District 9 (2009)

Wow.  I was very interested in this film well before I sat down in the movie theater.  I have to give the marketing guys props for this because it was one of the best ad campaigns for a film I have seen in a long time.  District 9 is a fascinating film about aliens that are attempting to co-exist with humans in a dingy and unforgiving world.  Wikus Van De Merwe (newcomer Sharlto Copley) becomes our eyes and ears as he becomes more and more sympathetic to the aliens plight.

What’s good about it–Fantastic visual effects; it does what they should and they add to the movie and they do not BECOME the movie.  Filmed in Johannesburg, the cameramen went down and dirty and went for guerrilla filmmaking which gives the film a raw and grizzly feel.   The story is original and very compelling.  It was filmed in a very documentary style and you fall right into the world that the filmmakers created.  I was fascinated and I had no idea where the film was going to take me.  And I was moved too!  The film had something to tell me and I was angered by the aliens and by the humans.  It turned the camera around on us and made us think.  The acting was very good and I felt a connection with Wikus as his eyes were slowly opened to a different perspective.  You feel something and you want to do something after you see the film and that is a difficult artistic achievement. 

What’s not so good–Make no bones about it, this is an action movie.  For me the third act was a little bit of a let down as far as the story goes.  It became extremely violent (we even had our summer movie giant killer robot at the end).  It reminded me that I was not watching a message film with action, but an action film with a message.  Not really a critique, just know what movie you are watching…it will help.  There are a lot of questions left unanswered, but the answers are not easy ones to find (especially if you parallell it’s message with our world today).  It can be messy and a tough ride, but hang on because it is worth it.

I will want to watch this film again, and I wonder if a sequel might be in the future.  It doesn’t have to be, but the story certainly could go on.  I would highly recommend seeing this film, but bring your trash bags in case blood splatters on your shirt.  A-

(500) Days of summer (2009)

I often feel my film standards are set too high.  I cringe at little things that others omit from there memories and I praise the smallest camera trick that is barely noticeable.  However, I feel this film is a nice blend–audience appeal and good filmmaking.  Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) recounts his relationship with Summer (Zooey Deschanel) in sporadic, non-linear fashion.  It is both hilarious and touching to watch the results of two people sharing so much of their lives together to ultimately not be compatible.

What’s good about it–Everyone will connect with this film.  Everyone has felt this kind of pain/happiness and there is no great leap to relate.  The performances are understated and natural with no sign of a “cheeky romantic comedy wink”.  The film uses Tom’s memories to it’s advantage and spreads it’s wings to create a strong narrative that does not seem cliche.  I laughed out loud several times and that is not an easy thing for a movie to do for a tight-wad like me. 

What’s not so good–It may profess to not be a romantic comedy, but ultimately, the film is a indie romantic comedy.  You have the depressed male hero meeting the overly eccentric female who opens his world to knew ideas yet the world is not as picture perfect as idealized.  It follows the indie film formula, so the overall message is not necessarily new (which I am okay with).  I found the film far more accessible than most indie films and for that I applaud it.  But I was more satisfied watching ANNIE HALL then this one. 

This is a fine film!  I recommend it to all my friends (moviewatchers and novices alike).  There is something to be mined for everyone.  Very creative and a lot of fun

Rating=B

The Brothers Bloom (2009)

The director of THE BROTHERS BLOOM is what initially attracted me to this film. Rian Johnson created BRICK back in 2005 which was a film noir favorite of mine.  He has returned (with a bit more of a budget this time) to create a fun heist movie with Adrian Brody and Mark Ruffalo as sibling con-men.  They hatch a scheme to swindle a billion dollar heiress (Rachel Weisz) yet through the course of there adventure, Brody inevitably falls in love with her.  However, they all have crafted a web of lies that has become too tangled to get out easily.  We are left wondering what is true and what is false just as much as the characters. 

What is good about it:  It is fun.  The art direction and costuming present us with a world that is closer to fairytale than real life.  There is always a hint that we should not take the story too seriously, just as we should never truly trust what Ruffalo says.  The story is character driven and we are intent on finding out what choices will lead them to happiness.  Adrian Brody has the unique ability to be so sympathetic yet never rolling over into cliche.  And Rachel Weisz is quirky, fun, and she exercises impressive comedic chops.  

What’s not so good:  Like most con-movies, it can be confusing.  I was a little lost on where the plot was leading at times, but luckily the characters were interesting enough that I didn’t mind.  I think the film avoided cliche so much that it could have actually benefited from a car chase or two.  Just something to help us spring board into the next step of the plot with more energy.  The film meandered about but ultimately the story is not about the heist, but about the brothers (and the title is still confusing to me…their names are Steve and Bloom.  So perhaps it is meant to say the brothers “bloom”). 

This is a great movie to see with friends or on a date.  The comedy is hilarious and the relationships are touching.  You want to go wherever the movie takes you.  A solid “B+”.

Moon (2009)

Most films that are released in the summer months are box office dynamite–in that they draw in audiences.  After watching a few of what Hollywood had to offer, I felt a sharp ache in my heart for something deeper.  I realized that ultimately the spectacle of Wolverine, Terminator, and Transformers was a drug that provided little sustenance.  I therefore went to the indie theater, and my money now goes toward tickets for the underground favorites.  I feel like I am giving my lunch money to a small, intelligent dork with a lot of potential instead of the flashy, popular class bully that everyone ultimately dislikes.  So may I introduce you to MOON.  Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is completing his 3 year mission on the moon mining for precious minerals to sustain life on Earth.  He is alone, aside from his computer companion GERTY (in the spirit of HAL 9000–and voiced by Kevin Spacey).  All he wants is to return home to his wife and child, but his mind is finally reaching a breaking point on the empty lunar surface.  Then something happens (as it always does in science fiction).  Sam is injured and is rescued by…himself.

What is good about it:  I saw the trailer and immediately looked to find where the nearest theater would be playing it.  It was a brilliant movie and completely absorbing.  Sam Rockwell is–as always–dynamite and fascinating to watch.  The film was shot with a budget of $5 million, using models and in camera effects.  The result is authentic and organic, and I believe more films would do well to follow the “less is more” approach to effects work.  The story is not terribly complex, and it leaves room for interpretation which I believe will reach movie-goers who do not directly gravitate to sci-fi.  I truly enjoyed the experience.

What is not so good:  It is a slow film.  Let’s be honest, we have one actor and one location–so anyone expecting a fast action should keep away.  It is cerebral and introspective which again is a hard sell for audiences.  It demands something more from a viewer that requires us to engage the material, and so it won’t always work for everyone.  I felt the explanation for Sam’s situation in the film was arrived at too quickly and thus some suspense was lost, but I feel that the film sacrificed some gimmicks in order to entertain the themes that the movie presents. 

I will tell you to go see this film, but not to have extrodianrily high expectations.  It is classified as “hard science fiction” which can be hit or miss depending on your mood.  However, I do think that you will be surprised and ultimately satisfied after watching the film.  A strong “A” from me and I hope to see more risky fare like this from the studios.

Seriously, do we see any similarities in these two promotional posters?

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Hey everyone, finally I will interject a review in the middle of the Friday the 13th marathon.  I break the silence with X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  We get the back story from everyone’s favorite X-man.  We discover what tortuous past leads Logan to inject indestructible metal into his bones and become Wolverine.  He must battle the government, his arch-nemesis Sabertooth (brilliantly casted with Liev Schreiber) and mingle with many-a-mutant.  Forewarning, there will be spoilers if you keep reading…

What’s good about it…

All the action you could want from a superhero movie: lots of cool fights and lots of shout outs to the fans.  This is really a fan movie; I mean, we finally get Gambit and even though he was a little silly–I finally got to see his STAFF SLAM ATTACK!  The real story though comes with Sabertooth and Wolverine…that is probably the weightiest part of the film and what I was most interested in.  I also loved seeing Wolverine with the team of mutants that Stryker teamed up (harkening to the teams we have seen in the other films). We see some favorites like Blob, Bolt, Deadpool, Cyclops, and many others.  It redeems somewhat the time I wasted with X-men 3. 

What is not so good…

If you are not  an X-men fan, then this will seem as a sloppy film.  It interjects so many fights that it really gets more repetitive than exciting.  The story is far too complicated (his girl is killed, then not killed, then working for the enemy, then back with Wolverine, then killed again).  The story is with Sabertooth and Wolverine…that is where it should have stayed; forget this weird Deadpool mutant hybrid storyline.  They really don’t even explore Wolverine as Weapon X–which is why he cannot remember anything (not because of a stupid adimantium bullet lobotomy…that was really lame).  They could have done fine making this a Weapon X story, but it was more of a Wolverine story. 

I give it a C-.  There are several reasons why this isn’t a spectacular movie.  They toned down the really intense stuff (it’s PG-13), they spent too much time trying to give fans what they wanted, and Hugh Jackman produced.  But they at least created a story that was true to the characters and that seemed to add to the other X-men films without repeating too much or killing off beloved characters.  My biggest critique about X-men films is that it should always be about the team, and not about the individual–but alas, I still enjoyed this film.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Due to award season, there are several high content/high quality films that are coming out in theater’s all at once.  Alas, with expensive ticket prices, I am lucky enough to have only seen one over the holidays (and it was a free ticket paid by my awesome brother-in-law).  It was THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON directed by David Fincher.  The basic premise is of a man who is born old and he ages backwards.  He falls in love with a woman and must make important decisions based on his unique predicament.  Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett pair a second time (after BABEL) to deliver subtle and nuanced performances.  David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB, SE7En, ZODIAC) crafts the fairy tale that plays very much like a short story.

What’s good about it: It is a fascinating idea.  I was very interested in what would be revealed placing a man in such a unnatural process of aging while the world around him proceeds along as normal.  I have to say that the special effects do what they should and you hardly even notice that they are “effects”.  You really believe you are seeing a 60 year old Benjamin Button instead of a CGIed gimmick.  Another interesting point is that the story is centered on Pitt and Blanchett, so the mood and style of the film is very personal and intimate to their relationship.  There performances are not Oscar worthy in my book, but they have a wonderful chemistry together and I am continually interested in how they interact.  Honestly the best acting comes from the supporting cast.  They develop the world of the film and create unique characters with power.  I feel that Fincher does a great job directing with beautiful sets, costumes, CGI, and cinematography.  These can be tough elements to wrangle all at the same time, but I see a cohesive film that due to strong direction.

What’s not so good:  My biggest complaint is the screenplay.  I really don’t think they explored the material enough.  Instead of asking tough questions about mortality, history, human perspective, and memory, it simply revolves around a tortured love story.  This is fine, but the whole concept of the character of Benjamin Button aging backward is more of a side note to the love story and thus it becomes merely an obstacle that must be overcome.  What is Benjamin Button’s perspective on the world around him?  What does he learn and how is that different from a normal human who ages forward?  An example: he learns piano from a woman, and then we never see how music effects him in his life.  It is a footnote that is thrown in the mix, much like everything that he encounters accept the love story.  Pitt is not challenged enough, nor is he given any scene in which he really must grapple with what he thinks of this world around him (what an interesting idea to have a “teenager” in the twilight of his life, what would he have to say to us that is different?  Instead Benjamin Button just putters off to the grave).  Instead of truly diving into the mystery of the characters predicament, Benjamin Button could just as easily have been a man dying from some ailment and the story would not change that much.

An impressive chapter for Fincher (and I hope the film does well at the box office purely because I like all the people involved in the film).  Honestly, you could rent this one when it comes out on DVD.  No need to rush to see it.

Youth Without Youth

I have been so busy I realized that I haven’t watched a new movie and written a blog.  My apologies.  Francis Ford Coppola has come back to direct after 10 years.  He creates a mind-bending film that offers more questions than answers in YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH.  Tim Roth stars as Dominic, who after being struck with lightning inexplicably regains his youth.  With his second chance at life, he plunges the depths of science, religion and philosophy by attempting to discover the origins of language.  He also must reach across time to find his lost love and attempt to undo past mistakes. 

What’s good about it:  Coppola has adapted Mircea Eliade’s novel and the film narrative flows much like a literary piece.  I felt like I was reading a very inquisitive short story in Lit. Class with an eccentric lead character who interacts with a world that seems unable to contain his true nature.  Tim Roth offers a multi-layered performance (as well as an alter ego turn as the character) that truly engages the audience.  The film is shot beautifully and every scene seems to communicate a strong mood that prompts our investigation.  We see such beauty and science wrapped together in the script, performances, and screen shots that we continue to dive deeper and deeper into the subject matter.

What’s not so good: Coppola financed the film himself, and while that is a powerful example of how much he loved the material, the special effects and green screen shots are glaring.  I cannot offer this film to the average viewer because they would turn it off in the midst of a headache brought about by an esoteric intellectualism.  Several of the supporting characters play such off the wall parts that it is difficult to truly connect with what they are attempting to portray.  It is hard to tell if the film needs to be this dense or if it is simply due to the overindulgence of the material by the director.  The film demands so much from the viewer that I feel that many would be lost along the wayside.  If you were to ask me what it is about, I really cannot answer that until I see the film at least two more times. 

You must treat this film as a novel, and make the effort to sit down and view it.  Coppola does not offer many answers within the film, but I find that the quest is fascinating.  It is an art film by nature so it helps to come with your “cultured” thinking-cap.  I enjoyed it (which usually means 75% of audiences might not).  But I think it would be great for those of you who want a film to challenge you and prompt discussions.  I am excited to see where Coppola goes from here.

Best wishes to good directors

I love good directors.  Ones who challenge the medium and create works of art that are outside of the proverbial box.  That’s why I hate it when I see a film by a director that I admire that does not seem to display their full potential.  Either they get land blasted by critics for not recreating their former state of glory, or they are coddled by Hollywood so much that they are not stretching themselves artistically (I am talking to you Lucas).  Anyway, here are some of my best wishes to some directors that I know have the talent and potential to truly be masters at what they do…

Michel Goudry–He won us all over with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  I remember being moved so much after seeing this film that it made me want to get involved with filmmaking.  He does the “old-school” camera tricks and then re-invents new tricks to avoid as much post-edit work as possible.  He defines creativity when it comes to moving pictures.  Science of Sleep fell on deaf ears (a noble effort but not for mainstream audiences) and then Be Kind Rewind was just…cute, and that’s all.  My wish for him is external material.  He needs to get a hold of a good book and adapt it to screen or work with someone like Charlie Kaufman again to give him material with content that can match his creative vision.

Guy Ritchie–Our friend of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and SNATCH.  Oh what delicious films.  Then he came out with Swept Away and Revolver…they…just didn’t work.  Now here is a guy that knows how to make the camera explosive and he has a gift for writing crackling dialogue.  My wish for him is to ease off of the big concept objective and simplify the script.  (There is a huge influence of Kabala and Philosophy in Revolver that chokes his film to death).  Keep the influences, but allow the story to breath on it’s own without the overarching need to preach to the audience.  I hear RocknRolla is a return to his former style and material, keep your fingers crossed.

M. Night Shyamalan–I know this guy is good.  He brought back true suspense in The Six Sense–I thought we had killed suspense off for cheap thrills and gore.  I was one of the ones that liked his other works too, until I saw The Happening.  That was just awful.  We all can feel him trying to make his points and scare us like he did before, but as I said, we can feel his need to impress us bleeding out in his films and it is depressing.  My wish for him is to escape his name.  Everyone knows what to expect with him now that his name dictates the style of film that we are about to watch.  I would suggest allowing other directors to use his material–I would applaud him if he was simply credited as a screenwriter.  He needs to relax and get back to basic storytelling.  I hear his next project will be an animated movie–good idea.

There will be more warm wishes to come this Holiday season.  Support the indie directors out there, and keep rooting for the good directors.

Body of Lies

While I was in New York, I hopped over to the cinema to watch BODY OF LIES directed by Ridley Scott.  This film examines the lies and deceit that go on in modern day espionage.  Leonardo DiCaprio is the man in the field that does the leg work, while Russel Crowe acts as the “big brother” who watches and instructs him on his next move.  DiCaprio must manipulate the system by befriending the local authorities and dodge the terrorists, however the line between right and wrong blurs with each step he takes.  Crowe tries to keep the big picture and deals with every situation as a teenager casually playing a video game.  We see the lengths to which we are willing to go to secure “democracy” and what we are willing to sacrifice for our morality and honor to achieve that objective.

What’s good about it: I was continually interested in where the movie was going, so I was intent on learning everything I could from every scene.  Crowe seems to be a wonderful symbol of bureaucracy and American perspective (we can bomb a city or assassinate an enemy while dropping our kids off to school).  DiCaprio questions the “why’s” behind the actions of his boss and in turn he questions his government.  As an audience, we must then question our own government.  The most interesting thing in the film is finding that brutality and terrorism is found in all of us.

What’s not so good: There is nothing new here.  Ridley Scott does not seem to cover any new ground that hasn’t been covered in films like Syrianna, Munich, and Babel.  The most depressing part of the film is how little we care for the deaths we see.  Friends and innocents are killed, and we may have a moment of perplexity about it, but the dead are forgotten within the next scene never to be thought about again.  If the characters don’t feel the weight of their choices then we won’t care as an audience.  I felt like I was simply watching the movie run scenes to tell a story without any strong attachment to the characters.  DiCaprio and Crowe are fun to watch, but there is nothing much here that allows us to truly understand the characters they portray–and that may very well be the point.  We cannot understand this situation, which makes it a difficult leap for an audience to relate.  And there is a romance thrown into the story that really doesn’t fit and ultimately seemed so forced.

Honestly, you can skip this one.  I wanted to love this movie, and I was interested throughout, but ultimately I did not feel any growth or development from the story.  I wonder if they really could not figure out what the statement was with this film (they tried to make a point but I never saw anything change as a result of that point).  Averagely filmed, averagely acted, averagely told…