"Digimon: The Movie" Review

"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

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).

"Black Swan" Review

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

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

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

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


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

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

"Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" Review

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, it’s flawed.

But it’s also awesome. ; )

B+

"Cyrus" Review

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

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

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

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

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

B

"Toy Story 3" Review

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

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

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

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

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

B

"Iron Man 2" Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B-

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

"Greenberg" Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B

"Shutter Island" Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B

A Few Notes on "Crazy Heart"

• "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-

"Avatar" Review

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

“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.

"An Education" Review

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

“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

“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

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.

A

______

"Whip It" Review

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

“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)

B

Your thoughts? Race to the comments!

"Duplicity" Review

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

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-