Robert Prosky
1930-2008

Dark Knight score ineligible for Oscar

Damn, this sucks. I know this happened a few days ago, but I wanted to bring it to the attention of people who might have missed it:
The musical score for The Dark Knight (composed by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer) has been disqualified by the Academy. You have to prove that the main composer(s) composed at least 70% of the score... something they were unable to do. That really sucks. For my money, it's the best score of the year, and one of the big reasons The Dark Knight worked as well as it did (that and the editing).

Here's a link to an article at Variety

Zack and Miri Make a Porno, and Changeling

Zack and Miri Make a Porno
When I first heard about this project, two names caught my eye: Kevin Smith, and Seth Rogen. I've always had a sort of love/hate relationship with Smith... Clerks is a great little movie, and Chasing Amy is one of the best films of the '90s, but everything else he's done has either been really bad (Dogma - I know some people love it, but I just can't stand it) or just a flat-out comedy with little substance (Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back). I thought we'd lost Kevin to mediocre films forever. My hope was restored after seeing Clerks II, a picture I had little interest in seeing until I finally caught it a year later on video. It was a great companion piece to the original, with a lot of heart and great Kevin Smith dialogue. People said he had finally grown up. To be honest, I saw evidence of this two years prior in Jersey Girl. Granted, it's not that great of a movie, but I really liked the first ten minutes - it was all high drama, and handled well. Ben Affleck turns in some of his best acting in that opening, and George Carlin is terrific all throughout the picture, in a rare dramatic role (and his last live-action role before his death.) Yes, everything goes downhill amazingly fast after that opening sequence -it's formulaic in the worst way - but I saw potential. Clerks II delivered on that potential, and I anxiously awaited his next movie. When I heard Seth Rogen was in it, I was sold. Thankfully, it was every bit as good as I'd hoped. And even though I doubt it will appear on many year-end best lists, it was, quite honestly, one of my favorite films of the year.
Obviously, this is a crude comedy. But it strikes that balance between laughs and sentiment that so many films strive for, yet fail to achieve. It's the best film of its kind since The 40 Year Old Virgin, and like that film, which was a surprise nominee for a Writers Guild of America screenplay award, I'd like to see the same thing happen here. It's a great film with memorable characters and strong direction from Kevin Smith. One scene in particular has some use of slow-motion in a dramatic context, and it's very effective.
It's unfortunate that this film wasn't a runaway hit. It was released on Halloween night, and I think had it been given a summer release, it would have fared better. But it's well worth a look. It's been given polite praise by the critics, but I have a feeling that if this $25 million dollar picture had been a $5 million independent production, we'd be seeing a few raves here. But it's no matter - Zack and Miri is a great movie, and Kevin Smith's best to date.

Changeling
Oh, no. Here we go again. A Clint Eastwood movie. Let me try and contain my sarcasm.
Most people who know me know that I'm not a big fan of Eastwood's films as director. I think he's incredibly overrated and out of everything he's ever done, Mystic River and Flags of Our Fathers are probably the only pictures he's ever done that have been deserving of the praise he seems to get consistently. I think Million Dollar Baby was one of the biggest pieces of shit ever nominated for Best Picture, and it was a crime that it won the award in a year that saw films like The Aviator and Sideways (one of the best American films of the last 10 years) released. But, as always, I try to go into a movie with an open mind. Even with the abortion that was Million Dollar Baby still fresh in my mind, I was able to go into Flags of Our Fathers and come out seeing that it was a pretty good movie.
But now we come to Changeling. This movie is overlong, overbearing, and overblown. I've never known Eastwood to be a subtle director, and this is clear evidence of it right here. People in this movie are either "good" or "bad", with no shades of gray. Each and every point is hammered over our heads, and then hammered down again, to make sure we've gotten it. The film proceeds to drag everything out over a two-and-a-half hour span, and as we think we've gotten to the end, it keeps going on - one, two, and three times over - until we just want to get the hell out of the movie theater. This movie could have easily been less than two hours.
People cheer in the courtroom and the judge never calls for "order in the court", the chief of police is horribly miscast - with a terribly fake Irish accent, and John Malkovich is wasted in a thankless role. Thank God the critics seem to have actually seen the movie this time, as the picture has gotten below-average reviews. I mean, listen: It's not a horrible movie. It's actually on-par with most of Eastwood's work - meaning, of course, that it feels like a film from the 40's: it feels scripted and it feels calculated. That's the way he does things. I guess my problem with it is that I don't feel his type of films have any real place in the film world of today. There are people out there who actually have something to say, and here comes Eastwood, still stuck in the past. It's a tried-and-true formula, but it's unrealistic. And I didn't buy any of it.

Michael Crichton
1942-2008

This is possibly the best day in the history of the United States.
Everybody can wake up tomorrow, and feel a little bit better about the human race.

Movies You May Have Missed - #4 Night on Earth (1991)

Jim Jarmusch is one of my favorite filmmakers. With a highly original style, deadpan tone, and interesting characters, Jarmusch is one of the most celebrated independent filmmakers of all time. I have yet to see a Jarmusch film that I didn't like, and one of my favorites is his 1991 effort, Night on Earth. The film is basically split up into five short films, or vignettes (a technique Jarmusch frequently uses):

The first story, set in L.A., concerns a tomboy cab driver (Winona Ryder) who picks up a Hollywood producer (Gina Rowlands) from the airport.

The second (and probably my favorite) story is set in New York. An East German immigrant cab driver (Armin Mueller-Stahl) picks up a streetwise New Yorker (Giancarlo Esposito) who teaches him how to drive his cab.
Note: this clip features strong language. NSFW.


Third story is set in Paris, where a blind passenger (Béatrice Dalle) is picked up by a West African cab driver (Isaach De Bankolé). Differences in personality and culture prevent them from getting along.

Fourth story is set in Rome, where an eccentric cabbie (Roberto Benigni) picks up a priest (Paolo Bonacell), and insists upon confessing his sins.


Last story is set in Helsinki, where three workers are being picked up from a bar after a night of drinking. One of the group is passed out; he drank he most, having been laid off just that day. The other two proceed to tell the cab driver (Matti Pellonpää) about it. The cabbie responds by telling his sad story.

This is a great movie. Anyone who has enjoyed any of Jarmusch's other films (Stranger Than Paradise, Down By Law, Mystery Train) should get a kick out of this. Great characters, memorable situations, and pitch-perfect dialogue. The last story in Helsinki even manages to wrap everything up in a wonderful melancholy tone, just as the sun begins to rise at dawn. One of the best films of the 90's.

Miracle at St. Anna

I planned to post this over a week ago, but never got around to it. Oh well...

I should preface this review by saying that Spike Lee is one of my favorite directors. I tend to like his films more than the critics do, and I'd have to say although he's been nominated only twice for an Oscar (in 1989 for Do The Right Thing's screenplay, and for the documentary 4 Little Girls) I believe he's made more truly great films than, say, Clint Eastwood, who's won five times. It saddens me to report, then, that his first war movie, Miracle at St. Anna, is definitely not his greatest work. It's far from his worst, however.
You see, Spike Lee's biggest problem has always been his tendency to lose focus of his main narrative and veer off-course. He has a strange case of what's commonly known as "first-time filmmaker" syndrome, where the director, making his first film and not sure whether he'll ever get the chance to make another, throws everything he's ever wanted to do into his first film, thus overloading it with an embarrassment of riches. This is a forgivable phenomenon with filmmakers, and it's usually a one-time deal. The problem with Spike is that he's been making films for over 20 years, and still suffers from this. This results in films that are 20-30 minutes too long, filled with great sequences, but are also a chore to sit through.
Miracle at St. Anna is no different. It contains two of the best sequences Spike has ever directed; the first is a dramatization of the massacre at St. Anna, where hundreds of women and children were slaughtered. One shot in particular, which goes on for several minutes, follows a soldier's handgun as he draws it, holds it out, and slowly trudges through the dead bodies, shooting anyone still alive after the initial machine-gun fire. It's hard to describe, but it's one of the most powerful sequences on screen this year. The other sequence follows a group of black soldiers as they attempt to buy food at a southern malt shop, are refused service, and leave in defeat. Walking to their jeep, they retrieve their guns, return inside, and demand service again - this time at gunpoint. Coming at a late point in the film, and told in flashback, it's a brilliant sequence. It's capped by a stylized ending beat, where the soldiers in question are in a group, staring at the camera, as one by one they slowly leave the frame. It's audacious in the best way - pure Spike Lee.
But for all the great things in the movie, it has quite a lot of problems. Like I said before, it meanders in the way a lot of Spike's movies do. It starts with one thing, goes to another, tries something else, and eventually gets back on track. It's frustrating, to say the least. We spend time with characters who have little, if anything, to do with the big picture, and precious little time with the things and the people who seem to matter. (SPOILER ALERT) The only soldier of the group to survive, who we see later on in the bookend segments, has probably the least amount of scenes in the WWII segments. (SPOILER OVER) There's also some strange attempts at humor in the first third of the film, and it just doesn't fly. Probably the thing that hurts the film the most is the casting of Omar Benson Miller. He's decent, but he only has a certain range, and he's trying to pull off things that he just can't do. He's playing a simpleton, but it's more like an actor's idea of what a simple man would be like. His scenes are some of the most cringeworthy of the film, although he does get better as the picture goes on.
But, you know what? It's still a good film. And it still got me in the end. I think I have a tendency to forgive Spike Lee more than most people, because I can see where he's coming from. The end of the picture is probably the most saccharine and melodramatic thing he's ever done, but I was right with it, the whole way. It's satisfying. The rest of the movie? Not so much. But even a semi-satisfying movie is better than usual these days.

Look for a new update tomorrow (Thursday) night.
But until then, I just wanted to mention that I've finally finished cataloging a list of all my DVDs, for insurance purposes (yes, all 700 of them) and the link to that list is found at the right. So for you people that know me - if you want a copy of anything, let me know.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

I loved this movie. It was easily one of the best times I've had at the movies this year. It's getting mixed reviews, but I think it's a case of - as cliched as it sounds - the critics truly being too old to enjoy it. This is really a film for people 25 and under. It captures a time and a place and it's going to seem foreign to anyone who hasn't experienced it. This is a movie for young people, and if that includes you, get ready. This picture doesn't talk down to you, and it doesn't go out of its way to pretend it knows you. It may sound like I'm overstating it here, but in my mind I'm right on target: This movie captures the youth of today in the way American Graffiti did in its time.
Graffiti is seen today as an all-encompassing portrait of American youth in the early sixties, but in reality it focuses mostly on the "cruising" subculture of the time, and branches out from there. Nick and Norah is set among the indie music scene, and while this could have easily turned into a studio plot to target a specific audience, in the hands of the filmmakers it becomes not a gimmick, but a way to define these characters.
The world of this film is a world without adults. The night, as always, belongs to the youth. And for the youth of this film, for whom music plays such an important part in their lives, the big city is the only destination. It's hard for me to think of a movie in recent memory that has captured the excitement of the city that young people experience. A break from suburbia, if only for a few hours on a Saturday night, was the best feeling in the world. Anyone who lived within driving distance of a major city as a teenager will identify with this film.
This is not a perfect film, but there's so much in the movie that works, and it does so much right, that it's an easy movie to fall in love with. Some critics have criticized the movie for a lack of conflict, but that's one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much. It's so refreshing to see a movie that has such love and affection for its characters, and a group of filmmakers so confident in their material, that they allow their characters to live and breathe and interact and communicate, and refuse to bog that down with irrelevant plot points and unneeded character conflict. I was so dreading the ending of the picture, fearing the film would go where most relationship movies go: where the girl finds the guy in some sort of situation which prompts her to leave him, and thus he has to win her back in some way. How many times have we seen that? Thankfully, this movie's smarter than that. If that's the sort of thing the critics are talking about when lamenting about the lack of "conflict", then it seems as if they've grown accustomed to the tired formulas.
This is director Peter Sollett's second film after 2002's great Raising Victor Vargas, and it was well worth the wait. Vargas cost a mere $800,000 and was shot on Super-16mm, and even though Nick and Norah cost $9 million and was shot on 35mm, his style has remained consistent: it's a very intimate film, with lots of film grain and beautifully underlit settings. Everyone was amazingly well-cast, from leading roles to supporting players, and it goes without saying that Michael Cera and Kat Dennings are a great on-screen couple. And although most attention will probably go to its great selection of songs, one of the biggest successes of the film is the original musical score by Mark Mothersbaugh, known for his frequent collaborations with Wes Anderson. The score really holds everything together, and does a nice job of underscoring some emotional moments at the end.
So yes, without a doubt, go check this one out. If it sounds like your type of movie, or you're a fan of someone in the cast, you probably won't be disappointed. And just a quick film-geek note: this was the first film I've ever seen projected digitally, and let me say... wow. It was only a 2k projection, and it looked beautiful. No artifacting whatsoever, and this movie was shot on film and had lots of grain. Well, the days of $3,000 film prints are over. I can't wait for more theaters to get digital projection installed. Not to mention it'll be much easier (and cheaper) for independent films to be distributed. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: film is dead.

Paul Newman
1925-2008

Movies You May Have Missed - #3 A Woman Under the Influence (1974)

John Cassavetes' seventh film as director remains a tremendous work of art, a triumph of independent filmmaking, and one of the best films ever made.
Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk star as a mentally unstable wife and her husband, respectively. Rowlands and Falk deliver two of the most harrowing performances of all time, completely uninhibited and raw, nearly leaping off the screen in their intensiveness. At first glance, Rowlands might seem to go a little over the top, but as the film progresses further, it becomes evident just how pitch-perfect she is in the role. It remains one of the most honest depictions of mental illness ever seen on film.

The film, which runs two-and-a-half hours, really only consists of about 10 major scenes. So obviously, the reason for the length is that these are really long sequences (one noteworthy dinner scene is nearly twenty minutes). But it's anything but boring. It's obviously not for everybody, but if you're one who likes to see dialogue and character interaction in films, you'll be in heaven.
Shot in Cassavetes' trademark documentary style, the camera merely captures the action, rather than dictating where or when the action will occur. In a Cassavetes picture, the actor is the most important element; the visual element isn't exactly ignored, it's just considered less important. Misframing and out-of-focus shots are a common occurrence, but it adds to the reality of the picture. Not to say that the movie is ugly - not at all. Filmed on grainy, 1970's 35mm film stock, it has that special kind of beauty that most films of the period did.
Contrary to what most people think, Cassavetes' films were not entirely improvised, but rather were the result of the actors collaborating on the script in the pre-production phase, where the improvisations were subsequently written into the script. The end result is great, natural dialogue, where nothing feels written and everything feels real. Heartbreakingly real, at times. The following twelve-minute sequence is one of the best of the film. Mostly featuring Rowlands, this scene in particular is widely considered one of the best pieces of film acting in modern cinema.

Barely given a release in 1974, A Woman Under the Influence was financed independently by Cassavates himself, out-of-pocket, with a budget of approximately one million dollars. Once completed, it was refused by every studio. Cassavetes resorted to literally carrying the film reels under his arm, and pitching the film to individual theaters. Not until Martin Scorsese was able to get the film into the New York Film Festival was it recognized for what it was. It stands today among the best work of the '70s.

Movies You May Have Missed - #2 In the Company of Men (1997)

"Let's hurt somebody..."

While we're on the subject of dark comedy, here's one of the best of the genre: Neil LaBute's 1997 debut film, In the Company of Men. It caused a storm of controversy when it was released, based solely on the plot: Two angry businessmen, fed up with their love-lives and with women in general, hatch a scheme to, well, hurt somebody. They decide to both date the same woman over six weeks, continually advancing the relationship, professing love to her - whatever it takes - and then suddenly dump her in an attempt to emotionally devestate her.
Note: the following clips contain strong language. NSFW.

LaBute's film is as bold and uncompromising as anything to ever come out of American independent cinema. Filmed for an astoundingly low $25,000, it serves as a constant reminder that compelling stories can be told on film for next-to-nothing. Although the budget matches that of Kevin Smith's Clerks, which was shot on 16mm black and white, Company was filmed entirely on 35mm color film stock, something which makes the low budget all that more amazing.
Featuring great performances by Matt Malloy and Stacy Edwards, and a star-making performance by Aaron Eckhart, In the Company of Men is one of the best films of the '90s.

Burn After Reading

There's really not a whole lot I can say about this movie without spoiling plot details, but I'll give it a go. This is the new film from the Coen Brothers, fresh off their Oscar win for No Country for Old Men, and, quite honestly, it serves as a showcase for everything that's wrong with the Coens. It's purely an exercise in style and coolness, and while that's all fine and dandy, there wasn't anything here to keep me interested. I was constantly reminded of The Big Lebowski during this film; there's another Coen picture where the plot is ridiculously complicated, but it's really of no consequence because the movie is entirely about character and dialogue, and the plot is merely an excuse for these groups of people to be in rooms talking to each other. As far as I can tell, that's what they were trying to do here. But there's just one problem... there's no characters here. At least not memorable ones. And apart from a few clever lines and a terrifically funny ending sequence, the dialogue is nothing to write home about, either. It really feels like they were on autopilot for this one. The tone is completely solid; that's probably the best thing about the movie. It's a jet-black comedy, and if you're dialed-in to its twisted sense of humor, there's a few good laughs to be had. It wasn't a total waste of time, but I can honestly say I don't think I'll ever watch it again.

Movies You May Have Missed - #1When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (2006)

In these movie doldrums of September and October (and again in January and February), in which very few worthwhile films are released, I thought I might bring up some films of years past which may have slipped by you, for one reason or another. I'll probably do a few of these here and there.
Today's movie was never given a theatrical release, but was instead shown on HBO, which also funded its production. As such, it didn't qualify for Academy Award nominations, but it did win three Emmys. The film in question is Spike Lee's 2006 documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, an examination of New Orleans both before and after Hurricane Katrina, and the resulting devastation.
Lee's film is nothing less than one of the best documentaries ever made, right up there with Hoop Dreams and Hearts and Minds. Each of its one hour "acts" focuses on a different aspect of New Orleans and Katrina, from the history of the city to the chaos of the storm and its aftermath. One point right up front: This movie has a four hour running time. But that shouldn't dissuade you from seeing it, because it's one of the best-edited films I've ever seen. The reason for this is the editing technique used here. There are no rules; you can switch from one topic to another, go off on a tangent, return to the first discussion, and then go on to something that was last mentioned an hour ago. You reach the end of the four hours and you're left wanting more. Even as all-encompassing and exhaustive as the material is, it's so good, and so moving, I could have easily watched another two hours of this.
Note: The clips below contain strong language and some graphic visuals. NSFW.

Spike Lee brings his distinctive style to the film, but much like his previous documentary, the amazing 4 Little Girls, the people and the topic at hand are front and center. This movie should be required viewing for anyone interested in great documentary filmmaking. It's harrowing, audacious, and powerful. A must-see.

Snow Angels

This is the second 2008 film from director David Gordon Green (George Washington, All the Real Girls), released five months before Pineapple Express. This year was a great year for Green. On top of Pineapple, which was his first mainstream film and a huge success, he also released this film, which is among his best.
When this movie was released back in March, it quickly came and went, lost in the shuffle. I attempted to see it in the theater, and was unable, as it only played for five days. It opened Friday, played through Tuesday, and when another film opened on Wednesday, it was bumped out. Needless to say, it didn't do well at the box office. On a budget of $1.5 million, it grossed $400,000. Not a complete loss, and it's actually in line with what most of Green's films gross. But it's a shame this film wasn't seen by more people. It received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics, but it just happened to be one of those movies that slipped through the cracks.
Tim Orr - who has shot all of Green's films - returns as DP, and continues to bring us beautiful widescreen cinematography. Green and Orr create great compositions and move the camera to great effect, and even use a new technique here for the first time in one of their films: In a few particularly dramatic sequences, the camera dollies to the left and right, slowly pushing the actors out of frame. I could see it as something that might annoy people, but I liked it quite a bit. I always like when people keep tension in the frame - something that PTA does quite a bit. It's important with scope (2.35:1) photography, and I don't think enough people make use of it.

A film about small-town people and how a little girl's disappearance affects them and the community, this is a picture that's really all about character and dialogue, things that Green knows very well. It was adapted from a book - which I've never read - so I can't say how much of the material was Green's, but it's all very good. Young love, something that is particularly hard to pull off in films, is done very well here. It's awkward and not too schmaltzy, which is the way I like to see it done.

The couple above is played by Michael Angarano (Almost Famous) and Olivia Thirlby (doing a complete 180 from her role in The Wackness). They're both great, but the movie is really about an older couple, played by Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsale. I liked Beckinsale quite a bit in this, and unfortunately I've never really seen her in anything substantial before - other than her small role in The Aviator - because she tends to accept roles in the sort of films that don't interest me (i.e. the Underworld films). She's very good here. But this movie really belongs to Rockwell. I've liked him ever since Matchstick Men, and along with this movie and his role in The Assassination of Jesee James by the Coward Robert Ford, he's quickly earning a reputation as one of the best actors around (I can't wait to see him in Choke). If this movie had gained a little more exposure, I would have predicted a Supporting Actor nomination for him. His character does some not-so-great things during the picture, but Rockwell is able in instill sympathy in the character. A great performance.

The movie really only has one flaw in my eyes, and it's really more of a subjective thing. In my opinion, the ending feels a little rushed. After everything that happens in the movie, the closing events seem to occur much too quickly. I would have preferred to see things drawn out a little more. Nothing substantial, but perhaps another ten minutes or so. It's a small complaint, but I guess I feel the ending could have been more powerful with a stronger buildup. Regardless, it's still a great movie - one of my favorite films of the year so far.
(It's released on DVD September 16th)

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

The relationship between Woody Allen and the critics (and, by extension, my opinion of his films in relation to theirs) has been a strange one lately. I have been of the opinion that Woody has slowly been returning to form ever since 2003's Anything Else, a movie that was trashed by the critics, but which I really enjoyed and I still think is vastly underrated. His next film, Melinda and Melinda, was similarly hated by the critics, and it is an admittedly flawed film, but I saw moments of brilliance in it, especially in the way Woody differentiated the comic and tragic storylines by filming with methods commonly used by himself in each respective genre (long master shots for the comedic half, coverage and close-ups for the dramatic half, etc.), which I saw as a comment on his own style. We all seemed to agree with Match Point, a brilliant film that Woody himself has called the best film he's ever done. Scoop was a disappointment, but not nearly as bad as the critics would suggest. Then there was Cassandra's Dream, a film I really liked, but once again, hardly any critics shared my view.
Now we come to Vicky Cristina Barcelona, his latest film. The critics are in love with him again. But guess what? Surprise, surprise - I didn't like it nearly as much as they did. Don't get me wrong, it is a very strong picture. It has moments that leap off the screen with near effortlessness. But I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I personally liked Cassandra's Dream better. But let's get to what I liked about it. The acting is great, of course. Everyone is singling out Penelope Cruz, but for me the real stand-out was Rebecca Hall. I'd never seen her before, but apparently she's really British and doing an American accent for the film. I thought she was marvelous. I identified with her more than any other character in the film. Whenever she was off-screen, I longed for her to return. Not an easy task in a cast that includes Javier Bardem, Scarlett Johansson and Penelope Cruz.
The film includes some great Woody Allen dialogue, especially in an early scene in the movie, which just happens to be my favorite of the film. It's the first interaction between Bardem and the two women of the title, Vicky and Cristina (Hall and Johansson). In summary, Bardem walks up to the two of them, introduces himself, and invites them to join him for the weekend, where they will travel, stay in a hotel, and make love. In any other movie, you'd laugh him off the screen. But Allen makes the situation believable. And Bardem comes off as the biggest Smooth Operator since 007.
The story keeps unraveling, but by the half-way point, I had sort of half-checked out. At some point I just didn't care anymore. By the time Cruz shows up, the film is about the love triangle between the three people on the poster - Cruz, Johansson, and Bardem. The only person I was really interested in was Hall, and unfortunately her story began to veer toward the dreaded Frequently Charted Territory. I don't know what happened, but the charm just didn't last for me. The first half is very clever, but then it seems to go on autopilot for the rest of the picture, and the 96-minute runtime begins to feel more like two hours.
For Allen fans, it's still worth a watch for a few things: First of all, he uses another one-shot cinematographer for this one (will he ever have another Gordon Willis-like relationship with a DP again?), Spanish cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe, and he gets more experimental with his camera this time; he uses the Steadicam quite a bit in this one. There's also a narrator in this movie - quite the rarity for a Woody Allen film.
So, yeah... It's worth a look, and you might enjoy it more than I did. I liked it, but not quite as much as everybody else. As always with Woody Allen, even a mediocre Allen picture is usually an above-average film. I'm really looking forward to his next movie, Whatever Works, starring Larry David and set in New York - Woody's first film there since 2005. I'm also really excited by his choice of DP - Harris Savides (Elephant, Zodiac). Should be an interesting movie...

RE: Zodiac

Some people might remember my ramblings last year about how I truly thought film was dead, and that HD video had finally caught up in terms of quality and ultimately the possibilities of low light-photography.
Well, I was just listening to David Fincher's commentary on Zodiac, when I came across a scene late in the movie in which Fincher explains that the entire scene was lit with three 40-watt light bulbs! Anyone who has shot on film knows how insane that is. That has heightened my appreciation of the photography of this film that much more.

Screenshots of the scene in question below
(click on each to view full size):

The Promotion

This movie was in limited release in June of this year, opening in no more than 81 screens and grossing a measly $400,000. That would be a normal pedigree for an independent feature with unknowns, but look at the cast: John C. Reilly (Boogie Nights), Seann William Scott (American Pie), Jenna Fischer (TV's The Office)... And it was written and directed by Steve Conrad, whose previous film work includes writing The Weather Man and The Pursuit of Happyness. With a look at the kind of talent involved, and seeing how it failed in release, one can only think the worst: this must be a terrible movie. On the contrary: this is actually much better than it may seem.

Now look, I'm not saying this is a great movie, or even among the best of this year. But I enjoyed it. How much you like this movie will probably depend on how dialed-in to the film's brand of humor you are. This is not, and I repeat - not - in the vein of any recent Will Ferrell-esque comedies, despite the presence of John C. Reilly (which, while we're on the subject - I've always been a fan of his, and it's great to see him with some success, but he's been in some really bad movies lately). The writing of Steve Conrad (who's also making his directorial debut here) firmly places this movie in the realm of "middle-aged man growing up" pictures. So, yes, it's funny. But there's also a little more to offer here than that. There aren't any huge statements here, but there's some cracks at the supermarket business at a corporate level - something I found extremely funny.

This video features strong language. So, obviously, it's NSFW.

Seann William Scott has always been something of an acquired taste for some people. Some love him, some hate him. I could always take him or leave him, but I liked him here. I found him sympathetic and likable. The tone and inflection of his character's speech might seem a bit forced and unrealistic at times, but mostly I bought it.
In all honesty, there's not a whole lot to the characters here. There's just enough back story for the main characters - to provide motivation for their actions - and everyone else basically gets short shrift. But keeping in mind the movie's short 85 minute runtime, this isn't a huge problem. The movie starts off quick, and the light and poppy score drives it right along to the end.
This is worth a watch. I'm not sure if I'd ever watch it again, but it was a pleasant enough way to spend 90 minutes. I'm sort of surprised that this movie was buried at its time of release - especially with that great cast - but don't be scared off by its short time in theaters. It's an undiscovered gem. Not quite a diamond, but at least a gem. Or a shiny rock of some sort.
(It's released on DVD this Tuesday.)

Pineapple Express, and some other random thoughts

Pineapple Express
This was one of my most-anticipated films of the year: Seth Rogen and James Franco in an action/comedy/stoner movie directed by David Gordon Green? How could you go wrong? Well, I'm happy to report that this movie succeeds in most of what it tries to do, and even when it doesn't, it's still pretty damn fun to watch.
When I heard about this movie around the time of the video release of Knocked Up, I was really excited. The premise sounded great, the idea of seeing Freaks and Geeks co-stars Rogen and Franco together again was awesome, and the wonderfully inspired choice of David Gordon Green (All the Real Girls, George Washington) as director all added up to a must-see for me. With the wait finally over, I sat down last week in a packed movie theater to watch the film. It was the day after opening day, the last show of the night, and it was nearly sold out. About 90% of the crowd was under 25, and the unmistakable stench of marijuana filled the theater, no doubt from the many, many people who must have smoked just before the show. With Rolling Stone having proclaimed Pineapple Express "the best stoner movie ever" days before, you really couldn't have expected much else. Why am I bringing this up? Well, first of all, I will tell you straight up, there is a lot of pot-related stuff in this movie. The plot revolves around it, the characters are frequently toking up, and the title itself is a reference to a particular strain of marijuana. Thankfully, the movie doesn't fall into the trap that most "stoner" movies fall into: You don't have to be stoned to enjoy it.
While most of the credit is likely to go to writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, I have a sneaking suspicion that biggest reason the film succeeds is the direction of David Gordon Green. Green has previously been known for independently-produced dramas (my favorite of which is the aforementioned All the Real Girls) and it truly was a stroke of genius to hire him for this movie. The script is funny, but it could have easily veered wildly out of control in the hands of a lesser director. Similar to the choice of hiring indie director Greg Mottola for Superbad, Pineapple benefits greatly from the attention to detail that most Hollywood directors lack. Of all the recent Judd Apatow-produced comedies of late, this film had the highest possibility of going terribly wrong due to the introduction of black comedy into the mix. Indeed, the comedy in this film is often more akin to Tarantino than to Apatow (a character, shot seven or eight times, passes out from loss of blood, and realizes he "should probably go to the hospital"). Under the strong direction of Green, however, the film veers from comedy to drama to action set pieces, and the tonal changes are usually flawless.
The film is not without its problems. It's a little overlong, and some dialogue scenes early on in the film probably could've been trimmed, but that's just nitpicking. It's a pretty satisfying film, and a good time overall.

Random thoughts
I just wanted to mention a few trailers and whatnot that appeared before the movie, that I thought would be worthwhile to mention.

First of all, there's the great Scorsese "please silence your cell phones" spot that's been in circulation at the theaters for the past few months. Anybody who hasn't seen it, check it out below. It is f-ing hilarious. Still makes me laugh every time.

Then there's this great ad for the upcoming "Stand Up 2 Cancer" telethon that will air simultaneously on ABC, NBC, and CBS. After a little research, I found that it was directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac). It really is quite beautiful and moving.


And finally, the trailer for the upcoming film Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, directed by Peter Sollett (his first film since 2002's great Raising Victor Vargas). This looks good.

Isaac Hayes
1942-2008

Bernie Mac
1957-2008

My new short film: Dr. Sbaitso

HD version to come soon (since it takes me forever to upload it).

Visit Matt Caracappa's page (whose article was the inspiration for this short) at X-Entertainment.com


Dr. Sbaitso (SD version) from Andrew on Vimeo.

The Wackness and Smart People

A couple of indie films today:

First we have The Wackness, the winner of the Dramatic Audience Award at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival. I have to admit, at first I was a little apprehensive going into this movie. The premise sounded good but I hated the first trailer I saw - coming in at a short 90 seconds, this first preview had played up the young cast and the hip hop soundtrack and downplayed the storyline. Luckily, the movie itself was much better.
Totally deserving of its Audience Award win, The Wackness isn't a perfect coming-of-age picture, nor does it want to be. It is completely content with hanging out and telling its story, presenting its characters, and just being who it is. That kind of confidence is reassuring, and goes a long way towards an audience enjoying a movie.

It's a small film, with basically only three main roles to speak of. Each of them is cast to perfection. Josh Peck (a revelation in 2004's Mean Creek) plays Luke, a pot-dealing 18-year-old rap enthusiast, living in 1994 New York City, pondering his existence after graduating high school. His mentor is his therapist, Dr. Squires (amazingly rendered by Ben Kingsley). He's a successful psychologist, but he's also an immature drug addict whose marriage is failing. Things get complicated when Luke falls for Squires' daughter, Stephanie (Juno's Olivia Thirlby). Other people show up in supporting roles, including the great Jane Adams (Happiness) as one of Luke's pot-buyers.
There's so much about this movie that could have gone horribly wrong. The vintage 90's rap music could feel overly campy, almost veering towards novelty, but the careful choice of music and the discussion of it by characters - in context with their lives - makes it work. The whole teenage pot dealer thing has been done before, but this movie puts a nice little spin on it: it's almost like an afterthought. Although this activity is used as a plot device to put things in motion, it's not the central driving force in the film. There's no big moral drug choice for the kid to make at the end of the film, and there's no violent acts or consequences that result from his selling of pot. In fact, the guy who sells it to him (effectively his boss) is one of his closest confidants. It's refreshing, and allows us to pay attention to what really matters in the film: the relationships, whether they be parent and child, husband and wife, or the man focus of the piece, the budding romance between Luke and Stephanie.
This particular aspect of the film is handled quite well, particularly the sex scenes between the two young actors. Everything is given the right amount of awkwardness, eagerness and melancholy, and it's one of the most affecting aspects of the film.
Okay, enough rambling. This is a good film. If it was received a little bit better (it was given highly mixed reviews, although they mostly aired on the positive side), I might've predicted an Oscar nomination for Ben Kingsley. His role has that great mix of vitality and compassion that the Academy loves. Josh Peck is great in the lead, though, and holds the whole thing together. After Mean Creek, I knew this kid was going places. He might not get a lot of attention for this, but I'm sure his breakthrough role isn't far off. This is a memorable movie, and although it sort of fizzles out in its last fifteen minutes, it redeems itself with a great ending. Highly recommended.


Smart People is another independent film with mixed reviews, but in this case I think the critics were right on the money. It has a great opening, which quickly and neatly establishes a tone for the picture, but it's all sort of downhill after that. The movie's dialogue does a good job of maintaining that tone, but someone along the way didn't think so. There is way too much music in this movie. Don't get me wrong, I love music in film, when it's done right. But I have a big problem with snippets of different songs being used as background for what seemed like every other dialogue scene. In one five-minute section of the film I counted no less than four different songs. It reminds me of what the WB network does with its teen-oriented shows; they throw music in at every possible moment because they are deathly afraid that people will get bored. Twenty seconds of a quiet conversation is an eternity in their eyes. The movie never gets a chance to breathe, which is unfortunate, because there is some great dialogue in there between the many, many songs. I have no idea whether this was the director or the studio's choice, but, quite frankly, it bugged the hell out of me.

The cast is great, anyway: Dennis Quaid, Thomas Haden Church, Ellen Page, and Ashton Holmes (A History of Violence). Even Sarah Jessica Parker, who I personally can't stand, is decent in this. Everyone's well-cast, especially Thomas Haden Church as the irresponsible brother. It's worth a watch, but don't worry about going out of your way to see it.

The Dark Knight

Yes, that's right. I just got back from a midnight show - it's 3 AM, and I'm sure I'll spend another hour awake writing this thing, because I feel compelled to gush about this movie, as much and as often as possible.
I feel so strongly about this picture that I will say this right out front: if this movie wasn't a "Batman" film, it would be a Best Picture nominee. It is simply the best American crime film since Heat. Unfortunately, I think the whole "Batman" thing may prevent people from taking this movie seriously. This is a serious work, with ruminations on good and evil, the organized chaos of society, and the nature of heroes, and why we need them.
More than anything, this is an epic crime film. I return to Heat once again, Michael Mann's masterpiece. This movie has an obvious debt to that picture, but breaks its own ground and finds its own voice. It has a crackling immediacy that gives everything enormous weight and importance, and visually, it looks more like a gritty crime film than anything else. Being rooted in such reality gives the film its power. It was a brave and wonderful choice, and one of the big reasons for the film's success.
Much has been made of Heath Ledger's performance, and I have to admit, it was the main reason I chose to see the film (along with the stellar reviews it has gotten). The verdict? It is simply breathtaking. It's everything you've heard it is, and so much more. He steals every scene he's in, and he's probably the best villain ever put on screen. As for his Oscar chances, well, if Anthony Hopkins can win an Oscar for The Silence of the Lambs, there's no reason why Ledger shouldn't win for this. Even Javier Bardem's win last year for No Country For Old Men pales in comparison to this performance. If he isn't nominated and doesn't win, it will be one of the biggest mistakes the Academy has ever made.
And while we're on the subject of awards, I must point out this fact: this is the best-directed film so far this year, and I doubt I'll see one that tops this. Christopher Nolan deserves at least a nomination for Best Director. Every single thing is done right. Not a false note. I have to admit, I've been disappointed with Nolan in the past. I loved Memento of course, but after 2002's Insomnia (a watered-down American remake of the original film) and 2006's The Prestige, I lost hope in Nolan. Even Batman Begins I wasn't satisfied with. I thought it had some problems at the script stage that were never solved. Well, he's back. All the promise that I saw in Memento has finally come to fruition, and it is a great thing.
The rest of the production is great, with the best editing I've seen all year. The film is long, and it feels long, but it feels right. It's a big story, and it deserves its running time. Like I mentioned before, Heath Ledger steals the show, but the masterful editing keeps all the narrative threads on an equal playing field. Sometimes, if someone is giving an amazing performance, all of their time off-screen is simply spent waiting for them to return. This is definitely not the case here. Ledger might be the main attraction, but there's plenty more here to see.
Well, I suppose I'll leave it at that. Put aside all expectations. This is one of the best films of the year. It's not perfect, but it's just about as close to perfect as a movie can be. This is a work of art, and it deserves to be seen. It drew me in more than any other movie so far this year, and it was an exhilarating experience.
There are some movies that restore your faith in the power of film, but this was more than that. It got me excited about the filmmaking process again, and made we want to go out and shoot more. I think I will. In the meantime, I'm considering going to Boston to see this in an IMAX theater. I've heard there's no better way to see it. And with a movie this good, I owe it to myself to try.

Charles H. Joffe
1929-2008
(Woody Allen's long-time manager and producing partner - he has produced all of Woody's 42 films)

Photos from July 4th, 2008

WALL-E

I hate throwing this word around, but there's no other way to say it: This is a masterpiece.
Forget that it's animated, and forget the fact that you may be one of the only adults in a theater filled with children. No matter which way you slice it, this is an amazing achievement.
I've been a fan of Pixar for awhile, but not a fanatic like some people are. While some people declare every movie they've done to be exceptional, the only two Pixar movies I truly love are Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. Those are the ones that truly felt original; like something magical was happening. It's my feeling that every other Pixar film has varied in terms of quality, and while some were very good (Finding Nemo) others I would have been vary happy had they never been made (The Incredibles, which starts off nicely only to turn into a bland action movie). This film, however, is different. This film is what happens when creative artists have money and power: they do what they want.
A hugely successful company now on its ninth film, Pixar is now free (more or less) from the do-or-die mentality of normal studios, where every film's opening weekend spells life or death for a company. Free from these constraints, they've come up with a film that's both hugely ambitious and surprisingly simple. A film where about 90% of its running time consists of no dialogue (a huge gamble for a modern animated feature), but whose central themes are the most basic of all human emotion: Love, life, and humanity. For a modern film in any genre, this would be considered unusual, but all the more so for a $180 million dollar animated feature.
I won't bore you with long, rambling thoughts about the film or its creation. I'll only tell you this: The best way to see this movie is to not view it as the new Pixar film, or even an animated film. View it on its own merits. A little movie called E.T. opened in 1982 and has always been seen, even by people who enjoy it, as a kids' film. I don't. I think it's one of the best films ever made, because of the pure emotion and unadulterated magic that radiates from it. It's because of that magic that it appeals to kids. It's a similar thing with this film. An open heart and an open mind are the only prerequisites needed to see this movie. Leave your cynicism at the door. Prepare to be dazzled, delighted, and moved by a simple, beautiful tale.

Time to play catch-up...

My opinions on Forgetting Sarah Marshall, The Hammer, Harold and Kumar 2, Iron Man, Indiana Jones 4, The Happening, The Ruins, and Definitely, Maybe.

So yeah, the whole idea behind this post is that I haven't written anything substantial on here in over 2 months, even though I've seen eight recent movies. So I'll play catch-up, and write briefly about each.


Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Personally, this was my biggest disappointment of the year so far. I was really looking forward to this, mostly because it was written by and stars Jason Segel, who played probably my favorite character on Freaks and Geeks, and who was so god-damned funny in Knocked Up.
This movie just doesn't work. I'm not sure what it is, but it never really clicks. The humor feels forced, and many of the jokes are just simply not funny, or drawn out way past the point of laughability. Example: The main character's dream is to write a Dracula musical...with puppets. Now, the idea itself is funny. If someone just mentions that in a conversation, I would laugh at that. Where the film fails is that it actually takes 5 or 6 minutes near the end to show him performing the show. Which, of course, is great if it's funny. Let's just say that the theater was filled with silence. There are many scenes in this same vein, where a halfway-funny joke is milked for all its worth, being referenced multiple times in the hope of a chuckle.
Surprisingly, where the film succeeds is with its dramatic scenes. It is, in all seriousness, one of the most honest depictions of a breakup - or the aftermath of it - that I've seen in a long time. Segel isn't afraid to show his character's angst and depression, and the film is better for it. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a boy-meets-girl story we've seen a thousand times. Although I absolutely love Jason Segel as an actor, his writing doesn't have the polish of Judd Apatow's (or even Seth Rogen's) and it shows.
The movie does have moments of near-brilliance, however. I will give it that. The opening scene works so well, you think you're in-store for a better movie: Segel, just coming out of the shower and in only a towel, finds his girlfriend in his apartment. She quickly breaks up with him, and in his surprise and horror over the situation, he accidentally drops his towel. The genius of the scene is that he's so wrapped up in what has just happened to him, he doesn't even notice or care, and he plays out the rest of the scene completely naked (which we see, by the way). The sequence even continues, with him sitting her down on the couch next to him - still completely nude - and begs her to stay with him. It has a darkly comic undertone to it, and it's wonderfully awkward. It's also a brilliant way to show his vulnerability in the situation, albeit in an exaggerated, comic way. If only the rest of the film could've had that fresh spark. The other characters are bland, and mostly uninteresting, save for Mila Kunis (from That 70's Show) who truly lights up the screen with her presence. It also manages the near-impossible task of making Paul Rudd (in a small role) completely unfunny.
I don't want to make it sound like it was terrible. It was an entertaining movie, and I'm glad I saw it. I guess I just expected more. On a related note, I'm really excited to see the upcoming Pineapple Express (with Seth Rogen and James Franco).


The Hammer
There's really not much to say about this one. It's an independently-produced comedy written by and starring Adam Carolla. It's really a simple boxing film, with a romantic subplot, and we've seen it numerous times before. The reason to see it, however, is Adam Carolla. He puts a spin on the material, and long-time fans of Adam on Loveline (and I'm one of them) will take a certain glee in seeing Adam's best rants and funniest rambling talk-show material translated to the screen. My verdict? A must-see for Adam Carolla fans, and worth a look for everyone else.


Harold and Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay
The first film was, in my opinion, a modern comedy classic. Filled with equal parts low-brow humor and social commentary, it was funny and subversive, and it's actually a miracle it was ever made in Hollywood. Part of its charm was the oh-so-simple storyline: Two stoners get the munchies, and they set out on a night-long quest to find the only White Castle restaurant in the area, and hilarity ensues. Granted, it could have been awful. But somehow, it works. The second film raises the stakes: Harold and Kumar are mistakenly thought to be terrorists during an airport security screening, and sent to Guantanamo Bay Prison.
I'm sorry, but I just didn't find this one funny. Sure, it has its moments (one joke, where Neil Patrick Harris tries to act normal around a cop while on acid, made me laugh harder than anything in either of the two movies), but overall, it just doesn't capture the charm of the original. I think the fault lies in the direction. The writers of the first movie return to both write and direct this one. It's their first try at directing, and it shows. Scenes run on too long, and unfunny things that would have been axed early on are very present here. It's more subversive - and, dare I say, more unbelievable - than the first. The guys actually meet a pot-smoking George W. Bush. It may be funny on paper, but here it just....yeah. I don't know what they were thinking.
It's not a terrible movie, and it does have laughs. Fans of the original may be disappointed, but it's worth seeing just to spend a little more time with these characters again.


Iron Man
I'm not a huge fan of superhero movies. Sure, I was when I was ten, but that part of me just isn't around anymore. These days, if I'm gonna watch such a film, my decision's based more on who's involved in the project rather than which superhero it is. Believe it or not, I had never heard of Iron Man before. Sure, I'd heard about him peripherally, mentioned elsewhere. But I had no idea who he was or what he was. I had no intention of seeing the movie, either. But then I heard it was directed by Jon Favreau (Swingers) and had Robert Downey, Jr. in the title role. Ok, now you can sign me up...
The first 45 minutes of the film are set-up, and you don't see him in the final suit until the 90 minute point. From my point of view, that's how it has to be. It stresses story over effects, and it won me over in the process. Iron Man was one of the best times I've had at the movies all year. Now I'm excited for The Dark Knight.


Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I grew up with the Indiana Jones movies, so this review is going to be very short. In summary: this movie is great. It's not high art, it's just a good time. There's enough references to the other films to bring you back into the Indy mood, and once you're there, and that classic theme starts playing, it's awesome. It's not perfect - much of the first half hour is pointless. But it has so much to offer, nothing could really ruin it (be prepared for one of the best car chase/action sequences of the past ten years). Somehow, for two hours, you feel like you're ten years old again... and it's a great feeling.


The Happening
Holy shit... where to start? This is one of the most laughable major studio releases of the past 20 years. It is amazing that this film was released in its current form, and even more amazing that it was released at all. It fails in every single thing it attempts to do, and fails in ways the director probably didn't even imagine. It fails as a horror story, a character study, and most of all, as a film. It is my early pick for worst film of the year.
I must start off by admitting I'm not a huge M. Night Shyamalan fan. The Sixth Sense was enjoyable, although I thought it was horribly overrated. My favorite film of his was Unbreakable. Without going into detail, I thought it was great. Everything else he's done, well... sucked. I hated Signs (although I seem to be in the minority on that one) and I never even saw Lady in the Water (despite the presence of the great Paul Giamatti). I was one of the few who saw some good in The Village, mostly because I actually liked the twist ending (even though the film itself is mostly a bore). Despite his track record, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The trailers looked sort of creepy. I liked the actors. How bad could it be?
The Happening is a complete and total failure in film direction. Why do I say this? Well, M. Night has surrounded himself with some of the best people in the business, and a group of great actors, and he's managed to fuck it up beyond belief. Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, and John Leguizamo are three of my favorite actors working today. They're good actors. They have talent. Although, if this movie was your only exposure to them, you wouldn't think so. Shyamalan has managed to get terrible performances out of great actors, which is the biggest sin of this film. Sure, the material is hokey and stupid and unintentionally funny, but good actors can elevate bad material. As someone who has studied film and directing for years, I can honestly say I have no idea how he managed to screw up as bad as he did. He must have been asleep at the wheel. The acting is terrible in this movie. It's like watching first-time actors in a low-budget horror movie. I was honestly in awe at what I was witnessing. Mark Wahlberg is especially bad in the film. If this had been his first movie, his acting career would be over. Fortunately, we know he can act. We've seen Boogie Nights and The Departed. So what happened? The only thing I can think of is non-communication between actor and director. George Lucas is famous for not speaking to his actors on set, and thus the acting in his movies is usually terrible. I know I'm going on and on about this, but I'm truly shocked. Even if you hate M. Night (and I do) you have to admit the acting is usually a bright spot in his pictures. It's almost as if he shot the footage with his eyes closed.
Anyway, enough of that. Stay, far, far, far away.


The Ruins
A little horror film from a director who is from, believe it or not, Topsham, Maine. Now, I've seen video and text interviews with the guy (Carter Smith) and he seems to be a total prick. But, I have to admit, his first film is a decent little movie. It succeeds in being creepy-crawly and uncomfortable, and it holds your attention for most of the duration. Not to mention, it has some great actors (Jonathan Tucker and Jena Malone). Not bad. Not bad at all.


Definitely, Maybe
Now this is a movie I didn't even consider seeing when it first came out. The marketing campaign gave it the appearance of being just another romantic comedy. It's not. It's worth your time.
Definitely, Maybe is a rare breed of movie. It has more in common with an indie movie than a big studio production. It has great writing and performances, and a careful, steady hand leading you along the way. When you look at who's behind it, it makes more sense. Writer/director Adam Brooks directed several independent movies, and subsequently got jobs writing big-budget romantic comedies (French Kiss, Wimbledon).
It's original, it's engaging (if maybe a little overlong), and it has some great dialogue. It's Hollywood-ized and a little cutesy, but it has a lot to offer. I've always liked Ryan Reynolds, and he's very good here (in his first dramatic role), and it doesn't hurt that he's given an amazing supporting cast.
I never thought I'd say it when I first decided to watch it, but this gets a big recommendation from me.


So, that's it. I guess I'll try to post more often. Although, during this time of year, I don't see a whole lot of movies, by choice (poor product). This week I'll be seeing WALL-E, which was something I wasn't interested in at all until it started getting amazing reviews. So I guess now I'll check it out. (By the way, has anyone noticed that the main robot in WALL-E looks a hell of a lot like Johnny 5 in Short Circuit?)

Kevin Smith Remembers George Carlin

Oh my god... this sucks so bad....

George Carlin
1937-2008

A huge influence on me throughout my later life, and one of the key reasons I decided I was an atheist at 18. He was a master of the English language, and one of the most intelligent people I've ever heard. We'll miss ya, George.

Stan Winston
1946-2008

Sydney Pollack
(1934-2008)

Stop-Loss and The Beautiful Ordinary

Stop-Loss
Just a quick word about Stop-Loss, as I realized I had seen it two weeks ago and not yet written about it. It is the second film by Kimberly Peirce, coming almost 10 years after her debut, Boys Don't Cry. What took her so long? Regardless, Stop-Loss is probably the best film we've had about the Iraq war so far. It kind of fizzles out in the third act, but the rest of the picture is quite satisfying. My biggest qualm? It needed to be either a full half-hour longer, or a couple characters needed to be removed. The secondary characters are underwritten, and you can feel it. On the other hand, the cast is filled with the best actors of the last 10 years in independent film: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Channing Tatum, and my personal favorite - Victor Rasuk (Raising Victor Vargas). It's a shame such wonderful actors were given such little to do.

The Beautiful Ordinary
One of the hardest things to get right is the "high school movie". It's extremely easy to go way over the top and become the latest teen soap opera. On the other hand - and no less sinful -there's the temptation to pull punches and go, well... not far enough. The truly great high school movies are few and far between. American Graffiti, Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Dazed and Confused are the ones that really get it right (with honorable mention to Elephant). They may not encapsulate every facet of the teen experience, but more than anything, they get the "feeling" right. Perhaps that's why it's so hard to make a good film about this time in a person's life. It's more than anything else a somewhat indescribable feeling - melancholy with a little bit of youthful joy and heartbreak thrown in. And by the time you've grown up enough to put that feeling on film, it has most likely faded from memory. Probably the best depiction of high school ever put to celluloid wasn't even a movie at all, but a TV show - unlikely as it may sound. Freaks and Geeks had 18 hour-long episodes to shape its characters and refine its tone. And it stands as the pinnacle of high school on screen, because, for all intents and purposes, it had more time than any film could to build and define its characters.
What I'm getting at is that any film that tries to depict high school - especially with a two-hour running time - should focus on that "feeling" more than anything else. Because with the dozens of possible characters such a film could include, one has to face the fact you could never give each of them equal narrative justice.
And saying that, I now arrive at a film called The Beautiful Ordinary. It is the first film from Jess Manafort, and although it has its problems, it's the best high school film I've seen in quite some time. It's an independent production, and the film was dumped by its distributor after a limited release, and retitled "Remember the Daze". Yeah, I know... horrible. Don't be scared by the title. It's an obvious play off of the popularity of Dazed and Confused, and a ploy by the distributor to make some quick cash when it goes to video. I will keep referring to the movie by its original title, both because it was the director's intention, and because the new one is really fucking bad.
So anyway, back to the movie. This is a film of broad brush strokes, not fine details. It's a film that wants to create a portrait of people in a time and a place, and I applaud it for that. It's not a character study. It's a study of characters in an environment.

The picture has strong direction and acting. The cast reads like a who's-who of the best of this generation's independent film: Melonie Diaz (Raising Victor Vargas), John Robinson (Elephant), Chris Marquette and Leighton Meester are solid. But unknowns are where this movie really shines: Shahine Ezell and Lyndsy Fonseca make strong impressions; as does Brie Larson, a scene-stealer as an overbearing younger sister. But the real star here is the direction: sure-footed and confident, Jess Manafort is really going to go places. She shows real potential.
Well, enough of my rambling. Take a chance. Watch this movie when it comes out. Pick up the tacky-looking video box with the title of "Remember the Daze" - what really awaits you is a little lost gem of a film called The Beautiful Ordinary.

Reservation Road

You can usually count on the critics to give you a good overview of a movie's merits. When you look at a consensus of reviews, you can usually determine, most of the time, whether a film is worth your time or not. In this case, however, the critical community was blatantly wrong. I don't know what happened, but somewhere along the way, this movie was blasted by almost every critic out there. And as a result of that, the studio dumped the film, and it only grossed $137,000. But I'll tell you the truth, right here and now: this movie is fucking good. It really is. What's more, it's actually one of the best movies of this past year. How's that for being incredibly, amazingly wrong?
Based on the novel of the same name, the story is this: A little boy is struck and killed by a car in a hit-and-run accident. The boy's father (Joaquin Phoenix) wants nothing more than to see the killer brought to justice. Meanwhile, the perpetrator (Mark Ruffalo) struggles with the issue of turning himself in, and deals with the fact that if he goes to prison, he might lose his own boy in the process.

Like I said, great fucking movie. This film is miles above Terry George's previous film, the Oscar-nominated Hotel Rwanda - which just shows you how much critics can band together for a common cause... or a common movie that they enjoy.
The performances are all wonderful, but special mention must be made of Mark Ruffalo. We were all introduced to him back in 2000 in the great You Can Count on Me, and he's continually turned in one great performance after another (particularly in Zodiac, one of my favorite movies from last year). Ruffalo's character is truly the glue that holds the whole thing together, and gives everything meaning. Without him, you'd simply have a revenge story, and that's why I can't understand the reviews that criticize the film for being nothing more than that. It has a lot more to offer.

I must make particular mention of the ending. While I won't spoil it for you, I must say that I was totally and completely satisfied with it. While there have been people who have drawn negative comparisons between this film and Mystic River (in terms of the "father out for revenge" angle) I must say that although I love that film, I found this ending to be somewhat more emotionally satisfying, and more true to what would happen in a real-life situation.
That's all I'm saying. Go see the movie. Enjoy it. Keep reading the movie reviews - just ignore the ones for this movie.

Anthony Minghella
1954-2008

The Mist, revisited

I saw The Mist in the theater back in November, and now that it's on video (well, it will be soon), it seems like a good time to bring it back up again. It's really unlike almost anything out there: it's a smart horror movie. Highly recommended; don't miss it.
What follows is my original review (dated Nov. 26, 2007), with a video clip added in. Enjoy.

Film adaptations of Stephen King's work usually go one of two ways: you get great movies like The Shawshank Redemption or Stand By Me, or you get something like Maximum Overdrive. Thankfully, this film falls into the former category. While adaptations of King's non-horror work are usually solid (films like Shawshank, Stand By Me, and The Green Mile come to mind), his horror novels hardly ever translate well to screen. While the rare film like Carrie succeeds, usually these movies go down in flames. I've always thought that the reason these films never work is the failure to translate King's great characters to the screen. While the plot is full of spooky shit, the well-drawn characters are really what make King's horror novels rise above simple pulp.

Now we have The Mist, a film from Frank Darabont - the go-to guy for film adaptations of Stephen King's work. His previous films include both Shawshank and The Green Mile and the underrated The Majestic. In fact, you could even say he owes his directorial career to King, who started him off by giving him the rights to adapt his story "The Woman in the Room" into a short film. Who could blame him for continuing to come back to the well?

Darabont somehow understands Stephen King's work in a way most directors can't seem to grasp. Characters are front and center in his novels, and even this story - Darabont's first horror film - is more about character interactions than the monsters lurking outside. In fact, without giving too much away, the people trapped inside while all this is going down are in some ways more dangerous than the creatures attacking them. As people confront each other and conflict arises, it begins to look a lot safer outside with the man-eating monsters.
I was surprised to see this much bold content in a studio horror film. References to Iraq and George Bush and even religion are woven into the film. Sometimes it's clunky, but it's never unwelcome and always interesting. The fact that the main antagonist of the film becomes not the monsters but a religious fanatic who proclaims these events an act of God and that the only way to drive the creatures away is to start throwing people out the door as sacrifices... let's just say I'm surprised a major studio allowed that. Not just that, but the fact that the scared crowd becomes brainwashed and starts to believe her... obvious allegories to the dangers of religion and even to the unquestioning faith of Bush supporters... not what you'd expect to see from a rubber monster movie. Like I said, it doesn't always work, but when it does, it's great.

Darabont shot this film in a gritty, documentary style, with handheld camerawork and frequent quick-zooms. It could have been cheesy, but it really adds to that "you-are-there" mentality they were going for. They didn't have much money for this, so some of the CGI effects (especially an early monster appearance) look fake. But the caliber of the actors really do serve to obscure most of the technical shortcomings. A great cast, and I won't go over all of them, but you'll see some familiar faces from Shawshank, and Marcia Gay Harden is fucking scary in this... she won an Oscar for Pollock, but she's actually better in this.

It has some shortcomings, and not everyone's going to like a horror movie, but it hits far more than it misses, and it really is one of the best horror films of the last 10 years, hands down.