Saturday, January 31, 2009

The Rocker

Copyright 2008, Twentieth Century Fox

Yes, it's been done before, and so it can only get so many points for originality, but damn if The Rocker is actually a funny movie. Sure, Jack Black could easily sue for copyright infringement, but why bother? Rainn Wilson may not be a leading man yet (and maybe he shouldn't be, based on how much the movie chooses not to focus on his Robert "Fish" Fishman), but this is a good start for the erstwhile Dwight K. Schrute.

The plot of this film is pretty simple: Fish used to be the drummer for Vesuvius, a heavy metal band that got big as soon as they dropped Fish from the band. As Vesuvius became a worldwide success, Fish wallowed in the missed opportunity to be a star. Twenty years later, he loses his job and girlfriend and moves in with his sister, whose son is in a band of his own. Things happen and Fish ends up being the new drummer for ADD, made up of Matt, the nephew (Josh Gad); Amelia (Emma Stone); and Curtis (Teddy Geiger), the lead singer and songwriter. The band soars, and a confrontation with Vesuvius is in the cards for Fish, as well as a romance with Curtis' mom (Christina Applegate).

Wildly original this film is not. No, this is a film that skates on the charms of its actors. From Wilson to Applegate to Stone to the actors with smaller parts (Jason Sudeikis, Demetri Martin, Jane Krakowski, Jane Lynch, Jeff Garlin, Will Arnett, Fred Armisen, and Bradley Cooper), The Rocker is a movie with actors who elevate the material. Otherwise, this is a forgettable piece of filmmaking from Peter Cattaneo (the man who directed The Full Monty). Why see it? Well, it's worth a few laughs, if you're a fan of the actors mentioned above. Otherwise, Wilson is still looking for the right non-Schrute role (though this is certainly a far cry from his time on The Office).

Two and a half stars out of four


The Wire: Season 1

Copyright 2002, HBO Studios

What crime did I commit by missing The Wire when it aired on HBO between 2002 and 2008? Well, it doesn't help that the show's already left the airwaves and all the plot has been talked about online. Yes, I missed this show and have had to wait until the DVD release, but now I'm revisiting it, simply because more needs to be said about this show or, at the very least, its first season.

Even at the beginning, it's obvious that The Wire isn't just a cop show. The ads featured the most recognizable face, British actor Dominic West, but it's not about one character, and it's not really about cops and the dealers they're hunting for. This is a show about America, even if it may not seem like the troubles in the show are ones we're immediately familiar with. The hard choices, the political dealings, the humanism in even the most presumably evil characters, they're all here in the first season of this sprawling program.

How hard is it to talk about the plot? Well, how long do you have? How many words can I type without my fingertips going numb? Even the first season has so many ins and outs, so many characters who play a part in at least one episode, at least one scene, it's too much to talk about. The boiled-down plot goes like this: Jimmy McNulty (West) is a dedicated Baltimore detective who wants to bring down the drug operation run by Avon Barksdale (Wood Harris). In doing so, he winds up as part of a detail of cops mostly ignored by the higher-ups, because they care less about getting the dealers than getting a big show of taking their product and showing it off to the public.

Yes, the war on drugs, the neverending war. Why doesn't it end? Well, if this show provides any answers, it's that the people on the "right" side of the war, for the most part, aren't fighting the right battles. They're fighting the easy battles, the ones that accomplish quick ends instead of long-term ones. The Jimmy McNultys of the world are a rarer breed than they should be. McNulty is joined by enough people on his small detail to help slow down the Barksdale crew, but the long-term effects are small. Since the outcomes are going to be so disappointing in the long run, it's best to focus on the characters that David Simon and Ed Burns created to populate this world and the lucky actors who breathe life into them. There's West as the eternally self-righteous screwup McNulty; Lance Reddick (now seen on Lost and Fringe) as Lt. Daniels, the head of the detail; Sonja Sohn as Det. Greggs; Andre Royo as the self-aware drug addict/snitch Bubbs; Larry Gilliard, Jr. as D'Angelo Barksdale, Avon's nephew and one of the few who wants out of the game; Idris Elba as Stringer Bell, the businessman-cum-wise drug dealer; and Clarke Peters as Det. Freamon, a presumed dunce cop who turns out to be the savviest of all.

One of the reasons that The Wire, despite having five seasons and 60 episodes, never really got to the level of an HBO hit like The Sopranos was the lack of familiar faces dominating. Yes, West is a relatively recognizable actor, but even he isn't really the main character of the show, he's just an easy anchor. McNulty, while a character we root for, isn't nearly as satisfying to watch as Freamon or Bubbs or Stringer, who all have more surprising depths than the divorced alkie of a cop. Even Wendell Pierce, as McNulty's partner Bunk, has a fascinating layer beneath his cocky veneer.

Another reason the show never struck it big could be tied to its tagline: Listen Carefully. On one level, that refers to the titular wire the cops listen to, but it's really an instruction to us. Exposition is something this show will give us once and only the once. Don't expect to tune into the fifth episode of this series and know what's going on. Though it's easy to tell who's a cop and who's a dealer, will you remember William Gant and his assassin, Bird when they're offhandedly referred to near the end of the season? Will you remember their overall part in the puzzle? That Simon and Burns have respect for the intelligence of the audience is enough, but that their show merits as much, if not more, respect for the skill and craft of storytelling, directing, and acting, is amazing. If you have not watched this show already, you must start immediately. Though I'd rarely do so, this is a show worth buying, sight unseen. Just trust that you're in good hands with The Wire.

Four stars out of four


What Did I Miss?

Copyright 2008, Disney/Pixar

So, two days off the blog (I'm making up for it today, though), and what do I miss last night? The Annies, the annual awards ceremony for animation, gave out their awards last night, and I know what you're thinking: you're thinking that WALL-E won lots and lots of gold, especially since it had 7 nominations, right? And it's also gotten the most critical acclaim of any major feature in 2008, so it's totally going to win, yeah? Of course not. Couldn't you tell from my snide sarcasm that it actually got shut out completely to the inferior Kung Fu Panda, which had received 17 nominations (17!) and won 11 Annies. In fact, the only reason why it didn't win those other six is because the movie was nominated multiple times in the same category. The Jack Black movie won each of its categories. Even more, the short film that went along with Kung Fu Panda, Secrets of the Furious Five, got 4 Annies from 8 nods.

What's the deal? Join me, won't you, on my walk down the road of naivete, as I assume foolishly that the awards should go to the film that deserves it most by its merits, by its quality. Which was the best? I don't presume to know much about the intricacies of computer animation, so let's just focus on the Best Animated Feature nominees, specifically the big two. Now, Kung Fu Panda got a lot of praise when it was released; many (myself included) considered it Dreamworks Animation's best offering to date. Of course, when you consider that their other films include Shark Tale, Madagascar, and Over The Hedge, it's not a battle to be the best. And, though the Shrek series are certainly huge moneymakers, the quality of the films is on a sliding scale. Sorry, Justin Timberlake fans.

So, yeah, Kung Fu Panda is a good movie. In 1993, it's a great movie, but in 2008, it's just good. A movie about an ordinary character who discovers that he or she can be extraordinary has been done before. Yes, the animation is impressive...for Dreamworks, which has still not entered the 21st century of animation. Watch the first 30 minutes of WALL-E. The animation is so clear, so pure, so realistic...well, maybe that's why it didn't win, it should have looked more cartoonish. Overall, I know the Annies don't matter in the grander scheme, but seriously....what a shame. Why are the two biggest movies of 2008, why are Batman and WALL-E getting the shaft left and right? What curse do these films have on them?


Tuesday, January 27, 2009

A Thought

Whoever decided to come up with the new idea of TV spots for movies having the title and release date on the top of the screen at all times should be fired. That is all. Good day.

Just Because...

...You are so very curious about the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Do not lie, I know you are!

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11289

Monday, January 26, 2009

Tone Deaf

Am I really about to attempt connecting the Academy Awards with the current meltdown of the American economy and the not-at-all shocking lack of effort on the part of politicos to do anything to fix it? No. They share one commonality: a wealth of tone-deafness, though.

Frivolity first. I've ranted privately about the lack of important, non-technical and not-definite nominations for the two best films of the year, The Dark Knight and WALL-E. Snubs abound also for Bruce Springsteen, Clint Eastwood (not that I'm sad about that one), and Leonardo DiCaprio. I realize that many voters don't care about the ratings of the TV show (and I'm the first person to say that they shouldn't), but while I hold the naive view that those same voters should be voting for the five best films/actors/directors/etc. of the year, I'm aware that some, if not most, nominees are voted not because they deserve it this year, but for other reasons.

Take The Reader. No, please, take it. Seriously, though, this is a film that is produced by Harvey Weinstein, so the cynics assume it must be an Oscar nominee thanks merely to Weinstein's sway over the Academy. Sure...unless the more morbid and recent rumor that this is a sentimental vote for two of the other producers, the late Anthony Minghella and the late Sydney Pollack, is even remotely true. Or, maybe it's their appreciation for Stephen Daldry, a director who the Academy has nominated every time. Or maybe they think it's a good movie. Why is that always the last choice? Well, because the Academy doesn't always vote for the best.

I remember a few years ago, when Entertainment Weekly did secret interviews with Academy members who were also past nominees/winners. Though they didn't do the interviews together, all agreed that The 40-Year Old Virgin should have been nominated for Best Picture. You won't find an argument from me (2005, that film's year of release, was as weak a year for movies as 2000 or 2008 was), but there was no love for that film at the Oscars. The amount of passion in these people's voices was shocking, since it didn't change anything at the awards. But passion usually loses to politics. This year, that's come at a price: tone-deafness.

Stereotypes are usually over-the-top and ridiculous, but a few are buried in truth. The Academy is not actually filled completely with people as old and homophobic as Ernest Borgnine, but enough of its members match that description. The Academy isn't always in love with movies about the Holocaust, proven this year because...only one got nominated? The Academy doesn't snub animated films, because WALL-E got six nominations, and may likely win the award for Best Original Screenplay (no argument from me if that's the case). The fact that it's snubbed at Best Picture and Director? Well, there's no excuse. The Academy doesn't snub genre movies because all three Lord of the Rings movies got nominated, and one won! Well, sure, but many others have argued that The Dark Knight wasn't just more successful, but it spoke to the time it was released in. It made comments on politics, American and abroad, without shoving those comments down our throats. And hey, Heath Ledger will probably win a big award, right?

People do like seeing movies they enjoy get recognized by Hollywood. Yes, most popular movies aren't great. Some are. Two came out this year. People responded to them strongly. The Academy doesn't care and chooses to block itself off from the rest of the country. They may not care now, but when no one is willing to throw down a few bucks for the movies, they will.

But that still isn't important to me. The economy is. The economy is and has been in a recession for a long time now. And so what does Washington do? Nothing but sit on their hands. Now, I'm a proud Democrat, and I strongly support President Obama. And, honestly, I'm not going to get on his case here today. I am going to get on the case of many other Democrats, for letting the MINORITY dictate shit. I get very frustrated when Republicans, who actually lost the election, get to hold off on sending a stimulus package to the country, to the people who put them in power. I'm just as frustrated because I hear many politicians on both sides tell us that it's time to put money back onto Main Street, but--hang on a second, Main Street? Main Street? Are we that stupid in this country that we need to be told that Washington wants to focus putting back money in a normal person's pocket in the most contrived and cliche fashion? Are people that stupid?

I hold out a bit of hope that they're not. I say there are enough smart people out here that understand what politicians are talking about without cliche-littered phrases. So, for now, we have to deal with the tone-deafness of most people who run this country. It doesn't matter if over 60,000 jobs were cut in this country TODAY if John fucking Boehner doesn't get to show his President that he, the MINORITY LEADER, is the real boss in Washington. Tone-deaf, Boehner, you are tone-deaf. Get off your high horse and wipe the shit-eating grin off your face so I can tell you to your face: Fuck you and get us some fucking help.

And here's your soapbox back.

No, I'm Not Bitter

Why do you ask?

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11288

I surprise myself sometimes, even when talking about something as personally pointless as the Oscars.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Let The Right One In

Copyright 2008, Magnet Pictures

What a shame it is that more people aren't going to see the Swedish-language vampire film Let The Right One In, a truly shocking and profoundly disturbing story that transcends its genre and, like a recent foreign fantasy, Pan's Labyrinth, surprises at every turn, frequently turning its plot in unthought-of ways. No, instead, people will flock to Twilight, a movie whose makers don't trust that its audience has an IQ above 75. No, people will avoid the subtitles, because they can't be asked to read and think at the same time. Multi-tasking is bad, right? What a shame.

But what a film is this, dear reader, what a film is this. At turns violent and tender, Let The Right One In tells the story of Oskar, an ostracized 12-year old in a rundown suburb of Stockholm, Sweden. Oskar is bullied at his school and at home, retreating with a love of knives and a dream of violent revenge. One night, he's spied upon by a new tenant in his apartment building, Eli, a strange girl who excites and inflames Oskar, even after he finds out that she's a vampire. Oskar, with his bullied lifestyle and divorced and distant parents, has a story interesting on a solely realistic level, but Eli, who's originally accompanied by Hakan, a middle-aged man whose job is to kill so his young charge may survive, has a truly fascinating life, even if we're never sure exactly how long she's been twelve years old.

Eli and Oskar grow as friends and Oskar still loves this girl even after he sees what she's capable of. Of course, by this point, we've seen what Eli is capable of, from climbing up buildings and trees to inciting a subtle passion in Hakan to sucking the blood of the other tenants in the apartment building. It's this knowledge that adds to the thrill of Let The Right One In, a movie where we are given more knowledge than the main character. It's that knowledge that lends a heavy amount of eerie chilliness, heighted by the cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema and the steady direction of Tomas Alfredson. Lengthy passages, including a sunlit sequence at an ice rink and a subplot involving the fatal consequences Eli has on the people she doesn't even kill, are fluidly perfect and haunting.

Yet there are even depths to these characters that aren't plumbed in this adaptation of the 2004 novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist. How long has Eli been alive? How long has she had Hakan at her side, a man who, while dedicated to his duty, seems to make more mistakes in his murders of Swedish locals? How long will it be until Oskar is Eli's new murderer? We see the beginnings of this at the end, as Eli begs Oskar to be her for a while, to kill for necessity instead of perverse pleasure. What is the meaning of Eli's scar? As unanswered as these questions are, it adds to the fascination this film affords the viewer.

Though most vampire movies are specifically interested in bloodshed and lots of it, this movie doesn't feel the need to simply give its audience the grotesquerie it expects. Yes, there is blood here, but Alfredson manages to make us sympathize enough with Oskar and Eli that, when the climactic scene in a local pool finally comes, a scene we've been expecting for a while, not only is there an incredible amount of suspense but we're rooting for Oskar's bullies to be dispatched of, we're rooting for Oskar and Eli to make out like bandits. Apparently, in only a year, there will be an English-language remake of Let The Right One In, and I can only imagine how quickly the blood will spatter, heads will roll, and the ideas fueling this story are shoved aside. If more people are encouraged to see this film, though, as opposed to what will likely be a bastardized American version, more the better, because this really is one of the best films of the past year.

Four stars out of four


The Happening

Copyright 2008, Twentieth Century Fox

Sigh. I wish, I really do, that I could say this is strike three, without any reservations, for M. Night Shyamalan. I told myself after sitting through the 2004 and 2006 debacles The Village and Lady in the Water that this past summer's The Happening was it. If this was a bad movie, something as bad as those other two misfires, then another M. Night Shyamalan movie I would not see. I wish this was as awful as those two, or at least as awful as people said, but The Happening isn't bad enough for that kind of vitriol. There were far worse films in 2008, and Shyamalan has made far worse movies. My hope is that he's got no more left up his sleeve.

Yes, this is a movie with problems. Many, many problems. First of all, the premise itself. At first glance, the concept works thanks to Shyamalan's skills as a director. Simple shots of people frozen or walking backwards slowly is just a bit creepy. In some way, the first 5 minutes of the film, set in New York City, as people begin killing themselves in gruesome fashion, work very well. In the same breath, they don't work at all. For example, the second NYC scene is set outside a construction site, as four workers tell jokes. They're interrupted violently by the first of many people jumping off the top of the unfinished building. Though the final shot shows about five people sailing off into death, the problem comes before. The first jumper falls and dies instantly; the reaction of the four workers is blankness. No, none of them off themselves in the scene, and only one shows any kind of emotion. Did we miss something? A guy just killed himself. Unfortunately, one of the strange cues in a Shyamalan movie is emotional inertness, and it doesn't let up once we leave the construction site.

The main character is Elliott Moore (Mark "Say Hi To Your Mother For Me" Wahlberg), a high school science teacher in Philadelphia. The plot boils down to this much: he and a colleague (John Leguizamo, underused) find out about the NYC deaths, presumed to be a terrorist attack, and take off for what is hopefully a safe house with family in tow. The family is Elliott's estranged wife, Alma (a truly miscast Zooey Deschanel, and when did you think that would be possible?), and his colleague's daughter. Of course, their train ride to the safe house doesn't go as planned, and Elliott and Alma end up running for their lives, running away from...the grass. The plants. The wind. Let that sink in, and while you do, consider that Wahlberg, for God knows what reason, chooses to read every single line? As if it's a question? And Wahlberg's really annoyed when he's talking? So say hi to your mother for me, okay, chicken? Oh, sorry. He was rubbing off.

Nothing goes much further here than the basic concept and common issues with Shymalan's leading men. They always have issues with their wives, or are so lonely that they have none, and their wives usually have nothing to do aside from look worried or scared. Even though Betty Buckley (as a nutty old lady) livens things up late in the game, a person can make nature look only so scary. On the one hand, I give credit to Shymalan for making an Earth-friendly and timely horror movie, one that requires little special effects, but on the other hand, it's pretty fucking ridiculous to watch Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel run around in the grass for 90 minutes and even more ridiculous to find out what the epidemic is and why it's happening. If more people are going to be convinced of the dangers we are causing to our planet, we have to got to stop making drivel like The Happening.

One and a half stars out of four


Defiance

Copyright 2008, Paramount Vantage

It's almost getting to the point where World War II in general should be off-limits to filmmakers. 15 years ago, Steven Spielberg made one of a few films about World War II and the Holocaust and, though a powerful vision, it's also helped spur on the idea of Nazism as entertainment. Even in movies such as Defiance, where the Nazis are barely in the story, mostly hovering as some kind of spectral demon, being entertained by the daring and jaw-dropping feats of bravery is the goal. Despite those reservations, Edward Zwick's latest historical action drama is surprisingly quite good.

I say "surprisingly," because, although this movie was advertised almost a year ago and seemed tailor-made for loads of Oscar nominations, it was also written off almost as quickly, garnering only a nomination for Best Score, by James Newton Howard (who should have been nominated this year, but for The Dark Knight instead). Defiance, in being solidly made and filled with emotion at all the right spots, is much like Zwick's other films, specifically Glory and The Last Samurai, harkens back to the idea of movies being made like they were back in the 40s and 50s. The heroism portrayed here in the characters played by Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, and Jamie Bell wasn't uncommon to American war heroes dramatized for film, so I suppose it's no shock that the not-so-popular story of the Bielski brothers was right in Zwick's wheelhouse.

Tuvia, Zus and Asaul Bielski were Russian Jews who retreated into the forests of Russia when their parents and families were slaughtered by Russian soldiers working for the SS. They stayed in the forests for three years and ended up saving over a thousand Jews. Though the movie only focuses on the first year of those three, the sheer magnitude of what these three brothers did is unable to be put into words. Zwick pays plenty of honor to the three men, despite the fraternal fight that dominates the majority of the film between Tuvia and Zus (Craig and Schreiber). Still, the character who is given the most heroic part is Craig's Tuvia.

I don't want to presume otherwise, but I did wonder if the Herculean tasks did fall completely on Tuvia's shoulders, so Asaul, the youngest wouldn't help out, even after Zus abandons his family to fight with Russian partisans against the SS. Of course, Craig is able to pull it off, as his filmography continues to include movies where he's given a slightly idiosyncratic part to pull off. This may be closer to James Bond than the despicable son in Road to Perdition, but there's enough imperfection in Craig's performance that lends to his humanity. Though his character resorts to quick and sudden violence every once in a while (particularly in a scene two-thirds of the way through), Tuvia believes humans are better than that.

That Zus believes differently, or that he doesn't care if violence makes him more animalistic, is the argument. Zus shows no remorse in killing as many Nazis as he can, while when Tuvia oversees the group killing of one kidnapped Nazi, we're meant to look upon those doing the deed as animals. This is really the only scene in the film that fails, mostly because with all the knowledge we have about the Nazis and the atrocities they committed, it's hard not to see Zus' point of view. Maybe it's Schreiber, who doesn't have as much to do as Craig but is rigidly marvelous as the brother who can kill a Nazi and become frustrated with the eagerness to find another body to kill. Craig and Schreiber are both uniformly excellent (even if Craig has a little bit of trouble with the Russian accent in scenes that require him to shout) as is Bell, who's growing up into a fine actor, moving past just being Billy Elliott.

Something of note is the cinematography by Eduardo Serra, who uses his camera to chilling effect. One of the major crises for the Jews in the forest is making it through the winter, so when the camerawork effectively and efficiently makes audience members shiver, when the snow seems to fall right at our feet, it's kudos for Serra's painterly images. The action scenes in the film, of which there are only a few, all work well, but unlike previous Zwick films, the action doesn't seem to work as strongly if only because the director seems far more interested in the moral struggle these survivors had, focusing on the in-fighting among some Jews, intellectuals and fighters alike.

A movie like Defiance seems to live in another time, but resonates strongly, more so than recent Nazi-themed movies, partly because of the shocking story being unearthed for most audiences and partly because of the realistic humanity being afforded to these people.

Three and a half stars out of four


Thursday, January 22, 2009

Bored Now

Just like the vampire version of Willow, that's my sentiment in regards to this morning's announcement of the 81st annual Academy Awards. As a devout movie lover, it pains me to even consider not watching the damn thing on February 22nd, but for the first time since I actively sought out each major nominee, I honestly don't care about the five films nominated for Best Picture. Of them, the one I liked most is Frost/Nixon, and like is the operative word. There is no love in my heart for any of the five nominees.

The difference here is that, with the presumption of The Dark Knight being one of the nominees, I could have accepted the competition, even with the knowledge that the Batman was never going to win Best Picture. Once again, validation. Validation is key. It's nice to know that those making the movies we're watching are aware of the films that have the best quality. Instead, the 2008 nominees all fall under the stereotypes the Academy has helped spread amongst the viewing public.

It's rare that filmmakers correctly estimate or overestimate the intelligence of the American public, but even rarer when their movies get it right and they get it wrong. None of the nominees are impressive, none are going to be anything but mere memories in history books in years to come. What do we have to show for it? The Dark Knight and WALL-E, two great films that will live with technical awards and a sympathy vote for a classic performance. What a fucking shame.

More later...

...but, in my humble opinion, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences still hasn't gotten the memo that the 21st century has officially arrived. What a boring list of nominees.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Burn After Reading

Copyright 2008, Focus Features

Oh, Joel and Ethan Coen. Oh, you crazy men. I wish I had the same amount of power they do. They don't make movies that make 100 million dollars, but they get respect and praise. They get big stars, they get small actors. They get Oscars. Moreover, they get the opportunity to do whatever the fuck they want. You want a follow-up to Fargo, one of the best films of the 1990s? How about a stoner comedy set during the Gulf War? You want a follow-up to No Country For Old Men, one of the best films of this decade? How about a CIA satire, in that all of the people in the movie are blithering idiots?

I saw Burn After Reading when it came out and again recently, and I'm glad I did. No, I didn't change my mind too much in terms of where I stand on the film, but I'd been hearing some people say that, like 1998's The Big Lebowski, here is a movie that is being misunderstood. No one loved the 1998 film when it came out, true, and it's certainly become a stronger film, hitting cult status (and it is a very funny movie, too). So why can't Burn After Reading be this decade's Big Lebowski? Well, for one, it's not nearly as visually appealing or interesting, or as funny, or as well-acted.

To be fair, this movie isn't meant to have anywhere close to the same visual appeal of the Jeff Bridges comedy. The cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is flat and colorless, uninterested in pushing us anywhere near visual nirvana with the blues and grays of Washington, D.C. However, the lack of funny and strong performances can't be forgiven. The picture above is from right after the best scene in the movie, featuring Brad Pitt and John Malkovich in a car, shouting at each other. Frankly, all of the scenes with Malkovich are great, and Pitt's no slouch. With the exception of one truly outrageous (if only because it's unexpected) joke halfway through the movie and the random cameo of Dermot Mulroney (not Mulrooney), Burn After Reading is the slightest film the Coens have ever done.

The plot is complicated and simple at the same time: Malkovich's Osborne Cox is a recently fired CIA analyst writing an autobiography he believes will unearth shocking secrets. The bio is put on a CD found by Pitt's Chad and Frances McDormand's Linda Litzke, two idiot trainers at a local gym. They mistakenly presume the CD is worth lots of dough and try to scam the Russian embassy. Meanwhile, George Clooney's Harry Pfarrer is a philandering Treasury Department employee who sleeps with Cox's wife, Tilda Swinton, and Litzke, while falling under the spell of hopeless paranoia. Wackiness should ensue.

It's too bad, then, that the wackiness is forced. Clooney and McDormand have the hardest go of it, acting crazy even when they don't need to. They'll do better soon, but it's hard to watch them cavort around the screen without actually doing anything worth laughing about. Again, Pitt and Malkovich, both crazy but able to tone it down when necessary, are the best in the bunch, though Richard Jenkins and J.K. Simmons, as the two sanest people in the movie, come close.

The Coens have more great films in them, I know this much. I also know that they'll make more movies like Burn After Reading, movies that won't be remembered by many, and justly so. The way I see it: if they have to make movies like this to get to the greats, give these two as much money as they like. Having one great film per decade (and the Coens have a better track record than that) is a good enough batting average for me.

Two stars out of four


An Ode to Michael Emerson

Copyright 2008, ABC Studios

With the fifth-season premiere of the best drama on television (Mad Men, you were so close!), Lost, coming tomorrow night and me not wanting to wait any longer for the big extravaganza, I wanted to take a final second and point out the reason why the show still works: Michael Emerson.

Oh, sure, there are many reasons why the show works, from the strong acting (Matthew Fox, Josh Holloway, and Terry O'Quinn, among others) to the great plot twists and cliffhangers to the sci-fi elements surrounding the mystical island the castaways of Oceanic 15 landed on in 2004. But it's Benjamin Linus, previously known as Henry Gale, a balloonist from Minnesota, who transformed this show into something more. Yes, he's obviously one of the most important characters on the show (aside from Charles Widmore, he may be the single most influential person), but it's the performance of Michael Emerson, a truly creepy actor, that elevates Linus from being a rote villain. It's Emerson's performance that makes audience members forget that, these days, Linus is trying to HELP the castaways (or appears to be).

For every character like Linus, for every performance like Emerson's, there must be a John Locke, a Terry O'Quinn to counter every attack. The scenes between O'Quinn and Emerson, beginning at the end of season 2, and building up to their final discussion in the Orchid station at the end of season 4, have helped elevate the show in tough times (I am able to ignore an episode about Jack's fucking tattoos when I have these two to fall back on) and raised the bar higher for the actors surrounding them.

For me, this is the best part of Lost, but then again, Locke has always been the most intriguing character on the show from day 1, when he smirked at Kate with an orange peel and asked Walt if he wanted to know a secret over backgammon. Though he's the most devout believer in the island, when Locke is most fascinating is when he is most misguided. One of the truly haunting images of this show remains Locke's face as he stands around the Swan station, imploding on itself because of his decision, shouting to Mr. Eko, plainly, "I was wrong." Yes, that John Locke is in a coffin in Los Angeles in the future after inheriting the island is shocking, but not because Locke's leadership is strong, only because you can't imagine him ever leaving the island, even in that way.

Twenty-four hours left until the show returns, but let me leave you with this: Locke being dead is surprising, but let's be honest: Ben being around to stare his dead eyes down, Ben being the one to wrangle survivors back...is anyone surprised? Here's to more scenes of Michael Emerson being Emmy-worthy. Here's to more of the best show on television. If only it didn't have to end.


My Oscar Predictions In Full

Copyright, AMPAS

With the Oscar nominations being announced on Thursday, I've already directed you over to Box Office Prophets, where I listed my predictions for most major categories, but I wanted to take an opportunity to go more in-depth about my predictions for all Oscar categories, so read on for more.

Best Picture

  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
  • The Dark Knight
  • Milk
  • Slumdog Millionaire
  • WALL-E

Yes, I know I'm not going with the common five here, but I feel like someone has to go a little far outside the norm with their guesses this Oscar season. Though there's no specific frontrunner on the level of 2007's No Country For Old Men, Slumdog Millionaire being the only thing close to a potential winner, the five nominees seem to be set in stone, if you switch out a lovestruck robot for Richard Nixon being grilled by a vain Brit. Sure, Frost/Nixon is a good movie, but I keep hoping that another movie that actually deserves to be a Best Picture nominee (only Batman and WALL-E deserve to be on the list, among the five I've guessed) will get the honor of a nomination.

Best Director

  • Darren Aronofsky, The Wrestler
  • Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
  • David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
  • Christopher Nolan, The Dark Knight
  • Gus Van Sant, Milk

Once again, my guesses are outside the norm, as I don't believe Andrew Stanton, the visionary director and co-writer of WALL-E, will get a richly deserved Best Director nomination. I'd love to be wrong there, but I also think that Aronofsky has a truly brilliant piece of work with The Wrestler, and absolutely deserves the same recognition that Mickey Rourke has been getting. I do think that, of the two mentioned categories, Frost/Nixon is more likely to be shut out of this category. Yes, Ron Howard has won an Oscar, but for his best film, Apollo 13, he was not nominated while his movie was. There is precedent here, so don't be surprised if the narrator of Arrested Development doesn't have a nomination.

Best Actor

  • Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino
  • Richard Jenkins, The Visitor
  • Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
  • Sean Penn, Milk
  • Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

There are three definite nominees here: Langella, Penn, and Rourke. These three actors have the larger-than-life performances to back up the praise. In Langella's case, this is a long-overdue nomination for a fine body of work. For Penn, it's business as usual; he's quickly becoming a male Meryl Streep in terms of AMPAS love. For Rourke, it's the ultimate comeback story. 2008 had two of them: his and Robert Downey, Jr., another actor who's likely to show up on the nomination list. Eastwood...well, I hope I'm wrong, but I imagine the elder statesmen of the AMPAS will show his performance in an utterly terrible movie lots of love. My prediction for Jenkins is a guess, and he'll likely be shoved out for Brad Pitt, but Jenkins also has a strong if not large body of work, and his performance in The Visitor hit all the right notes.

Best Actress

  • Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married
  • Sally Hawkins, Happy-Go-Lucky
  • Angelina Jolie, Changeling
  • Meryl Streep, Doubt
  • Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road

Most of the acting categories are uneasy this year; who knows what, if any, surprises the Academy will bestow upon us? It's likely that this category may have the most surprises. Perhaps Melissa Leo will show up, or Kristin Scott Thomas. I imagine these five, though, will stay the nominees, even if Jolie doesn't deserve it (but, hey, she's famous and beautiful, so why not, says AMPAS). Honestly, the field isn't as strong as it's been in the past, with only Hathaway and Winslet giving the great lead performances of the year. Here, though, I'd only mind if I'm right about Jolie, being praised for a truly mediocre performance in a truly mediocre film.

Best Supporting Actor

  • Robert Downey, Jr., Tropic Thunder
  • James Franco, Milk
  • Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt
  • Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
  • Dev Patel, Slumdog Millionaire

Honestly, let's just have the one nominee. Woe be on the person whose name is called out instead of Ledger's a month from now. Not only does he deserve the award, alive or dead, but the added posthumous nature lends this an air of completeness. There's less surprise here than elsewhere. If Franco doesn't get nominated, it may be in place of Josh Brolin, a worthy alternate candidate for the nomination. It's hard to say why I've chosen one over the other, but I feel like Franco's role works on a slightly more emotional level, one that may work with the Academy. And, although I'd love Michael Shannon to slip in for Revolutionary Road, I imagine Patel will take the fifth slot, undeservedly so. I know I'm one of the few detractors of this film, but even still, it's hard to see why Patel's being praised for a role that gives him so little to do. I can't say if he's a good or bad actor, because the material he's given just does nothing for him. And yet, an Oscar nom is in the cards.

Best Supporting Actress

  • Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
  • Viola Davis, Doubt
  • Rosemarie Dewitt, Rachel Getting Married
  • Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
  • Kate Winslet, The Reader

Is this the year Kate Winslet wins an award for previous work? Yes, her two major performances this year are Oscar-worthy, but not on the same level as her work in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, easily her best work, and the strongest work from an actress in a long time. She could still end up with an Oscar (I doubt she's winning two, let's be honest), but all of these actresses deserve the award. Unlike other categories, I can't say I don't want any of them to win, and seeing someone like Davis or Dewitt win, when so few recognize them by name or face, would be a great surprise.

Best Original Screenplay

  • Happy-Go-Lucky, by Mike Leigh
  • Milk, by Dustin Lance Black
  • Vicky Cristina Barcelona, by Woody Allen
  • WALL-E, by Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon
  • The Wrestler, by Robert Siegel

There's always a few surprises in the original screenplays, but I get the feeling that all but the first choice I've got is a pretty strong favorite. The only reason Leigh's wound up in my list is that he's been nominated before and, like Allen, may be honored by AMPAS simply because of who he is and his longevity in the world of film. If these are the nominees, I do hope that Stanton and Reardon end up walking down the aisle with a couple of golden boys, as their film is easily one of the most original works in years. Frankly, the only two films I'm rooting for here are WALL-E and The Wrestler.

Best Adapted Screenplay

  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, by Eric Roth
  • The Dark Knight, by Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan
  • Doubt, by John Patrick Shanley
  • Frost/Nixon, by Peter Morgan
  • Slumdog Millionaire, by Simon Beaufoy

As it goes, most Best Picture nominees are in the adapted screenplay category, and this year is likely no different. The only two shaky nominees, I'd wager, are The Dark Knight and Doubt. Still, if the former film is nominated for the big awards, I'd be surprised to see it snubbed here. With the latter, it having been a play first helps, and Shanley's no stranger to the Oscars. Still, Doubt has been the film hovering around Oscar this entire season, and may end up either on the good or bad side of the edge.

Best Animated Feature

  • Kung Fu Panda
  • WALL-E
  • Waltz With Bashir

If it wasn't for Waltz With Bashir being nominated for Best Foreign-Language Film, I'd say it has a more-than-fighting chance against the obvious victor, WALL-E. But it will be, it doesn't, and WALL-E will win.

I'd go further on the nominations, but I'd prefer to wait on technical categories until the announcements, so I can predict who I'd like to win and who I think will win. Until then, prepare yourselves for a likely boring nominations ceremony and hope that, for the sake of intrigue, I'm closer to right than wrong.

My Oscar Predictions

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11273

I shall write up a more full explanation of my choices soon, but read me and the other fine folks at Box Office Prophets!

President Obama

Doesn't that sound great? I'm so glad that America is finally walking itself into the 21st century. Took us long enough.

President Obama. I am glad to get used to that name.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Snow Angels

Copyright 2008, Warner Independent Pictures

When it comes to depressing movies, could Revolutionary Road actually be topped as the victor of 2008? Yes, indeedy: Snow Angels, arguably one of the most realistic and, thus, most painful glimpses into modern-day, lower-class life, could very well be one of the great downer movies of the past few years. A movie like this one is hard to swallow because of all the flaws the characters in David Gordon Green's film have, all of the fateful mistakes, if only because there's so little metaphorical light to bathe in during this story.

Though it's essentially an ensemble piece, Snow Angels focuses on a few central characters. There's Annie (Kate Beckinsale, doing her best to not look gorgeous), a waitress at the local Chinese restaurant with a daughter, an ailing mother, and a gruff yet insecure ex-husband; there's Glenn (Sam Rockwell), the ex-husband who's also a born-again Christian and extremely suicidal; and Arthur (Michael Angarano), a quiet teen who also works at the Chinese restaurant and moves on from a crush on Annie to a relationship with Lila (Olivia Thirlby), a new girl in his high school. The most tension comes from the relationship between Annie and Glenn, and the way they treat their young daughter, Tara. The failings of their choices leads to arguments and, eventually, bloodshed.

The movie, set in Western Pennsylvania, was shot in Nova Scotia, which doesn't dampen the chilly effect of the entire film. Green uses his camera to isolate us in this small, unnamed town, to isolate us in the blandness of American life, the boring nature of the overworked and underpaid. If anything, the movie is oppressive in how little it lets up showing us these real lives. Though Beckinsale still looks a bit too glamorous to be hawking lo mein to the locals, she focuses all her efforts on becoming Annie, a prickly and frequently screwed-over young woman whose life shouldn't have ended up here. Rockwell, playing a constantly changing character, someone whose mood shifts depending on the hour, deals with the heavy work as well, but ends up slightly more dangerous on the screen, slightly more cavalier with his emotions. As is the case with most movies with him in it, he is the most fascinating actor to watch.

The other actors, even Angarano and Thirlby, don't have as much to do, and the teenage relationship never has any true angst; they fall slowly in love and never go anywhere else. Arthur's parents have a subplot dealing with their separation, but even Griffin Dunne and Jeanette Arnette can't lift the subplot to a point where it can feasibly fight with the duel between Annie and Glenn.

Despite its flaws and a surprisingly abrupt ending (however apt that ending may be), Snow Angels is a sad look at people that would be classified as the "real America," people who aren't living special lives, but have their own dramas to deal with, their own stories, uplifting and downbeat.

Three and a half stars out of four


Saturday, January 17, 2009

Last Chance Harvey

Copyright 2008, Overture Films

Without being too forthcoming, I had to exit the theater where I was watching Last Chance Harvey without about ten minutes left in the film. I walked out as the final scene began and returned seconds before it ended, and though I would have much preferred to have not exited at all, I didn't miss a damn thing.

Last Chance Harvey, a movie that unquestionably has the worst title of any movie of the past 12 months, isn't a bad film by any measure. Writer-director Joel Hopkins certainly knows how to aim his camera, and the script has relatively more life in it than most. Even more, he's aided by the charm and talent exuded by stars Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson. However, the movie's main hook comes too late and is dimmed too frequently.

The concept is simple: watch two charismatic actors with a quirky chemistry re-enact a happier version of Before Sunrise. So why waste 30 minutes of the movie keeping Hoffman's Harvey Shine and Thompson's Kate Walker apart? And then, when you bring them together, why cover up their dialogue with musical montages? What is most maddening is that Hopkins is right to cast Hoffman and Thompson together, as their chemistry is so perfect that there are multiple scenes, but not enough of them, when it genuinely feels as though the two actors aren't acting, aren't playing their roles: they're just Dustin and Emma, walking through London, just talking. When the plot intrudes in various ways, we're jerked out of reality, painfully so.

The problem is the plot, which is always at odds with the concept. Harvey is a commercial jingle writer, unhappy at his job, but not unhappy enough that he's thrilled when he's fired over the phone at Heathrow Airport. On that same day, he saw his daughter get married, but she was given away by her stepfather. Even more, his entire family seems to shun him, seems to treat him like he's from another planet. So when he meets Kate, a lonely woman whose only friend is her mother (Eileen Atkins), at the airport bar, he strikes up a conversation with her, which leads to more and more.

The script, despite its strength, is too contrived; it works too hard to get these two together at all, when it'd be much easier to just start the damn movie in the airport bar, partly so we get more of Hoffman and Thompson, who seem just as much at odds with the plot as the audience is. For Harvey, the first act only makes us feel excessive amounts of sympathy for him; he loses his job and, honestly, his family, especially his daughter, treats him in such a cruel way, that I wanted him to have another family.

Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson talking to each other for 90 minutes is a great idea for a movie or even a play. Hopefully, if the duo ever meet up again in such a forum, we'll get 90 minutes, not 30 with a hokey plot hovering around them.

Two stars out of four


Friday, January 16, 2009

Mini-Rant #1

Mini-rant, because it's not just about one topic. More like a rapid-fire rant surplus!

Why is it that people call a wrong number, listen to the answering machine message from the person whose wrong number they called (which helps clarify how wrong the number is), and then proceed to leave a personal message while also specifically naming the person whose wrong number they called? Why does some schmuck from DULUTH, MINNESOTA think that a guy in Arizona is going to pick him up from God knows where after hearing his name? Who is this guy looking for? I hate when that happens.

Does Costco actually think a policy of badgering will get more love from customers? The scenario is this: I get a Costco membership. There are two types of membership: regular and, as Sam Gerard once hissed, extra-crispy. The only difference is that, for every 100 dollars I spend, I get 2 dollars back. What a savings. I choose regular, which is half the cost of extra-crispy. The guy behind the counter asks me politely if I'd like to get extra-crispy; I decline politely. End of story. By happenstance, I end up buying my HDTV (a purchase I do not regret, barely), a 42-inch plasma screen from Panasonic for 700 smackers. Not a bad deal. I check out and, as the cashier rings me up, another Costco employee, a woman, asks me in the most insincerely friendly way if I've heard about the extra-crispy membership, which would bring me a whole 14 dollars back from the TV. I say, somewhat testily, that I have and am not interested. End of story. I am told by the cashier to go to the merchandise cage to get the manual and TV remote. On the way there ("there" being about 25 feet), ANOTHER employee, a guy in a polo shirt, asks me, faux-sincere, if I've heard about extra-crispy...REALLY, have I heard about it? Am I sure I don't want all its magical fucking benefits? Before I am able to take out my membership card and destroy it, I respond quickly that I've heard and DON'T WANT IT.

Two months pass without a single visit to Costco, proving the worthlessness of the extra-crispy membership, at least for someone like me. I spend about 80 bucks (also known as no money back) and, as I exit the cashier's line, the SAME FUCKING GUY, Mr. Polo Shirt, asks me again if I'm interested, and I just walk away.

So, again, I ask if Costco thinks this is going to make me more or less interested in buying from them. Yes, I would like a twelve-pack of Heinz ketchup, please. Yes, I would like a box set of Cary Grant DVDs, please. Bullshit.

Why is Joe the Plumber showing up again on my TV. Who gives a shit about this moron? His name isn't Joe. He's not a licensed plumber. He's not a real journalist, but he's in Israel, telling us that journalists shouldn't cover war, only present propaganda. Fucking asshole.

Why does Hollywood think the right message to show off in its award ceremonies this year is extra glamour? Yeah, what I need right now is watching Tom Wilkinson get drunk off his ass and Angelina Jolie frowning because she didn't win an award she shouldn't have fucking won. Oh, and by the way, who gives a flying shit if Jolie snubbed Ryan Seacrest? How arrogant can you get? "So, since I host a karaoke show, I am entitled to ask Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie about their harem of children." Is that what flies through his excuse for a mind? Seriously? I don't care.

Morons.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

The Top Ten of 2008

I realize that I'm, of course, a tad late to this whole shebang, but I wanted to throw my two cents in. Why not have another opinion to the billions out there? Enjoy.

10. Ghost Town

Yes, you probably didn't see it, and for shame. If you don't already know Ricky Gervais is one of the funniest people alive, then you have obviously missed his appearances on David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, HBO, the Golden Globes, the Emmys, the British version of The Office, Extras, Stardust, Night at the Museum, and, by the way, you can thank the massive popularity of podcasts on him and the shaved chimp known as Karl Dil--Pilkington. Turns out he can bring his off-kilter charm to a romantic comedy co-starring Tea Leoni and Greg Kinnear. Without him, the movie's not bad, but Gervais makes this thing soar.

9. Iron Man

Though Robert Downey, Jr. has always been a brilliant actor, this was his Johnny Depp year, the year when American audiences accepted him as a raffish leading man. Though his role in Tropic Thunder was almost more memorable than Tony Stark, this film has the advantage of working consistently and having some seriously cool effects. And now that Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, AND Emily Blunt are all close to being in the sequel, I can't wait for 2010.

8. In Bruges

So Colin Farrell, it turns out, can act (I'm considering his acceptance speech at the Globes didn't happen). This early-quarter entry was marketed as a wacky comedy, but its frequent bursts of pained drama weren't only shocking, but moving. Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, and Ralph Fiennes are all on the tops of their game, and I eagerly await the next from writer-director Martin McDonagh.

7. The Visitor

Probably the best example of the unsung character actor, Richard Jenkins gets a chance to shine here as Walter Vale, a sad-sack college professor whose life is revived when he meets two squatters in his New York apartment. Jenkins' face tells a story by itself, but director Tom McCarthy's script works well; what's more, the emotional outburst Vale has at the end, while being a bit predictable, works thanks to the awkwardness conveyed by the craggy-faced lead.

6. Revolutionary Road

Almost in spite of itself, I thought this film worked extremely well. As disillusioned Frank and April, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet take some heavy work and do the best they can. Though Sam Mendes' direction lacks an extreme amount of flair, the acting (especially from wild-card Michael Shannon) is powerful and painful, so much so that I honestly don't need to see this movie ever again, which may be the highest compliment I can pay it.

5. Frost/Nixon

No, not a lot of people will declare this as one of the best of the year, and I understand why. But I can't deny the strong acting from Michael Sheen and Frank Langella, even if I get frustrated with Ron Howard's decision to add in some superfluous talking-head interviews from only a few supporting characters, instead of hearing from the title characters. Also, I can't get Langella's drunken rant out of my head, so that's saying something, and nothing creepy...at all.

4. Man On Wire

Having just seen this film, and having just written about it, it's hard to repeat the praise I've already given this one. Fast-paced, breathless, this one works as a heist film more than a documentary, especially considering the lack of backstory or postscript we're given. James Marsh corrals the half-crazy and charismatic Phillippe Petit into reenacting his story of how he walked across the World Trade Center in 1974, and we're the better for it.

3. The Wrestler

A profoundly moving and sad character study about a man spiralling downward with nothing left, this is a hard film to watch, as I've already said. Mickey Rourke, with arguably the biggest comeback role in Hollywood (or at least the biggest of the past few decades), isn't just brilliant here as Randy "The Ram" Robinson, he's both playing himself and someone else as fully as a person can. We believe him when he makes that final speech, that he's talking as the character but that he's pointing his finger right at us. That's what makes the final decision so painful to see, perfect in its logic yet destructive all the while.

2. WALL-E

Best Pixar movie. Ever. Best Pixar character. Ever. Who else could make a movie about robots and captivate audiences for 30 minutes without any decipherable dialogue. Who else could make us believe we gorge ourselves so much in the future we can't walk and still make humans somewhat lovable? The folks at Pixar. I am unashamed of my love for these people and the films they make; this movie did not let me down.

1. The Dark Knight

This film's predecessor, 2005's Batman Begins, was good. This movie is an instant classic (as much as I hate using that phrase, I do know it's a film I'll treasure for years to come). The Joker and the Batman face off here, face-to-face and through proxy, and it's brilliant, soaring stuff. Let's sign Chris Nolan onto a sequel, right? Right? Pull a dump truck full of money to his house!

Coming this weekend, an analysis into the best part of the best show on television, and the first of my looks back on the films that are Pixar.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Awards Thoughts

Copyright, AMPAS

The Golden Globes were this past Sunday, and many on these here Internets were alight with praise for the Hollywood Foreign Press. They awarded either the right people (Kate Winslet, Mickey Rourke, Colin Farrell, Heath Ledger) or didn't award people undeserving of a nomination (yes, Tom Cruise is funny in Tropic Thunder, but give me a break). I'm not too surprised about those awards, though, as the stereotypes hounding the HFPA--that they only award those living outside the United States, that they enjoy beautiful women, that they only want the famous people to drink with them--didn't exactly go away. See the winners and, for that last point, half the presenters and winners (how much had Tom Wilkinson had when he won? Yeesh).

There are, as you know, many places on the Internet to find awards coverage, from AwardsDaily.com to In Contention to Gold Derby and on and on. There's so much to inundate a person's daily life that even Tina Fey, a very well-deserved champ Sunday, slammed a few anonymous posters on that latter Web site. No, but wait...that lead to multiple videos where Tom O'Neil, proprietor of the site, playfully got on her case for mentioning them on national television. And on and on and on. Which leads me to the chief question: why is this season so important to so many people?

It's not a question that hasn't been asked before, and recently, too. And I'm not here to hound on those folks who've been at it for years, and doing it better than me. But why does it matter so much? I can't answer for the David Polands and Sasha Stones, but for myself, it's a personal validation of sorts. I, like many millions, want to know that the people making the movies, the people at the gate agree with me in some way. And so, I am frequently disturbed when I see what some AMPAS voters say about their voting strategies, as noted in a recent post from "Deep Vote" on Scott Feinberg's blog at The Envelope, an apparent Oscar-winning screenwriter who hadn't seen most contenders by the time for the preliminary vote. He had the opportunity to vote on certain categories, such as screenplay and picture, and championed...three movies.

Three movies. That two of them, Slumdog Millionaire and Gran Torino, really don't deserve any awards buzz (though I'll live when the former most likely sweeps the Oscars) isn't actually the problem. The problem is that one of the 6,000+ can't be urged to vote on what is arguably a very important honor, at least in the film world. This person could fill their ballot with films I hate and the discussion could turn to something more substantive. But what frustrates me is the lack of passion in, at the very least, this voter.

The Academy has, for the last few years, been working very hard at eliminating the stigma that people assume most of its members are old and set in their ways. Whether this is true or not is debatable (though I'd argue that any whispers about the Clint Eastwood movie would not help the end of this stereotype). My problem is that the members, whenever interviewed secretly, seem to have views as far away from sanity as possible. I'm not asking for AMPAS voters to stick with the mainstream; I'd just like them to love movies maybe a quarter as much as those of us on the Internet do. Show some interest, get off your butt and watch some goddamn movies.

I do love the awards season, frustrations and all, though I'd admit to loving it more last year, with far more favorite films in contention than this year, where only a few films have even the possibility of getting into the nomination pool. So I'm not hating on those Internet folk, I wouldn't. And now that I've covered my ass from hypocrisy, check out my work at Box Office Prophets: http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11255

and...http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11236

Tomorrow will bring my quick Top Ten of 2008 list and, boy, am I scrounging for films.


Monday, January 12, 2009

The Dark Knight

Copyright 2008, Warner Bros. Pictures

You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan"...even if the plan is horrifying. If, tomorrow, I told the press that, like, a gang-banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics because it's all part of the plan.--The Joker

Those words are spoken at nearly the end of a lengthy stretch of The Dark Knight that, for me, is as perfect as a movie can be. I wasn't actually aware of how long that stretch was until I wound up with the Blu-ray disc a few weeks back, but I knew it began right around the party that the Joker crashes as he tries to pull a trifecta of murder and ended as the same shrewdly insane criminal walked away from his latest avenue of destruction in a nurse's outfit. Turned out that stretch is just about 75 minutes long, a good half of the very best film of 2008.

Only two films got as close in my mind to such perfection: WALL-E and The Wrestler. Unfortunately enough, only the former film has a section that still burns in the memory (although I've only just seen the latter and want it to continue simmering). Though some have laughed off the comparison of The Dark Knight to films such as Heat or The Godfather (though, let's be honest, that one is a hell of a stretch, and not one I'd make for the obvious reason and also, because...they're completely different animals), it's just as hard to compare this to Spider-Man or, God help me, Fantastic Four. The Dark Knight, at the end of the day, is a harder film to quantify in such simplistic terms.

Is it the greatest film ever, as some have professed? Well, of course not, and anyone who chooses to use such hyperbole about any film as it's being released is spouting lots of hot air (I'm looking at you, Rex Reed). But, as many smarter than myself have pointed out, some movies hit this country at the right time. The other film that's really hitting home for some people this year is Slumdog Millionaire, a vastly different picture, but one that masses are swarming to, in smaller numbers.

What's worth noting, though, is that within the span of under a year, Hollywood delivered two villains as memorable as Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter: Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh in last year's best film, No Country For Old Men, and Heath Ledger's definitive version of The Joker. Like Lecter and Chigurh, the Joker doesn't hog the screen for the majority of the film, but just like them, he dominates, he permeates the proceedings. Though he hovers over Gotham like a wraith, the Joker is felt sometimes more than he is seen, and that's chiefly because Ledger's final complete performance works so well on so many levels. It's a credit to him that he's not only able to embody a character as far away from Ennis Del Mar, but he's able to make the Joker frightening, sympathetic, funny, cruel, and more without even having an arc.

Even in the film's slickly designed opening bank heist, when we barely see his face, when we're not even sure which clown mask is hiding his visage, the Joker captivates us. Director and co-writer Christopher Nolan, showing a massive amount of growth in talent here, deserves kudos for not making us question the logic of every one of the Joker's schemes, school buses and ferries alike. Questioning whether the plans (which the Joker does have many of, though he says otherwise in that scene quoted above) make sense is the wrong thing to do, not because the answer is, at best, a convoluted "Yes," but because the successful ride doesn't involve nitpicking. So it goes for any story, even the aforementioned Slumdog Millionaire; there's a point when you go along for the ride or you don't. In the feel-good India-set tale, it's when the million-dollar question is revealed; in this film, it's when the Joker gets away on his school bus after the successful heist. You buy it or you don't.

But in all the hullabaloo of Ledger (which would have been deserved if he were still alive, let it be said), we forget about Christian Bale, with less and more to do here. Less because Bruce Wayne's arc was mostly completed in Batman Begins, but more because he's got to be Batman, the real Bruce Wayne, and the public Bruce Wayne, sometimes in the evolution of one scene, as in that party crashing. Bale makes it looks so seamless that people almost ignored how solid a leading man he's become.

Fortunately, every other actor is given at least one moment to make a solid mark in our minds. Maggie Gyllenhaal, as the new Rachel Dawes, is flirty and feisty; though Katie Holmes wasn't nearly as accomplished, she had, ironically enough, more to do in the first of the series than Gyllenhaal gets to work with. Still, in her scenes with Bale, she's more tender, more human. Morgan Freeman gets to work his fatherly vibe as Lucius, the honorable elder of the Wayne enterprise who gets his faith rewarded, as Batman puts it, in one of the final shots. Still, his best scene is one of the funniest, where he plainly and calmly reminds a turncoat financial consultant exactly who he's trying to blackmail. Michael Caine, once again the trusty Alfred, proves that he's playing more than a butler, more than Michael Gough (certainly a fine actor delivering a fine performance in the Tim Burton version) was able to prove with his lesser material. His cunning and his sadly inevitable final decision help lend a realism to The Dark Knight, a realism not felt anywhere else in the iconography of the caped crusader.

The two actors, though, who slipped just under the radar are Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart, as Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent. Eckhart's more memorable performance, enhanced by his colorful transformation in the last hour, was strong; Oldman's is much, much stronger. Gordon is the real hero of the piece, mostly because he's not wearing a cape, because he doesn't triumph. Though he does save Batman from the Joker in the defining action showcase of the film, Gordon remains human in the final showdown with Two-Face, unable and unwilling to sacrifice his son's life for bravery. Yet the pride in his voice when he tells his son of his own derring-do, as he flashes back on the amount of skill involved in his own convoluted plot, is deserved and is what adds to the pain we share with Gordon in the climax.

Eckhart, though, does run the gamut of emotion in his role, even before he finally decides to give in to the dark side, as it were. If you were to listen to his impassioned cries as he realizes his true love's fate by themselves, it might seem comical. In the context of the film, in terms of how he grows and simultaneously devolves, the harshness in his voice even then wounds us. Dent's fall from cocky glory, seen in that first courtroom scene where he impresses even himself, is the only true connection to American jingoism of the past decade, if something from this film can even begin to compare to such a complex idea.

That such ideas can even be thought of in connection with The Dark Knight is praise enough, even if Nolan and his brother, Jonathan (the other writer) had no intention of making a connection, or nothing as deep. Some looked at Batman as either a condemnation of or compliment to the Bush years, but it's doubtfully accurate. Yes, torture and terrorism are hot topics in the film, but Nolan did honestly profess to wanting to make a damn good blockbuster, chiefly, and he has succeeded.

The requisite ending to any review of this film must, I suppose, come back to Ledger, but let me do so by starting a tangent of sorts. As I sat through the final half-hour of Gran Torino, I reflected on the notion that Clint Eastwood may retire officially from directing and acting soon. I thought and still pray that Gran Torino is not his last film. It's not the movie I'd want Eastwood, a legend for many good reasons, to go out on. Not the man behind the Man With No Name, Dirty Harry, and Unforgiven. I was no fan of Changeling, but it was still filled with more skill than Eastwood's recent affair.

The reason for my hope is obvious: whenever the sad day comes that Clint Eastwood passes on from this world, there will be some mention of his last film. I wouldn't want his last film to be a black mark, a movie people will not look back on with at least some fondness. So many actors and directors, people of unquestionable talent, end their careers on low notes; few are lucky enough to have had a full career with few or no bad films, or at least not enough to forget the classics. Eastwood may still be lucky enough to hit one final home run, or at least a triple, but it will have to come in the future.

Heath Ledger, who was not as lucky as Eastwood in having a full life on screen, left too early. This much is obvious. But when I left The Dark Knight the first time, as my wife quietly remarked on her depression that she'd never see Ledger onscreen again, I smiled on the inside. His talent was still untapped, his star would have grown in ways we'll never know, but I was and still remain thrilled at this lasting, for-the-ages performance, one that will haunt and excite millions for years and years. Though there may be initial disappointment that the Joker will never again rouse us past hanging precariously upside-down on an unfinished skyscraper, he is reborn and firmly defined here, as is the entire Batman mythos, in a film as realistic and charged as the best crime epics are.

Four stars out of four


Sunday, January 11, 2009

Man On Wire

Copyright 2008, Magnolia Pictures

How does such a thing happen? How does a man walk on a tightwire from the end of one building to the next? How does such a thing happen in New York City, in the financial district? How does it happen at the World Trade Center? How did Phillippe Petit get away with this? Petit, the subject of the fascinating documentary Man On Wire, is proof enough.

At one point, one of his American accomplices comments that he didn't know if Petit was legitimate; he thought Petit was a con man, and why blame him for such a thought? Petit was and is charismatic beyond belief, even when talking about an event over thirty years old. Man On Wire, directed by James Marsh, is a simple film: all revolves around this singular event. We know little about Petit before he found his love of tightrope walking and nothing of what happened to him short of fleeting fame occurring after the fated walk in August 1974, hours before Nixon resigned as president.

What makes this film work so well is the amount of suspense, especially in the final half hour. In this case, though we are told at the beginning that Petit was successful, it's not the same as watching a film about the Titanic sink or Pearl Harbor fall. Phillippe Petit is not a well-known figure in this time, especially after the events of September 11, 2001. Marsh deserves credit for never mentioning that day or what happened afterward. It's better that this man's accomplishment, small though it may seem, remains frozen in time, untouched by the future, untouched by the past.

There's not much to say about this film that's not already been said. It's moving, it's exciting, it's breathtaking. See it.

Three and a half stars out of four


Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears A Who

Copyright 2008, Twentieth Century Fox

There are a few glaring problems with the bright and complicated animated film Dr. Seuss' Horton Heras A Who, one of which involves the companies behind the film, Twentieth Century Fox and Blue Sky, one of which involves the starring cast and the choices they've made or been coerced into making, and one of which involves the story. It's a credit to the overall production that, though it's not worth recommending, the movie doesn't fail in any way.

But let's get to the hard stuff first. Movies like Ice Age and Robots feature big stars and stylish if over-the-top setpieces. The only good thing about the former film series are the film short-worthy sections starring Scrat, the squirrel-weasel hybrid looking for one acorn. Of course, they suffer the same problems as the rest of the movie does in terms of its Rube Goldberg setup, but they only last a few minutes and are quite funny. For the latter film, watching the amount of detail in how intricately designed the world is and how quickly it can fall apart is entertaining, but there's no actual story.

And so it is with Horton, a film with fascinating and colorful animation that is bogged down in the little details, from ways to make music, how to get to an observatory, and how to walk up a mountain. There is also the problem of the cast; when Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, Will Arnett, Amy Poehler, Isla Fisher, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, and Carol freaking Burnett are in your movie, it better be damned funny. As it should be when Robin Williams and Mel Brooks are in your cast. As it should be when Denis Leary and John Leguizamo are in your cast. And as it should be when Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan, and Ricky Gervais are in your cast. That last film, Night at the Museum, is what I thought of when watching this film, about a goofy elephant (Carrey) dedicated to saving an entire world located on a speck of dust; why waste the talents of actors like Carrey and Carell?

It's actually Carell who ends up somewhat untarnished here, as he's able to show off a bit of his Michael Scott persona as the mayor of Whoville, the only person Horton communicates with for the majority of the film. Carrey, however, chooses to be childlike in his delivery when not throwing odd pop-culture references at his young audience. But, the real problem is the story. No, not the elephant defending his little speck world; that I can buy. But who cares so much about a speck to rope and cage an elephant? I mean, really. Who gives a flying rat's ass?

And when compared with the other animated films that came out in 2008, WALL-E and Kung Fu Panda (not a great film, but much better than this), all this movie does is fill a temporary void for kids desperate for quality family entertainment. This isn't that quality, but I imagine that in the spring doldrums, Horton did the trick.

Two and a half stars out of four


The Wrestler

Copyright 2008, Fox Searchlight Pictures

It's interesting that both The Wrestler and Gran Torino, which is now officially the most overrated film of 2008 (whatever issues I had with Slumdog Millionaire does not erase the fact that it is, at the very least, a good movie), have similar performances which are meant to elevate above the material being worked with. In one case, we have Mickey Rourke and, to an extent, Marisa Tomei playing outsize versions of themselves; in the other, we have Clint Eastwood playing, if not himself, an outsize version of what most people perceive to be his persona; also, he is surrounded by first-time actors who aren't asked to stretch too much outside of their geographical state of mind. One of these films, the Eastwood picture, fails miserably. The Wrestler, however, is a tragic triumph.

There isn't much of a plot in Darren Aronofsky's latest film; what we are given is the character study of Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a once-legendary wrestler who peaked in 1989 with an historic fight against the Ayatollah. Since that time, he's bloated his body with steroids, tanning machines, other recreational drugs, and a wealth of alcohol. The Ram still has a small but devoted fanbase who watch him as he fights in church basements and banquet halls, but his real life, where he lives in a trailer, drives around in a years-old van, and works in the backroom of a local grocery store, is as far away from his older, starry life. When a fighting promoter offers the Ram a chance at a 20th anniversary rematch with the Ayatollah, he sees a chance to grab stardom once again.

That The Wrestler is a painful film to watch is a compliment, as Aronofsky doesn't shy away from the gruesome nature of what goes on in the ring. Oh, sure, before they go inside, the wrestlers will talk about who'll do what to whom, and who'll wind up victorious; that doesn't excuse the fact that when a fellow fighter staple-guns the Ram all over his torso, blood comes out of every necessary pore. Of course, there are only three wrestling matches in this film; it's what happens elsewhere that puts a grimace on the audience's collective face. We watch the Ram as he tries, almost childishly, to strike up relationships with Cassidy (Tomei), a kind-hearted stripper who's spurned by customers because she's not young enough, and Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood), his estranged daughter. Neither ends the way we'd like them to, and as each relationship draws closer to a conclusion, the levels of discomfort rise. What pain the Ram feels in this film, we feel.

And, let's be honest, what am I going to tell you about Mickey Rourke's performance here that you haven't heard elsewhere? Yes, it's worth the hype. Alongside Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, this is one of the best performances of 2008. Rourke's past lends more credibility, more reality to the Ram than any other actor's life ever could. Nothing feels awkward in Rourke's performance, nor does anything feel mannered, faked. In every scene, Rourke not only makes the Ram a real person instead of a caricature, and he also makes every other actor work harder, to try and be as real, as alive, as believable as he is. Whatever other performances have dominated pop culture this year, this is the best lead performance of the year, and the unfortunate likelihood that Rourke will lose the Oscar to Sean Penn (who is great in an otherwise good film, Milk) or Eastwood (a consolation prize that is not as deserved as some think) is truly sad.

Of course, this is not a perfect film, but is there such complete perfection in any movie these days? The script, by Robert Siegel, is a good one, but does have slightly cliche characters, specifically Cassidy, who is a stripper with a heart of gold and a son. That Tomei makes the character work despite the cliche is a powerful testament to her continuing talent as an actress. Also, in her final scene, Wood is given a speech that, while perhaps appropriate to deliver, feels and sounds too melodramatic. Part of this lays with the script, but Wood herself is also far too grandiose in her emotions in this scene, as she faces down Rourke for his past mistakes. His heart breaks silently, while she flails around the screen.

I forgive whatever flaws this film has, not just because of Rourke, who I hope continues his streak of strong acting. Aronofsky, a director with only four films under his belt, but completely unique ones, with his director of photography, Maryse Alberti, use hand-held photography not only to make us feel as if we are right inside the ring with the Ram but to make us part of the story. We are not just the audience outside the fight, screaming for blood, calling out profane chants. We are inside the Ram's head, inside his story, inside his sad, excruciating battle to regain a popularity that will never crystallize.

Four stars out of four



Saturday, January 10, 2009

Gran Torino

Copyright 2008, Warner Bros. Pictures

Sigh. Big, BIG sigh. Before I get into the painfulness that was Gran Torino, let me just rant a bit. It seems like this is one movie of two this awards season that has gotten critics to drink Kool-Aid. A big pitcher of Kool-Aid. For whatever reason, the fact that Clint Eastwood is back, holding a shotgun, and growling has gotten enough critics in a tizzy that they are able to ignore whatever flaws this film has (the other film is Milk, by the way, a modern classic compared to this).

The critical consensus that I've heard and read is that despite its flaws, Gran Torino has a great performance from Eastwood, and is worth seeing for that. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Technically, Eastwood does have the best performance in Gran Torino, but that's because he surrounds himself with first-time actors and no-name faces who appear for only a few minutes. If anyone did that, anyone with a mite of acting talent, then they'd give the best performance as well. The only difference is that the Academy loves Clint, so he'll get an undeserved Oscar nomination.

Why does the Academy love Clint? He's given them, to be fair, many good reasons. Movies like Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima, and even Mystic River. I fear that love is blinding them, or making them accept the racism inherent in this film.

And let's get to this film, whose message is...Racism is funny! No, wait....Racism is bad....but funny! Something close to that is true, unfortunately. The plot is simple: Eastwood is Walt Kowalski, a Korea War vet who just lost his wife. Walt is angry at lots of stuff, especially the Hmong families moving in around him in his Detroit house. When a Hmong gang begins terrorizing his neighbors, Walt learns that these people, who he's called unprintable words, are actually good human beings and helps them fight back.

Simplicity is fine, but this movie is so painful to watch, so sad and so offensive, that this cannot be Eastwood's last film as director or actor. As director, Eastwood remains workmanlike in his quality. As actor, he's got one note that he can play well. This movie, however, is so embarrassing to watch, not only because of first-time thespians like Bee Vang (as Tao, the boy next door) and Ahney Her (the boy's sister), but because of clunker scenes in a barbershop, with John Carroll Lynch as the strangely, goofily racist barber; Lynch is much better when he's not talking so much, as in Fargo and Zodiac.

Even more embarrassing is how in the past this movie is. Not just the character of Walt, who is, we are told obviously, living in the 1950s. No, the entire movie, the way Nick Schenk develops the characters in his screenplay. This is melodrama at its lowest, with viewpoints as outdated as those who supported a certain presidential candidate who did not win the job. When Walt grouses that his kids don't buy American cars, some audience members may laugh as if they agree, but with the whole automotive bailout going on in the world....can you blame them?

When Walt dredges up stereotypical slurs against Irish people, Jewish people, Black people, Asian people, and on and on and on, it's painful to watch. It's not funny (though some of the audience, living in the past with Clint, may feel differently), it's just sad. I had problems with Eastwood's earlier film this year, Changeling, but that film was not nearly as flawed as this one. It also had the good sense to be set in the 1930s, when old-fashioned ideas were not old-fashioned, as they are so glaringly in Gran Torino.

One star out of four


Thursday, January 8, 2009

Me on the SAG Awards

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11235

Orientation

Copyright 2005, ABC Studios

We're going to need to watch that again--John Locke (Terry O'Quinn)

Season 2, Episode 3. October 5, 2005. This is when the most important episode, the one where folks such as Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof asked us to truly step down into the rabbit hole of weirdness that is ABC's brilliant Lost.

Don't believe me? Yes, the first season introducing the hatch was a major step in the show's trajectory. Even with the polar bear and smoke monster, pre-hatch on Lost, the show was still about people trying to get off an island from a plane crash. Yes, the beginning of season two showed us that the hatch was really part of a mysterious station where a man pushed a button that saved the world. It was, however, this episode that gave us a very clear message: this show is now officially not about a plane crash. It's about a state of mind, about something very, very strange.

With the fifth season premiering in just under two weeks, looking back on this show is worth a try. That line quoted above was not just a meta shout-out to the many, many folks on the Interwebs (not me, to be honest) who loved dissecting every little bit of trivia in every single shot of Lost, but the beginning of an entirely new show. John Locke was already someone in need of a true calling, Jack Shephard was already a man who felt like he always had to lead, and Benjamin Linus....well, we'll get to him next time. Still, it was the Orientation video from the Dharma Initiative in the Swan station that really hit the message home.

This video gave Locke some kind of purpose. It may not have actually been wise to stop pressing that button, or to become so obsessed about doing it at all, but it lead to the fights between him and Jack, the introduction of the mysterious Henry Gale, and it added to the confusion of the show. Most importantly, it provided audiences a chance to leave...one last chance. Sure, some got frustrated during the third season (honest to God, the episode where we found out what Jack's tattoos meant...worst episode of the series), but if anyone didn't want to watch a truly weird show, this video was a great place to step out and find something more comforting.

The episode itself is not one of the series' best; that honor still goes to the season premiere...or the finale. Either or were immensely satisfying; granted, in between was Sawyer trying to show dominance by hoarding the guns, Charlie turning crazy in his protectiveness toward Claire's baby son, and Locke pushing that damn button for half a season, but we also got...well, Ben.

Next week, I'll write my ode to the best thing about not only the second season but the entire series: the byplay between Terry O'Quinn and Michael Emerson as Locke and Ben. The two of them together in any scene is a guaranteed bulls-eye of a success. But that's next week. For now, consider again the Orientation video with Marvin Candle...Edgar Halliwax...well, whatever his name is, don't forget this video or this episode. It's the most important one Lost ever had.


Wednesday, January 7, 2009

What Comes In The Future

What shall come in the future of this blog....I know you're dying to find out.

I'll feature some reviews of movies of the past year, good and bad (and the last great one), a look back at all the Pixar films (sans WALL-E, which I just looked at) in anticipation of May's Up, and some looks at returning TV, such as 24 and Lost, which will come first with a look at the episode and the characters (two separate things here) that changed the series' trajectory.

Up first, tomorrow...Lost. See you on the flip side.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Read Me

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11234

Well...you heard what the title told ya. Read it, folks!