Cinema Soup

Mini Reviews (or Many Reviews)

2011-08-01T23:19:00.000-07:00

Yikes! I haven't updated this blog in months. Time to play catch up.

"Submarine"
Touching "coming of age" story that wows with both its wicked sense of humor and unexpected emotional resonance.

"Super 8"
Entertaining throwback to the Spielbergian blockbuster. Sentimental in all the right ways. Although one wishes the filmmakers would have chose not to visualize some of the film's more mysterious plot points.

"Midnight in Paris"
Clips by at a light, breezy pace without saying anything all that insightful. Underwhelming.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2"
Powerful finale to the "Potter" film series. Wrings emotion out of its epic battle scenes, while also allowing time for some more intimate moments. Stunning visual effects that make for great visual spectacle, while also serving the emotion of the story. Stellar acting from Fiennes, Radcliffe, and Rickman.

"Beginners"
Touching portrayal of a father-son relationship. Handles each of its characters with great warmth and subtlety. Thankfully ditches most of its "indie" cliches by film's second act. Impressive performance from Ewan McGregor.

"Crazy Stupid Love"
Starts off as a bland, but serviceable, romantic comedy, but quickly succumbs to many of the genre's worst cliches. Overstays its welcome by nearly twenty minutes. The film's impressive ensemble somehow manage to stay afloat. Lacks emotional honesty and genuine wit. Should be re-titled "Stupid Stupid Stupid."

"Source Code"
An entertaining, thought-provoking thriller with solid acting, but an unfortunately weak ending. Film's final reveal left this reviewer feeling cheated.

The Tree of Life

2011-06-10T22:34:00.000-07:00

EPIC.

Grace. Nature. Perseverance. Beauty. Grief. Light. Darkness. Dinosaurs.

In other words, I'm not even going to attempt to fully analyze this film until I catch it a second time. That being said, it is well worth your time and your money.

"Bridesmaids" Review

2011-06-01T15:21:00.001-07:00

"Bridesmaids," which follows Kristen Wiig as down-on-her-luck Annie, as she prepares for the wedding of her best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph), beautifully mixes physical comedy, witty dialogue and genuine poignancy without feeling forced or unfocused. It is the rare "human" comedy that elicits laughter, while also conveying some greater meaning about human relationships.

The film, written by Wiig and co-screenwriter Annie Mumollo, focuses primarily on the rivalry between Wiig's Annie and Rose Byrne's Helen, one of the other bridesmaids who Annie perceives as a threat to her friendship with Lillian. Adding to the film's humor are the other three bridesmaids: the sugary sweet Becca (Ellie Kemper), the disillusioned mother Rita (Wendi McLendon-Covey), and the butch, eccentric Megan (Melissa McCarthy). This ensemble of strong female comedians are at the top of their game with each one nailing their respective punchlines.

Wiig, in particular, makes quite an impression. She not only shows off both her expert comic timing, but also display sher dramatic acting chops. This versatility allows Wiig to shift effortlessly between comedy and drama, as she create a vivid characterization of a woman who has not only lost the will to fight for herself, but has also lost sight of her own value, both as a friend and as a woman. While Annie cannot provide for Lillian in the same way Helen does, that does not make her any less of a friend - a truth that Annie finally accepts by the film's third act. Annie also realizes her worth in regards to her relationships. Instead of letting the smarmy Ted (Jon Hamm) use her, she chooses a man (Chris O'Dowd) that respects and values her.

It is this attention to emotional detail that makes "Bridesmaids" such a breath of fresh air. Instead of simply stringing together a collection of crass jokes, Wiig and director Paul Feig effortlessly marry gut-busting laughter with emotional poignancy to create what is easily the best comedy of the year thus far.

One-Liners

2011-05-20T20:24:00.000-07:00

Dearest Readers,

I am sorry for my lengthy hiatus. I have been busy with school, theater, and other madness, but I should be back for good, now that summer has arrived. I promise to write a full review soon, but, for now, I will leave you with a few pithy one-line reviews of some recent films.

"Hanna"
A loopy genre pic with some fun action sequences. Lacks depth.

"The Conspirator"
Interesting historical thriller featuring a stand-out performance from Robin Wright. Last act fails to pack the expected emotional punch.

"Thor"
Average superhero pic marred by weak dialogue and tonal inconsistencies. Poor Natalie Portman.

"Meek's Cutoff".
A slow-moving, atmospheric western with a feminist twist. Expert pacing. Great performances all around. But perhaps a little dry.

Paul Eyre

2011-03-27T11:32:00.000-07:00

"Paul" (d. Greg Motolla)

Story follows two sci-fi geeks (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost), as they make a road trip across America only to find themselves greeted by a talking, fugitive alien (Seth Rogen).
Gets off to a slow start with much of its humor revolving around pop culture references that only hardcore geeks will pick up on.
Hilarious ensemble of great character actors, but the script rarely gives them anything to work with. While Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio milk laughs as two bumbling FBI agents, the usually hysterical Kristen Wiig just seems miscast as a fundamentalist Christian who falls for Simon Pegg's character. Other great character actors, like Jason Bateman and Sigourney Weaver, are wasted in smaller roles.
The film musters up some momentum in its second act by amplifying its more zany qualities, only to lose that momentum once the film reaches its sappy, overlong resolution.
While the film remains superior to most of the bland, commercial comedies that populate the multiplexes, it's disappointing that the final product was not more entertaining, especially considering the talent involved.

"Jane Eyre" (d. Cary Fukunaga)

Impressively atmospheric adaption of the 19th century coming-of-age story by Charlotte Bronte.
The film follows young orphan Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska) as she moves from a strict boarding school to the mansion of Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender).
Brilliantly illustrates Jane Eyre's struggle between independence and companionship as she confronts her affection for Mr. Rochester, as well as her want to break free from the bonds which society places her in, due to both her circumstances and her gender. Wasikowska subtly taps into Jane's psyche as she struggles with these two desires. Fassbender also shines as a man yearning for a deeper relationship, whilst also feeling trapped due to his circumstances.
The film's dark cinematography wonderfully accentuates the film's mood and makes the audience more keenly aware of the feelings of confinement which plague the film's characters.
Deliberately slow pace adds to the film's atmosphere, but perhaps makes the film harder to connect to on an emotional level. Still, a faster pace would have killed the chilling, almost eerie, mood which makes the film so unique.
Overall, a fascinating, hauting coming-of-age story with top-notch performances and production values.

"Digimon: The Movie" Review

2011-03-19T12:47:00.000-07:00

"Digimon: The Movie," based off the landmark Japanese television series of the same name, quite brilliantly explores the ideas of community and friendship. While the hoi polloi prefer such trash like "Pokemon: The First Movie" and "Pokemon: Mewtwo Returns," neither film holds a candle to the level of quirk and irony found in "Digimon: The Movie."

The film is split into three marvelous acts. The first act follows Tai and Kari, two young Japanese hipsters, as they come across a Digimon, a digital creature with the power to evolve into larger digital creature. After this discovery, the film flashes forward 4 years later and it's almost like you're watching a completely different movie! At this point, the story follows Tai and the gang as an evil mutant Digimon takes over the internet. And just when you think the film's going to end, it flashes forward to the present day with completely different characters trying to defeat the evil Kokomon once and for all. While some totally lame people would find this three act structure disjointed and off-putting, it added to this reviewer's ironic enjoyment of the film.

And let's not forget the stellar soundtrack! With such classic jams like "All Star"by Smash Mouth and "One Week" by the Barenaked Ladies, the film's soundtrack's only adds to the film's hipness. While lesser people may find the songs catchy and enjoyable, they won't pick up on the satiric irony inherent to their placement in the film. In fact, the unwashed masses might enjoy the film as a whole, but they will never have the intellectual prowess to decipher the film's weighty subtext.

But, at its heart, "Digimon: The Movie" truly examines what it's like to be human. It asks us many important questions. Who does one turn to in times of great need? Can community help us overcome great obstacles? And, perhaps most importantly, is this film obscure enough to add to my DVD collection?

[This review is dedicated to Seamus Hamilton, King of the Hipsters]

"Rango" Review

2011-03-11T20:40:00.000-08:00

Overflowing with verbal humor and visual wackiness, "Rango," a new animated film from director Gore Verbinski ("Pirate of the Caribbean"), snaps along at a quick pace with its off-the-wall humor, frenzied action sequences, and emotional warmth. The film follows Rango - a lonely domestic lizard - as he ventures into the desert to live amongst other desert animals. In order to fit in with his fellow animals, Rango (voiced by Johnny Depp) pretends to be a tough-as-nails gunslinger. While Rango's ruse proves amusing for him at first, the animals naively buy in to his tall tale and elect him town sheriff. As Rango takes on his sheriff duties, which include solving the town's water shortage and chasing off a mean hawk, he slowly breaks free from his isolation and finds purpose in serving a warm, appreciative community of fellow desert animals. "Rango" very eloquently illustrates this idea of community, without resorting to sappy dialogue or overwrought sentimentality. Instead, the film creates a rag tag group of zany characters that win the audience's affection and lend the film a stronger emotional connection. However, what truly makes the film original is its loony sense of humor. From witty wordplay to hysterical sight gags, "Rango" displays nearly impeccable comic timing. In short, it makes for one heck of a good time at the movies. (And, yes, I did just end this short review with a cliche).

Academy Award Predictions

2011-02-26T10:29:00.000-08:00

Best Picture: "The King's Speech"
Best Director: David Fincher - "The Social Network"
Best Actor: Colin Firth - "The King's Speech"
Best Actress: Natalie Portman - "Black Swan"
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale - "The Fighter"
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo - "The Fighter"
Best Original Screenplay: "The King's Speech"
Best Adapted Screenplay: "The Social Network"
Best Art Direction: "Inception"
Best Cinematography: "True Grit"
Best Costume Design: "The King's Speech"
Best Film Editing: "The Social Network"
Best Makeup: "The Wolfman"
Best Original Score: "The Social Network"
Best Song: "Toy Story 3"
Best Sound Editing: "Inception"
Best Sound Mixing: "Inception"
Best Visual Effects: "Inception"
Best Animated Film: "Toy Story 3"
Best Foreign Language Film: "In A Better World"
Best Documentary: "Inside Job"
Best Documentary Short Subject: "Sun Come Up"
Best Animated Short: "Madagascar, a Journey Diary"
Best Live Action Short: "Na Wewe"

Best of 2010 (Part 2/2 - Soup Bowl Awards)

2011-02-08T17:49:00.000-08:00

Since I see a good chunk of movies every year, I guess I'm allowed to have my own awards show. Unfortunately, there's no movie stars, no red carpet, and not golden statuettes. It's actually just text on a screen.

Well, now that I've successfully lowered everyone's expectations, here are the winners of the First Annual Soup Bowl Awards.

Best Film: Black Swan
Runner-Up: Somewhere

Best Director: Darren Aronofsky - "Black Swan"
Runner-Up: Sofia Coppola - "Somewhere"

Best Actor: Ryan Gosling - "Blue Valentine"
Runner-Up: Stephen Dorff

Best Actress: Nicole Kidman - "Rabbit Hole"
Runner-Up: TIE - Natalie Portman ("Black Swan") and Michelle Williams ("Blue Valentine")

Best Supporting Actor: Mark Ruffalo - "The Kids Are All Right"
Runner-Up: Christian Bale - "The Fighter"

Best Original Screenplay: "Please Give"
Runner-Up: "Blue Valentine"

Best Adapted Screenplay: "The Social Network:
Runner-Up: "Rabbit Hole"

Best Art Direction: "Black Swan"
Runner-Up: "True Grit"

Best Cinematography: "True Grit"
Runner-Up: "Black Swan"

Best Editing: "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World"
Runner-Up: "The Social Network"

Best Score: "The Social Network"
Runner-Up: "Inception"

Best of 2010 (Part 1/2 - Top Ten)

2011-02-05T21:05:00.000-08:00

Without further ado, here are my Top Ten Favorite Films of 2010:

1. Black Swan (d. Darren Aronofsky)

A work of art that's just as brilliant (and insane) as its main character.

2. Somewhere (d. Sophia Coppola)

Quiet, moving story of an emotionally deadened movie star's relationship with his daughter.

3. Please Give (d. Nicole Holofcener)

A funny, complicated examination of generosity. Aided by smart, subtle performances.

4. Rabbit Hole (d. John Cameron Mitchell)

Effective, multi-layered portrait of grief. Anchored by Nicole Kidman's brilliant performance.

5. The Social Network (d. David Fincher)

A modern story of friendship and ambition. Fincher and Sorkin effectively put classical themes in a modern context.

6. Blue Valentine (d. Derek Cianfrance)

Realistic, bittersweet portrayal of a dying relationship. Extremely well-acted.

7. Another Year (d. Mike Leigh)

An unsentimental look at loneliness, age, and inadequacy. Manages to lighten its harsh blows with well-balanced humor.

8. The Kids Are All Right (d. Lisa Cholodenko)

Loving portrait of a modern family. Directed and acted with great warmth and sincerity.

9. Winter's Bone (d. Debra Granik)

Chilling thriller that makes superb use of its rural setting.

10. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (d. Edgar Wright)

Super funny love story that brilliantly utilizes its video game aesthetics.

"Rabbit Hole" Review

2011-01-17T14:12:00.000-08:00

Precisely written and expertly acted, "Rabbit Hole" plunges its audience into the grief-stricken minds of its main characters. Analyzing the various emotions tied with death and loss, it presents its audience with two characters who deal with their grief in two very different ways, while still feeling the same amount of sadness, guilt, and heartbreak.

When Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) lose their only child in a tragic car accidents, their previously strong marriage starts to crumble. Instead of addressing her grief, Becca seeks to shut off her emotions, so she is not constantly reminded of her loss. In attempting to forget her son's existence, she tries to remove everything in the couple's house that carry memories of him. Contrastingly, Howie externalizes his grief. Not wanting to let go of the memories, he constantly watches old home movies of his son and goes to support groups in the hopes of finding sympathy from others. As the two attempt to work out their grief, they clash due to their opposing methods.

Directed with gentleness by John Cameron Mitchell, the film never feels overbearing or dishonest. Instead of amplifying the film's tragic narrative with overly sentimental music or manipulative imagery, Mitchell relies on the strength of David Lindsay-Abaire's screenplay, based on the Pulitzer-Prize winning play, to convey the story's emotionality.

The film also relies on its ensemble to convey the film's heavy emotions in moving, but honest, ways. While Aaron Eckhart does a good job at conveying Howie's external grief, Kidman easily outshines him as the emotionally isolated Becca. Through her performance, Kidman conveys the cold, often bitter, side-effects to her grief. While the audience certainly sympathizes with her character throughout, we also question her judgment when she lashes out at her grieving husband, caring mother, and reckless, but ultimately well-meaning, sister. That Kidman is willing to explore the darker, nastier side of her character proves that she is not only a great actress, but also a brave one. Her performance, along with the film's smart writing and precise, subtle direction, makes "Rabbit Hole" one of the best, and most moving films of 2010.

I Got the Blues

2011-01-15T19:47:00.000-08:00

"Blue Valentine" is a brutally honest portrait of an emotionally complicated relationship. Its precise direction, paired with its exceptionally natural performances, makes for a superbly intellectual experience, as well as a moving one. The film charts the relationship of its two main characters, Dean and Cindy, from its sweet beginning of to its messy, ambiguous end. While following this relationship, director-writer Derek Cianfrance explores Dean's idealized view of romance and Cindy's loss of passion. Through Cinafrance's ideas, actors Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams craft two shockingly authentic performances. Williams beautifully captures Cindy's both sides of her character - both her light tenderness, as well as her dark cynicism. Gosling wonderfully embodies Dean's reckless behavior, along with his eagerness to please. The audience can sense their heartbreak from simply reading the expressions on their faces. That "Blue Valentine" is willing to examine these characters in an honest, meaningful way makes it not only a painful story of failed romance, but also a superbly moving work of art.

So Long 2010!

2010-12-31T00:16:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-30T20:05:00.001-08:00

"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

2010-12-28T22:03:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-13T20:23:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-26T19:00:00.000-08:00

"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

2010-10-17T21:21:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-10-09T23:11:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-01T21:35:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-23T18:31:00.001-07:00

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

2010-08-17T19:35:00.002-07:00

“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+

2010-08-13T20:57:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-24T11:57:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-07-18T22:19:00.001-07:00

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

"Inception" Review

2010-07-17T13:23:00.001-07:00

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

2010-07-14T20:04:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-01T19:28:00.000-07:00

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"

2010-06-28T20:35:00.001-07:00

"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

2010-06-19T12:23:00.001-07:00

“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

2010-06-11T22:01:00.001-07:00

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

2010-06-07T22:11:00.000-07:00

"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!

2010-06-02T22:16:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-15T21:28:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-09T20:37:00.000-07:00

“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

2010-04-16T18:17:00.000-07:00

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"

2010-04-16T12:30:00.000-07:00

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")

Simplicity

2010-03-26T21:48:00.000-07:00

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"

2010-03-14T21:59:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-08T17:50:00.000-08:00

“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

Yes!

2010-03-08T17:17:00.000-08:00

A truly deserved win! And, not to brag, but I said that "The Hurt Locker" was a great film back in July. Y'know, during the summer, when I urged you to go out and see it. TOLDJA!

Okay, I'm done now. I promise I won't talk about "The Hurt Locker" again for a long time. Promise!

Congrats Kathryn!

As for the rest of last night's Academy Awards, it was mostly hit and miss. Hosts Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin made a valiant attempt to bring some humor to the night's proceedings, but were unfortunately marred by sluggish pacing and unfunny jokes.

But, in the end, it's about the movies. And while the ceremony as a whole was so-so, seeing Kathryn and her team win for such a great movie was both exciting and moving.

A true triumph for art. I'll leave it at that.

A Mental Hospital....for the Criminally Insane.

2010-02-20T15:58:00.001-08:00

After much anticipation and a delayed release date, Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island" finally made its way to theaters this week. And wow. While I'm not yet sure if its a great film, it's certainly a very good one, and one that will provoke much discussion amongst film fans.

Not sure when I'll get around to writing a full review, as I'm rather busy at the moment, but, by all means, go out and see the film for yourself. Defenitely worth the ticket purchase.

A Few Notes on "Crazy Heart"

2010-01-25T19:45:00.000-08:00

"Crazy Heart" follows Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) , a washed up country singer, as he tries to mend his life back together. Along the way, he meets a music journalist Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and slowly falls for her southern charm. Jean is single parent and has a little boy who also enjoys Blake's company.

Exceptional performances from both Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Bridges feels completely authentic in his character. A tremendous physical and emotional performance. His faces conveys such warmth and texture. Gyllenhaal emotes well and fully understands the maternal nature of her character. She is trying to protect her son, but she is also trying to protect herself.

The film captures the South with reverence. Feels like one of the first "true" representations of southern life rid of any film cliches or caricatures.

Narratively, the film feels unfocused. It cannot quite decide which story it wants to tell - Bad Blake's relationship with Jean, Blake reuniting with a fellow musician (Colin Farrell), or Blake's attempt to resurrect his own career.

Consequently, the film's ending is rather unsatifying. Unfortunately, the filmmakers didn't have the guts to end on a downbeat. Instead, they opted for a neat, happier ending lacking in realism.

B-

2009 Review Archive

2010-01-19T22:00:00.000-08:00

"Sherlock Holmes" C
"Avatar" B
"Invictus" C
"Up in the Air" B+
"The Road" C
"Fantastic Mr. Fox" B+
"The Blind Side" C-
"Precious" B+
"Where the Wild Things Are" A
"An Education" B-
"A Serious Man" A-
"Whip It" B
"The Informant!" B
"Extract" C+
"Inglourious Basterds" A-
"Julie & Julia" B-
"Funny People" B+
"500 Days of Summer" B+
"The Hurt Locker" A-
"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" B
"Public Enemies" B -
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" D
"The Proposal" D+
"Away We Go" B+
"Brothers Bloom" C+
"Up" B
"Terminator: Salvation" C
"Angels and Demons" C
"Star Trek" B+
"The Soloist" C+
"State of Play" B
"Gigantic" C-
"Adventureland" B
"Monster vs. Aliens" C-
"Duplicity" A-
"Coraline" B

Oscar Predictions - Box Office vs. Quality

2010-01-18T22:05:00.000-08:00

As the 2009 awards season heats up, the Best Picture race seems foggy with a few films fighting it out to claim the big prize. Before this past Sunday’s Golden Globe ceremony, I believed Kathryn Bigelow’s war epic “The Hurt Locker” would nab the Best Picture prize at this year’s Academy Awards. Now, after James Cameron’s “Avatar” clinched both Best Director and Best Picture this past Sunday at the Golden Globes, the category has shifted into a two-horse race, “Avatar” vs. “The Hurt Locker” with Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” remaining the only possible dark horse.

As for Jason Reitman’s “Up in the Air,” the comedy-drama’s buzz has diminished in the Best Picture category. Unfortunately for Reitman, the film peaked far too early as audience reactions failed to match the enthusiasm of many critics. And while “Up in the Air” received top marks from many critics, it never bested “The Hurt Locker” in terms of critical adulation. While “Up in the Air” won the top prize at the National Board of Review, it failed to clinch the Best Picture/Best Director awards with any other major awards group. The Los Angeles Film Critics, the New York Film Critics, the Broadcast Film Critics Association, and the National Society of Film Critics all awarded “The Hurt Locker” with Best Picture and Kathryn Bigelow with Best Director.

While “The Hurt Locker” has garnered the most critical acclaim, Cameron’s “Avatar” boasts a hefty box office total that could catapult the film to a Best Picture win, not unlike Cameron’s other previous juggernaut, “Titanic.” So, in a sense, the 2009 Best Picture race will pit Box Office against Quality – “Avatar” vs. “The Hurt Locker.” Many will disagree with that last statement. Many will moan that I’m a whiny elitist. But, alas, it is my opinion. While “Avatar” features some great action sequences and whiz-bang visual effects, it simply does not match Kathryn Bigelow’s expert mix of character and action in “The Hurt Locker.”

However, personal opinion aside, Best Picture is shaping up to be an exciting category at this year’s Oscars. Let’s hope the races remains suspenseful until the winner is announced at the Kodak Theater in March.

2010-01-16T20:24:00.000-08:00

"THE HURT LOCKER" is finally available on DVD and Blu-Ray. Now is your chance to see the movie I have been raving about for months. I guarantee I will not shut up about it until every single one of you has seen it! Rent it! Netflix it! Buy it!

And if you've already seen it once, see it again! The film only improves with subsequent viewings. I recently gave the film a second viewing and it went up a few notches in my book. The problems I had with the character of Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) disappeared and the film's psychological complexities became even more clear. This one's a true winner folks!

The Top Ten Best Films of 2009 (Pt. 2 of 2)

2010-01-08T17:26:00.000-08:00

1. “Where the Wild Things Are”

Moving, melancholic, and emotionally truthful, “Where the Wild Things Are” is the best film of 2009 and an instant classic. Capturing the highs and lows of childhood, Spike Jonze taps into an unshakable emotional truth that cannot be faked. Every frame of this film is marked with intense feeling and creative passion. Hats off to Jonze and co-screenwriter Dave Eggers for lengthening Maurice Sendak’s original story, while retaining the book’s simplicity. And while the film’s plot is simplistic, the emotions in the movie are complex, messy, and unflinchingly honest. Jonze has undoubtedly created true masterpiece. But, more importantly, he has created a film that means a lot to me. I will forever cherish this wonderful piece of personal filmmaking.

2. “The Hurt Locker”

A phenomenal mix of adrenaline-pumping action and believable, engaging characters, “The Hurt Locker,” Kathryn Bigelow’s Iraq War epic, is a triumphant directorial achievement. Bigelow, who directed cult classic “Point Break,” delivers an unbearably tense and devastatingly realistic picture, depicting the horrors of war without slapping on any explicitly stated political messages. Bigelow, working off a fantastic script by Mark Boal, merely shows the day-to-day life of three bomb tech soldiers. Orchestrating several superb action sequences, Bigelow not only rattles your nerves, but also engages your emotions through her sharp character focus. Bigelow also understands the geography of her sequences. In many supposed “war epics,” the action is so incoherent that the audience has no clue what the heck is going on. This is not the case in “The Hurt Locker.” Bigelow understands the immediacy of her action sequences and perfectly frames them to ensure the audience knows exactly what is going on. Thus, the film drips with intensity. This intense suspense, created by a seamless combination of action and character, makes “The Hurt Locker” proof of Kathryn Bigelow’s immense talent.

3. “Inglourious Basterds”

Filled with memorable characters and set pieces, Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” a film that defies any conventional genre description, works on several different levels. Whether viewed as a Jewish revenge fantasy, or a treatise on the persuasive power of cinema, Quentin Tarantino’s self-proclaimed masterpiece is the most unique film of the year. Boosted by meticulously crafted dialogue and excellent music choices, the film boasts several memorable sequences. From Hans Landa’s interrogation of the French milkman to Shoshanna preparing for her revenge to the tune of David Bowie’s “Cat People,” hardly a scene falls flat. The film also contains several great performances. Christoph Waltz perfectly embodies Hans Landa’s devilish charisma and malicious cleverness. Melanie Laurent captures Shoshanna’s anger and vulnerability with great subtlety. And Diane Kruger amps up Bridget von Hammersmark’s movie star persona, while still capturing the humanity of the character. But, of course, none of these performances would be praise-worthy if Tarantino had not crafted such interesting, layered characters. To conclude, “Inglourious Basterds” stands out as one of 2009’s greatest films from a truly original, insanely gifted, auteur.

4. “Duplicity”

Tony Gilroy’s “Duplicity,” a quick witted spy movie, delights with clever dialogue and suspenseful set pieces. Starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen as two love-struck corporate spies, the film oozes with charm. While the film’s primary concern is the couple’s spy romance, it also cleverly pokes fun at the competitive nature of the corporate world. In the best opening credits sequence of the year, two corporate CEOs, played with cutting satire by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson, duke it out at an airplane tarmac. But, this is just one of many great sequences in “Duplicity,” all of which feature a fantastic original score from compose James Newton Howard. Smartly edited and superbly lit, “Duplicity” zips along with comic precision and cinematic pizzazz. Pure filmic fun!

5. “A Serious Man”

An impeccably crafted morality tale, “A Serious Man,” the latest from the great American directors Joel and Ethan Coen (“Fargo,” “No Country for Old Men”), entertains its audience with its deliciously dark humor, while simultaneously confounding them with its deep, often open-ended, themes. However, it is the film’s interpretative thematic queries that make it so fascinating. The film follows Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a Jewish Physics professor, as his life spins out of control. His wife (Sari Lennick) leaves him for his patronizing colleague (Fred Melaned). His daughter is saving up money for a nose job. An unhappy physics student bribes him for a better grade. And his hillbilly neighbors are encroaching on his property line. All of these problems, ranging from trivial to tragic, make Larry question God’s presence in his life. Seeking answers to his run of bad luck, Larry just wants to know what it all means. By the end of the movie, audiences may be asking themselves the same question. This is not a bad thing. Interpretation and ambiguity, when used correctly, deepens and enriches film. The Coens always challenge their audiences with daring, original work, and “A Serious Man” is no exception.

The Top Ten Best Films of 2009 (Pt. 1 of 2)

2010-01-07T21:18:00.001-08:00

6. “Funny People”
Judd Apatow’s “Funny People” is a seriously misunderstood film. Many have complained that the film is not all that funny. Those people, to put it bluntly, have missed the point. “Funny People,” which follows the lives of a group of stand up comedians, is not a comedy. Rather, it is a comedic drama about funny people. The film’s main character, George Simmons (Adam Sandler), is a lonely, self-centered, Hollywood comedian. When George is diagnosed with cancer, he tries to make changes in his life. Unfortunately, these changes are still rooted in George’s inherent selfish attitude. In fact, George does not make one selfless decision until the film’s final scene, and, even then, it’s baby steps. Through George’s predicament, director-writer Judd Apatow expertly filters his dark critique of Hollywood’s superficiality, as well as its viciously competitive nature. Thus, the film makes you look at your favorite comic superstars a little differently. Sure, on the surface, these people always appear light and funny, but, on the inside, they’re just as screwed up as the rest of us.

7. “500 Days of Summer”
“500 Days of Summer” is a true rarity – an original romantic comedy. In a genre plagued with tired storylines, cliché characters, and unfunny jokes, “500 Days of Summer” made me laugh, and that, in of itself, is a blessing. However, the movie also made me think – a feat very few films of this genre come anywhere close to doing. The story is simple, a romance gone wrong. Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) falls in love with Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel). The couple starts dating, but, as it turns out, Summer doesn’t like Tom all that much. Sure, it’s a simple premise, but the film digs much deeper than one might expect. Is Tom really in love with Summer, or is he in love with the idea of Summer, the cute girl who has good taste in music? The film answers this question with brutal honesty. Thankfully, this romantic comedy prefers ideas and emotion over sugar-coated frills.

8. “Precious”
Gutsy and ambitious, “Precious” tells the tale of Claireece “Precious” Jones (newcomer Gabby Sidibe), an overweight, African-American, impoverished teenage girl, pregnant for the second time by her father. While it may sound like misery overload, “Precious” is not all gloom and doom. Director Lee Daniels sprinkles the film with a few light moments that not only break the tension, but also make the film’s lengthy sequences of gritty realism more effective. Also adding to the film’s realism is Mo’Nique’s performance as Precious’ abusive mother, Mary Jones. The well-known comedienne manages to elicit both repulsion and sympathy through her characterization of a monstrous, although clearly damaged, individual. Her performance, as well as Sidibe’s, gives an added boost to an already passionate cinematic achievement.

9. “Away We Go”
A refreshingly light tale of self-discovery, Sam Mendes’ “Away We Go” follows parents-to-be, Burt and Verona, as they search for the ideal place to raise their child. Peppered with equal amounts of humor and drama, the film beautifully captures the couple’s anxiety as they seek the advice of others on their journey. Confronted by several different styles of parenting, Burt and Verona realize their own self-worth as a couple, and as parents. Thus, what they were searching for, both literally and figuratively, they found in themselves. Tinged with moments of zany humor and heartbreaking melancholy, “Away We Go” makes for a delightfully human comedy.

10. “Star Trek”
Fast-paced, frenzied fun, J.J. Abram’s reimagining of the classic sci-fi television series zips by with punchy action sequences and lovely character moments. Headlined by a cast of young faces, the film’s ensemble nails the classic charm of their respective characters, whether it be Zachary Quinto as the emotionally calculated Spock or Chris Pine as the cocky, Harrison Ford-esque, Captain Kirk. However, most importantly, after a few years of dumb, charmless summer entertainment, “Star Trek” made blockbusters fun again.

Honorable Mentions: “Up in the Air,” “Fantastic Mr. Fox”
A George Clooney twofer! Both are wonderfully original films with great characters and quick wits.

Worst Movies of 2009

2009-12-30T18:03:00.000-08:00

The 7 WORST FILMS of 2009

7. A group of friends tried to convince me that Angels and Demons wasn't that bad. To a certain extent, they were right. While Ron Howard's sequel to The Da Vinci Code is filled with uninteresting characters, it was at least mildly amusing. But, still, I can't get over the flatness of the entire experience. Tom Hanks looks bored. If the actor doesn't even care about the movie, why should I?

6. I had similar problems with Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, which is not only a convoluted mess, but also one of the dullest films of the year. For starters, the film's titular character was woefully miscast. Robert Downey Jr's accent as the great Holmes is incoherent, and, much like Tom Hanks in Angels and Demons, Downey looks bored in the role. Where was the spark? Downey was not aided by the dreadful screenplay full of forced wit and implausible plot twists. Charmless.

5. Over the past few years, quirky characters and situations have become a staple of independent film. Many critics have accused this summer's 500 Days of Summer of being too quirky, but, for my money, the most gratingly quirky film of the year was Gigantic, a movie almost no one saw and a movie I wish I hadn't seen. Not only does this film waste the talents of Paul Dano, Zooey Deschanel, and John Goodman, it also fills every frame with tacky detail and cliches. A pathetic, pretentious waste of time.

4. When Monsters vs. Aliens opened in late March, many praised it for its 3D gimmicks and cute characters. Unfortunately, these people failed to realize the film's weak characterizations, empty story, and unimaginative jokes. To me, the film stands out as one of the shallowest films of the year. A vapid mess.

3. Sandra Bullock's good, if overpraised performance, does it best to save The Blind Side from being a complete train wreck, but, unfortunately, the film falters due to its lack of tension, sitcom characters and condescending attitude towards its subject, an overweight, impoverished, African-American teenager. A pandering, insulting snooze.

2. The Proposal, the next film on my list, also stars Sandra Bullock, except this time her performance damages an already terrible film. The Proposal gives into every romantic comedy cliche in the book. Clueless to its own mediocrity, the film traps Bullock and co-star Ryan Reynolds in a vat of generic plotting and unfunny dialogue. Fail.

1. If you know anything about my film taste, or if you have been following this blog since July, you should already know my choice for the worst film of the year. It is, of course, Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The fact that this movie exists is an insult to the pioneers of cinema, every great director of the past and present, and to the American public. I could go on about the confusing action sequences, the lame attempts at humor, and the film's blatantly sexist view, but I don't want to spend another minute on this sad excuse for filmmaking. So, I'll leave Hollywood with one word of advice - find every print, DVD, and Blu Ray disk of this ungodly piece of swill and destroy them.

Well, that's it, folks! My worst of 2009. Expect my Top Ten list and other end of the year features in the coming weeks.

"Avatar" Review

2009-12-27T19:30:00.001-08:00

Since its debut last week, “Avatar” has drawn much hyperbole from both critics and audiences. While “Avatar,” and its director James Cameron (“Titanic,” “Terminator”), should be praised for the film’s groundbreaking motion capture technology, the film is by no means a masterpiece. For all of the film’s visual accomplishments, its script is riddled with flaws that prevent it from reaching the blockbuster heights of the original “Star Wars,” or even Cameron’s prior success, the “Terminator” franchise.

“Avatar” follows Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a former marine, as he joins a program searching for desirable minerals in an alien planet called Pandora. To visit Pandora, Jake becomes an avatar – a hybrid between a human and a Na’vi, the alien race on Pandora. As an avatar, his mission is to convince the Na’vi people to sacrifice the minerals found on their homeland. However, his mission becomes complicated when he falls for a Na’vi princess, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana).

Pandora, as created by Cameron, is a completely digital world, filled with dazzling imagery that lights the screen with bright colors and mesmerizing detail. When Jake first enters Pandora, the immense beauty of this new world is almost overwhelming. With lush forests, misty waterfalls, and a serene skyline, the film intoxicates its audience with its sheer gorgeousness. In short, James Cameron has made special effects beautiful again.

Unfortunately, only half of the film takes place on the planet of Pandora. The film’s other settings include a various assortment of labs and bases where the scientists and soldiers conduct experiments and devise battle plans. It is in these scenes that “Avatar” really falters and the film’s poor screenwriting becomes apparent. Nearly all of the human characters in “Avatar” are either cliché or uninteresting. Instead of making his villains complex, Cameron instead opts for boring, obvious villains like a merciless military colonel (Stephen Lang) and a greedy, insensitive businessman (Giovanni Ribisi). Through these caricatures, Cameron filters a blatant political message. Instead of conveying the film’s message through subtext, Cameron hammers his point home with blunt, unrealistic dialogue. To say the film lacks subtlety is a gross understatement.

That is not to diminish the film’s other accomplishments, which, in many respects, are unparalleled. One just wishes Cameron would have spent as much time on the screenplay as he did on the visuals. The transitions from Pandora to live action often stall the pace as well. Thankfully, the scenes on Pandora are engrossing enough to compensate for the film’s intermittent pacing. The characters on Pandora feel more interesting and well-drawn than the cartoons off planet. And, frankly, the acting is much better. Zoe Saldana delivers a convincing, emotional performance through the motion-capture. She knows exactly when to let Neytiri’s fierce guard down to show emotion. The character of Neytiri also sheds light on Cameron’s unabashed feminism. Not only is Neytiri beautiful, she’s also confident and strong. She matches, and even surpasses, the skilled bravery of her lover.

The film’s other performances are admirable, particularly Sigourney Weaver as Dr. Grace Augustine, a tough-as-nails botanist, but Cameron’s revolutionary special effects remain the film’s true star. However, the film also boasts some fantastic action set pieces, including a magnificent chase scene involving both humans and avatars, as well as an epic battle scene between the humans and the Na’vi. Cameron paces these sequences perfectly, making sure they do not become messy, convoluted, or incoherent. Mr. Cameron puts posers like Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich to shame. Very few filmmakers direct action as deftly as him.

In conclusion, “Avatar,” although cloyingly obvious in its morals, succeeds as a sci-fi, action epic. To put it bluntly, “Transformers 2” does not hold a candle to this imaginative, if deeply flawed, work of art.

B

Have you seen "Avatar?" If so, leave your opinion in the comments.

"Up in the Air" Review

2009-12-26T22:01:00.000-08:00

“Up in the Air,” the third film by director Jason Reitman (whose previous credits include “Thank You for Smoking” and “Juno”), is unlike most studio-based comedies. For starters, it’s actually funny. However, this humor would not resonate if the film was not grounded in some humanity. Luckily, “Up in the Air” offers a social critique and a character study, both of which add depth to the film’s quick wits.

In the film, George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a professional downsizer who traverses across the nation laying off workers for corporate bosses. Through his job, Bingham has accumulated a gargantuan amount of frequent flyer miles, which he considers a great personal accomplishment. Enter Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a young business gal set on revolutionizing corporate downsizing through video conferencing. While Bingham adapts to Natalie’s new system, he meets business woman Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a frequent flyer herself, who eagerly starts a casual affair with him.

Through this premise, Reitman, freely adapting from a novel by Walter Kirn, shows how depersonalized our society has become with the advent of new technology. This technology, along with the constant, swift nature of everyday life, has made personal relationships harder to form and retain. Reitman takes this idea to the extreme with Ryan Bingham, a man who actively resists human relationships – both at his job and with his family. Through Bingham, Retiman filters his critique of modern society.

For the most part, “Up in the Air” succeeds in its endeavors. That is not to say that the film is perfect. A montage of real laid off workers works reacting to their predicament works beautifully by itself, but, ultimately, feels unnecessary. Thankfully, these montages do not kill the storytelling, which really snaps for the film’s first two acts, offering equal doses of drama and comedy. However, as the film reaches its conclusion, the film begins to overstate its social message through some overly preachy dialogue. Fortunately, the film compensates for this ham-fisted dialogue with an ambiguous, thought-provoking ending.

Aiding the film’s witty script is a talented ensemble. George Clooney delivers a funny, but equally sad, performance as the charismatic, yet confused and lonesome, Ryan Bingham. Anna Kendrick also shows off some fine comedic chops by bringing to light Natalie’s snarky attitude and lofty ambitious. However, the true stand-out is Vera Farmiga who captures Alex’s flirtatious tendencies, while simultaneously conveying her more mysterious attributes.

Thus, overall, “Up in the Air” is a satisfying experience. While it may not rank as one of the best or most inspired films of the year, it has the power to appeal to both mainstream audiences and high-brow film lovers. And that is quite an accomplishment.

B+

Have you seen "Up in the Air?" Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

"Invictus" Review

2009-12-20T18:57:00.000-08:00

Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus,” naively inspirational, annoyingly simplistic, and overly clichéd, details former South African President Nelson Mandela’s attempt to unite his divided country, shortly after the end of the apartheid system of racial segregation. To heal the nation, Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) turns to the South African rugby team in hopes that they will end their losing streak and, in the process, unite and inspire the country.

“Invictus,” much like the country it depicts, is divided into two combating parts. The film starts as an interesting, although somewhat dry, examination of political idealism and how it intertwines with various racial issues. However, as the film progresses, screenwriter Anthony Peckham loses sight of Mandela’s politics, instead opting for cliché sports scenes which trivialize the weighty political issues the film beautifully illustrates in its first half.

Thus, while the film does an admirable job of showing one unconventional way in which Mandela dealt with healing a divided nation, it simply does not go far enough. A game of rugby can put a dent in the nation’s healing, but it does not have the power to solve all the country’s problems unequivocally. A country cannot just cheer its problems away with a rousing rugby game. The issue of race relations, especially after a severe oppression, is much more complex than that.

Anthony Peckham’s script is certainly not aided by Eastwood’s direction, which sentimentalizes and gives into nearly every sport cliché in the book. From constant slow-motion to incessant cheering, Eastwood loads on the cheese to an insufferable degree. During these sports sequences, tedious, trite, sentimental images replace the steady, quiet direction of the film’s first half.

The film’s last half also reduces most of the film’s ensemble to cheering spectators, no longer taking any active action to heal the country. For example, Morgan Freeman, the star of the movie, speaks no more than ten words in the film’s final forty-five minutes. Freeman fares well in the rest of the film, and so does Matt Damon as rugby star Francois Pienaar, but neither seem as emotionally connected to the material as the rest of the cast, which is comprised of mostly South Africans. Adjoa Andoh’s performance as Brenda, Mandela’s secretary, is particularly outstanding. Andoh paints Brenda as a woman who realizes both Mandela’s strengths and weaknesses and is not shy about correcting him when needed.

It’s a wonderfully detailed performance, but, like much of the good things in “Invictus,” it disappears in the film’s second hour.

C

A Few Thoughts on "The Road"

2009-12-10T21:26:00.000-08:00

“The Road,” based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy (“No Country for Old Men”), is a mixed bag. The film follows a Man (Viggo Mortensen) and his boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they attempt to survive the aftermath of an apocalyptic event. But, don’t go in expecting “2012.” “The Road” is a much obscurer, less populist film than Roland Emerich’s latest disaster fest. However, surprisingly, the action sequences in the “The Road” work much better than the dramatic scenes. The themes of the morality of survival resonate better in moments of tense conflict, rather than in scenes of emotionally charged drama. And while Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee work well with each other, the latter is far too whiney. The film also contains many flashbacks, which stall the narrative and try too hard to explain the Man’s current situation. These flashbacks not only rob the film of its universality, but also forces emotion on to scenes through overly sentimental music.

Thus, “The Road,” although beautifully filmed and quite ambitious, failed to resonate for me. I left the theater feeling dissatisfied.

C+

Have you seen “The Road?” Share your thoughts in the comments.

"Precious" Review

2009-11-27T00:11:00.000-08:00

“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” an emotionally charged drama from director-producer Lee Daniels (“Monster’s Ball”) oozes with passion. The film tackles several (perhaps, too many) social issues with courage and unflinching detail.

In 1987 Harlem, Claireece “Precious” Jones (newcomer Gabby Sidibe), a black, overweight, illiterate, sixteen-year old girl, struggles with her abusive mother, Mary (played brilliantly by comedian Mo’Nique), attempts to salvage her education at an alternative school, and gives birth to her second child by her sexually abusive father.

Just reading the plot synopsis, one can tell that “Precious” is a heavy, even depressing, film. However, the film does not wallow in its pain and suffering. Director Daniels adds several comic moments to prevent the film from devolving into complete misery. He also includes a few fantasy sequences in which Precious escapes into a world of fashion shows, movie premieres, and gospel concerts. In many ways, these fantasy sequences provide an “escape” for the audience as well.

But the meat of the film takes place in a cold, harsh reality. Precious’ mother Mary, living off welfare checks, crucifies her child’s self-esteem with verbal and physical abuse. When Mary does not like the food Precious prepares for her, she forces Precious to eat it. When Precious attempts to talk back to her vicious mother, Mary smacks her with a frying pan. Several critics have described her as a “monster,” and while this description seems apt, it completely ignores Mary’s psychological problems, which actress Mo’nique magnificently highlights in the film’s climactic scenes.

The acting ensemble in “Precious” is universally solid. Daniels coaxes wonderful performances out of entertainers like Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz, and the aforementioned Mo’Nique – a comedian never known for her dramatic acting chops. Paula Patton is also quite good as Precious’ sympathetic teacher at the alternative school. But the real stand-out is Gabourey “Gabby” Sidibe as Precious. Sidibe’s Precious keeps a hardened face for the majority of the film, but the audience can see the hurt hidden beneath her stoic expressions. And when Precious finally break down, Sidibe handles it deftly, without devolving into over-the-top theatrics. By the film’s uplifting closing scene, the audience sees the strength in Precious as she hoists her child over her shoulder and walks bravely, head lifted proudly, through the streets of Harlem. The emotional impact of these scenes is a testament to Sidibe’s fine acting skills.

While the acting in “Precious” is top-notch, the film’s editing is convoluted and confusing. Many times, the film jumps from scene to scene without much rhythm or coherence, and at other times, scenes just “end” abruptly. Part of the problem may be the film’s unfocused narrative. Daniels and company do not seem to have a clear vision. The film shifts its focus too often, and, at times, it feels like Daniels is trying to accomplish too much by tackling several social issues at one time. Daniels even adds several stylistic flourishes. While some of these stylistic choices work (his music choices are superb), others feel obnoxious and mar the film’s emotional content.

But something about the film’s lack of restraint is good. The film may have lost some of its impact if Daniels had not incorporated so many personal touches. Even if some of his artistic choices are garish, they come from the heart. Daniels shows great passion and personal voice in his direction. While his direction makes “Precious” flawed, it also makes the film a genuinely moving experience.

B+

Have you seen "Precious?" If so, leave your thoughts in the comments.

Bullet Point Reviews

2009-11-24T20:13:00.001-08:00

Here are a few quick, bullet point reviews for three films now available on DVD.

"Monsters vs. Aliens"

shallow
mindless action sequences
uninteresting characters
fun voice work by Seth Rogen
forgettable
C-

"Angels & Demons"

overlong
good, focused performance from Ewan McGregor
bland performance from Tom Hanks
plagued with far too many twists
misses several opportunities to be more interesting
uninspired, but somewhat amusing
C

"Star Trek"

fun, well-made blockbuster
well-written characters wrapped around exciting, frenzied action sequences
strong performances from Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto
emotionally engaging in parts
final action sequence lacks impact and coherence
B+

"An Education" Review

2009-11-24T20:05:00.000-08:00

In “An Education,” a light drama directed by Lone Scherfig, Jenny (Carrey Mulligan), a young woman hoping to attend Oxford University, falls in love with David (Peter Sarsgaard), a rich gentleman, and starts to question her academic aspirations.

The film features several great performances. Carrey Mulligan is fantastic as Jenny. She captures the character’s desire for independence with great expressive detail. From her infectious smiles to her emotional sobs, Mulligan nails nearly every emotion. Alfred Molina also delights as Jenny’s overbearing father. Molina’s performance is broadly comic and over-the-top, but in a good way. His explosions of wit and anger feel natural for a father who sincerely wants the best for his daughter.

While the performances are uniformly excellent, the film’s narrative runs snags at several instances. Many of the characters, with the exception of Jenny and her father, feel either undeveloped or clichéd. For example, the character of David, Jenny’s older lover, feels underwritten. Why is he seducing a girl nearly half his age? The script fails to gives us any insight into his motives. And although Rosamund Pike is a hoot as Helen, a rather ditzy friend of David’s, her character feels a tad one-dimensional.

What the script, written by Nick Hornby, lacks in characterization, it makes up for in theme. The film deals with the complex balance between personal pleasure and accomplishment in a way that is neither stuffy nor simplistic. Unfortunately, the script’s narrative snags prevent these themes from ever fully resonating. While the first two acts feel refreshingly light, with a few key dramatic moments sprinkled throughout, the film’s last act becomes far too heavy-handed. All of a sudden, the film deteriorates into a bunch of speeches and “profound” one-liners, and the film starts to feel artificial.

While the film’s conclusion feels artificial, the production design does not. “An Education” vibrantly recreates the culture of the 60s in both London and Paris, without drawing too much attention away from the narrative. The result is an extremely polished art design.

To conclude, “An Education” succeeds due to a few magnificent performances, but lacks a powerful, coherent script to support its weighty themes.

B-

"The Blind Side" Review

2009-11-19T20:01:00.000-08:00

“The Blind Side,” an unfocused, breezy drama, follows Leigh Anne Toughy (Sandra Bullock) as she takes in a homeless, uneducated, black teenage boy, Michael Oher (played by Quinton Aaron), and helps him turn his life around through a mix of family, school, and football.

“The Blind Side”, directed by John Lee Hancock (“The Alamo,” “The Rookie”), could have been heavy-handed and overly dramatic – and in some scenes it is – but Hancock wisely presents the story with a light touch. Unfortunately, the film is too unfocused for the light tone to pay off.

Hancock, who also wrote the screenplay based off a true story, meanders from one genre to the next unable to find an appropriate angle from which he can anchor the story. At times, the film feels like a heart-tugging melodrama, and at other times, it feels like a primetime sitcom. And for a good ten minutes, the film’s primary focus is one football game. The result is a tedious mess that lacks emotional resonance. An audience cannot connect with a film if the film is unsure of what it wants to be.

While the film’s unfocused storyline causes it to be disengaging, the film’s condescending treatment of Michael Oher prevents the audience from sympathizing with him. “The Blind Side” seems to suggest that the only way for an impoverished black teenager to succeed is for a family of white do-gooders to help him. At no point does Michael ever take initiative and try to accomplish something for himself. Instead, he lets others guide his actions. Since Hancock fails to give Michael any fortitude or individuality, the character leaves the audience cold.

If the film succeeds in one area, it is in Sandra Bullock’s performance. Bullock manages to create a genuine character out of what could have been a bland caricature. Her character’s southern charm and generosity feels genuine. The rest of the cast is comprised mostly of caricatures. Ray McKinnon, in particular, is dreadful as Michael’s football coach.

“The Blind Side,” although refreshingly light and boosted by an admirable performance by Sandra Bullock, ultimately feels aimless due to a lack of passion and focus from its director.

C-

"A Serious Man" Review

2009-11-08T18:15:00.000-08:00

“A Serious Man,” a dark comedy from directors Joel and Ethan Coen (“Fargo,” “The Big Lebowski,” “No Country for Old Men”), follows Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), a Jewish physics professor, as his life spirals out of control once his wife (Sari Lennick) divorces him. And as Larry tries to save his relationship with his wife, life bombards him with even more problems. Soon, Larry starts questioning whether God is punishing him.

While the plot of “A Serious Man” sounds simplistic, the ideas behind the film are not. The film tackles the complexities of religion head-on. Larry, like many religious people, wonders why so many bad things happen to him, when he is trying desperately to be a serious, religious man. When he visits several rabbis for counsel, they do not seem able to give him a definite answer. Through Larry’s situation, the Coens seem to be suggesting that one cannot fully understand the method to God’s madness. According to the Coens, life does not have one definite meaning.

Likewise, “A Serious Man” does not have one definite meaning. Part of what makes the film so rich is how open it is to interpretation. The deliberately ambiguous ending begs the audience to ponder the film's meaning. Thus, the discussion that the film fosters can be almost as rewarding as the film itself.

While the film is cerebral and philosophical, “A Serious Man,” like many films by the Coen Brothers, is also quite funny. While not all of the humor works and some of it may be lost on a non-Jewish audience, several scenes rank among some of the funniest of the year. From a pair of racist neighbors to a silent rabbi, the film features several quirky, often hilarious, characters. However, one truly stands out. Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), one of Larry’s fellow professors at the university, condescendingly consoles Larry to great comedic effect. Melamed easily gives the funniest performance in the film.

The film’s other performances are also quite good. Stuhlbarg embodies Larry with such sincerity that it is almost impossible not to sympathize with the character. Aaron Wolff also fares well as Danny Gopnik, Larry’s son. However, Richard Kind, who plays Larry’s brother Arthur, is far too over-the-top. It may not be entirely Kind’s fault, because the character feels a tad underwritten, but Kind does not help the situation by devolving into shouting instead of deepening his character.

While “A Serious Man” does not rank among the Coens’ best work, it is still undeniably strong, both stylistically and thematically. For directors with over a twenty year filmography, they continually challenge themselves to produce fresh, unique films. With the Coens still working, there is proof that creativity remains strong in modern cinema.

B+

Have you seen "A Serious Man?" If so, leave your thoughts in the comments below. Remember, you don't need a Blogger account to comment. You can use the "Name/URL" option or remain Anonymous.

"Where the Wild Things Are" Review

2009-10-18T14:55:00.001-07:00

Shockingly honest, emotionally satisfying, and beautifully realized, “Where the Wild Things Are,” Spike Jonze’s adaption of the children’s story by Maurice Sendak, is a cinematic gem that conveys both the fragility and joy of childhood through truthful, sometimes heart-breaking, images. In short, through these images, Jonze (who also directed the equally great “Being John Malkovich”) has arguably made one of the best films about childhood emotion.

The film, brought to the screen delicately by Jonze and fellow screenwriter Dave Eggers, follows Max (played by newcomer Max Records), a lonesome young boy, as he yearns for the attention of his older sister and his caring, yet stressed, mother (Catherine Keener). Upset by this lack of attention, Max runs away from and home and into his imagination. There, on an island, he meets the Wild Things, a group of big, animal-like creatures. Not long after they meet Max, the Wild Things declare him their king. Finally feeling appreciated and loved, Max lets out a kingly battle cry, “Let the wild rumpus start!”

One could almost describe the film as a “wild rumpus” of sorts. Once Max enters the land of the Wild Things, the film becomes infused with the liveliness of a child’s imagination as it bounces from one scene to the next, somehow managing to avoid feeling unfocused or scatter-brained. Of course, the Wild Things segments would not have worked so well if it was not for the film’s opening scenes. These scenes, marvelously acted by Records and Keener, say more about child-parent relationships without words than most movies do with words. Because Max does not understand how to deal with his frustration towards his mother, nor does he fully understand where his mother is coming from, he, like many children, has to delve into his imagination to sort out his problems and come to an understanding about the meaning of love, the pain that comes with growing up, and the harshness, but also the benefits, of change.

It is through the Wild Things that Max is able to sort out his feelings. The Wild Things represent the exaggerated emotions inside of himself and the other people in his life. Through his imagination, Max is able to see certain events from his real life play out among the Wild Things. This gives him a new perspective that leads to the film’s touching climactic scenes – one which takes place in his imagination and one which takes place at home with his mother.

In fact, there is hardly a scene in “Where the Wild Things Are” that does not pierce the emotions. Nearly every frame feels intensely personal. And every frame is also beautiful. Cinematographer Lance Acord outdoes himself in probing both the light and dark landscapes in Max’s fantastical world. In fact, all of the film’s technical elements add something significant to the film to make it more effective. The film’s score, a collaboration between musician Karen O. and composer Carter Burwell, really captures the film’s melancholic, almost wistful, mood.

However, perhaps the film’s greatest technical achievement is an aspect that one hardly notices – the Wild Things themselves. Jonze and company made a wise move in not making the creatures computer generated. In fact, making them computer generated would have killed the film’s charm and originality. CGI has become the easy route nowadays, and while some computer effects can be brilliant and long-lasting, others look lazy and almost laughable a few years down the road. By making the Wild Things puppets with computer generated faces, Jonze was able to capture the emotion on the creatures’ faces without robbing them of their beautiful simplicity.

To conclude, “Where the Wild Things Are” clearly comes from a director with a unique and precise vision. Mr. Jonze has outdone himself in creating an emotional film about childhood that never rings false. Nearly every aspect of his film feels organic, as if it all came bursting forth from a place deep within him. This kind of emotional truth is hard to come by, and very few directors have the talent to convey it so purely on the screen. Thankfully, Mr. Jonze is one of them.

______

My Weekend

2009-10-16T17:52:00.000-07:00

I don't know if there are any Fall/Winter movies that I am more excited for than these ones. Let's hope I'm not disappointed! Expect full reviews within the next week. I'll defenitely have my ratings finalized and in the sidebar by Sunday.

"Whip It" Review

2009-09-26T20:29:00.001-07:00

Every once in a while, a film will start off terribly and gradually get better over the course of its running time. This is especially true of "Whip It," actress Drew Barrymore's directorial debut. After the film's first thirty minutes, I was more than ready to deliver a disappointing pan. But, as the film continued, I became won over by the film's charm.

The film follows Bliss Cavendar (Ellen Page), a bored teenager, as she attempts to fight the rather humdrum environment of her small Texan town. While shopping with her mother (Marcia Gay Harden), Bliss picks up a flyer for a womens' roller derby tournament. After attending the tournament, one of the players encourages Bliss to try out for the team. Bliss, worried about her parents' reaction, at first hesitates, but eventually decides to pursue her interests. After a difficult day of try outs, Bliss finds out that she made the team, which is rather crudely named "The Hurl Scouts."

As mentioned earlier, the first thirty minutes of "Whip It" fall completely flat. The jokes are unfunny, the characters uninteresting, and the storytelling rather limp. But, somewhere in the film's midpoint, it changes. As the film becomes more about the roller derby, an extra layer of fun is added to the film. And as the film's tone solidifies into an interesting mix of comedy and drama, the film really starts to work.

The film owes a lot to its lead star, Ellen Page. Page slips into her part with ease and effortlessly captures the rebellious nature of a teenager who feels limited by her mundane surroundings. Thus, her performance feels remarkably honest, and one could even argue it is better than her Oscar-nominated performance in 2007's "Juno." Kristen Wiig and Drew Barrymore prove to be both endearing (the former) and hysterical (the latter) in their supporting roles.

Although the film does run a bit too long, and one subplot involving a love interest feels extraneous, the film ends up being a success despite its early missteps. Like the film's lead character, "Whip It" stumbles a few times before achieving its goal.

B

"The Informant!" Review

2009-09-25T21:25:00.000-07:00

“The Informant,” a comic thriller directed by Steven Soderbergh, follows Mark Whitacre (Matt Damon), a high-ranking employee at a food production corporation. When Whitacre realizes that the corporation is involved in price fixing scams, he becomes a whistle blower for the FBI in hopes of putting the corrupt businessmen behind bars. But, is that really his motive? Whitacre is either bipolar, schizophrenic or just a chronic liar. The more he says, the less one can make sense of his situation. At some points, he seems like a dimwitted buffoon, at other times a neurotic genius. Needless to say, watching it all play out makes for a fun, if imperfect, film experience.

“The Informant,” which is based on a true story, succeeds for two main reasons, its lead actor and its directorial panache. Damon, who is quickly joining the likes of George Clooney and Brad Pitt as one of the most iconic movie stars of the new millennium, has the character of Mark Whitacre down to a tee. He manages to capture the character’s unpredictable behavior, as well as his more self-righteous qualities. Melanie Lynskey also puts forth a solid performance as Mark’s wife Ginger Whitacre. While the duo’s actions are certainly dubious, their relationship remains solid and one could even describe their marriage as a strong one.

Also aiding the film is its direction. Soderbergh, whose previous credits include “Traffic” and “Ocean’s Eleven,” takes an interesting risk by presenting the film as a comedy. While the film does not reach the wackiness of a Coen Brothers’ picture, it does boast some pretty odd artistic choices. The film is shot like a 70s action movie with funky title cards and contains a fantastic retro score by Marvin Hamlisch. While some may be bothered by these obscure choices, they really do complement the film’s odd sense of humor.

Unfortunately, “The Informant!” falls apart in its third act. As the plot thickens, twists are thrown right and left and the film begins to lose some of its witty charm. It also devolves into a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, which proves annoying and, at times, just boring. While the film’s ending is rather disappointing, it still succeeds due to its unique visual style and wonderful lead performance. Despite its flaws, “The Informant!” illustrates how easily people, even large corporations and the federal government, can be manipulated in to believing just about anything. While crooks may utter “Trust Me,” as the film’s final music cue ironically suggests, do not believe them. Anyone can be a crook, even that smiling face behind the desk or that cheerful voice over the phone. The only people one can really trust are the artists – oh, and the critics too. (wink, wink)

Your thoughts? Race to the comments!

More Bullet Point Reviews

2009-09-11T19:57:00.000-07:00

Here are a few bullet point reviews. One on a recent theater release ("Extract") and two others on films now available on DVD ("Adventureland" and "State of Play").

"Extract"

Starts off funny, but quickly become repetitive. Jokes are run into the ground and others are just too broad. In particular, a drug sequence in the film's second act is dead on arrival. This sequence not only stalls the film's narrative but also crushes the comedic rhythm.
Jason Bateman is great in the lead role. He really embodies the every man. Unfortunately, his relationship with his wife, played by Kirsten Wiig, makes no sense. This is problematic because their relationship is the crux of the film.
Both Kirsten Wiig and Mila Kunis's characters feel underwritten. Their characters just feel like plot conveniences.
J.K. Simmons needs a new agent. He keeps getting type cast in the same roles. That being said, this is one of his better performances in the recent years.
Ben Affleck and Gene Simmons are shockingly good in their parts. They truly create the film's most memorable characters.
The film's satire is uneven. It teeters between broad comedy, sharp digs and mean-spirited critiques too often for it to be truly successful. At the end, one is not entirely certain what director Mike Judge is trying to say.
C+

"Adventureland"

intimate coming of age story
solid, if not spectacular, performances
able to create a distinctive atmosphere that most films lack
interesting, but not particularly engaging
seems like it is trying to be introspective, but I did not feel compelled to think too much about it afterwards
B

"State of Play"

thriller injected with moral complications
interesting study on the decline of newspapers and the rise of Internet blogging
solid performance from Russell Crowe; middling performance from Ben Affleck
Jason Bateman delivers a wonderfully realized supporting performance as a slimy corporate publicist.
Rachel McAdams and Helen Mirren fare well in underwritten, and at times fairly annoying, supporting roles
narrative is marred by a twist ending that feels convoluted and unnecessary
manages to succeed thematically, despite its narrative pratfalls
B+

Wow! I've been watching too many Jason Bateman and Ben Affleck films.

Be sure to leave your opinion in the comments below.

"Duplicity" Review

2009-09-11T19:23:00.000-07:00

I reviewed "Duplicity" before I started the blog, but I still want to share my review. For me, "Duplicity" is the number two film of the year thus far. And it worked just as well, if not better, on a second viewing. Unfortunately, the film tanked at the box office and not many people got a chance to see it. It's out on DVD now and is well-worth your time. I had to slightly alter my review due to both changes in opinion and stylistic choices I made in my review at the time. It's funny. I wrote this review six months ago, and I thought it was my best. And after reading it over, I am appalled by some of my stylistic decisions. Anyway, here's my original review of "Duplicity" (with a few slight alterations).

___________________________________________________________________

About midway through Tony Gilroy’s spy thriller, “Duplicity,” corporate spy Claire Stenwick says to Ray Koval, her lover and rival, “Admit it, you don’t trust me either.” This clever quip underlines the film’s main topic, trust – particularly in relationships. And directors-screenwriter Gilroy successfully conveys this idea in a fun, stylish, clever thriller.

In Duplicity , Stenwick (Julia Roberts) and Koval (Clive Owen), two ex-government intelligence agents, team up to take down two pharmaceutical companies vying for a revolutionary new product. With Stenwick on one side and Koval on the other, the plan seems flawless, but much double-crossing and finger-pointing ensues as the con becomes more involved and the stakes higher.

While the film’s plot is complex and twisty, one never gets frustrated because the film does not take itself too seriously. And when the answers do come, they are clever and add to the film’s atmosphere. Much credit should go to Gilroy, who balances the complexity and the light humor of the film almost flawlessly. One scene near the film’s ending upsets this balance, but Gilroy is able to compensate for this small error with a pitch-perfect final scene.

Part of what makes the film so fun is the undeniable chemistry between Roberts and Owens. While Owens can be a tad dull at times, he is almost always charming. And Julia Roberts proves she still has the chops to carry a movie. She shines in both her comedic and dramatic scenes. Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson also shine with delightful performances as the two sleaze bags in charge of the rival corporations. The opening credit sequence featuring the two rivals attacking each other in slow-motion is a joy to watch and adds even more flair to an already stylish film.

One sticking point that many will have with the film is that it is too talky. While the film does feel verbose, it is still energized and engaging. One sequence – with almost no violence – in which one corporation is attempting to steal the other’s secret, is more suspenseful than most modern action movies. While many filmmakers think that suspense is created by constant action, the minds behind “ Duplicity” realize that suspense comes from the stakes of the characters, rather than how many bullets are being fired at them. Accenting the film’s suspenseful, twisty plot is James Newton Howard’s upbeat, jazzy score. Also of note is Robert Elswit’s cinematography which displays the beauty of the film’s various locales. All of these elements combine to make a fun, fluid, and truthful film experience.

A-

"Inglourious Basterds" Review

2009-08-23T20:28:00.000-07:00

Sometimes you just have to appreciate a film for its sheer audacity. "Inglourious Basterds," directed by Quentin Tarantion ("Pulp Fiction," "Jackie Brown"), is one of those films. Not only is the film stunningly ambitious and confident, it is also one of the most challenging and unconventional mainstream releases in recent years. For starters, the film is two and a half hours long. And while the film is being marketed as a Nazi-killing action fest, only twenty minutes of the movie contain Nazi-killing action. Instead the film is filled with not one, not two, not three, but several scenes (some of them pushing twenty minutes) of dialogue. And, here's the kicker, most of that dialogue is in a foreign language. Characters speak in English, German, French, and even Italian. You know what that means! Subtitles. Still, this film was released in 3,165 theaters! That is a pretty hefty wide release. Why did the Weinstein Company take such a chance? Why didn't someone tell Tarantino to cut it down? Why didn't they just give it a limited release? Why was the budget 70 million dollars when the film was destined to only make half that much?

Needless to say, I was pretty anxious to gauge the reaction of my audience once the film ended. Would they complain about the subtitles? Bemoan the lack of action? Wonder (like I did) why the studio would release such a weird movie? To my surprise, as soon as the film ended, the theater erupted in instant applause. It did not feel forced. It was not just a few people. It was not a small applause that grew into a big one. It was an instantaneous, unanimous, excited applause. The movie going public had proven me wrong. I sat in my seat ready - almost excited - to hear the dissenting opinions from the non-movie buffs around me. But what I got was even more exciting - an audience embracing a weird, challenging film. I was dumbfounded by the reaction and almost embarrassed by my cynicism. In conclusion, let's just say it was a wake-up call.

Now, enough with this rather lengthy preamble and on with the actual review.

"Inglourious Basterds" follows two revenge plots. One of these plots follows Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), a Jew who is on the run after her family is murdered. The other thread follows Liteunant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), the leader of the Basterds - a unit of American soldiers known for their vicious murders of Nazi soldiers. Slipping in and out of both threads is Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), a cunningly evil detective whose nickname is the "Jew Hunter." And, of course, all of these characters and revenge plots collide in one of the best final acts in recent memory.

And it is not just the film's climax that is satisfying. The film's aforementioned lengthy dialogue scenes slowly build suspense from casual conversation to hectic violence. And aiding to this suspense is a trio of great performances. Brad Pitt seems to be having a blast as the Southern blood-thirsty commando and his performance is layered with delicious camp. Melanie Laurent is sympathetic as Shoshanna, while still conveying the character's thirst for revenge. And, finally, Christoph Waltz is outstanding in his performance as Hans Landa. Waltz inhabits Landa's stealthiness with ease and makes it clear that the "Jew Hunter" revels in his own cleverness. Waltz's Hans Landa will undoubtedly join the ranks of Heath Ledger's the Joker (2008's "The Dark Knight") and Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh (2007's "No Country for Old Men") to complete one of the best string of villains in film history (and I rarely make such hyperbolic statements).

Now, the film is not perfect. It does have a few minor flaws. The Basterd characters seem to conflict tonally with the world that Tarantino has created. While Shoshanna and Hans Landa seem to exist in a slightly altered reality, Lt. Aldo Rane and the Basterds reside in a Looney Tunes cartoon world. When these two worlds first meet, it feels jarring, but as the film progresses into its final act, the mixture becomes more natural as Tarantino solidifies the film's tone. Also, Eli Roth's performance as the "Jew Bear" is almost tortuously bad. The actor/director should stay behind the camera next time.

Despite the unevenness of the Basterd characters, their existence in the film is integral to the film's thematic ideas. The Basterd's vicious murders are presented in a way that is not only fun, but often hilariously kooky. The audience gets their kicks out of seeing the Nazis get their due on the silver screen. Similarly, the film's final set piece takes place in a movie theater where the Nazis get their kicks out of propaganda filmmaker Joseph Goebbels's new film "Nation's Pride." During this scene, the Nazi audience gleefully laughs and applauds as the Germans kill thousands of enemy soldiers on screen. To put it bluntly, the film that the Nazis are watching is not altogether that different than the film Tarantino has made. In fact, one could almost call "Inglourious Basterds" an anti-Nazi propaganda film. But really, the film is about the persuasive, manipulating nature of cinema. Tarantino's kinetic style and fun tone coaxes us into enjoyment. And even the more sympathetic Nazi characters are not treated kindly by the film's supposed heroes. One could even assume Tarantino is asking non-Germans (specifically, Americans) to look at their past and see their own nation’s brutalities (the massacre of the Native Americans, anyone?).

But what Tarantino is mainly commenting on - as mentioned earlier - is the power of film to manipulate its audience. The director is integral to this process. And by excessively name dropping directors in his script, Tarantino is reminding us of this. Thankfully, we do not need a reminder of how great of a filmmaker he is. "Inglourious Basterds," whether viewed as a fun World War II movie or a meta-comment on the nature of filmmaking, is a cinematic delight. In short, it’s glorious.

A-

Top 5 Films of the Year So Far

2009-08-23T15:03:00.000-07:00

A few have requested this, so here are my Top Five Films of 2009 (So Far).

5. Star Trek

4. 500 Days of Summer

3. Inglourious Basterds

2. Duplicity

1. The Hurt Locker

Be sure to looks for my "Inglourious Basterds" review, as well as some DVD reviews, later in the week.

What are your top five films of the year (so far)? Did I miss one that you love? Are you appalled at one of my choices? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Thoughts on "Julie and Julia"

2009-08-23T14:11:00.000-07:00

Meryl Streep and Amy Adams star as famous chef Julia Child and lonely blogger Julie Powell (inspired to cook by Julia the former) in director/writer Nora Ephron’s “Julie and Julia.” The film’s dual stories are equal in their lightness, but not in their quality. The Julia Child segments are much more entertaining than the Julie Powell segments, mainly due to Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci’s wonderful performances. It is so much fun to watch two great veteran actors create such a believable chemistry. The same, however, cannot be said of Amy Adams and Chris Messina’s relationship – which feels less genuine and too over-the-top. But their relationship is not the film’s only problem. Unfortunately, this cinematic soufflé is a tad overcooked. Since the film’s subject matter is so light and frothy, one wishes Ephron would have kept the film at a brisk ninety minutes. Unfortunately, “Julie and Julia” overstays its welcome and suffers from a third act that lacks any dramatic tension. In conclusion, if “Julie and Julia” would have taken out some ingredients, it may have been a cinematic gourmet. However, the film’s fluffy – if somewhat enjoyable – excesses prevent it from being so.

B-

What's Left?: Cinema Soups' Most Anticipated Films for the Rest of 2009 (Part 2 of 2)

2009-08-10T13:14:00.000-07:00

As the summer draws to a close, you may be wondering, "What's left?" No need to fear! Cinema Soup is doing the investigating for you. Check out part one of our preview here.

And now, without further ado, Part 2 of our Fall/Winter preview.

Let's start with "The Road." The film, based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy ("No Country for Old Men"), follows a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smitt-McPhee) as they seek refuge and try to survive in a post-apocalyptic future. What seems to be an emotional tale of survival has been marketed as an action-packed thriller in the film's trailer (see here). Having read a few chapters of the book, I know for sure that this trailer is misleading. "The Road" should have some thrilling moments, but - if it stays true to the book - it should be more about the father-son relationship. And Hollywood is notorious for marketing dramas as thrillers, because - apparently - audiences will not be interested in a movie unless it has three explosions per second. Anyway, the film's imagery looks stunning, Viggo Mortensen looks fantastic in his role, and the film on the whole looks incredibly intriguing. Let's hope "The Road" lives up to its promise when it opens on October 16th, 2009.

Speaking of dark subject matter, in this case a dark comedy, the trailer for the Coen Brothers next film "A Serious Man" looks great. This film was completely off my radar until now. Check out my full thoughts here.

Next up is "Shutter Island," the latest film from acclaimed director Martin Scorsese ("Goodfellas," "The Departed," "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull"). "Shutter Island" follows U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he investigates the disappearance of a female patient from a mental hospital. As Teddy gets further enveloped in the case, he makes some shocking revelations about the establishment. It is best to leave the plot description there. Having not read the original novel, I do not know much more about the plot. However, I feel that the film's trailer may give away some crucial plot details. You can check out the trailer here, but I would suggest you stop watching after the one minute mark. Anyway, the film looks creepy, atmospheric, and suspenseful. Let's hope "Shutter Island" is another Scorsese gem when it hits theaters October 2nd, 2009.

And we will conclude with "The Lovely Bones," based on the best-selling novel by Alice Sebold. The film, directed by the great Peter Jackson ("The Lord of the Rings," "King Kong"), follows Susie Salmon, a young girl who is murdered, as she, from some sort of afterlife, watches her family cope with the tragedy of her death. The film's trailer shows off some stunning visuals, but I am mixed on the trailer as a whole. The trailer makes the movie seem tonally confused (is it a drama? thriller? fantasy?) and some of the acting looks so-so. However, the good certainly outweighs the bad. Saoirse Ronan, Susan Sarandon, and Stanley Tucci all look great in their respective roles, but, still, something just feels a little "off." Oh, well. You can't really judge a film by its trailer anyway. Here's hoping "The Lovely Bones" is lovely when it opens wide on December 11th, 2009.

Well, dear reader, what do you think? Do you disagree with my picks? Would you like to add your own? Leave your thoughts in the comments. And remember you don't have to be a member of Blogger to comment. Just use "Anonymous" or "Name/Url" in which the URL is optional. Thanks!

Bullet Point Reviews

2009-08-08T20:42:00.000-07:00

I normally do not condone writing brief, bullet-point reviews, but I wanted to quickly convey some opinions on a few films from earlier in the year - most of which are now on DVD.

"Coraline" (directed by Henry Selick)

lush, detailed, beautiful stop-motion animation
surprisingly creepy story
suffers from an uneven pace
flips the idea of a perfect world; shows the controlling aspects of such a society
a few peripheral characters feel unnecessary
voice talent is superb; Teri Hatcher makes a convincing villain.
Grade: B

"Gigantic" (directed by Matt Aselton)

the film's quirky elements feel forced and hamper the film's plot and tone
Zooey Deschanel fares well as an eccentric, yet somewhat childish, girlfriend to Paul Dano's character
Paul Dano fails to give his character a real personality. Such a shame after his great turn in 2007's "There Will Be Blood."
hindered by pretentious symbolism that is neither comprehensible or illuminating
manages to bring up some interesting ideas about one's transition to adulthood, but the ideas ultimately fail to resonate due to the film's numerous problems.
Grade: C-

"The Soloist" (directed by Joe Wright)

inspirational true story
interesting cinematography; surprisingly varied for a mainstream film
good, but not great performances; both Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. feel detached from the material
Foxx's acting is a bit too showy; would have preferred a more naturalistic performance
script feels repetitive and sometimes slips into melodrama
relies too heavily on voice over narration to convey the lead character's emotion and motivation; some scenes with extended dialogue feel too unrealistic
steady pace; transitions well from flashbacks to the modern day
at least somewhat outlines the many problems on the streets of L.A.
It provides a realistic conclusion for the two main characters. Unfortunately this conclusion is marred by an annoyingly sentimental final scene.
Grade: C+

"500 Days of Summer" Review

2009-08-02T20:58:00.000-07:00

“500 Days of Summer,” a romantic comedy, stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Tom,a greeting card writer with architectural aspirations, and Zooey Deschanel (“Elf”) as Summer, the girl who charms Tom with her wit and beauty. Unlike many recent romantic comedies, "500 Days of Summer" does not feel stale or formulaic. Instead, it's fun, fresh, and relatable as it explores the 500 day relationship between Tom and Summer.

Although Summer is a major character in the film, it is important to note that the film is seen strictly from Tom's perspective. This allows the audience to relate to Tom as he goes through the joys and hardships of romance. And, yes there are many hardships. As the narrator warns the audience during the film's opening, "This is not a love story." By sticking to this idea, screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber are able to craft a tale of romantic heartbreak without making the film an emotional downer.

In fact, the movie is anything but a downer. The film hums along at a good pace and deftly mixes the screenplay's dramatic and comedic beats with dynamic, vibrant visuals and one of the best soundtracks in recent years. And the movie has actual jokes in it! Can you believe that? Cleverly thought out jokes in a romantic comedy! While not all of the jokes hit and some overstay their welcome, it is refreshing to actually laugh during a romantic comedy.

Many critics have criticized the movie for its more quirky comic moments, but, to me, it was not a problem. Ever since 2006's Little Miss Sunshine it has been hip to make characters quirky and throw in a ton of pop culture references. Some movies ( Juno) force so many pop culture references down your throat that it gets annoying, cliched, and distracting from the overall story. 500 Days of Summer does not have this problem. Except for maybe one scene that references Sid Vicious, the film's quirk (I am really starting to hate this word.) feels natural to both the story and its characters. Hence, the movie never feels like it is too clever for its own good.

However, what really carries the film is its story and its performances - both of which work together to entertain the audience and convey hard emotional truths about human relationships. Gordon-Levitt really taps into Tom's idealized version of love and is able to carry the film through both its bright and dark moments. Deschanel, who is unable to give a full characterization due to the nature of her role, shines in her subtler moments when one can almost read the uncertainty on her face. Unfortunately, the supporting characters (i.e. friends, little sisters, fellow employees) come off as annoying and cliched. Thankfully, they are not given enough screen time to derail the movie into typical romantic comedy fare.

In conclusion, 500 Days of Summer - directed with much dexterity by Marc Webb - is stylish, funny and emotionally resonant. And while it may not be the best film of the year, it is certainly one of the most memorable, and without a doubt one of the best romantic comedies in recent years.

B+

Have you seen 500 Days of Summer? If so, what are your thoughts? Be sure to leave your review in the comments. No need to have a Blogger account. Just use Anonymous or Name/URL.

"We're gonna be fine."

2009-08-01T19:50:00.000-07:00

The Coen Brothers ("No Country for Old Men," "O, Brother Where Art Thou") have just released the trailer for their new film, "A Serious Man." It is quite possibly one of the best trailers I have ever seen. I love the repetition and music cue at the end. The film is about a (serious) man whose loses control of his life after his wife divorces him. It looks deliciously dark and filled with satiric wit. "A Serious Man" opens on October 2nd, 2009.

Your thoughts? Race to the comments!

What's Left?: Cinema Soups' Most Anticipated Films for the Rest of 2009

2009-07-29T15:47:00.000-07:00

As the film year reaches its midpoint, you may be wondering, well, what's left?

Well, my friends, there are many things to look forward to. And we will explore some of the most anticipated (at least in this blogger's eyes) films of the rest of the year in this two-part series. So, let's dive in!

Let's start with the big banana - the film everyone has been anticipating, the film that will shatter the earth and cure all diseases. Well, maybe not that last one. James Cameron's "Avatar" has been in production forever. There's been so much hype surrounding Cameron's supposedly ground-breaking new motion capture technology used in the film, yet we have not even seen a simple trailer, and the movie comes out in December! The average person who does not follow internet movie hype has probably never even heard of it. And the movie's budget is supposedly around $300 million + ! Things just don't seem to add up. How will the movie live up to its hype? How will it ever make its money back? What the heck is it even about? Well, I think we have an answer to that last question- albeit a vague one. "Avatar" follows a man named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) as he explores a new world called Pandora. But in order to get into this new world, he has to make a duplicate of himself called an "avatar" which will disguise him from the Na'vi race (see left picture) on Pandora's planet. Sigourney Weaver and Zoe Saldana are also set to star. I can't wait, but, let's just say, I am a little more skeptical than most film buffs. "Avatar" opens wide December 18th, 2009.

Next up is Spike Jonzes's adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children's book "Where the Wild Things Are." You can hear me rave about the trailer here. There really isn't much more to say. The film looks beautiful, emotional, and creative. Hopefully, it will entertain children and adults alike, and do gangbusters at the box office (wishful thinking). I also hope that it is as good as the trailer makes it out to be. I fear that the movie studio may try to tinker with it and tarnsish Jonze's vision. Sigh. Sometimes, you just got to let the director do his thing. And usually great things happen (EXAMPLE). Here's hoping that great things will happen when "Where the Wild Things Are" opens on October 16th, 2009.

When I first heard about Lone Sherfig's "An Education," I thought the film was going to be typical, shlocky Oscar bait. However, once the trailer (embedded below) appeared, my mind changed in an instant. The film, unlike many award hogging character dramas, does not seem to be drenched in its own self-importance. Rather, the film seems light, funny, and powerful without feeling pretentious or heavy-handed. "An Education" follows Jenny (Carrey Mulligan), a young girl about to set off to college in the 1960s, as she engages in a relationship with an older man (Peter Sarsgaard) much to the dismay of her overbearing father (Alfred Molina). And, as the trailer suggests, Jenny soon learns that "sometimes an education isn't by the book." Well, let's hope this film is one "for the books" when it arrives in theaters on October 9th, 2009.

Well, that's all for part one of this series. Expect part two to be up sometime next week.

Be sure to leave your thoughts in the comments below!

"The Hurt Locker" Review

2009-07-26T21:53:00.000-07:00

“The Hurt Locker,” now playing in limited release, hammers its audience with unrelenting suspense, shocks them with its amazing authenticity, and illuminates them to the day-to-day struggles of a bomb tech soldier in Iraq.

The film, directed by Kathryn Bigelow (“Point Break”), mainly follows Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) as he is transferred to a new bomb tech unit in Iraq due to the unfortunate death of the unit’s previous leader (Guy Pearce). While working to diffuse bombs, the reckless and over confident James comes into conflict with his comrades, the no-nonsense Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and the timid Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty).

“The Hurt Locker” is an action movie. There’s no doubt about that, but it’s a decidedly different type of action movie – an action movie that is rooted in character. To be honest, “The Hurt Locker” may be one of the best mixes of character drama and suspenseful action in recent years. Bigelow does not make one false step in her direction. And while Mark Boal’s script does have its problems, Bigelow maneuvers around them with dexterity and confidence. In other words, she makes the script’s small hiccups disappear and moves the film along at a near impeccable pace. The film truly is a triumph of directing.

Part of what makes Bigelow’s direction so fantastic is her keen eye for suspense. When the film starts, the audience is quickly thrust into a suspenseful action sequence. As the sequence continues, both the stakes of the situation and the realness of the characters are established. Thus, the suspense continues to build until the sequence reaches its explosive conclusion. And with each new sequence, the characters become more fleshed out and relatable – making the suspense subsequently higher each time. Also adding to the suspense is how realistically the film is shot. Bigelow has the geography of her scenes perfectly laid out. The audience knows where each character is, what they are doing, and why they are doing it. And when Bigelow and cinematographer Barry Ackroyd use hand held cameras, it is coherent, unlike most recent Hollywood action films.

Something that further separates “The Hurt Locker” from recent action films is its performances – which are uniformly solid. Jeremy Renner is outstanding as Sergeant James. He perfectly embodies the character’s unpredictability and sells the movie’s main thematic idea: “war is a drug.” James has an addiction – an addiction that frightens his comrade Owen Eldridge. The relatively unknown Brian Garaghty shines in his portrayal of Eldrige and beautifully conveys the character’s fear and awkwardness. Anthony Mackie also fares well in his performance as Sergeant Sanborn, but his character feels a tad undeveloped. When Sanborn has a fairly emotional scene near the film’s closure, it does not feel earned. Thankfully, Mackie’s acting chops save the moment from completely falling flat.

While the script has its flaws, it is still fairly well-developed. Screenwriter Mark Boal’s dialogue really sells the authenticity of the film. And by focusing on three different soldiers, Boal is able to show how different people react to war and high risk situations. It also enables him to weave a few different ideas around the film’s main thesis – the aforementioned idea that “war is a drug.” And – excluding one distracting sequence in the film’s middle – Boal does not stray from this idea or the film’s overall plot.

In conclusion, “The Hurt Locker,” directed with great skill by Kathryn Bigelow, is one of the year’s best films.

A-

Leave your thoughts in the comments below! Anyone can leave a comment. Just use the "Name/Url" option where the "URL" is optional. You can even make up a screen name if you don't want to put your real name down.

Really America...

2009-07-26T21:07:00.000-07:00

...You made this number one at the box office this weekend.

I understand it's a children's movie. I really do! The point is that there are probably better (funnier, more inventive) children's movies out there. Now, this all sounds extremely hypocritical considering I have not even seen the movie, but sometimes you can just tell. I could tell from the trailer that the film was going to be super annoying and filled with bathroom humor, cute animals, and nonstop furry action. In other words, it is manufactured to make money and get a few cheap laughs from kids without truly challenging their imaginations or capturing a childlike state of wonder.

sigh...

Meanwhile, this October, what looks like a truly inventive film will come out! It's a film that looks like it will challenge children's imaginations and capture a childlike state of wonder.

In case you have not seen it, here is the trailer for Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are," based on the beloved children's book by Maurice Sendak.

What a beaute! This trailer almost made me cry. It beautifuly captures the wonder, fear and innocence of a childhood. And it's just a trailer! I hope the film lives up to my expectations when it hits theaters October 16th. One thing is for sure. It will defenitely be better than G-Force.

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Reminder: you don't need a Blogger account to comment, just use "Anonymous" or "Name/Url."

Peter Jackson Talking About Hollywood's Slump

2009-07-25T16:37:00.000-07:00

Recently, at the San Diego Comic Convention (which is now really a movie convention), Mr. Peter Jackson (director of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) talks about Hollywood's recent creative slump, and the unique power of film.

See for yourself:

Amen, Mr. Jackson. Amen.

Thanks to In Contention for the video.

Leave your thoughts in the comments below. (Just a reminder: there's no need to get a Blogger account to comment. You can either use "Anonymous" or "Name/Optional Url."

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" Review

2009-07-21T17:33:00.000-07:00

In “Harry Potter and Half-Blood Prince,” the sixth installment of the “Harry Potter” series, the characters in J.K. Rowling’s massive epic are finally given some room to breathe. Instead of trying to cram several elements into one film, director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves are able to pare things down to the absolute essential. Thus, instead of feeling bloated like Yates’s previous Potter venture, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” this film feels more developed.

The film – obviously a continuation of the previous five – sees Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) continue his relationship with Professor Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), develop feelings for his best friend’s sister, and learn more about the Dark Lord Voldemort’s past. That plot synopsis will either make sense to you, or it will not. If it does not, I suggest going to the beginning of the series and start your “Harry Potter” adventures there. It is important to note that this film does not stand on its own. If a newbie were to walk into this film, they would be terribly confused. This is a continuation of the previous five (as I mentioned above) and one really needs to see the previous installments before diving into this one. In fact, one of the best things about this film is how continuous it is with the rest of the “Potter” films. While the rest of the films feel like separate entities, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” feels much more connected to the other films in the series. Several elements from the previous film, such as the Marauder’s Map, the Room of Requirement, and the Invisibility Cloak, all return and create a wonderful continuity between this film and the ones that precede it.

The acting – as almost always in the “Potter” films – is top-notch. It seems as if the producers have managed to cast nearly every famous British thespian by now. It is a joy to watch such greats as Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith, and Julie Walters create such vivid characters in each film. While much of the adult cast is not given a whole lot to do, they still put in solid performances and never act like they are “above” the material. The newest addition to the all-star cast is Jim Broadbent, who plays Harry’s new potions teacher – Professor Horace Slughorn. Broadbent adds a level of nuance to the performance by expertly mixing the character’s broad comedy and tragic regret. And it’s all in his face. Broadbent is such an expressive actor that one can clearly see all the emotions that are running through his characters.

While the adult actors have always been great, the teenage actors have certainly evolved from there rather flat performances in earlier films. Although Dan Radcliffe – who really improved in film number five – is not given much to do in terms of emotion, he manages to give Harry a more proactive feel. But this film really belongs to Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, the two young actors who play Harry’s best friends Ron and Hermione. Grint, in particular, is able to really flex his comedic muscle in scenes involving his annoyingly clingy girlfriend Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave). Meanwhile, Emma Watson really gains more control over her characterization of Hermione. While Watson has been known to overact in past films, she strikes a much better balance in this film and is able to convey teenage heartbreak without it seeming childish or melodramatic. And that is a really hard task to accomplish. Also, Tom Felton adds some much need complexity and conflict to the character of Draco Malfoy. And Evanna Lynch still feels perfectly cast as the wonderfully eccentric Luna Lovegood.

As one can tell from reading my descriptions of the performances, this film involves a good amount of teenage romance. This element both adds and subtracts from the quality of the film. While the humor and angst conveyed through the romance sub plots are a nice relief from much of the darkness of the film, they sometimes feel a bit too fluffy – particularly in the film’s middle section. Being a Harry Potter devotee, I do not mind it because I think it deepens the characters, but I can definitely see how it could annoy some non-fans and it does cause the pace to lag in a few scenes. Also, the relationship between Harry Potter and Ron’s sister Ginny Weasley (played by Bonnie Wright) does not work at all. It feels forced, awkward and sometimes even creepy. Radcliffe has absolutely no chemistry with Wright, and Wright feels miscast. She does not really embody the spunkiness of the Ginny we see in the books.

Even though the pace is still a bit uneven, David Yates has definitely improved as a director. His scenes have more rhythm and pack more of a punch. Although he still ends some scenes rather abruptly, the scenes feel more complete and less rushed than his previous work in “Order of the Phoenix.” And the film looks beautiful. Director of Photography Bruno Delbonnel and Yates give the film an interesting visual look that makes it stand out from most recent blockbusters. It’s so pleasantly surprising to see a studio give this much artistic freedom to a film with such a high budget.

It is also great that the filmmakers took more artistic license when adapting from the source material. Many fans have complained that the film’s ending feels anticlimactic due to the excision of a big battle scene. While I can understand this disappointment, it does not bother me. To me, the ending of “Order of the Phoenix” – with all of its crazy wand effects – feels vapid and emotionless, while this most recent film’s ending feels more psychological and impactful.
In conclusion, the “Potter” films will never be masterpieces like Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The source material’s complexity, as well as several inconsistencies in direction and writing, prevents it from being so. Still, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” manages to capture the characters from the books and present them in an artful way. And that’s more than one can say for most Hollywood films.

B+ [More of a B in terms of quality, but I really enjoyed it as a Potter fan, so I gave it a boost.]

Thanks for reading! Leave your opinion in the comments below.

A Few Words on "The Proposal"

2009-07-20T12:17:00.000-07:00

1.5 stars out of 5/ D+

"The Proposal," a romantic comedy starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, may be the laziest film of the year. The plot revolves around a rich book editor (Bullock) who brides her assistant (Reynolds) to marry her, so she will not be deported to Canada, her native country. What could have been a delectable comedy treat ends up being a predictable, unfunny mess. In fact, the script is so formulaic it could be mistaken for a math equation. Uptight business woman. Check. Cute Dog. Check. Batty Grandma. Check. Unexpected couple. Check. Crazy Male Dancer. Check. The bad part is that nothing in that equation is funny. Ryan Reynolds tries to make something of the material, but instead just ends up making a bunch of confused facial expressions. And Sandra Bullock is not funny at all. Honestly, she may be the least funny person in Hollywood at the moment. Meanwhile, Betty White (the aforementioned batty Grandma) brings some charm to the film, but mostly comes off as over the top and annoying. In conclusion, "The Proposal" is one of the most unoriginal comedies of the year. By the end of the movie, I wanted to be deported to Canada, just to escape the film's consistent mediocrity.

Ranking the Harry Potter Films

2009-07-17T23:37:00.000-07:00

Now that there are six of them, ranking the Potter films has become all the rage. So, I've decided to take a crack at it. From Best to Worst.

1. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." This film beautifully directed by the enormously gifted Alfonso Cuaron (see "Children of Men") is by far the most human and visually engaging of all the Potter films. Instead of settling for the sap of the earlier films, Cuaron and his team put the focus on the characters. The relationship between Professor Lupin (David Thewlis) and Harry is very well rendered. It's a shame that David Thewlis has been given so little to do in later films, as he is easily the best of Harry's on screen mentors. On a different note, the time turner sequence is my all-time favorite sequence in any Potter film.

2. "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." I'll keep this short since I will be writing my review later this week. I think that this is the film that best captured the characters from the books. David Yates is really growing on me as a director.

3. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." David Yates's Potter debut is good, but not great. Imelda Staunton - who plays control freak Dolores Umbridge - really raises this film up a notch. Her rise to power is scary, and pink. I feel like the pace lags a bit in this film mainly due to how many scenes were crammed in. Yates unfortunately gives the film very little room to breathe. Thankfully, the young actors show vast improvement in this version, particularly Dan Radcliffe's Harry. The acting in this film defenitely makes up for the lackluster finale. I would have preferred a psychological duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore, not a second-rate fireworks show. Overall, this film works due to Yates splendid work with the actors. The political undertones are also a nice touch.

4. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Director Chris Colombus manages to capture the magic of introducing Jo Rowling's deeply imaginative world. The beautiful thing about "Sorcerer's Stone" - both the book and the film - is that it is seen through the eyes of a child. We feel the same childish delight that Harry feels as we see Diagon Alley, Platform 9 and 3/4, and Hogwarts for the first time. Unfortunately, the film is almost a bit too cheery at times. Colombus's love for sap is evident here, but rarely enters gag-inducing territory. The computer effects in this film are also noticably bad. And don't get me started on the scene where Harry, Ron and Hermione all scream at the same time like they popped out of one of Colombus's previous films "Home Alone."

5. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." This film - directed by Mike Newell ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") is the worst adaptation for the books. Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is all wrong. What's with the screaming and man-handling Harry? Ick. Also, the characters go nowhere in this film. Harry is as blank as ever. Hermione is useless except for a few quick facts before the tasks. Ron is the only one that develops, but after awhile, he just returns to comic relief. That being said, the film's action set-pieces are the most memorable of all the films. The dragon scene is breathtaking, as is the underwater task. The third task, the maze, is changed, and for the better in my opinion. I love the creepy atmosphere of the maze attacking the contestants. Voldemort's return to power is also pretty neat, but in the end, this movie feels pretty limp in terms of character development - which is obviously one of Rowling's strengths as a writer. Kudos to Miranda Richardson for her all to brief appearance as gossip journalist Rita Skeeter.

6. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." Coincidentally, this is also my least favorite of the books. And since Chris Colombus and screenwriter Steve Kloves slavisly adhere to the book, I didn't like the movie too much either. If you are going to adapt this book, the only feasible way would be to make it like a puplpy horror flick, but instead Colombus films it in his light, sentimental tones that annoy me so. While that angle works for the first film's sense of wonder and discovery, it feels stale in this one. Also, I don't think Ron does anything but eat and act scared of spiders in this movie. Literally, that's it. And don't get me started on the final scene - which is by far the stupidest and most gag-inducing scene in Potter film history. "There's no Hogwarts without you Hagrid!" Who writes this stuff? Apparently, Steve Kloves did not. It was all Colombus's doing. Ugh! I hate that scene. Everything does not need to be tied up in a pretty little sentimental bow, Colombus. Okay? RANT OVER. All my qualms aside, I do think Kenneth Branagh is absolutely smashing as the phony celeb wizard Gilderoy Lockhart. Dobby's pretty awesome too, and I like the basilik scene.

In conclusion, I think the Potter films have many strengths, but obviously some work much better than others. Expect my review of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" later this week.

Feel free to leave comments. You don't have to be a registered member of Blogger. Just use Anonymous or "Name/Url" in which the Url is optional. I am eager to see how others would rank the Potter series.

Character Actor Profile: Tom Wilkinson

2009-07-14T20:21:00.000-07:00

Have you ever seen someone in a movie, swear that you have seen them before, but cannot quite put your finger on the actor's name? You're not alone. So, to bring these underappreciated actors and actresses to forefront, I've decided to start a series highlighting some of my favorites. In this series, I will pick out three different films starring my character actor of choice and review his or her performance.

My first pick: Tom Wilkinson

Mr. Wilkinson has a very extensive filmography (see: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0929489/). From horror films ("The Exorcism of Emily Rose") to light English comedies ("The Importance of Being Earnest") to comic book adaptations ("Batman Begins"), he seems to sneak himself into several films a year - almost like a mouse infiltrating a neighborhood of different houses, except Mr. Wilkinson is far from unwanted.

In Tony Gilroy's "Duplicity," Wilkinson plays Howard Tully, a corporate executive for a major pharmaceutical company. It does not take long for one to notice how much fun Wilkinson is having with the role. He embodies Tully with a sense of crafty calmness, an almost perfect contrast to Paul Giamatti's Richard Garsik (Tully's corporate enemy) who is an sleazy, dim-witted neurotic. Wilkinson gives you the feeling that Tully is in complete control - without an ounce of worry. This characterization is a joy to watch and - more importantly - makes perfect sense once the film has made its final reveal.

In 2007's "Michael Clayton" - also directed by Tony Gilroy - Wilkinson plays Arthur Edens, a lawyer at a well-established law firm. But, like most Tom Wilkinson roles, that would be just a bit too normal. So, of course, Wilkinson's character is suffering from a psychological breakdown after investigating a case involving a chemical company. Wilkinson nails the obsession of the character. His performance feels BIG, but never devolves into histrionics. The film's opening - a monologue by Wilkinson as the camera is racing through the law firm - is almost chilling in its intensity and brings the audience into the film immediately. And the intensity hardly ever lets up - especially when Wilkinson is on screen.

Perhaps Wilkinson's most critically acclaimed performance isin Todd Field's "In the Bedroom." In the film, Wilkinson plays Matt Fowler, a man stricken with grief after the death of his son Frank. Wilkinson - along with Sissy Spacek who plays his wife - beautifully convey the grieving process. The interactions between Wilkinson and Spacek are scarily realistic. Instead of going completely over-the-top, Wilkinson - with help from the great screenplay - depicts Matt's grief through simpler, quieter moments where the character is clearly just trying to get his son's death off his mind. This performance is one of Wilkinson's few leading roles, and it is easily one of his best.

So, what do you think? Are you with me in praising Wilkinson for his versatility, or do you think he is massively overrated? Are there any other character actors that you feel don't get enough praise? Feel free to answer these questions in the comments.

Also, you do not need a Blogger account to leave a comment. You can either use "Anonymous" or "Name/Url" in which the URL is optional.

"Public Enemies" Review

2009-07-09T18:07:00.000-07:00

3.5 out of 5/ B –

“Public Enemies,” the latest from director Michael Mann (“Heat,” “Miami Vice”), follows the life of John Dillinger, the notorious bank robber during the Great Depression. The film opens with Dillinger (Johnny Depp) rescuing some of his buddies from a prison in Indiana. Once they escape, they return to their favorite pastime: robbing banks. Meanwhile, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup), a police administrator, and Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) start “the United State’s first war on crime.”

With the new threat of Purvis’s police force – which would eventually evolve into the FBI – one would think that Dillinger would be a little worried about his lifestyle, but this is not the case. As he says to one of his cohorts in the film, “We’re having too good a time today. We ain’t thinking about tomorrow.” Needless to say, Dillinger does not feel threatened by the workings of Hoover and Purvis. Bank robbing, to him, is like a job, and he knows how good he is at it. When Billie Frechette (Marion Contillard), Dillinger’s love interest, asks him about his profession, he answers with an almost candid professionalism, “I’m John Dillinger and I rob banks.” It is this adventurous, daring spirit that attracts Billie – whose life, according to her, has been, for the most part, rather dull. At the same time, she is frightened by Dillinger’s dangerous lifestyle, but eventually is gently soothed by his promise of protection. Cotillard perfectly displays Billie’s naivety in believing Dillinger and carries it through to the film’s powerful conclusion. Contillard’s power in the final scene alone easily confirms that she is best in show.

Depp’s performance – while not as memorable or as detailed as some of his past performances – is still interesting. He manages to infuse Dillinger with a coolness and confidence that suggests feelings of invulnerability within Dillinger. It is these traits that allow Depp’s Dillinger to easily win over Cotillard’s Billie.

Cotillard and Depp’s performances, as well as the uniqueness of their character’s relationship, ensure that the romance between Billie and Dillinger is the best part of the film. Their relationship, unfortunately, seems to be the only idea in the script that was fully developed. While the public’s fascination with Dillinger is mentioned and seen to good effect in a couple of scenes, it is never fully explored. Mann also hints at some ideas regarding police ethics, but they do not really come into play until the third act. There are also some interesting lines about Dillinger’s moral code when bank robbing. The problem is that none of these ideas are developed enough for them to resonate. The only idea that feels fully rendered is Billie and Dillinger’s aforementioned relationship, and even that feels a tad incomplete when Cotillard’s character disappears during the film’s second act. Instead of using one or two ideas, Mann insists on exploring five or six, and in a better screenplay, that could have worked, but Mann and screenwriters Ronan Bennett and Ann Bidermann inject too many side characters. Some of these characters are introduced briefly at the beginning of the film, disappear, and then play a major role in the film’s conclusion. This makes the film feel cluttered and hard to follow. The excess of side characters stifles not only the ideas that film may be trying to get across, but also the characterization of the main characters. While this does not hurt Cotillard and Depp, it does hurt Bale, whose character comes off as dull and unthreatening.

Because Bale’s Purvis is so uninteresting, it makes the scenes involving him and his amateur police force feel unnecessary. One wishes Mann might have spent more time probing the psyche of Dillinger, instead of trying to sloppily weave the two narrative threads together, thus giving the film’s first half a rather sluggish pace. Once Dillinger and Purvis meet in a scene near the film’s half-way point, the pacing picks up and the weaving of the two narratives feels more natural. While the film is still plagued with an excess of characters in its second half, they do not affect the pace at which the story is conveyed.

The film’s second half also showcases some of the film’s best sequences. One of them, a thrilling chase through the woods, while somewhat convoluted, is both original and suspenseful. However, it is the film’s last few sequences that are its most memorable. Everyone knows that Dillinger eventually dies (no spoilers here), but the sequence depicting his assassination is both visually enticing and sharply conveyed.

Speaking of the film’s visual merits, many have complained about Mann’s aesthetic for “Public Enemies.” Mann shot the picture on video instead of film in order to give the story a more realistic feel. Many think that the visuals in the film look too murky and unfitting for a period piece, but I appreciated that it gave the film a distinctive look – a look that will make the film memorable when compared to other crime films. Unfortunately, this visual style – along with Cotillard’s great performance – may be the only things that the film is remembered for. In conclusion, “Public Enemies” falls short of greatness.

"Brothers Bloom" Review

2009-07-08T00:14:00.000-07:00

3 out of 5 stars/C+

“The Brothers Bloom” could have been a good film. The script is nearly impeccable and the performances are both fun and inventive, but director/writer Rian Johnson fails in translating his script to the screen.

The film follows two con men, Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and his reluctant brother Bloom (Adrian Brody). Bloom is sick of always being a character in Stephen’s complex cons and yearns to live a normal life, but Stephen is able to convince him to help with one more con, then he will allow Bloom to go on and live a normal life. The victim of their con is Penelope Stamp (Rachel Weisz), an eccentric lonely heiress who eventually begins to have romantic feelings for Bloom – a feeling that is mutual. Bloom isn’t just wooing her as part of the con. So, like most complex con films, twists and turns ensue. Oh, and explosions too. Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi), a Japanese explosives expert, aids the Brothers with her rather "unique talents."

The script for “The Brothers Bloom” is beautifully rendered. Despite a few abrupt shifts in tone, the film is masterfully structured with full-fledged character arcs that are set up from the film’s opening and carry through to the film’s closing shots. The characters are wonderfully original, especially Penelope and Bang Bang. Too often, female roles in films are reduced to lazy stereotypes, but Johnson keeps things fresh with these two characters. The casting is nearly flawless. All of the actors fall into their roles seamlessly, except, perhaps, Robbie Coltrane (“Harry Potter” films) whose performance as the Belgian, a crafty church curator, comes off a bit too forced and silly. Of course, Kikuchi’s role is also quite silly, but she strikes a better balance than Coltrane. The true star, though, is Rachel Weisz who is able to show her talents as both a comedic and dramatic actress.

The problem with “The Brothers Bloom” lies in its execution. In order for an audience to fully become invested in the characters, they need to be engaged. Johnson fails to engage his audience. The comedic rhythm of the film is off. This causes most of the well-written and genuinely funny jokes to fall flat. This problem worsens thanks to Johnson’s bizarre – yet refreshingly original – sense of humor. Since the comedic rhythm is off, the audience does not exactly warm to the film’s aforementioned humor. Another problem is the film’s pacing which is far too leisurely for a quick-witted con film. If Johnson might have established a quicker, more frantic, pace, maybe the film’s humor would have worked better. Instead, the film feels disengaging, and – at times – boring. The audience only half feels for the characters, so the film’s emotional pull at the end only half resonates. Therefore, one could say that “The Brothers Bloom” is a half-good movie.

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" Review

2009-07-07T23:47:00.001-07:00

PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM BEING SARCASTIC IN MY REVIEW OF "TRANSFORMERS REVENGE OF THE FALLEN." I DO NOT SUPPORT SEXIST VIEWS OR RACIAL STEREOTYPES.

1 star out of 5 / D

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” arguably the best film of the year, manages to be not only a simple story told at an epic length, but also a wonderfully shallow comedy that pokes fun at those crazy teens and their wacky hi-jinks.

The story, brilliantly elongated by explosions – ranging from big to really really big, continues the adventures of Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf) as he goes off to college. Meanwhile, those darn Decepticons – a team of transforming robots who are at war with the good Autobot robots – are up to their dastardly deeds again, this time aided by an evil robot with one heck of a grudge. His name – the Fallen. But those screenwriters (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Ehren Kruger) are clever enough to keep the details on the down low. Instead of letting exposition slowly ooze out as the story continues – a rather tired approach – they realize that it is better to give the audience all of the information in one scene. Oh, and they make sure it is conveyed really quick. No dilly-dallying with plot detail. Those who care about the plot can try to piece together all the fragments of exposition. Meanwhile, the smarter audience members can enjoy the explosions and robot fighting.

And, boy, aren’t those explosions exciting?! Director Michael Bay (“Transformers,” “Bad Boys 2,” “Pearl Harbor, and “Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell II”) creates some of the most memorable action sequences in years. Bay, unlike many Hollywood hacks (i.e. Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron), realizes that the most taut of action sequences do not require suspense. The characters would have to be developed in order for thered to be true suspense. But character development is lame! Thankfully, Bay and those crafty screenwriters know this.

They also know that the audience does not like genuine relationships between characters. We don’t want Sam and his girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) to have a relationship that really means something. Fortunately, the screenwriters only put in a few easily ignorable lines about “true love.” The rest of Sam and Mikaela’s relationship is all based on lust – the way it should be. After all, women should only be seen as pieces of meat and witless dingbats. Thankfully, Bay and his screenwriters share this wonderfully sexist view and use it to great comedic effect in several scenes involving Sam’s dimwit mother and her comsumption of brownies with pot in them

Of course, the mother’s crazy antics aren’t nearly as gut-bustingly funny as the hilarious “twin” robots, who not only talk jive, but also have yellow teeth and openly admit to not being able to read. But, aren’t they adorable? When they triumphantly save the day at the film’s climax, the audience in my theater cheered. That’s right, kiddies! You can save the day too, but only if you conform to the racial stereotypes that society sets for you. This message, along with humping dogs and a guffaw-inducing midget joke, makes “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” excellent, wholesome family entertainment. And that demographic will ensure that the movie becomes a bonafide box office hit.

But, reader, are you naïve enough to think that this movie was only produced to make money? Surely, the quality of the film would suggest otherwise.

"Terminator: Salvation" Review

2009-07-07T23:44:00.000-07:00

2.5 out of 5 ----- C

“Terminator: Salvation,” the fourth entry in the “Terminator” franchise, is average in almost every way. Of course, many films coming out of Hollywood are average, but the average ness of “Terminator: Salvation” is particularly annoying because the film still has many good elements. It just did not meld together so well.

The film takes place after Judgment Day, an almost apocalyptic event where the Terminator company SkyNet launches nuclear attacks against the United States. As the film opens, the character of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) is introduced. Marcus is a criminal who is put on death row. While in prison, he meets with Serena (Helena Bonham Carter), a representative of a company called Cybeydyne. While meeting with Serena, Marcus agrees to donate his organs to Cyberdyne once he is executed. The film then flashes forward to 2018, and Marcus wakes up in an empty valley in Los Angeles. He soon meets up with Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), a young man who is fighting for the Resistance, the opposition to SkyNet. But the film centers on John Connor (Christian Bale), a man – who according to his mother – is supposed to lead the Resistance against the machines.

With such respected actors, one would expect thefilm to be at least solid. Unfortunately, a host of talented actors does not necessarily make a good film. And while Sam Worthington is given a decent role with a full emotional pay off, Anton Yelchin suffers from an underwritten part. He still makes the best of it though. Christian Bale, however, does nothing to challenge himself. He adds no depth to the character of John Connor. The audience learns nothing about him other than he is driven and angry – a lot. Therefore, his character garners very little sympathy from the audience.

Many of these problems can also be blamed on the screenplay. The script is full of good ideas, but it feels like some studio executives got their hands on it and added things that would make it more appealing to a broader audience. For example, there is a pseudo-cameo at the end of the film that feels gimmicky and obviously CGI-enhanced. And whenever the film hits an interesting idea, it is interrupted by an action scene that feels repetitive or at times – just boring. Action is fine – heck, “Star Trek” is a very good movie and over half of that movie is action – but when there is little to no emotional attachment to the characters, then the action does not work. And while a few actors did some interesting work with such undeveloped material, the audience never feels invested in the main plot.

While director McG does very little to convey the emotion of the characters, he should be credited for at least giving “Terminator: Salvation” an interesting look. The whole film seems to be drenched in beige and grey dryness. Unfortunately, the dryness of the art design also permeates into the film’s characters and action pieces. In other words, “Terminator: Salvation” is boring.

"Up" Review

2009-07-07T23:38:00.000-07:00

4 out of 5 stars ------ B

Pixar’s “Up” is – in many ways – the studio’s most adult picture to date. The film opens with a montage detailing the life of Carl Fredricksen, a young man with an intense passion for exploration and adventure, and his marriage to the even more ambitious Ellie. The montage elicits almost every emotion from the audience, whether it is joy at the sight of Carl and Ellie married, or grief and sadness when Ellie finally passes away. The montage is brilliant in its simplicity. Director Pete Docter, having already established the couple’s chemistry in a quick introduction, lets the images speak for themselves.

After the montage, the story kicks in. Carl, stricken with grief from Ellie’s death, has become disgruntled and almost cynical about life. Annoyed by the hotshot businessmen trying to tear down his neighborhood, Carl decides to fly away from his now monotonous life and explore Paradise Falls, a landmark in South Africa that he and Ellie had always wanted to visit. He does so by tying a myriad amount of balloons to his house. Unbeknownst to Carl, a young Wilderness Scout named Russel is also along for the ride.

The first thirty minutes of the film – including the montage mentioned earlier – is almost completely serious in tone, but does contain some moments of wry humor that prevent the film from becoming a downer. The introduction of Russel brings some much needed comic relief, but it is Carl who is the emotional root of the story. The characterization of Carl (voiced by Edward Asner) is one of Pixar’s best. He is both realistic and relatable and certainly follows Pixar founder John Lasseter’s philosophy: “Part of what makes a great movie is character growth.”

With such an emotionally charged and well conveyed first act, one would expect the second act to struggle a bit. And it does. The film is still very much rooted in its characters, but suffers from a couple of missteps. When Carl and Russel arrive in South Africa, they not only meet a colorful ostrich, but also a colony of talking dogs controlled by a failed adventurer named Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer). Talking dogs are tolerable when they are used in restraint, but the writers of “Up” insist on having an entire colony of talking dogs. One of the dogs, Dug, works, mainly due to his dopey humor. However, the others do not. The other talking dogs feel clichéd and unnecessary. But, at its core, “Up” is a heartfelt adventure story, so maybe the excessive use of talking dogs can be forgiven for the mere sake of adventure. Maybe.

However, with or without the talking dogs, the adventure aspects in “Up” work. The film has fun paying homage to adventure films (i.e. the Indiana Jones films), while carefully weaving in complex character arcs and emotional ideas. The character of Carl starts off one way, makes a realization at the film’s emotional climax, and is a completely different person by the film’s close. One of the few things that stay constant about Carl is his love for adventure. While Charles Muntz seems to only go on explorations to become famous, Carl and Ellie explore because of the thrill they get from it. These character traits create an interesting contrast between the two elderly characters.

Of course, much credit should go to the animation team for creating such detailed, interesting characters and landscapes. Carl’s grand balloon escape is especially exciting thanks to the awe-inducing visuals. Much credit should also go to the simply rhythms of Michael Giacchino’s score which creates a light, fluffy atmosphere that mirrors one of the film’s main settings, the sky. This score, along with the epic sounds of Giacchino’s other recent score (“Star Trek”), shows his versatility as a composer.

In the end, there is a lot to appreciate about “Up.” Sure, the pacing of the film may have felt a bit uneven, and the talking dogs may have been one of Pixar’s few painful slips into convention, but when one is comparing it to any other animated film, there really is no competition. Pixar has always strived to craft their films to the very highest quality, and “Up” is no exception.