out of the library. I hope you all enjoy this film if you haven't already and maybe even get something from my rambling philosophy. Enjoyez!

Interlude V: The Interlude

2013-10-01T12:35:00.002-07:00

          I'd like to take a break here and talk a little about some of the things I've watched recently that haven't made it on here yet. For fall TV, I've got a couple outright winners so far and some on the cusp. The obvious, "everybody's-already-watching-these" shows for me are Modern Family and Parks and Rec. The best two new shows I've seen are Brooklyn Nine Nine and The Goldbergs.
          The former is the first cop comedy in recent memory. This is a show starring cop characters that is first and foremost a comedy. And it is funny. Andy Samberg is automatic comedy gold. If you didn't already know this, then you must have missed some of my favorite SNL ever. My next favorite is somewhat less known, but Chelsea Peretti is one of the funniest people out there. The whole thing is great and I wholeheartedly endorse it.
          The latter is a solid period (80's) family comedy that has a solid chance. Jeff Garlin is the dad, of which I wholly approve. Patton Oswalt is the narrator as well. It is definitely something I'll be watching.
          I also wholly endorse Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. This won't surprise many, but I'm really happy with the pilot. It absolutely reminds me of Firefly, which I finally watched recently. I didn't finish it, but I will. Joss Whedon continues to impress.
          I still haven't finished Breaking Bad, in case you're wondering, but I'm more excited still for the last season of Mad Men.
          I just started the third season of Eastbound and Down recently and I can't help but think it's one of the funniest shows out there and with a surprising amount of heart. It's got a lot of completely superfluous cursing, which I couldn't care less about, but I appreciate many who do. It can also be a little crude, but very often in the service of something higher.
          There are two Hulu exclusives that I'd like to comment on. The first and better is Moone Boy. This period (also 80's) family comedy is set in Ireland about a young boy with an imaginary friend, played by the hilarious Chris O'Dowd. It is probably my favorite TV format comedy of the year until Community comes back.
          Quick Draw is trying too hard to be Arrested Development in the Old West, but it kind of works. I've only seen the one episode, but I'm kind of excited.
I've watched a number of movies recently that have fallen short or have left me unsure what to do with them. The first is Safety Not Guaranteed. This film has a lot going for it. First, the premise: "WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED." Then you add Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass and I'm pretty excited. Aubrey has been the light and joy of one of the funniest shows on TV now, Parks and Recreation. Mark Duplass is impressive wherever, though I got tired of his character on The League. The script is good, but there is something confusing towards the end that put me off. If anything I've said makes you excited, watch it. I probably will again, but not just yet.
One movie I do not recommend is The Dictator. I'm probably behind on this but Sasha Baron Cohen just isn't that funny. I think a lot of the reason I loved Borat, which I really did, is the people who are unaware that there is a joke going on. Without that base level of trickery, there's not much going on.
I think that's all for now. I promise to pick something good for the 50th post. Thank you to all who read this.

The Wolverine* (2013) 9, 9.5, 9.5, 28

2013-09-18T18:33:00.002-07:00

I have been excited about this film since I first heard about it. I am a great fan of comic books and Wolverine is one of my favorite characters ever and he's never been anything but a joke in the movie franchise so far. This rating could be high, because I had very little reason to believe this time out would be different, but I was happy with it. With that preface, I would like to break it down for you.
I chose to give this one a 9 for wit. This to me is an out and out win. It's been a lot worse. I never rated X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but if I had to guess, I'd bet I would have given it about a 5. I compared it to Winter's Bone and Zero Dark Thirty and it wasn't close, but compared to more modest fare like Watchmen and Valkyrie, it thrilled. The former two were 9.5's and the latter were 9's. The dialogue rarely felt forced or over-expository. It genuinely felt on par with some of its source material. The ultra-purists will scoff, but all the relationships were dealt with deftly and the actors made it all feel real.
Hugh Jackman and Famke Janssen reprised major roles. Hugh finally felt at home in the character in a way he'd failed to previously. Famke played solely in dreamy sequences and spent most of her time playing out Logan's demons, which she did, without seeming too out of place. It's not easy to ride the line between, clearly not real and dream-believable.
Newcomer Tao Okamoto made a splash in my mind as well. I will definitely look forward to her next appearance. She managed to play strength and weakness in equal measures, to have confidence and yet vulnerability. I was truly impressed. The rest of the actors were more or less forgettable, but filled their place well. The writers both have made a number of solid, if not remarkable films, but this seems like a step up to me.
For wisdom, I felt the movie had a lot in common with True Grit (2010). Some basic questions about revenge and justice came up, but this one avoided a lot of that by putting Wolverine in a different place than he often is. Don't get me wrong; he kills a bunch of dudes and that can't simply be overlooked. But he only kills criminals in the pursuit of murder, kidnapping, etc. The bigger questions are about his obligation to be a hero and to step in when he sees injustice. This kind of stuff gets me going. He realizes the essential truth that hiding from the world is not an option. One has to take action in the face of evil.
There is also a subplot about the possibility of healing and peace, even for those who have seen and done hard and harsh things for the right reasons and people who have experienced great loss. They come down squarely on the more optimistic side, which I approve of. Overall, the film is close to perfect in this regard. I only have a few reservations about its characterization of love. Specifically the whole, "I love you but I have to leave you" schtick. I don't buy it. So 9.5.
For wonder, I choose to give a 9.5. A couple of points push this. One is the realism of, that is the lack of distraction from, his claws. They really looked real, metal, and menacing. Other than that it looked great and sounded great. And surely the director isn't a complete bozo. Some of the stuff was weird and I don't know how it will be dealt with, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Go see this movie. Or rent it. And please, pray that Disney and Fox can come into some sort of agreement to bring the X-Men and other Fox properties together with the Avengers, where they belong.

True Grit** (2010) 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 28.5

2013-09-17T16:44:00.001-07:00

This is only my third post since I got home and my first of the month, so I thought I'd celebrate some milestones. I have passed a hundred views from Russia and Germany. Whoever you are, thanks. My most popular post, the one on Flame and Citron is at 91 views and would be my first to 100. I am nearly to my 50th post and I thank you all for reading.
Now I'm sure you've all seen this movie, but I have to admit this was one of those watch-whatever's-lying-around choices. Obviously, from the score I gave, I like this film, so this is no insult, but I feel like this isn't going to blow anyone's mind. You probably all have your opinions, but I know I've never gotten mine well-formulated before so I thought I'd put it here for your perusing pleasure. Let's break it down.
For wit, I chose to award it a 9.5. It was only barely off a 10. This film is nearly perfectly scripted, deftly handled dialogue to match any Coen brothers' outing, and superbly acted. The easy comparison for writing alone was Slumdog Millionaire. They both have a funny way of sounding like a story you've always known. The main players deserve special attention.
Jeff Bridges reinvents a part played to near perfection by the Duke himself. There is no sign of John Wayne here, but in his place is a completely new performance that opens up nuances that are missing in Mr. Wayne's performance. I know I like to pretend at the first name basis with my actors, but this is just anyone. Jeff brings in a level of indolence and carelessness to the role, while maintaining an air of nobility.
Matt Damon doesn't fail to impress either. I've never thought of Matt Damon as an actor with a lot of different speeds. He does well in particular parts, but the only two surprises he ever gave me were in this and The Informant! In this, he achieves an unbelievably silly earnestness that warms my heart and pisses me off. He's obnoxious to his compatriots without being obnoxious to the audience.
Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper both manage to simultaneously blend in and stick out. Neither one gives you any reason to remember that they have ever played another part before. They genuinely seem to start from scratch in creating their characters, not easy, because I have really liked both of them before. They stand out by being interesting characters and disappearing into them.
Hailee Steinfeld deserves a mention, if only for being more of stoic canvas for the story than Kim Darby. She was amazingly worth watching in scenes filled with more-seasoned actors. And when she played without Jeff and Matt, as when she bargained for horses or fell in a snake pit, you couldn't take your eyes off of her.
Now to the tricky matter of the wisdom. I've debated this a good deal in my head and can't come to any decision, so I'll lay it out here. The pluses can be summed up with this quote, "You must pay for everything in this world, one way and another. There is nothing free except the grace of God." There is a very deeply ingrained part of me, backed up by mountains of Scripture and a good deal of reading and learning which tells me that this is one of the wisest statements in history. But I am also aware that it ignores grace and mercy and a slew of Christian virtues. Well, not ignores, but seems to pay little more than lip service to. This lip service, especially as it is far more than that, for the character, if not the writers, seems enough to get this one to a 9.5. Rooster kills a lot of men and never bats an eye, but never any but confessed violent criminals. He has a moral code that beats that of most and he sticks to it. I don't know if I convince myself, but maybe I convinced somebody.
As far as wonder goes, I have compared it favorably to Uncertainty, which garnered a 9. It has a quality feel, but not much setting it apart within its period domain. The reason I gave it a 9.5 is about the matter of dialect. I don't know where I heard it before, but I remember the stickling for period speech really makes a big difference. One can clearly feel the difference when Josh talks. His minimum of contractions gives a very different feel to his character. This is a big point for the directors in my book.
I hope I said something worthwhile and a little new about something for someone. If you haven't already seen it, get on it. If you have, maybe you can watch it different this time. Enjoyez!

Man on the Moon** (1999) 9.5, 8.5, 9, 27

2013-08-09T18:00:00.001-07:00

I've been very into comedy and stand-up recently and I remembered it had been quite a while since I had seen this film. So when I saw it at the library, it demanded a watch. This movie is big for me primarily because of the story it tells and not as much because of the portrayal itself. The story of Andy Kaufman, who he was and the way that he broke wide open the rules and walls of comedy and being funny, is one of the best. I laughed so much just at the classic Andy Kaufman jokes that Jim Carrey does.
For wit, I gave it 9.5. It's hard to tell if the writing is really good or if it's just because of how funny Andy was. That said, Jim was great, possibly his best performance. Danny DeVito was great too. Paul Giamatti was as good as ever.
Some of the best stuff was the people playing themselves, the best of which was Jerry Lawler, the wrestler.
The wisdom was an 8.5. I question whether all of the deception that Andy did for his comedy was worth it. I imagine he did too, when no one believed he had cancer. Altogether I think the film had a good message about the power of funny things and about the worth of doing what you love even when no one else gets it. Also love. Pretty great all told.
The wonder gets a 9 just for the makeup job on the Tony Clifton parts. Especially when Paul fooled me into thinking he was Jim.
The music was great too. REM did a number of songs, including an original.
All in all, an absolutely good use of an afternoon. I hope you all enjoy.

Evil Dead* (2012) 9, 8.5, 10, 27

2013-07-31T15:01:00.001-07:00

I would like to begin by welcoming myself back to my blog. I have been on the road for a while and I didn't see very many movies and I didn't review the ones I did see.
For my comeback, I'll be reviewing a gem that my nephew, Isaiah, insisted I watch. I wanted to watch it, but the right time hadn't presented itself. I am a fan of the Sam Raimi/Bruce Campbell original. This is not that. I was skeptical, because I am not very familiar with the previous work of the director, Fede Alvarez. He co-wrote and directed this, only his fifth directed film and second English language film. This one is so good that I want to watch his others.
The biggest difference between this and the original is where the original is somewhere between horror and comedy, this is between horror and drama. There is something lost in this, but also something gained. But let's break it down.
The writing is good. The dialogue makes some quality callbacks to the original but is overall its own film. The pacing is good enough to recognize an underutilized character and make a play on it.
The acting is surprising as well. The main two characters, a brother and sister played by Shiloh Fernandez and Jane Levy, are really good. I knew Shiloh from a little indie movie that came out a few years ago called Happiness Runs. It was a decent movie, but I now remember Shiloh as the stand out. His work here is comparable. He's the emotional crux of the film for most of it. He does a great job conveying horror, fear, revulsion and resolution. Jane Levy is nearly unknown to me. I always saw the end of Suburgatory when I recorded Modern Family. It seems stupid. But Jane impressed me. She did well the junkie, the fighter, and the possessed. All of it works.
The best though is Lou Taylor Pucci. He's had small parts in movies I've liked like Beginners, but I don't remember him. In this, he gets perfectly the kind of jerk who just won't leave it alone. He really plays the classic jerk so well.
Wisdom is an 8.5 because the message is ambiguous at best. Like the classic, the basic message is don't mess with witchcraft. Maybe also don't scoff at witchcraft. Either way, not the most profound of lessons. Maybe a light anti-heroin message, but that's hardly as groundbreaking as it was when Frank did The Man with the Golden Arm. Alogether, I might be being generous, but it isn't really about a message, but about enjoyment. This is a little shallow.
Wonder is the key. This film is awesome in its depiction of violence. Whether it's raining blood or someone is stabbing someone else in the eye, this film is creepy and well-made.
One last thing that I don't know where to put. There are some very unrealistic moments in the violence. I won't ruin anything, but some limbs are torn off a little too easily.
If you are squeamish about violence, do not watch this. Also, the demon-possessed girl says some foul things. This should be understood, because demons are bad. I cannot object to the realistic depiction of demons, though I can imagine why one wouldn't want young people to see it.
Enjoy friends!

Star Trek into Darkness* (2013) 8.5, 8, 9.5, 26

2013-06-04T23:50:00.001-07:00

I went considerably out of my way to see this, that is, I left the country to find a showing. I have been very excited for a long time over it. But I was disappointed. Let me tell you why.
For wit, I gave it an 8.5. This is what I gave the first one too. The acting was, to me, first rate. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto hit every note. Simon Pegg is hilarious. I still think Karl Urban has remade McCoy in his own image without bring anything unfaithful to the original. Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Anton Yelchin. I love Anton already since "Fright Night". Peter Weller (whom I remembered from Dexter) and Alice Eve made a splash too.
And if anyone deserved his own paragraph it is Benedict Cumberbatch. The man absolutely commanded the screen, the whole time.
But alas, the writing was not worthy of all their efforts. I don't want to place all the blame on Damon Lindelof's shoulders. There are three credited writers. But it does have some very disturbingly Lost-esque moments that seem to be shortcuts after writing into a corner. I'll discuss this more at the end in the section for those who've seen it already.
As far as wisdom goes, I dipped even lower than before, to an 8, than before. This is because of the way that Benedict's character is treated. He's an old Star Trek villian and I almost believed that he might get a fresh treatment, but he's assumed as a bad guy by our "heros" from the very beginning. He really doesn't do anything to deserve it. Nothing. This is again a writing problem.
That all put aside, the film is beautiful and well put together. Ut truly has quite a number of great scenes. Music is great and editing makes for a clean film.
Overall, I still suggest seeing it, but a non-Trekkie like myself could easily wait for DVD.

SPOILER ALERT

If you've seen this film already, I'd love to be more specific about my issues with the writing. Other Spock is a clear and unabashed deus ex machina. Somehow, in the middle of a giant battle, Spock gets a message to New Vulcan and doesn't ask for reinforcements, but queries Other Spock on Khan. This is clearly ridiculous. Then after getting what he needs to defeat Khan, he simply wraps it up. It is simply beyond too easy. Also it is clearly morally suspect. Spock has only the judgment of the man who.has already betrayed him, that is Marcus, to imagine Khan as a villian. Whatever Other Spock tells him will be the story, not of Khan, but of Other Khan and thus Kirk's decision to stun him after Khan has helped him is baldly treacherous. This is morally baffling and just plaij bad plotting. Sorry, J. J.
But, great moments include making Spock scream Khan's name when Kirk dies, reversing it; Kirk and Khan getting ready to go get Marcus; the build up to resurrecting Kirk; and the clear references to Sulu's eventual captainship.

Mud* (2013) 9, 9.5, 9.5, 28

2013-05-09T10:07:00.001-07:00

First, I'd like to note that the line to get into this movie was huge. Part of this was surely French movie theaters insistence on not letting anyone into a movie more than a few minutes before, but the theater was almost full. This film only had a limited release in the US, which means that it probably didn't show anywhere in my home town and got a week or two in the little indie theater in Lawrence(God bless 'em). This movie nearly filled a theater on a movie premier day with plenty of other things going on. That's kind of cool.
Beyond that, I was happy in general to find this movie a little more plot-driven than Jeff Nichols' last film, Take Shelter, not because I prefer that (I clearly do not), but because it's good to see indie filmmakers with the ability to produce a balanced oeuvre. This movie is practically a thriller. It isn't quite as full of twists and turns as the trailer would have us believe, but it tells a complex and fulfilling story about someone really growing up. Let's break it down.
For wit, I gave it a 9. I went up and down on this, but I stuck with a 9 because of comparisons with Jaws and Punch Drunk Love, both of which I watched last weekend, and I recognized less points where I felt like things were said so well I was taken aback. Less, not none. Comparing Vincent Cassel in Mesrine or Joaquin Phoenix in The Master with Matthew McConaughey in anything seems unfair. Not that Matthew is disappointing. He is at the awesome height of surprising quality that I got when he first appeared on Eastbound and Down. This will be the last time I underestimate him. He demands sympathy for his character and a certain fellow-feeling. You know that he isn't totally on the up-and-up, but you absolutely feel his pain.
Reese Witherspoon is even a bit surprising, but I attribute that mostly to the writing. The story flows with an ease that I remarked about in Jaws. It is all-encompassing. When you are watching it, it is reality. All credit not given to the engrossing screenwriter goes to the two young actors who drove the film from beginning to end: Tye Sheridan as Ellis and Jacob Lofland as Neckbone. Their natural chemistry, helping someone like me, who hasn't talked to his childhood best friend much recently, a real reminder of what it is to not remember not knowing someone and to trust them implicitly and to really defy any attempt to create hierarchy between you. Neither one has a long history in acting, but Tye's credit in a Terrence Malick film is nothing to scoff at. His performance is as layered as it can be in a clear bildungsfilm.
Sarah Paulson and Ray McKinnon played his parents and both had their moments without standing out. Sam Shepard was great, but his best moment was in being clearly upstaged by Tye. The only other character who did much for me was Michael Shannon as Galen, Neck's uncle. He has his one or two scenes where he clearly is the point of attraction. Early on, in his first appearance, just after we've been told he's 'doing it,' he follows a young lady out apologetically explaining, "Some people are okay with that kind of thing in the bedroom. Now we know you're not, I'll keep that in mind." Later, he brings his character around from the irresponsible uncle/guardian when he warns Ellis not to "get Neck in any trouble (he) can't get him out of." Michael absolutely nails it, giving the most nuanced adult performance.
Enough said about wit, I turn to wisdom, which was a 9.5. I had to give this a good bit of thought. It seemed clearly above Moonrise Kingdom which I gave a 9.5, because it doesn't have that obvious glaring defect. The ideas are clearly said, though not simply told. We learn that those we love sometimes fail us but that doesn't mean Love has failed us. We learn that all actions, whether they be seeking revenge (no matter where in the chain you may fall) or infidelity, have consequences, sometimes dire ones. But we also learn that sometimes things turn out for the best because of our most selfless acts. All these seem good to me, even unassailable, but they simply weren't enough to put this film in the class of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Nice Guy Johnny, which I gave 10's.
The last is wonder and I gave it a 9.5 for its portrayal of the swampy rivery wilderness of Arkansas. It gave it the romanticism it deserves and gave some great shots of moving down the river. The music was good too, if unobtrusive. Not least the somewhat ironic use of "Help Me, Rhonda" for the closing credits. There was some obnoxious over-cutting between various figures during dramatic dialogue. I prefer staying with one character until there's a break in the dialogue. I can settle for not seeing the character talking if the other character's reaction is more interesting. It just felt nervous about missing something.
If there is a theater near you showing this, I would suggest it. There's nothing approaching a sex scene and though some people get shot, it's pretty tame. Neck can't stop talking about "titties," but it's nearly endearing by the end. Enjoyez!

Jaws** (1975) 9, 9, 10, 28

2013-05-08T12:07:00.001-07:00

This weekend I was blessed by the opportunity to see an old classic again in good company. If you haven't seen Jaws go ahead and do it. Unless you're squeamish about blood, because there's a lot of it. Let's break this one down.
I gave it a 9.5 for wit because this film is a veritable treasure trove of one-liners and the cast absolutely acts every one of them. I'll give you a smattering. Hooper the marine biologist, when a bunch of people going after the shark make fun of him, "Ha, ha - they're all gonna die." Chief Brody, when the massive shark first pokes his head out of the water, "You're gonna need a bigger boat." Brody again when one of the locals starts bugging him about something, "That's some bad hat, Harry." The film manages to craft at least a couple really dynamic and powerful characters in Brody, Hooper, and Quint within the bounds of this shark-story thriller.
Roy Scheider gives an easy and free performance, leaving you sure that he could never be anyone else. This whole film is really one of complete immersion. Whether he's reacting to a smack in the face, asking his young son for a kiss, or gazing in fear at the water where the shark just was, I never felt the pull of the real world while he was onscreen.
Richard Dreyfuss is amiable and fun. Really helping to lighten a mood that could easily get too heavy. Robert Shaw, who plays Quint really sucks you in with his monologues too. He has too big ones: first when he scratches the chalkboard to get everyone's attention and then offers to go after the shark. That monologue is worth a great many movies I've seen. The second is his narration of attack by sharks on a sinking ship during WWII. He really gives you the most engrossing sort of campfire story I think any film pulls off.
The background artists really make this film though. It truly is all about atmosphere. A couple problems with the non-descript and lackluster ending, which practically qualifies as a plot-hole.
The wisdom is a simple 9. It has a clear message: don't value economy and money over people's lives be cautious and respect the power of nature. But this seems something over-simplistic. It may not have been meant to teach a great lesson, but that seems like a bit of a flaw.
The ten here is for Spielberg and his ability to make a terrifying shark movie with so little shark. The little boy's flailing body and the red water bubbling under him is far more frightening than the best moments of the animatronic shark. That and John Williams, the absolute best for-screen composer ever. He is truly a magician. That 10 doesn't feel hard to justify. That is rare.
I hope those few who haven't seen this classic can get the bug, otherwise enjoy.

Shakespeare In Love** (1998) 9, 8, 9.5, 26.5

2013-05-03T07:30:00.000-07:00

This film won Best Picture at the Oscars in '99. I don't agree with this, especially given the quality of its competition. It's on this, in part, that I'll try to base my review.
For wit, I'm going to give it a 9. I don't have a rating recorded for Life Is Beautiful (1997), but I can infer from my memory of it from at least four years ago the last time I saw it, a memory better than movies I saw last month, that it is at the very least a 9.5 for wit. That film is heartbreakingly funny and perfectly acted. Shakespeare In Love is by contrast of a considerably lower caliber in its humor and its pathos, this despite taking numerous lines from some of the better works of someone I think may be the greatest writer who ever lived, at least in his own language. I am annoyed by the low quality of some of the puns, not only anachronistic in the extreme, which is forgivable, but poorly constructed and unimaginative. I can only hope that the more tawdry bits don't come from Tom Stoppard, of whom I'm a fan. That said, some of the best bits are plays on Shakespearean in-jokes. I think its funny when Shakespeare clearly steals lines from the world around him. I like his interaction with Marlowe and John Webster.
I also think the acting is great. Tom Wilkinson stands out from the very beginning, really adding the umph from the supporting cast. His character's transformation and complexity are hilarious and heartwarming. Geoffrey Rush is as weasley as he's ever been yet endearing in his own way, especially when he ensures various characters that things will be alright, magically, somehow. Joe Roberts, the little boy who plays John Webster, is great, even if his character is overused. The wealth of great actors playing interesting characters is one of the movie's saving graces. Joseph Fiennes as a fun version of the Bard, Gwyneth Paltrow as a ridiculous lady-love, Martin Clunes as Burbage, Sandra Reinton as Rosalind, Simon Callow as the Master of Revels, Dami Judi as Elizabeth, Imelda Staunton as the Nurse, Colin Firth as Wessex, Ben Affleck as Ned Alleyn, Rupert Everett as Marlowe, Jim Carter as the man playing the Nurse. They all weave something beautiful and funny, even if it does get crowded.
Wisdom is a tricky point. Historical evidence, which as a Shakepeare enthusiast, I am far to aware of for a movie reviewer, continually shows that not only did most of Shakespeare's plays not come from life, their plots are almost always unoriginal and stolen and the lines are a result of the writing prowess of Shakespeare, not some magical muse who inspired him to write a great romance about teenagers in his late twenties, early thirties. This post-Romantic theory of authorial inspiration is even problematic when applied retrospectively to the Romantics themselves, how much more to people who preceded them by centuries? This and the insistently extra-marital inspiration for what Shakespeare chooses to make intra-marital sex scenes gives this film a sour taste as far as wisdom goes. For all that I still give it a 8, which puts it on par with something like Mammoth (2009), which displays some understanding of the world of extra-marital sex and international power relations, but still seems largely to miss the point.
For wonder, it doesn't seem overgenerous to give a 9.5. The spectacle is great on a lot of levels from dance to costume to setting. If not for the language, this movie might have been a great period piece.
Overall, this is not a high encouragement for those who haven't seen it to pick it up, but it still has a place in my heart next to Anonymous (2011), the even less plausible and more outlandish Oxfordian version of the Shakespeare story. They stand out as attempts to read Shakespeare differently, which though not always good reading, it rarely fails to make an interesting story.