Jeremy The Critic

The Guilt Trip

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:08:00 +0000

Director: Anne Fletcher
Starring: Barbra Streisand, Seth Rogen, Brett Cullen, Adam Scott, Ari Graynor, Colin Hanks, Yvonne Strahovski, Casey Wilson
Running Time: 95 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Some casting choices just make perfect sense. Barbra Streisand playing Seth Rogen's overbearing mother is one of them, and in the unfairly overlooked The Guilt Trip, the actual execution of it is even better. Unfortunately, the very reason it works is probably why it was so casually dismissed by critics and audiences. Both are talented, likable performers and yet it's still strangely difficult to imagine theses two starring in a creatively successful project together, isn't it? For whatever reason, a perception persists that Rogen's always just playing variations on his stoner persona and that Streisand's merely a singer/celebrity occasionally starring in bad comedies every few years. It's a shame if that kept audiences away because they're both given as good an opportunity here as they've had to disprove it in a well-written movie that's smart, funny and even occasionally touching. This isn't necessarily a 90 minute laugh fest but it gets the job done in ways more ambitious comedies haven't by just simply telling an enjoyable story well. The smile never really left my face the whole time, as everything falls nicely into place with better than expected results.

Rogen plays Andy Brewster, who's embarking on a cross-country road trip to try to sell his new safe and environmentally friendly cleaning product, Scio-Clean, to retailers in an effort to jump start his sagging career. Before he leaves, he's nagged via voicemail by his well-meaning widowed mother Joyce (Streisand) about everything from his lack of a love life to his diet. But after hearing a story about how a lost teenage love slipped away one summer before she met his dad, Andy plans to secretly track the mystery man down and attempts to stage a surprise reunion in San Francisco. With the hope of enticing some big chain stores in his product and filling a void in his mom's life, he takes her along for his trip, where some suppressed family baggage and a few secrets are dredged up for both. Arguing non-stop, Andy and Joyce will have to reach some kind of middle ground in understanding one another if they each want to get what they're looking for out of this journey.

The movie makes a number of smart choices that are almost bound to overlooked because of how simple and entirely predictable the premise appears to be from the onset. What is a complete surprise is just how funny it is. There's actually very little gross-out humor, with most of the laughs coming from the fact that Andy can't stand his overbearing mother and is mostly trying to set her up with this guy to get her out of his life. What makes this a bit sad is that his situation might actually be far worse than hers and director Anne Fletcher and screenwriter Dan Fogelman do a commendable job balancing that notion with many of the lighter, relatable moments in the mother-son dynamic. You'd figure that watching this guy constantly arguing with his mom would get tiresome after a while, but it doesn't, mostly because the co-stars work so well together and there are actually more than a few welcome surprises. The first of which comes in the film's handling of Andy's cleaning product. The writing's really smart here because while his presentations are painfully bad, but they fail the way most horrible pitches would in reality, as he continuously bores prospective buyers to tears with scientific and technical jargon. And when Joyce chimes in with her unsolicited tips on how he can improve it (like changing it's horrible name), it's actually common sense advice that seems like it's coming from a sane, intelligent person instead of a comedy caricature. But we also understand why Andy's stubborn pride and insecurity get in the way of him taking it.

That the filmmakers feels no need to shoehorn in a love interest for Andy comes as a relief. In fact, he and his mom's encounter with his high school sweetheart (Yvonne Strahovski) and her husband (Colin Hanks) is handled pretty well, as is a sub-plot involving a potential cowboy suitor (a terrific Brett Cullen) for Joyce during an entertaining steak eating contest. Yes, Barbra Streisand competes in a steak eating contest. All of this should be standard hit-or-miss comedy fare but together Rogen and Streisand are able to elevate it. Of course, the time will eventually come when Joyce discovers the true intention of Andy taking her on this trip and, without giving away too much, I liked how the movie gives these two the ending we want them to have but doesn't do it in an obviously schmaltzy way. Both get exactly what they're looking for, just not how they expected to find it. There's also a great cameo from Adam Scott that's a lot more dramatic than you'd expect given the circumstances.

Rogen is reliably gold at playing a schlubby man-boy who has to grow up, but this is one of the smarter projects he's done it in. When the material is good it's sometimes easy to overlook just how welcome a presence he is on screen. In the hands of another actor it's easy to imagine Andy coming off as a crude sociopath, which obviously wouldn't have been right for this. But it's his chemistry with Streisand that really brings out the best in both, as the legendary entertainer is really on point here, turning in a charmingly comedic performance. It's just the right vehicle for her and she doesn't disappoint, making Joyce just annoying and overbearing enough, but not so annoying that she crosses into the realm of crass unlikablity. In all the nagging, she subtly makes sure we can tell Joyce's intentions are genuine and that's a big difference maker in what kind of movie this becomes. I don't even know what to say about the fact that Streisand received a Worst Actress Razzie nomination for this other than it's mean and disgusting, with its only possible motivation being to stick it to a big star. That's not funny at all. It's just cruel, and maybe even a bit irresponsible when you take into account the current state of the movie industry. Although, it's important to remember that we're talking about an "organization" that once nominated Stanley Kubrick for worst director so it's difficult to take anything they do seriously. The truth is that if Streisand was nominated for a supporting Globe or Oscar for this performance, few would have reason to complain. She's that good.

Much like the fictitious cleaning product at the movie's center, The Guilt Trip's bad title and poor marketing kept the public away from something that's actually very good. Once they saw the commercials they thought they saw the entire movie. And who can blame them? In begging for laughs, most mainstream comedies these days reach for the lowest common denominator so it was almost inevitable that a funny, heartwarming story that the entire family can enjoy would fall through the cracks. But here's something even sadder: It's not even that great. It simply does what it needs to do while keeping a consistent tone. We used to get comedies like this all the time. Now they're practically an endangered species. Or maybe I've just seen too many bad ones. Either way, critics should partially shoulder the blame, as all of them somehow found a way to get on the same page with this and still be completely wrong. Luckily, it doesn't happen often. The best thing to do going into The Guilt Trip is forget everything you've heard or read and just approach it with an open mind.

Arrested Development (Season 4)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 01:35:00 +0000

Creator: Michell Hurwitz
Starring: Jason Bateman, Portia de Rossi, Will Arnett, Michael Cera, Alia Shawkat, Tony Hale, David Cross, Jeffrey Tambor, Jessica Walter, Ron Howard, Isla Fisher, Terry Crews
Original Airdate: 2013

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

All the addictive elements that made Arrested Development so brilliant and groundbreaking when its three universally acclaimed, but ratings-challenged seasons first aired on Fox, is also what ultimately led to its cancellation in 2006. Creator Mitch Hurwitz predicted our addiction to serialized storytelling years before it actually arrived and the bitter feelings surrounding its cancellation only seemed to grow worse when we realized it possibly could have thrived in an era of DVR's and Netflix. Back then viewers just weren't ready for a comedy series that dense and complex, requiring them to do some work--and maybe some rewatching--to pick up on all the inside jokes, call-backs and references.

It's Netflix's Arrested Development

The single-camera format and incorporation of rare for its time devices such as narration, flashbacks and archival footage demanded and rewarded a long term commitment, but made ratings success an impossibility. It may have only lasted three seasons but what it accomplished during them felt richer and more developed than any longer running comedy series to air before or since. More importantly, it was a show made for binge viewing before we even knew what that meant. The question was never if it would come back, but when, and whether we'd want it to with the risk that it may not be at the same level of quality. New episodes would be compared to what's arguably TV's all-time greatest comedy series. Not the most enviable position to be in if you're a writer.

It turns out the biggest revelation coming out of AD's fourth season streaming on Netflix is that it doesn't feel like it's back. At least in the form we knew. Forget about catching up on the first three seasons in preparation, because, with few exceptions, it really is a completely fresh start. And I've decided that's okay because much as the show revolutionized comedy TV when it first aired, it's doing it all over again in a new way, albeit with decidedly more mixed results. Reaction to the new episodes from fans and critics have been all over the map and that feels right. The first few episodes are really rough, and almost downright shocking in how much they diverge from the AD we all knew and loved. But the deeper you go, the more sense it makes and the funnier it gets, making it the only season of the show youll have to watch twice in order to fully grasp what's happening. Ridiculously dense and even more ambitious, it makes the most complicated season of Lost seem almost straightforward by comparison.

Trying to explain the narrative of the season would be a fool's errand but fans remember exactly where we left off in 2006 when Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman) escaped with his son George Michael (Michael Cera) on Gob's (Will Arnett) yacht, fleeing his dysfunctional family for good and leaving overbearing, alcoholic matriarch Lucille (Jessica Walter) to deal with the legal fallout from her role in the Bluth Company's accounting scandal. Of course, as the responsible, likable one, Michael can never truly escape his family or resist bailing them out, so the biggest, most jarring development for fans occurs in the first episode ("Flight of the Phoenix") when we discover the past 7 years haven't treated him well. A failed real estate venture and the shame surrounding his family has derailed his personal and professional life to the point that he's pathetically dorming with his son at college (much to George Michael's embarrassment) while taking classes online.

Michael Bluth falls on hard times in "Flight of the Phoenix"

Considering much of the series' initial creative success hinged on Bateman playing straight man to the craziness and infantility surrounding him, this decision is easily the season's boldest and most polarizing. If nothing else, it pushes and challenges the actor (who appears in every episode) in a way he wasn't before, proving he's basically capable of anything the writers throw at him. After being the solid anchor for his troubled family for years, it's now Michael who needs something from them that can help turn his fortunes around. Each character gets their own episode, with a few getting more than that, as we're clued in on the details of what happened to "a family whose future was abruptly cancelled." All the intersecting events eventually come to a head on a Bluth-created holiday known as "Cinco de Quatro."

Nearly everything is told out of chronological order, sometimes making it difficult to distinguish an event that's happening in the present from a flashback. And it's an adjustment getting used to Ron Howard's narrator explaining copious amounts of plot detail and narrative exposition to get us up to speed. Gone from the show are the days where random jokes would come rapid-fire at a mile a minute and you'd have to worry about blinking in fear you'd miss an absurd inside sight gag. Well, there's still some of that, but it's spread wider throughout the course of the season as something you may have noticed in the second or third episode will pay off in the tenth. In this sense, you have to give the writers credit. It would have been easy to fall back on the same successful jokes (and there are still a few), but they came up with completely new ones at the risk of alienating their core fanbase. About as many work as don't, but there's an unmistakable difference in the type of humor, as it's less laugh-out-loud funny and subtler, letting the audience fill in the blanks. But as it wears on, it's apparent some of the jokes are as strong as the ones in the show's original run. It just takes a while to get there.

The writing has definitely lost a step or two, an issue at times unflatteringly highlighted by the extended, character-focused format which seems almost intentionally made for Netflix binge viewing. Without commercials to pad the running time, the show's a good ten to twelve minutes longer, which can seem more like an enternity when trudging through the first few episodes focusing on George Sr. (Jeffrey Tambor) and Lindsay Bluth-Funke (an unrecognizable Portia de Rossi). Of course, the problem is that some of these characters are better to build episodes around than others, as the show evolves into something slower paced and darker in tone. As expected, there's a noticeably smaller budget, which isn't really that big an issue when you this show was never dependent on expensive effects begin with. Just about the only time it's distractingly obvious is when they try to digitally insert actors into scenes with each other, which serves as another argument against this new, but seemingly unavoidable character-based format

An injured Tobias Funke with wife Lindsay

The George, Sr. episodes ("Borderline Personalities," "Double Crossers") are especially problematic, if only in just how convoluted they are and how few laughs they offer. Much like everything else, it does eventually come together, but this is the one sub-plot where viewers are unlikely to care. Of course, Tambor is once again spot-on doing double duty as George and his twin brother Oscar but his scheme involving a corporate sweat lodge retreat and the building of a wall never seems to click. It's almost as if they didn't know what to do with George once his legal problems were over, and for the first time, the twin gag actually feels a little forced. You know you're in trouble when even guest star John Slattery as a hippie anesthesiologist can't even save these.

Lindsay's episodes ("Indian Takers," "Red Hairing") try to return her to her to disingenuous activism roots but instead she's at the center of one of the season's most unfunny gags, as the formerly edgy and materialistic Lindsay character is softened to the point that she's almost nice and normal now. But at least de Rossi proves to be a good sport for letting them joke about her plastic surgery, which otherwise would have been a giant elephant in the room. The George Sr./Lindsay episodes are the only ones that truly drag in a big way, compounded by the fact they come at the start, creating a palpable fear of disappointment for a series that once spoiled us for three years straight without a single clunker.

It's around episode 4 or 5 when the show starts to show shades of its former glory, but a good enough argument can be made that it takes even longer. Hurwitz's plan starts to present itself, the puzzle pieces fall into place and his layout of the season as kind of a Rubik's cube starts making some more sense. The potential movie deal with Ron Howard (fantastic as himself) and Imagine entertainment about the Bluth family that was teased in the third season/series finale starts taking shape, giving Michael a new job as producer ("The B. Team") and injecting the rest of the remaining episodes a greater sense of purpose and unity. New jokes start paying off and everything seems to flow better as it chugs along. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the two actors who really knock it out of the park (again) are David Cross as "never nude" and aspiring actor Dr. Tobias Funke and Arnett as master illusionist and womanizer Gob.

"The Final Countdown" to Gob's most spectacular illusion yet.

Of all the episodes, Tobias's ("A New Start," "Smashed") are by far the funniest and come closest to capturing the magic of the show's original run without directly recreating it. Whether he's showing up at a methadone addiction group for his method acting class, accidentally getting busted on a To Catch a Predator-style program, or putting together a musical stage production of the Fantastic Four with rehab patients, nearly everything involving Tobias is comic gold with Cross so earnestly selling the most absurd situations with a goofy cluelessness. Thankfully, Gob's just as sleazy and over-the-top as ever, staging his most elaborately ridiculous "illusion" yet, finding himself trapped in an endless "roofie cycle" and reigniting an old feud with a bitter rival ("Colony Collapse", "A New Attitude"). He also has this huge nervous breakdown scene that's so bizarre and transfixing it defies any conventional description, proving that the series is still capable of perfection when you least expect it.

Of the main main players, Lucille and hook-handed "mother boy" Buster (Tony Hale) are probably the most underutilized, though the latter's single episode ("Off The Hook"), in which he attempts to break away from his domineering mother, is the season's darkest and creepiest, actually playing out out the most disturbing aspects of their relationship that were only implied during the first two seasons. It also leads to Ron Howard's best pop culture reference as narrator. Buster's appearances are primarily limited to only he and Lucille's episode ("Queen B."), making Hale the odd man out and sidelining him with far less screen time than many of the guest stars.

But it's Michael Cera who who brings everything he gained on the big screen back with him to deepen and expand his portrayal of George-Michael in "It Gets Better," which isn't only the best written episode of the season, but an absolute joy to watch from start to finish. Creating the "anti-social network," a fake piracy software program called "Fakeblock," George Michael finds himself entangled in a few giant lies that cause a rift with his father and Cera's astounding in how he keeps the character the same "nice kid" he was while adding dimensions and maturity that make him even funnier.

A reunited George Michael and Maeby

The nature of the relationship between he and his dad (always a strong component of the show) is much more intriguing now that the character is older and there are more directions to go with it. It's work Cera couldn't have done 7 years ago and the one glaring improvement made on a show where no improvements seemed possible. The George Michael greatness even extends into his rebellious "cousin" Maeby's (Alia Shawkat) surprisingly entertaining episode ("Señoritis"), which answers the big question of what became of their semi-incestuous sort of romantic friendship. That reunion doesn't disappoint, and with all the problems with scheduling actors we can at least be thankful they have plenty of scenes together and pick up exactly where they left off. It was near the top of the list of details Hurwitz had to get right, and he nails it, as George Michael and Maeby's weird bond remains just as warm, awkward and hilarious as it was.

AD jump-started the now popular TV trend wherein guest stars can be just as important to the story as the main cast. Anticipation was high and they've done a pretty good job keeping a lid on which favorites would be returning, as well as the size and nature of their roles. A moment comes in the first few minutes of the first episode that convinced me everything was going to be alright and the season would probably work. I smiled and laughed uncontrollably as a bruised, desperate Michael climbed the Bluth Company stair car and proceeded to intentionally induce the vertigo of Lucille Austero (Liza Minnelli), the show's most valuable and hilarious recurring character.

A big surprise is just how much Lucille 2 we get, with her role greatly expanded to the point that she may as well be considered a regular. Her impact is felt in some way through every episode, as Lucille 1's kooky social rival seems to have her hands in all the family business this time around, with Minnelli again proving just how skilled she is at delivering this material. And if that wasn't enough, there's also a great sub-plot involving her rehab clinic, "Austerity," run by her bizarre younger brother Argyle (Tommy Tune) who in just his few outlandish appearances makes an impression that somehow rivals hers in sheer hilarity. Of all the new characters introduced, he feels like the one who most needs to come back.

A desperate Michael propositions Lucille Austero

Also among the returning favorites are the Bluth's bumbling attorney Barry Zuckerkorn (Henry Winkler), George Sr.'s former secretary and mistress Kitty Sanchez (Judy Greer), the notoriously plain George Michael ex Ann Veal (Mae Whitman), magician Tony Wonder (Ben Stiller), lawyer Bob Loblaw (Scott Baio), screenwriter and former prison warden Stefan Gentles (James Lipton), acting coach Carl Weathers and Andy Richter as themselves, follically challenged Stan Sitwell (Ed Begley, Jr.) and his daughter Sally (Christine Taylor), a heavily aged, completely unrecognizable Steve Holt (!) (Justin Wade Grant) and a lot more.

It ends up being the new faces who, for better or worse, have the biggest impact on the season. The idea of Michael unknowingly getting involved with Ron Howard's "illegitimate daughter" Rebel Alley is a good one, but Isla Fisher just never seems right for the role despite how hard she tries. Maybe the problem is that she does always seems like she's trying, which is an occupational hazard in the AD universe where random spontaneity rules the day. Charlize Theron's mentally handicapped Rita was admittedly a tough act to follow, but part of me thinks casting Bryce Dallas Howard as herself in Fisher's place with Michael not knowing her identity would have been far funnier and better suited to the meta comedy the show specializes in. Instead, Fisher comes off as if she's performing in a traditional sitcom, which this definitely isn't. What saves her is being sandwiched between the two strongest storylines, and Bateman and Cera, who are clearly the MVP's.

Terry Crews fares pretty well as Herman Cain-like conservative politician, Herbert Love, who's in cahoots with George Sr. in his building of the wall and takes a romantic liking to Lindsay. Unfortunately, those are the season's two weakest sub-plots, so his game performance is mostly done a disservice. Maria Bamford is a memorably goofy addition as Tobias's meth-addicted girlfriend DeBrie while Chris Diamantopolous is buried in nonsense as Lindsay's love interest, the "face blind" ostrich farmer Marky Bark. The stunt casting of Kristen Wiig and Seth Rogen as a young Lucille and George Sr. in flashbacks has generated a lot of discussion, and while the execution of it never really works and Rogen just phones it in, Wiig actually seems to have studied Jessica Walters, impressively incorporating many of the actress's mannerisms into the performance.

Guest star Isla Fisher as Rebel Alley.

So now we know. Everyone was wondering what Arrested Development would look and feel like if it ever came back and here's our answer. Fans hoping for the return can probably be split into two camps. Those who demanded it maintain the same exact tone, style and quality of the original episodes and others who just wanted the characters come out for a curtain call or reunion special. What we got was closer to the latter, which is fine, but if Hurwitz and company plan to keep going with this (and right now it looks like they are), I'm not sure they can successfully continue this approach without making some changes. The episodes definitely need to be shorter and tighter and there was too much reliance on the narration, which likely stemmed from the need to catch viewers up on 7 years worth of backstory for eight main characters. There's a lot potential here if they play their cards right and plenty of open-ended storylines to be continued in another season or movie. The finale ("Blockheads") is basically a cliffhanger.

While I can certainly understand the fact that the well deserved boost these actors' careers got as a result of the series made scheduling impossible, it's also easy to sympathize with fans who may feel this shouldn't have been attempted unless the entire cast was available at once. Actors need to pay the bills with other projects but I'm still not sure how I feel about the series being treated as a gig everyone does on the side, as there's no question not having an the entire ensemble together limited the creative possibilities. But within those limits, they came up with something truly inspired and original, refusing to rely on the old stand-bys (no Banana Stand!) in favor of expanding the universe and tweaking its format for new kinds of laughs. Like the Bluths themselves, it's kind of a mess, but with an undertaking this ambitious, that was inevitable. Compared to its previous incarnation, it's tough not to view this new more binge-friendly AD as somewhat of a disappointment. But, honestly, anything would have been. What matters most is that it's still more clever and innovative than any comedy currently on TV.

Django Unchained

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 30 May 2013 22:13:00 +0000

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, Don Johnson, Walton Goggins, Dennis Christopher
Running Time: 165 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Each time Quentin Tarantino comes out with a new film I find myself saying that this will be the one where I've finally had it. I'll say he's gone the revenge fantasy route too times many times, overwrites, casts the same people, fetishizes violence and music and seems more interested in making his movies "cool" than having them work. Then it's released and all those things end up being mostly true. And it doesn't even matter. It's still the greatest thing out there. He gets away with this because there's only one Tarantino and no one else out there is even remotely capable of doing what he does. Many have tried in the 90's, only to embarrass themselves. His writing is so idiosyncratic it's some kind of miracle any actor can effectively deliver it and maybe even more of one that his crazy vision can be translated onto the screen, even by the person responsible for it. Django Unchained is his highest-grossing movie to date and also his longest, clocking in at nearly 3 hours to make it the longest of the year's nine Best Picture nominees. And it feels it. Yet, that doesn't matter either because it seems as if you're too glued to the screen to even care and on the receiving end of at least two or three movies for the price of one.

Set in the Deep South in 1858, a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) is suddenly given a shot at freedom when he's rescued by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a German dentist and bounty hunter who grants him that freedom in exchange for helping him track down the Brittle Brothers, with whom Django has a brutal history. Feeling responsible for the man, Schultz takes him on as his apprentice, showing him the ropes of bounty hunting and even supplying him with a new wardrobe. His ultimate act of generosity is in helping Django rescue his slave wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from her cruel but charismatic owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), whose "Candyland" plantation is a home to slaves being forced to fight to the death for entertainment in "Mandingo" fights. Manipulating their way into Candie's good graces, Schultz and Django must find a way to outsmart him and his right-hand house slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson). But escaping with Broomhilda and their lives won't be so easy, especially as Django's conflicted emotions about horrors of his slave past and his new responsibilities as a bounty hunter rise to the surface, threatening to blow their cover.

It's odd describing the first half of a film dealing with such an ugly topic as being a fun watch but that's just what it is because of how Tarantino presents the personal and professional partnership that develops between Schultz and Django. There's an undeniable thrill in seeing this slave freed and given the opportunity to extract revenge on those who oppressed him. On top of it, it's interesting to witness all the double talk and scams Schultz uses to help him make it happen. Of the criticisms leveled against the film, the most popular is that Django is merely a spectator in his own story, rescued by the white man and unable to think or act on his own. But how much autonomy can he reasonably have? He's still only freed slave. The reality of the situation is that he won't be accepted on his own as a bounty hunter because of his race and he'd need a great deal of help pulling this off. It's simply a story requirement and nothing more.

Django's marginalization isn't a flaw and Foxx's role is clearly lead (or at least co-lead) but Waltz is such a titanic and charismatic screen presence that's he's basically tricked everyone into thinking otherwise. Much like in Inglourious Basterds, he steals show and there are a remarkable number of similarities between the two characters, with the key difference of course being that Schultz is a German freeing slaves instead of a Nazi Jew hunter. It's fascinating to watch Waltz give a slick, fast-talking, witty performance that touches many of the same bases he did as Col. Hans Landa while this time around earning audience adoration instead of hatred. And Waltz accomplishes all this without really ever making the Schultz "feel" like the hero, but instead just as ruthless and calculating as the white slave owners he's hunting. Not to mention a whole lot smarter.

Foxx's job in comparison would almost seem to be a thankless one in that he must play the strong, silent avenger but he hasn't gotten enough attention for just how much of that quiet intensity and pain he has to convey when they infiltrate Candyland and he must come face-to-face with the atrocities of his own past while staying in character to effectively execute their scheme. It's here where we start wondering if he's enjoying his new role maybe a bit too much and possibly getting too cocky to see it through to the end. There's a great duality going on here and it's difficult to believe that Tarantino's original choice for the role, Will Smith, could have pulled it off better, or even as well, as Foxx. Smith's reasoning for turning it down are well-documented, confirming everything we've already known (feared?) about how he approaches his career, or rather his brand. That his problems with the script boiled down to " Must Be Hero" and "Good Guy Must Shoot Bad Guy" make me wonder if he even read the thing, or maybe just skipped the last fifty pages.

DiCaprio, on the other hand, has never met a role out of his comfort zone or above his ability level   that he won't tackle. On paper, he would certainly seem ill-suited for a racist plantation owner, but yet again, he gives it his all and makes it work, turning in a diabolical, scenery chewing performance as Candie. He's all at once funny and scary, with a good argument to be made that the film doesn't really hit its stride until his arrival. And he's not even playing the most detestable character. That (dis)honor goes to Samuel L. Jackson, whose house slave Stephen might just be the most reprehensible character the actor's played in his career. So sickening in his subservience to Candie and the abuse of his own race that it's difficult to watch, the whole performance is kind of scary in how it touches a nerve and just makes us uncomfortable every moment he's on screen, including a scene where we realize he's more observant than we originally thought.

No Tarantino film would be complete without appearances from veteran actors like Don Johnson (memorable early on as slave owner "Big Daddy"), Dennis Christopher, Tom Wopat, Russ Tamblyn, Tom Savini and Bruce Dern. Jonah Hill also briefly appears when Tarantino accomplishes the impossible with an absurd gag involving the Klu Klux Klan you can't imagine would ever get laughs, but somehow does. Of everyone, Kerry Washington seems the least essential as Broomhilda, but even that role's challenging and it would be difficult to come up with suggestions as to who else could have tackled it as well. True to form, the director saves an almost aggressively distracting cameo for himself in the last act that ranks as the most unintentionally hilarious few minutes of screen time he's had as an actor in one of his own films. Complete with a bizarre accent and cowboy hat, his appearance is so crazy that it works almost in spite of itself, even as the filmmaker proves once again that he probably shouldn't give up his day job anytime soon. It's a good thing we're having too much fun to care.

Unsurprisingly, the soundtrack is as much a character in the film as any person in it, utilizing the most music of any of his outings since the 90's, with a big standout being the use of Jim Croce's classic "I Got a Name" in a sequence where Django first comes into his own as a bounty hunter. For me, the only questionable musical choice comes in the final act, as Rick Ross' "100 Black Coffins," just seems too glaringly modern and "on-the-nose" to fit amidst the film's setting. But that's a minor quibble. With Tarantino's longtime editor Sally Menke having passed away, the glaring question going into this was what effect, if any, it would have on the finished product. Of course, looking at the running time the easiest joke to make is that there was no editing at all, but the truth is actually that the film holds together surprisingly well under the circumstances and while some action probably could have been cut, there's good reason to be grateful for everything that got in.

Whereas Inglourious Basterds mostly played it straight until its third act, morphing into an alternate history revenge fantasy flick, Django is a revenge fantasy through and through from the opening credits onward. It's also a spaghetti Western, a blaxploitation picture and a buddy film.The biggest surprise is in how it starts as an action comedy not too far removed from something like Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid and slowly morphs into something darker, calling the country out on its own shamefully racist past as the title character steps up to take ownership of his own story. When analyzing Tarantino's films, the popular approach is always to compare them, not to other works, but to his, which is unusual considering how many influences and inspirations he incorporates. Maybe it's finally time to admit he's more original than we give him credit for.

How I Met Your Mother (Season 8)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 22 May 2013 00:01:00 +0000

Creators: Carter Bays and Craig Thomas
Starring: Josh Radnor, Jason Segel, Cobie Smulders, Neil Patrick Harris, Alyson Hannigan, Lyndsy Fonseca, David Henrie, Bob Saget(voice)
Original Airdate: 2012-2013

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

**Spoiler Warning: This Review Contains Major Plot Spoilers**

So, there's this moment that comes at the end of Episode 20 of How I Met Your Mother's penultimate season, titled, "The Time Travelers," in which Barney (Neil Patrick Harris) attempts to persuade Ted (Josh Radnor) to stop moping at MacLaren's and go with him to see Robots vs. Wrestlers: Legends or he'll regret it in 20 years. Before long, future versions of Ted and Future Barney show up to confirm that. Then comes the kicker: Ted's really sitting alone at the bar. Barney, Robin (Cobie Smulders), Lily (Alyson Hannigan) and Marshall (Jason Segel) are all too busy with their own lives to go with him. And all the events that occur in the episode actually happened five years ago, as a lonely, dejected Ted replays them in his own mind.

It'll be 45 days until he meets the mother and Bob Saget's narration informs us that if he could go back, he'd spend it with his friends. Ted imagines himself knocking on the mother's apartment door and introducing himself early, saying he'd do anything to get extra time with her. The entire sequence is Season 1 level quality, proving that creators Carter Bay and Craig Thomas are still capable of pulling off the magic when necessary. The moment encapsulates what's best about the series during another season where not enough of the rest does. It's the first time the end actually feels in sight while even vaguely addressing crazy fan theories that Ted might be telling this story from a rubber room, or that he and The Mother, down the road, may no longer be together.

We've seen Ted Mosby depressed over the past 8 years, but we've never seen him truly hopeless until now. He's given up and is well on his way to rock bottom, which presumably arrives the weekend of a certain wedding that will somehow end for him in the rain on a Farhampton train platform with "the girl with the yellow umbrella." And now, shockingly, she's here. Bays and Thomas definitely saved their biggest play for last this season and while it's a shame it had to follow nearly three years of wheel-spinning and stalling, it does feel like a giant weight has been lifted off the show by revealing her to us (if not Ted just yet) and insuring we'll be getting to know her a lot better soon. Just doing that is a controversial decision in itself so it remains to be seen just how much that will positively or negatively affect their eventual meeting, which is one of the last big weapons the writers can still claim to have up their sleeves at this point.

Teds and Barneys in "The Time Travelers"

Unmistakably, and no matter what has come before, that meeting will still be a MOMENT. How much emotional impact it'll carry is now up to them and the performance of an untested, little known actress. But as difficult as it is to digest, there's also a full season's worth of developments that came before that reveal. Well, sort of. Mostly it was just more of the same, with very few exceptions. But the good news is that for the first time in a while things at least look promising for a strong finish. It's certainly no secret that we probably shouldn't even be talking about an upcoming ninth season and this story should have been tighter and wrapped up a lot sooner, but because the show continues to financially thrive for CBS, these are the cards we've been dealt.

Most of the first half of the eighth season is spent cleaning up a gigantic mess the writers got themselves into at the end of a pretty awful seventh season. In their defense, they accomplish this as quickly and efficiently as possible, even if there's no getting around the obvious fact that none of it should have happened to begin with. Robin and Barney are each in committed relationships (though not with each other...yet), Lily and Marshall now have a baby and Ted had shockingly run away with Victoria (a returning Ashley Williams) on her wedding day. Of course, we know that none of these relationships will last, as we've continually gotten flashforward glimpses of Robin and Barney's wedding for the past few seasons. They're interspersed, as usual, with the show's main framing device of Future Ted recounting to his kids (Lyndsy Fonseca and David Henrie) the story of how he met their mother. And it's a story that's become increasingly long-winded and detailed, with seemingly no end in sight, at least until this season's potentially show-saving final shot.

Barney's engagement to stripper Quinn (Becki Newton), Robin's not-so-serious union with himbo Nick (Michael Trucco) and Ted's second go-around with fan favorite Victoria all collapse within a span of five episodes collectively known as "The Autumn of Break-Ups." That this doesn't even qualify as a spoiler of any sort should give you an idea how painfully predictable and unfunny they are, with the only relief coming from the aforementioned Farhampton flashforward in the premiere and the fact that we're now finally freed up get down to business.Why Ted, who was so memorably left at the altar himself, would run away with another man's bride on her wedding day is a question we'll continue to ponder. Along why Victoria was brought back to be labeled as a "slob" and give Ted a Friends-inspired ultimatum. Or why Barney seems to be the only one who can't see that marrying a still working stripper could create an issue.That business at hand is of course the path to Robin and Barney's wedding, which at this point almost has to feel rushed considering they weren't even together at the start of the season. But this is at least one development I didn't mind to see rushed since we already know how it ends up.

I was curious as to how Bays and Thomas would handle the Barney-Robin engagement and was pleasantly surprised. I half expected a long, drawn-out courtship between the two to kill more time but instead they took a clever, short-term approach I can't completely give away. Let's just say they did a good job getting Barney to the place where he could believably settle down with Robin, without sacrificing the key narcissistic, womanizing, lying, scheming qualities that have made Barney Stinson, as played pitch-perfectly by NPH, such an entertaining character over the past eight years. While I'll never be thrilled with the pairing just out of its sheer predictability and the absurd fan devotion it inspires, they did just about as good a job as they could getting there while their backs were against the wall and the series' future time frame was still very much in the air.

The two-parter (titled "The Final Page") not only works as a welcome callback to classic HIMYM story devices like Barney's "Playbook," but also circles the show back to Ted's inability to let go of his feelings for Robin. Unlike many, I don't have a problem with that at all. That's where the story should be at this point and is in many ways the series' most realistic aspect. Why should he be over her? She's one of his best friends and has done very little overs the years to dissuade him from pursuing her, always keeping him in her back pocket as a possible romantic option in case things don't work out. And even as pathetically as Ted can come across, you almost have to admire his dedication and refusal to give up despite being trapped squarely in her "friend zone." As we know, there's only one person capable of triggering him to let go of Robin and until she shows up I'd say it's fair for the writers to go back to that well as many times as they see fit.

The finale hints he may have found one last ditch attempt to slide back into her good graces, even if it comes at the expense of his friendship with Barney. It's clear that we're definitely headed toward a major Ted-Barney battle in the final season and that feels right given that the two of them have never really sat down and hashed out this Robin situation. One of the season's more memorable images comes when Ted stares out from the window of the building he designed, seemingly a success, yet alone as his best friend proposes to the woman he's still in love with. I also appreciate that they finally gave us an update on that GNB building, Ted's teaching career and the renovation of his dream house in Westchester, all of which haven't been mentioned in what's felt like five years.

Robin as her alter ego "Robin Daggers" in "P.S. I Love You"

From the description of it, you'd figure the series is an hour-long drama instead of a 30-minute situation comedy, but this season does bring some laughs to balance out the angst. Cobie Smulders has consistently proven herself to be the most improved actor of the five and it's become especially noticeable in these latter, weaker seasons. This one at least gives her the opportunity to briefly slip back into her most iconic and hilarious persona and one of the series' most satisfying long-running gags. Robin's not so secret past as Canadian pop sensation "Robin Sparkles" and the resulting flashbacks and music videos have resulted in some of the show's biggest laughs. The episode "P.S. I Love You," in which Barney unearths a Behind The Music-style documentary chronicling her career fall, features an onslaught of inside jokes and hilarious Canadian celebrity appearances (Dave Coulier!), proving the show is still at times capable of channeling its early greatness.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the handling of Marshall and Lily's adventures as new parents. It's always been speculated that bringing a baby onto a sitcom can be a death knell, if not a sure sign your show has "jumped the shark" While this doesn't feel like it deserves such a declaration and is more just a reflection of the general course of things, the two sure aren't given much to do this season aside from changing diapers. But that could possibly be considered a step up from the previous season, when the couple was so busy playing house on Long Island that Segel and Hannigan were absent enough to barely qualify as series regulars anymore.

Supposedly, Segel was the lone holdout in signing up for a ninth season, and with a burgeoning film career and Marshall's arc having run its course, he could hardly be blamed if he wanted out. Marshall ends the season with yet another career opportunity (this time for a judgeship) presenting itself just as Lily aspires to follow her professional dreams abroad. Despite being wasted for most of the 24 episodes, Lilly does share a couple of meaningful moments with Ted, which is a relief since their talks have been sorely missed of late. One leads to a surprisingly deep confession from her, while the other unwittingly pushes him further along in his path to meet The Mother. But as absent as Marshall and Lilly may occasionally be from the gang's booth at MacLaren's, it's at least a relief to not to see guest stars filling their seats.

If there's any improvement over the previous year it's that guest stars are used more sparingly and we don't have a repeat of an underdeveloped character like Kal Penn's Kevin being incorporated into the group for half a season and boring us to tears. Or worse yet, nabbing a huge name like Katie Holmes, only to do little with her. Chris Elliot and Ray Wise make their respective returns as Lily and Robin's fathers, Peter Gallagher appears as Ted's former college professor, Abby Elliot has an arc as Ted's crazy girlfriend, Amber Benson finally gives a face to Barney's long-lost sister, Alexis Denisof briefly returns as Sandy Rivers, Seth Green plays a former classmate of Marshall and Lily's, Mike Tyson shows up as himself, Rachel Bilson cameos as Cindy again, Kyle Maclachlan is back as "The Captain" and Keegan-Michael Key and Casey Wilson make a memorable appearance as an obnoxious couple in the finale. This list is actually pretty conservative by HIMYM's standards. But there's really only one guest star anyone wants to talk about.

A lonely Ted looks out from inside his newly completed GNB building

It's almost surreal finally having a face and an actual name of an actress attached to The Mother. It happened. We saw her. Supposedly, Radnor was pushing very hard for the choice to be relative unknown and, to an extent, I get it. While we all had to throw away our lists of fantasy picks for the role, the fact remains that anyone who isn't complete unknown would carry with them at least some degree of baggage because the audience would already be familiar with them. And it's not hard to like the idea of us meeting and getting to know a fresh face as Ted is since we've been with him on this journey the entire time. Someone unexpectedly sweeping in out of nowhere who we've never seen before dovetails nicely into the show's theme, while giving a working actress, who may not have otherwise gotten a chance, an opportunity to break through to the next level. You also have to consider that in this age of the internet and social media it would be nearly impossible for Bays and Thomas to plug the leaks and be able to keep anyone resembling a major name a secret from rabid fans. Oh, and they used up every possible actress already. That's the part I most have a problem with because it could have so easily been avoided.

When I first saw The Mother my immediate reaction was one of mild disappointment, the blame of which I'd put at the feet of the writers and my expectations, not Cristin Milioti, who until now was best known for her Tony nominated performance in Broadway's Once, a guest spot on 30 Rock and a big screen credit playing comedian Mike Birbiglia's sister in his 2012 low budget indie gem, Sleepwalk with Me. When she made her entrance to the strains of The Shins' "Simple Song" in the final moment of the season finale, "Something New," I didn't recognize her at all. So, mission accomplished there. But the disappointment no doubt stems from the usual let down bound to accompany an appearance that's been built up for nearly a decade. Maybe she's just not quite how I expected Ted Mosby's wife to look. Maybe not the right height or weight. Is she not pretty enough? Or maybe she didn't speak exactly how I expected. Then I realized she's competing with nothing except our own imaginations and the unfair expectations the writers have spent the past several years burdening her with.

It probably all goes back to that infamous 100th Episode, "Girls vs. Suits," in which The Mother's then-roommate, Cindy complained to Ted how she just couldn't compete with "the girl with the yellow umbrella" and that every guy she tried to date just instantly fell in love with her. And that was it right there. If Rachel Bilson (who proved she could have handled The Mother role herself) is made to feel insecure and jealous then the idea is already planted in viewers heads to expect the unreasonable. Not helping any is Ted's notoriously high standards and the producers' penchant for stunt casting, as former dates or girlfriends played by Bilson, Holmes, Sarah Chalke, Danica McKellar, Mandy Moore, Jennifer Morrison did set the bar fairly high for the title character despite their characters' obvious faults. Are the writers trying to tell us something by foregoing the temptation to cast a big name actress or a traffic-stopping beauty, but rather a conventionally cute, average girl who seems extraordinary to Ted? I'd say so. We'll see whether the gamble pays off.

Our first glimpse of The Mother, played by Cristin Milioti

It probably would have been impossible for any actress to deliver on all our expectations in just a single moment. Luckily, Milioti will be given more time than that to fulfill those expectations, and she only has to believably fulfill them for Ted, not us. Ultimately, it wouldn't have mattered whether the actress chosen was a huge name or an unknown just as long as she's right for the role. A vocal minority of fans already think she's perfect for this and, if it's any consolation, the reaction to her casting was about ten times more positive than you'd expect given the circumstances. She isn't a disappointment. At least not yet. It just remains to be seen. And we'll apparently be seeing a lot of her as she's apparently joining the cast as a regular in the show's final season to interact with the gang before finally meeting Ted. So this isn't merely a walk-on. It's a lock that we'll be learning more about her side of the story with a whole extra season suddenly available for them to play around with.

The decision to have the final season unfold 24-style during the 56 hours leading up to Barney and Robin's wedding is a a polarizing one. Expect tons of flashbacks and flashforwards to fill in the gaps, lending even more weight to the assertions that this is the Lost of sitcoms, now thankfully minus the mystery. Truthfully, their new approach heading into the final lap couldn't have come at a better time since the main problem plaguing HIMYM over the past few years (besides simply its age) is a tired formula that's enabled Bays and Thomas to take as much time as they need to tell their story with as little forward momentum as possible. But now she's here and they don't have that crutch to lean on anymore. They were smart to finally remove it themselves, even if viewers who have somehow hung in there since the 2005 premiere had already lost patience. Having binge watched the show's previous seasons last year, that level of fatigue hasn't set in for me, but it's easy to commiserate with anyone who decided enough is enough and jumped ship.There's certainly been a nosedive in quality these past few seasons and with it comes a reminder of the kinds of creative problems sitcoms face when they overstay their welcome. But there are few other characters I'd rather have overstay that welcome than these five and most of that has to do with the talented actors who play them. Even as the material has sometimes wavered, their work in front of the camera never has.

Over the years, HIMYM has kind of evolved into comfort television. A familiar place where you can hang out with people you like going through similar problems. And that's why, despite complaints, we keep coming back. When the series concludes there's at least a possibility that it will play well as a whole, marginalizing some of the criticisms that appear to be a big deal now. Whereas the series' seventh season just felt like more filler, this one at least had flashes of the show's glory days interspersed with the mess. And out of that comes potential. The idea that the season 9 may not at all resemble the eight that came before is intriguing when you consider how stale things have gotten. A major shake-up and format change seemed necessary and Bays and Thomas should at least be commended for realizing that if they were planning to go one more season, a whole new game plan had to be implemented. Despite sometimes striking a sour note along the way, the end is finally here, and accompanying it is a feeling of cautious optimism and anticipation longtime HIMYM viewers haven't experienced in a while. The only question left is whether it's come too late.

Smashed

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 18 May 2013 20:11:00 +0000

Director: James Ponsoldt
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Aaron Paul, Octavia Spencer, Nick Offerman, Megan Mullally, Mary Kay Place, Kyle Gallner
Running Time: 81 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

There are certain actors and actresses you're just a fan of. It would probably be easier to deny it and pretend I go into every movie with complete objectivity, but the fact is that I'm much more likely to watch and appreciate a film starring performers I like and have followed throughout their careers. I want them to make smart choices that confirm my opinions of their talent, and if they don't, it's disappointing. Three of them co-star in James Ponsoldt's Smashed, a film about alcoholism that's really about a descent into sobriety. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Aaron Paul and Nick Offerman appearing together in a single film reading from a phone book probably would have been enough for me, but here's Winstead giving an award caliber central performance as an alcoholic, Paul as her immature, unsupportive husband and Offerman proving he can inhabit a character that's about as far removed from Parks and Rec's Ron Swanson as possible. On top of that, the film itself is nearly perfect in a straightforward, no-nonsense way that may not be immediately apparent. It plays honestly, but without judgement.

Winstead plays Kate Hannah, a schoolteacher who also happens to be an alcoholic. We see in early scenes that, as the former, she's amazingly kind and patient with the kids and pretty much every parent's dream of who they'd trust with their children. Until, hungover from another night of partying, she vomits all over the classroom floor. The kids ask her if she's pregnant and, panicking, she to lies them and a supportive Principal Barnes (Megan Mullally). It's likely Kate's been an alcoholic for a while but is just now starting to come around and realize it. She's not there yet, but getting close. Hardly helping is her equally hard partying husband, Charlie (Paul) whose complete obliviousness to their situation and terminal complacency are the only qualities making him seem like he doesn't have as much of a problem as she does. Kate's only real support comes from the soft-spoken vice principal Dave Davies (Offerman), a recovering addict not only willing to cover up her lie because he has a big crush, but also willing to take her with him to AA meetings where she meets her sponsor, Jenny (Octavia Spencer). On the road to recovery, Kate discovers sobriety is slowly tearing her marriage apart, as a still drinking Charlie feels left behind and a slew of other problems start to surface.

It seems to be a commonly held belief about young people that their drinking and drug use will never escalate to alcoholism or addiction, and it carries over into movies where the middle-aged tend to be the most serious substance abusers. It's almost as if young adults are expected to be doing it, and, as a result, should be able to handle it just fine. At the beginning of this film you'd almost be forgiven into thinking so, until a moment comes that's frightening in how well Winstead sells it. Waking up on the street with no idea where she is or how she got there, it's the first time Kate seems legitimately scared and mortified of what she's capable of when drinking. During a memorable sequence scored to Richard and Linda Thompson's "I Want to See The Bright Lights Tonight," we see Kate spend the night smoking crack with a hooker, and it's after that she realizes it's the final straw. But really it's just the beginning. Short-term, her decision to embrace sobriety surprisingly causes more problems than it solves in her marriage and life, while bringing dormant ones to the surface, such as an already strained relationship with her mother (Mary Kay Place).

There were already strong hints of Winstead promise in 2011's The Thing prequel and now seeing this it'll be easier to understand why I suspected that role in Scott Pilgrim was way beneath her. This confirms it. It's almost become a long-running joke that playing an alcoholic is every actor's dream since it invariably leads to awards recognition of some sort, but there's a reason for that. It's difficult to do believably. She doesn't squander the opportunity, knowing that drunk people often behave like delusional sober people, completely ignorant to everything going on around them. And it's the mode she's in for the entire first half of the film, which is no small feat. But it's when the drinking stops that her performance really kicks into high gear, as Kate's eaten with guilt over her sobriety driving a wedge through her marriage. She also has to ward off the advances of confidant and co-worker, Dave, though using the term "advances" is probably stretching it given his struggles talking to women. Offerman leaves all traces of the manly, breakfast obsessed Ron Swanson behind in a really subdued, low-key dramatic performance that still doesn't completely abandon the dry sense of humor he's known for. It proves, unsurprisingly, that he's capable of other things.

Aaron Paul plays Charlie as a good guy, but also one stuck in a complacent holding pattern. In this way, he resembles Jesse Pinkman of Breaking Bad's early seasons (right down to the substance abuse and playing video games on the couch) to the point that he'll probably be accused of just playing a variation on his TV character. But this speaks more to our familiarity with Paul than the actual performance, which is surprising in how he cedes so much of the spotlight to his co-star. Now that Kate's sober, there may no longer be a place for him in her life and they'll have to take stock as to whether they ever had anything that went beyond drinking and partying. We also wonder if she can move past how unforgivably unsupportive he's been in her recovery. But much like Flight, the other 2012 film dealing with alcoholism, Kate won't really be clean until she admits she isn't and takes responsibility for her lies.

Watching Smashed, I couldn't help but wonder how badly it would have turned out if a major studio had released it, interfering to make it more exciting or dumbing it down so a depressing topic like alcoholism could be more cheery and accessible. Thankfully, we'll never see that version and I'm given the opportunity to see three of my favorites given free reign to just tear into this meaningful material with everything they've got. It also marks the first time I've seen a movie character pulled over for driving drunk...on a bicycle. First-time director Ponsoldt makes it happen but it's easy believe the hard part was over once this cast was set in place. It wasn't until the end that I realized Paul and Offerman don't share a single scene together. And that feels strangely like the right call. For the story's purposes, there's no need, so they don't. But the film ultimately belongs to Winstead, revealing dimensions to her abilities even her biggest fans couldn't have anticipated. And that she does it opposite two of TV's best, only makes the accomplishment seem that much greater.

Lincoln

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 13 May 2013 22:28:00 +0000

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, Lee Pace, Tim Blake Nelson, Dane DeHaan, Joseph Cross, Gloria Reuben
Running Time: 150 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

A talky slog through a very specific point in American history, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln probably would have been better served with the title, The Passing of the 13th Amendment or maybe even Team of Rivals, the Doris Kearns Goodwin biography on which it's partially based. Then again, advertising and marketing still wouldn't fix most of the problems associated with a film that makes the 16th President a supporting player in what feels like the world's longest episode of The West Wing. Where it earns points is in impeccable period accuracy and an Oscar-winning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis that's every bit as impressive as you'd expect and then some. History buffs will eat this up, even if we're left with the nagging feeling that, barring a few notable exceptions, Spielberg doesn't give us anything that couldn't be gleaned from doing some reading.

As much as many reject standard, by-the-numbers biopics on political figures, I couldn't help but think that approach would have actually been welcome here, as the choice to only depict Lincoln's last four months in office (and of his life) seem to be almost too narrow a focus. And yet, that was easily the most interesting period so Spielberg's caught between a rock and a hard place. He responds with his most un-Spielbergian effort yet, completely abandoning the sentimentality usually associated with his work in favor of a straight, emotionless recitation of history. In that sense, the film is a welcome departure, as he makes the wise decision to get out of his own way. Other than an attempted portrayal of Lincoln as a saintly, Gandhi-like figure (that's mostly transcended by Lewis' riveting turn) there's little that would indicate it's even a Spielberg picture. You'd figure that would be a good thing. Instead, it creates an unusual dichotomy that results in a mild letdown. Albeit a really well-made one.

The film primarily focuses on President Lincoln's attempts in 1865 to obtain passage for the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery in the House of Representatives. To do this he not only needs the necessary minimum of 20 votes from the Democrats but also, without exception, the full support of the Republicans. It's not as easy as it seems and much of the verbal sparring scripted by Tony Kushner centers around the president's political maneuvering, which is often controversial. Of course, we know he eventually comes out with the win, only to weeks later lose his life to an assassin's bullet, but Spielberg shows the resistance he faced pulling that monumental victory off. Most of those battles involve an unlikely ally in Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), who gets to to deliver some of the film's sharpest insults, proving that politics was just as dirty then as it is now. But for all who are in favor of the amendment's passage, there are just as many who aren't. Namely outspoken Democratic Congressman Fernando Wood (Lee Pace), and even the emotional First Lady, Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), whom the President has to constantly placate due to her wild mood swings and fears of their returning son Robert Todd's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) desire to join the Union Army.

It's a strange complaint to level against a Spielberg film that it isn't emotionally manipulative enough, but oddly, that's the case here. It's a political procedural devoid of manufactured drama, and even as someone who usually appreciates that approach in other genres, it's dry and talky to the point that I sometimes found myself losing patience and just zoning out. A key factor as to why (aside from the material's sheer denseness) is that it just isn't visually interesting. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski has collaborated with Spielberg many times in the past with enormously successful results, but three quarters of the film is shot in dark, dingy corridors and musty rooms. At times it's almost too dark to even see what's happening, which maybe doesn't matter since, most of the time, not a lot is. For example, there's exactly one shot of the White House, which is unusual, because if any historical period presented a golden opportunity for sweeping visual grandeur on screen it was this one. Instead, the whole thing feels kind of claustrophobic with most the film confined to offices and courtrooms.

Luckily, we still have Daniel-Day Lewis, who inhabits every scene, telling stories and providing valuable insight into Lincoln's politics and morals. It almost seems as if every revelation that comes forth about the man is contained entirely in his performance. Everything else, we pretty much knew already. He's the reason to see this. The voice, the look, the tone of speaking. There are so many points where you're taken aback by the way he delivers a line and forced to ask yourself, "Lincoln said THAT? Really?" At some points it's actually funny to hear the things that come out of his mouth because we've grown so accustomed to history dictating to us the mythic terms under which he's supposed to be viewed. But Day-Lewis humanizes him, which might end up being the film's greatest success. One of the most memorable moments comes at the start when he's interacting with a pair of Union soldiers reciting to him the Gettysburg Address. It's a transformative performance in search of a better movie that focuses entirely on Lincoln rather than the nuts and bolts of the political process.

Make no mistake that this is all about the 13th Amendment, with non of the other sub-plots even getting off the ground. Unforgivably, a mustachioed Joseph Gordon-Levitt is wasted as Robert Todd Lincoln, while little is explored regarding the President's marriage aside from a shrieking Sally Field making it perfectly clear that the Mary Todd was a real basketcase and the polar opposite of her calm, serene husband. Of the many supporting players, it's really Jones who chews into his role as stubborn Thaddeus Stevens with grumpy gusto, stealing nearly every scene he's in. Top to bottom, it's a loaded cast, with David Strathairn, Michael Stuhlbarg, John Hawkes, Hal Holbrook, Jackie Earle Haley, Tim Blake Nelson, Lukas Haas, Dane DeHaan, Jared Harris, Adam Driver, Walter Goggins and Bruce McGill all contributing in some form or another in wide variety of small and larger parts. More fun than the actual film might be trying to spot and recognize them all. Especially James Spader, who's strangely hilarious as an determined Republican party member lobbying for the amendment's passage.

It's easy to fault Spielberg for continuing a half-hour longer than what would have been the perfect end point or criticize him for a one-sided whitewashing of history, virtually ignoring (with the exception of Gloria Reuben's character) the African-American side of this issue. Both of those are true, but what really bothered me was how he treated, or didn't treat, the assassination. If Spielberg didn't want to show it (supposedly because he thought it would be tasteless, which is a cop-out, but his call), that's fine. But you can't choose not to show it and still fully acknowledge it. If he was going to show it, then he should have. If not, then he shouldn't have. You can't have it both ways. Not with something like that. Instead he does this silly bait-and-switch that ends up drawing more attention to the assassination than if he'd actually reenacted it in all its horror. You could actually argue he fulfills his fear of it being tasteless just by pulling this unnecessary stunt.

Spielberg's one of only a few filmmakers today who can reasonably be considered a "brand." The accusation that at this point he's just cashing paychecks and trying to collect Oscars isn't entirely disproven with this effort, but the film is surprisingly restrained and refined, representing at least one of his purest, most honest outings in a while. Unfortunately those very same qualities also make it kind of a chore to sit through. Perhaps it's a little too restrained and in need of some of that magic Ben Affleck was able to create with Argo. While some criticized that for "Hollywoodizing" a historical event, there's no denying his approach worked, giving the material a much-needed emotional spin that captivated audiences. In contrast, Lincoln feels more like a homework assignment. One in which students would actually be more excited to read the book.

Les Misérables

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 07 May 2013 22:25:00 +0000

Director: Tom Hooper
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Samantha Barks, Aaron Tveit, Isabelle Allen, Helena Bonham Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen
Running Time: 158 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

As someone who's usually not a fan of musicals and was completely unfamiliar with Victor Hugo's Les Misérables on stage or screen, here presents that rare opportunity for me to go into a movie cold. Knowing so little about it, preconceived notions tend to disappear, or at least fade as far into the background as possible. But it still turned out to be a more fulfilling and entertaining experience than my few expectations had prepared me for. It's also a bizarre one, as certain creative and technical decisions are made by Academy Award winning director Tom Hooper that will likely raise the eyebrows of even those who care little about these sorts of things. Arguments could go on all day as to whether they enhance or detract from the material, but at the end it may not even matter. Since all fans will remember is whether it remains true to the source, Hooper's preaching to the choir here. Everyone else will likely be more divided, but it's pretty cut and dry what works and what doesn't, as one section of the story clearly surpasses the other. At the top of the list of successes is the inspired casting, followed closely by a sensational opening hour that sets in motion a chain events that spans nearly twenty years and claims more than a few victims. As the running time wears on and the characters start dropping like flies, it's almost too easy to revert to the joke that this should have been titled Les MISERABLE. Few will debate the film starts losing steam after the opening sixty minutes, but there's still a lot to recommend in a story so expansive that there's genuine doubt all the characters could die of old age before the final credits roll.

Opening in 1815, Les Misérables really tells two tales that eventually converge as one giant, sweeping one. The first involves convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), who's released on parole by prison guard Javert (Russell Crowe), but manages to escape and start a new life for himself, eight years later becoming a factory owner and mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer in France. When one of his workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), is fired and forced to sell her hair and turn to prostitution to support her illegitimate daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen) Valjean steps in to become the girl's guardian. Now, years later and set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, Valjean is still being trailed by police inspector Javert while an adult Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) becomes the object of Marius Pontmercy's (Eddie Redmayne) affections, much to the dismay of his good friend, Éponine (Samantha Barks), who harbors a secret crush on him. As Javert draws closer to apprehending Valjean, the political turmoil escalates, putting all their lives in danger as a country's future hangs in the balance.

The first hour of this film is so strong on every level possible that it was almost inevitable that the remainder of it wouldn't be able to keep pace. And Anne Hathaway's Oscar winning supporting performance as the dying Fantine is the major reason why. She has only maybe a little more than 10 minutes of screen time, but makes the most of each grueling moment, effectively selling her character's rapid descent into hopelessness. Losing her hair and over twenty pounds, her gut-wrenching rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is without question the defining scene of the movie and it's a magic that isn't quite recaptured once Hathaway makes her exit. Was the role predestined, if not calculated, to win her the Oscar? Maybe, but who cares when she's this good.

It's also the best work Jackman's done in a while as a man on the run, shamed by his secret past as a criminal and racked by his own guilt. The decade plus cat-and-mouse game that unfolds between him and Javert is the film's greatest narrative asset, even when being overshadowed by other goings on in the third act. Russell Crowe himself would probably readily admit his singing isn't exactly the most polished in the cast, at times coming across as a strange hybrid of William Shatner's spoken word albums from the '60's and Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! Crowe's not a singer, but because he's such a formidable actor he's able to pull off absolute lunacy with confidence and conviction. Whether it was for the right reasons or not, I looked forward to every appearance he made. As the swindling, manipulative Thénardiers, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter feel as if they've just stepped off Tim Burton's set, embodying comedic goth creepiness as the innkeepers mistreating young Cosette and extorting her mother. Cohen is fantastic in the role, making "Master of the House," in which he sings about cheating the inn's patrons, the most raucous and purely enjoyable number in the film. If nothing else, the characters deserve credit for their surprising staying power, as few would guess these seemingly one-dimensional villains figure into the action as much and as long as they do.

Unfortunately, everything comes to a grinding halt once we get to the love triangle, which never seems to take off despite spirited efforts from all involved. Because the time jump is so sudden and jarring, it's difficult to immediately adjust to Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks as older versions of the child characters we got to know earlier. But they do well nonetheless. Seyfried, besides being a dead ringer to child counterpart Isabelle Allen in looks, is definitely the best singer in the cast, while Barks, who actually played Éponine on stage, sings and acts her heart out in a role that might not be quite as large as you expected. That her part almost went to Taylor Swift would be shocking if not for the fact that the content of this romantic sub-plot isn't entirely dissimilar to that of her hit songs. As for Redmayne, this marks the second time after My Week with Marilyn that he appears to be a spectator in his own movie as the young lovesick revolutionary. In some ways, Aaron Tveit, who plays his friend and charismatic leader of the movement, Enjolras, makes more of an impression. What saves this section is the music and the fact Hooper gets his act together in time for a strong, emotional finale focusing on the characters we want to see, even if most of them are dead by that point.

This isn't one of those movie musicals that directs itself or is in any way shot like a stage play directly transposed to the screen. Hooper's style is umistakenly "in your face" with weird dutch angles and extreme close-ups that could feel like an invasion of personal space for certain viewers. This is especially true of the Hathaway sequence, where the camera doesn't leave her face the entire time. At times it is too much and it's easy to see why many may not be on board with the approach or feel it's just a filmmaker showing off at the expense of the material. But for me, any bells and whistles were necessary since this was just never going to in my wheelhouse no matter what. The best that could be hoped for was to be sufficiently entertained and Les Mis did deliver that in spades It's never boring or uninteresting. Strangely, it sometimes suffers from the opposite problem, moving a mile a minute with hardly a moment to breathe and take it all in. But as far as problems go, that's a pretty good one to have.

This is 40

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:02:00 +0000

Director: Judd Apatow
Starring: Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, John Lithgow, Megan Fox, Albert Brooks, Maude Apatow, Iris Apatow, Melissa McCarthy, Jason Segel, Lena Dunham, Chris O' Dowd, Robert Smigel
Running Time: 133 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

First, the good news. Judd Apatow's This is 40 isn't afflicted with the same mean-spirited tone that plagued it's sort of prequel, Knocked Up. And despite featuring two of that movie's more annoying supporting players in more prominent roles, they actually resemble real human beings with legitimate problems this time around. It's also consistently funny with a healthy batting average of jokes hitting their mark. If there's a problem, it's in the allegation that few outside of Judd Apatow and his immediate family will be interested in watching these characters struggle with problems most non-Hollywood residents would probably kill to have. But that's not necessarily his fault. He's clearly writing from personal experience, as is his right, and at no point does he imply this well-off family's problems mirror everyone's. And while it's definitely a bit bloated at over 2 hours, at least it doesn't FEEL too long this time. And it is a gutsy move to make an essentially plotless dramedy consisting of a married couple and their kids fighting, whining, complaining about seemingly trivial issues. And have it work. And be funny. But he does it.

That there's hardly a conventional story to speak of is the film's biggest asset because it allows us to just sit back and observe what essentially amounts to a large-scale dramatic character study doubling as a comedy. Apatow's tried to enter James L. Brooks territory before, but has never fully committed to it quite like this. Rather than re-cap the plot, it's a better idea to just run down the problems of married couple Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann) who are both turning 40, despite her angrily insisting she's really turning "38." He owns a failing record label that only signs aging rock acts while her clothing boutique isn't exactly raking in the cash either, as she suspecting an employee (Megan Fox) of stealing. Their daughters, 13 year-old Sadie (Maude Apatow) and 8 year-old Charlotte (Iris Apatow) are constantly at each others throats while Pete's frustration grows at having to financially support his father, Larry (Albert Brooks)and his new family. Debbie's relationship, or lack of one, with her estranged dad Oliver (John Lithgow) is even worse, as the two seem barely capable of communicating at all.

The big elephant in the room is that Pete and Debbie are living far beyond their means and it's now putting a huge strain on their marriage. But considering they seem to fight about everything, there are many points where you can't help but wonder how they even got married to begin with. She thinks he's an immature man-child while he can't figure why she's being such a nag. At least the script doesn't offer up any easy solutions and implies right up until the final scene that this is definitely going to take a lot of work. How two characters who were so annoying in just the few scenes they had in the still otherwise problematic Knocked Up could be so much more tolerable and realistic in their own feature film can be attributable to the fact that Apatow's actually forced to flesh them out this time.

As a scattered snapshot of these people's lives, it's very funny, especially when it comes to the nature of their arguments which span from Pete escaping for a half hour on the toilet with his iPad to Debbie insisting on seeking alternative treatments for their daughter's ear infection. But nothing tops the sub-plot involving Pete's struggling record label, in which the film actually makes somewhat of a profound and timely statement on the commercialization of music sure to be recognizable to anyone notoriously picky about their own tastes. As Pete's top act, Graham Parker deserves a lot of credit for being a good sport by playing himself as a washed-up rock relic who peaked years ago.

As far as Apatow casting his own wife and kids in starring roles, there's little to complain about. Leslie Mann's already proven herself talented enough to deserve her slot as co-lead and the girls are a good fit in their roles. That their casting would even be considered a controversy is perplexing when you consider the film is semi-autobiographical to begin with an directors often hire their own friends and family, usually with far worse results. But the big takeaway here just might be Maude Apatow, who displays comic timing that indicates career potential that could extend beyond this movie. She's also given the film's most bizarre sub-plot (which is really saying something) involving her obsession with Lost. As someone tired of hearing all the incessant whining about how disappointed they were by the finale for the past three years, I was just thrilled Apatow took the high road and chose not to go there, instead treating that event with the excitement it did and still does deserve. While Rudd's his usual likable self, it almost goes without saying that Apatow's self-professed comic idol Albert Brooks (in his first post-Drive role) and John Lithgow give the film's two best performances as the deadbeat dads. The latter is unusually cold and restrained, making every awkward scene he shares with Mann feel especially effective.

The sub-plot involving Megan Fox's character potentially stealing is far less successful, yet even more so when dealing with Debbie's envy over Desi's beauty and sex appeal. At the risk of veering into Rex Reed territory, all the work Fox had done to her suddenly unrecognizable face is distracting enough to invalidate the notion of any woman being believably jealous of her character. There's no dancing around the fact she's always been hired for her looks in a certain type of role, but now without that trump card to fall back on, her limitations as an actress are fully exposed. Luckily, Charlene Yi makes up for it with an enjoyably goofy performance as her co-worker. Melissa McCarthy's brief but impactful scenes as a crazed parent fit right in her wheelhouse while Jason Segel's personal trainer and Tim Bagley's gynecologist are really the only two crossover characters from Knocked Up, but are far funnier and better utilized this time around. Lena Dunham and Chris O'Dowd have tiny roles as Pete's friends and co-workers at the label, but make the most of what they're given. As impressive a cast as it is, it somehow avoids feeling overstuffed, with everyone serving as colorful wallpaper in Pete and Debbie's lives.

Whether intended or not, the film does a good job turning the microscope on a certain segment of the population that, regardless of income, is larger than we'd all like to admit: People who think their problems are the worst in the world. And when things get difficult, that could be everyone, considering how quickly we lose perspective. Though that may not have have been the intention, I was still was pleasantly surprised at the ease at which this went down and how few problems there were with it. Lacking an agenda and his usual awkward attempts at blending gross-out humor with unsettling emotional pathos, this could qualify as Apatow's most mature work yet, even if it's still probably far from his best. His biggest problem thus far has been that every project coming down the pike baring his name as producer, writer or director has felt too similar or the tone has been off. There's no such problem here, even if I still say it's criminal for any comedy to come close to approaching the two and a half hour mark. But at least it isn't time wasted. This is 40 is realistically messy, excelling most when making clever observations about the tiny details that make relationships both challenging and humorous.

Life of Pi

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:19:00 +0000

Director: Ang Lee
Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Tabu, Adil Hussein, Rafe Spall, Gerard Depardieu
Running Time: 127 min.
Rating: PG

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Ang Lee's Life of Pi starts as one kind of story, only to end as an entirely different and more complex one. But it's everything that happens in between that'll generate the most discussion. Of 2012's end of the year releases, it's undoubtedly the one that leaves you with the most talk, think and maybe even argue about after the final credits roll. Both in terms of the technology and the story being told with it, which is of surprising substance. While I'm still generally very lukewarm on the use (and sometimes abuse) of CGI in movies today, there's no denying it's harnessed here in a way that works in tandem with the material to create an experience that can't easily be dismissed or forgotten. Yann Martel's 2001 bestselling novel has frequently showed up on those lists of popular books that have long been considered "unfilmable." And after watching it I can completely see why. This is really tricky material and it's a credit to Ang Lee that he's somehow able to make it sing on screen, juggling visual and thematic elements that would have sunk many other filmmakers.

When a novelist (Rafe Spall) is urged to interview a middle-aged Indian immigrant named Pi Patel (Irrfan Khan) he's told that the story he's about to tell is literally so amazing it will make him believe in God. Through flashbacks we see Pi's childhood growing up in Pondicherry, where his family owned a zoo. He was born Piscine Molitor, a name for which he was relentlessly teased at school ("Pissing") before eventually changing it to Pi, after the mathematical symbol. Raised Hindu, he shocks his mother (Tabu) and father (Adil Hussein) by announcing he's also converting Christianity and Islam, choosing to now follow all three religions because he "just wants to love God." When Pi turns 16 his father decides they're moving to Winnipeg, Manitoba and selling the zoo animals when they get there. This is a blow to Pi who has not only fallen in love with a local girl but has taken an interest in the animals, specifically a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. But while Pi and his family are aboard the Japanese freighter, a storm hits, and he's suddenly lost at sea with the dangerous animal as his only companion. And that's when the story really begins.

Without the benefit of seeing the film in 3D, the opening act is a little jarring to watch when Lee cuts back and forth between the present day framing device and the flashbacks to Pi's childhood. You can tell these scenes are playing with depth in a way that can't be fully appreciated watching at home in a two-dimensional format on a standard TV. There's also a generous amount of voiceover narration setting the story up, so without the 3D format acting as distraction, the prologue can sometimes feel as if we're listening to an audio book on film. These may seem like big complaints but they're actually quite minor when you consider all this takes up only about an eighth of the running time and the script expertly sets the stage for Pi's ordeal at sea. Much of what initially occurs may seem to be a head-scratcher in terms of how it relates to what's coming, and to some could even come off as quasi-spiritual mumbo jumbo. But the film's greatest trick is how it disproves that initial skepticism with a straight-up survival story in the vain of Cast Away or Into The Wild, before again returning us to where we started with a final emotional punch to the gut.

From the trailers and rumblings about the novel, I was under the impression that, no matter how fanciful it seems, Pi would form a close friendship with the dangerous Richard Parker as he battles to survive. Instead, their relationship is depicted more as one of reluctant co-existence and mutual respect in which Pi must carefully consider every move he makes as not to be put in a position where he could be eaten by the tiger. With limited means of obtaining food, that's a concern David Magee's script wisely considers every step of the way no matter how tight the two become. There's always a distance there and Pi's journey is as much about overcoming his own fears as it is surviving. Of course, we really don't realize the full extent of that idea until the film's final lap. But in the meantime we're treated to some truly mind-blowing visuals and one of the best CGI animal creations to be put on screen in Richard Parker, who at no point looks and moves like anything other than a real, living, breathing tiger. If it's true that movie technology had to catch up so the book's events could be done justice, then clearly it has.

Claudio Miranda's cinematography won the Academy Award and it's undeniably beautiful. Does it look like anything resembling reality? Kind of, but not really. Should it even matter in this situation? That, I'm even less sure about. And of course there's no way of us knowing how much of the film's look was enhanced by computers in post-production. Should we care when the final result is this good? It's an interesting debate, but not one that makes or breaks this film. It's the story that does that and how well Lee uses this technology to tell it. Needless to say, it makes it. What isn't up for debate is newcomer Suraj Sharma's performance, a young man who hasn't acted in his life and now must do it against a green screen and a CGI tiger. He has to do everything and does so without you being able to notice any of it. The framing device is the weaker part of the picture but the great character actor Irrfan Khan quietly leaves it all up on the screen in his few crucial as his adult counterpart.

It's impossible to discuss the film without talking about the "big twist," which is probably a misleading way to describe it. In an effort to talk about it without actually doing so, I'll just say that the development that occurs toward the end of the picture is a game-changer in every sense, causing you to re-think and re-feel everything that came before. It's hard to think of instance where one's reaction to a film depends entirely on who you are and what you bring or don't bring to it. When Pi tells the writer that his story "will make you believe in God" you can't help but think he's also talking to us. I'm not sure it does all that or is likely to convert anyone, but it comes closer than it has any right to in philosophically arguing for the existence and purpose of religion while still somehow not being overtly religious in any way. And that the movie doesn't pick a side or necessarily separate any one God or religion from another will probably upset some. What it instead seems to be arguing for is a belief in anything that helps give you the courage to get through. By the film's closing moments we're left with the possibility that something may not have happened when we were led to believe did. But it isn't manipulative. We can still believe it or we can choose not to. Life of Pi bravely splits the audience into two camps, letting us make of the events what we will. It's rare in a big budget film so dependent on modern technology to challenge us like that, encouraging us to carry on the discussion well after Pi's journey concludes.

Skyfall

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:10:00 +0000

Director: Sam Mendes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Bérénice Marlohe, Albert Finney, Ben Whishaw
Running Time: 143 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

As far as 007 opening sequences go, they don't more thrilling than the one in Skyfall. So far, we've had 23 Bond installments. Let that sink in for a minute. It's a lot. But what's more remarkable is that we've still yet to see one that succeeds as something more than just a franchise entry and can stand on its own as an accomplishment in any genre. Too often the series is hamstrung by tradition as the producers are afraid to step out of the box and take genuine risks that might upset the core audience, but result in a superior finished product. Does anyone remember anything that happened in Quantum of Solace? Skyfall is the closest we've come to perfection and its opening minutes reflect that. It's less shocking in hindsight when you consider Bond can't just die but this entry completes a transformation that's been hinted at for half a century, but really started building since Daniel Craig put on the tux in Casino Royale. He's now a full-fledged, reality-based superhero. In other words, the character's basically evolved into Batman.

Much of the picture's first half plays as a classic Bond tribute, at least until director Sam Mendes pulls the rug out to deliver what might be the craziest entry since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. As a non-fan of the franchise, it was a much needed diversion, since the more often a Bond film veers from tradition, or at least puts an exciting spin on it, the better the result. Helping a great deal is that it's visually more impressive than any previous outing and features a villain that's genuinely terrifying and dangerous. But let's just call this what it really is: Bond as The Dark Night. Mendes has acknowledged the similarities, but what's surprising is just how much of Christopher Nolan's influence seems to be all over the picture, even lifting a specific plot point. There's no denying the strategy worked. It's the strongest entry in years, and the first in a while that doesn't feel behind the times.

After being left for dead in an enthralling pre-credit train sequence, James Bond (Craig) is back after a short seclusion, though certainly not better than ever. Wounded, weak, and even lacking his usual confident swagger, M (Judi Dench) controversially decides to put him back on active duty despite not being even close to ready. His job is to retrieve the hard drive that slipped through his fingers earlier and contains the names of undercover agents placed in terrorist organizations. Standing in his way is cyber-terrorist Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), a creepy sociopath whose actual motives remain cloudy from the get-go, yet become painfully clearer as his twisted plan unfolds with brilliant precision. Despite help from M., MI6 agent Eve (Naomie Harris), nerdy, gadget-savvy Q (Ben Whishaw), M's Intelligence superior Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), and possibly even Silva's mysterious mistress Séverine (Bérénice Marlohe), this marks one of the few times Bond seems legitimately outmatched by an adversary.

Since Craig took over the role, much fuss has been made about the franchise's detour into more serious territory, all but abandoning the series' cheekier aspects that have been so prevalent over the years.This badder, meaner Bond reached its self-serious peak with Quantum of Solace, which was so derivative and slickly packaged it became indistinguishable from your latest Bourne installment. It was also a real bore that featured a dour Craig performance, making me wonder whether a return to some cheesiness was in order. But if you watch most of those old Bond movies (particularly the Roger Moore entries), they are very much a product of their time, and not in a good way. Sam Mendes could be on paper the most accomplished director to tackle 007 and proves it here by getting serious right. There are some minor pacing problems in the early going, but the plot isn't a slog and supporting characters are actually fleshed out.

Mendes makes it feel like a contemporary action vehicle, but also a Bond movie willing to take risks while still maintaining loyalty to the Ian Fleming source. Perhaps borrowing from Nolan's recent portrayal of Commissioner Gordon, this is the first time Dench's M has been given anything more to do than stand behind a desk and act as a figurehead. She's not only showcased as an important piece of the puzzle here, but even promoted to a Bond sidekick of sorts. She also does some unlikable things and makes questionable decisions that causes Bond (and us) to rightfully doubt her judgment and consider whether she's exceeded her expiration date. But the bigger question might be whether 007 has exceeded his with Craig given the rare opportunity to play a weakened, vulnerable Bond, or at least the most vulnerable he's been since the concluding events of Casino Royale.

If these movies tend to only be as as good as their villain than Javier Bardem's bone-chilling work as Silva goes a long way. Strangely effeminate and almost flamboyantly wacked out, Silva's like no other Bond baddie we've recently seen, and comes complete with a backstory that's intricately fleshed out and surprisingly personal. There's a lot of juice behind his motives and Bardem takes full advantage, relishing the chance to play Silva as a bizarre cross between Heath Ledger and Cesar Romero's Jokers and Anton Sigurh from No Country For Old Men. He'd walk away with the film, if not for the fact that, as lensed by the still Oscar-less Roger Deakins, it's the most visually pleasing Bond entry of all-time, with hardly a shot undeserving of being framed and hung in a gallery. This is especially true of a captivating Shangai assassination sequence and the film's finale, in which Silva physically lends even more credence to that theory that some men just want to see the world burn. Even if you detested everything else about the film, just the cinematography alone would still be reason enough to recommend this to anyone without hesitation.

If there's a weak plot link, it's Marlohe's Bond girl, who serves little purpose other than to hop in the sack (or in this case, shower) with him, which given the all business nature of this installment seems particularly ill-fitting. If she's there to merely fill a quota, Naomie Harris proves to be the exact opposite as MI6 agent Eve and, without giving too much away, proves in her few impactful scenes to be worthy of sticking around. If she's more than a field agent, than Bond is finally shown in this installment to be something more than just number, complete with a personal history that's inventively woven into the screenplay. A bearded Albert Finney is Kinkade, the caretaker of Bond's childhood home and though he plays the role well, it's impossible not to imagine that it was tailor made for the retired ex-007 Sean Connery. But no conversation about Skyfall is complete without mentioning Adele's Oscar-winning title song, a classic throwback that earns her a spot in the Bond theme hall of fame alongside Shirley Bassey, Carly Simon, Paul McCartney and Duran Duran.

The general consensus is that each time a new Bond entry is released, it's treated as a reboot, disregarding much of what came before in order to re-energize the franchise so it continues to stick around for the long haul. But this is the first entry in a while that really does feel like a full reboot, despite its heavy influence from another series of recent films. It's also features stronger plotting and a more distinctive visual style than Casino Royale, which garnered much of its praise because of a massive change in tone, the debut of a new actor in the role of 007 and one of the franchise's more compelling love interests. While it proved exceptional at re-introducing Bond to contemporary audiences, it's still really hard not to prefer Skyfall, which simply does more with what it has, inching closer to that seemingly impossible holy grail of a perfect James Bond movie. It definitely puts Craig back in the driver's seat but sometimes you have to wonder how much of this franchise's success depends on that. It always seems to be everything else that's changing around him.

Roger Ebert: A Tribute

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:40:00 +0000

"So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies."- Roger Ebert

When news broke Thursday that Roger Ebert had passed away it felt like a day we've all been dreading for some time had arrived and yet no amount of preparation could have possibly softened the blow. It's taken a while for it to sink in. Truthfully, it still hasn't and may never. It often feels strange writing about the deaths of public figures or celebrities as if we know them. Because we don't. But this time it sure feels like we did. Especially toward the end. And in all the appreciations written, the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that he saved his best act for last, transcending his roots as a Pulitzer Prize winning film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times and beloved TV personality to become a national treasure, as well as personal inspiration to even those who may not have followed his work. For those who did, it truly feels like a guidepost is now missing. A teacher is gone. But when I think about what Ebert meant to movie lovers like myself who grew up on his show and reviews, what jumps out first is his adaptability, as he managed to conquer the media arenas of print, television, and the internet at various points during his illustrious career. And that's just scratching the surface.

Following one-time rival, colleague, co-host, and close friend Gene Siskel's death in 1999, many in the media questioned the purpose of continuing a televised review show format. But not Ebert. He still forged ahead with At The Movies in its many incarnations, making sure the revolving door of hosts continued even through his health struggles.While no pairing could ever match the onscreen magic he shared with Gene, it's easy to believe he knew that but at the same time still recognized the greater importance of having a show on television where films could be intelligently analyzed and discussed rather than reduced to a mere sound bite. As a born newspaperman, it also would have been easy for him to reject blogging and Twitter while jumping on the bandwagon of so many blaming the internet for the supposed death of film criticism. But he knew the real deal. He knew it would mean everyone would be given an opportunity to write and have a voice and that film criticism could only grow stronger as a result. For him, "blogger" was never a dirty word. Roger Ebert's Journal, would house some of his best, most insightful writing on not only movies, but--to borrow his memoir's title-- Life Itself. More impressive still was how often he championed the work of others. For the past few years, hardly a day passed where he wasn't re-tweeting a piece he'd found, with more than a few being writers I followed and read. Nothing got by him. Besides it being the ultimate demonstration of generosity, it showed his curiosity about everything and everyone.The very real possibility existed that if you had a movie blog, or any blog for that matter, he could have easily been reading it. If that's not enough to get anyone to keep writing, I don't know what is.

Whether or not you agreed with his opinion on a movie was almost beside the point, but it sure did feel good when you did. When he liked or hated a movie you did or you noticed strengths or weaknesses he pointed out, you couldn't help but feel a little smarter. There may have been critics as skilled at scientifically dissecting a film piece by piece, but none of them could ever express it as well as Ebert, on television or on the page. What always struck me most about his print reviews were how breezy and effortlessly they read while still engaging you in them. He recreated the feeling of having a friend over for dinner to talk about the latest movie you both saw. Picking up Roger Ebert's Video Companion/Movie Yearbook every December literally became an annual ritual for me, to the point that it wouldn't feel like Christmas without it. And of course all the other books like The Great Movies, Your Movie Sucks and Questions For The Movie Answer Man. Of the lessons he imparted, two famous ones always stick out. For any aspiring movie critics he simply said to ask yourself: "Did I like the movie? Why or why not?" It may seem simplistic yet to this day, whenever I feel blocked, asking it gets me out. Every time. His observation that it isn't "WHAT a movie's about, but HOW it's about it" flipped a switch in me that wouldn't allow me to just watch movies anymore, but actually appreciate them.

Picking a favorite Ebert review is close to impossible but I'll never forget exactly where I was and what I was doing when he and Gene reviewed a small film called Fargo on their show in early 1996, before anyone had heard of it. Seeing the two of them, who bickered famously on some of the biggest releases, so enthusiastically supporting a movie together that could have slipped through the cracks without their passionate support, was quite possibly the duo's finest moment. When they disagreed they were equally strong in different ways, but united in agreement they were unstoppable. And when they were finished I knew one thing: I had to see Fargo and share in the experience they talked about. Ebert's excitement for a new movie not only made you excited too, but often altered its fortunes. Dark City is still remembered today largely because of his support and ability to catch details so many other critics missed. His print reviews put smaller, independent films on the map while his own Ebertfest highlighting overlooked gems acknowledged that sometimes we miss greatness the first time around. It wasn't uncommon, sometimes years down the line, to read his reassessment of a film he previously bashed or graciously admit to initially missing certain details. He understood that our relationship with film, as with life, is a complicated one, constantly changing and always offering up new surprises along the way.

In his final post came the announcement that he planned to take a "Leave of Presence" because the cancer had returned, but accompanying it was the suggestion he wasn't even close to being done. He planned to scale back and review only the films he wanted to, instead shifting his focus on the continued expansion of his brand. Of course, his idea of a part-time schedule would still undoubtedly feel like a a full workload to just about anyone else. He sought help financing a new movie review show and, as difficult as it is to say, I still hope his wife Chaz moves ahead with it because what better way to honor his legacy and career than having his name again attached to a quality movie review program. It turns out his final review was of Terrence Malick's To the Wonder, which is fitting. An appropriate swan song as we'll continue to wonder with each new release what his opinion would have been or how his top ten would have looked at the end of each upcoming year. But as upsetting as all of this is, it's hard not to feel incredibly grateful for just how much he's left us. And as he neared the end, he still kept going and give us even more. The term "Leave of Presence" couldn't possibly be appropriate. As always, he knew how to find just the right words.

Dennis Has a Podcast: Remembering Roger Ebert (with Jeremy The Critic)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:52:00 +0000

Over the weekend I joined my good friend Dennis as a guest on Dennis Has a Podcast to share my thoughts on the recent passing of Roger Ebert. A written piece from me is forthcoming but this was about a fifteen minute discussion covering his legacy and influence.

Click here to listen.

And don't forget to check out other episodes of DHAP on iTunes, TuneIn, and Stitcher, like him on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter.

Roger Ebert (1942-2013)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:45:00 +0000

"We are put on this planet only once, and to limit ourselves to the familiar is a crime against our minds." -Roger Ebert

Rest in Peace, Roger.

Bachelorette

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:51:00 +0000

Director: Leslye Headland
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Isla Fisher, Lizzy Caplan, James Marsden, Kyle Bornheimer, Rebel Wilson, Adam Scott, Ann Dowd
Running Time: 87 min.
Rating: R

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

That the dark comedy Bachelorette is a an uneven mess is both its greatest attribute and biggest flaw. If it wasn't this sloppy I'm not sure it would have been as compelling, but it definitely would have been a better film. So, call it a trade-off. Trailers and commercials sold it as another Bridesmaids but that this couldn't possibly have less in common with it is actually good news. And it doesn't wear its heart on its sleeve and most definitely doesn't aim to please. The characters are mean, cruel, selfish, and at times, disgusting, but at least they feel real as writer/director Leslye Headland sacrifices little to give audiences a brutally honest, unflinching portrayal of women behaving very badly. The problem is it's only occasionally funny, which is an issue for a comedy featuring somewhat detestable characters. I say "somewhat" because there is a double standard at play. If this were about men they'd just call it The Hangover but when women characters do stuff like this onscreen they're usually labeled "bitches." Unfortunately, the shoe occasionally fits here. Of the three leads, one's a promiscuous drug addict continuously reliving high school. The other is a vacuous airhead with no clue how to relate to other people. Only the third and thankfully most important character seems like a multi-dimensional human being whose occasional cruelty gives way to surprising amount of competence and empathy. After an awful start the movie finds its groove in the second half with one actress doing all the work to drag everything over the finish line. But by then the damage is already done.

In a clever, fast-paced opening, bad girl Regan (Kirsten Dunst) is informed over lunch by former high school classmate Becky (Rebel Wilson) that she's getting married. Regan quickly alerts Gina (Lizzy Caplan) and Katie (Isla Fisher) that they'll all be attending the wedding of the girl they called "Pigface" in high school. The relationship between all the girls and Becky is never entirely clear (friends? enemies? frenemies?) but the plot hits the ground running immediately without looking back. They're all reunited for the bachelorette party where a number of disasters ensue throughout the night involving drugs, alcohol, sex, jealousy, strip clubs and a ruined wedding dress. The presence of Gina's ex-boyfriend Clyde (Adam Scott) complicates matters, as does Joe (Kyle Bornheimer), a former classmate with a longtime crush on Katie, and the best man Trevor (James Marsden), who his sights set on Regan. It'll be up to her, the maid of honor, to hold it all together so Becky can make it to the alter in the midst of old grudges and past relationships bubbling to the surface.

A lot is juggled in the span of just under an hour and a half. As expected, some works and some doesn't, but it's never laugh-out-loud funny. It's more of a dark comedy revolving around insecurity, regret and failure amongst women in their early thirties set against the backdrop of one disastrously thrilling evening. Whereas the overlong Bridesmaids had the problem of shoehorning serious and overly sentimental elements into what's supposed to be a gross-out comedy, this contains plotlines that sometimes feel deadly serious and tries to milk them for laughs. Amazingly, this approach is occasionally more successful than you'd think thanks to a biting script and capable performers. At least until the third act, it rarely shies away from painting these characters as selfish and insensitive at best. Save for the bride-to-be they have very few redeeming qualities, which is actually kind of courageous to do for a female-driven comedy that probably would have been more successful as a drama.

All the storylines and half-developed sub-plots yield mixed results, without us ever really being invested in them. The sub-plot involving Dunst and Marsden's characters doesn't really go anywhere, Fisher's irritating, constantly drunk Katie character torpedoes a mini-romance involving the nerdy Joe, and a heavy backstory with Caplan and Scott can't quite find the right tone to take hold like it should. But it does all feel realistic to a fault. I'll give it that. And we're again given the rare opportunity to see Adam Scott play kind of a jerk. He's surprisingly good at it, even if Caplan and Scott would probably top anyone's list of actors they'd least like to see tackle unlikable characters. But even in their unlikability, the former Party Down co-stars still come off fairly likable, which is no small feat considering the material they're handed. Rebel Wilson is unusually restrained as the optimistic moral center and it's a nice relief to discover that, aside from the whole "Pigface" thing, her character's never turned into a joke and is sincere. But the movie completely belongs to Kirsten Dunst, who's simply amazing. She totally takes over in the final act, juggling so many tones at once and just tearing through the material to the point that she almost redeems the film. Somehow bringing order to the chaos, she digs to provide some answers and explanations for Regan's terrible behavior that couldn't have been in the script. The many fans of Dunst and Caplan will probably be thrilled with what each does here, while Fisher, saddled with a thankless boozer part, can't help but seem like the third wheel.

I'd still probably sooner watch Bachelorette again than the overpraised, but more cleanly executed Bridesmaids since this at least took risks and tried something different. Plus, it's only 87 minutes. If only every comedy were between 80 and 110 minutes. Especially in this case. Even just a few minutes more with these characters would have been too much. It's an easy, breezy watch that, despite a myriad of issues, hardly qualifies as a slog or complete waste of time. And any comedy featuring Adam Scott badly singing The Proclaimers' "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" could never be considered a total disaster. That Will Ferrell produced this isn't surprising, as it does kind of feel like a Funny or Die sketch that's longer, meaner and just not quite as funny. But it is interesting and thankfully seems made without any concern as to whether audiences will enjoy it, take away any message or like the characters. You have to respect that. If a comedy's going to fail, we should be so lucky that it fails with as much ambition as this one.

Hit and Run

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:23:00 +0000

Directors: David Palmer and Dax Shepard
Starring: Dax Shepard, Kristen Bell, Kristin Chenoweth, Tom Arnold, Bradley Cooper, Ryan Hansen, Michael Rosenbaum, Beau Bridges, Joy Bryant, David Koechner
Running Time: 100 min.
Rating: R

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Whenever seeing anything involving the Federal Witness Protection Program I always think back to that episode of The Simpsons when Homer wore and hat and shirt that read: "WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM." The main character in the action crime comedy Hit and Run would probably wear something like that, not out of stupidity, but just out of exhaustion from hiding for so long. He's played by Dax Shepard, who also wrote and co-directed with David Palmer what turns out to be something rare nowadays. A smart, funny, edgy and exciting mainstream comedy that marches to the beat of its own drum. That he's the brains behind this might be surprising to some, but not to anyone who's seen NBC's Parenthood where he consistently crushes it as a key player each week. Now with this, it seems his talents extend behind the camera as well, but it's still hard not to be at least a little surprised the movie works this well and that he's actually leading man material on the big screen. Besides utilizing a terrific cast well, he's also written for his real-life girlfriend Kristen Bell her strongest post-Veronica Mars role yet and one that brings all her strengths as a performer to center stage again. Which makes sense. You'd figure if anyone could figure out how to do it, it's him. I know I'm supposed to dislike the guy, but he's sure making it really difficult.

Robbery accomplice "Charlie Bronson" (Shepard), has been spending the past four years in Milton, California under protection and monitored by clumsy, incompetent and trigger happy U.S. Marshal Randy (Tom Arnold). He lives with his fairly new girlfriend, Annie (Bell), a professor at the local college who holds a doctorate in "Non-Violent Conflict Resolution" from Stanford and has just been informed by her kooky boss Debbie (Kristin Chenoweth) of an opportunity to head up her own department in Los Angeles.Only there's a problem: Charlie can't legally leave and her hilariously sleazy, overprotective ex-boyfriend Gil (Michael Rosenbaum) will do it whatever it takes to stop them, even enlisting the help of his gay police officer brother Terry (Jess Rowland) and recruiting the dangerous Alexander Dimitri (Bradley Cooper), one of the defendants Charlie testified against who's hell bent on evening the score. With Charlie driving his suped up, restored Cadillac, he and Annie are suddenly on the run from not only Dimitri, but Charlie's sordid past, the exact nature of which Annie remains in the dark about. Now besides Annie getting to her interview on time, both have to worry about even making it to L.A. alive.

Don't be fooled by the generic title. As far as action comedies go, this is better than most, with a clever script packed with jokes and smart dialogue that rarely miss the mark. Much of why everything works can be attributed to the fact that while the characters are colorful and their actions often unrealistically preposterous, it's kind of strangely grounded in a reality we can relate to. Shepard crafts a screenplay that captures the way people talk to one another, with the style of humor almost Seinfeld or Arrested Development-like in how ridiculously relatable it is and that's evident in almost every conversation between Charlie and Annie. They actually seem like a real couple who talk how real couples talk and joke and argue about things real couples do. Of course the joke there is that Bell and Shepard actually are one but that has absolutely nothing to do with the writing. And we've definitely seen more than a few off screen partners fizzle on screen due to a lack of chemistry so the pairing was far from a guaranteed success, even on paper. But they make the snappy dialogue come alive, sharing a natural back and forth that feels distinctively authentic and unforced. An argument about the ethics of using the word "fag" is surprisingly interesting and funny in their capable hands as is a scene in which Charlie explains to her how he decided on the manly "Charles Bronson" name.

From its opening minutes it's obvious this diverges from your usual comedies, taking its time getting where it needs to go, to the point that the real action doesn't really start to kick in until the third act. But by then we're so invested in these crazy characters we're practically on the edge of our seats waiting to see it resolve. The car chase sequences (and there are three notable ones) set to a solid soundtrack are a welcome respite from the CG enhanced chases we're used to and a throwback to when actual cars were driven by real people in movies. They're well choreographed and exciting, but more importantly, it's easy to follow what's happening and they exist for reasons that aid the story. But if I had to choose, the relationship arc works better as the film's surprisingly at its best when in full rom-com road trip mode. Shepard and Bell are just that good together. Annie's pacifist approach to solving conflicts makes for some really funny scenes opposite the quick-tempered, impatient Charlie and it feels like an even exchange. The two actors are really co-leads in this, which isn't a claim you can often make in mainstream comedies.

Physically, Shepard may not exactly fit the standard definition of your typical movie star, but here he transcends his supporting roots to carrying an entire full-length feature with offbeat charm and likability. Playing straight man to all the comic chaos unfolding around him he shows off a considerable amount of versatility, successfully fluctuating between the more broadly comic material of the film's first half and the off-the-wall intensity and violence of the second. He's a perfect match with Bell, whose performance in this couldn't have possibly come at a better time, reminding us what she's capable of with engaging material. It's something she hasn't been given in the past six years as this script gives her the opportunity to show off the quick, witty one-liners and smart delivery that originally caused TV audiences to originally fall so hard for her. It's fair to say after some dicey choices in projects, her future prospects have suddenly improved in a big way just within the past month with the announcement of the Veronica Mars movie so it'll be intriguing to see her try to capitalize on it. This role proves everyone right that she's got what it takes to succeed on the big screen, but who could have guessed that Shepard of all people would, quite literally, be the driving force who brings it out?

The rest of the cast is uniformly excellent, especially a dreadlocked, pre-Silver Linings Bradley Cooper as Dimitri, who has a scene involving the purchase of dog food that's funnier than it has any right being. Tom Arnold turns in his most inspired comedic work since, well, True Lies, as clumsy U.S. Marshal Randy. The character isn't necessarily important, but he's likable and unannoying, with Arnold nailing every scene he's in. It appears Shepard pretty much just cast all his friends in this (right down to Parenthood's Joy Bryant as Dimitri's girlfriend and Veronica Mars' Ryan Hansen as a bank robber) but he made the right choices since they all do as good a job as possible in roles they're obviously well suited for.

In a perfect movie world more audiences would have heard about this and it would have done better, yet it's easy to understand why it didn't. It would be difficult for marketing to convey what a neat genre hybrid it is, and the plot and cast, outside of possibly Cooper (and even that was doubtful at the time), wouldn't exactly inspire confidence at first glance. It's one of those "under the radar" surprises that needed word of mouth to get people to check it out, but if they do now, they'll be shocked just how funny it is. There was hardly a moment where I wasn't smiling or laughing. Judging from what's in theaters it isn't easy writing and co-directing a creatively successful action comedy, not to mention a frequently funny one in which you're the lead. That Shepard can do this better than most his first time out is the biggest surprise. While he's actually believable as a motorhead action star, his true strength might lie in writing and directing romantic comedies he can headline with Bell. It's a partnership already off to a strong start.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:57:00 +0000

Director: Stephen Chbosky
Starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Mae Whitman, Nina Dobrev, Johnnny Simmons, Kate Walsh, Dylan McDermott, Melanie Lynskey, Paul Rudd, Joan Cusack, Tom Savini
Running Time: 102 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

While watching The Perks of Being a Wallflower it soon became clear to me why it undeservedly tanked at the box office despite surprisingly strong critical notices across the board. That gap between what's expected going in and what the film ultimately delivers is huge. Trying to market this exclusively as a teen movie is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't fit, but not because it isn't a movie for teens. It's just not only for them. There's a universal quality about it that extends further than the age of its characters to reach adults who remember what it was like to be that age at that time, or really, any time. The events take place in a frighteningly accurate and detailed 1991 as the film plays as if it were actually made in that year, then stuffed in a time capsule labeled "2012." Thematically and visually darker than you'd anticipate, it carefully handles some really challenging material like depression, suicide, gay bashing, sexual abuse and domestic violence with uncommon intelligence and restraint, more closely resembling suburban dramas like The Ice Storm or American Beauty than your typical "teen" movie.

This has a lot of ground to cover well and if you told me a novelist and first-time director made it I'd be shocked because it just looks and feels so cinematic. If you told me the director also wrote the book it's based on then you'd have to scrape me off the floor. But that's just what Stephen Chbosky does in successfully adapting his own 1999 cult teen novel to the screen, proving it's possible for a writer to maintain enough creative distance from his own work to effectively shepherd its translation to the screen. Already in college when the book came out, I was a little too old to be in the intended reading audience and therefore slightly too young to be the exact age these characters were in '91. But it's close enough. I definitely recall that bright lime green cover in bookstores all over and thinking how juvenile it looked. Talk about literally judging a book by its cover. Not only is there nothing juvenile about this story, it's sophisticated and mature, never once pandering or talking down to its audience. With its protagonist fresh out of the psychiatric hospital due to past trauma and desperately aching to fit in, it might make for an interesting double feature with Silver Linings Playbook. That there are even similarities in tone at all should give you an idea just how good it is. In a year full of surprises, this is yet another big one.

Shy, introverted Pittsburgh teen Charlie (Logan Lerman) is about to start his freshman year of high school and experience all the adolescent pain and joys that accompany it. Still emotionally reeling from the suicide of a friend, and struggling with his own depression, he does get support from his parents (Kate Walsh and Dylan McDermott) and older sister Candace (Nina Dobrev), but spends most of his time writing letters to an imaginary recipient. As a fact Charlie describes as sad, his only friend the first day of school is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd), who's at least is someone to talk to and exposes him to literary classics like The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye. Social refuge comes when he's befriended by seniors Sam (Emma Watson) and her step-brother Patrick (Ezra Miller), who welcome him to their inner circle with open arms and slowly get him to come out of his shell, exposing to a fun side of life he's never experienced. She's kind of a bad girl trying to go good while he's openly gay and carrying on a secret relationship with popular football player Brad (Johnny Simmons). As Charlie's popularity and confidence grows with a new set of friends, so do his feelings for Sam, which in addition to causing some problems amongst them, threatens to reignite the painful memories of a childhood trauma that could send him back into his isolated world.

All the different ways this could have gone wrong are avoided at every turn. This could have easily turned out as an after-school special when you consider the thematic content, but Chbosky clearly had other, grander plans. Not everyone's high school experience was the same but the one thing that seems universally accepted is that each person thought that theirs was the absolute worst. Possibly ten times worse than Charlie's in their own mind. This replicates that feeling and it would be hard for anyone to not at least find one character or situation they relate to in it. Ultimately though, it's a period piece. It's hard to specifically pinpoint exactly what makes the setting feel so much like an embodiment of the early '90's because the details are so numerous that hardly a scene passes where I wasn't subtly taken aback by the accuracy of a particular clothing, music or even vehicle choice. It wraps you in the warm, familiar embrace of nostalgia in a different way than, say, Adventureland, by carefully placing everything in the background rather than foreground. It's 1991 just because it feels like it is without Chbosky ever forcing those details down our throats. The events probably could taken place during any era but that it happened during this one feels especially important beyond the simple reason that its setting was adapted from the novel. With texting and anti-bullying campaigns running rampant there's absolutely no way this story could have taken today and carried the same impact. This is probably it's likely to connect with audiences older than the studio expected. There was very little help for troubled students and stigmas attached to much of it back then, which raises the stakes of Charlie's story and, to an even greater extent, Patrick's.

As played by Percy Jackson's Logan Lerman, a protagonist who could have very easily come across as a whiny cliche of teen angst is so likable it's practically impossible to root against him More often using body language than actual dialogue, Lerman makes Charlie seem incredibly closed off yet strangely open and observant at the same time. He's a total introvert who's not yet discovered how that can work in his favor, but getting there. At first it seems he's just like any shy teen until it becomes obvious his problems run a lot deeper. It wouldn't be fair to call Sam an unrequited crush or necessarily just a friend. The relationship's kind of complicated, but the gist of it is that she's nonetheless such an important person in his life that it almost doesn't matter how it's defined. Having not seen any Harry Potter, this role really stands as my first extended exposure to Emma Watson, and while she sometimes slips in and out of her American accent, it's easy to see why everyone's so high on her. For the most part, she takes a well-traveled character type and makes it seem fresh and original with her poise and charm. The part of Sam also allows her to take something that's in short supply these days for younger actresses. A serious, yet somewhat lighthearted, age-appropriate role that's that's far removed from something like Twilight or The Hunger Games. It also seems Chbosky knew the already strong connection Watson had amongst young audiences who grew up watching her and didn't dare waste the opportunity to exploit that relationship to full effect.

It's Ezra Miller who, walks away with the film as Patrick, delivering a supporting performance that's both outlandishly goofy, funny and heartbreaking. What's amazing is how he so skillfully navigates the problems and pressures of this kid who so often uses a joking mask to hide the absolute hell he's going through as an openly gay teen in the early 90's. A scary scene late in the film exposes just how hard it must have been and how little protection and help there was. Those who were clamoring for a supporting nomination for Miller are justified as its easily the most memorable performance amongst a wide array of strong ones. The adults hardly have anything to do but it was nice for a change to see Charlie's parents depicted as supportive and receptive, if just slightly out of the loop for understandable reasons. It was even nicer to see the relationship between Charlie and her even more supportive sister (who has problems of her own) freed from the manufactured sibling conflict we get in these types of movies. Their few scenes together are kind of touching and if the relationship had been explored further, Nina Dobrev briefly gives the impression she would have been more than up for the task. With the exception of Arrested Development, Mae Whitman's screen presence can be irritating, but as Charlie's first sort-of-girlfriend, she's actually asked to play a character who's irritating, so therefore successfully is. If Paul Rudd spent the entire rest of his career reprising his role as English teacher Mr. Anderson I wouldn't complain since this, not the string of too similar feeling hit-or miss gross-out comedies, represents the kind of meaningful supporting work he should be taking more often. It's unlikely you'll watch without being reminded of your favorite teachers or how likable Rudd is in the right role. Freed from the shackles of having to carry a movie as lead and improve unfunny material, he's as subtly good here as he's been in a long time.

The movie takes a twist in the third act that's not entirely unexpected, but it nonetheless comes off as a gutsy turn into some darker territory for those unfamiliar with the source material. What's surprising is how capably Chbosky handles it since there's a lot going on at once, including a major reveal that could have easily seemed over-the-top or sensationalistic if not presented just right. The film is full of such choices. It doesn't even visually resemble a teen movie, shot by cinematographer Andrew Dunn in a much gloomier color palette than the cheery sitcom look so frequently prevalent in the genre. As expected, the soundtrack is basically a character unto itself with Chbosky making some inspired choices from what was definitely a fruitful period for music. Yes, we could have probably done without the Smiths making what seems like their hundredth soundtrack appearance on a depressed teen's mix tape, but it's tough to argue it doesn't fit in this case or that its placement isn't unusually restrained. The same goes for the interactive Rocky Horror Picture Show screening which, despite being far from restrained, is at least incorporated well into the story.

David Bowie's "Heroes," and the characters' discovery of it, also has a major role in the proceedings. While you could resonably claim these music savvy teens not knowing such a famous song (to the point they can't even name its title or artist), is a writing error on Chbosky's part, it's actually the exact opposite. While it's certainly now a classic rock staple, it wasn't in 1991 and it's not like you could have just "Googled" to find out what it was. As someone who didn't discover classic rock or knew which artists sang anything until college, them not knowing that song isn't far-fetched in the slightest. It's yet another tiny detail that makes perfect sense in a script smart enough to convey that teens sometimes think they know everything, when in fact they have a ridiculously long ways to go. The song's been used countless times in movies but it legitimately feels like we're hearing it for the first time because the characters are, allowing us to join in their excitement.

It's hard enough standing on the sidelines and watching someone else adapt your book or screenplay, making brutal cuts by excising entire scenes and storylines to make it "flow" better or feel more cinematic. Just ask Stephen King, who always seems have complaints whenever one of his novels are adapted for the screen, often blaming filmmakers for deviating from the source material or not being true enough to HIS vision. Maybe he should sit down with Chbosky, who so completely grasps that a book's a book and a movie's a movie. A novel's only job in this process is to provide the starting point or inspiration for the film and by objectively standing back, he was able to determine what would and wouldn't translate effectively to the screen. It's a major accomplishment when you consider he had to take an axe to his own writing while still retaining its essence.

Books and movies are two completely different animals but they join in an inspired way with this adaptation, thanks to its author, screenwriter and director. Never nosediving into easy sentimentality, this is a film that understands growing up and knows that things can get better and also much worse. It's also to imagine the movie without its signature voiceover narration, which here proves the power of that storytelling device if used well. The one used in the final sequence feels just perfect, capturing a time and a place where you just want to grab a fleeting moment and hold onto it as long as possible. But it'll pass. When the film ended, I couldn't stop thinking about what will happen to these characters when it does.

Dennis Has a Podcast: Defunct TV Shows That Should Be Kickstarted Into Movies (with Jeremy The Critic)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:16:00 +0000

I once again joined my good friend Dennis as a guest on his terrific Dennis Has a Podcast to discuss what the recently successful kickstarter campaign for a Veronica Mars movie could mean for other defunct TV favorites and which shows we'd love to see revived as feature films. No hints here. You'll just have to listen. And most aren't your usual choices. We also delved into the state of late night TV and discuss why it's been so hard finding the right host for the Oscars. Our chat was a blast and probably the most fun I've had on the show so far. Enjoy!

Click here to listen.

And don't forget to check out other episodes of DHAP on iTunes, TuneIn, and Stitcher, like him on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter.

My Most Anticipated Films of 2013

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:29:00 +0000

Anticipation can be both a blessing and a curse. A blessing since it's great to be excited about a movie you're interested in, yet a curse when said movie is then burdened to meet those lofty expectations. Making judgments or assumptions on a film you haven't seen based on very limited information is a recipe for disaster, not to mention the risks of holding on to those judgements when you eventually view it. But it sure is fun, so I may as well make official what critics and movie buffs do before seeing something anyway. I've got it down to a science now. In determining whether something will appeal to me I look at three factors, which are very much in order of priority:

1. Director
2. Plot Synopsis
3. Cast

If you've got all three lined up then you're really set. But even then it's still somewhat of a crapshoot. In other instances, it's plainly obvious based on those criteria that I will more than likely love something (The Master and Looper come to mind for 2012), but the film still has to go the distance.The most fun can come when those rules get thrown out the window and mitigating factors come into play, causing a film I never would have expected to be a player become one of favorites of the year. Drive and Silver Linings Playbook are prime back-to-back examples. From the former I expected nothing until the rapturous reviews poured in and the latter had a trailer that didn't exactly misrepresent the movie, but certainly undersold it. The fallout from those two films can still be felt on this year's list. It's all about track records and batting averages. Consider it the sabermetric approach to determining a film's future worth. In some cases we have the benefit of trailers, posters and stills. In others, I'm going on very little. If you don't see a movie on here you know what that means. And yes, I'm all superheroed out if you're wondering where those are. But everything was considered, from smaller independent projects that might only get a limited release to major studio movies. What surprised me most was just how dark the top contenders ended up being. My future favorite film of 2013 may or may not be listed below.

Runners-Up (In No Particular Order)

Don Jon (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, TBD)
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore, Tony Danza, Brie Larson
Synopsis: The journey of a contemporary, porn-addicted Don Juan-type as he attempts to become less selfish.
Why? To be totally honest, I was a bit disappointed when I heard that JGL's directorial debut (formerly titled Don Jon's Addiction) would be a rom-com instead of a really dark, gritty independent drama. On the surface the plot doesn't really interest me and I'm not thrilled with the casting of Johansson. But outside of the interest in whether JGL can be as strong behind the camera as he is in front of it, the big draw for me here is seeing him again share the screen with his former Angels in the Outfield co-star, Tony Danza. What a reunion that should be. Just seeing the underrated Danza again in what I'm hearing is a pretty substantial supporting part (as his dad!) should be a real thrill. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a movie just about JGL asking Danza to be in his movie.

Oldboy (Spike Lee, October 11)
Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Olsen, Samuel L. Jackson, Sharlto Copley
Synopsis: An everyday man has only five days and limited resources to discover why he was imprisoned in a nondescript room for 15 years without any explanation.
Why? Spike Lee has directed exactly one movie I loved (25th Hour) and the talented Olsen has lately been giving a lot of great performances in projects that have just missed the mark for me. Here's hoping the teaming of the two will produce more positive results. While I admire the original Chan Wook-Park film I have no issues with them re-imagining it and am curious to see what Lee does. It sure beats rumors of that other version being shopped around a couple of years ago with Steven Spielberg and Will Smith attached.

Serena (Susanne Bier, Sept. 27)
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Rhys Ifans, Toby Jones
Synopsis: In Depression-era North Carolina, the future of George Pemberton's timber empire becomes complicated when it is learned that his wife, Serena, cannot bear children.
Why? All I know is that if Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are re-teaming I don't care who directed it or the nature of the plot. They've proven to be so good together this gets a free pass merely because of their presence. And that they're also co-starring in another much more anticipated film later in the year so this is just icing on the cake.

This Is The End (Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen, June 14)
Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Jason Segel, Michael Cera, Mindy Kaling
Synopsis: While attending a party at James Franco's house, Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel and many other celebrities are faced with the apocalypse.
Why? This seems like an answer to my frequent complaint that every other comedy released these days is exactly the same and uses the usual interchangeable actors. Now THIS could be different. Are we sure it's not based on a true story because I kind of believe these people (and that's not even mentioning Emma Watson, Paul Rudd, Aziz Ansari, Danny McBride, Martin Starr, Craig Robinson and Rihanna all playing themselves) would be at James Franco's house with the world ending. And what's Franco like playing himself considering he seems to put so much of himself into everything he does anyway, movie-related or otherwise. It's rare you get to see so many celebrities given the opportunity to spoof themselves like this. Let's hope it's not squandered and Rogen delivers. I can see it being either a huge bomb or the comedy of the year. Or maybe both.

The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann, May 10)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Tobey Maguire
Synopsis: Nick Carraway, a Midwesterner now living on Long Island, finds himself fascinated by the mysterious past and lavish lifestyle of his neighbor, Jay Gatsby. He is drawn into Gatsby's circle, becoming a witness to obsession and tragedy.
Why? There's no middle ground with Baz Luhrmann. It'll either be incredible or a massive train wreck and if it's latter you can bet it'll at least be memorable. Even though this was pushed back from last year it's worth paying attention to any adaptation of Gatsby with that cast. It'll probably be a mess (and in 3D for crying out loud) but it's a must-see if just for the curiosity factor.

Ain't Them Bodies Saints (David Lowery, Aug. 16)
Starring: Rooney Mara, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Ben Foster, Keith Carradine
Synopsis: The tale of an outlaw who escapes from prison and sets out across the Texas hills to reunite with his wife and the daughter he has never met.
Why? Supposedly this a methodically paced Badlands-style 70's throwback. Good enough for me. Having Mara, Affleck, Foster and Caradine(!) in it can't hurt either. The director's a real question mark since it's his first feature but that hardly seems to matter as we've learned in the past. Early reviews have been excellent so I'm kind of expecting big things. Awesome title by the way.

The Monuments Men (George Clooney, Dec. 20)
Starring: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Daniel Craig, Cate Blanchett, Billy Murray, Jean Dujardin
Synopsis: In a race against time, a crew of art historians and museum curators unite to recover renown works of art stolen by Nazis before Hitler destroys them.
Why? It's Clooney. Everything he touches as either a director, producer or actor seems to turn to gold these days. He just attach himself to junk. This plot itself doesn't grab me at all but the cast does and we know he'll deliver the goods. A possible Oscar contender.

Labor Day (Jason Reitman, TBD)
Starring: Josh Brolin, Kate Winslet, Tobey Maguire, James Van Der Beek
Synopsis: Depressed single mom Adele and her son Henry offer a wounded, fearsome man a ride. As police search town for the escaped convict, the mother and son gradually learn his true story as their options become increasingly limited.
Why? Here's another one that gets a recommendation on director alone. And that cast isn't too bad either (Van Der Beek!?) The rest of it is kind of a question mark but since Reitman showed off another dimension of what he can do in 2011's brilliant Young Adult I'm willing to follow him wherever he decides to go.

The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese, Nov. 15)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matthew McConaughey, Jonah Hill, Jean Dujardin, Kyle Chandler
Synopsis: A New York stockbroker refuses to cooperate in a large securities fraud case involving corruption on Wall Street, corporate banking world and mob infiltration.
Why? DiCaprio and Scorsese team up for the 700th time and while I would normally roll my eyes at that, this actually seems somewhat intriguing and features a solid supporting cast. It's a safe bet on here, but there's a good reason for that.

Gravity (Alfonso Cuaron, Oct. 4)
Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney
Synopsis: Astronauts attempt to return to earth after debris crashes into their space shuttle, leaving them drifting alone in space.
Why? Early word suggests this will be pretty good despite it being in production for seemingly forever and its release date being pushed back from late last year. There's still that Clooney factor and the chance to see Bullock (who supposedly carries most of this) in a rare sci-fi turn that hopefully signals a renewed post-Oscar commitment to doing serious work with talented directors. Well, probably not. But it doesn't hurt to get our hopes up.

Top Ten

10. Nebraska (Alexander Payne, TBD)
Starring: Bruce Dern,Will Forte, Bob Odenkirk, Stacy Keach
Synopsis: An aging, booze-addled father makes the trip from Montana to Nebraska with his estranged son in order to claim a million dollar Publisher's Clearing House sweepstakes prize.
Why? You can use a permanent magic marker to write down Bruce Dern's name as one of the five Best Actor nominees next year for this black and white road trip movie. Anything directed by Alexander Payne coming off The Descendants automatically gets a spot on this list and the inspired casting of Forte in a dramatic role is worth looking out for.

9. Anchorman: The Legend Continues (Adam McKay, Dec. 20)
Starring: Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Kristen Wiig, Christina Appelgate, Harrison Ford
Synopsis: The continuing on-set adventures of San Diego's top rated newsman.
Why? If an impending sequel to one of last decade's most popular comedies with the entire cast returning wasn't enough, now they've just recently added Harrison Ford to the mix. Ford was already surprisingly successful playing a aging, bitter news anchor in the underrated Morning Glory so it should be fun to see Mr. Grumpy face off with Ron Burgundy.

8. Her (Spike Jonze, TBD)
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Olivia Wilde, Rooney Mara
Synopsis: A lonely writer develops an unlikely relationship with his newly-purchased operating system that's designed to meet his every need.
Why? Something that sounds this weird can only be directed by Spike Jonze. And that it stars Joaquin Phoenix should only serve to make it that much weirder. Adams, Wilde, or Mara in this would be intriguing enough but that it's all of them makes me wonder what Jonze has up his sleeve. On paper, it feels like it could be reminiscent of Adaptation, which would obviously the best possible scenario. Whatever it is, it's a must-see.

7. Only God Forgives (Nicolas Winding Refn, TBD)
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Kristin Scott Thomas, Tom Burke
Synopsis: A Bangkok police lieutenant and a gangster settle their differences in a Thai-boxing match.
Why? Gosling re-teams with the director of Drive. Need I say more? With both already proving they can take what appears to be on paper a pulpy genre exercise into uncharted territory it would be foolish to bet against them again. Supposedly, this is even more violent and shocking. A scary thought.

6. The Place Beyond The Pines (Derek Cianfrance, March 29)
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes, Ray Liotta
Synopsis: A motorcycle stunt rider turns to robbing banks as a way to provide for his lover and their newborn child, a decision that puts him on a collision course with an ambitious rookie cop navigating a department ruled by a corrupt detective.
Why? Well, it's another reunion for Gosling , this time with Blue Valentine director Cianfrance and the trailer actually looks pretty terrific. From what I've been hearing there's a lot more to this film than has been advertised and Gosling again playing a stunt driver is a can't miss proposition, especially if he's facing off against good cop Bradley Cooper, whose film appearances now carry a renewed sense of anticipation since we've recently discovered the range of his abilities as an actor.

5. Parkland (Peter Landesman, TBD)
Starring: Jacki Weaver, Zac Efron, Paul Giamatti, Jackie Earle Haley, Mark Duplass, Billy Bob Thornton, Tom Welling
Synopsis: A recounting of the chaotic events that occurred at Dallas' Parkland Hospital on the day U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
Why? I'm in for anything involving the Kennedy assassination and this Tom Hanks-produced project featuring a loaded cast looks to be no exception. Since the anticipated film adaptation of Stephen King's 11/22/63 went into turnaround and won't be going in front of the cameras anytime soon I can get my fix from this. Focusing on characters in and around the Parkland hospital where Kennedy died is a novel idea just as long as it doesn't turn into another overstuffed Bobby.

4. Blue Caprice (Alexandre Moors, TBD)
Starring: Isaiah Washington, Tequan Richmond, Joey Lauren Adams, Tim Blake Nelson
Synopsis: A narrative feature film inspired by the events known as the Beltway sniper attacks.
Why? Finally. The Beltway sniper movie. Part of me wondered if this would ever get a release but I'm glad it will, even if it's just limited or VOD. I'll take it. This is supposedly a really small-scale production which is appropriate considering the frighteningly claustrophobic nature of the crimes. There's a lot of interesting facets to this story that haven't been widely reported but from what I heard this will be more of a mood piece. Which is fine too. The released stills of Washington as John Allen Muhammad are downright chilling, as is the teaser trailer.

3. American Hustle (Dec.13)
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Christian Bale, Louis C.K.
Synopsis: An FBI sting operation in the 1970s called Abscam leads to the conviction of United States Congressmen.
Why? While not much is known about this yet, it's hard to describe any movie directed by Russell and featuring these actors (especially Cooper and Lawrence) as a question mark The description almost makes it sound like Argo, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Russell's clearly in the zone right now having almost gotten a taste of gold this year with Silver Linings Playbook so this could be the one that pushes him over the top with either a Best Picture or Best Director win. Either way, this currently filming project is as close to a sure bet for creative greatness as possible. And you know it'll be ready by December. Russell works fast.

2. Foxcatcher (Bennett Miller, TBD)
Starring: Channing Tatum, Steve Carell, Mark Ruffalo, Sienna Miller
Synopsis: The story of John du Pont, who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and killed Olympic wrestler David Schultz (No, not THAT David Schultz) .
Why? Let's put it this way: Steve Carell is playing John du Pont. Carell tops the list of comedic actors I've always wanted to see tackle a super dark role and it doesn't get much darker than the psychotic billionaire murderer who killed Schultz. Fascinating story. Ingenious casting. And it's from the director of Moneyball. Just look at that picture of Ruffalo as Schultz. It really doesn't get any more intriguing than this. I'm anticipating a potential nomination for Carell and it's definitely possible we're looking at the movie of the year here.

1. Inside Llewyn Davis (Joel and Ethan Coen, TBD)
Starring: Oscar Isaac, Carey Mulligan, Garrett Hedlund, Justin Timberlake, John Goodman, F. Murray Abraham
Synopsis: A singer-songwriter navigates New York's folk music scene during the 1960s
Why? When the film (loosely based on sixties folk singer Dave Von Ronk's posthumously published memoir, The Mayor of MacDougal Street) had its release delayed last year and I read the somewhat flimsy synopsis, I pushed it to the back of my mind. Then that trailer hit. While I'm always interested in seeing what the Coens do, it's tough remembering a film of theirs I greatly anticipated ahead of its release. It always seems to be a case of respect rather than admiration with them and just a mild curiosity factor for whatever project is next. This feels like the first time they've made something that really feels in my wheelhouse. I love the time period and its music, and just from the glimpse we're given in the trailer, it's clear the effort was made to authentically capture it in all its glory, which is no small feat. Plus, you've got Justin Timberlake and Carey Mulligan as folk singers (doing their own singing) which from the brief glimpse in the trailer feels like strangely magical casting. We already know the Coens have it in them to release the best film of the year but this is the first time they seem armed with the ammunition to do so. It's their most promising project in years, and that's coming from someone who's liked pretty much everything they've done. If nothing else, we're at least guaranteed a memorable soundtrack. I haven't even seen it yet but just those two minutes make me not only want to see this movie, but literally live inside it.

Liberal Arts

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:51:00 +0000

Director: Josh Radnor
Starring: Josh Radnor, Elizabeth Olsen, Richard Jenkins, Allison Janey, John Magaro, Elizabeth Reaser, Zac Efron
Running Time: 97 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Any fears that writer/director/star Josh Radnor's Liberal Arts would hit uncomfortably close to home for me wiped away during the first half-hour when 35 year-old New York college admissions counselor Jesse Fisher (Radnor) laughs and rolls around in the grass upon returning to his alma mater in Ohio. It's a relief when the movie does eventually hit on the truth that returning to your college at any point after graduating can be awkward, uncomfortable experience that isn't the slightest bit welcoming despite how much you may have enjoyed your time there. Once college is over, it's done. The best case scenario is you take what you've learned and the experiences you've had and carry them with you for the rest of your days to positively inform your actions and decisions as an adult. That's not exactly what's happened for Jesse (Radnor) who jumps at the opportunity to return for the retirement ceremony of his second favorite professor, Peter Holberg (Richard Jenkins).

Obsessed with literature and the arts, Jesse's mind had never really left so returning is almost a formality at this point. But it won't be the same. Not by a long shot. It's to Radnor's credit that his script acknowledges that but then somewhere along the line it loses me and it starts to become a movie written by someone trying to send a message rather than stay true to the characters.We knew the message we were going to get going in and it's unquestionably the right one, but I just didn't care for the way Radnor delivered it. What starts as a highly relatable personal journey of self-discovery ends up giving too many easy answers for the more challenging questions the film intelligently asks.

At times I felt almost bludgeoned over the head with its black and white philosophizing which is a real a shame considering the more honest feelings it subtly invoked. It kind of becomes a mess in the third act, but at least it's a fascinating one that has something to say and proves that Radnor definitely has a promising filmmaking future ahead of him when (if?) How I Met Your Mother ends. His forseeable acting future could be taken up playing characters within in the same general realm of his lovelorn, super sensitive Ted Mosby but that's okay. I really like that character and consider Radnor a likable, underrated actor capable of delivering performances that may end up being even better than the really good one he gives here. Because of the rather obvious similarities between Ted and Jesse you wouldn't necessarily be wrong in calling this Ted Mosby: The Movie, and from where I sit there's nothing necessarily wrong with that either. Nor is the fact that Elisabeth Olsen's Zibby ends up being the latest addition into the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" canon. If you look up the very definition of the term there's likely to be a picture of Zibby right there next to it as it would be difficult to find a character that better exemplifies that infamous (and sometimes unfairly derided) movie trope. But let's be honest. Did anyone really expect Radnor to make a film without a MPDG? I'd almost be disappointed if he didn't. What I don't like are those characters being discarded by the screenplay once they've served their purpose, rendering them practically pointless aside from their role as a life message deliverer.

Certain character types exist because they work when effectively executed and the real reason the MPDG gets more flack than other more insulting stereotypes has to do with the fact that it hits a rather embarrassing nerve for guys, depicting them as insecure and needing to have their lives saved by a woman. Or rather a girl. A free-spirited one who doesn't care a single iota about any issues or flaws they may have. Like any screenwriting creation it's shaded in a certain amount of truth. And also like any, there are good and bad depictions that primarily depend on the integrity of the surrounding narrative. As far as these things go, Olsen's Libby, the 19-year-old daughter of one of Prof. Holberg's colleagues, makes for a textbook MPDG who's smart, pretty and seemingly mature beyond her years. And that's not to mention the fact she writes letters. On actual paper. A real keeper. The only drawback is that she reads Twilight, which horrifies Jesse (and me). While I don't recall that the books are never implicitly mentioned by name it's clear what they're talking about and it soon becomes this hilarious symbol of their age difference and an opportunity for Radnor to go into full Mosby mode, giving a snobby, pretentious speech about how its popularity represents America's declining tastes. It's a fun scene.

Compelling, the film burns through much of its story in the first 25 minutes only to pleasantly reveal that it's just getting started. The meat of their relationship takes place by mail, making it even harder for Jesse to stay away this time. They do seem made for each other which is why it gets so frustrating when Radnor the writer attempts to undercut that in favor of delivering his well-intentioned, but poorly realized message. While there's undeniably a lot wrong with a 35 year-old guy getting involved with a 19-year-old girl and creeping around the dorm and attending parties, Radnor underestimates how good he and Olsen are together at selling something that comes off as the complete opposite. So attempts later to turn this into an American Beauty or Lolita-like situation fall flat because certain plot developments feel overwritten. And it sure doesn't help the cause of his goal that the two of them look around the same age despite Radnor being considerably older. At points the movie is so relentless in its morality it seems like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too by depicting this magical, once-in-a-lifetime connection before telling audiences, "Oh wait, shame on YOU. It's wrong." Without spoiling too much, I'll say that Jesse does (or rather doesn't) do something I just couldn't buy. Well, I could buy it, but it felt manufactured to teach a lesson and stands in stark contrast to his actions leading up it. Then sub-plots are piled on top of it and an entire separate story is tagged on involving a bookstore clerk (played by Elizabeth Reaser) that's actually kind of insulting in its obviousness.

The movie's best scenes are on campus with Jesse and Zibby talking and just hanging out. It feels real and Olsen proves she's capable of going to the opposite end of the spectrum as the brainwashed cult follower she darkly portrayed in Martha Marcy May Marlene. As a director Radnor perfectly captures the very specific feeling of a small liberal arts school at that point in someone's life without missing a beat, as well as the wild array of supporting characters you'd encounter there. The great Richard Jenkins serves as the film's sturdy anchor with his heartfelt performance as the retiring Holberg, who's not quite sure he's ready to leave or what to do with himself once he does. His attempts to hang on as long as possible mirror Jesse's and their bond feels like a honest one. Far less successful is a sub-plot involving his old romantics professor, the cold, detached Judith Fairfield (Allison Janey) who seems to exist as a bitch on wheels plot device to provide final act shock value rather than an actual human. Surprisingly, Zac Efron is really effective in a small role as a campus stoner trying to get Jesse to embrace the spontaneity of life while John Magaro impresses as a depressed, emotionally disturbed student he takes under his wing.

Radnor supposedly based this script off a visit he made to his alma mater of Kenyon College in Ohio while promoting his directorial debut a couple of years ago and the strange feelings it invoked. I almost feel guilty not recommending it since I'm a big fan of the actor and it definitely strikes a chord but a story like this can't for a second feel overplotted and needs some room to breathe. All the scenes with he and Olsen are gold and after the first 40 minutes or so you really think this is going somewhere deep, only to just pull back and handle everything with kid gloves.As unfair as it is, I couldn't help but compare it to the all-time greatest college-set dramedy, 2000's Wonder Boys, which tackles a similar topic, but appears to do so effortlessly by showing instead of telling. Or in this case lecturing. While it all doesn't quite come together, I'd still rather watch this again than some better movies that don't screw up as interestingly. It's at least clear coming out of this that Radnor will at some point make a great film. This just wasn't it, too often coming across as overly sensitive and eager to please as its protagonist.

Taken 2

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:42:00 +0000

Director: Olivier Megaton
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen, Rade Serbedzija, Leland Orser, Jon Gries, D.B. Sweeney, Luke Grimes
Running Time: 91 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

It isn't difficult to see how Taken went on to become such a critical and commercial success when it was released with little fanfare and even fewer expectations in early 2008. At the time we all knew Liam Neeson was a great actor but had little clue he'd be so believable as an action star. He was playing a quietly intense man thrust into a situation that at least seemed at the time to be out of his control. Everything about it seemed fresh. The kidnapping. The crime. The fight scenes. The grittiness. The shocking sight of the sixty-something Neeson kicking ass for an hour and a half. In an era of overblown effects, here was this no-nonsense, bare bones action thriller that knew exactly what it was supposed to do and did it. It didn't reinvent the wheel but it sure was a lot of fun, with director/co-writer Luc Besson somehow pulling this all off within the confines of a PG-13 rating. Capitalizing on its success, Neeson's played a variation on the role so many times since (even taking it to more dramatically tragic heights in The Grey) that you'd figure the novelty's worn off by now. And to an extent it has, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still work.

Taken 2 plays out almost exactly how you'd expect the sequel to Taken play out, only a bit crazier. Rumors of its inferiority to the original are greatly exaggerated. It does some things better than its predecessor and others not as well but at the end of the day it all evens out. Its two biggest attributes just might be its off-the-wall silliness and an increased focus on the supporting characters, one of whom nearly steals the movie out from under Neeson. Those who don't enjoy this follow-up or think it fails to recapture the spirit of the original should probably go back and ask themselves whether the first film was really as strong as they thought. This nearly equals it.

This action logically picks up where the last film left off as the body count ex CIA operative Bryan (Neeson) left behind in rescuing his kidnapped teen daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) from a sex traffiking ring comes back to haunt him. Now Murad (Rade Serbedzija), Albanian crime boss and father of one of Bryan's victims, is out to avenge his son's death and won't stop until he pays. That opportunity comes when the emotionally scarred Kim and her now separated mother Lenore (Famke Janssen) surprise Bryan by joining him on his vacation in Istanbul. But by the time he starts to suspect they're being followed it's too late, as he and his ex-wife are taken captive. Now it's up to Kim to use her own resourcefulness and follow her dad's very specific instructions to find and rescue them without being captured again herself.

There's a little more set-up this time around as much of the first half hour is spent establishing a new family dynamic despite little time presumably passing since the conclusion of the last film's events. The formerly hostile relationship between Bryan and Lenore is noticeably more civil with even a possible chance of reconciliation while Kim struggles to pass her twice failed driver's test and hide a new boyfriend from her overprotective dad. It's kind of a neat reversal to have Bryan placed in a rare position of vulnerability and having to rely on his daughter to rescue him and her mother. It also succeeds in giving Maggie Grace and Famke Janssen twice as much to do this time around and neither disappoints in their heavily expanded roles.

Despite being the one "taken," Bryan's still pulling the strings, sometimes quite literally, as in the film's most uproarious scene when he gives Kim ridiculously complicated instructions to finding their whereabouts that involves a shoestring, a map and her throwing live grenades all over the city. Laugh all you want but you can't tell me it isn't inventively original or that director Olivier Megaton (taking over for Besson) and Grace don't fully commit to this weirdly entertaining sequence with everything they have. Of course, this isn't to say Neeson's playing some helpless victim here, eventually dishing out just as many beatings as he did the last time around, if not more. If there's anything to complain about it's that he may as well qualify as a superhero rather than a former CIA agent. And yet Neeson still somehow sells it, again giving us front row seats to see an action master at work.

One of the more unintentionally hilarious elements of the original film was nearly 30-year-old Maggie Grace's performance as the 17 going on 12 year-old teen. Who can forget "daddy's little girl" getting a new pony for her birthday and awkwardly running to her father with arms flailing? It was a really bizarre take on the character, making me wonder whether Grace was just overcompensating for the huge age difference or the portrayal was intentionally serving some larger symbolic purpose in the story (like the loss of her virginal innocence). Her work here is a complete 180 from that as she's not only completely believable as a reluctant teenager still emotionally wrestling with her ordeal, but as a makeshift action heroine who's learned to run since the last film. And this time the movie seems in on the joke regarding her age. How else could you explain this script's obsession with her failed driving tests? I'd call it a sub-plot if only it were that and didn't lead to an excuse for an exciting car chase through the streets of Istanbul with her dad yelling instructions at her like a backseat driver. It's almost become a running gag having adult performers playing teens but this is a steep age difference Grace pulls off and I'm betting it would be a challenge for anyone not familiar with the Lost actress to guess she's not at least around the same age as the character she's playing.

Famke Janssen's formerly unlikable ex-wife has been softened for obvious reasons to fit the plot but despite the actress's best efforts I can't say I cared as much about her fate. Yet even this installment's most fervent detractors would have difficulty denying it's really the improved father-daughter dynamic this go around that what most sets it apart from its predecessor. And in one of the strangest aspects of an already strange film, someone involved in the production is apparently a big fan the Drive soundtrack, as two highly recognizable songs from the already cult classic make curious (if entirely pointless) cameos. That so many seem to be up in arms about it despite the filmmakers being legally well within their bounds to use them speaks volumes about the imprint that movie and its music is still leaving. Anything signifying that I'm okay with, even if it does nothing to add or take away from the proceedings here.

Yes, there will be a Taken 3. We know that much by how the seeds are so obviously planted for it at the end. And it'll be interesting to see how they move forward considering all the characters who can be taken already have. The series may have to move in a completely new direction, which is probably for the best just as long as Neeson's still involved. Sure, this film's ridiculous but so was the original. Both in a good way. The Taken series works because it fully embraces its own ridiculousness without so much as winking. And while the set-up here isn't quite as crisp it does accomplish what a successful sequel needs to in expanding the universe and getting us further familiarized with the characters. Considering there's a new name behind the camera the drop-off is quality is surprisingly minimal, with extended sections of the film certainly crazier and more fun than they have any right being. You might occasionally shake your head at its absurdity, but you won't be bored.

Compliance

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:07:00 +0000

Director: Craig Zobel
Starring: Ann Dowd, Dreama Walker, Pat Healy, Bill Camp, Philip Ettinger, James McCaffrey, Ashlie Atkinson
Running Time: 90 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

I watched Compliance with a huge knot in my stomach the entire time, wondering how much further it could go and whether I would even be able to make it through. It's that disturbing. The feelings and emotions it's likely to invoke in audiences attempting to endure the experience may be uncomfortable, but they're worthwhile nonetheless. The film depicts a real world scenario most people go to the movies to escape and after you see it there's even a good chance you'll be angry. "There's no way that could happen." "These people are idiots." "I would never do that." That's a normal reaction, but also an entirely misinformed and incorrect one. It's also an ironic response considering the characters' inability to see a truth that's literally right in front of their faces. The incident depicted in the films not only happened, it happened 70 different times in over 30 U.S. states. How do you explain that? The people are real. The events are real. And this doesn't veer much, if at all, from the exact incident it's based on, with writer/director Craig Zobel wisely choosing only to dramatize the details for maximum effect.

The story itself might be simple, but the characters' actions (or lack of such) aren't. Remember that famous Milgram obedience experiment (later adapted into a little seen 70's TV movie starring William Shatner) where subjects administer lethal electric shocks to people in another room simply because someone in a position of authority tells them to? That's this movie, except taken to the highest level possible and made that much more disturbing by the fact that these characters actually can see the harm they're inflicting and do it anyway. One woman in particular. And it's all because she just can't say "no." Her frustrating behavior escalates until the noose gets tied so tightly around everyone's necks that the suspense of how it will all resolve becomes unbearable. The only thing we do know is that it can't end well. And at its center is a deeply rich performance from a veteran character actress that easily ranks amongst the year's best, closely followed by another actress' emotionally devastating turn. It's a prime example of just how much can be accomplished on a smaller budget if all the right elements are in place.

The day has already off to a poor start for ChickWich fast-food restaurant manager Sandra (Ann Dowd). Having already been verbally dressed down by a supplier, she's running low on bacon because an employee left the fridge door open, and there's a visit from corporate looming. Mocked by her subordinates behind her back, it's clear from the opening minutes that Sandra runs a tight ship and prides herself on doing the best possible job, rarely deviating from company policy. When she gets a phone call from a man referring to himself as "Officer Daniels" (Pat Healy) about a complaint that one of her employees stole money out of a customer's purse, she summons the alleged perpetrator, Becky (Dreama Walker), into to her office. Denying any involvement in the theft, Becky sits there as Sandra is questioned and given instructions over the phone to search her belongings until the cops can arrive to handle the situation. Before long she's asked to do things that go far beyond the usual protocol for any law enforcement official, much less the manager of a fast food joint. I should probably stop there at the risk of spoiling too much but let's just say it's clear pretty early on that this guy on the phone isn't a cop and something's very off.

The situation escalates to alarming levels as Sandra dutifully fulfills all the obligations asked of her by this man and even starts involving others in Becky's detainment, like shift supervisor Marti (Ashlie Atkinson), goof-off employee Kevin (Philip Ettinger) and even her own perplexed fiancee Van (Bill Camp). Soon they've all past the point of no return, getting too close to this increasingly perilous situation to see the forest from the trees. You keep waiting for somebody to say or do something that would put an end to Becky's undeserved misery and humiliation, but the longer it goes, the more disturbing it gets, making it only that much harder to watch. We quickly realize the "somebody" to stop this definitely won't be Sandra, who's apparently never heard an outrageous command she'll refuse to obey.

The caller and his actions are presented very cleverly throughout. And they have to be since the events, despite being inspired by a true story, would seem almost too outrageous to believe unless Zobel executed this perfectly. One of the boldest decisions he makes involves whether to fully reveal the prankster's identity or keep him as a threatening, disembodied voice on the phone. If this were a horror film or a mystery/thriller you could argue for the latter but since this aims higher and fits more into the category of a psychological character study, he makes the right call in granting us full disclosure into how he operates. We see how he's constantly re-adjusting his story to fit the developing situation and changes his tone at various points to get the desired responses and needed cooperation from his victims/subjects. It's especially evident in how he berates the accused Becky while manipulating Sandra with praise she's likely not used to receiving in daily life. You can tell aiding this "officer" makes her feel wanted and important, and the more that happens, the easier she becomes to manipulate. When we do eventually meet the caller, actor Pat Healy somehow manages to exceed all terrifying expectations of what we think he could be. There's no money involved in this scam and the majority of laws are broken by his targets in the restaurant, who really just become pawns in a sick game he's playing for sociopathic thrills. It's clear this guy's a pro and he's done this before.

That Ann Dowd wasn't nominated for an Oscar for this staggering, multi-layered performance is criminal. Even as I was practically screaming at the screen in disbelief at Sandra's cooperation, Dowd subtly hints at an entire personal history that's brought her to this point. She doesn't play Sandra as dumb because she isn't. She's very good at what she does, but has probably been dumped on all her life, leaving her with the inability to say "no" to anyone or anything. Even her relationship with her fiancee, the one aspect of her life that seems to bring her any joy, feels manufactured in her own mind. I began the film liking Sandra, and despite her sinking into what seems like the depths of moral hell after that, Dowd still made me pity rather than hate her by its end. It would have been so easy to play this woman as cruel or stupid but it's the fact that she actually essays her as a good person trying (and failing miserably) to do the right thing that gives this entire story its bite. You want to say that if this woman can fall victim to a prank like this, then anyone can, but we know that's not completely true. It takes a certain personality type and this scam artist literally found the perfect mark in this woman.

An even more physically and emotionally grueling performance is given by Dreama Walker as Becky and anyone only familiar with the actress from her perky TV comedy work on Don't Trust The B---- in Apt. 23 should probably prepare themselves. Spending nearly half the movie topless, the treatment her character endures may be humiliating, offensive, and in many ways the most unwelcome nudity you could see in movies, but it sure isn't pointless. You'd figure any actress would really have to have ultimate trust in their director to do the shocking things that are asked of Walker so it's a relief that Zobel returns the favor by earning it and avoiding any sort of exploitation. Everyone that happens to Becky needs to happen for the story and while I always feel uncomfortable calling film performances "brave," Walker's work comes about as close as it gets. Had she not completely surrendered herself to the role, there would certainly be a lot less to talk about when it ended. She makes Becky seem so vulnerable it's almost as if the character's a bleeding wound that can only be stopped by someone willing to step in and do it. After a while the horrifying possibility presents itself that maybe no one will.

The third act of the film is really something to behold when you consider how much tension Zobel has already squeezed out of such a heart-pounding premise. It's easy to come out of this blaming one character but in actuality nearly everyone on screen is "compliant" in what transpires. And it's interesting what (or who) it takes to stop it, perhaps hinting that you almost have to be completely removed from a situation in order to objectively assess it. Zobel dares to go even further with an epilogue that asks the same big questions we do of the characters, concluding in a final scene that strangely reminds me of Fargo in how the most deplorable crimes can seem that much more deplorable when they're committed in by small town people you see at the grocery store, go to church with or even get served by at your local fast-food restaurant. Compliance has sparked a certain degree of outrage amongst a vocal minority who have seen it. But it isn't because they feel it couldn't happen. It's because they know it can and it did. Admitting that is tough, especially when the events could so easily involve any one of us.

Burning Questions from the 2013 Oscars

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:52:00 +0000

Boy, that opening monologue sure was long, wasn't it?

And wasn't it kind of a mess?

Didn't Seth MacFarlane initially seem very nervous?

Can you blame him?

Is there a more thankless task than hosting this show?

Will the Mr. Skin website see increased traffic now that MacFarlane has outed all those actresses' nude scenes?

Wasn't Tommy Lee Jones cracking a smile a great start?

Did your enthusiasm dampen when you realized that would be the highlight of the entire night?

Did it truly test the theory that William Shatner makes everything he's in better?

Wouldn't it have been great if HE sang all the nominated original songs?

Were Charlize, Channing Tatum, JGL and Daniel Radcliffe blackmailed into being involved in that?

But didn't they all do a pretty good job?

All other complaints aside, doesn't MacFarlane have a tremendous singing voice?

Wasn't there entirely too much singing (as usual)?

Between that and Kristin Chenoweth on the red carpet, didn't this feel more like The Tonys?

So, MacFarlane or Hathaway/Franco?

Did everyone immediately go 0 for 1 on their Oscar scorecard when Christoph Waltz was announced for Supporting Actor?

Am I the only one still amazed that Beasts of the Southern Wild's score wasn't nominated?

Is Roger Deakins ever going to win an Oscar?

And if he does, by that point, will he even care?

How tasteless was the Jaws music playing the winners off?

But wasn't it still really funny?

Wait, THAT was their "tribute" to 50 Years of Bond?

Looking at that montage, isn't it astonishing just how few truly great Bond movies there have been?

I knew Connnery would be a stretch, but couldn't they at least get a couple of the Bonds to show up?

George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton were busy?

Did Shirley Bassey sing the hell out of "Goldfinger" or what?

But shouldn't it have started a medley?

How about Duran Duran?

Paul McCartney?

Chris Cornell?

Carly Simon?

Didn't the pacing of the show feel particularly painful this year?

Wasn't that obvious when we were only an hour in?

How about John Travolta's mispronunciation of "Les Miserables?"

Were you thinking, "Join the club, John?"

Did you notice how little "singing" there was during the musicals tribute?

And out of all the classic Hollywood musicals they pick Chicago and Dreamgirls?

Remember when Dreamgirls was "a lock" to win Best Picture?

And Eddie Murphy for Supporting Actor?

Should I be proud that I still haven't seen Dreamgirls?

Or that I can't remember whether or not I've even seen Chicago?

Can Hugh Jackman host this again?

How funny was Mark Wahlberg trying to convince the audience that there really was a tie?

How bad is it that, despite the tie, I STILL got the Sound Editing category wrong?

Were you wondering how insane it would be if there was a tie in a major category like Best Actress?

Am I the only one who has no recollection of Christopher Plummer winning Best Supporting Actor last year?

Why does the always classy, gracious Anne Hathaway get such a bad wrap?

Is there something wrong with wanting to win an Academy Award and being thankful for it?

Wasn't her husband great in Drive?

Didn't MacFarlane drastically improve when he started mocking the show and his own hosting of it?

Isn't it kind of cool that the Academy gave a lifetime achievement Oscar to Hal Needham, the director of Body Slam?

Any bets on whether that film was included in his highlight reel?

Can we just all agree now that the Jurassic Park theme is John Williams' greatest composition?

While Streisand was fitting, wouldn't it have been nice to have a montage of the late, great Marvin Hamlisch's screen contributions?

Am I saying that partially so I get to see The Swimmer make it onto the Oscar telecast?

Shouldn't we cut Kristen Stewart a break since there's a good chance we would have been bored presenting at this show too?

Did it occur to anyone that it could have just been nerves?

Can you believe I'm defending Kristen Stewart?

Is it wrong that I laughed at MacFarlane's joke about Rex Reed reviewing Adele's performance?

Did it top his other one about John Wilkes Booth being the only actor to really get inside Lincoln's head?

Isn't that song from Chasing Ice great?

Wasn't it a missed opportunity not having Scarlett Johansson there performing it?

Charlize Theron and Quentin Tarantino...neighbors?

Since the Affleck snub, did everyone's chances for correctly guessing Best Director go up in smoke?

Isn't Jennifer Lawrence's maniacal laugh in the diner scene awesome?

Could they have possibly picked a better clip?

After that fall, should she also get an Oscar for stuntwork?

Wasn't her reaction just further proof of how cool and self-depricating she is?

What does it say about how much of a lock Daniel-Day Lewis was that Meryl Streep didn't even need to open the envelope?

Can you believe that massive spoiler clip they showed for Flight?

Isn't it always great to see Jack Nicholson at the Oscars?

Doesn't The First Lady deserve a lot credit for agreeing to do this and doing it well?

Could you actually picture Nancy Reagan announcing Platoon as Best Picture in '87?

Wouldn't this make for a fun project of matching previous First Ladies with coinciding Best Picture winners of their terms?

Given how much the Obamas have publicly been supporting Beasts of the Southern Wild, weren't you a little concerned before Michelle opened that envelope?

How cool was it that Ben Aflleck thanked the director of Gigli, in his speech?

How many people picked up on it?

And who ever thought Affleck would get to the point where that would happen?

With that win (and beard) has he now fully completed his transformation into the new George Clooney?

Was being snubbed for Best Director the best thing that could have ever happened to him?

Will the media have their knives sharpened for MacFarlane?

Was the whole night him trying to find a balance between crude humor and song-and-dance routines?

Sometimes successfully, sometimes not?

Am I wrong in thinking there's way too much Broadway-style theatrics for a show supposedly honoring movies?

Even though it didn't come anywhere close to being the longest show in the Academy's history, didn't it kind of feel that way?

Wasn't that a strange show?

So, who's hosting the Oscars next year?

2013 Oscar Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:01:00 +0000

Below are my predictions for the 85th Annual Academy Awards (oops, I meant "THE OSCARS"). If you caught my recent Oscar preview appearance on Dennis Has a Podcast you already have some idea as to which way I'm leaning in the major categories, but there's a good chance I'll still be fiddling with many of these picks right up until the last moment. If I could have one wish for the night it would be that Silver Linings Playbook pulls a Crash and shockingly beats frontrunner Argo for Best Picture, as unlikely as that seems at this point. And as far as potential disappointments, they wouldn't get much bigger than the deserving Jennifer Lawrence somehow not walking away with Best Actress. It's tough remembering when we've had a race where so many categories were still up in there and the possibility for major upsets this great. If that, a wildcard host, and the fact we have the highest grossing slate of Best Picture nominees of all-time, can't translate into an entertaining, highly rated broadcast, then the Oscars have far bigger problems than we originally thought. This is one to watch for sure.

*Predicted Winners

Best Picture
"Beasts of the Southern Wild"
"Silver Linings Playbook"
"Zero Dark Thirty"
"Lincoln"
"Les Miserables"
"Life of Pi"
"Amour"
"Django Unchained"
"Argo"

Directing
David O. Russell - "Silver Linings Playbook"
Ang Lee - "Life of Pi"
Steven Spielberg - "Lincoln"
Michael Haneke - "Amour"
Benh Zeitlin - "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Actor in a Leading Role
Daniel Day-Lewis - "Lincoln"
Denzel Washington - "Flight"
Hugh Jackman - "Les Miserables"
Bradley Cooper - "Silver Linings Playbook"
Joaquin Phoenix - "The Master"

Actor in a Supporting Role
Christoph Waltz - "Django Unchained"
Philip Seymour Hoffman - "The Master"
Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook"
Alan Arkin - "Argo"
Tommy Lee Jones - "Lincoln"

Actress in a Leading Role
Naomi Watts - "The Impossible"
Jessica Chastain - "Zero Dark Thirty"
Jennifer Lawrence - "Silver Linings Playbook"
Emmanuelle Riva - "Amour"
Quvenzhane Wallis - "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Actress in a Supporting Role
Sally Field - "Lincoln"
Anne Hathaway - "Les Miserables"
Jacki Weaver - "Silver Linings Playbook"
Helen Hunt - "The Sessions"
Amy Adams - "The Master"

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
"Argo" - screenplay by Chris Terrio
"Beasts of the Southern Wild" - screenplay by Lucy Alibar and Benh Zeitlin
"Life of Pi" - screenplay by David Magee
"Lincoln" - screenplay by Tony Kushner
"Silver Linings Playbook" - screenplay by David O. Russell

Writing (Original Screenplay)
"Amour" - written by Michael Haneke
"Django Unchained" - written by Quentin Tarantino
"Flight" - written by John Gatins
"Moonrise Kingdom" - written by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola
"Zero Dark Thirty" - written by Mark Boal

Animated Feature Film
"Brave" - Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman
"FrankenWeenie" - Tim Burton
"Paranorman" - Sam Fell and Chris Butler
"The Pirates! Band of Misfits" - Peter Lord
"Wreck-it Ralph" - Rich Moore

Cinematography
"Anna Karenina" - Seamus McGarvey
"Django Unchained" - Robert Richardson
"Life of Pi" - Robert Richardson
"Lincoln" - Janusz Kaminski
"Skyfall" - Roger Deakins

Costume Design
"Anna Karenina" - Jacqueline Durran
"Les Miserables" - Paco Delgado
"Lincoln" - Joanna Johnston
"Mirror Mirror" - Eiko Oshioka
"Snow White and the Huntsman" - Colleen Atwood

Documentary (Feature)
"5 Broken Cameras" - Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi
"The Gatekeepers" - Dror Moreh, Philippa Kowarsky and Estelle Fialon
"How To Survive A Plague" - David France and Howard Gertler
"The Invisible War" - Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering
"Searching For Sugar Man" - Malik Bendjelloul and Simon Chinn

Documentary (Short Subject)
"Inocente" - Sean Fine and Andrea Nix Fine
"Kings Point" - Sari Gilman and Jedd Wider
"Mondays at Racine" - Cynthia Wade and Robin Honan
"Open Heart" - Kief Davidson and Cori Shepherd Stern
"Redemption" - Jon Alpert and Matthew O'Neill

Film Editing
"Argo" - William Goldenberg
"Life of Pi" - Tim Squyres
"Lincoln" - Michael Kahn
"Silver Linings Playbook" - Jay Cassidy and Crispin Struthers
"Zero Dark Thirty" - Dylan Tichenor and William Goldenberg

Foreign Language Film
"Amour" (Austria)
"Kon-tiki" (Norway)
"No" (Chile)
"A Royal Affair" (Denmark)
"War Witch" (Canada)

Makeup
"Hitchcock" - Howard Berger, Peter Montagna and Martin Samuel
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" - Peter Swords King, Rick Findlater and Tami Lane
"Les Miserables" - Lisa Westcott and Julie Dartnell

Music (Original Score)
"Anna Karenina" - Dario Marianelli
"Argo" - Alexandre Desplat
"Life of Pi" - Mychael Danna
"Lincoln" - John Williams
"Skyfall" - Thomas Newman

Music (Original Song)
"Before My Time" from "Chasing Ice" - music and lyric by J. Ralph
"Everybody Needs A Best Friend" from "Ted" - music by Walter Murphy, lyric by Seth MacFarlane
"Pi's Lullaby" from "Life of Pi" - music by Mychael Danna, lyric by Bombay Jayashri
"Skyfall" from "Skyfall" - music and lyric by Adele Adkins and Paul Epworth
"Suddenly" - "Les Miserables" - music by Claude-Michel Schonbergm, lyric by Herbert Kretzmer and Alain Boublil

Production Design
"Anna Karenina" - Production Design: Sarah Greenwood, Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" - Production Design: Dan Hennah, Set Decoration: Ra Vincent and Simon Bright
"Les Miserables" - Production Design: Eve Stewart, Set Decoration: Anna Lynch-Robinson
"Life of Pi" - Production Design: David Gropman, Set Decoration: Anna Pinnock
"Lincoln" - Production Design: Rick Carter, Set Decoration: Jim Erickson

Short Film (Animated)
"Adam and Dog" - Minkyu Lee
Fresh Guacamole" - PES
"Head Over Heels" - Timothy Reckart and Fodhla Cronin O'Reilly
"Maggie Simpson in 'The Longest Daycare'" - David Silverman
"Paperman" - John Kahrs

Short Film (Live Action)
"Asad" - Bryan Buckley and Mino Jarjoura
"Buzkashi Boys" - Sam French and Ariel Nasr
"Curfew" - Shawn Christensen
"Death of a Shadow (Dood van een Schaduw) - Tom van Avermaet and Ellen De Waele
"Henry" - Yan England

Sound Editing
"Argo" - Erik Aadahl and Ethan van der Ryn
"Django Unchained" - Wylie Stateman
"Life of Pi" - Eugene Gearty and Philip Stockton
"Skyfall" - Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers
"Zero Dark Thirty" - Paul N.J. Ottosson

Sound Mixing
"Argo" - John Reitz, Gregg Rudloff and Jose Antonio Garcia
"Les Miserables" - Andy Nelson, Mark Paterson and Simon Hayes
"Life of Pi" - Ron Bartlett, D.M. Hemphill and Drew Kunin
"Lincoln" - Andy Nelson, Gary Rydstrom and Ronald Judkins
"Skyfall" - Scott Millan, Greg P. Russell and Stuart Wilson

Visual Effects
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" - Joe Letteri, Eric Saindon, David Clayton and R. Christopher White
"Life of Pi" - Bill Westenhofer, Guillaume Rocheron, Erik-Jan De Boer and Donald R. Elliott
"The Avengers" - Janek Sirrs, Jeff White, Guy Williams and Dan Sudick
"Prometheus" - Richard Stammers, Trevor Wood, Charley Henley and Martin Hill
"Snow White and the Huntsman" - Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, Philip Brennan, Neil Corbould and Michael Dawson

Dennis Has a Podcast: 2013 Oscars Preview (with Jeremy The Critic)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:02:00 +0000

After almost a year absence I returned as a guest to my good friend Dennis' fantastic Dennis Has A Podcast (great logo by the way!) and discussed all things Oscar. We previewed the big show tomorrow, offered up our predictions, talked about what we hope to expect, and still found time to cover some other fun stuff too. As always, it was a blast. Plus, you get to listen to me rant about why Silver Linings Playbook deserves to win Best Picture. What's not to like?

Click here to listen

And don't forget to check out other episodes of DHAP on iTunes, TuneIn, and Stitcher, like him on Facebook, and follow him on Twitter.

Ranking The Alternative Best Picture Oscar Posters (Worst to First)

noreply@blogger.com (jeremythecritic) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:56:00 +0000

Well, this was a surprise. In what might be the coolest, hippest thing the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have done in years (admittedly not saying much I know), they've teamed up with Gallery 1988 and commissioned some of today's most talented pop-culture artists to design limited addition screen prints for each of this year's nine Best Picture nominees. And it figures they're about ten times better than any of the official posters released for these films, not to mention far superior to much of what I singled out in my annual Best Posters list. While the artists achieve varying degrees of success with these prints, it's indisputable all them do a fine job capturing the spirit of these films as stylishly and simplistically as possible. If looking at these doesn't at least get you mildly interested in checking out this Sunday's nominees, it's likely nothing will. It's just a shame that none of them are for sale, unless you happened to show up at their L.A. gallery earlier in the month and grabbed one. Of course, this could change, and if it does, I know exactly which print I'm picking up. Remember, I'm ranking the posters, not the nominees (though you couldn't be blamed for being slightly suspicious when I get to a certain selection). So, here they are, along with my comments on each.

9. Lincoln by Jeff Boyes
To be totally honest, there's not much you can do with Lincoln. That said, Boyes does about as good a job as could have been expected given the circumstances. Does it look nice? Yes. Would I hang it on my wall? Probably not. In fact, this might be the only case where I slightly prefer the original theatrical one-sheet (albeit slightly). The two-faced red and blue is a nice touch though, giving the image of our 16th President a complexity many still claim the film lacks.

8. Les Miserables by Phantom City Creative
Another tough one. The possibilities aren't exactly endless when you're handed the task of designing a poster for Les Mis. Or maybe they' are since there's so much going on and so many characters it's a chore deciding what exactly to represent. Taking the path of extreme minimalism was the right choice. The blood, eyes and flag is a cool design for sure. It grows on me the more I look at it.

7. Amour by Matt Owen
I have a feeling that when I eventually see Amour my appreciation for this will probably grow considerably. Hardly knowing much about the film, I still kind of really like what Owen did here. It looks like a cross between a Wes Anderson DVD cover and a painting you'd find hanging in someone's study. There's something that's just beautifully simplistic about it. And don't underestimate the difficulty of having to design a poster for an over 2-hour foreign film centering around an elderly woman's death.

6. Argo by Anthony Petrie
If nothing else, this addresses all those pesky complaints about Argo downplaying Canada's involvement in the rescue mission. Between the three flags, the shredded paper and the really neat shadowy silhouettes of the escapees running through Iran (on a film strip no less!), it's definitely an eye catcher. While I still have a nagging feeling something bigger could have been done (perhaps working in the sci-fi angle), I'm perfectly fine with this classy, relatively simple image representing the year's likely Best Picture winner.

5. Django Unchained by Mark Englert
Yeah, I know. This doesn't exactly capture the "spirit" or bloodshed of Quentin Tarantino, but don't we have enough of those kinds of posters anyway? I'm actually glad they didn't take the grindhouse exploitation route and instead picked an artist whose very style is the antithesis of what Tarantino's work represents. That contrast makes for an unforgettable print. This could be an alternate poster for a classic western like The Searchers or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and while it's kind of a misrepresentation of the movie, you can't tell me it isn't an incredible piece of landscape art that would look good on any wall.

4. Life of Pi by Tom Whalen
Upon first laying eyes on this I really didn't care for it at all, but upon closer inspection it starts to become clear what Whalen was going for. And once you're on board (no pun intended) with that, then it's hard to stop staring at it. Here's another one where my appreciation for the details in the print would probably increase dramatically once I've actually seen the film. But I can say with absolute certainty it would look great hanging up with its interesting color scheme and the stain-glass style design.

3. Zero Dark Thirty by Godmachine
Boy is this unusual. It almost looks like two entirely different prints combined as one. Zero Dark Thirty was always going to be a difficult movie to visually conceptualize in poster form so a lot of credit should go to the designers who found a way out by creating something that doesn't even slightly resemble a movie poster in any way, shape or form. It looks more like a splashy desktop background or wallpaper that's cut right down the middle. We even get a cloaked Maya and Bin Laden in nightglow green on the right and a re-creation of the movie's most memorable sequence on the left. I'm still not sure how it would look on a wall, but as a representation of Kathryn Bigelow's film, it's incredible.

2. Beasts of the Southern Wild by Rich Kelly
Here's another print that while not necessarily the most accurate depiction of the actual film from an marketing perspective (kind of making the movie look like a Gothic horror tale about the dangers of alcoholism), it's just too impressive a piece of abstract art to deny. So in that way it kind of does capture the film's spirit, which in a way defies description itself. I love the cluttered representation of the "Bathtub" in the middle, the barely visible Auroch behind Wink and of course that awesome reflection in the lake of he and Hushpuppy in the water. Wouldn't mind seeing this released in a variety of different colors just of curiosity, even though the green works really well.

1. Silver Linings Playbook by Joshua Budich
I've decided when and if Silver Linings Playbook loses Best Picture, I'm blaming its awful official theatrical poster, which was one of the many missteps made in unfairly marketing the best movie of the year as rom-com fluff. Luckily, those misconceptions have since been squashed as audiences are just recently discovering how powerful it really is, with its chances of a shocking upset on Sunday at least better than decent. Mental illness, running, romance, foootball, gambling, ballroom dancing. It's woven into an unforgettable tapestry in writer/director David O. Russell's comic masterpiece. And it's all captured in Joshua Budich's magnificent print which, as far as I'm concerned, stands as the film's true OFFICIAL poster.

Aside from the absolutely astounding comic-style artwork, just look at the details! The expressions on Robert DeNiro and Jacki Weaver's faces. The Eagle wings. The book thrown out the window. And Budich deserves major kudos for knowing just the right line to scribble at the bottom, quoting DeNiro's chill-inducing speech at the end of the film. And who would have thought we'd ever be this happy to see Chris Tucker? I'll cop to some bias since it's my favorite film of the year designed by my favorite poster artist, but the work here really does speak for itself. If I could envision the quintessential SLP print, it would still fall short of this, as the most inventive Best Picture nominee is now deservedly rewarded with the most creative poster.