Ten Past Midnight

2011-01-01T02:49:00.004-05:00

Movie Night with Jim and Andrew

Click here for the podcast page

_

2010-12-31T16:20:00.003-05:00

This site is basically dead for a while because Viddler took all of my video clips down and closed my account. So if I can't use some video clips as a visual aid, I probably won't continue blogging - at least not anytime in the near future.
On the bright side, I think I'm going to devote most of my time and energy to the new movie podcast I'm doing with my brother, Movie Night with Jim and Andrew. It's located HERE, and also on iTunes if you search for it.
I think tomorrow I will post the last post on this blog, which will just be a link to the podcast website. It was fun, guys - thanks for reading it, and enjoy the new podcast! We're having a lot of fun with it!

2010-05-29T21:40:00.001-04:00

Dennis Hopper
1936-2010

2010-04-21T20:43:00.002-04:00

Dede Allen
1923-2010

The Fisher King

2010-04-06T18:42:00.000-04:00

"I like New York in June. How about you?"

One of my all-time favorite movies. I watched it again recently, and so I've decided to write a little bit about it.
This movie has always had a certain kind of appeal for me. It's that rare sort of film that seems to completely fit my personality, and so it holds a special place in my heart. It's equal parts humor, heartbreak, romance, and personal drama - with terrific flourishes of grand emotion. The fact that it's able to tie all of these qualities together in a highly entertaining package makes it all the more worthwhile - and memorable.
Director Terry Gilliam (Brazil, 12 Monkeys) brings Richard LaGravenese's highly original script to the screen, starring Robin Williams, Jeff Bridges, Mercedes Ruehl (who won an Oscar for her role), and Amanda Plummer.
The story concerns an arrogant talk radio host named Jack Lucas (Bridges). One fateful day on his program, he begins ranting against yuppies, proclaiming them to be"inhuman" and announcing that they "must be stopped". One of his listeners interprets this as a literal call to arms, and takes it upon himself to enter a yuppie bar in Manhattan with a shotgun, where he kills several people, and then himself. Needless to say, Jack is in shock.

Cut to black. As the picture fades back up, it's now three years later. Jack is overcome with grief and guilt, and now drowns his sorrows in alcohol. He's in a relationship with a woman named Anne (Ruehl), a video store owner whose strong-willed personality seems to be the only thing keeping him from falling completely apart. They live together in the apartment above the store, and after getting into an argument one night, Jack leaves and takes a drunken walk through the city.

It's at this point that Jack decides to take his own life. He weighs down his feet with cinder blocks and prepares to jump in the river. However, at just this moment, he's attacked by two street punks who mistake him for a homeless man. They soak him with gasoline and attempt to set him on fire. But out of the shadows appears a savior: a strange little man dressed as a knight, who beats up the punks and saves Jack from certain death. Before he can comprehend the events that have just unfolded in front of him, Jack passes out...
He awakes the next morning in the basement of a building, and we're introduced to Parry (Williams):

It turns out that after his wife's death, Parry fell into a sort of catatonic state for a long period of time. When he finally awoke, he was no longer a college professor whose wife was murdered; he was now a knight on a quest for the Holy Grail.
After discovering who Parry really is, and feeling responsible for his current mental state, Jack goes to find him in an attempt to make amends. He first tries to talk some sense into him, but any mention of his former life or his true identity sends Parry into hysterics. When confronted with his past, he sees hallucinations of a Red Knight who threatens and attacks him. (This is, obviously, a metaphor for his traumatic past which he is unable - and unwilling - to face. BRILLIANT stuff.)
Determined to set things straight with Parry, and unwilling to help him with his delusional quest for the Grail, Jack decides to give him some money, only to find that Parry secretly desires something else:

So now we have our plot device which will carry us through the rest of the picture. In trying to make things right, both with himself and with Parry, Jack now has a goal - to help this broken man find love once again. And that sets the stage for several wonderful, magical scenes, the first of which is set in a train station...
(but first, we must pause a moment and watch a great little monologue by Tom Waits, playing a homeless, disabled veteran.)

Good stuff.
...And now, here's one of the most striking - and frequently discussed (because of its complexity) - sequences in the film. As Parry pursues his dream girl through Grand Central Station, the rush hour foot-traffic suddenly transforms into... well, you'll see.

Beautiful.
So, as the film continues, Jack works to bring Parry and his dream girl closer together, and the two men begin to bond. And one night, in the middle of Central Park, Parry tells Jack the story of The Fisher King:

Two broken men, each in search of their own personal Grail (in this case being genuine, unfaltering, life-affirming love) which will heal their respective (emotional) wounds, but who cannot find it themselves, and only discover it when it is the result of a selfless act of kindness. As the story says: "I only knew that you were thirsty". Truly great writing.
So we now enter the third act of what is basically a four-act story. Jack has succeeded in bringing Parry and the girl together. Her name is Lydia (Amanda Plummer), and her character is exceptionally well-written for being such a small part. She's a shy, mousy, clumsy girl, but she's also strong and has natural defenses. She's initially hesitant of going on a date, but eventually agrees.
And so Parry, Lydia, Jack, and Anne go on a double-date to a Chinese restaurant. The resulting scene is charming, funny, and sweetly romantic - more so than almost any film I can think of:

There's some great little character details in that scene, such as how Parry purposely drops and knocks over items on the table to make the bumbling Lydia feel more comfortable.
We come now to my favorite part of the movie - and the scene that really made me fall in love with this picture. It's a prime example of all aspects of a film working together perfectly: the acting is top-notch, the direction is rock-solid, and the writing is clean, precise, and rhythmic. I'll come right out and say it - I've mentioned this many times over the years and it's still true: this is my favorite movie monologue of all time. Yes, you have Peter Finch's "mad as hell" speech in Network, and Henry Fonda's "I'll be there" monologue in The Grapes of Wrath, but this one, in how it's written and how it's played, is, in my mind, perfection:

It affected me when I first heard it, and it still does, every time. The construction of the monologue is air-tight, the circular nature of it - the repetition of the "coffee" line twice to set it up, and then it pops up again as an ending beat, bringing it full-circle. A lot of it has to do with the way Robin Williams plays it. He's just so innocent, honest, and pure. It will probably always be my favorite role of his. And Amanda Plummer's reaction to the whole thing sells it completely.
The last act of the film begins with tragedy, and since it immediately follows this scene, it's especially heartbreaking. I won't reveal any more of the film. I'll only say that there's triumph and redemption, and it's immensely, immensely satisfying.
If you haven't yet seen this film, you should immediately do so. Your heart will thank you for it. (And your brain will concur).

2010-01-12T23:41:00.001-05:00

Éric Rohmer
1920-2010

Movies You May Have Missed - #12 World's Greatest Dad (2009)

2010-01-12T20:08:00.000-05:00

Note:

Facebook users need to click "View Original Post" at the end to view the videos. (They REALLY need to implement this in their RSS feed soon.)
And... the videos themselves are: NSFW - strong language

I haven't posted in a while. While I am in the process of putting together a large article covering the work of Hal Ashby, I haven't written anything about a recent film in quite some time. The reason for this is simple: I haven't seen anything recently that was worth writing about. In my opinion, this has been a pretty horrible year for movies so far (not counting the slew of December-released movies that aren't out here yet). Although there were a few great movies released this past year (The Hurt Locker, 500 Days of Summer), most of the year 2009 consisted of month-long stretches where I was completely uninterested in seeing anything being offered to me.
That brings me to a little picture called World's Greatest Dad.
Written and directed by Bobcat Goldthwait and starring Robin Williams, it was a critical success and a hit at Sundance, but was nevertheless a financial bomb, grossing only $220,000. Man, people really missed out on a terrific movie...
I really, truly, sincerely LOVED this movie. I think most of that came from the fact that I knew going in just how dark the material was going to get. If you've seen the trailer for the film, you really have no idea what's in store for you. The trailer itself isn't really at fault, however. By trying to hide the movie's central plot device, the advertising is unable to convey the actual tone of the movie, which is much darker (and thematically richer) than you'd expect. I mention this because I'm going to give away that bit of the plot in this review. However, I wouldn't really call it a "spoiler" because it occurs only 30 minutes into the movie, and is the driving force behind everything else that happens after. So, on to the story:
Robin Williams plays Lance Clayton, a high school English teacher and failed writer, who has tried for years to get something published, to no avail. He's divorced, and his teenage son, Kyle, lives with him. Lance, the failed writer, is a failed teacher as well. His poetry course is in danger of being cut because of low enrollment, and he's in a sort of unspoken competition with a young, popular male teacher whose creative writing course is a big hit. If that isn't enough, this rival is slowly moving in on his girlfriend - another teacher at the school - right in front of him. Everything's going badly for Lance... and we haven't even mentioned his son yet.
Kyle attends the same school as his father, and he's a constant embarrassment. He's vulgar, rude, and, well - he's an asshole.

He has only one friend - a shy boy named Andrew - and yet he treats him just as badly as he does everyone else.

This isn't just a simple case of teenage rebellion... this kid is about as vehemently awful as you can get. Credit actor Daryl Sabara with crafting a character so unlikable and memorable that his presence seems to hang over the film long after he's left the picture (we'll explain that later).
So, after Kyle gets into some trouble at school, Lance attempts to bond with his son, which brings about some expectedly negative results.

I'd just like to point out the solid, wonderfully comic tone in the footage you've seen so far. It's funny, to be sure, but it's also well-grounded in a very real place, which will be important for what comes later.

The film could have remained in this territory for the next hour and emerged as a good, engaging comedy. But what Goldthwait does with the material in the next act turns it into something much more: a truly great film.
We now come to the part of the film which changes the course of the picture, and which is not mentioned in the film's advertising: While masturbating, Kyle accidentally kills himself as he attempts Autoerotic Asphyxiation. Lance discovers his dead son, and, in an attempt to cover up the embarrassing truth, he tampers with the scene, making it appear to be a suicide, even going so far as to write a fake suicide note.
Now, there's something interesting here. The way the scene was handled truly surprised me. Goldthwait doesn't play it for laughs, or even shock value. He plays it completely straight. He drops out the sound entirely, the music fades in, and the scene plays out. And the effectiveness of it all made me at first surprised, then grateful (for having this tricky material handled the way it was), and then finally, I was quite simply in the director's hands, completely and entirely. I wanted to go anywhere he wanted to go, and wherever he wanted the story to go. And I was excited to see where that would be.

I'm not saying that it was perfect screenwriting or filmmaking, but the way that the material itself was handled - key word, there - made me entirely invested in the story from that point on. The reason for this? I had just witnessed the birth of a great filmmaker. You heard it from me: Bobcat Goldthwait - good material permitting - is going to go places, as a director.
Take the scene below, for example:
Lance has succeeded, and everyone now believes his son committed suicide. As the teachers and school counselor search for the reasons behind it, one of the students gains access to the "suicide note" and publishes it in the school newspaper. Lance has finally gotten something published. What started out as a way to prevent his son from an embarrassing legacy, it has now snowballed into something much more, as everyone in the school turns this unknown kid into whatever they want - or need - him to be:

Very, very well-done little montage sequence there. It's my favorite scene in the movie, and it really shows you what Bobcat is capable of. Who knew?
Things progress, and as Lance becomes more popular (by way of his son), he is inspired to create an entire fictitious "journal" of Kyle's, in hopes of getting that published as well.

It is indeed published, and becomes very successful - not just throughout the school, but the entire country. It's a bestseller. And Lance now has prospects lined up everywhere. He's given a book deal of his own, and is asked to appear on talk shows (the latter of which is the setting of one of the best scenes in the movie):

(P.S. - The onscreen title of "Father/Hero" given to Lance on the talk show was genius.)

So what happens? Does Lance come clean? Does he give in to his new-found success? I won't give it away, and the outcome isn't really surprising, but I found it immensely satisfying. I will say that the last 5 minutes of the movie were - in my opinion - nearly perfect, and ended the movie on a great note.
If dark comedies aren't your thing... you may actually still enjoy this. Sure, it has a dark side: it's incendiary, satiric, and has no problem with crossing the line. But this film has quite a lot going for it. It goes someplace deeper, and is not satisfied with simply going for the joke. Some of the opening scenes may have shock value, but everything is for a purpose. It's all leading somewhere, and because of Goldthwait's solid direction, you're constantly aware of that fact. I can't wait to see what he'll do next. This picture will easily make it into my Top 10 this year, and maybe even the Top 5.
Terrific movie. Highly recommended.

2009-12-18T09:34:00.002-05:00

Dan O'Bannon
1946-2009
(Writer of Alien, and writer/director of the horror comedy classic Return of the Living Dead - which is, for my money, one of the best horror films ever)

Next post: Hal Ashby

2009-12-01T00:00:00.003-05:00

I know, I know... Long time, no post... But my next one will be totally worth it:
I'm doing a retrospective on Hal Ashby, one of my all-time favorite directors, who in the 1970's was able to produce an incredible streak of films. In the years 1971-1979, he directed Harold and Maude, The Last Detail, Shampoo, Bound for Glory, Coming Home, and Being There. Sure, we all love Scorsese and Altman, but being able to turn out six great (and sometimes amazing) films in a row is pretty incredible.
As a side note, I'll also talk a little bit about his life, which included being married and divorced twice (!) by the time he was 21, his notoriously reclusive nature, and how his constant drug use eventually forced him out of feature film work altogether. If ever a movie needed to be made, this is it - perfect biopic material. Problem is, nobody knows who the guy is...

Movies You May Have Missed - #11 Anything Else (2003)

2009-10-16T02:02:00.000-04:00

"Do you love me?"
"What a question! Just because I pull away when you try to touch me?"

In the long and prolific career of Woody Allen, it seems as if there have been two distinct camps of fans: The people who long for the "glory days" of vintage Woody from the '70s and 80's (and who have viewed most of his recent output as frivolous and disappointing), and the major devotees who wait for each Woody Allen film with anticipation and excitement, and usually come away from even one of his less-than-stellar films with something positive to say. I am - and always have been - firmly planted in the latter category. While most of his early-2000's work has been looked down upon with disdain, I've enjoyed most of them - especially the next movie we're about to cover.
Now, a word of note about this post: I usually include some video clips with the articles, but for this particular post, I went a little crazy. This write-up includes over 30 minutes of video, and while you're not required to watch them, of course, I do highly recommend it. There's some great material here.
Now, on to the movie:
Let's set the scene. It's 2003. At that time, Woody hadn't had a positively-reviewed film since 1999's Sweet and Lowdown with Sean Penn (which I also highly recommend, by the way). His three films since then - Small Time Crooks, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, and Hollywood Ending - had garnered mixed-to-bad reviews (personally I thought Crooks and Jade Scorpion were so-so, but I kind of liked Hollywood Ending). His next film, Anything Else, didn't fair much better with critics or audiences: reviews were pretty terrible and it only grossed $3 million on an $18 million budget. But I thought it was terrific. Critics didn't cry "comeback" until 2 years later with Match Point, but for me, this was Woody Allen's best film in years.
I will admit that this was the first Woody Allen film I saw theatrically, so for that reason it still holds a special place in my heart. But I know a good film when I see one, and this one definitely rises to that level. Above all else - the great dialogue, the interesting characters, the sharp direction - there's one main reason this film succeeds, however unlikely it may seem from first glance: It's a dead-on depiction of Borderline Personality Disorder. Seriously, it is. It's a fact that's never explicitly stated in the film, but anyone familiar with this behavior will spot it in a second. And most amazingly, it's very very funny.
The premise of the film involves Jerry Falk (Jason Biggs - American Pie), a young comedy writer who struggles with his sanity as Amanda, his emotionally unstable girlfriend (Christina Ricci - Buffalo '66) wreaks havoc in their lives. Mood swings, infidelity, and paranoia ensue, and through it all, he consults with David Dobel (Woody Allen), a fellow writer and friend who gives him fatherly advice.

Of course, the advice is not always sound - however well-intentioned it may be - because Dobel is quite the crazy character himself.

I've known some people who are Borderlines. It's basically Bipolar Disorder with some added elements like extreme impulsiveness and frequent sexual promiscuity. Christina Ricci nails the role. In this, her character's first scene, we're introduced to this girl's manic personality - although it barely skims the surface of all the chaos that brews underneath.

After this, we're shown how they first met, by way of flashback. Both characters were already in relationships of their own, but when Jerry meets Amanda, they begin a lengthy affair and they soon leave their significant others to be with each other instead. However, true to the Amanda character's impulsive, chaotic nature, the excitement that came with having the affair is gone when they actually start a relationship. Unable to have a stable, exclusive relationship, their sex life quickly suffers. Great scene here: one long take, tightly choreographed. Classic Woody Allen.

Interspersed throughout Jerry's trials and tribulations with Amanda are scenes chronicling his bonding with Dobel in their many walks through Central Park. Needless to say, this is some of the best stuff in the movie. Playing the role of the wise old man, it was refreshing to see that Woody had finally realized that he could no longer realistically play the love interest at his age. It was long overdue, and a welcome change of pace.

Meanwhile, Jerry tries to regain the "spark" in his relationship with Amanda, and hits upon the idea of renting a hotel room for the night, hoping it will stir some excitement in her and get her back into bed. Needless to say, things go horribly wrong:

And all the while, Woody's character Dobel delivers his special kind of paranoia-inducing advice (and in the process, delivers one of the best lines in the film, suggesting that this girl's hormones be used for "chemical warfare"):

Also entering the story is Amanda's mother (Stockard Channing), who begins staying in their apartment as she tries to get her life back together after a failed marriage. This is part of the real genius of the story. While most filmmakers would have been content with simply letting the "crazy girlfriend" story play out, Allen shows us where all of this insanity comes from, and how it's frequently passed down from generation to generation. Very observant, and totally spot-on. But the real genius is how this is all portrayed. We see that in this family, the parent/child roles were reversed, and it still goes on to this day:

Sure, this isn't a psychological case study we're watching here, but the basic motivations behind everything are totally factual. And that's what keeps everything grounded.
And here's a scene that I've included for no other reason than it's really funny, and something I thought I'd never ever see - Woody Allen destroying... well, you'll see...

The story continues on, through break-ups and fighting and infidelity, and you want nothing more than for this guy to finally realize what he's gotten himself into. But, as in real life, sometimes the few positive moments outshine the negative, and things become harder to judge. Like his narration states, you sometimes wish you could "freeze" a moment in time - but I suppose that if things were going the way they should, you wouldn't have to, because it would be an ongoing, continual thing that wouldn't have to be "frozen" at all.

I won't tell you whether they stay together or not, but I'll simply leave you with Woody's closing lines from the movie - some helpful words of advice, from a wise old man.

It still boggles my mind that this movie isn't more appreciated than it is. I've really only picked some of my favorite moments from the film; there's still loads of other great material there, including Danny DeVito in a great comic role as Jerry's agent, and a great little subplot involving Dobel's "survival kit" that he's been piecing together for years - should the end of the world happen to occur. A few people did actually see some merit in this film, including Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, who gave the picture "Two Thumbs Up" and really seemed to enjoy it. I'll end this post now with a clip of their review. Enjoy... and if this movie seems like it'll appeal to you, I'd highly recommend that you check it out.

EDIT: Someone just brought to my attention that this movie was recently listed on Quentin Tarantino's list of his favorite movies that have been released since 1992 (when he made his first film, Reservoir Dogs). Hmm... Great minds think alike? Possibly. *wink, wink*

2009-09-16T23:40:00.001-04:00

Henry Gibson
1935-2009

2009-09-15T08:14:00.001-04:00

Jim Carroll
1950-2009

Patrick Swayze
1952-2009

Movies You May Have Missed - #10 The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

2009-09-14T02:25:00.001-04:00

"You know what I expected? Applause. I was only 20 years old then, I couldn't see how it looked to people. I was surprised by what happened. They didn't applaud."

OK, let's set the scene:
It was a cold winter night in December of 2007 when I sat down to watch this movie. It has only happened to me a few times in my life, but this was one of those times when the theater was completely empty. I knew that this movie was getting mixed reviews and pretty terrible box office, but I couldn't have imagined that the theater would actually be empty... Anyway, I'll always remember this movie-going experience, for a couple of reasons: Not only was it a good movie, but walking out of the theater itself was particularly memorable...
This was the last showing of the night, at 10 PM. Since the movie is nearly 3 hours long, I didn't get out until about 1 AM. The forecast had called for a "dusting" of snow, but as most Mainers know, weathermen - especially around here - don't know anything. So I walked outside, having just seen this wonderful movie... and I discover that there's over a foot of snow covering everything. Under normal circumstances, this would have unleashed an avalanche of expletives. But on this night, all I could think about was the movie. Scenes ran through my head as I thought of the pitch-perfect performances, beautiful photography, and strong direction. But my biggest thought was a simple one: Why didn't more people see this?
Well, there's many reasons for that. The film's post-production turmoil was pretty widely discussed before its release, but here's a simplified run-down: Director Andrew Dominik and Warner Brothers clashed frequently during production, especially during editing. Dominik was making a slow, languid, Terrence Malick-esque mood western, and the studio had hoped the film would include more action and violence (no doubt due to the frenetic 3:10 to Yuma remake which had been released earlier that year - and had been a pretty sizable hit). Warner Brothers wasn't getting what they wanted, and after Dominik's original four-hour cut played at the Venice Film Festival and garnered the Best Actor award for Brad Pitt, Dominik suddenly had ammunition in his fight to get his cut released. However, Dominik (whose only prior directing credit was the independent film Chopper in 2000) didn't have the experience - or the clout - for contractual final cut. Warner could have conceivably done whatever they wanted, but, thankfully, Brad Pitt was the one major wrench in the works. Being a producer on the project and personally backing Dominik, Pitt was able to work with Warner to get most of Dominik's vision on screen. So Brad Pitt, apart from giving a great performance in the movie itself, is a big reason for its success. Since the studio wanted to keep a good relationship with him, they were basically prevented from screwing around with the movie and fucking it up. Even the movie's title (we'll get to the genius of the title later) - a constant point of contention with the studio - was unable to be changed: Brad Pitt had a clause put in his contract stating that he would only participate in the film if the title was not changed or shortened. Thank God for Brad Pitt.
But enough back-story - let's get to the movie itself. As it begins, there are no opening credits; not even a title. Based on a book by Ron Hansen, the movie uses copious narration as a framing device, and it's some really beautiful stuff. Lush and often quite majestic, most of it is taken straight from the book:

We are introduced to the title characters: Jesse James is the famous outlaw, and Robert Ford is the wide-eyed kid who has adored him since he was a child. Bob's older brother Charlie is part of Jesse's gang, and through him Bob somehow finagles his way into the group. Famously cautious and mistrusting of new people, Jesse sees something in Bob, and allows him to join in:

But for all his charm and mystique, Jesse is still a ruthless and calculating killer, and when he snaps, he's a truly frightening beast. This next sequence is one of Brad Pitt's best moments in the movie. A truly great piece of work, Pitt is able to capture the duality of the role beautifully. Now a middle-aged father of two, Jesse has slowly become disgusted with himself and his brutality over the years, most notably in this scene as he crosses the line when bullying a young boy for information:

Bob has also discovered the real Jesse, and has quickly become disillusioned. The man he idolized in his youth has been revealed to him, flaws and all, and it's not something he can easily accept. Here's a beautifully written scene in which Bob, comparing himself to Jesse, acknowledges that the Jesse he had admired was nothing more than boyhood fantasy. Bob speaks of this mythical figure of Jesse James as though he's already dead, and the sense of loss that Casey Affleck imbues in these words is really quite exceptional. With his hero all but gone, at least in his eyes, he's lost his sense of purpose...

...But when the sheriff makes Bob a proposition - a reward for Jesse's assassination - his sense of purpose is renewed, and he finally has his shot at glory: as the man who killed Jesse James. In the lead-up to the ending, here's a couple of great scenes...
The first is in the days leading up to the planned assassination. As you can see, Jesse has become more and more whacked-out... and dangerous.

And here's a great little sequence. As Bob prepares himself for the big day, he immerses himself one last time in Jesse's world.

Now we arrive at the last act of the movie, which is also my favorite section of the film. Bob has successfully completed his task, and he's now known as The Man Who Killed Jesse James. The narration tells us that at that time, his name was more well-known than that of the President. He and his brother Charlie portray Bob and Jesse, respectively, in a popular theater re-creation of the assassination for the stage. Hundreds of people make the pilgrimage across the country to visit the house where the assassination took place. Bob has finally made something of himself. The entire world finally knows his name.
But public opinion changes. The legend of Jesse James grows over the years, becoming a sort of fairy tale. The story now turns Jesse into a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. His dozens of murders are glossed-over, and the stories of those murders altered to fit the needs of this new history. Jesse James becomes an American Hero, and Robert Ford is now the Coward who murdered him. And this is where, finally, the absolute genius of that title comes into full view. Everything comes full circle, and that title, which before seemed to be simply a statement of fact, is turned completely upside down and becomes something else entirely. I don't need to spell it out for you - you get what it means. But I found it pretty damn powerful. It seems odd that something so simple as the title of a movie could affect me in such a way, but to see the story play out, and to see why the name of "Coward" given to Robert Ford is so wrong in so many ways... It really hit me. In a totally honest, primal way. Thank God that title wasn't changed.

Now we come to the last scene of the film. My usual warnings of Spoilers obviously apply here, but there's really no reason not to watch it - there's nothing you see here that you wouldn't discover by Googling "Robert Ford". There's really no need to comment on it - it's just extraordinary... very well done.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was nominated for two Academy Awards: Roger Deakins for his beautiful cinematography (he was nominated twice that year for Best Cinematography - for this, and also for No Country for Old Men), and a very well-deserved Supporting Actor nomination for Casey Affleck. Of course, if it was up to me, I would've thrown a whole load of other nominations in there for it as well, but I must especially point out the amazing score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis, which I'm sure you've noticed when watching these clips. It's definitely a well-acted and directed movie, but the score has a lot to do with the movie's impact. (A little bit of trivia - Nick Cave has a cameo as the saloon singer in one of the clips above).
I'd really like to see the full four-hour version eventually, although it seems unlikely given Dominik's rocky relationship with Warner Brothers. I love the film as it is, but there was over an hour of material that was cut! In particular, Zooey Deschanel's character was almost completely cut out- the last clip above contains nearly all of her screen time in the film. I may sound insane, but I could do another hour of this movie - easy.
As you can tell from this post, I really loved this movie. I loved it when it came out, and it only seems to get better every time I see it. It's obviously a long haul, but if you're into these kind of slow, languid, unhurried pictures (à la Terrence Malick) and you haven't seen it yet, you should definitely give it a try. Like I said, reviews were mixed-to-good, but it seems like one of those pictures that people really start to appreciate years later. I really only hit the main points in the review; there's lots of great stuff I didn't even mention, including great supporting performances by Sam Rockwell (Snow Angels) and the always-reliable Paul Schneider (Lars and the Real Girl). So, if it seems like your cup of tea, give it a shot.

Dancer in the Dark: An Appreciation

2009-09-01T02:04:00.003-04:00

"I used to dream that I was in a musical. Because in a musical, nothing dreadful ever happens."

Wow, I've just done it. It didn't take much. Just four little words. But I've just split this site's readers down the middle. Half of you love this film, and probably also its director, Lars von Trier. The other half of you despise it (and probably von Trier as well). But right from the start, I'll warn you that this is going to be a love-fest: I unabashedly love this film, and Lars von Trier as well. If you happen to hate the movie or the man, I'd advise you to skip this and wait for the next post, because this one will be completely devoid of any sort of negative criticism whatsoever. I love this movie, and Lars von Trier is brilliant.
There, we have that out of the way. Those of you who know nothing of the movie or this von Trier fellow are probably scratching their heads. Well, Lars von Trier is just about the most outspoken person on the planet. He has some fundamental problems with the United States, yet he has never been here (he blames this on his fear of flying), even though most of his recent films take place in the U.S. Does that make what he has to say any less relevant? Some think so. I don't. Sometimes to fully examine something, it takes an outsider looking in.
Dancer in the Dark is Lars von Trier's seventh film, and won both the Palme d'Or (Best Picture) and Best Actress at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival. Trier had previously won the Grand Prix (2nd Place) at Cannes in 1996 for Breaking the Waves. But the biggest thing this movie has to offer is the performance by Icelandic musician Björk, in her first (and only) major film role. I won't go into the problems she had with von Trier, as it's already been widely discussed, but apparently the experience of shooting the film was so demanding and emotionally exhausting that she's decided to never act again (although she's changed that story since). Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that we have an amazing performance here. Co-star Catherine Deneuve, explaining why Björk was so psychologically destroyed after filming, described her performance as "feeling" and not "acting". And that's why she's so good. It's rare to see someone completely baring their soul like she does in this film, and that's probably why this picture is so real - and devastating - despite the contrived plot. It's still amazing to me, 9 years later, that she wasn't nominated for a Best Actress Oscar.
The film takes place in Washington state in 1964 (although, obviously, it was shot in Trier's home country of Denmark). Björk plays Selma, a single mother who immigrates from Czechoslovakia with her young son in hopes of a better life. Selma has a condition in which she is slowly going blind, and since it's genetic, she knows her son will also eventually go blind. The United States has developed a procedure to cure this ailment, but it costs several thousand dollars, so Selma moves to the U.S. and spends hours a day toiling away in a factory, in hopes of acquiring enough money to cure her son's disease.
I know what you're thinking. You've just read the summary above, and you're thinking "Yeah, right". I admit, it looks pretty stupid and soap opera-ish on paper, but it really works. Sure, it requires a suspension of disbelief, and not everyone could pull something like this off, but I completely bought it. And I'll explain why:
It all starts at the beginning. This is a two-and-a-half hour movie, and this is a film that knows that. The first scene is a nearly four-minute musical overture, set to a constantly-dissolving set of abstract paintings. So right from the beginning, it feels big. It feels like an Event. I'm not gonna lie to you - I saw this film in the theater, and it was exciting.

So, after this scene we're introduced to Selma, who's practicing for an upcoming community theater production of The Sound of Music. Even with all the hardships in her life, she still has one outlet for happiness: Musicals.
We see her working in the factory, cheating on eye exams so she can continue working, the little house she lives in with her son, and the rich landlords who think they're doing something "nice" by cutting her a deal on the rent and letting her come over every once in a while to eat dinner in their big, expensive house. The man is a cop, and the wife stays at home and spends their money, putting them deeper and deeper in debt. Trier's depiction of American consumerism is a little on-the-nose, but shockingly accurate: The wife not only likes to spend, but also likes the ego-boost in seeing Selma's wide-eyed awe at the couple's wealth.
This all leads up to the scene that really starts everything. Bill, the landlord/police officer mentioned above, comes over late one night to discuss his financial troubles with Selma. She, in return, tells him of her blindness.

This is probably a good time to mention the technical aspects of the film. Lars von Trier again uses his tried-and-true method of handheld camerawork, coupled with copious cutting. I love this style when it's used well, and von Trier certainly knows how to use it to maximum effect. Others hate it, but then again... we're not talking about them, are we?
This film was also shot on video - one of the first large-scale productions to do so. Of course, we're not talking about the advanced HD cameras used today on films like Zodiac, but good, old fashioned DV tape. The camera used for the majority of the film was a more expensive professional model, while the musical sequences (in vivid color as opposed to the dark, grainy nature of the rest of the film) were shot by setting up many, many consumer-grade cameras (sometimes as many as 100) in predetermined spots and editing the footage together in quick succession to create fluidity. In my opinion, it was a terrific use of technology and meshed well with Trier's style of shooting.
So Selma continues her life, slaving away in the factory and practicing for the play. I haven't included a clip of it here, but scattered throughout the film are her "daydreams" - Hollywood-style musical numbers that take place entirely in her head, and serve to distance her from the depressing monotony her life has become.
But, of course, her gradual blindness eventually becomes too much. She struggles to do her work in the factory, and even has to give up her biggest love: the musical.

It's at this point that her landlord, desperate for money in his steadily increasing debt, steals Selma's life savings for himself. She confronts him, and it ends in his murder.
As you've probably realized by now, this is not a film whose merits can be easily explained with description. Sure, I can give you the simple nuts and bolts of the story, which (admittedly) doesn't sound like much. To get a real understanding for this film, you have to witness the power of Björk's performance, and to do that, I'll have to show you the ending. If that's not something you'd like to see now, than I'd advise you to skip to the end of the post, because herein lies SPOILERS...
Now we're in the last act of the picture, and Selma is on death row awaiting her execution. But in the quiet cell block, she's unable to escape into her fantasy world and is instead faced with bleak, harsh reality. Her last musical fantasy is devoid of the vivid colors and dancing as in the rest of the film: It's just a simple, grainy image of a broken woman and her music. It's beautiful and devastating, and you'll never look at "My Favorite Things" the same way again.

Now we arrive at the last scene of the film. I've always believed the last scene of a movie is just as important as the beginning, and this ending is just about as good as you can get. Selma sings, and she's back in her world, although this time, we don't join her. Simply put, we don't need to. Everything plays out on Björk's face, and the emotional power with which she sings these final lyrics is more than what most actors can do with ordinary dialogue. This is what real musical acting is all about - the people who thought Jennifer Hudson was deserving of her Dreamgirls Oscar obviously never saw this movie. And then a simple crane up, in complete silence. Beautiful.

I know I've repeated the word "devastating" in this post several times, but that's the best way I can describe it. It's a hard movie to watch at times, and it leaves you emotionally drained at the end, but it's a real Experience, and that's hard to come by these days. I can see why some people feel that Lars von Trier was trying to manipulate his audience with this picture, and to tell you the truth, I agree. But you know what? I bought it. The whole damn thing. Every last word. A movie should make you feel something, whether it be sadness, or joy, or anger. When a filmmaker goes the extra mile and attempts to get these sort of genuine reactions from an audience, that's commendable. But when a film actually succeeds at this, it's something special.

Out of the loop...

2009-08-12T21:44:00.002-04:00

Man, I was without a computer for about two weeks, I log on tonight and see that John Hughes died! Holy shit.
I imagine it was probably mentioned on the news at some point, but it's still maddening (and somewhat sickening) that there's been hundreds of hours of coverage of Michael Jackson's death, and Hughes only gets a cursory mention? I realize it's not David Mamet we're talking about here, but this is still the guy that gave us The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller and countless other classic movies. I grew up a little after Hughes's prime, but for many high school kids in the 80's, this guy was God. And with just a quick glance at his filmography, you can certainly see why.

John Hughes
1950-2009

2009-07-17T23:35:00.000-04:00

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Attention HITCHCOCK Fans -- AWESOME DVD Deal

2009-07-11T00:05:00.001-04:00

I rarely ever post anything about DVD deals online, but this was too huge to ignore...
Is anybody out there a fan of Alfred Hitchcock? If you are, DO NOT PASS UP this awesome deal I just came across tonight:
Over at Amazon.com (where they're having a HUGE DVD box-set sale, by the way) they have the 15-disc "Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection" on sale for HALF OFF the normal price of $120.00 - it's only $62.00!!
You get 14 films - that's only $4.40 per movie - plus a 15th disc of bonus material (not to mention movie-specific bonus material on each disc).

The movies included are:
Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, Family Plot, Frenzy, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Marnie, Rope, Saboteur, Topaz, Torn Curtain, The Trouble with Harry

Link to the Amazon listing is here.

I already own about half of these, but it's totally worth it to buy the set, sell/trade the double copies, and have a nice-looking set on the shelf.
So, act fast and grab it before it sells out... good luck!

Movies You May Have Missed - #9 Angus (1995)

2009-07-05T23:44:00.000-04:00

"Superman isn't brave... he's indestructible. And you can't be brave if you're indestructible."

Well, here we are... one of my all-time favorite movies. I really have a soft spot for this one. I suppose part of the reason for that is that I saw it in the theater when it was originally released, and watched it many times on video when I was growing up. However, I revisited this movie about five or six years ago and found that not only does it hold up surprisingly well, but also that my fondness for it is rooted not only in nostalgia... this is a great movie.
I'll start this right off the bat by pointing out the sad, disappointing truth: This movie is not available on DVD. Yes, that's right. We're in 2009, and this great little movie is STILL not on disc. Apparently, rights issues have held up the release, but more on that later. Needless to say, the clips below are from my VHS copy of the movie, currently the only way to see it.
Angus is the story of an overweight high school boy (the title character), who, when picked as the "Winter Ball King" at the upcoming school dance as a prank by his nemesis Rick Sandford (James Van Der Beek, in his first major role), decides to actually go through with it for the chance to dance with Melissa (Ariana Richards - Jurassic Park), the girl he's had a life-long, unspoken infatuation with.
Now, wait. Let's stop right there. I know what you're thinking. How many times have we seen that before? The answer: way too many. Although the story doesn't really have anything new to offer, the characters shine, and that's the real reason to see this film. Angus was played by first-time actor Charlie Talbert, who was discovered by the director at a Wendy's restaurant, goofing around with a friend as they waited in line. He truly is a revelation. Talbert never really went on to do much after this, but he really was amazing in this role, and I'd like to see him make a comeback.
The other two reasons for the film's success are director Patrick Read Johnson and writer Jill Gordon. Johnson had previously directed two mainstream comedies, Spaced Invaders and Baby's Day Out, but it's obvious that he was working on a more personal level here, and that passion continuously shines through. Gordon, a former television writer for shows like My So-Called Life and thirtysomething, adapted a short story by Chris Crutcher into this feature. The fact that she was involved with My So-Called Life says it all, and needless to say she brings lots of nice little realistic touches to this story of high school life.
After a pre-title sequence in which we see Angus grow up through the years, we join him in the present day, where he and his best friend Troy (Chris Owen - American Pie) are both on the school's football team, yet are still unappreciated. This title sequence, set to Love Spit Love's "Am I Wrong", is a wonderful opening to the film, and sets just the right tone - humor and honesty, with a little bit of heartbreak thrown in:

This is probably a good time to point out the music in the film. Although the movie itself was far from a hit, the soundtrack was a bestseller. Filled with songs from alternative bands like Weezer and Green Day, the music is stellar. Below, here's a scene featuring great use of the Goo Goo Dolls song "Ain't That Unusual". It's also a great example of the direction in the film; this short sequence is obviously evocative of the character's isolation, and gets this point across efficiently and effectively:

And here's a montage sequence featuring Green Day's song "J.A.R. (Jason Andrew Relva)", which they wrote specifically for the film:

Now it's time to talk about the two biggest tricks this movie has up its sleeve: Oscar winners George C. Scott and Kathy Bates. Playing Angus's grandfather and mother, respectively, Scott and Bates both deliver great performances in a short amount of screen time (although they are, quite understandably, first-billed). Most of their work is done separately, but this is the second of their two scenes together, which I've always found quite moving:

Apparently, from what I've read online, the original cut of Angus was quite different from the final version. In the original short story (which I've never read) both of Angus's parents are gay, and the film was shot with this story structure intact. Eventually, however, perhaps due to test screenings or some other reason, this was changed, and Angus's opening narration explains that his father died of a heart attack when his mother was in labor. That's all fine with me, since these changes meant the beefing-up of the grandfather character, and the addition of fine scenes like this one, in which Scott explains to Angus that "Superman isn't brave". Great stuff.

Here's another music sequence, set to Peter Gabriel's "Washing of the Water". It's a scene following a main character's death (which, although I won't reveal who, you can probably figure it out), and it's all done very well: simple and beautiful, with no dialogue.

And finally, Angus gets his "moment" as he dances with Melissa. The best-ever use of Mazzy Star's wonderful (and overplayed) "Fade Into You". A heartbreakingly short moment of triumph for Angus after all the trials and tribulations throughout the film, but that's how it should be, because after all, that's how it really is.

Although it was barely a blip on the radar when it was released back in 1995, Angus has steadily grown a cult following over the years, leading many to ask "What gives?" of the movie's non-presence on DVD. Apparently there was a huge movie-rights snafu somewhere along the line: The movie was a production of Ted Turner's short-lived Turner Pictures, but was distributed by New Line. As the story goes, the film is still under copyright by Turner Pictures, but New Line thought that they were the owners of the film when they sold the rights to the movie years ago. Neither of the companies remember who they sold the rights to, and no one has stepped forward to claim they own it. So the only reason that this film is unavailable (even the VHS is out-of-print) is that someone lost some paperwork. Hopefully this will be cleared up at some point.
But as the many fans of this film know, we're just glad that it's available at all. Although the humor can be a little broad at times (probably in an attempt to appeal to a young audience), Angus gets so many things right that it's easy to look past its faults. It came from the heart and swung for the fences, and although it really is a simple little story about a big kid who dreams of being anything other than himself, it was told with such honesty and warmth and affection for its characters that it has found a steadily increasing audience, grateful for the conviction of the filmmakers in presenting us a warm, admirable and memorable character named Angus.

If you'd like to see Angus released on DVD, please sign the petition here. Although this is unlikely to single-handedly influence a studio to release it, every little bit helps.

2009-07-04T00:02:00.000-04:00

Karl Malden
1912-2009

Harve Presnell
1933-2009

2009-06-26T21:04:00.000-04:00

Michael Jackson
1958-2009

Oscar’s Best Picture Nominees Will Expand to Ten

2009-06-24T16:08:00.002-04:00

In the Best Picture category, instead of five nominees and one winner, next year there will be ten nominees and one winner.

Read article here:
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/breaking-oscars-best-picture-nominees-will-expand-to-ten

My opinion? This is way too little, way too late...
The Academy needs a complete restructuring, right from the bottom up, with the addition of new categories like an Academy Award for CASTING, not to mention a change in the rules for who actually gets to be an Academy member (if an Academy member dies before their ten-year term as a voter is up, the privilege of voting often goes to a family member or spouse, even if they're not involved in the industry).
Oh well, at least they're doing something, I guess...

Movies You May Have Missed - #8 Roger Dodger (2002)

2009-06-10T08:03:00.022-04:00

As always, Facebook users need to click "View Original Post" to see the video clips.
Also, regarding the clips themselves: All of them contain varying amounts of strong language and/or semi-graphic sexual dialogue - so it's probably best to consider them NSFW.

Writer/director Dylan Kidd's debut feature Roger Dodger never really got the kind of attention it deserved when it was released back in 2002. But with its terrific, memorable dialogue and fascinating insight into human sexuality and loneliness, Kidd's film was able to garner critical acclaim, several awards, and a well-deserved place among many of 2002's "Best-of" lists.
Campbell Scott (Singles) plays the titular Roger, a perpetual bachelor whose life has always revolved around himself - and, by extension, his many women. A well-educated and intelligent man with an uncanny ability to quickly size-up anyone around him, he's been able to implement this talent into a successful career as an advertising executive, where he coerces people into playing a sort of "substitution game", as they attempt to fill the insufferable "voids" in their lives by purchasing material things.
There's only one thing Roger enjoys more than women: Hearing himself talk. Roger's a man with an answer for everything, and he wants to make sure you've heard every single word of it. This, of course, is where Dylan Kidd's amazing dialogue comes into play. I present to you the opening scene of the movie:

After watching the above clip, there's probably one thing that stood out for you even more than the deft wordplay... I'm talking, of course, of the camerawork. Now, this has proven to be a real sore spot with people. Even those who praised the dialogue and performances had a real problem with the constantly-moving, intentionally "shaky" hand-held camera. Me? I loved it. I thought it was perfect. It's a bold choice (the entire film is shot this way) - but for me, it's the perfect visual embodiment of Roger's chain-smoking, loose-cannon, shoot-from-the-hip character. The one sequence where the camera is locked off - a single shot near the end of the film - is a great pay-off, suggesting his character's growth and maturity. Of course, there were other technical and budgetary reasons behind the movie's style, but we'll get to that later...
So, from that first scene, we're introduced to the kind of person that Roger is, and has been, for quite some time. But Roger, now in his late 30's, has been flirting with stability. He's been in a relationship with his boss, Joyce (Isabella Rossellini), for an extended period of time. We sense that, with him reaching middle age and she being nearly twenty years older than him, he's grown content - perhaps even comfortable - with the arrangement. But his world is about to come crashing down.
Joyce dumps him, and Roger, enraged and at a loss for what to do next, returns to the late-night bar-hopping ways of which he's most familiar. We see him eyeing a girl across the room, and we think we know what's about to occur. But then Kidd's screenplay surprises us:

He obviously sees a parallel between these women and his own situation. But, feeling deeply hurt and betrayed, he's unable (or unwilling) to care about anyone or anything other than himself, and so he sets out to destroy them, so that he''ll be able to feel - if only for a moment - a little bit better about himself.
It's at moments like this when you realize how amazing the writing and direction - and especially Campbell Scott's performance - really are, because all of this is, at face value, some really fucked-up shit... But it's funny as hell, and you can't wait to see what will happen next.
What does happen next is not only a surprise, but the perfect place for the film to go. Roger's 16-year-old nephew, Nick (Jesse Eisenberg -The Squid and the Whale) drops by for a visit. The primary reason for Nick's New York trip is apparently some college interviews, but we quickly learn that he has other intentions: He's come for some much-needed advice from Roger...

The above sequence was shot in Times Square (only a month after 9/11), with no permits, and very little money. It was accomplished by placing the camera in a van, parked on the street, and placing a "shade" in the van's window which would allow the camera to see out, but no one else to see in. An obvious case of form following function, you can now see a main reason for the film's handheld look. The scene above was shot in the only way possible for the budget available: Throwing the two leads out into a sea of real people, and quickly framing-out of the picture the many, many people who have not signed releases to be in the film. But because they've started the film's bold camerawork from the very first scene, this sequence, admittedly chaotic from a cinematographic perspective, doesn't feel out of place.
So, without going much further and giving anything away, I'll mention that the film goes on to even more amazing dialogue and an incredible, nearly 30-minute sequence consisting entirely of four characters around a table. I'll leave it at that.
This picture, while not a huge success, was far from a failure. Its final gross was $1.2 million on a somewhat low budget. I've never been able to find an exact number on the budget, but it was not nominated for the Independent Spirit Awards' John Cassavetes Award (best film made for less than $500,000) so I'd guess that the budget was somewhere between that and $1 million.
The movie's real success was on the awards circuit: It won Best First Film at the Venice Film Festival, Best Narrative Feature Film at the Tribeca Film Festival, and (most surprisingly) Best Actor for Campbell Scott from the National Board of Review.
Dylan Kidd never really ended up delivering on the promise of this picture... His follow-up, P.S., starring Laura Linney, was based on a novel and was co-scripted by the novel's author and Kidd. A good film, but a complete 180-degree turn from Roger Dodger, and it only grossed $175,000.
So, in summation: Great movie, completely worth your time, not quite as dark as I may have made it seem from the comments and clips, and very, very funny.
(I should also mention that Spike Lee in 2005 named Roger Dodger as one of his "favorite films of the decade so far", alongside films like Brokeback Mountain and Requiem for a Dream.)

Baby reacts to "Where the Wild Things Are" Trailer

2009-06-09T20:39:00.002-04:00

This has got to be the cutest thing I've ever seen:
A one-year-old boy reacting to the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are.
I guess the studio shouldn't have had any worries about the movie not appealing to kids...
Here it is:

Trailer Reaction from We Love You So on Vimeo.

2009-06-04T11:07:00.000-04:00

David Carradine
1936-2009

Movies You May Have Missed - #7 Jack the Bear (1993)

2009-05-29T01:06:00.002-04:00

Wow, it's really been almost a month since I've posted anything? Crazy how time flies. Here's a new post for ya:
(As always, Facebook users must click "View Original Post" to see the clips)

Movies You May Have Missed #7:
Jack the Bear (1993)
Marshall Herskovitz has been responsible - in the form of either producer, writer, or director - for three of the best television shows of all time: Family (1976-1980), thirtysomething (1987-1991), and My So-Called Life (1994). After thirtysomething and before MSCL, Herskovitz made his feature directorial debut with this very likable little film.
Based on a novel by the same name, Jack the Bear centers on John Leary (Danny DeVito, in what is probably still his best-ever performance), a father who, after the death of his wife in a car accident, struggles to care for his two young sons: twelve-year-old Jack and three-year-old Dylan (Robert J. Steinmiller Jr. and Miko Hughes, respectively).
In an attempt to give the family a fresh start, he moves with his boys to a close-knit, suburban community in Oakland, California. John - a kid-at-heart with some genuine comic ability - accepts a job as a late-night horror movie show host for a local TV station. The kids in the neighborhood, aware of his antics on the show, frequently knock on his door and ask him to play "the monster", chasing them around the yard as he pretends to be the character from his show. Behind closed doors, however, his title of "the monster" is, unfortunately, quite apt: He's a long-time alcoholic who's given to fits of rage while intoxicated. Since the death of his wife, the situation has gone from bad to worse, and since he's frequently drunk or hungover, older son Jack is forced to shoulder much of the responsibility for both the household, and his young brother Dylan.
This is a film that has somehow, over the years, fallen through the cracks. Reviews were mixed when it was released, and although it wasn't a total commercial bomb, it was far from successful (it grossed just over $5 million on a $3 million budget). With a wonderfully nuanced and touching performance from DeVito, and two of the most remarkable performances by young actors in quite some time, this is a film that's long overdue for a serious reevaluation.
The pedigree of the talent alone speaks volumes. Apart from Herskovitz, we have a great score by James Horner, and a script by future Oscar-winner Steven Zaillian (Schindler's List) who adapted Dan McCall's novel for the screen. Zaillian is able to strike a great balance between humor and sentiment, and succeeds in the difficult task of making DeVito's character sympathetic and likable. He's a flawed person, to be sure, but his character is so well-defined and anchored in reality that it makes both his inner-torment believable, and his eventual redemption emotionally satisfying. Very well-done.

And yes, that is a young Reese Witherspoon. The idea of young love is handled very well in this picture, by the way - just the right mix of awkwardness and longing and what-have-you. Set in 1972 Oakland, CA, the film also has a great sense of time and place. The feeling of a close-knit community is pretty spot-on, too; the neighborhood and its quirky inhabitants add another nice layer to the film.

Which brings us to the final act. It's the section of the picture that was most criticized. Without giving too much away, I'll briefly summarize: Throughout the film, in Jack's narration, we're introduced to a character named Norman Strick (played by the always-reliable Gary Sinise). He's quiet, lives alone, and keeps to himself. Needless to say, the children in the neighborhood find him to be pretty, well... creepy. On Halloween night, Norman stops by the Leary house, and shocks John by his actions in the following sequence:
(Oh yeah, word of caution: the following scene features some strong language. Nothing overly crude, but there are some racial epithets that some may find offensive)

So, yeah... the guy's a Nazi racist. Good times, eh?
Anyway, after a few twists and turns which I will not reveal here, the youngest son - 3-year-old Dylan - is kidnapped. This threatens to tear the family apart, as his deceased wife's parents (who've frequently voiced their disapproval of John's parenting because of his alcoholism) threaten to take the children away, as they believe he can no longer adequately care for them. And this all leads to a "showdown" of sorts - but probably not the kind you're expecting.
I'll be the first to admit that this last act is pretty unconventional. Most critics totally hated it. Even reviewers who had liked the film up until that point made sure to voice their displeasure. Loudly. But does it work? In my opinion... most definitely. Sure, it gets a little Hollywood-ized in this section, but the ending sure doesn't wrap everything up neatly with a ribbon and bow. It ends on a note of melancholy, with the distinct feeling that, while things have changed for the moment, and their lives have reached some sort of level of understanding and acceptance, it's going to take a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of love. And that's the way it should be, because anything less would be a cop-out.

Wow.

2009-05-01T00:10:00.007-04:00

Anybody else happen to catch the trailer for Spike Jonze's upcoming film Where the Wild Things Are?
Stop whatever you're doing right now and check it out below.
It looks AMAZING. Never read the book when I was younger, but I'm definitely excited for this. It's Spike's first film since Adaptation in 2002.
(Oh, and this is the HD version, so be sure to switch to full-screen mode and turn that sound up loud!)

Lots of behind-the-scenes drama on this one:

It was originally set up at Universal, but Spike and the studio had the classic "creative differences" and he took it to Warner Brothers.
It's been in production since 2006 (that's when it started shooting - although some reports have said that filming began a year earlier in 2005) and is just now being finished.
In an effort to give the film the surrealistic quality he wanted, Spike shot the majority of the film outside in the Australian wilderness. As most special effects-heavy pictures are shot inside on soundstages to provide more control over elements such as weather, the decision to shoot outside caused constant delays.
Reports say that the estimated budget of $80 million may have ballooned to a figure of $115 million.
Apparently, when the finished film was turned in to the studio last year, executives were shocked by what they saw - a dark, brooding picture that was deemed to be largely "inaccessible" to a family audience. They considered firing Jonze, hiring another director, and re-shooting the entire film, but instead he went back and completed several months of re-shoots in an effort to appease the studio and reach a satisfactory "middle-ground" in terms of tone and content. The release date was subsequently rescheduled from late 2008 to October of this year.

So, obviously, if most of the above rumors are true, Spike Jonze will probably never be given that kind of budget again. Hopefully he was able to get most of what he wanted onto the screen. But regardless, that trailer makes it all look pretty damn incredible.

2009-04-29T23:48:00.002-04:00

Hey guys, just a quick post tonight - somebody wanted me to re-post this:

"The Great Movies"
I made this about 2 years ago. Took me about 3 nights to complete - most of that time was spent ripping the clips from the various movies. Full list of movies can be found below the video.
(As always, Facebook users have to click "View Original Post" to see the video.)

Score by Jerry Goldsmith (theme from "Rudy")

Clips from the following movies used in this video (in order):
Night of the Hunter
Breathless
Rain Man
Easy Rider
The Seventh Seal
The Shawshank Redemption
Brazil
Platoon
Fargo
Casablanca
The 400 Blows
2001: A Space Odyssey
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Midnight Cowboy
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Jaws
Rocky
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
On the Waterfront
Rebel Without a Cause
All Quiet on the Western Front
Fanny and Alexander
Harold and Maude
Back to the Future
Network
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
The Godfather
Dr. Strangelove
North by Northwest
A Clockwork Orange
12 Angry Men
Raging Bull
Apocalypse Now
Do the Right Thing
Annie Hall
Kramer vs. Kramer
Full Metal Jacket
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
A Christmas Story
The Graduate
Taxi Driver
The Shining
Citizen Kane
The Wild Bunch
Cinema Paradiso
The Godfather, Part II
Apollo 13
Seven Samurai
Mean Streets
The Bicycle Thief
It's a Wonderful Life
To Kill a Mockingbird
A Streetcar Named Desire
Chinatown
The Searchers
Schindler's List

American High

2009-04-22T00:26:00.030-04:00

Note: Facebook users have to click "View Original Post" to see the video clips.
Also, some of the clips below contain (mostly bleeped) strong language.

Today we're going to talk not about a movie, but instead a television series. The series in question is American High, a show that was briefly aired on Fox in the summer of 2000 (who airs a show about high school in the summer?) but canceled after only four episodes. Created by R.J. Cutler (who later went on to produce Morgan Spurlock's FX show 30 Days), American High was a documentary series presented in 30 minute episodes, in which we follow fourteen Illinois high school students (mostly Seniors) throughout a single year. Sound ambitious? Just wait, there's more... Along with the obligatory camera crew following the kids around, Cutler made the decision to equip each kid with their own DV camera, with which they would shoot their own footage. Originally meant only for shooting "Video Diary" segments which would be used later in editing for a narrative framing device, eventually the kids went off on their own and shot additional, non-"Diary" footage. The result was one of the most captivating, intimate, and honest looks into teenage life ever captured on film. I present to you the beginning of the first episode:

Wow. Brilliant, right? That has got to be one of the most amazing openings for a show, ever. Talk about setting the tone for a series...
So, anyway, Cutler produced 13 episodes of the show (including a one-hour finale), although only four ended up airing on Fox that summer. I was one of the few who watched those first episodes on Fox (it was the lowest-rated program on the network that year - ouch), and man, was I disappointed when it was canceled... Luckily, however, a year later PBS picked up the show and broadcast the entire 13 episodes over a several-week period (although they only aired it during those weeks and never re-aired it). Fortunately, I was able to record the entire series on videotape. Since it's never been officially released on DVD or any other format, this past week I started backing up my old tapes to DVD, and so I figured now would be a good time to share it with you all.
Each half-hour episode usually focused on 5-8 of the kids, and the opening credits were subtly different in each show, crediting the ones who appeared. The main subjects included:

Morgan (featured in the video above) - A somewhat childish, reckless teen suffering from ADD, who constantly struggles to pass his classes in his Senior year.
Brad - A gay Senior who has kept his sexuality secret until only six months previous, when he decided to "come out" in the middle of his Junior year. He's also the only openly gay student in the entire school.
Robby - Brad's straight friend, also a Senior, known around school for being a "jock", but who has much more going on underneath the surface.
Sarah - Robby's girlfriend, who, in her Junior year, struggles with the fact that Robby is graduating at the end of the year and moving away for college.
Allie - A Senior who ditched four months of school last year and may not graduate. Her home life is also in turmoil, with parents who are divorcing and her father set to marry the woman he left his wife for.
Kiwi - Kicker on the school's football team, who is looking forward to playing for a college team next year.
Anna - Kiwi's long-time friend, who, despite being beautiful and single, is perpetually boyfriend-less, mostly due to an overprotective father - who is also pressuring her to attend his alma mater, Brown University, next year.
Pablo - Born in Ecuador and moved with his mother to the U.S. when he was young. His mother's been divorced twice, and he lives with her and his young half-sister. A talented writer, poet, and photographer, he's also well-known amongst school administrators for his frequent troublemaking and drug involvement. In a surprising turn of events, near the end of the series, he considers enlisting in the Marines instead of going to college next year.
Suzy - A shy, insecure Senior whose one joy in life is singing. With ambitions of one day becoming an opera singer, and her fluctuating weight a constant damper on her self-esteem, she decides to basically give up on a high school "social life" and spend her Senior year refining her craft and pursuing her dream.
Kaytee - One of the few Juniors chronicled in the series. A talented singer and songwriter, she really hasn't pursued this avenue seriously until this year, when she starts recording demos and performing in small gigs around town.

These are the main kids in the series, and the last four - Tiffany, Scott, Abby, and Jon - are really just background characters, and/or friends of the others. So, from that list above, you can see there really is a true diversity in the kids that were chosen, and an opportunity for viewers to find at least one person they can identify with.
From just a basic filmmaking perspective, there must have been an insane amount of footage to go through. The two film crews alone shot several hours of footage a day, seven days a week, for the entire school year (9 months). Then, add in the fact that you have an additional 14 cameras out there in the field, also shooting several hours of footage a day. That's over 75,000 hours of footage in total. Wow. That's crazy.
But it was also totally worth it. Take the scene below, for example. Morgan, using his "video diary" camera in a decidedly different way: walking around the house as his parents yell at him.

This is the show at its most unique, cinéma vérité best. People tend to clam up when a professional camera crew is around; whether it's intentional or not, it's completely natural. But that's not the case when it's just "a kid with a camera". Because of this, the show is full of great moments like the one above, whether it be nice little moments of happenstance, or late-night confessions by the kids, lying in their bed and lit only by a flashlight.
The professional crew was also able to capture great footage; just check out this scene below:

Immensely relatable, completely honest, and very, very funny.
And one of my favorite moments from the series - Allie singing along to Steve Miller's "The Joker" in her car. She follows right along, but trails off during the line "I sure don't want to hurt no one..." I'm probably reading too much into it, but I love it:

Because PBS airs programs with no commercials, and the episodes don't quite fill up an entire half-hour block (they're 22 minutes) when the series was picked up by them the following year, we also got a great bonus: R.J. Cutler filled up the extra time by producing new five-minute segments that aired after each episode. Titled "Stories From the Field", each segment deals with certain behind-the-scenes aspects of the show, including interviews with many of the producers and some never-before-seen footage. Here's the first segment, which aired after the first episode:

So, yeah... a wonderful, criminally underseen show that deserves to be rediscovered (and hopefully released one day on DVD - although I think music-rights issues will prevent that from happening for a while; there's lots of contemporary, popular music on that show). I will eventually post all the episodes up online in their full form, and post a message here to let you guys know when that happens.
I should also mention that American High won the Emmy for Best Non-Fiction Program, based solely on the four episodes that aired, and not the complete thirteen. It was nominated again the following year for the same award, this time for the rest of the episodes that had finally aired on PBS. (Unfortunately, this award has been re-named "Best Reality TV Program", and now counts shows like Extreme Makeover among its winners.)
It's not perfect - it sometimes suffers from "TV-itis", with melodramatic music and longing shots of teens looking at the horizon... and the middle episodes sometimes suffer from character overload, but for a 6-plus hour documentary production, it really is an amazing achievement, and one of the best programs ever produced for American television. It deserves, in my opinion, to be mentioned right up alongside Hoop Dreams as one of the best documentaries ever made.

(Postscript: R.J. Cutler returned to similar territory in 2003 with Freshman Diaries for Showtime, which followed first-year college students. Good program, but not as memorable.
Also, even though PBS only aired it once, its website for American High is, amazingly, still up. It's located here. Also, the AH page on Cutler's official company website, Actual Reality Pictures, is here.)

Movies You May Have Missed - #6 Matinee (1993)

2009-04-10T00:37:00.002-04:00

Note: Facebook users have to click "View Original Post" to see the video clips.

"When I was in film school, I was the only kid wearing a Roger Corman button. Everybody else had a Jean-Luc Godard button. So I was a fan. I grew up watching Roger's pictures. I always thought he was a great filmmaker."
-Joe Dante

Matinee is director Joe Dante's love letter to the movies - and, more specifically, the "B movie" genre of the 50's and 60's. It's also one of the best matches of director and screenplay that you'll probably ever see.
Out of all the films I've talked about on this site, this is probably the one you're least likely to have seen. Not by virtue of its quality, but simply the fact that it's been out of print, in every format - VHS, laserdisc, and DVD - for over ten years. Used copies usually sell for over $50, and a brand new, sealed DVD of this film can easily go for $200. It's a shame, because it's one of Joe Dante's best films.
Set in Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, Matinee stars John Goodman (in one of his best performances) as Lawrence Woolsey, a small-time film promoter who makes - what else? - monster movies. He's trying to sell his latest picture, MANT!, a cheesy horror film in which nuclear radiation turns a man into - you guessed it - a half-man, half-ant creature. In an effort to sell his movie to theater owners, he decides to preview the film with audiences. And what better place than in Key West, Florida, where the residents are frozen with fear at the potential of nuclear destruction. They're already scared, and Woolsey thinks his monster movie just might be enough to push everyone over the edge, and turn his film into an enormous hit.
In all honesty, this movie is a mess. There's secondary characters and subplots all over the place, and most of the running time consists of a bland teen romance. But it's all worth it to see Dante's unabashed tribute to the movies.

Having grown up on Roger Corman's films, and having started his career on Corman pictures such as Piranha, Dante knows this material well. He knows the appeal of these films, and the reason for that appeal. While poking good-natured fun at the low production value and bad acting in these pictures, he never looks down on them. He knows they're just as valid as anything else. And that's why almost everything in the film rings true.

Matinee was co-written by Charlie Haas, who had earlier worked with Dante on Gremlins 2. Something special seems to happen when these guys get together. In the case of the earlier film, Warner Brothers was in desperate need of a sequel to Gremlins, and begged Dante to make another one, after several other directors had turned them down. Dante agreed to make the film on one condition: that he be allowed to do whatever he wanted. The result of this was one of the most insane studio pictures ever made. Filled with vicious satire and an off-the-wall tone akin to a live-action cartoon, this second Gremlins film was the rare chance for Dante to completely let loose. Dante and Haas have managed to re-capture some of that magic here, and not surprisingly, both films are very similar in form and function: A wafer-thin plot, which serves only to place the characters in a situation that Dante can riff on for the rest of the film.
With Corman as his inspiration and his idol, Dante has made a career out of making the films he's always loved: low-budget monster movies. The only difference is that he's somehow been able to make them in Hollywood with millions of dollars of their money. And this is his tribute to the old days, when cheesy monsters and a well-timed buzzer under the seat could still give someone a cheap thrill. People will probably always remember Joe Dante for films like Gremlins and The Howling, but the rest of us, the ones who really understand what he's all about, will always remember Matinee as his magnum opus.

Oh, and remember: Keep your eyes open for the scary parts...

Movies You May Have Missed - #5 The Cure (1995)

2009-03-25T22:54:00.001-04:00

Note: Facebook users have to click "View Original Post" to watch the video clip.

This little forgotten film from 1995 stars Joseph Mazzello (Jurassic Park) and the late Brad Renfro (The Client, Sleepers) as two young boys who set off down the Mississippi River to find a cure for AIDS, a disease which the Mazzello character suffers from. This story could have been ripe fodder for a bad TV movie, but instead becomes much more.
Peter Horton, a frequent TV director of shows like thirtysomething and The Wonder Years, made his first and only theatrical feature with this film, and it's a shame that he's yet to make another. His direction is confident and assured, and he shows a particular strength for directing the young actors in the film. The screenplay by Robert Kuhn thankfully sidesteps melodrama and theatrics, and remains simple, nuanced, and deeply moving. So it's similarly puzzling that Kuhn has also disappeared from features, having co-written only one film since this.
Mazzello and Renfro are terrifically cast, and are able to lift already good scenes off the page and turn them into sensational, heartbreaking moments.
This movie was barely a blip on the radar back in 1995, barely making back its minuscule $3 million budget. But today it stands, in my opinion, right up alongside Stand By Me as one of the best films about childhood - and friendship - ever made.

Benjamin Button on Criterion too? Yes!

2009-03-19T23:51:00.006-04:00

Wow. Pretty rare for a new-release title to debut on the Criterion label (except of course for Wes Anderson's movies), but I'm extremely happy that Button's going to be a Criterion release.
This was first reported over at The Digital Bits - visit the site for release info and cover artwork. I must also say I'm really happy with the cover artwork. It's a variation of the original poster, but it's nice and simple. Hope it stays that way.
It only sucks that The Wrestler is stuck over on the Fox Searchlight label. The DVD will only contain a few featurettes, and NO COMMENTARY from Aronofsky. Really sucks.

My Dinner With Andre coming to DVD - from CRITERION!!

2009-03-18T23:03:00.001-04:00

Hey guys, I've been busy lately, so I haven't been posting that much. But the next few days you'll see some interesting stuff, mostly some older movies I've revisited lately after having not seen them in a while.
But anyway, the real reason for this post is the news I discovered this evening:
The awesome 1981 film My Dinner With Andre (starring Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn, and directed by Louis Malle) is FINALLY coming back to DVD via the amazing people over at the Criterion Collection (www.criterion.com). Now, this movie was actually released on DVD before, back in 1998, but then went out of print. It was not uncommon the last couple of years to see a used copy of the DVD selling for over $200 online. I (thankfully) resisted the urge to buy it, and now the best DVD company in the business has it set for release on June 23rd of this year.
I guess this post is really for my brother, Jim - the person who introduced me to the movie years ago...I don't know if you have that DVD (or maybe an old VHS), but damn, man - finally! Great news, right? Anyways, click here for more info on the release specs and whatnot.

The Red Balloon

2009-03-02T21:51:00.004-05:00

Boy, do I have a treat for you guys! Below I've posted the entire 34-minute short film The Red Balloon. A French film from 1956, written and directed by Albert Lamorisse, it's about a red balloon that seems to have a mind of its own, and follows a little boy through the streets of Paris.
A total masterpiece, it won the Palme d'Or (Best Picture) at the Cannes Film Festival, and also won the Oscar for Best Screenplay (the only short film to have ever won the award). So sit back with your kids, your grandkids, or just by yourself, and watch this great little movie.

The Best Films of the Year 2008 (in order):

2009-02-21T22:37:00.000-05:00

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; The Wrestler (tie)
The Dark Knight
WALL-E
Milk
Frost/Nixon
Slumdog Millionaire
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Snow Angels

There's still about four major releases I have yet to see, so I may end up changing this list slightly.

Frost/Nixon, and The Reader

2009-02-20T22:00:00.002-05:00

Frost/Nixon
An extraordinary film and one of the best "political" films since All the President's Men.
This is a firecracker of a movie. Ron Howard is a director that understands how to take complicated matters and put them into layman's terms on screen (think Apollo 13), and this is no exception. With Hans Zimmer's excellent score driving the film forward, Howard is able to take scene after scene of, well, people sitting in rooms talking, and turn it into some of the most compelling stuff of the year. Excellent cast - right down to the supporting roles - and a great script by Peter Morgan (The Queen), who adapts his own play for the screen. Wonderful movie. Go see it.

The Reader
Wow... where to start? This movie has no business being nominated for Best Picture. It's not terrible by any means, but certainly not worthy of being listed among the other four nominees. The entire first half of the film simply doesn't work. It's even more frustrating because it's nothing you can put your finger on - it just never really "clicks". The second half is another matter - it's a much better movie after the first hour. But because the first half has come and gone with little to show for it, there's little emotional impact to be had. Director Stephen Daldry (The Hours) does his best with the material, but I have a feeling that hardly anyone could have adapted this story for the screen. The screenwriter, David Hare, was committed to adapting Bernhard Schlink's novel without using voiceover. A commendable challenge, but it ends up hurting the picture, as we're never able to get inside anyone's head. There are several montage sequences in which a character is reading aloud from a book - not his own thoughts. These scenes stand out, and the editing is excellent - but that's it in terms of voiceover. These five minutes or so are a rare glimpse inside of his head, but it only serves to highlight how good the movie could have been. Kate Winslet is excellent (is she ever not?) but this is nowhere near her best performance. It looks as if she'll finally win for this movie, but her other nominations were far more deserved.
"Best Actress" really should have been this film's only nomination, but unfortunately it's right at the top with the four other nominees for Best Picture. Why not The Dark Knight? Or The Wrestler? Or even WALL-E? Oh well... this is the Academy, after all. It's not common sense.

Tomorrow night: My "Top 10 Films" list.

Real Time

2009-02-17T22:04:00.008-05:00

Here we have a Canadian film from 2008, which wasn't even given a theatrical release in the U.S., save for a couple of festival showings. It's unfortunate, because it's truly an undiscovered gem of a picture - easily among the best of the year.
I must preface this review by pointing out how astonishingly bad this film could have been. The plot is wafer-thin, and something we've seen many times before: A hit-man (Randy Quaid) gives a compulsive gambler who's $68,000 in debt (Jay Baruchel - Knocked Up, I'm Reed Fish) one hour to live. The movie takes place in "real time" - thus the almost cringe-worthy aptness of the title. So yes, by reading the paragraph above, it seems like an interesting diversion, but not exactly something to put on your must-see list.
But somehow, some way, this movie works. Credit a great script by writer/director Randall Cole and wonderful performances by the two leads for this movie's success. This is a film about dialogue. It's a low-budget picture, and mostly consists of the two men talking to each other in a car. It's sort of what I call the "holy trinity" of independent film. Some people may not be into it, but for my money, if you have two great actors speaking great dialogue, it's just as exciting as a car chase.
In this picture, all three guys step up to the plate and hit immediate home runs. Baruchel is great as lovable loser Andy Hayes, a guy who's most definitely getting what he deserves, but who somehow makes you feel that he deserves yet another chance. Randy Quaid turns in a career-best performance as Reuben, the hit-man who gives Andy one last hour to settle his affairs. Quaid has taken some real chances as of late, playing the homophobic ranch boss in Brokeback Mountain, and now this. In this picture, he plays the role with an Australian accent. What could have been a laughable mistake turns out to be a pitch-perfect and memorable character. People these days remember Quaid from his role as "Cousin Eddie" in the Vacation movies, but I always remembered him most from his early role in Hal Ashby's 1973 film The Last Detail (for which he was nominated as Best Supporting Actor), where he played a quiet, timid Navy man. In all honesty, if you compare these four roles - Cousin Eddie, Brokeback, Real Time, and Last Detail - this guy has some amazing range. Kudos to Quaid for taking these increasingly risky parts.
Last but not least, Randall Cole's script manages to be both funny and somber, at exactly the right moments - all in the span of a scant 77 minutes. And while there's only a few characters to speak of, they're all pretty well-drawn, given their short screen time. His direction is fittingly sparse, letting the actors take center stage.
The movie's not perfect - one sequence taking place at a fried-chicken restaurant (Andy's old job) feels strangely out-of place as it tries to hammer the humor home. But even this isn't a complete failure: I understand what Cole was trying to do, and the ending of the sequence provides a nice moment for the character of Andy. Hey - you can't have everything, right?
There are two moments in the film which I particularly liked. Two brief things which probably take up 10 seconds of screen time. Early in the film, speaking of long lost memories, Andy mentions playing with a Playdough barber shop toy when he was a kid. It's a short, fleeting moment, but it's a nice little detail. Later on, at his grandmother's house, he opens the refrigerator and presents Reuben with a deformed, flattened bottle of soda. As he does this, he explains how his grandmother would squeeze every last bit of air out of a two-liter bottle of soda, in order to maintain its freshness longer. Another nice little moment. A movie can't quite survive solely on things like this, but when they're present, they add just that little bit extra to push a good movie over into being great. I'm still thinking about this movie two days after I've seen it. Who knows if I'll be thinking of this movie two months or even two years from now, but at this moment, I still think it's pretty damn good.

2009-02-12T15:58:00.003-05:00

I would just like you guys to compare these two...

Joaquin Phoenix last night on Letterman:

Here's CBS's "official" shortened version, in case they take this one down:

Crispin Glover's infamous appearance on Letterman in 1987:

Déjà vu...
As a side note, I really hope this thing with Joaquin is all an elaborate joke.

Revolutionary Road

2009-02-08T23:07:00.002-05:00

I actually saw this about a month ago, but never felt compelled to write about it. I still don't, I suppose. This movie is just.... ehh. I never really cared about anyone or anything in this movie. It's based on an acclaimed novel from the early sixties, and while the content of the book was, well, revolutionary at the time, lots of time has passed since. In the movie world, we've seen lots of similar films covering similar subjects, and while this picture is definitely solid work from everyone involved, it's just all been done before, and better.

2009-02-07T22:50:00.002-05:00

Lux Interior (1946-2009)
Lead singer of The Cramps

James Whitmore (1921-2009)
Actor (The Shawshank Redemption)

Milk

2009-01-30T02:27:00.000-05:00

"Society can't exist without the family."
"We're not against that."
"Can two men reproduce?"
"No... but God knows, we keep trying!"

Wonderful, wonderful movie, and one of the best biographical films ever made.
Yes, this is a film about Harvey Milk, the first gay man elected to public office. And yes, he was assassinated in 1978. So, of course, there's lots of drama, trials and tribulations and what-have-you. But this film doesn't wallow in sadness and despair. It's celebratory and joyful, in the best kind of way. This is a playful, funny, and immensely entertaining picture.
Openly-gay filmmaker Gus Van Sant (Elephant, Good Will Hunting) had tried for years to get this film made, ever since he started his career in the 80's. The project was a labor of love for Van Sant, who had endured several failed attempts at making the film since 1992, when he first bought the rights. It was long considered a risky project, even with a comparatively low budget of $15 million dollars. Only when 2005's Brokeback Mountain was successful, was this film greenlighted. It's the film that - for lack of a better word - he was "born" to make.
That passion is evident in every frame of this film. Van Sant - who recently went the much more experimental route with Gerry, Elephant, Last Days, and Paranoid Park, is no less innovative here, relying heavily on archive footage to create a sense of time and place with his low $15 million budget. One sequence in particular is shot in the reflection of a metal whistle lying on the ground (it'll make sense when you see it). Brilliant stuff.
First-time feature screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (writer/producer of HBO's Big Love) did his own three years of personal research for the project, and it shows. The film has some of the most well-drawn characters of the year. And thankfully, Black doesn't fall victim to the frequent first-time writer syndrome of telling his story in some crazy narrative fashion. Everything is pretty straight-forward. Black knows he has enough going for his story and doesn't feel the need to try and "pump it up" one bit. It's refreshing.
And last but not least, I must point out the acting. It goes without saying that Sean Penn and Josh Brolin are great, and both were Oscar-nominated for their work. But everyone in the movie is amazingly well-cast and pitch-perfect. (I've long thought that the Academy needs a "casting" award. Good casting is really 3/4 of what makes a film anyways. The closest thing to this award is the Screen Actors' Guild "Ensemble Cast" award, but why give another award to the actors? Casting directors - the unsung heroes of the film business. But I digress...) Special mention should be made of James Franco in a small but pivotal role, and Emile Hirsch - who in my opinion completely steals the show.
Well, anyway... Great movie. Check it out (if you can find it in theaters... Focus Features really screwed the pooch on this one).

Final Bill Hicks performance to finally be broadcast tonight

2009-01-30T00:38:00.003-05:00

Hey, I'm going to chime in again in a few hours with my review of Gus Van Sant's Milk, but I just wanted to give people a quick heads-up:
Tonight (Friday Jan. 30) at 11:35 PM eastern time on CBS, David Letterman will broadcast Bill Hicks' final performance, taped for the Letterman show in 1993, but never broadcast. Hicks's mother will also apparently be a guest. Hicks died from cancer six months after it was shot.
For those of you that don't know, Bill Hicks was one of the greatest stand-ups of all time. Some truly dark stuff - especially in his later career - but absolutely brilliant just the same. Just a heads-up to you guys.

The Wrestler

2009-01-16T17:46:00.004-05:00

Wow. Brilliant, brilliant filmmaking.
Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream) has accomplished something magnificent here. Lacking the polish, resources, and budget of Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, Aronofsky has created something completely different from a similar underdog-sort of story. While Boyle goes the flashy route with camera moves and dozens of cuts per-minute, Aronofsky favors long, lingering takes and a somewhat reserved handheld camera. Now, of course, this is a huge change of course for the way Aronofsky usually does things. Requiem was frantic and methodical, mimicking the lives of the drug-addled characters. This is a completely different kind of film. You know what that shows? Maturity as a director and storyteller. It's hard to find a voice as a filmmaker, but it's even more difficult to change that voice to suit the needs of a particular project. The Wrestler feels grungy, dirty, and thrown together... and it's perfect.
Aronofsky made the choice to shoot in Super-16mm with this film, and it was a great choice. The harsh film grain and hard shadows give it a documentary-like feel and heightened intensity. Also worth mentioning is the fact that not only is this a Super 16 film, but a Super 16 film presented in a Scope aspect ratio of 2.35:1. Film fans will probably know what this means, but for those that don't, basically it means you're blowing up an already grainy picture to a very wide theater screen. Film grain and imperfections are heightened and more visible. A bold and wonderful artistic choice by Aronofsky - perfectly fitting for the story he's presenting.
Now, there's all sorts of stories going around about this production. People say that Mickey Rourke believed so much in the project, that he didn't accept an acting fee. Neither did Bruce Springsteen for the closing song he contributed. Aronofsky apparently was given the chance to make the picture with Nicolas Cage for a budget of approximately $25 million. He turned it down to make the film with Rourke - for only $6 million, and a short 35-day shooting schedule. Like the story we so often hear with independent film, the many limitations on the production have combined to produce something magical. Everything is down-and-dirty, in the moment, and feels about as real as cinema can get.
I guess that's about all I can - and probably should - say. Rourke is simply amazing. If it seems like a simple case of stunt casting, don't worry... It's an iconic performance that in my opinion ranks right along side DeNiro in Raging Bull... A study of an imperfect man, perfectly realized on screen.
Do not miss this. Benjamin Button was an amazing major-studio picture. This film is equally as amazing - it was just made under much tougher circumstances. Whether that makes it more or less worthy is a matter of opinion. All that really matters is if it's worth your time - and it certainly is.

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-01-14T23:46:00.002-05:00

This is one of the best-reviewed movies of the year, and the odds-on favorite to win Best Picture after its several wins at the Globes on Sunday. Is it as good as everyone's saying? Well, yes and no.
There's a lot to like about this movie. Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting) direction is as strong and assured as anything I've seen this year. Relative unknown Dev Patel gives an amazing leading performance. The editing is masterful. The picture is wonderfully photographed by the always inventive Boyle and his DP Anthony Dod Mantle (in no less than five formats - 16mm, 35mm, analog and digital video, and still photography). The movie is always watchable, mostly entertaining, and sometimes enthralling. So what's my beef with it, then?
Listen, guys... I love Danny Boyle. Trainspotting's one of the best movies of the 90's. I like almost everything he's done. But you have to admit, he's really a style-over-substance sort of filmmaker. And this screenplay doesn't really help matters. I mean, we have a GREAT framework for a story here. The whole gameshow thing, discovering how he knows each of the answers through his life experiences... all good stuff. But mostly everything else in the story... I don't know, man. I've just seen it all before. Nearly half the picture involves a love story/long-lost girl situation... and I'm really sorry to say... I just didn't care. I didn't give a shit. I'm not sure what it was. I was usually totally into the rest of the picture, but whenever that storyline picked up again, I just tuned out. Like I said, I've seen it all before, but what really matters - I've seen it done better. Perhaps most people will come out of this movie feeling a different way. But I've seen City of God (dangerous childhood in impoverished area) and Cinema Paradiso (adult looking back on long-lost love) and this felt like a stylized melding of those two stories.
I know that by now this seems like an attack of some sort, but it's really not. This is a very solid movie. Easily one of the best of the year, and I really did enjoy about 80% of it. It's both exhilarating and beautiful, with some wonderful sequences (a scene set to "Paper Planes" by M.I.A. is particularly good). It just never hit home for me in the way that it seems to for most people. It gets a solid recommendation from me, even though I only have lukewarm feelings about it right now. Although I do want to see it again... perhaps that means something.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-02T01:17:00.001-05:00

A masterpiece. No two ways about it.
Not only one of the best movies of the year, but one of the best films I've ever seen. People know that I rarely go to such lengths in praising a film, but this one crept inside me, shook me up, and left me with a feeling I've rarely had: total satisfaction.
Rarely is a movie both grandly ambitious and heartbreakingly intimate, but that's the case with this picture. It succeeds at everything it does, everything it tries, and everything it thinks about doing.
Just about as good as you can get. Nearly perfect.

2008-12-13T23:18:00.000-05:00

Robert Prosky
1930-2008

Dark Knight score ineligible for Oscar

2008-11-21T21:24:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-21T21:05:00.000-05:00

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.

2008-11-06T01:30:00.001-05:00

Michael Crichton
1942-2008

2008-11-04T23:32:00.002-05:00

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)

2008-11-01T18:28:00.004-04:00

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

2008-10-31T05:16:00.003-04:00

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.

2008-10-23T01:51:00.000-04:00

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

2008-10-09T22:39:00.006-04:00

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.

2008-09-27T21:37:00.000-04:00

Paul Newman
1925-2008

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

2008-09-26T01:10:00.000-04:00

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)

2008-09-19T17:50:00.002-04:00

"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

2008-09-18T03:42:00.006-04:00

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)

2008-09-12T20:44:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-10T00:29:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-05T01:04:00.001-04:00

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

2008-09-02T23:41:00.009-04:00

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

2008-08-29T21:49:00.003-04:00

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

2008-08-13T01:04:00.001-04:00

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.

2008-08-10T21:39:00.001-04:00

Isaac Hayes
1942-2008

2008-08-09T21:51:00.000-04:00

Bernie Mac
1957-2008

My new short film: Dr. Sbaitso

2008-08-03T16:20:00.010-04:00

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

2008-07-30T00:00:00.004-04:00

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

2008-07-18T03:12:00.007-04:00

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.

2008-07-15T19:35:00.002-04:00

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

2008-07-05T20:49:00.000-04:00

Photos from July 4th, 2008

WALL-E

2008-06-30T18:50:00.004-04:00

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...

2008-06-27T21:30:00.002-04:00

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?)

2008-06-25T16:24:00.000-04:00

Kevin Smith Remembers George Carlin

2008-06-23T12:30:00.002-04:00

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.

2008-06-16T17:33:00.000-04:00

Stan Winston
1946-2008

2008-05-27T10:38:00.001-04:00

Sydney Pollack
(1934-2008)

Stop-Loss and The Beautiful Ordinary

2008-04-19T22:37:00.016-04:00

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

2008-03-24T18:22:00.006-04:00

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.

2008-03-18T17:14:00.000-04:00

Anthony Minghella
1954-2008

The Mist, revisited

2008-03-11T23:02:00.005-04:00

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.

2008-03-09T21:48:00.000-04:00

Leonard Rosenman (composer of the scores for Barry Lyndon and Bound for Glory)
1924-2008

2008-03-03T22:33:00.002-05:00

Clip of Ida in HD
(I have like 20 minutes of footage, but this is probably the only thing I'll upload due to the long waiting time it takes to deal with HD footage... for a 3 minute clip, it takes almost an hour to render, and then 3 hours to upload on a DSL connection. Anyways, enjoy).

The end of the line for New Line Cinema

2008-03-03T21:56:00.004-05:00

Well, I'm sure you've all heard the news: Warner Brothers (which owns New Line, and has for some time) has decided to fold the company and produce all further New Line films through Warner Brothers, effectively ending the company.
Well, we can't say we didn't see this coming. After years of smaller releases, New Line hit pay dirt with the Lord of the Rings movies, and, like anyone else, they got greedy. They released many more smaller movies - which tanked - and then attempted to start another franchise with The Golden Compass - which also bombed. This is a similar situation to Miramax... the company that started out with small pictures like Clerks and US releases of foreign films eventually used their success to produce big-budget films like Gangs of New York. In the movie business, you can't stay little forever.
I guess the thing that sucks about this is that throughout its lifetime, New Line always stayed true to its independent roots. Even while having mainstream success, it produced films like The Player and Short Cuts, and it was the longtime studio home of John Waters, who made many of his films there. Hell, they even released Boogie Nights and Magnolia (and had the balls to give this young guy named Paul Thomas Anderson final cut on just his second picture).
I guess it has to do with their humble beginnings. They started out renting 16mm educational films to colleges for instruction, until they took a chance by financing a little movie called A Nightmare on Elm Street. It took them a while to get past those horror-movie roots, but eventually even this little studio had an art house sub-division, FineLine Features, which released films like Hoop Dreams and even the recent Elephant (a co-production with HBO Films). They were eventually bought by Time Warner, and like they say, the rest is history.
It'll be sad to see these guys go, but I have to say, it's still nice to see the New Line logo pop up before a film. Every time I see it before Boogie Nights, I think: These guys had the balls to finance a film from a second-time director, starring Marky Mark and by-then-forgotten Burt Reynolds, about the porn industry, and they gave the director final cut. You have to admit, they had guts. RIP New Line.

Paranoid Park

2008-02-29T15:52:00.003-05:00

The new film from Gus Van Sant is similar in form and execution to his last few pictures (Elephant, Last Days) but differs enough to make it stand on its own. I'm frankly still not sure what to make of it, but one thing's for sure: it's better than Last Days (which was a tedious bore) and not as good as Elephant (Van Sant's masterpiece). If you can live with the reality of that assessment, and can put up with a few flaws in the film itself, you'll find an interesting little movie with a couple moments of brilliance.
First we'll talk about the kind of movie this is. It's similar to the last few Van Sant movies, in that there's not much dialogue, the movie is short, he films in lots of single takes - with a very distinctive color palette, and he's not afraid to use stylized slow-motion. In a single word: ARTY. I happen to really love his style. There's simply nothing like it out there today. And for some reason, it seems to work the best when he's telling a story about teenagers. Van Sant may have stumbled upon the filmic equivalent of adolescence. (And a side note: Just think how versatile Van Sant is - seeing these movies, you would never think this is the same guy who made Good Will Hunting and Drugstore Cowboy... Great movies, but just completely different).
There are a couple of great sequences in this film: One of them harkens back to Elephant - a kid walks down the hallway at his school, and slowly, 24 frames-per-second is ramped down to 120 fps, and we're treated to beautiful, graceful slow motion. The thing that separates it from its predecessor? The inclusion of Elliott Smith's "The White Lady Loves You More". Great song, great shot, great moment.

The other is one of those "overcome with grief" shower scenes. The main character - overcome with grief, of course - gets in the shower and freaks out. This movie thankfully puts a new spin on that. First, it's all in slow motion, so the falling water looks beautiful. Second, all of the emotion is given through the sound mix. There's the music, mixed with crazy noises, mixed with other noises, with a layer of bird noises on top... It works. Somehow, it works.
The biggest flaw the film has is its use of unprofessional actors. Elephant seemed to do this better... I don't know if it was the choice of actors, or if the many bravura Steadicam shots served to mask the acting, but it's really noticeable here. Many single takes on a single actor here - some that go on for a minute or so, and we can see the gears turning in their heads as these young kids try to remember lines. It reminded me of the kind of performances I would get out of people in my movies in high school. It's strange and hard to explain. But in a weird way, it kind of works. It brings a realism to the picture that helps it in the long run.
There's hardly any plot and the little that is there is told out of order. Not a complaint from me but merely an observation. Regardless, the movie can drag at times. Like all his recent movies, it focuses on the little things, with little regard to the big picture. Sometimes, this turns out great (Elephant). Other times, it's maddeningly dull (Last Days). It's really hit-and-miss with this sort of experimental picture. If Van Sant can figure out how to combine his new style with a plot-centric screenplay, it will be amazing.
Regardless of what I liked or didn't like about Paranoid Park, the fact remains that I won't be getting it out of my head any time soon. And these days, that's a feat in itself.

2008-02-25T16:12:00.001-05:00

Always thought this was funny...
Paul answering the question: "Do you think Punch-Drunk Love will win an Oscar?"

2008-02-24T23:49:00.003-05:00

Well, no Oscar for Paul... again. Better luck next time, I suppose. It's great that Paul's longtime cinematographer Robert Elswitt got one, though.
(Did anyone else think that the Coens were pretty smug in accepting their awards? Damn, I mean, I like them, but they really came off as assholes. "Well, I guess I don't really have much to say after the last one".... Jesus.)

A (brief) word on the Oscars, and my list of The Best Films of the Year

2008-02-23T22:25:00.002-05:00

Well folks, it's that time of year again...

First off, it would be great to see There Will Be Blood win Best Picture, but it looks like No Country for Old Men is a lock in that category. It was sort of strange to see Juno nominated for so many things, but I liked the movie, so it was a welcome surprise. All in all, there were so many great movies this year that no matter who takes home the awards, they're basically deserved.
The nominations were pretty much what we expected to see, but there were a few surprises:

NOTHING for Zodiac! Damn, that sucks. I was worried that the Academy would forget about it (it was released in March) and that's exactly what happened. So, since that's probably what I would've liked to see take Best Pic, I'll root for Blood instead.
Lars and the Real Girl nominated for Best Screenplay! Wow, I was really surprised. I thought it would be a little too "out there" for the voters. That's awesome.
Only ONE song nominated from Once? And THREE from Enchanted? WTF?
Into the Wild's score being declared inelegible because it's "too song-based" - and then it doesn't get a song nomination. That's just stupid.
Best Supporting Actor nomination for Casey Affleck! That's nice to see. He was excellent in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, so it's well deserved.
Only ONE nomination for Gone Baby Gone (Supporting Actress)
Ruby Dee nominated for Supporting Actress (American Gangster). This just came out of nowhere. This definitely reeks of trying to honor her for a lifetime of work, instead of the performance.
A Best DIRECTOR nomination for Paul Thomas Anderson! Wow, I'm surprised. He usually only gets one for screenplay (which he also got a nod for).
It's great to see Cate Blanchett nominated for I'm Not There, even if the movie didn't get anything else.

So, regardless of everything else, let's just hope PTA finally wins for something. This year he has two chances (director and screenplay). Fingers crossed...

-------------------------------------------------

The Best Films of the Year 2007 (in order):

This is a mostly-complete list... there's about 4 major films I have yet to see, but that's about it.

Zodiac
Margot at the Wedding
Once
The Darjeeling Limited
I'm Not There
Lars and the Real Girl
Juno
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
There Will Be Blood
Gone Baby Gone
Wristcutters: A Love Story
Cassandra's Dream
Into the Wild
Rescue Dawn
Waitress
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Superbad
2 Days in Paris
No Country for Old Men
Knocked Up
The TV Set
Sicko
My Best Friend
I'm Reed Fish
The Mist
Eastern Promises
In the Shadow of the Moon
We Own the Night
The Lookout
The Bucket List
28 Weeks Later...
Charlie Wilson's War
Hot Fuzz

Atonement

2008-02-21T06:28:00.001-05:00

Probably one of the worst Best Picture nominees in recent history. At once both overbearing and underwritten, the film has some serious problems, not the least of which is the pacing. Now, I never read the book, but if the film is any indication, the novel must have a paper-thin plot, because the movie sure does. Now, this may be fine for a book, where things can be endlessly examined through the words and thoughts of the characters, and thus fleshing out the narrative. Unfortunately, the picture is a full two hours long, and it certainly feels like it. Hell, it feels closer to three. A full 20 minutes – maybe even a half hour – could have been removed from this picture with little-to-no detriment to the narrative. In fact – just for argument’s sake – this would have been a great subject for a 30 minute short, with narration (something that the film sorely lacks) helping to speed along the exposition that is so tediously laid out in the finished film. Things draaaaaaaaag on in this movie. The picture creeps ever so slowly along – apparently without any consideration of the audience – with no better example than a pointless six-minute Steadicam shot that occurs mid-way through the film. Instead of using this time to properly introduce us to some of the characters we will be spending the second half of the film with, the director uses this chance to show us a flashy camera move, which, while it is a great shot, gives us nothing in the way of character or plot.
Hey, listen… I like films that aren’t exactly plot driven, too. I’m a big fan of Terrence Malick. But this fuckin’ Joe Wright guy gives us nothing to latch on to. A film needs to be driven by something. People forget that Malick’s films, while usually without much plot, are driven along by narration. Without that, you just have a collection of images. There’s no narration here. And we can skip past the plot, which I’ve said before is not much of anything. So now we have the characters and the dialogue. Many great films have been made which really don’t have anything of consequence going on, but which are worth watching because of the characterization and dialogue. Sadly, neither shows up in this movie. After the first 20 minutes, there’s barely an important word spoken (and remember, there’s no narration) until the end. And don’t even get me started on the characters. The roles are either so underwritten that the cast can’t do much with them, or the characters themselves are so cold that there’s no way to identify with them. I really couldn’t care less about the romance in the movie, because we have no idea who these two people are. No character traits, distinguishing characteristics or even one little fucking monologue. Do they think we can read the character’s mind and see into their past? No, that’s why dialogue and exposition come into play. And how do they expect the romantic chemistry to work? Sexual tension is created by the clash of two different characters’ personalities. When neither character has a personality, it’s a little difficult.
I could go off on how pretentious the music is (the sound of a typewriter “click-clacking” is one of the main undercurrents and motifs of the musical score, even when there’s no typewriter in the sequence – I’m not kidding) and how pompous the editing is (Really? Two hours of this?) but I’ll save you from my bitching.
I know I just slammed this movie, but it actually is well-made. The camera-work is nice and precise, and the photography is beautiful. But the bad outweighs the good on this one, unfortunately. I wanted to review this before the Oscars, so if it happens to win, people wouldn’t think it was some sort of post-awards reaction to it beating something else. I can honestly say that I went into this movie with an open mind, and I came out of it wondering if all the awards groups saw the same movie as me, and if they could explain to me why the hell this mess is nominated for 7 Academy Awards.

Cassandra's Dream

2008-02-20T23:05:00.006-05:00

Another year, another Woody Allen film. Fortunately for us, Woody seems to be getting better and better lately...
Wow, what a great movie. The story is this: Two brothers (Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell) with money trouble ask for help from their rich uncle (Tom Wilkinson). The uncle agrees, on one condition: the brothers must kill a man who plans to testify against him.
It's the most suspenseful thing Woody's ever done. He ratchets up the tension to almost unbearable levels, and then has the balls to pull the camera away and not show the actual killing. It truly is a great movie, certainly on par with Match Point, although this is a different sort of film, with characters that are perhaps a bit more...moral. It's a must-see, both for fans of Woody Allen and people who just want to see a good, classically-minded suspense picture.
If this movie was made by a new director who was making his first film, we'd be calling him the next Hitchcock. Because it's from Woody, it's merely a good film from an old master... because it's not Annie Hall. Well, not everything can be.
(And P.S. - this is proof that Colin Farrell can act. And Tom Wilkinson should have gotten a Supporting Actor nod for this instead of Michael Clayton - he's menacing in a way he's never been before. Well, enough of my rambling. Just go see it.)

Charlie Bartlett and Delirious

2008-02-18T22:13:00.014-05:00

Just a quick note:
Using another video site for the video (seen below)... dunno how long it will stay up and if/when it will be taken down. So see it while you can.

Charlie Bartlett
Not your average teen movie. Manages to avoid most of the traps of the genre, while also putting a new spin on the ones it can't avoid. It's great to see Robert Downey, Jr. in this, but the real surprise is Anton Yelchin (who's been in other stuff, but I've honestly never seen him before) - he's great. Great presence, great personality, great performance. All in all, pretty good little flick. Tries too hard sometimes to make a "statement" about the youth of today, but it's definitely worth a watch.

Delirious
The new film from Tom DiCillo (Living in Oblivion). A film about fame, jealousy, and most of all, friendship. Steve Buscemi and Michael Pitt star, and they're both incredibly good. In fact, it's one of Buscemi's best performances. The dialogue (one of DiCillo's strengths) is very good, and the movie eventually becomes both touching and insightful. The satire (making fun of "reality tv" - oh, so witty!) often falls flat, but it's a minor complaint since it doesn't take up much screen time. In the end, it's not perfect, but it's a worthy companion piece to DiCillo's Living in Oblivion. It would probably make a great double feature. Good movie - even great in parts - and I strongly recommend it.
Note: Video is NSFW - contains strong language.

2008-02-15T23:12:00.000-05:00

2nd HV20 test

2008-02-11T14:13:00.000-05:00

Roy Scheider
1932-2008

2008-02-08T22:55:00.000-05:00

First test with the Canon HV20

2008-01-31T01:34:00.000-05:00

Well, I came across this camera yesterday, and I've done a lot of research on it... and I've decided to buy it, within the next month or so.

It's the Canon HV20 HD camera...
And it takes beautiful video.
Just look at these two clips below (and keep in mind, these videos were taken with a STOCK camera - no 35mm lens adapters or anything).

"Rainy Day Cinematography"
"Waiting for a bus in a snowfall"

Amazing, right? The video quality rivals $3,000 cameras (and it costs less than a third of that). And lest you think these clips are just flukes, just type in "HV20" into the Vimeo search and see the dozens of great quality clips that pop up.
I. Am. Excited.

2008-01-29T01:49:00.000-05:00

Just a quick message to let you know that my account at Vimeo was deleted, so all of the videos I've posted recently are not available. Damn... off to find another video site to use...

Michael Clayton

2008-01-25T02:25:00.000-05:00

Tony Gilroy's directorial debut is a solid legal thriller, but really is nothing special. Great performances by George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson, and good direction from Gilroy, but there's really no reason that this movie should have been nominated for 7 Oscars (including Best Picture and Director). A good film, but not must-see material.

Margot at the Wedding

2008-01-24T16:17:00.000-05:00

Wow, what a great movie. The new film from Noah Baumbach (The Squid and the Whale) is almost breathtaking in its intimacy and immediacy. Channeling Éric Rohmer and John Cassavetes, Baumbach uses handheld camerawork and frequently cuts in the middle of lines, creating (like his previous film) the cinematic equivalent of a moving freight train. It's a wonder to behold. Very few times in cinema are you drawn into a film completely, leaving the outside world behind, with nothing else being of any consequence other than what's up on the screen. This is one of those films.
Performances are great all around, with particular mention going to Jack Black, who rides the fine line between funnyman and dramatic character. He never crosses that line. Every bit of funny dialogue comes naturally from his character, and never feels false. Black also has a dramatic breakdown near the end of the film. Yes, you heard me right: Jack Black cries during this film. And I don't know about you, but I bought it. It worked, for me. And that's all you can really ask for.
The dialogue is amazing ("When you were a baby, I wouldn't let anyone else hold you. I think that was a mistake.") and the characters are as well-drawn as anything seen on screen in a while. And it's funny as hell. You will laugh long and hard during certain parts of this movie, and then sit mouth agape at some brilliant dramatic moment on-screen. It's one of those movies.
This is a wonderful film, possibly my new vote for best of the year. It's largely been ignored, but this is just as good - maybe even better - than The Squid and the Whale. The only thing else to say is that I'm excited to see what Baumbach will do next.

There Will Be Blood

2008-01-24T02:03:00.000-05:00

Anyone who knows me knows that Paul Thomas Anderson is my favorite filmmaker. So, after five years of waiting, here is his new film. It is an amazing picture... until the last two minutes. The ending literally made me go "huh?" - it feels so out of place with the rest of the picture, but it seems like a minor complaint when the rest of the film is so brilliant. Between this and No Country for Old Men, it feels like this is The Year of Bad Endings. Perhaps I need to focus a little less on these things, but for me the ending is one of the most important parts of a film. It is supposed to send you out, into the night and away from the theater, with a confident conclusion that both sums up the film and leaves it open for thought by the audience. I don't know, maybe another viewing will put it all into focus a little more. Well, enough with the ending, lets get to what I like about the film, which is a lot.
The movie starts out without any dialogue, for the entire 10-15 minutes of the opening. It's brilliantly shot and edited, and it serves as a sort of prologue for the story. It's wonderfully hypnotic and really draws you into the film.
Daniel Day-Lewis is great, very frightening yet strangely sympathetic. Paul Dano is equally good.
But for someone who's been following Anderson's work since the beginning, it's amazing to see what the rest of Anderson's (technical) team have achieved here. Robert Elswit has been DP on all of Anderson's films, and here he has the balls to light everything terrifically dark - in some scenes almost to the point of not being able to discern the characters from the darkness. Anderson, a big fan of fluid camera movement in his films, still uses the steadicam for parts of the film, but quite a bit of the movie is filmed with static shots (with dolly moves to heighten emotion). It's not much of a departure, however - P.T.'s trademark precise camera movement is still highly evident.
As always for an Anderson picture, the dialogue is great. Dialogue has always been one of Anderson's strengths. It's memorable without being show-offy, he reveals character traits and exposition without being too obvious, and he knows just when to end a scene.
There are many memorable lines and a few great monologues, and some dark comedy creeps in here and there. It sometimes works and it sometimes doesn't, but it adds another layer to the film and keeps it interesting. The one big misstep is the darkly comic ending, which may have worked well in another film, but in this one it comes right after a big dramatic setpiece.... I don't know, it just seemed ill-timed and ill-executed to me.
Overall, it's a great movie - one of the finest of the year. It's funny to me that this movie is getting more accolades than Anderson's other movies. It's a good film, but it's no better than Boogie Nights or especially Magnolia. I think it's just that this is an easier film for the Academy to get their heads around: it's a period piece, and it's fairly straightforward. Regardless, it's a must-see, for fans of P.T. or anyone else.

2008-01-22T23:36:00.000-05:00

Just got back from There Will Be Blood, was preparing to write about it, when I logged on to my homepage and HOLY FUCKING SHIT....

Heath Ledger
1979-2008

Insanity. That's all there is to say. It's so sad, and it's crazy. We were just beginning to see what he could do.

The Great Debaters

2008-01-18T02:05:00.000-05:00

A classic Hollywood "inspirational" picture - in the best sense of the word. It's a refreshing change of pace from the usual downbeat films this time of year, and if you put yourself in the right frame of mind, you'll find this movie quite enjoyable. It's Denzel Washington's second film as director, and he's quickly showing his abilities behind the camera. He directs with a confident, yet delicate hand, and gets great performances out of a group of unknown young actors. Yet another very solid film from the year 2007. Let me say this: I'd rather have a lot of good films in a year than one or two masterpieces and a bunch of duds.