The Daunting task of the dark campaign

So I just stumbled across this website the other day by chance. www.thedarkcampaign.com is the official website of the unofficial grassroots campaign dedicated to getting The Dark Knight a win for best picture at the 2009 academy awards. If you're like me you might be asking yourself how could the "votes" of tons of online campaigners hold any weight with the same committee who in 2007 handed out acting awards to people whose names most Americans couldn't even pronounce, let alone had ever heard of?

The academy awards in case you didn't know have very little to do with audiences as they do with the votes of elite members who have earned their spot in the snobbery.. I mean..sophistication of deciding who is the best of the best. The Dark Knight has the deck stacked against it already in that it is a comic book movie, and the city in which the awards take place, already named WALL.E the best movie of the year. I'm still not convinced it should be in the category of best 5 of the year, but I can at least appreciate the efforts of a few idealistic cinephiles out there who want to see oscar history. I would think that if the Academy wants to continue to have the annual celebration televised, they would do well to listen to the pleas of such fans. The last few years, the show has boasted some of the lowest viewer ratings in history. Last year was an all time low when the majority of the films nominated made very little impact on box office sales. Something tells me that if even if the show sunk as low as to have ABC drop the historic program, the Academy would still find a way to pat themselves on the back in private and still do the show.

Picture with me if you will, an oscar show with at least 3 of the best picture nominess being DK, WALL.E, and Benjamin Button. Right there you have a show that promises potential big star nominations and the celebration of movies that millions of people paid money to see. The Dark Knight may or may not be deserving of the nomination, but I have to admit that the mere watchability of a show like that definitely peaks my interest more than watching people glorify something like Soderbergh's 4 1/2 hour biopic Che.

Whether or not you loved the film, you should defintely check out thedarkcampaign.com Note some of the critics' quotes on the trailer and how ridiculous some of them sound. This alone might make you believe that the creators of the site may be shooting for the moon.

‘Tis the Season..for Joy/Frustration

It’s that time of year again in which masses of movie critics will roll out their “self-appraised” top 10 lists. I have to admit that this time of year always fills me with at least a formidable amount of excitement. It’s always interesting to see what films make everyone’s list, which ones everyone has been talking about, and which ones they would most like to forget at year’s end. In recent years however, this annual occurrence has filled me with equal parts joy and frustration. Think about this: Does it not seem a tad bit pretentious to dogmatically list the so-called “best” of 2008 as if said critic’s opinion is the final answer on any question that presumes to answer what the best films truly are? I think part of my concern with turning movie criticism into such a science comes out full force when the “best-of” lists come out ever year. The problem with ranking 10 films is that you inevitably leave truly great films on the cutting room floor. Great films and their filmmakers should be celebrated, and sadly, top 10 lists seem to glorify more and more predictably each year, the same type of movie.

I have heard it said for example, by more than one critic this year that this was a bad year for cinema. This air of pomp and stuffiness is usually offered as an explanation of why such a critic felt it necessary to litter his/her top 10 lists with films that premiered in 2007.(i.e. Paranoid Park, Snow Angels, etc.) While it is safe to say that I shared an equal affinity for films like these, I would add that what some critics may think was a bad year for “cinema” was actually a great year for movies. This year was the first in a long time in which an animated movie literally made me stand up and cheer, more than one comic book movie captivated me with every frame, and seemingly formulaic plots filled me with intrigue and excitement (for this last point see Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire in order to really understand what I’m talking about.) What the awards season has shown us for the majority of the last decade is that there has been an ever-increasing chasm in the movie industry between the highest form of cinema and genuine popcorn blockbusters. Since the Coen Brothers’ Fargo in 1996, there has been at least one or more independent film nominated for best picture every year. While I have been excited as anyone with a genuine love for movies with the trend, I have to admit that I do miss films that are loved by audiences and critics alike. Gone are the Forrest Gump’s and Shawshanks of our day that touch a fabric in virtually every audience, critic and casual alike. I guess what I’m saying is that when the filmmakers who lash out against formula make films that in and of themselves are formulaic, what are they really trying to prove? And what is the academy trying to prove by nominating them? Think back upon 2005 in which virtually every oscar nominated best picture was highly political and/or completely non-commercial in virtually every way. I’m not saying that this is entirely bad, but what I am saying is that it is starting to leave some annoying marks on the movie industry.

I wonder if we have come to a point in which winning an award is the end all of a filmmakers’ career. What the awards season has shown us is simple. Hold off the release of your film until November or December and you will be most likely get nominated. Every Golden Globe nominee for best picture this year was for a film that was released in November or December, some of which weren’t even in wide release at the time of their nominations. The problem with this is that it smacks of formula. After seeing Clint Eastwood’s Changeling this year, I am absolutely convinced that the man has an oscar algorithm in his notes. Just put some actors in front of a camera and make them talk about things that no one wants to pay 8 dollars to hear about. You know, mass murder, child abduction, pedophilia, etc. Don’t let anyone see your film until a couple months before release, and you might have a chance of brining home the statuette. I recently heard that the release of the adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road had been delayed until 2009. Apparently post-production was taking much longer than expected. The delays have been so lengthy that director John Hillcoat was actually considering holding the film until next November. For those of you keeping score, this is nearly one year after the original release date. And why such a delay for a film that will be long finished before then? Why, for Oscars of course.

So why should this concern you and me as a movie lovers? Well, I guess in all actuality we shouldn’t lose that much sleep over it, but when we the people make our top 10 lists, lets try to do what so often the award shows fail to. Let’s celebrate really good films and the people who make them. This year boasted many such films, domestic and foreign. Hopefully, this will be the year in which the Oscars overlook the “formula” for more “unconventional” stories. Like a little robot with big ambitions for example… In a few weeks I will add my small and insignificant voice to the masses, and I will sit back and reflect upon the 10 “best” of the year for me. They will be 10 films that stuck out the most, and left the deepest impression upon me in 2008. I will not even begin to try to rank them, but I hope that in the process I will be able to celebrate good movies, people who love them, and introduce at least someone out there to a new favorite film.


Until then, here are at least two that are in the running that you might not have seen yet.

Gus Van Sant’s Paranoid Park- 4/5 – A high school student is involved in the accidental murder of a security guard at the skate park. After the incident he chooses to tell no one and then tries to deal with the consequences. Extremely interesting, and directed with great flair. Serves as interesting counterpart to Van Sant’s other more conventional ’08 biopic Milk.

Chop Shop¬ – 4/5 – tells the story of 2 kids living in the salvage yard streets of Queens, and their own journey to find hope and stability. Brilliant direction, and incredibly moving performances.

Break out the egg nog..it's holiday movie time.

Every year it seems like the Christmas season starts a little earlier than it did the year before. Retailers begin rolling out the red carpet for shoppers just about as fast as they pack away all the Halloween candy and costumes. Ever gone into Wal-Mart on November 1st? Halloween is like the dirty secret that never happened, and this year the twenty foot Christmas tree and bell ringers greeted me undoubtedly a few hours after the fall decorations had been taken down. Hollywood is no different, and each year you can bet that a slue of holiday movies will hit the box-office with little or no fanfare to support them. Much like their corporate counterparts, these films are here one day, and gone the next, and chances are, you won’t remember most of what happened in them. Perhaps this is the reason I staved off the chore of seeing Four Christmases until mid-December despite its Thanksgiving release. I knew it was one of those films that I would inevitably end up writing about, and correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Vince Vaughan’s Fred Clause just come out on DVD? The film pits Oscar-winning Reese Witherspoon alongside Vince Vaughan for some formula-based holiday mayhem.

For quite some time now, Brad and Kate have made their annual Christmas vacation about spending time with each other, away from their unsuspecting families. This year is no different. When the young and energetic couple’s flight to Fiji is cancelled at the last minute, they are forced to spend Christmas with their families. What you need to know is that Brad and Kate have built their entire relationship upon making their own rules, and this means avoiding any type of serious commitment. It’s why they still haven’t tied the knot, and are prone to spending the holidays sipping mai tais rather than playing board games with their families. Hmmm. Seems like an hour and a half is just enough time for these characters to learn a valuable lesson about family. Oh yeah, both characters come from divorced families as well. Hence the title.

Here’s the point. If you’re a sucker for Vince Vaughan, (which I admittedly am) then go see this movie. If you’re with the fam during the holiday and trying to decide on a movie to go to, you could probably do worse. Just don’t expect to remember much of what you saw a year later. Especially if, God forbid, Vaughan stars in Fred Clause 2: The Buy-out Clause in 2009. At times you will probably laugh, but you just might glance at your watch a few times as well. I did both. The film boasts a surprisingly talented all-star cast. I won’t name names here because to do so would ruin the fun of meeting the family members yourself. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m headed off to the living room to dust off some Christmas nostalgia and put It’s a Wonderful Life into the DVD player.

2.5/5

"It's impossible....let's get to work."

On August 7th, 1974 young Frenchmen Philippe Petit went from virtual anonymity to worldwide celebrity in a matter of 30 minutes. Petit committed what came to be known as the “artistic crime of the century” when he danced across a wire he had illegally strung between the two world trade center towers. On-lookers stood agape as they marveled at the man 1,350 feet in the air appearing to float across the sky. He was truly inspired, truly brave, and almost certainly mad. James Marsh’s mesmerizing documentary Man on Wire tells the intriguing story of one man’s obsession to do something that challenges the realm of possibility. Through a combination of archival footage, dramatized re-enactments, and interviews with Petit and his crew, Marsh attempts to tell the story of how Petit was able to pull off the ultimate ‘heist' and accomplish an incredible task. The result is a film that stirs the emotions, and quickens the pulse.

Philippe Petit’s obsession with the World Trade Center towers began before they were even built. As a youngster, the story tells us that he first learned of their upcoming construction in a magazine article while waiting in a dentist’s office. There is no other explanation from this point as to what exactly drove Petit to do what he did, other than that the towers seemed to be calling him to do something magnificent. Marsh brilliantly leaves the ‘origin story’ of this character virtually absent. There is literally nothing we can point to in order to explain the veracity with which he pursued his outlandish goal. Marsh ultimately decides it is better to offer insight to this man the same way Petit responds to a reporter upon his arrest. When asked why he committed the crime, he simply answers: “There is no why”. Instead there is a zeal, a furor for living life on the edge in such a way that to die is only worth doing, if it is in the throes of something which you are passionate about. The story is as taut and thrilling as any crime caper movie. The suspense is so heightened that there are times you will literally remind yourself “It’s ok. I know he’s going to come out alive!”

Man on Wire does what few films, let alone documentaries, are able to. It plays on all of your emotions, and still leaves with you the same sense of wonder that caused all those New York passers-by to gawk upward into the sky that magical day. Ultimately, Petit is neither a hero, nor a tragic case study, but a parable. In a way in which he never probably planned, his fanciful ideals call us to look at our lives and see the possibilities that lie before us in ways we never thought possible. The film’s message, in as much as it even has one, is probably best described in the words of Petit himself. “Life should be lived on the edge. See everyday as a true challenge, and then and only then do you live your life on a tightrope.”

5/5

Just because it is doesn't mean it should be....an epic

All right, I’ll admit it. I’m a sucker for Hollywood. I say that not in my defense, but in my self-discovery. After sitting through all 160 minutes of Baz Luhrman’s sweeping epic Australia, I came to the inevitable conclusion that despite its lengthy run time, paint-by numbers plot, and unabashed melodrama, I actually enjoyed the movie. Sure I didn’t buy most of the plot for one second, but since when are we really supposed to believe all of the Technicolor glamour we’ve seen on screen for ages? In the end what did it for me was that the style and execution mostly outweighed the parts that I could have done without.

The world is on the brink of the Second great war, and the demand for beef is rising. Such are the conditions that English aristocrat Sarah Ashley finds herself in when she unexpectedly becomes heir to a cattle station in Northern Australia. When arriving in Australia, Sarah finds herself in the midst of great hardship resulting from cultural differences, and the sudden doom her company finds itself in. Soon, she befriends a young Aborigine boy, dubbed by he country’s intolerable race laws as a “half-caste”. The boy is the son of an aborigine female and a white male, and will soon be forced to a sector of the continent so that “the black may be bred out”. When Sarah discovers corruption within the business she must put her faith in a rough cattle herder known as drover. The three form an unlikely team to try to restore the name of the ranch, and are still forced to deal with the impending bombing of Darwin, Australia by the Japanese militants.

This film is a very deliberate homage to the John Ford epics of the past. Luhrman said himself that he set out to make his own Australian Gone With the Wind, and the comparisons are hard to miss . The actors seem to sparkle on screen in a kind of luster that is reminiscent of the golden age of Hollywood. Australian born Luhrman has a keen knack for visual flair that while is often-times breathtaking is still other times distracting with his over use of CGI shots. Luhrman’s camera urges us to soak up the vast Australian landscape with impeccable tracking shots. The 3-act film has so many plot points that it can be tedious to try and soak all of it in, especially considering the film is nearly 3 hours in length. It is a fantastic film to look at though, with lush cinematography and strong performances practically daring audiences to look away.

3.5/5

A word about ratings....

I recently read a brilliant article from Roger Ebert' s blog entitled "you give out too many stars". In it, Ebert goes to great length to defend his position in the terms of legendary critic Robert Warshow: "A man goes to a movie. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man." Ebert, like most of us who view several films a month ultimately do it because we love movies. I use the term movies here in its most classical sense. That is to say, all kinds of pictures. Pictures that inspire, make you laugh, cry, or invoke anger. Pictures that revel in their own campiness, or melodrama. Pictures that sell-out multiplexes for weeks straight. Pictures that are viewed often times in the arthouse theaters that seem to desperately tread water in an industry that earns its bread and butter off of formula. So why am I bringing this up now....?

It has been brought to my attention by a few of you out there who happen to read this blog, that I perhaps suffer from a different type of movie rating malaise: That of the critic/man who is impossible to please. I realize that a lot of this may be from the confusion wrought by my own rating system (needless to say, I thouroughly hate most rating systems that are out there..including my own, but I'll get to that later.) So in an effort to rectify such a perception of "film-snobbery" I would like to clarify my position as a movie fan, and my system, as cut-and-dry as it may seem to be, for trying to gauge them.

The trouble with rating movies is that it is not a science. I'm sure there are countless critics out there who will try to convince you otherwise, but something about that belief just doesn't seem fair to me. A film should best be judged out how well it does what it is supposed to do to you as a member of the audience. In this sense, a film should sweep over you, the viewer. It should in a sense, manipulate you into thinking, feeling or reacting a certain way. This makes for a very hard system of trying to pin down where a film stands in regards to others. There are obvious things to consider of course. Did the story resonate in such a way to sustain interest? Are the characters developed enough for the audience to mainain a strong connection? Are the elements of the plot, and the characters themselves consistent in their actions and themes throughout? The hard part comes in trying to put on a scale of 1 to 4 or 1 to 10 how well the film did what it was supposed to.

The reality is that as a "critic" it is never my intention to 'deconstruct' a film to the point of inviting public debate. I am nowhere near learned enough, or in possession of the adequate tools to embark on such a task. My job is to try to express as best I can, what a film did to me. This is of course highly subjective. Most films, and the reaction they incite, are. There are a few obvious exceptions. I mean come on, who's going to argue that you don't gasp when you first hear Darth Vader utter those dreadful words to Luke about their true relationship? But since most films aren't obviously good, or obviously bad, it leaves much room for differing opinion, which is just that. Opinion. Not formula.

Having said that, let me explain briefly why I have chosen the rating system I currently use. The problem with the 4 star system (as with most systems) is that I feel it leaves too much room for comprimise. There will undoubtedly be certain films that jump from being good to great, or good to bad in order to give an easy-to-read scale. All though any scale should be indeed a mere "snapshot" of the quality of the film, a 4 star-system I feel does not best show the quality of the film in relationship to others. Here is the basic run-down of what each of my stars represent.

1 - This is a movie that I practically hated sitting through. It means that I found virtually no redeeming qualities to speak of, and the film did notihng to engage me, or to keep me involved.

2 - This is a movie that I didn't like. There might have been at least a couple good scenes, or an interesting story idea that either wasn't developed enough for my liking or just didn't work well. Nevertheless, it is not a movie that I would endorse seeing.

3 - This is a movie that I liked. It probably did what it was supposed to, and I enjoyed sitting through it. It it is not necessarily a movie that I would champion, but I would still encourage seeing it.

4- This is a movie that I really liked. It was clearly more engaging than a 3, and the kind of movie that after watching it you know it your gut that it was above a 3.

5- This is a movie that I absolutely loved. It is a rare breed, like the 1 rating, because these are the two extremes that are probably the least subjective. It is a movie that possesses some of the above and beyond qualities that seperate it from any normal movie-going experience. This does not mean however, that it was a "perfect" film.

For those of you who prefer the simple endorsement/no endorsement type of rating system, I will be including a simple "stamp" of approval at the beginning of each review. It will be a symbol that I haven't decided on as of yet, but will be the most basic snapshot of what I thought. Think a smiley face or a check mark for good, and a frowny face or an "x" for bad. I would use thumbs, but in today's lawsuit happy world I'm sure I would find that those symbols are trademarked.

Just for the record,, the "good" movie would fall under the 3-5 category, with the "bad" being 1 or 2.

Its wings were crystal...Its ways were murder!

If there is one thing horror auteur Dario Argento does masterfully, it is to create a feeling that sustains and manipulates an audience throughout the course of an entire film. This is in fact, what all of the truly brilliant horror/suspense films do well. One need look no further than John Carpenter's Halloween, Hitchcock's Vertigo, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, the original vampire film Nosferatu, or Argento's other seminal horror flick Suspira. Like these films, Argento's The Bird with the Crystal Plumage owes much of its success to a kind of visceral intensity that plays the audience like a piano. in Argento's case, it is not necessarily taut story-telling, or intriguing characters that mark him as a director. Rather, it is telling a story that is disorientating not so much in form, but in style.

Sam Dalmas is an American writer who has been lving in Rome for quite some time. He and his model girfriend are all set to return home when Sam witnesses something that will dramatically change the course of events for the next few weeks. While walking by a museum late one night Sam notices a struggle within. He realizes that he is witnessing a woman being attacked by an assailent dressed entirely in black. Sam tries to help, but finds himself stuck between two giant mechanical glass windows. the attack ends with the woman lying bleeding on the floor, as the attacker is able to cleanly make a getaway. The authorities, realizing that Sam is the lone witness to the attack, and a vital part of the ensuing investigation, confiscate his passport, preventing him from leaving the country. What slowly pulls the audience into the plot is the fact that Sam becomes obssessed with the idea that he saw something that night that he can't fully explain. It's a haunting realizition that somehow the vital piece of evidence to the case is alluding him, while all the while there like a splinter in his mind. He knows that he knows something yet he doesn't fully know what he thinks he knows. whew!

Argento has been dubbed the "Italian Hitchcock" and it's hard to miss the comparisons in this film. Both directors use all the tauted tricks in their aresenal to keep the audience always at bay, yet thouroughly intrigued. The audience witnessess the crime right along with Sam. We know just as much as he knows, yet throuhgout the course of the film we find ourselves questioning just what it is that we think we saw, and how to best intrepret it. Our theories change, we start to doubt, we start to believe, and ultimately try to understand what it is that is happening. Everything we try to analyze comes from the only means by which the main character has to work with: his memory. There are virtually no flash-backs, no other witnesses but us. This is powerful filmmaking. The one noticeable difference between the two directors is that the acting in the vast majority of Hitch's films are far superior to that of Plumage. Argento almost gets away with it though, by creating a dizzying style of story-telling that is rarely surpassed anywhere else on screen. An interesting film to say the least. Definitely one worth checking out.

3.5/5

These next few posts are long overdue, and for the 1 or 2 of you who might care..I do apologize. If you find yourself bloated and hungover from turkey saturation this weekend, then you should perhaps consider curling up on the couch with family and friends to enjoy....blood...madness...mayhem..Ok, so admittedly the horror genre dosen't evoke feelings of holiday warmth, but nevertheless It's never too late to catch up on your knowledge of horror.

And They Call it Vampire Love...

If you aren’t familiar with the popular Twilight book series that has just spawned a major motion picture then don’t feel left out. I hadn’t even heard of it until a few months back. This was weeks before the last installment of author Stephenie Meyer’s romance stories about teenage vampires was slated to hit bookstores, and talk of the soon-to-be movie was in the air. What you need to know is that the stories have struck a huge chord with an enormous fan-base that has rivaled, if not matched the success of the immensely popular Harry Potter series. The film however, is probably easily forgettable if you are not a fan of the book.

Things aren’t exactly going well for Bella Swan. When her mother decides to move to Florida with her new husband, Bella relocates to live with her father in the small dreary town of Forks, Washington. Adjusting to her “new kid in town” status, Bella tries to cope with being the girl in school who has always known she is different. Then she meets a boy unlike any she has ever met before. The stunningly beautiful Edward Cullen possesses a kind of mystery and danger that almost immediately attracts her to him. Edward is everything that a young girl who claims, “she would die for someone she loves” can toil over, even if his character’s James Dean locks look somewhat absurd atop his clown-faced white skin. It doesn’t take long for Bella to find herself swept away in the intrigue of Edward’s strange behavior and super-natural powers. Bella does what any modern-day teenage heroine would do in this situation, she “googles” the symptoms, only to find that Edward is indeed a true blue vampire. Soon, the two are caught up in an unorthodox romance that will compromise not only Edward’s secret, but Bella’s very own life as well.

If you are under the impression that this is a film about vampires then guess again. It relies almost entirely upon the believability of the romance between the two main characters. It’s not so much about dread or gore, but about the chemistry these two possess on-screen when the sparks start to fly. In fact, the vampire plot-seems to be tacked on almost after the fact of what would otherwise be an incredibly droll teen romance story. In a kind of 21st century consumer culture commentary, the youthful vampires in this picture are driven by what can perhaps be described as pure unbridled lust. The sexual overtones are obvious, but the theme is surprisingly wholesome as well. It’s ultimately a story about two kids who want to consummate their desires, but can’t “lose control” in the words of Edward, or they will both regret it. You see, the mere scent of a human’s blood is enough to send the most self-controlled of vampires into an uncontrollable feeding frenzy, and if Edward were to become too intimate with Bella, he might be tempted to sink his teeth into just a little, and not be able to stop. Bella, as you can probably guess, finds this extremely attractive. Thus the abstinence message is snuck in through the back door on millions of unsuspecting teens lining up to watch this movie.

The bottom line is that this film is poorly acted, and ill contrived in its execution throughout the majority. The target audience however- 16 year old girls, will absolutely love it. It will fail to resonate however, for virtually any other demographic. While having never read the books I could tell that there were indeed some interesting themes in the film that probably deserve to be explored in the written form at greater detail. Twilight will make a lot of money. It will spawn sequels, and break box-office records. It will do all of this, I suspect before the majority of its fan-base will even have time to decide whether or not the book was better. By that time there will be few people left who are unfamiliar with this story.

2.5/5

Bond..perhaps not the way you remember him

Quantam of Solace, if not remembered for being perhaps the most oddly titled James Bond movie in history, will undoubtedly be noted as the departure of the Bond character we have come to know throughout the course of 22 films. The 21st century “blonde bond” finds himself a far cry from the womanizing, boozing, double O agent most of us remember. Instead we find a bond who is conflicted, walking the tightrope between vengeance and justice blindly, leaving his martini “shaken, not stirred” for…gasp. Draft beer! It’s a character that makes screenwriter Paul Haggis appear as though he is trying to ride the wave of success formulated by such recent characters as Jason Bourne and Bruce Wayne. It’s not nearly as good as the previous installment Casino Royale, but it’s a chapter that will fit entertainingly into the impressive James Bond canon.

Picking up immediately where the last film left off, James bond is tormented by the betrayal and death of his former lover. Trying not to let the event make his next mission a personal one, Bond sets out to uncover the truth behind a dangerous organization that is willing to use blackmail and extortion to outwit the MI6 agency. Bond travels to Haiti where he meets the lovely Camille, and stumbles across a ruthless businessman named Dominic Greene, who is known only as a ringleader in the dangerous crime organization “Quantam”. Soon the truth about Greene and his plans to hoard one of the earth’s most valuable resources is uncovered. Along the way, Bond’s character will be tested, and his future in the agency will be put in jeopardy.

The film moves along at a brisk pace with plenty of familiar looking car chases and hand-to-hand combat scenes. The action here is nothing new, and is nowhere near as breathtaking as some of the elaborate sequences explored in Casino Royale. The real gimmick this time around is about the inner turmoil of Bond’s psyche. He is an agent tormented by revenge, and the murky pool of his own squalid emotions. It’s territory that has virtually been unexplored in Bond films until now, and is admittedly not always as fun to watch as the schmoozing debonair of the James Bonds’ before him. The sultry Daniel Craig reprises his role here, and ladies will be pleased to know that he does not disappoint. Using the less is more take on the character, Bond is an enigma with little to say but clearly much to be explored in coming installments. The reviews for the film are already mixed, and time may only reveal that I am in the minority of people who had a good time watching it. It may be that I am a sucker for Hollywood, or that my irresistible man crush on Daniel Craig is clouding my judgment, but this bond, all though nothing like the ones before it, makes me curious to see how this character will continue to develop.

3/5

Madagascar 2 boasts stellar cast with charming characters

Diversity. Comraderie. Forgiveness. Take these not-too-deep meta-themes, a handful of scheming monkeys, crisp animation with memorable characters and you have the formula for another one of Dreamworks pictures’ animated feature films. It may also be a subtle reminder of why their counterpart Pixar still leads the way in terms of innovative and ground-breaking childrens’ movies.

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa is a funnier, more crisply animated version of the 2005 original. This film boasts a tighter story-line and a stellar cast of voices that beef up the entertainment level for the second time around, giving something for adults to enjoy too.
4 Animal friends are on their way back home to the Central Park Zoo when their plane crash lands in the remote African desert. Much to the gang’s wonder and amazement, they soon meet other members of their species for the first time. Africa soon becomes a place of enchanted excitement, but that soon begins to unravel when they find themselves a bit to unfamiliar with their surroundings.

If you’re considering taking the kids to see this movie and you need a perk for your interests as well, then consider these names for starters: Ben Stiller, David Schwimmer, Chris Rock, Jada-Pinkett Smith, Bernie Mac, Alec Baldwin, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Cedric the Entertainer round out the extremely talented cast with jokes that often are geared towards the adults without being too offensive for the kids. Although it’s not nearly as good as the summer hit WALL.E, (if you or your kids haven’t seen WALL.E yet, do yourself a favor and rent it when it comes out on DVD in a couple weeks. It’s the Citizen Kane of animated movies. Trust me, it’s that good.) It’s still a sweet enough story with just the right amount of laugh-out-loud moments to make you somewhat forget you’re at a kids movie.

3/5

Alert the Academy...

The opening title frames of Clint Eastwood’s new crime drama Changeling reveal to the audience that what we are about to see is indeed “a true story”. It’s the kind of blatant preface that makes you feel as though Eastwood is telling us this up front because it’s the only way we are going to believe one second of the story we are about to hear. Seasoned actor and now lucrative director Clint Eastwood delivers his newest searing drama that is often times very enthralling but ultimately panders to the critics who will choose this year’s oscar winners.

Changeling, inspired by actual events taking place in 1920’s LA tells the story of single-mother Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) whose life is forever changed when her young son is abducted. When the LAPD assumedly retrieves the wrong boy and returns him to Collins, she begins to suspect that she is the victim of a scheme to cover up the city officials’ ineptitude in solving the case. In a turn of events reminiscent of the Twilight Zone, virtually every person in uniform Collins tries to get to help her convinces her that she is the victim of post- traumatic stress. The plot thickens when Collins is forcibly sent to a mental health hospital and a ranch containing the bodies of 20 young boys is unearthed. The film preys heavily on audience’s emotions, in fact it does so much that its tactics begin to wear thin about half-way through the film.

Changeling is beautifully photographed and fairly well acted. Jolie is strong in the lead, and John Malkovich offers a somewhat riveting performance as a local pastor who comes to Collins’ aide by speaking out against injustice and political corruption. The film is so formulaic and melo-dramatic however, that it is ultimately nothing more than an exercise in creating a film that desperately tries to garner itself with accolade. It is a story that is indeed unbelievable but perhaps a snapshot of life in the pre-DNA age, where the instant verification of the relationship between mother and said son would be undeniable. Its faults aren’t so much numerous as they are glaringly obvious. Powerful scenes linger within the epic scope that the film tries to inhabit.

2.5/5

On the 8th day God created bees...

If you are looking for a stark realistic picture of the civil rights struggle in the 60’s, you won’t find it in The Secret Life of Bees. I’m sure that won’t matter to fans of the Oprah’s book club best-seller though. The heart of the story is about the universal life lessons of hope and friendship, and it translates here on screen in all of its artificially sweetened sappiness. The film boasts an impressive ensemble of actors led by Queen Latifah, and the young and budding talent Dakota Fanning. The film’s characters often times float just above the story in a kind of parable-like fashion rather than really asking you to believe them (especially Latifah’s), but fairly strong performances with a clear and emotionally heavy-hitting story-line make this film a powerful lesson for the whole family.

Lily Owens is a young girl tormented by her mother’s accidental death. Life on her abusive father’s peach farm doesn’t lessen the pain either, as Lily searches for the truth regarding her mother’s real character. When Lily skips town with her caregiver Rosaleen (Jennifer Hudson) she escapes the world of abuse in search of a town that may give her clues to her mother’s true identity. Lily soon finds herself in the company of the wealthy and intelligent Boatwright sisters, whose family owned honey-making business is a gate-way to a new and unexplored world for Lily. When two starkly different lives collide, Lily will learn more than she bargained for about life, love, and bees.

There is nothing truly remarkable going on here, nor even memorable for that matter. For 2 hrs though, some audiences will scoff at the sugar-coated world that the film portrays, while some will sing its praises by letting it do exactly what its intended to do: Allow us to escape with characters that we care about, and principles that we try to stand for.

3/5

The horror....the horror...

It's time for the newest movie minute marathon. What better to celebrate the changing of leaves, the longer nights, the inevitable approach of trick-or-treaters soon to be at our door, than with a batch of gruesome and grisly horror movies.

You may or may not be familiar with the fact that the 70's marks the birth of a new kind of on-screen teenager in american cinema. I'm talking about the kind of teenager that is arguably the best kind of all. A set-up, a plot device, for gore and mayhem. The 70's saw more teenagers slain on screen from telikinetic 'she-devils', masked knife wielding lunatics, and mutant flesh-eating zombies than from all war movies combined.

The 70's however, also brought some interesting horror aueters from around the world that are worth noting as well. This marathon will focus on 70's horror from around the world, some well known, others not so much. The line-up is as follows:

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage - (Italy) - Dario Argento
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - (US) - Tobe Hooper
The Wicker Man - (GB) - Robin Hardy
Don't Look Now - (G.B./Italy) - Nicolas Roeg
Dawn of the Dead - (US) - George A. Romero

Let the gore begin!

no it's not late night on cinemax..it's the latest from ridley scott...Body of Lies

With the height of the political season upon us, it is hard to believe that a film dealing primarily with the role of US operatives in the war on terror could hardly function as “escapist” entertainment for millions of Americans. Perhaps that is what makes Body of Lies, from esteemed blockbuster director Ridley Scott so enjoyable. It manages to do what recent Iraq war themed movies left behind in the box-office dust have failed to do so miserably: To say something about the plight of war without being overly preachy. Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe star in this popcorn action thriller that is very entertaining despite stretching the limits of believability.

Roger Ferris (DiCaprio) is a covert CIA operative who has been sent to seek out and destroy a ring of terrorists responsible for the bombing of civilians. With the help of his boss back in Langley (Crowe), he devises a plan to infiltrate the network of terrorist mastermind Al-Saleem. Crowe, overweight and grey-haired in this movie, is seen back home thousands of miles away with an ear-mounted device almost permanently planted into his head, feeding instructions to his co-worker. He spouts out rhetoric regarding the harsh nature of their work ("which side of the cross are you on kid? I need nailers not hangers.") interjected by directions for his kids to help with the groceries or aim for the toilet, not the floor. Ferris also enlists the help of Chief of Jordanian intelligence, Hani Salaam. Soon the three main players develop operations that create a web of deception that makes stopping the true forces of evil a mix-up of right and wrong.

The film's biggest flaws come from the elements it doesn’t need. Despite Crowe and DiCaprio both being seasoned actors, they seem to be phoning in elements that neither of their respective characters actually demand. Can anyone tell me why Leo has a phony southern accent in this movie? And someone really ought to tell Crowe that they don’t just hand out Oscars for putting on 30 pounds, you actually have to be somewhat memorable on screen as well. Just ask DeNiro. The love interest for DiCaprio’s character brings virtually nothing to the story, and is merely manufactured into the plot to create stakes for a finale that is somewhat predictable. The qualms are relatively few and far between though for a film that doesn’t rely on power of believability. It’s a tight script with sharp action sequences and a plot that is pushed steadily along throughout that make this film worth seeing. Even if it means dealing with subject matter that still rings loud in our ears.

3/5

For What it's worth....

So I realized recently that between working a job you hate, eating, sleeping, and trucking through the heavy-hitting political debates (tongue very much in cheek at this point), there are actually hours of entertainment one can sift one's way through (God bless you Netflix. And no this is not a paid advertisement). So if you are idly pacing the floor of your house/apartment/bungalow/communal living type quarters day in and day out feverishly stewing over the impending doom of the economy, why not try a little escapism? If you are looking for something new to rent, this is where I tell you (as if you care) what I have seen lately in hopes that, if nothing else your attention might be turned to possible entertainemnt choices. My hope is that this post will include a little something for everyone. So....here goes..

The Fall - A grownup fantasy movie from the same mysterious writer/director who brought you The Cell back in 2000. For those of you who don't remember that movie, it's the best of Jennifer Lopez' work ever devoted to celluloid. I realize that's not saying much about the movie, but it is saying something about her career. The plot of The Fall goes roughly as follows. A little girl in a hollywood hospital stumbles across a man recently injured in an accident who has become a paraplegic. The suicidal man pursuades the little girl into swiping meds from the cabinents by telling her an elaborate fairy tale that takes place in several continents. A couple reasons to see the movie:
1. Catinca Untaru - Plays the little girl Alexandria, and delivers one of the best child performances I have ever seen.
2. The movie is visually stunning - shot on location in 18 countries, and apparently contains no CGI shots.
3.5/5

La Vie En Rose - Really interesting biopic of singer Edith Piaf. The film is spetacularly lit and shot. It's the kind of tragic epic in which you know that the heroine is absolutely doomed from the moment you meet her. This is the film for which the best actress award was given to Marion Cotilliard last year at the Academy Awards, and what a performance it is. I have the feeling though, that knowing virtually nothing about this character before seeing the film helped me find her much more intriguing. Special thanks to my friend Luc for finally getting me to see this movie.
4/5

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day - Occasionally I let my wife choose what DVD moves to the top of the netflix queue and thankfully I married someone with good taste. For those guys out there who have to sacrifice a movie watching night of her choosing, you can't really go wrong with this one. Frances McDormand and Amy Adams star, and these are two actresses that I can honestly say I would be willing to watch in almost anything. Frances Mcdormand plays an English nanny who finds herself in the company of an American movie star (Adams) for a day. The exploits and love affairs ensue and the two women soon find themselves trying to (what else?) empower one another.
3/5

Forgetting Sarah Marshall - Just when you thought team Apatow couldn't manage to cram more foul mouthed twenty-somethings, gross-out humor, and plenty of male frontal nudity into one film, Jason Siegel goes and pushes the censors to the limits. Seriously. They really pushed the envelope with this one in about the first 10 minutes of the movie. Peter Bretter goes to Hawaii to try to get over his recent break-up with TV star girlfriend Sarah Marshall only to find (you can pretty much see this one coming) his ex is vacationing at the same resort, on the same island with her new beau. Mila Kunis of that 70's show (and my personal fav. the voice of Meg on Family Guy) is excellent here. For me though, most of the really long laughs came on the DVD bonus features.
3/5

Snow Angels - This film from David Gordon Green is worth seeing for a few reasons:
1. Kate Beckinsale gives a really strong performance
2. Sam Rockwell (who solidified himself as one of my favorite character actors some time ago) gives an absolute knock-out performance.
3. Cinematography and editing are amazing, both elements of the film really push the story-telling aspect a lot.
4. The fact that this film is so gritty and depressing, Makes the fact that David Gordon Green directed The Pineapple Express for his next project really intriguing.

This movie is an interesting case study in the fragility in human relationships. It also underscores the fact that sometimes the difference between the middle-class and the poor may be close in reality, but drastically affect the outcome of different people's social struggles. It's got the mosaic-like aspect we have come to see in dramas in the past few years where there's a lot of different character plots that intersect and collide by the end of the film. Not easy to watch, but fairly well crafted.
4/5

A night on the town with Nick and Norah..

"I told em to give me the ellen deGeneres haircut" - Nick (Michael Cera)

I am told that the 1950’s first marked the beginning of a new era. The rise of the “teenager” gave birth to a type of youth empowerment in America the likes of which we had never seen before. The teen has been given prominence all throughout the history of the silver screen as well. Remember James Dean in the 50’s classic Rebel Without a Cause? The brilliant portrayal of a small town high school full of disillusioned dreams in The Last Picture Show? John Hughes’ The Breakfast Club still offers the blueprint for typical high school archetypes in the films that have followed it. Which begs the question: does anyone else feel that Michael Cera would be perfectly casted as Anthony Michael Hall’s character in a Breakfast Club remake? I’ll leave it to the few of you who have never seen the movie even once out of the 10,000 times it has been on cable to do the research yourself. Fast forward to 2008 where recently I had the chance to screen the newest film of teens in their element.

Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist tells the story of a young teen searching for love against the backdrop of the indy music scene in New York City. Nick (Michael Cera) has just broken up with his main squeeze after 6 months, and needless to say is feeling a little down. With the help of his bandmates, and new-found love interest Norah (Kat Dennings), the group sets out to find a local band playing a show at an undisclosed location, and hopefully bring fulfillment to Nick and Norah’s love life.
For the most part this film plays like the bulk of the characters in it: empty, and directionless. Nick loves his girlfriend, but she just doesn’t like him like that. But then, OMG! She keeps “bumping” into him in the city with her new squeeze. Should Nick totally go back to Trish, or hook up with Norah? Yeah, that’s pretty much the whole movie. It’s kind of like Lost in Translation for kids who were only 11 when that movie came out. Except here, there are some surprisingly decent comedic actors given very little to do or say. The all too familiar territory makes it a story about a few kids who are often endearing but rarely interesting.

The film does a masterful job of portraying the times that the American teenager finds itself in. There’s so little going on in the script that the general ambivalence towards anything of social relevance is captured by these real-life twenty-somethings accurately. They are independent, sexually active, and anchored to their cell phones. The kids portrayed in this film pick and choose from a myriad of ideologies and religious beliefs to interest themselves in, while there seems to be no one thing that defines any of them. Norah says “I heard a Jewish saying once that says….” To which the response of her indy geek love interest says something to the effect of “like….totally”. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that a movie has to try to be deep to be effective. Some films wear it on their sleeve like Garden State, which this film does not try to be, save from the indy music soundtrack. At the end of the day, I just want a little something to keep me from looking at my watch every 20 minutes.

2.5/5

Coen Bros. Marathon pt. 4: Blood Simple

What do you get when you combine a jealous hitman, a cheating wife, a crime that spins way out of control, and a few murders along the way? Answer: A film that is not so "simple" to categorize (as the world first learned when the Coen brothers debuted it in 1984), but is tremendously entertaining to watch. Blood Simple is not only fascinating to watch for the formidable talent it would introduce to the world, but for being a well executed take on the thriller/crime genre it and so much of the Coens' extensive body of work owes credit to.

When we first meet Abby (a young fresh-faced Frances McDormand) there is not the slightest inkling of anything wrong with her marriage to her husband Julian Marty (Dan Hedaya). Her love affair with one of her husband's employees is about to change all of that. Her rich, jealous husband hires a private investigator (M. Emmet Walsh) to tail the two, and eventually to murder them. The double crosses ensue however, when the private eye hatches a scheme of his own.

Blood Simple was probably the funnest time I had watching any of the Coen brothers' films this past month. It's fun to see it for what it was at the time (a genuninely clever thriller, albeit a flawed one), and for what it still is. There are so many memorable scenes that are worth the price of admission alone that I am inclined to list a few:

1. M. Emmet Walsh's character sneaks into the home of an unsuspecting Abby and her lover with nail-biting suspense.

2. John Getz' character lugs an assumingly dead Julian Marty down a dark and ominous highway only to find he's not as "dead" as he thought he was.

3. The last 15 minutes of the film: vintage Coens. Masterfully executed suspense with a breath-taking closing few frames. Disclaimer: If you have a healthy fear of knives or generally pointy objects, the last few minutes may make you squirm.

The film is far from perfect, but it is clear that Blood Simple was a forerunner to so many of the Coen bros. masterpieces. Barry Sonnenfeld's cinematography is honestly distracting at times, and I found little that would seperate it from the feel of Raizing Arizona. This seemed to be counter-productive to the mood that most of Blood Simple tries to convey. Pound for pound though, this film is much too fun to be swept aside as merely average. Performances are strong and the suspense is genunine. I suspect though that having been a fan before seeing the film, it might have been just too "simple" to please me. I would like to think not...

3.5/5

St. Anna not nearly as captivating as it tries to be

One of the reasons that Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing works so well, is that it is a film that doesn’t necessarily require the type of dialogue that constantly preaches at us. Lee can implement great stretches of dialogue in which the African-American character can go to great lengths to question the Italian American character for his hypocritical view of race relations. Lee uses scenes like this not as much to heighten the tension (the film brilliantly does that without always requiring dialogue), as much as to push the story along. While it may be unfair to compare a film like Miracle at St. Anna with a film like Do the Right Thing, given the nature and history of Lee’s work it seems inevitable. Maybe that’s why in the back of my mind I thought that St. Anna had a lot to live up to, and why ultimately I was disappointed that it didn’t.

St. Anna opens up with enough deep-seeded intensity to rival any crime thriller in recent memory. A black postal employee whom the audience has met only a few frames before, unhesitatingly shoots a man standing in his line. It’s a scene that the film arguably doesn’t need and will soon get lost under the sea of far too many plot lines in the minutes to come. Nonetheless, it sets up the media’s investigation of this reclusive old man, the vastly expensive ancient Italian artifact hidden in his closet, and his story of the second world war told through the eyes of the group with whom he experienced it with: The all-black 92nd infantry division. The group soon finds themselves trapped near a small Tuscan village when one of the soldiers risks his own life to save a young Italian boy. From here the story texts many different turns, going round and round in countless directions before it finally falls haphazardly at the audience’s feet nearly 2 ½ hours later.

The biggest crime Lee commits is that the story’s central characters are much too uninteresting to spend such a significant amount of time with. The multiple plot lines meander every which way, never offering even a remotely satisfying pay-off. To be sure, the film has several great scenes to boast as well. The action sequences employ the stark realism we have come to expect in war films since Saving Private Ryan first “unglamorized” war 10 years ago. The sequences involving race issues are often-poignantly yet prophetically displayed. In the first glimpses we get of the film’s leading character he is watching an old John Wayne war film in which the Hollywood cast is predictably all white. He can be heard muttering to himself, “we fought that war too”. The film is so uneven however, that most of the messages that could speak volumes get shuffled under the mixture of over-blown plot and poor execution. St. Anna tries to be important, and while at times it calls us to change, it lacks the prophetic element that truly causes us to question.

2.5/5

Black is White….Coen Brothers Marathon pt. 3: Miller’s Crossing

Look into your heart…that’s the advice that Bernie (played by John Turturro) pleads his executioner (Gabriel Byrne) to heed, in the deep fog-laden woods of Miller’s Crossing. The heart-stopping scene in which the whole film revolves around is more or less alluded to as each of the film’s central players all at one point or another are forced to look inward into their own hearts and battle the blackness that stares back. Unfortunately, at Miller’s Crossing, the blackness wins out most of the time.

The Coens have quite an affinity for genre. This may come as no surprise seeing as how most of their films are a “smash-up” of many well-known genres, with a Coen brothers’ twist that allows them to follow the rules for a little while, only to break them by picture’s end. Miller’s Crossing is a sleek, and handsome film noir drama that captures the icy haze of 30’s gangster pictures. It’s a gangster picture however that relies more on substance and it’s wormy characters than actual “whacks” and shoot-outs. It’s a stylized world that the Coens’ pull us into it, but it’s one that as Caspar says, raises age-old questions of ethics.

Tom Regan (Byrnne) plays advisor to a Prohibition-era crime boss played by Albert Finney. When Tom gets caught up in the crossfire between neighboring crime rings, his loyalties quickly become divided. His relationship with the boss’ dame (Marcia Gay Harden) makes the situation all the more sticky when the double, triple crosses, and back-stabs begin to pile up. The film is beautifully photographed by Barry Sonnenfeld, who shot the first three Coen brothers pictures. His work here is much more subdued than it is on Blood Simple, and Raising Arizona, and it’s probably for the better. The narrower scope of the lenses, the light shading all of the brimmed-hat gangsters at one point or another don’t allow us a full glimpse into the souls of these men until we realize too late what their true motives are. The techniques work without forcing us to think a certain way, because after all, nothing is what it seems at Miller’s Crossing.

4/5

Coen Bros. Marathon pt. 2: Barton Fink

A desk clerk emerges from an elevator, having ascended we assume from the depths of the underworld. A bellhop slowly mutters the words 6......6........6 as the elevator ascends into the abysmal madness of his apartment floor. A man with a machine gun screams at the top of his lungs, lunging down a hallway that is engulfed in flames. Needless to say, the Coens' view of hollywood is...well...not good.

Barton Fink is a character study, a satire, a David Lynch homage, a drama, a mystery, a black comedy, a horror film, a thriller, and (this one makes the most sense) a Coen brothers' movie. The Coens' cleverly imagined script centers around the title character, a left-wing playright (an amazing performance by John Turturro) who decides to sell out to "the pictures" in La La land. Once he moves to LA however, the pressure from the most cynical and greedy hollywood exec. known to man, the constant badgering of his spooky (and always sweaty) neighbor (John Goodman), and a murder mix-up gone wrong, all help fuel Barton's insurmountable writer's block.

The Coens' have made a living going against the system. They are arguably some of the most successful independent filmmakers in history having wirtten, produced, directed, and edited the bulk of their films without the influence of Hollywood. Their own synical and snyde view of tinseltown is comically scripted and sharply realized. Their clear knack for period pieces gracefully accent the whole movie. According to the trailer, Barton Fink was the first film to sweep all of the major awards at Cannes. While there are many great 'Coenesque" scenes in the film i.e. Barton's first encounter with Goodman's character, any of the farcical meetings with Barton and his hollywood boss, waking up to find himself sleeping next to a murdered 'dame', the film is not necessarily high on substance. What it does invoke is a mood, an ambiance if you will, that I found to be more actualized than any of the Coens' work. It's a mood that lends itself to brilliant acting, the ryhtmic timing of the Coens' dialouge, Roger Deakins' hypnotic cinemtagrophy that makes you geniuinely creeped out by Barton's apartment complex of who the lone arbitors seem to be merely Barton and his neighbor. The closest comparison I could make to a director of the same style would be David Lynch. Watch this film after you see David Lynch's Mullohaland Drive, or Eraserhead and you will know what I'm talking about.

4/5

Dead People Can Be Annoying

Why will I not see Dane Cook in My Best Friend’s Girl this week? Let me count the ways. On second thought, let me just tell you about another character that should answer the question quite nicely. I’ll leave the box-office to guys like Cook, and be content with guys like Ricky Gervais who never once try to convince me into laughing at them. Ghost Town answers the question “what do you get when you put a Hollywood screen-writer with a relative no-name in the US, a former TV actress, and a romantic comedy star in the same picture?” A formulaic mess? Not quite actually. At least not if Gervais has anything to say about it.

Bertram Pincus is a man who mostly keeps to himself, leaving his people skills nothing much to right home about. He plods about his daily routines walking from his apartment to his office where he works as a dentist, mostly trying to avoid any and everyone he should come in contact with. When Bertram goes into the hospital for a fairly routine surgery, he dies unexpectedly and is revived after seven minutes. The miraculous little event gives Bertram the ability, much to his brilliantly acted dismay, to see ghosts. As if that weren’t enough, these ghosts who are in limbo between our world and the next, endlessly follow Bertram around town asking him for his much needed help regarding their unfinished business. The worst of these is Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear) who pokes and prods at Bertram until he eventually concedes to help break up the soon-to-be marriage of Herlihy’s widow (Tea Leoni). This puts Bertram in the middle of a love triangle with often very funny, if not always so unpredictable results.

Ghost Town is a genuinely funny script that tries to tug at our heartstrings as well. It’s a film about forgiveness, love and regret. Most of the lessons revolve around the film’s central Ebenezer Scrooge-like player Ricky Gervais as Bertram Pincus. Gervais is just one of a few reasons why this movie might fly under your initial radar. A product of the UK, Gervais starred as Michael Scott in the BBC version of the hit series “the Office”. His dry comedic style works wonders in a formulaic Hollywood film like this one that would other wise just be an excuse to get a few comedians in front of the camera and let them be funny. What Gervais does is much better, he consistently plays frustrated to often times hilarious results. We struggle right along with him when he stumbles over his sentences and back-pedals over his curmudgeonly placed jabs at co-workers. And just when you think you don’t have sympathy for this man, his desperate attempts to flirt with Tea Leoni’s character pull him back in to your good graces. While there are no unexpected plot-turns, and the clichés make this all too familiar territory, It’s the performances that quietly raise the film slightly above mediocrity.

3.5/5

“Burn after Reading Destined to Become Cult Classic”

While there don’t seem to be many redeeming qualities found within the Coen brothers on screen universe, their new film Burn After Reading argues that there’s still plenty to laugh at. Their history of award-winning and often puzzling films are notorious for morally reprehensible characters often motivated by greed and a sort of misanthropic bent. True to their form, the Coen brothers here deliver a wildly entertaining, star-studded romp.

The intricately designed plot opens with the firing of CIA agent Osborne Cox(John Malkovich) for his alcoholism ("Drinking problem?! You're a Mormon! Next to you everyone's got a drinking problem!"). Cox’s wife, played by Oscar-winning Tilda Swinton, boasts the record for the shrewdest pediatrician known to man. Through a series of coincidences, a disc containing the memoirs of Cox’s life as a CIA agent finds its way into the hands of two unscrupulous gym employees played by Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand. The odd-ball pair try to blackmail Cox for the information soon finding themselves in way over their heads. But wait, there’s more. Enter Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), a sleazy on-line dater who also happens to be married. When Harry meets Linda Litzke (McDormand) he eventually finds himself in the midst of a web of espionage, murder, and deceit. Did I mention he is also having an affair with Tilda Swinton’s character? The plot is so dizzying that its anti-climactic and abrupt payoff is deliberately laughable.

Brad Pitt is a treat to watch against type as a dim-witted gym employee who has little knack for spy games. Despite the humor, the performances do feel a bit contrived at times. Mcdormand more than once seems to be channeling Marge Gunderson from her oscar-winning performance in Fargo. Malkovich and Swinton are perhaps the most fun to watch because unlike most of the rest of the A-list cast, they both play the straight man with humorous consequences. There is a certain kind of exhausting quality to the Coen brothers’ work though. Their characters are always outlandish and detestable, and the Coens seem to take sick pleasure in torturing not only them, but the characters that are truly innocent as well. Think Fargo. The whole plot revolves around the innocent wife who is the ultimate plot device for the rest of the casts’ mayhem. (Let the record show that I happen to love Fargo should anyone deem this a major criticism) This isn’t as much a criticism of their over exaggerated style as it is a commentary on the nuisance it is for anyone with a moral compass to watch their films.

Burn finished the weekend atop the box-office but divided many of the nations top critics. It’s no surprise really. Raizing Arizona followed Blood Simple, The Hudsucker Proxy followed Barton Fink, and The Big Lebowski followed Fargo. What proof do you need aside from this to believe that the Coens make their own rules and consistently play by them too? Burn After Reading was entertaining, but it was a far cry from a lot of movies in their catalogue. But like “The Dude” from Lebowski, something tells me that Burn will abide long after it has left theaters if for no other reason than this: It's at best another genuinely interesting entry into the Coen brothers' history.

3.5/5

"You know..for kids" Coen bros. marathon pt. 1

When Roger Ebert reviewed Joel and Ethan Coens' The Hudsucker Proxy back in 1994, he playfully told his readers that his review stemmed directly from two differing opinions. One was from a little devil holding a pitchfork, and the other from an angel. As the two entities "whisper" their resepctive opinions into Ebert's ear, we soon realize the conundrum he is in; this is truly a divisive film. 14 years later, I feel his pain. So how do you offer up words of insight about a film of which there is so much to love, and yet so much to scratch your head about as well? In my most "ebertesque" of attempts, I shall do my best.

First the good: The art direction is utterly fantastic. The 1950's New York time period is masterfully characterized in every one of the film's decorative set pieces. The camera captures all of the sets' bleak, gray tones, whether shot indoors or out, without managing to be gloomy in nature. The Capra style fast-moving dialogue and delivery is spot-on, and delivered with such a rhythm that many of the movies key scenes are entertaining to listen to, if not always to watch. The performances are deliberately angled towards satire, genuinely consistent, and mostly watchable. Tim Robbins and Paul Newman both play their respective parts with a kind of dim-witted gusto, and sinister bravado.

Then there's the confusing. It's a movie that can't seem to figure itself out by the time the Coens have asked the audience to move from noir, political satire, to black comedy, to drama, to fantasy while still expecting us to buy everything we are seeing. But that's the question. Do they really expect us to buy these characters, or to get the same kick they do out of running them through the moral and ethical ringer until they are utterly mangled. It's the kind of thing one would assume the Coens have gained quite an affinity for after viewing much of their vast body of work. The film is chock-full of plot devices and gimicks that convince you to stay in your seat. But that's exactly the problem. The film tries desperately to make up for what it lacks in substance with style. It's a trick that may work for at least half of the film, but had run its course on me at about the 45 min. mark.

It's important to give the Coens their credit though. They have an interesting history of following up their grittiest thrillers with the most off-beat comedies (think Lebowski on the heels of Fargo and this year's Burn After Reading less than a year after the wide release of the oscar-winning No Country For Old Men. The Coens have always made films by no one's rules but their own, even when it deliberately flies in the face of Hollywood. While some of their projects are truly enigmas, in some strange anti-establishment sort of way, it helps to know they are doing what they want to do, and having fun in the process. Although I didn't necessarily like Hudsucker I didn't exactly not like it either. If the Coens truly are (as Joel Coen himself put it in last year's oscar acceptance speech) playing "in their own corner of the sandbox" then I am at least interested to see what castles they continually build. Even if some of them stand only long enough to be washed away in the sea of truly great films.

2.5/5

DVD clip of the week: Son of Rambow

Before getting the chance to see Garth Jennings' Son of Rambow I heard one critic's minor beef with the film.  The gist of his qualm was that when the main characters from Rambow (Two young boys in an unspecified English village) set out to make their own version of Rambo: First Blood , they completely miss the underlying political and anti-war tones of the 80's Sylvester Stallone action pic.  After seeing Jennings' funny and often touching film about pre-adolescence and friendship I rejoice in the innocence of a couple boys who see a movie, fall in love with the magic that such escapism possesses, and set out to interpret that awe themselves in the only medium they possess: The home movie.  The fact that such meta-narratives a Rambo film might try to parlay are completely lost to these boys is truly fine with me. (Honestly, does Sly really have that much to say..?)  I can relate to these two boys' wonder and desire to escape from the world they know for one they try to imagine because like many others, I have been there before.

Will Proudfoot comes from a strict religious home in which virtually all forms of entertainment are shunned.  Music, movies, television, even instructional videos are a form of a lesser form of evil that no young boy should subject his mind to.  When Will meets his polar opposite in Lee Carter, an unlikely friendship begins to emerge. With the help of one film, one camera, and a slew of classmates the boys set out to make the greatest movie they can.

3.5/5

'Bangkok' Leads the way for worst weekend in 5 years

With the sure-fire signs of fall all around us, hardly anyone anticipated much from the box-office for the same opening weekend as the NFL. The opening of Nicolas Cage’s Bangkok Dangerous to the tune of the worst hollywood box office weekend in 5 years however made at least two things clear: 1. Most of us would rather watch the pigskin than Cage’s frakenstein-esqe performances. 2. Thankfully, the better more anticipated fall movie season is just around the corner.
Nicolas Cage plays an anonymous hitman (Joe) sent to Bangkok for one last job before leaving his amoral line of work forever. While scouting the location, he stumbles across a young pickpocket whom he trains for use in his forthcoming hits. With the intention of disposing of the young man at the end of his job, Joe begins to train him for use in the gritty underground world of crime in Bangkok. Joe begins to break several of his profession’s key rules however when a budding love interest takes precedent over his work.
With minimal plot and mostly wooden performances all around, the film plays more like Bangkok Boring. The Chinese born Pang brothers, directing a remake of their own film from 2001 would do well to listen to some of the great filmmakers’ classic rules of “show don’t tell”. The audience is so belabored with the point that the lead character is going through a moral crisis that its effect is lost almost entirely. The film’s washed out cinematography and shoddy narration from Cage are not needed nearly as much as good acting. Still, buried within this film somewhere is a genuinely intriguing story, that in the hands of better storytellers would be able to compete for audiences’ attentions with the likes of Brett Favre’s debut as a New York Jet.

2/5

New Monthly Marathon

So in honor of the Coen brothers' new film Burn After Reading opening this month, I have decided to take the liberty to screen a few Coen bros. gems. A movie a week this month (as well as the new one) to go along with the regular new realease of the week. This little marathon will cover some of the Coens' lesser known works. Here is the line up as follows:

Barton Fink
The Hudsucker Proxy
Miller's Crossing
Blood Simple

Feel free to watch, and post your feedback as well.

Death Race sends the summer movie season out with a crash

“If you stay here in this Death Race it will be the most unselfish act of love I have ever seen…..” … and cue the laughter. Not from any of the actors on screen mind you, but from a room full of people screening the new Jason Statham movie. At least that’s what happened when I saw the movie and the above line was spoken by one of the film’s main characters. My hunch tells me that you don’t need any context to think it’s funny either, and the best part is the movie is chock full of them. This blog should bring up an interesting question: Can a movie that probably knows it’s bad from the first frame really be criticized? Let me put it this way, I had fun watching Snakes on a Plane. In all of its stupid trashy glory, I actually (don’t laugh) shared an ‘experience’ with the people I saw it with. I felt like we had gone through something together. After Death Race, I just had a headache.
America’s first filmmakers did much to convince the tide of critical opinion that their art-form was more than just mindless dribble. Had Death Race been on the docket way back when, it would have done little to advance the cause. Walking out, I wondered to myself how a summer full of mostly decent movies could have taken a turn for the worse in less than an hour and a half.
We learn from the opening title frames (best not to waste precious on-screen time with things like plot, but get straight to the mind-numbing action sequences) that the story takes place in the near future. Times are rough and the economy is even worse. A steelworker named Jenson Aimes (Jason Statham, on-screen master of the cold, icy stare) is wrongfully accused for the murder of his wife and sent to Terminal prison. Prisons like Terminal, we learn, are privately owned corporations in which big bucks are made broadcasting pay-for-view car races on the internet. The inmates race to the death in a kind of roman gladiatorial blood-bath that the public consumes gleefully. Win 5 races, and an inmate is allowed to walk free. The souped up armour cars muscle around the track in a relentless barrage of sight and sound upon the cerebrum. The beautiful Joan Allen's talent is wasted on her performance as the warden who tries to manipulate Statham’s character into staying and participating in the races. One scene in particular probably owes her the award for the most creative use of profanities in a single sentence. (Trust me, when you hear it, you won’t forget it, and chances are you’ll be scratching your head like I was).
If the plot seems simple enough that’s because it is. In fact, it’s simple enough to do exactly what it is supposed to do and that is to act merely as a vehicle to set up the action sequences themselves, which are heavy on the violence and low on the excitement.
Though it will no doubt do well at the box office, this movie is ultimately nothing more than an assault on not only the senses, but on reason as well.

1/5

"Don't look now, you've got some real tears going. That's the stuff that accolade's made of."
- Osiris

In an age where Hollywood’s stock is not exactly as high as it has been in the past, it helps to know that the folks in tinseltown still have the ability to laugh at themselves. At least that is the notion that some might conjure up after seeing Tropic Thunder. But don’t kid yourself. This is still the same industry that made Lions for Lambs. Ben Stiller’s 1st directorial stint since 2001’s mostly stagnant Zoolander is a sharp comedy that parodies not just movies you might have seen before, but the entire movie-going experience itself.
This “movie about the movies” tells the story of a troupe of actors on location to shoot abig budget Vietnam War film based on an ex marine’s allegedly true memoir. When the five actors are dropped off in the middle of the jungle by their eccentric European director, they are forced to become the actual soldiers that they are portraying. The film is a biting satire of the entire movie industry, complete with fake coming attractions, and a whole slue of spoofed war movies. There is virtually no “archetype” in the film business that is left off of writer/director/star Ben Stiller’s hit list. All of the Hollywood star stereotypes are represented in the film’s main characters. There is the action star who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to get the bill in more dramatic roles (Stiller), the goofball comic whose flatulence ridden joke movies are mostly busts (Jack Black), and the over the top method actor (an impressive performance from Robert Downey Jr.) who goes to extreme albeit ridiculous lengths to effectively portray his roles.
The average viewer having paid attention to the pre-release buzz might have a few lingering questions: Is it vulgar? Yes. Is it excessive? Definitely. Is it funny? Mostly. The wickedly satirical screenplay rescues the film from becoming another “stupid” comedy in the vein of Naked Gun or Airplane! and is genuinely clever as well. There are many recognizable scene parodies laced within the plot, and the action sequences are surprisingly well executed. A star-studded line up of cameos highlights the film’s more enjoyable moments, including an unrecognizable Tom Cruise as the foul-mouthed studio exec. who relentlessly pushes his film crew’s buttons and pulls strings from his US office. Cruise’s role couldn’t have come at a better time for the seasoned actor who as of late, has done more to hurt the public opinion of his character than some actors can muster up in a whole lifetime.
The film undoubtedly has its flaws, mainly in Black who brings little to the comedic table. Downey Jr’s performance, while impressive begins to run dry from all of the relentless yet folksy diatribes the script employs. While the jokes don’t always deliver, it is the satire that sustains Thunder in letting the audience in on the joke, lambasting the industry that we all too often love to hate. What Stiller reminds us so well though, is that despite every thing about Hollywod that irritates us, from the industry’s annual self-congratulatory awards ceremony, to the myriad of stars reaching for some kind of soap-box to propel them into the stratosphere of actors who “care”, we can’t live without the movies. Perhaps the biggest if not the only huge accomplishment of Thunder is in confirming the movie industry’s uncanny ability to, despite its reputation, get us to the box offices. Even when the joke is on them.

3/5

"When you talk about films, nobody agrees with anybody. Guys get mad at each other and the air is full of screaming."
- David Newman and Robert Benton,
"The Movies Will Save Themselves" - 1968

Thus begins my foray into the world of online journalism. It is a world in which everyone who's anyone that has too much to say about nothing says more than anyone can bear to handle. So why throw my opinions into the mix of countless others that have gone before using their share of tactless humor, bad grammar, and an air of vain conceit? It's funny you should ask...

Films have had the ability to inspire, disturb, deter conflict, insight riot, and generally make fodder for good old fashioned rabble rousin' conversation since their conception over 100 years ago. For all intents and purposes, this blog will attempt to inform you the audience, about films of both contemporary and historical significance without being overly aurterish (I'm not that learned), or too critical (I'm not a professional). I will choose a film a week keeping in line with the column I am currently writing entitled "The Movie Minute". It is my goal that all who should come across this page would share in the discussion as well. Without further ado... Let's watch.