So Long 2010!

Here's a nice "2010 in Film" video. Kudos to Kees van Dijkhuizen for making this little beauty!

Hope Ya'll have enjoyed Cinema Soup in 2010. I'll see you in 2011!

Capsule Reviews

"Winter's Bone" follows a young heroine Ree, as she is forced to find her father, a meth addict who has abandoned the family and issued their house up for his bail bond. Therefore, if he does not show up for his court date, Ree - along with her ill mother and two younger siblings - loses the house. The film, directed by Debra Granik, is conveyed with great naturalism. From the performances to the set decorations, nothing in the film feels inauthentic. Granik and company not only masterfully develop the film's setting, but also give the film a distinct atmosphere. Through its expert attention to detail, "Winter's Bone" instills its audience with chilly feelings of dread and despair. That is not to say the film's all gloomy. The film's single ray of hope comes from its protagonist. Although it's clear that Ree wishes she could return to being a child, she accepts her responsibility to care for her younger siblings and track down her father, and she does so with great conviction and tenacity. Actress Jennifer Lawrence excels in conveying Ree's steely resolve, as well her heartbreaking vulnerability. Her performance, along with Granik's superb direction, makes "Winter's Bone" a chilling portrait of despair and the perseverance that ultimately springs from it.


In "The Fighter," director David O. Russell (I Heart Huckabees) fights to turn a conventional script into a complex portrait of a boxer and his dysfunctional family. Unfortunately, he does not entirely succeed. The film follows boxer Mikey Ward (Mark Wahlberg) as he struggles to make a name for himself due to the reckless behavior of his crack addict brother, Dicky Eclund (Christian Bale), and the authoritarian control of his mother (Melissa Leo). As a director, Russell seems more interested in familial politics than boxing. Unfortunately, the film's script contains the narrative of a conventional underdog sports story. While Russell tries his best to make "The Fighter" unique, he ultimately fails in giving the film a cohesive tone. Some scenes feel like a gritty family drama. Others feel like a paint-by-numbers sports film. And some even take on a farcical tone. While a few individual scenes make an impact, and the film's ensemble hosts several great performances, the film ultimately fails to work as a whole. The film also suffers in its final act. While the film manages to create a riveting conflict between Micky and the destructive members of his family, it never really resolves the family's conflict in a meaningful way. Instead, the characters cheer away their problems by rooting for Micky in a pivotal match. While this may make for a moving ending to "The Fighter," it's also a simplistic one, especially considering the complex familial politics Russell explores in the film's first two-thirds. Unfortunately, these inconsistencies prevent "The Fighter" from being a great film. While the film is certainly entertaining, it's disappointing that Russel and company did not shoot for something greater.

"The King's Speech" Review

As the saying goes, "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure." While this powerful quote may sound trite from overuse, it undoubtedly applies to King George VI, the subject of Tom Hooper's "The King's Speech."

The film follows George VI (Colin Firth), as he makes the transition from Duke of York to King of England. While George has many qualities of a great king, he suffers from an unfortunate stammer, which prevents him from speaking publicly. To help George overcome his speech impediment, his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) enlists the aid of Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a speech specialist with a few unorthodox methods. With Logue, George wrestles with his stammer, as he is expected to deliver a speech to the nation on the impending war with Germany.

While "The King's Speech" certainly makes for an inspiring film, it's also a dull one. The film gains some momentum in its last act, but unfortunately most of the film feels sluggish and overly drab. While Mr. Hooper adds some levity to the film, it is not enough to make up for the film's otherwise somber tone.

Still, the film succeeds due to its impressive performances. Colin Firth successfully conveys George's complicated emotions. While George definitely shows a lack of self-confidence, he occasionally displays great arrogance - a sign that he is perhaps masking his true feelings. George VI has the potential to be a great king. He just does not realize it.

Firth is backed by a strong ensemble of British actors. While great thesps like Michael Gambon and Timothy Spall are given little to do, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter give solid performances as George's two main supporters - his speech therapist and his wife.

Still, the film's actors can only do so much to bolster the film's predictable plot and dull direction. The film, much like King George, does not realize its power until the film's last few scenes. While these scenes deliver a powerful message of perseverance and self-confidence, the rest of the film remains adequate at best.

"Black Swan" Review

In Black Swan, director Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, The Fountain) creates a wonderfully haunting film that truly captures the mindset of a performer. The film follows Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), a young ballerina, as she lands the lead in her company’s production of “Swan Lake.” Upon accepting the role, she begins to feel enormous pressure from not only the company’s pretentious director (Vincent Cassel), but also her mother (Barbara Hershey), a former ballerina who retired upon becoming pregnant with Nina. Wracked by the mounting pressure, Nina mentally unravels as the show’s opening night draws near.

The film, shot entirely from the perspective of Nina, truly taps into the psychology of its lead character. As Nina loses grip on reality, Aronofsky mirrors her addled state of mind through the film’s visuals. These visuals not only reflect the state of mind of the main character, but also symbolically comment on the plight of an artist. When Nina takes on a role, she feels an intense amount of scrutiny from her director, her mother, and the other actors in the production. To symbolically comment on the idea of being judged, Aronofsky uses mirrors as a visual motif.

The film also hosts an ensemble of great performances. Natalie Portman truly shines as Nina. Emphasizing her character’s naïve shyness and obsessive perfectionism, Portman shows the progression of both her character’s insanity and maturity. By the time the film reaches its last act, Portman completely lets loose and delivers what is perhaps one of the most audacious, confident performances of the year. Barbara Hershey also stands out as Erica, Nina’s oppressive mother. Hershey imbues Erica with an overly protective sweetness, a sweetness entangled with resentment. Mila Kunis, Winona Ryder, and Vincent Cassel all add great detail as the other characters that haunt Nina’s life.

But what truly distinguishes Black Swan as one of the year’s best films is the bold vision of Darren Aronofsky. Creating dozens upon dozens of visual metaphors (some with multiple meanings), Aronofsky layers his film with ideas, symbols, and emotions, all while delivering a superb thriller laced with suspense and atmosphere. Instead of thrilling the audience from the start, Aronofsky slowly builds suspense by luring the audience into a state of unease. While everything feels “normal” in the film’s opening few sequences, Aronofsky adds a few eerie details to convey Nina’s psychological instability. As the film progresses, Aronofsky, conveying Nina’s mental and emotional unraveling, builds upon and exaggerates his style until the film climaxes in a visually stunning, emotionally tense final act.


Aiding Aronofsky’s impeccable atmosphere is Clint Mansell’s score, a haunting take on Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake mixed with eerie modern overtones. The score, much like the film, grows more intense as the film progresses. The film also boasts some gorgeous camera work from cinematographer Matthew Libatique. In filming the ballet sequences, Libatique captures the feeling of the ballet by moving the camera with the dancers. Not as concerned with the individual ballet moves, Aronofsky and Libatique are more interested in conveying the feeling of ballet than focusing on each precise movement.

While Aronofsky and crew display great talent and ambition, they do not shy away from the film’s genre elements. Intead, Aronofsky fully embraces the idea that he’s making a horror film. While some critics may disapprove of the film’s genre elements, Aronofsky infuses all of the film’s thrills with thematic meaning. With this unique, often exaggerated, visual language, Black Swan truly captures the mind of a performer. Through Nina, the film shows how one can only break free from self-doubt by completely letting go of oneself and creating art. Thus, while the film may come off a tad too ridiculous at times, the fact that Aronofsky is willing to make risky stylistic choices shows that he, like Nina, is willing to let loose to create something truly memorable – an utterly unique and completely mesmerizing work of art.

Never Let Me Hunt Horcruxes for 127 Hours

"Never Let Me Go," based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, follows Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, three schoolchildren, as they mature from their childhood years to early adulthood. The three of them attended the mysterious Hailsham, a secretive private academy for "special" children. As the children grow up, they eventually uncover the secrets of Hailsham, as well as their true identity. The film, directed by Mark Romanek ("One Hour Photo"), is hauntingly beautiful. From the elegant performances from the three young leads (Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield) to the stunning cinematography, the film works on both a cerebral and emotional level. The score, by Rachel Portman, adds great poignancy to each scene. But what makes "Never Let Me Go" great is that it insists on asking the big questions. What makes for a memorable life? How does one accept death? Why does time slip away so quickly? While the film does not directly answer any of these questions, it at least makes the audience care for the characters who are struggling with them.


"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1" continues the adventures of the boy wizard as he hunts down Lord Voldemort's Horcruxes (seven fragments of the Dark Lord's soul) in hopes that he can finally finish off the evil wizard for good. While "Hallows" does not rank as high as director David Yates's previous films in the series, "Order of the Phoenix" and "The Half-Blood Prince," it makes for an engaging enough first part to epic finale. Part of what prevents the film truly soaring is its constant reliance on exposition. While the novel by JK Rowling included much of this exposition, it unfortunately did not translate well from page to the screen. By this point, it's almost near impossible for a casual fan of the "Potter" films to comprehend the series's dense plot. Thankfully, the film's acting makes up for some of the script's weaker points. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson give great performances as the now famous trio Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Watson, in particular, lends the film a certain emotional weightiness. But, in the end, this is only Part 1 of a greater film. Hopefully, when Part 2 is released this July, the combined film will make up for some of the flaws of its first part.


"127 Hours," the latest film from director Danny Boyle, stars James Franco as Aron Ralston, a mountain climber with an adventuring, if reckless, personality. While exploring the canyons of Moab, Utah, Ralston gets his hand stuck under a boulder, trapping him in a narrow canyon for - you guessed it - 127 hours. The film, based on a true story, manages to convey the reality of Ralston's situation through Boyle's unique style. Boyle heightens and exaggerates all of Ralston's emotions through several different visual and aural techniques. For example, when Ralston becomes disoriented, the film's visuals become less clear and the film's sound becomes less clear to match Ralston's state of mind. When he is in pain, Boyle uses sharp noises to convey Aron's agony. Boyle's energetic direction, paired with a solid performance from James Franco as Raslton, makes "127 Hours" an engaging, and emotionally uplifting, story. Although the film's ending teeters a bit too far into sentimentality for my liking, Boyle reigns in the emotion well enough to make "127 Hours" one of the best films of the year.

A "Social" Conversation

I recently had a discussion with my friend Justin about "The Social Network." Ironically, we had the conversation on Facebook! DO HO HO! Since we both brought up some interesting points on the film, I've decided to post the conversation in full on the blog! The following conversation started after Justin commented on the film's hyperbolic tone.

John: I don't think the film's hyperbole is really a problem. The movie makes it very clear that it is not trying to imitate real life. After all, no one really talks in fast-paced, witty, Aaron Sorkin dialogue.

Justin: My comment on hyperbole is in reference to the gross sensationalism, which is good, otherwise the film would be quite boring.

John: I see. I do think the film is trying to say something though. Forgive my pretentious rhetoric, but I see it as a film which puts classic themes (ambition, friendship, betrayal) in a modern context. Before seeing the film, I thought it would be more of a comment on isolation in the digital age, but it's really more about the dangers of ambition and greed.

Justin: True. The majority of the characters have hedonistic tendencies.

John: But that does not mean the film approves of their hedonistic tendencies.

Justin: Definitely not. I think Zuckerberg is the contrast to the hedonism of his environment. He's more "pure." He wants to make something cool and significant, while everyone else wants money and women.

John: I did find it interesting that he did not really care about the money, but, in the end, he screws over his best friend - his only friend. So, I don't really seem him as a "hero." Ultimately, what he did was pretty pathetic. He created a website to impress a girl.

Justin: Right. And I don't think he's a hero because the film does not present an objective morality. For all its hyperbole, everyone is human and prone to error.

John: True. The film doesn't pick sides. While I disagreed with many of Mark's decisions in the film, I could see his point of view, especially when dealing with the Winklevoss twins.


Hey Reader! Do you like this banter? Should I try something like this again? Let me know in the comments! Also, feel free to leave your opinion on the film - to keep the discussion going.

Grades?

I hate grades. I don't like them anymore. My opinions always change and I feel like written reviews give a better idea of how much I like a film.

From now on, I am going to just list all the films of the year in descending order - from most favorite to least favorite.

P.S. I will try to write a full review sometime soon.

The Social Town

So, I haven't made a post in over a month! YIKES! I've been busy and will probably remain busy through the rest of the year. I'll try my best to give some updates on what I've seen.

For now, how about a few a bullet point reviews?

"The Town"

• Lackluster script
• Two-dimensional characters
• Strong directing and acting, but fails due to its aforementioned weakness (not to mention the totally cheesy ending).
• C+

"The Social Network"

• Pointed social critique
• Shows how ambitions warps one's personal relationships in the modern age
  
• Impressive performances from Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, and Justin Timberlake
• Typically strong direction from David Fincher. Snappy dialogue from Aaron Sorkin.
• Does not quite live up to the hype (but honestly people were comparing it to "Citizen Kane?" How could it live up to that level of hyperbole?)
• Will probably get better upon repeat viewings
• B+/A-
  

Most Anticipated Films for the Rest of 2010

1. Black Swan (d. Darren Aronofsky)

2. The Social Network (d. David Fincher)

3. Never Let Me Go (d. Mark Romanek)

4. Somewhere (d. Sofia Coppola)

5. Rabbit Hole (d. John Cameron Mitchell)

"Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" Review

“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World,” based off a comic book series by Bryan Lee O’Malley, is the most visually unique film of the year. While most comic book films are filtered through a derivative, action-movie aesthetic, director Edgar Wright gives the “Scott Pilgrim” a distinct look. From it use of comic book onomatopoeia (Pow! Ka-Bam!) to its retro video game visuals, the movie exists within its own universe. At times, it even feels like a visual representation of 21st century youth culture. And while the film can sometimes be garish, it’s always fun to watch.

The film follows Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), a twenty-something slacker, as he tries to win the heart of his dream girl Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). But there’s a catch. In order for Scott to win Ramona’s heart, he must defeat all of Ramona’s seven evil exes.

While the film contains some great performances (particularly from Kieran Culkin, Scott’s snarky roommate), they are easily overshadowed by Wright’s direction. While the script contains some snappy dialogue and sharp one-liners, Wright also manages to get laughs through his sharp visual wit. With oodles of pop culture references and sight gags, Wright crams jokes into every frame. In fact, the film contains so much visual humor that it’s doubtful one could catch it all on a single viewing.

While the film’s humor always lands, its character work leaves a little to be desired. The relationship between Scott and Ramona is sweet, but the film fails to say anything truly meaningful about their relationship until its final few scenes. One wishes that Wright and fellow screenwriter Michael Bacall would have nixed a few of the evil exes to allow more room for the film’s main relationship.

But depth is obviously not the main goal here. “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” shines due to its crazy, bonkers, off-the-wall humor, as well as Wright’s sharp direction.

Sure, it’s flawed.

But it’s also awesome. ; )

B+

Some movies fail to inspire me. During these movies, I sit in the theater thoroughly unengaged. Thus, when I start to write about said movies, I can't really come up with anything meaningful to say. Sure, I could trash the film by writing a scathing pan, but these movies don't offend me so much as they bore me. "Dinner for Schmucks" is one of those movies. While I couldn't muster enough things to say for a full review, I managed to scrape together a few bullet points.

• Rough first act.
• Good performance from Steve Carrell. Not copying his work from "The Office."
• Has some nice moments, but is riddled with lame humor, predictable story arcs, and a genuine lack of tone.
  
• Are we supposed to be making fun of these "schmucks" or are we supposed to feel sorry for them? The movie answers this question, but does so in a way that felt dishonest and hypocritical.
• Fast fade.
• C-
  

"The Kids Are All Right" Review

Movie relationships rarely feel real. Some films try to mirror reality, but quickly fail due to their own superficiality. These films often lack the courage to address the messy emotional complications of human relationships. It’s understandable why major studios refuse to finance films that actually address our human fragility. Audiences want an escape when they go to the theater, not a meaningful representation of real life. But by sanitizing human relationships and failing to address our emotional complexity, aren’t we robbing art of its primary purpose? Sure, movies are meant as entertainment, but it’s sad when people refuse to see them as something more.

Thankfully, some films still dare to be more than just entertainment. “The Kids Are All Right,” directed by Lisa Cholodenko, does just that. While the film has its flaws and is not quite as good as this year’s other relationship dramedy “Please Give,” it still presents emotionally complicated characters in an artful way.

In “The Kids Are All Right,” Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore), a lesbian couple, are enjoying their summer with their two kids, Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson). Joni, now eighteen, is begged by Laser to set a meeting with their biological father, Paul (Mark Ruffalo). While kids try to keep this secret from the Moms, Nic and Jules eventually meet their former sperm donor and much complication ensues.

But a simple plot summary can’t quite convey the emotional complexity of “The Kids Are All Right.” This film is wonderfully written. Filled with quick-witted humor and truthful, sometimes painful, observations, it’s easily one of the best scripts of the year. But it’s the film’s excellent ensemble that truly sells the material. The film’s three adult actors (Bening, Moore, and Ruffalo) all bring their A-game, and the two kids (Wasikowska and Hutcherson) more than hold their own.

But, for my money, the film’s stand-out performances belong to Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore. Ruffalo, who rarely gets meaty roles, always shines in small supporting characters. In “The Kids Are All Right,” he is finally given a chance to show off his acting chops in a more substantial role. Ruffalo’s style is so natural that you forget you’re watching a fictional character. Emphasizing Paul’s laidback personality, as well as his secret yearning to be a father, Ruffalo elicits both laughs and sympathy from the audience. Julianne Moore (“Far From Heaven,” “The Big Lebowski”) also delivers a superb performance as the artsy, conflicted Jules. While Jules does not have the forceful personality of Nic (clearly the family’s bread winner), she is easily the gentler of the two Moms, but also the least grounded in reality. Moore conveys this artsy airiness with much humor and subtlety, while also clueing the audience to Jules’ low self-esteem, especially when compared to her significant other.

To single out Moore and Ruffalo is not to slight the film’s other performances, which are also fantastic. Part of what makes Lisa Cholodenko’s direction so sublime is her attention to the film’s acting. While credit must be given to the film’s actors for nailing such complex roles, Cholodenko must have played an instrumental role in making sure the film’s relationships felt authentic.

While Cholodenko gave special attention to the acting, the film’s pacing ultimately suffers. Once the film enters its second act, many scenes felt redundant and, in turn, the film begins to drag. Thankfully, Cholodenko makes up for this pacing lag with an emotionally charged final act.

Also, while the film is laced with wonderful humor throughout, unfortunately not all of it works. A few segments tip too far into “sitcom” territory for my liking, and one segment involving a Hispanic landscaper is almost offensive. Fortunately, Cholodenko and fellow screenwriter Stuart Blumberg keep most of the film’s laughs rooted in character interactions.

Aside from a few minor misgivings, “The Kids Are All Right” succeeds at being a heartfelt comedy without resorting to stock characters or cliché plot lines. It’s a film that refuses to sanitize, commercialize, or politicize (the film never brings up the contentious gay marriage debate) any of its characters. And, perhaps more importantly, it has the ability to make its audience laugh and cry – sometimes simultaneously. Unlike most films churned out by the Hollywood machine, “The Kids Are All Right” wants to do more than just entertain.

B+

How would you rank Christopher Nolan's films?

Leave your list in the comments! I'm still not entirely sure.

"Inception" Review

A blockbuster with guts, “Inception” dares to be different. Instead of crafting a simple narrative, it boasts a unique structure. Instead of allowing its main character to play second fiddle to computer effects, it sufficiently explores the psyche of its leading man. Instead of creating a story bereft of any intelligence, it asks questions of its audience. And while it may not be perfect, it is undoubtedly one of the most ambitious films of the year.

In “Inception,” director-writer Christopher Nolan (“The Dark Knight,” “The Prestige”) creates a world in which people can share dreams. The film follows Dom Cobb, an extractor who specializes in stealing ideas from people’s dreams. Dom (Leonardo DiCaprio) wants to quit his profession and return to his two children. When corporate boss Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers Dom the chance to return to his normal life in exchange for one last job, Dom assembles a team to perform “inception,” the act of planting an idea inside someone’s mind, instead of stealing one. While most of Dom’s team believe inception cannot be performed, Dom is set on carrying out the complex mission so he can finally return home.

It seems that with “Inception,” Christopher Nolan finally has a handle on how to frame an action sequence. While his “Batman” films were often muddled with incoherent action and poor editing, “Inception” finally proves that Nolan has the chops to handle complicated action set pieces. While some sequences still feel confusing and convoluted, others display impeccable pacing and endless creativity.

Nolan also applies his creativity to the film’s eye-popping visuals. From collapsing cities to revolving hallways, Nolan creates a world that is all his own. His bold vision begs the question, how long has it been since a filmmaker truly created a new world for audiences to discover? While you could make a strong case for James Cameron’s “Avatar,” it does not hold a candle to Nolan’s twisted dream world.

While Nolan certainly displays great visual flair in “Inception,” the film’s script is not as strong as some of his previous films. For a good fifteen minutes, the movie devolves into what this reviewer is calling “dream-speak.” In these conversations, Dom and his team analyze how they are going to penetrate the subject’s mind, as they throw out words like “subconscious,” “catharsis,” and “loops.” While some of this dream lingo is essential to the film’s plot, most of it is dull and repetitive. Thankfully, these scenes are relatively short and do not damage the film’s stellar pacing.

Backing up Nolan’s jigsaw plot is an impressive ensemble of accomplished actors. Leonardo DiCaprio, finally free from his recent string of accents and exaggerated mannerisms, delivers one of his best performances. Beautifully capturing Cobb’s emotional fragility, DiCaprio wonderfully taps into Dom’s psychology.

The film’s other performances are uniformly excellent. While Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are not given much to do, they shine in small moments, even as they are saddled with much of the film’s poor dialogue. Cillian Murphy also shines in a pivotal role, adding emotion to the film’s labyrinth plot. The film’s best performance, however, belongs to Marion Cotillard, who plays a mysterious woman from Dom’s past. Cotillard brings a fiery intensity to her role that makes the character unpredictable and flat-out scary. An overwhelming feeling of eeriness, accentuated wonderfully by Hans Zimmer’s score, accompanies all of her scenes. While Nolan has a firm control over the majority of the film, Cotillard’s scenes feel loose and unpredictable, which is a testament to both the actress and the director.

While the film’s plot is complex, its main themes are simple and profound. “Inception” views the mind as a complicated maze often twisted and distorted by human emotion. Feelings of guilt, love, and inadequacy run through our mind and eat away at our thoughts and memories. When one fails to come to terms with these feelings, or runs away from their life’s complications, they addle the mind into a further state of confusion. “Inception,” although rooted in a world of dreams, insists that we accept the reality of our situations. Only then can we “let go” of certain memories and move on with our lives.

To conclude, “Inception” tackles the entanglements of emotion better than any of Nolan’s other films. While the film is not as thematically complex as some of Nolan’s previous efforts, it is more ambitious in both narrative and structure. And if “Inception” perhaps does not rank as the best of Nolan’s filmography, it definitely makes for a bold, unique vision in an otherwise dull summer.

A-

A Nightmarish Rant

A lot has been said about Christopher Nolan’s “Inception.” Unfortunately, very little of it has been meaningful. When the film screened for the first wave of critics a few weeks ago, the reaction was one of instant adoration, with many critics proclaiming it a “masterpiece” upon one viewing. Many of these reviews were laced with eye-rolling hyperbole and failed to say anything meaningful about the film. After this first wave of reviews, came the second. And, instead of actually reacting to the movie, these critics instead reacted to the first wave of reviews, while not offering much valid criticism. And then the “backlash to the backlash” kicked in. By the end of this critical roller coaster, one realizes that no one has really said much about the film itself.


“Inception” was always going to be a divisive film. It hosts a complex narrative, several extended dream sequences, and various other oddities. It simply pushes too many buttons for everyone to fall over in praise. This is a good thing. How boring would a discussion be if everyone agreed? The best films often stir up arguments. The problem comes when people become so convinced of their opinion’s validity that they refuse to listen to the other side.

“How can you dislike Inception!? It’s an absolute masterpiece!”

“How dare you even compare Christopher Nolan Nolan to the great Stanley Kurbrick!”

This rhetoric gets us nowhere. While these arguments are filled with passion, very little of it is actually substantial. Please, tell me why “Inception” is an absolute masterpiece. Tell me why Chris Nolan’s vision does not match up to that of Stanley Kubrick’s.

But, of course, these are not easy questions to answer. It will take multiple viewings to completely dissect “Inception” and declare it a “masterpiece!” In fact, calling anything a “masterpiece” upon one viewing is preposterous, as most people realize that films gain “masterpiece” status over time, not on their opening weekend. But if you’re going to have the gall to call something a “masterpiece” upon first viewing (I’m guilty of this as well), try to back it up with something other than empty hyperbole. Similarly, if you’re going to slam the film, provide evidence, instead of slandering other critics.

On a final note, this rant obviously isn’t directed at every “Inception” review. I'm merely trying to make the argument for a more civil, substantive discussion amongst film fans. Unfortunately, many of the strong, substantive reviews of "Inception" have been overshadowed by the petty, thoughtless catfights of a few ego maniacs.

PS. My review of the film will be up soon.

Short version: I liked it.

"Cyrus" Review

When I first saw the trailer for "Cyrus," it looked like an odd, original comedy, but with a cynical, smug tone. After seeing the film, I can safely say that the film is definitely odd, original, and funny, but thankfully its tone is warm and sweet - without an ounce of cynical sarcasm or irony.

The film follows John (John C. Reilly), a depressed bachelor still getting over his divorce from seven years prior. While attending a party with his ex-wife (Catherine Keener) and her new fiance, he meets Molly (Marisa Tomei), a kind woman whose gentility and comforting personality attract John. Once John and Molly enter into a relationship, he meets Cyrus (Jonah Hill), Molly's twenty-something son. Cyrus, a budding musician, still lives at home and has a very close bond with his mother. While Cyrus initially seems okay with Molly and John's relationship, it soon becomes apparent that Cyrus is not so keen on sharing Molly with her new lover.

"Cyrus" mainly works as a study of the complex relationship between the three main characters. Marisa Tomei beautifully highlights Molly's maternal sensibilities, comforting both Cyrus and John with her genuine warmth and sympathy. Reilly wonderfully displays John's earnest nature, as well as his inept, awkward way of dealing with complicated situations. And, finally, Jonah Hill taps into Cyrus's strange, needy, manipulative behavior. While Hill sometimes slips into broad comedy, he mostly strikes the right tone for his character.

While "Cyrus"beautifully illustrates the complicated nature of its characters' relationships, many scenes feel redundant and unnecessary. By the film's second act, the audience is fully aware that Cyrus believes John is infringing on his territory, yet the movie insists on reiterating that fact several times. The film's dialogue also comes off as blunt in parts. While direct, honest discussion about feelings and emotion works for the film's character, the dialogue becomes too heavy-handed by the time the film reaches its final scenes. It's almost as if directors Jay and Mark Duplass are too afraid to let the audience interpret the character's feelings for themselves. Instead, they let the film's final act turn into a huge group therapy session. But not all of it is bad. The actors involved manage to imbue the final scenes with enough subtlety to make up for the script's heavy- handed dialogue.

But, perhaps most importantly, the film retains a light, earnest tone throughout. If the film had opted for smug cynicism or glossy superficiality, it would not have had the same effect. Thus, despite its flaws, "Cyrus" makes for a fascinating study of an unusual relationship.

B

Thoughts on "Knight and Day"

• "Knight and Day" is at its best when reveling in its loopy, purposefully unbelievable, action sequences. In a summer when even whimsical characters like "Robin Hood" take themselves seriously, it is nice to see a fun action movie.
  
• Part of what makes the movie so fun is Tom Cruise's performance as Roy Miller, a rogue spy with a few mental problems. The unpredictable, zany nature of the character allows Cruise to have fun with his performance, instead of drenching it with his usually overbearing theatrics (see "A Few Good Men" among others).
• Unfortunately, Cameron Diaz, who plays June a woman who gets tangled up in Roy's plan, is not given much to work with. Diaz survives by playing ditsy for the film's first hour, but by that point, one realizes that her character is not all that interesting. And when Cruise's character disappears for a good twenty minutes, the film definitely loses its momentum.
  
• Also wasted are Viola Davis, Paul Dano, and Peter Sarsgaard. If director James Mangold was going to assemble such great talent, he should have given them better material.
• Clunky dialogue ruins all of the film's attempts at drama or romance. Again, the film works best during its kooky action set pieces.
  
• While the film has a great creative premise, it unfortunately falls into cliched territory by the film's last act. One wishes screenwriter Patrick O'Neill would have re-written the film's weak ending.
  
• A mixed bag.
• C+
  

"Toy Story 3" Review

“Toy Story 3” whisks by at a brisk pace, entertaining and charming its audience at every turn. While the film does not reach the level of some of Pixar’s recent work (“Ratatouille,” “Wall-E”), it makes for solid entertainment, thanks to its fun characters and endless creativity.

The film picks up several years after the last one ended. Andy, now seventeen, is heading off for college. This causes much uncertainty for his batch of favorite toys. Woody, Buzz Lightyear, Mr. Potato Head and the gang are all worried whether they will be put in the garbage, taken to the attic, or donated to a day care center. Eventually, the toys end up at Sunnyside day care center. While there, they meet the mysterious Lotso, a stuffed bear that is in charge of all the toys at the day care. While Lotso appears friendly on the outside, the toys eventually see his true colors and make plans to escape.

“Toy Story 3” once again proves that Pixar is the most creative movie studio in the business. Instead of filling the film with run-of-the-mill action set pieces, director Lee Unkrich and his team pay homage to several different genres. One action sequence feels like it was lifted straight out of a western. Another mimics a “Mission Impossible”-like spy film. One, which takes place in a garbage dump, looks like a sequence from a dystopic science fiction film. Unlike the “Shrek” series, “Toy Story 3” does not use blunt pop culture references to elicit laughs. It instead plays on different genres to provide the audience with an entertaining movie experience. Not to mention, it’s really funny. While a few of the jokes wear thin, the film, for the most part, displays perfect comic timing.

While the film’s last few scenes try to speak eloquently on themes of loss and change, the film does not quite earn it due to the mostly fun, action-heavy sequences which preceded it. And when the film’s final scene attempts to tug at your heartstrings, it is only partially successful due to the scene’s length and forced sentimentality

Other than that, “Toy Story 3” succeeds at being an entertaining summer movie. Displaying near perfect wit, a plethora of creative details, and inventive action set pieces, it makes for a fitting conclusion to the “Toy Story” series.

B

"Please Give" Review

With complex characterizations, dark humor, and masterful subtlety, “Please Give” makes for a refreshing alternative to the sequels, remakes, and commercial slop plaguing the multiplexes.

In “Please Give,” Kate, played by Catherine Keener, constantly worries about others. From the elderly to the homeless, she is troubled by the terrible circumstances of those around her. This complete sense of guilt annoys both her husband (Oliver Platt) and daughter (Sarah Steele). When Kate tries to buy the apartment of her neighbor, a churlish old lady (Ann Guilbert), Kate’s family begins to interact with Rebecca, the old lady’s granddaughter, as well as Rebecca’s unsympathetic sister Mary (Amanda Peet).

What makes “Please Give” great is its commitment to creating complex, layered characters. Most films nowadays ignore human complexity, instead opting for gross characterizations and two-dimensional stock characters. Thankfully, “Please Give” takes its time to fully flesh out all its characters. Due to this intense character focus, the film manages to comment on the human condition in a way that is both meaningful and emotionally sound.

Through the character of Kate, “Please Give” suggests that giving has its costs. Because Kate cares so much for the disadvantaged in society, she often ignores the needs of her family. And while Kate is sincere in her care for the poor and vulnerable, she comes to the sad realization that her guilt often conflicts with her desire to help. Some of the most telling scenes in the film come when Kate volunteers at nursing homes and for special needs organizations, only to find that her neurotic, worrisome personality often proves unhelpful.

In contrast, Rebecca performs acts of charity without truly realizing it. While many people would become argumentative and angry whilst dealing with a grumpy relative, Rebecca takes care of her often rude grandmother despite her flaws. Unlike Kate, Rebecca performs good deeds without the overbearing sense of guilt. It simply flows from her human nature. In fact, Rebecca is so intent on helping others, it seems that she often forgets to look out for herself.

It is these types of contrasts and complexities, along with stellar performances from the entire cast, which make “Please Give” smart, thought-provoking entertainment. And in the midst of one of the worst summer movie seasons in recent memory, it is a true gift.

A-

"Killers" Review

"Killers," a new action romantic comedy, is atrocious. Sluggishly paced, terribly formulaic, and almost ridiculously unfunny, it fails on almost every level.

The film follows (insert rich blonde played by Katherine Heigl here) in her attempt to find love after (insert failed romance here). While vacationing (insert tropical locale here), she meets (insert secretive dude played by Ashton Kutcher here). Little does she know that he is actually a (insert spy, assassin or other secretive profession here). Also causing trouble is (insert equally shady dad character played by Tom Selleck here). When (blonde) and (dude) get married, (blonde) begins to find out more about (dude)'s past. Will (dude)'s secrets ruin his relationship with (blonde)?

I think you know how this story ends.

But what makes "Killers" especially awful is its attempts at originality. While the film starts off as a generic romantic comedy, it quickly devolves into a weird, yet still generic, attempt at a motion picture. While weird is usually a plus in my book, "Killers" is weird in all the wrong ways. Instead of being weird in an intellectual or experimental way, the film is weird in a stupid way. In fact, the film gets more stupid as it goes along. By the time the film reaches its climax, the plot becomes utterly preposterous.

Mr. Kutcher and Ms. Heigl unfortunately do nothing to save the film. Kutcher, trying to play a secretive assassion, comes off as dull. Heigl, trying to play a down-on-her-luck single woman, comes off as whiny. Needless to say, they make for a pretty uninteresting couple with little to no chemistry.

To conclude, it is the worst film I've seen this year. But, again, those opening credits were nifty!

D

Let's Play a Game!

While we wait for some quality films to come out, let's play a game!

Describe this summer movie season in three words. I'll start.



Boring. Lazy. Pathetic.



Your turn! Leave your response in the comments.

Summer Movie Blues

Well, the summer movie season has gotten off to a pretty weak start. Last weekend, "Iron Man 2," although charming in many respects, failed to live up to the quality of the original.

This weekend, another disappointing summer blockbuster hit theaters. "Robin Hood," directed by Ridley Scott, drags along at a sluggish pace. Much like "Iron Man 2," the film tries to do too much. Intertwining two plot lines, the film feels disjointed, as if two separate movies are being crammed together into one. The film also fails on a character level, never really giving stars like Russell Crowe or Cate Blanchett much to work with. While the two great actors try their best to add depth their respective characters, they cannot save the film from its own mediocrity. I'll give it a C.

Anyway, let's hope that the summer movie season picks up and at least delivers fun, entertaining movies. But, to be honest, it doesn't look promising.

"Iron Man 2" Review

“Iron Man 2” zips by with energetic action sequences, snappy dialogue, and fun performances. Unfortunately, the film’s poor focus and bloated script often undermines its quick wit and kooky comic book charm.

The film, based on the popular Marvel superhero, picks up six months after the first installment ended. Tony Stark, now publicly revealed to be Iron Man, finds himself in trouble as he faces opposition from the United States government over the control of the Iron Man suit. Meanwhile, a bitter enemy of the Stark family, Ivan Vanko, schemes to destroy Tony and his legacy.

But that is not all. Tony (Robert Downey Jr.) also has to deal with Justin Hammer, his sleazy corporate rival, Pepper Potts, his former assistant who he promotes to CEO of Stark Enterprises, Natasha Rushman, his mysterious new personal assistant, Lt. Col. James Rhodes, his chief liaison with the military, and finally Nick Fury, the head of a secret organization of superheroes.

With so many elements fighting for attention, the final film results in an overstuffed plot with an abundance of characters, some of which are completely irrelevant to the film’s greater story. And because the film contains a surplus of characters, none of them ever feel fully developed. Thus, the film shifts its focus from scene to scene, never giving each character its proper due.

Thankfully, the all star cast makes up for some of the film’s structural flaws. Robert Downey Jr., putting his cocky star persona to good work, once again gives a stellar performance as Tony Stark. Gwyneth Paltrow provides a perfect match to Stark as the quick witted Pepper Potts. Seeing the couple trade barbs adds a playful humor to the film.

The true stand out, however, is Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. Adding the appropriate amount of sleaze to every mannerism, Rockwell steals the show by highlighting Hammer’s pathetic self-regard and chatty personality. While Rockwell eats up screen time with plenty of great lines, poor Mickey Rourke is given almost nothing to do as Ivan Vanko, supposedly the film’s main villain. While Rourke gives the character a menacing presence, the script fails to flesh out his character beyond a few scenes of bland exposition.

Likewise, the character of Lt. Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) also receives little characterization. The film relies on the events of the first film to establish Rhodes’ relationship with Stark. Unfortunately, a different actor, Terrence Howard, played the role in that film. Thus, there is no believable dynamic between Rhodes and Stark in the sequel. The relationship’s lack of authenticity not only causes their interactions to feel awkward, but also ruins an entire action sequence which hinges on their supposed friendship.

In a normal Hollywood blockbuster, characters usually play second fiddle to explosive, special effects-laden action sequences. In “Iron Man 2,” this is not the case. The film simply contains too many characters. Despite this massive flaw, the film still manages to succeed. Through its goofy humor and fun, if underdeveloped, characters, “Iron Man 2” entertains with wit and charm.

B-

Did you see "Iron Man 2?" Do you disagree with my review? If so, yell at me in the comments. I can take it!

"Greenberg" Review

Greenberg, the titular character in Noah Baumbach's film, is socially inept. During most conversations, he becomes helpless and awkward as he struggles to connect with those around him. And when he does manage to engage in conversation, he explodes in bouts of bitter anger. Through "Greenberg," Baumbach and actor Ben Stiller manage to make the audience sympathize with a character that should be utterly unsympathetic.

The film follows Roger Greenberg, recently released from a mental hospital, as he stays at his vacationing brother's house in Los Angeles. While staying there, he tries to get back together with his ex (Jennifer Jason Leigh), reconnects with his best friend from college (Rhys Ifans), and meets Florence (Greta Gerwig), his brother's personal assistant.

Through these three relationships, the audience is introduced to Greenberg's social awkwardness. While having lunch with his ex, he brings up good memories from their past in hopes of wooing her back. She smiles and listens to Greenberg, but has no interest in getting into such a volatile relationship. Meanwhile, Greenberg's college buddie, Ivan, is having marital troubles. When Ivan seeks advice, Greenberg offers none, instead focusing on his own problems. And, finally, when he hits it off with Florence, he ruins their potential relationship by getting angry at her for petty reasons

But, Florence refuses to give up. After suffering through two superficial relationships, she wants something more. She notices Greenberg's vulnerability and wants to help him, but whenever she tries to, he pushes her away with his hostile behavior. Yet, Florence still sees Greenberg's pain. She realizes that people act hateful and angry for a reason.

As she wisely remarks late in the film, "Hurt people hurt people."

The film illustrates this point with delicate sincerity. It never judges Greenberg for his actions. It simply observes. Thankfully, the film ends on a positive note as Greenberg makes an attempt to reverse his selfish attitudes. Unfortunately, the film also ends too abruptly, not giving the audience enough insight to the final state of Greenberg and Florence's relationship.

Otherwise, "Greenberg" is a sharp character study that takes it time in detailing the fragile mind of its surly subject

B

Of "Ghosts" and "Wonderlands"

Here are some quick bullet points on a few films I've seen recently





"Alice in Wonderland"

• excellent, detail-heavy production design


• plagued by endless chase scenes and boring exposition


• Helena Bonham Carter delivers a delicious performance as the Red Queen - an evil diva who enjoys barking orders and watching decapitations


• Johnny Depp fares well as the Mad Hatter, but his relationship with Alice feels underdeveloped


• Overall, it feels like a compromised vision. Director Tim Burton made some quirky, weird hoices, but it never feels wholly "original." My guess is that the studio made him tone down his unique style.


• C+

"The Ghost Writer"

• boring, plot-heavy political thriller


• has very little to say about political corruption that isn't redudant, naive, or exaggerated


• way too focused on plot mechanics


• performances are merely so-so with the one exception being Olivia Williams as the irritable, intelligent wife of a corrupt former Prime Minister


• a very average film from director Roman Polanski ("The Pianist," "Chinatown")


• C

Simplicity

So, five months after my initial review, I find myself revisiting the Coen Brothers’ “A Serious Man.” The first viewing left me in a state of befuddlement and I spent nearly a month formulating an opinion on the film. Now, after a third viewing of the film, I can say it ranks very high in the quirky brothers’ distinguished filmography. Ultimately, in my opinion, the key to understanding the film comes from the Jewish adage which opens the film:

“Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.” – Rashi

This wise adage can be applied to the unfortunate incidents within the life of Larry Gopnik, the film’s main character. Larry, a physics professor and devout Jew, finds his life spinning out of control as his wife divorces him, a disgruntled student bribes him for a better grade, and his eccentric brother Arthur moves in with the family. As the film progresses, Larry’s problems only worsen. His redneck neighbor disregards Larry’s property line. Larry’s son, Danny, complains about the fuzzy television, while his daughter, Sarah, is secretly planning to get a nose job.

Dumb-founded by his recent string of bad luck, Larry seeks help from his religion, his lawyers, and colleagues. Each gives him advice, most of it helpful, but Larry still cannot find any answer to his sufferings. The Junior Rabbi tells him to simply enjoy life and appreciate all that God has given us. For example, “just look at the parking lot.” Another Rabbi tells him just to wait it out. All of your problems will soon disappear, “kind of like a bad toothache.” The final, and most well regarded of the rabbis, gives the simplest response: “be a good boy.” Larry heeds their advice, but fails miserably in trying to apply them to his unfortunate circumstances.

While the Coens seem to recognize the wisdom in the rabbis’ advice, they also realize that life is unpredictable and that, while this advice can certainly help one’s life, it ultimately has no bearing on one’s fate. In other words, good works, although admirable and even integral to flourishing of the human person, do little to prevent bad things from happening to you. This theme pops up several times in the Coens’ filmography. In 1996’s “Fargo,” the good will of a chirpy police officer fails to prevent crime from pervading a good-natured Midwestern town. In 2007’s “No Country for Old Men,” the violence of the new world outmatches the skill of an old, moralistic deputy.

As the amoral Anton Chigurh, the crazed serial killer in “No Country,” exclaims with dry certainty, “You can’t stop what’s coming.”

This sentiment is played with throughout “A Serious Man.” As Larry melts down, he searches for answers in religion, tradition, and even physics. But, ultimately, he lives in a world of unpredictability. While he can try to ascribe meaning to all the unpleasant parts of his life, while he can think that he is being punished for some moral wrongs, while he can valiantly try to incorporate a set of principles into his everyday, these actions have absolutely no meaning when confronted with the unpredictability of fate.

Thus, if there is a God, we do not know the method to his madness. Therefore, we must live our lives to the fullest. We must make the most of our circumstances and work to improve the lives of those around us. We must not overcomplicate the nature of our existence. And, perhaps most importantly, we must appreciate what we have been given.

But, at the end of the day, we have no idea if our actions take on any greater meaning. So, ultimately, it doesn’t matter if Larry accepts or denies the bribe from the disgruntled student. While this action is – and should be – important to Larry’s individual moral character, his life does not depend on it.

The tornado of fate can intervene at any moment. It can ruin your life with one swift blow. It shows little concern for you well being. You can’t make a deal with it to ensure your safety. You can't lessen the effect of its deadly blows.

You can’t ignore it. You can’t fight it. You can’t stop what’s coming.

Do you have any thoughts on "A Serious Man?" Race to the comments to leave your interpretation of the film's meaning.

Coming Soon to "Cinema Soup"

After months of being constantly busy, I now find myself with a good chunk of free time. So, hopefully, my blog posts and reviews will be more frequent. I've decided that I can't just write reviews. This blog needs a bit more....variety! So, I've decided to add a couple of features that will hopefully shake thins up a bit.

So, what's coming soon to Cinema Soup?

• Well, I hope to write features on my favorite actors and directors to take a more extensive look at their filmographies.

• I also plan to give a list of films I'm looking forward to in 2010. A "Preview" list of sorts.

• And I'll possibly even talk about the latest movies news. That is, if it interests me. I'm not a huge fan of blogs that report on all the latest casting rumors, sequels, etc. After all, I enjoy talking about movies, not bazillion dollar franchises.

Other than that, expect more of the same. And remember this blog was created to start film discussion. Lately, it seems like I've just been talking to myself. So be sure to let your opinion be known in the comments section. As my corny tag line notes, this blog is supposed to be a "hearty feast of film discussion." Gosh, who writes this stuff?

"Shutter Island" Review

“Shutter Island,” a psychological thriller from director Martin Scorsese (“Taxi Driver,” “Goodfellas”) is a suspenseful, surprisingly layered, entry in the acclaimed director’s dense filmography. Through a masterful mix of sight and sound, Scorsese creates a film that works both as an entertaining mystery and a complex examination of a troubled character.

The film, based on a novel by Dennis LeHane, follows US Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he investigates the disappearance of a female patient from an insane asylum found on a mysterious island. With help from his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), Teddy questions the asylum’s employees, patients, and doctors. After conducting interviews, Teddy finds that no one is revealing any significant information. Even the asylum’s head psychiatrists (Ben Kinglsey and Max von Sydow) remain allusive. This suspicious behavior causes Teddy to believe they are hiding something

The biggest mystery, however, lies within Teddy himself. Teddy is a complex and interesting character. While he disguises himself as a confident, aggressive figure, he bears many emotional scars. Through Teddy, Scorsese explores the connection between masculine aggression and vulnerability. Unfortunately, the film’s twisty plot prevents the audience from truly investing in the character until the last twenty minutes.

Thankfully, when Teddy’s full story is finally revealed, it makes up for many of the film’s early failings. Unlike most plot twists, the one in “Shutter Island” makes the film less convoluted and more character-based. So, when the film’s twist finally reveals itself, it deepens the story, instead of muddling it with inane details.

Thus, “Shutter Island” achieves a level of gravitas while still functioning as a fast-paced thriller. Scorsese delightfully plays up the film’s thrilling sequences without compromising the film’s integrity as a work of art. Many of the film’s best scenes reveal character detail while still keeping the audience on edge.

Scorsese also shows his directorial finesse through his ability to establish and sustain an atmosphere of constant fear and anxiety. For example, the film opens with Teddy and Chuck sailing towards the asylum. The camera turns to reveal the island, shrouded in an immense fog. As the two partners sail closer, the film’s musical score intensifies. Purposefully loud and ominous, it creates an eerie, unsettling atmosphere for the rest of the film.

Adding to the character depth is the ensemble of performances from a host of renowned character actors. From Ben Kinsley as the asylum’s head psychiatrist to Patricia Clarkson as a crazed patient, each supporting cast member is given an opportunity to develop an interesting side character.

Scorsese, however, is the film’s true star. He deftly commands the screen with great skill and precision. While “Shutter Island” may not rank as one of his best works, it still remains a masterful achievement.

B