Paranoid Park

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.

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

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

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.

1. Zodiac
2. Margot at the Wedding
3. Once
4. The Darjeeling Limited
5. I'm Not There
6. Lars and the Real Girl
7. Juno
8. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
9. There Will Be Blood
10. Gone Baby Gone
11. Wristcutters: A Love Story
12. Cassandra's Dream
13. Into the Wild
14. Rescue Dawn
15. Waitress
16. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
17. Superbad
18. 2 Days in Paris
19. No Country for Old Men
20. Knocked Up
21. The TV Set
22. Sicko
23. My Best Friend
24. I'm Reed Fish
25. The Mist
26. Eastern Promises
27. In the Shadow of the Moon
28. We Own the Night
29. The Lookout
30. The Bucket List
31. 28 Weeks Later...
32. Charlie Wilson's War
33. Hot Fuzz

Atonement

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

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

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.

2nd HV20 test

Roy Scheider
1932-2008

First test with the Canon HV20

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Rocket Science

This is a film that received a very limited release (it never opened in more than 60 theaters) but deserved to be seen by a wider audience. Written and directed by Jeffrey Blitz (who gave us the wonderful, Oscar-nominated documentary Spellbound), it is his first narrative feature. Blitz seems to understand adolescence more than most people, and this film is further evidence of that. With a great soundtrack that includes songs by the Violent Femmes, and a wonderful performance by newcomer Reece Thompson, Rocket Science is a worthy film for anyone looking for an off-kilter view of high school. Winner of the Dramatic Directing Award at the Sundance Film Festival.

Brad Renfro
1982-2008

(Holy shit, this was a surprise this morning...)

As always, the "best of the year" list is coming, but unfortunately a few of the major films of the year haven't been released in my neck of the woods yet (There Will Be Blood chief among them). So yes, it is coming, and it's great... lots of good movies this year, and hopefully it will bring your attention to some great films you may have missed.

A trio of reviews: The Bucket List, Charlie Wilson's War, and Wristcutters: A Love Story

The Bucket List
Hollywood schmaltz is on full display here, but it's not nearly as bad as the critics say. Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman are wonderful as always, and while the script doesn't completely live up to the story's potential, it's clever and funny, and surprisingly affecting when it needs to be. Rob Reiner, a guy who I've felt sorry for lately (his last three movies have been duds - well deserved failures, however - and this one will probably be no different, albeit an undeserved one) does a more than competent job of directing this picture, and keeps the flow of the movie nice and brisk. That's a big thing to note here: usually with dramatic pictures such as this, the running time is at least two hours... well, not with this film. It runs a trim 90 minutes, and although this might come at the detriment of some character development (we hardly ever see Freeman's wife - although the actress who plays her isn't very good anyway), the speeches the characters have more than make up for it.
Sure, it's melodramatic. Sure, it's the kind of thing Hollywood shoves out into theaters every Oscar season. But it's not that bad. If you're in the mood for something more mainstream, you could do much worse than The Bucket List.

Charlie Wilson's War
A really solid film we have here, from the master filmmaker Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Closer). It manages to inject humor and wit into the subjects of wartime and government bureaucracy, not unlike Nichols' earlier film Primary Colors. This film has a similar feel to that picture, so if you enjoyed that one, you should be right at home here. Nichols' films have great acting, but true to most of his work, it's not the leads that stand out, it's the supporting performances. Philip Seymour Hoffman completely steals the show here, as the son of a soda-pop maker who somehow found himself in government. He's angry, he's quick to insult, and he's extremely likable. This is a Supporting Actor-worthy performance if I've ever seen one, although the chances of that are unlikely.
This film has gone mostly unnoticed at the end of this year. But a sharp script, great cast, and a veteran director all make this a must-see. It's not among the top of the "best of" list, but it's very good.

Wristcutters: A Love Story
I'm in love with this movie. It's darkly comic, it's romantic, it's a little silly, and it packs a surprising emotional punch. This is a true original, and it's evidence of - along with Lars and the Real Girl - the best year for independent film in a long time.
I will sum up the plot for you, and after that I shall lose the interest of about half of you. But stay with me, as this movie isn't what it would seem at first glance. The story is this: Zia (Patrick Fugit) is devastated over his break-up with his girlfriend, and commits suicide. After doing this, however, he wakes up to realize he's not in hell but in some strange in-between world where everyone lives their lives like normal, only everything is a little off-kilter, and no one has the ability to smile. He meets Eugene (Shea Whigham), and they quickly become friends, setting off on a road trip to find Zia's ex-girlfriend, upon hearing the news that she's also committed suicide. Along the way, they pick up a hitchhiker named Mikal (Shannyn Sossamon) who joins them on their journey.
As I said, it's a little strange, and the whole suicide thing may turn you off, but here's why I told you to stay with me: The film has little to do with suicide and death and everything to do with life. The film is really more about the bonding between friends and the narrative is mostly centered around a lightly-comic road trip. Everyone just so happens to be, well... dead. This is the reason for independent film, and the reason it is thriving at these end-of-the-year awards, while mainstream pictures are left out in the dust - it's about placing familiar storylines into a new and interesting framework. If this film was made as a conventional romance, it wouldn't be offering anything new. By pushing the envelope, the filmmakers have made something worthwhile. And it's all the more amazing because it succeeds.
It's good. That's all you need to know. Only a certain type of person will want to see a picture with this type of quirky sensibility, but if you're one of them, you're in store for a treat. And Tom Waits is in it!

PTA article on Slate

I've never been fond of Slate and its movie commentary... they usually have no idea what they're talking about. But today I found a great article about Paul Thomas Anderson on their website. It's a well-written piece, and it explains - in a concise and easily comprehensible way - why I love his films. Read it for yourself, and you just might understand why I'm obsessed with his work.

Click here to read the article

Juno

This movie isn't quite the revelation that everyone's saying it is, but it's a very solid film. Ellen Page is wonderful - truly a breakout star. The supporting cast is pitch-perfect and everyone is well-cast in their roles. The screenplay is lightly comic without going overboard, and the dramatic moments work because they're earned. The biggest surprise for me was the direction of Jason Reitman (son of director Ivan Reitman) - it is quite simply the reason the film works. He conveys a sense of longing and quirky melancholy that might have been lost amongst the humor. This is his second feature, his first being 2006's Thank You for Smoking, a film I was less-than-impressed with. It was unfocused, with little-to-no narrative drive and a group of characters that weren't interesting enough to want to spend time with. Reitman wrote that screenplay. He didn't write this one. The screenwriter this time is Diablo Cody, and although her script relies a little too much on hip wordplay and self-consciously clever dialogue, this aspect of the film is diminished after the first half hour, and we settle into this nice little world she has created. The script's greatest accomplishment is it's structure: not a scene is wasted, and every sequence is there for a reason.
There's really nothing more to say... go see this film. If you're like me, the first half hour or so will be a little grating (it's like a screenwriter screaming in your face "Look at me! I'm here!"), but it's quickly over with and you'll discover a charming little story with a little something for everyone. (And I have to say, I LOVE the last shot of the film... I know, I know, it might not seem like much to some people, but it's simple, graceful, and - my favorite part - it goes on forever...)

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Forget No Country for Old Men - this is the real great crime film of 2007. Don't get me wrong, No Country was good, but this film has it beat. It gives us an interesting plot and great characterization, not to mention a satisfying ending (you listening, Coen brothers?). Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is the latest film from Sidney Lumet (Dog Day Afternoon, Network), an old-timer who still knows how to tell a story, and to tell it well.
An interesting sidenote: the movie was filmed on HD video, but I couldn't even tell until I read an article which mentioned it. Apparently, Lumet will never shoot on film again, and predicts that everyone will abandon film within five years. Remember my little talk about Zodiac and how film is dead? Well, when veterans like Lumet and Altman (who shot his last few features on video) decide to give up film, that really says something.
Great movie, don't hesitate to see it.

I'm Not There

"That's when she knew it was over for good. The longest-running war in television history. The war that hung like a shadow over the same nine years as her marriage. So why was it suddenly so hard to breathe?..."

Holy shit. This movie is truly an original. Part experimental film, part documentary, and part biopic, the new film from Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven) is nothing less than perhaps the greatest biographical film of all time.

Biopics (an industry-coined term, short for "biographical picture") have become all the rage lately, especially ones about musicians. While most of them have been good (Ray, Walk the Line), there's no denying the fact that they all follow a similar structure and formula. Bob Dylan, always the innovator, wisely decided to wait until a script came along that broke the mold. This film, to which Dylan has given his stamp of approval (by allowing the use of his music) is the first non-documentary telling of his life.

No less than six actors play Dylan at different stages of his life (although none are actually given his name):

1. Marcus Carl Franklin, a young black boy, plays Dylan's younger self. He calls himself "Woody Guthrie", an obvious allusion to the fact that Dylan not only worshipped Guthrie, but also (in his younger days) tried to emulate him in every way.



2. Ben Whishaw (who has the smallest Dylan role) plays Arthur Rimbaud, a sort of narrator of our story, although, in true Dylan fashion, he is reluctant to explain himself beyond vague phrases and riddles.



3. Christian Bale plays Jack Rollins, the character which represents Dylan's transition from simple folk singer to a recognized performer of "protest songs" (more specifically, the time period surrounding his album "The Times They Are a-Changin'"). This story in the film differs from the others in that it is told in a faux-documentary form, with fake interviews of actors playing characters based on real people (such as Julianne Moore, who plays a character based on Joan Baez). Bale's character also returns later on, as we view Dylan's brief Christian reform.



4. Cate Blanchett plays Jude Quinn, based on the Don't Look Back-era Dylan. As such, this section is filmed in black and white, like that film. Blanchett, while female, probably gives the best performance as Dylan. It is just simply spot-on.



5. Heath Ledger plays Robbie Clark, who represents Dylan during the time his marriage was falling apart (AKA, the Blood on the Tracks period). One of the best uses of Dylan's music in the film is during this section. "Visions of Johanna" plays over the sequence where his wife first realizes it's over. The whole sequence is great, but the best part of it is the beginning - the song fading in, the simultaneous push-ins, the 4 flash cuts, and Ledger's hushed voice-over. Perfect.



6. And finally, Richard Gere plays Billy, an aged outlaw and the literal manifestation of Dylan's fascination with Billy the Kid.

I will begin to talk about the complicated narrative structure of the film, which often does not reference events directly, but relies on the audience's prior knowledge of Dylan to fill in the blanks. I must stress this point here: do not attempt to watch this film unless you've seen at least the two main Dylan documentaries, Don't Look Back and No Direction Home, and have read a brief history of his life (this is a good place to start). I say this because the film will make little-to-no sense for someone without a primer in Dylan 101.

Take the scene below, for instance. In this wonderful sequence, the Dylan character who calls himself "Woody Guthrie" goes to visit a dying music legend in the hospital. Only Dylan fans would know that this was based on a true event - Dylan visited his idol and musical inspiration Woody Guthrie as he lay dying in his hospital bed. It was a main turning point in his life, and it allowed him to put down the Guthrie persona and become his own being. Thus, after this scene, the black Dylan character disappears from the film.

Even more potentially confusing is the Gere character, who not only embodies the Billy the Kid persona Dylan took on while working on the film Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid and its soundtrack, but because the film makes liberal use of non-linear structure and cross-cutting, this section is actually a direct comment on the Heath Ledger storyline which is happening right alongside it. As his marriage is breaking up, and Dylan becomes more withdrawn, it's almost as if this Billy character is his fantasy - becoming someone who no one knows, living in a small, simple town and being content with himself. As the town is threatened with destruction, this is representative of Dylan waking up from his depression and finally moving on, as the character hitches a ride on a train (echoing the beginning) and rides away. This makes little sense as we're watching it, but as Billy's dog - his one true companion - struggles to catch up with the fleeing train and fails, Gere mutters "Goodbye, my lady", and we're suddenly aware that he's talking about his wife. We sense his character's loss, and therefore, also Dylan's. It's a brilliant way of portraying something not easily conveyed on screen.

The more I talk about this film, the more amazing I realize it is. It's a must-see for Dylan fans, and even for people who don't know about him - do a little Dylan research and then see this film. It won't be nominated for it, but it deserves the Best Screenplay Oscar. And I haven't even seen There Will Be Blood yet. That's how good it is.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Two of the best performances of the year, bright and persuasive direction from a relatively unknown filmmaker, and one of the best music scores of recent memory, all collide in this must-see film.

I will say, first and foremost, that this film is not for everybody. It runs nearly three hours, and it is a slow and meditative film. It takes patience and energy to view this film, and it's not something for a casual viewing. It was completed in 2005 and not released until now, so that should tell you just how unsure of this movie the studio was. Stylistically, the film is equal parts Terrence Malick and Ingmar Bergman, and its main priority is slowly building character and plot through narration and nuance. Truthfully, this thing could be a half hour shorter, and there were times I grew weary of the slow pacing, but by the end, I was eternally grateful for every second of screen time beforehand, as it helps build into a breathtaking, emotional finale.

This is director Andrew Dominik's second film, and he is truly one to watch. His only previous film was a little Australian picture from 2000 entitled Chopper. I have no idea how he was able to get the job of writing and directing this film, but I'm glad he did. His directing is simple and unobtrusive, and his camerawork is fluid and precise. Reminds me a lot of the work of Paul Thomas Anderson. He doesn't quite have the gift for writing that PTA does (scenes drag on too long, etc.), but his deft handling of the material more than makes up for it.

Both of the two leads in this film - Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck - are exceptional. Pitt is menacing and frightening but also likable and sympathetic, something that is required for his character. But the real shining star here is Casey Affleck. We had two films this year - Gone Baby Gone and now this - in which he was absolutely amazing. He's subtle, believable, and altogether brilliant. He's no longer just the "other Affleck" from Good Will Hunting... he's a damn good actor. It's a pretty tight Supporting Actor race at the Oscars this year, so I doubt he'll get a nomination, but he won Best Supporting Actor from the National Board of Review, and it's richly deserved.

The score is by Nick Cave (yes, that Nick Cave) and Warren Ellis, and it's haunting, evocative, and just right. The cinematography is beautiful, as the film was shot by Roger Deakins, the Coen Brothers' frequent DP. But the real gem here is the story. As the title tells you, it's the true story of the assassination of Jesse James by Robert Ford. That detail is given to you right in the title, right up front, and it's obvious that's what the film is about. But the film is really about the desire for fame and infamy, and the resulting consequences. That's all I'll say, but that's where the ending of the film takes you, and it's beautiful, touching, and perfect.

One of the best films of the year. Don't go into this expecting action, or even a western. If you're a fan of the Terrence Malick style of filmmaking, you'll be right at home.

No Country for Old Men

The Coen Brothers' new movie, No Country for Old Men, is a rousing thrill-ride for much of its running time, but with an ending that, well... just simply sucks.

As I understand it, the film follows the novel quite closely, and the ending is the same as in the book. Well, this would have been a great chance to do some re-writing, because the ending comes out of nowhere, and not in a good way. People praise the ending of No Country as clever, as it is not only unexpected, but stylistically different from the rest of the film/novel. I simply see it as someone not knowing how to end their story. Without giving too much away, I will say that the last 10 minutes go in a completely different direction from the rest of the film, characters disappear, the momentum that has been growing throughout the film suddenly drops into nothingness, and we have been cheated as an audience.

You really have to see the film to understand what I'm saying here - and I don't want to give away any spoilers - but the story has some serious narrative problems, the ending chief among them. The film itself is great - one of the Coens' best - but that ending... it's just a sore spot with me. You can surprise your audience - even anger and upset them - but it has to come from somewhere meaningful, and it has to (for lack of a better word) jive with the rest of the film. If something feels like it doesn't belong in a film, chances are it shouldn't be there. I understand the attempt to do something different, but sometimes it's better to give what's expected than to fail your audience.

Some more Loveline clips

The Mist

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.

Lars and the Real Girl

I remember thinking while watching this movie: this is what independent filmmaking is all about. A unique, passionate vision that a studio wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Independent filmmaking his become quite the narrowly defined genre over the past few years - even the term has taken on a different name. Independent has been compressed to indie, and the output has quickly become hip, coming-of-age teen films. In essence, something that the studios can easily market. When all the independent distributors went out of business or were bought out by the big guys, we were given a bunch of "arthouse" sub-labels (i.e. Focus Features, which is part of Universal) which were nothing more than studio pictures with smaller budgets.

This film hearkens back to the independent films of the 90's - something easily identifiable as independent and something the studios would never produce. Simply read the plotline: A young man, lonely and confused, becomes delusional and begins to pretend that a life-size female doll is actually alive and is his girlfriend. Now, put something like this in the wrong hands, and you have a gross-out comedy or a sketch on SNL. Handled deftly by newcomers Nancy Oliver and Craig Gillespie (writer and director, respectively) however, and you have a touching, layered film that examines loneliness, isolation and love, albeit with a quirky sensibility.

I kept coming back to Harold and Maude while watching this film. Another film with a plot that could be obvious for jokes (an 18-year-old has a relationship with an 80-year-old woman), it instead prefers to go deeper, and look at motivation and underlying issues. It skirts a fine line, and almost always stays on the right side of it.

Ryan Gosling, a recent Oscar-nominee for Half Nelson, could have easily cashed-in on his new found popularity with a string of romantic comedies, but here he takes on a particularly challenging role, and he's simply a revelation. Lars is warm and likable, and the movie simply can't work without him. The rest of the cast is uniformly wonderful. I was especially impressed with Paul Schneider (All the Real Girls). Because of its strange plot, the film will most likely be ignored come awards time, but if it was up to me, I'd give him a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. He's funny without being broad, and he gives his character substantial weight and sympathy, which makes his transformation from disappointed brother to a supportive backbone in Lars' life that much more touching.

This movie won't be for everyone, but people with an open mind and a hunger for something different will find one of the best films of the year.

The Great Movies

This is the result of a couple of nights of boredom. I actually think it turned out really well. The objective was to show the power of film through clips of some of the best movies of all time. I think the moving score behind it (Jerry Goldsmith's theme from Rudy) really helps. Check it out, and enjoy.

Click here to watch The Great Movies

The Darjeeling Limited (and some thoughts on Wes Anderson)

The new film from Wes Anderson is both the most mature film he's ever done and unlike anything he's ever done before. The Wes Anderson "style" is still evident (perfectly-framed, close-up insert shots; slow-motion sequences set to music; whip-pans), but the trademark quirkiness we've come to expect from an Anderson film has been considerably toned down here. In my opinion, it's for the better.

Don't get me wrong, I love his work. Bottle Rocket and Rushmore are two of the best films of the 90's, and I was one of the few who thought that The Life Aquatic was a great movie. But it seems as if some people are distracted by the zany surface of Anderson's films and therefore have trouble connecting to the emotional layers within. I'm not one of them, but I understand their feelings. Anderson has such an overly-self-conscious style that some people are turned off. With The Darjeeling Limited, he has finally created a film which unabashedly shows its hand instead of hiding behind the poker face of Anderson's usual tricks, and confidently wears its heart on its sleeve. And it's a better film for it.

Before the film, we are treated to a short film entitled Hotel Chevalier, which directly ties in to the feature (which screens immediately after). The history of this short film has been strange: for festival screenings, the short was shown before the film, but for the early limited release, it was removed, and instead was made available for download on iTunes. Now, for the wide release, the short is back. I honestly can't imagine seeing this film without it included. It provides much-needed backstory for Jason Schwartzman's character, and actually gives lines to Natalie Portman (who is relegated to one single shot - and no lines - in the film proper). Without giving too much away, the removal of it also renders Schwartzman's last lines in the film meaningless, as they refer directly to the events of the short.

Anderson usually closes each of his films with a slow-motion shot, set to music. Not in this film. As if he somehow realized he was making an artistic leap of maturity with this film, he has chosen to instead use the slow-motion device throughout various parts of the movie, starting with a beautiful shot at the end of the short set to Peter Sarstedt's "Where Do You Go To (My Lovely)", and moving on to several others, including two great sequences set to Kinks songs. Anderson has always used this shot to underscore emotion, and this time he experiments by placing it within the film, instead of at the end. It works wonderfully every single time.

Without going on too much longer, I will point out the great characterization in the film (for example, Owen Wilson's character's ordering of food... when you see it, you'll know) which always felt spot-on and never forced, and of course the great caliber of the acting. These three people feel like brothers - the way they talk, the way they interact. It may seem simple, but it's an extremely difficult thing to pull off. All three are exceptionally cast for their roles, and the result is great chemistry.

The critics' attitude toward Wes Anderson has always puzzled me. We all seemed to agree on Bottle Rocket and Rushmore, and then, at some point, everyone went insane. The Royal Tenenbaums, while containing great moments, was saddled with a muddled narrative, too many characters for the running time, and frankly, was a complete mess. The result? Near unanimous critical praise, and an Oscar nomination for the screenplay. His next two films, The Life Aquatic and now The Darjeeling Limited, were two films that I thought were exceptional and yet are receiving mixed-to-negative reviews. Did you people watch the same film as me? Are people unable, or unwilling, to look past the stylistic surface and see what's underneath? Unfortunately, the popularity of Anderson among college-aged kids as a new, "hip" filmmaker have turned some people off even at the start. Who can blame them? The youngin's are in love with the Anderson style and quirks and don't care about much else. There is substance in these movies. Lots of substance. Film has a long history of dressing up hard-to-swallow subjects to make them more palatable. Why should Anderson get punished for it? Rant over.

Below I have posted the entire 13-minute short film Hotel Chevalier (which plays before The Darjeeling Limited). Warning: contains nudity. So, obviously, it's NSFW. Enjoy!

Click to watch "Hotel Chevalier"

Gone Baby Gone

Holy fucking shit... Ben Affleck can direct.

Most people seem to agree, especially after this movie, that Ben Affleck should step away from in front of the camera - where he's frequently criticized - and get behind it. While I think he's underrated as an actor (case in point: Chasing Amy), I wholeheartedly agree that he should explore this other side of his talent, which has unfortunately taken a back seat to his numerous action duds over the years.

If anyone had any doubt that Good Will Hunting was actually written by Affleck and Matt Damon (and there were some doubters early on), one only has to hear the words emerging from characters mouths in this movie. Containing several well-written speeches which are a joy to listen to, the dialogue in this movie is excellent. In addition to the great speeches involving admittedly dark subject matter, the film is unexpectedly funny, in addition to being affecting and involving. I believe you should go into this movie with as little known about it as possible, so I will end this review here, suffice to say that the direction (Affleck's debut film as director) is tight and assured, the script (co-written by Affleck and Aaron Stockard) is entertaining and affecting, and the ending - somewhat refreshingly - doesn't give you any definitive closure. Gone Baby Gone is something you need to see.

I will leave you with a speech between the characters of Detective Bressant (Ed Harris) and Patrick (Casey Affleck). It contains a minor spoiler, but not really because it isn't detailed enough to give anything away. I figured I'd warn you anyway. I couldn't remember the entire speech from memory, of course, so I downloaded a bootleg of the movie so I could transcribe it for you word for word. Enjoy.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
You should be proud of yourself. Most guys would've stayed outside.

PATRICK
I don't know.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
What don't you know?

PATRICK
A priest says shame is God telling you what you did was wrong.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Fuck him.

PATRICK
Murder's a sin.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Depends on who you do it to.

PATRICK
Ain't how it works. It is what it is.

BEAT.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
I planted evidence on a guy once. Back in '95... we were paying a hundred an eight-ball to snitches. Got a call from our pal Ray Likanski. We couldn't find enough guys to rat out. Anyways, he tells us there's a guy pumpin' up in an apartment up in Columbia Point. We go in, me and Nicky. Fifteen years ago, when Nicky went in, it was no joke. So, it's a stash house - the old lady's beat to shit, the husband's mean, cracked out. He tries to give us trouble, Nicky lays him down... We're doing an inventory, and it looks like we messed up because there's no dope in the house and I go in the back room... And this place was a shithole, mind you. Rats, roaches all over the place. But the kid's room in the back... was spotless. He swept it, he mopped it. It was immaculate. The little boy's sittin' on the bed holdin' on to his Playstation for dear life. There's no expression on his face. Tears streamin' down. He wants to tell me he just learned his multiplication tables.

PATRICK
Jesus.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
I mean the father's got him in this... crack den, subsisting on twinkies and ass-whippings. And this little boy... just wants someone to tell him that he's doing a good job. You're worried what's Catholic? Kids forgive. Kids... don't judge. Kids turn the other cheek. What do they get for it? So I went back out there, I put an ounce of heroin on the living room floor, and I sent the father on a ride... seven to nine.

PATRICK
That was the right thing?

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Fuckin' A! You gotta take a side. You molest a child... you beat a child... you're not on my side. If you see me comin' you better run because I'm gonna lay you the fuck down. Easy.

PATRICK
Don't feel easy.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Is the kid better off without his father? Yeah. But ok, I mean, he could be out there right now, pumpin' with a gun in his waistband. It's a war, man. Are we winning? No.

BEAT.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Would you do it again?

PATRICK
No.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
Does that make it right?

PATRICK
I don't know.

DETECTIVE BRESSANT
It doesn't make it wrong, though, does it?

Across the Universe:A beautiful failure

Julie Taymor's Across the Universe is a bold experiment - an experiment gone terribly, horrifyingly wrong. It is an irritatingly inconsistent film that contains several brilliant sequences, but unfortunately not enough of them to keep the film from falling apart.

The story is this: Set during the 1960's, we follow several young people throughout their entrance into the new decade, amid the backdrop of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. The film is structured as a semi-musical. Throughout the story, the characters frequently break into song - in this case, Beatles songs. Sounds great, right? It really, truly could have been. And worst of all, the first half of the movie is almost uniformly wonderful. One great sequence after another - a raucous dorm-room sing-a-long to "With a Little Help From My Friends", a breathtaking, immensely powerful re-imagining of "Let It Be" set amongst the Civil Rights Movement, and a darkly satirical take on "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" in which newly drafted soldiers are seen literally carrying the Statue of Liberty. I was also elated to see the inclusion of my favorite Beatles song, "I've Just Seen a Face".

Shortly after this, however, the film quickly spirals out of control. Any semblance of pacing completely goes out the window, as one agonizingly slow sequence follows another. Several early Beatles songs are re-composed as sparce, somber ballads, and while the changes were an interesting choice, there are simply way too many of them strung together. I've always seen the movie musical as the filmic equvilant of the mix-tape: start off with a bang, build up momentum, slow it down, and then alternate throughout the rest of the runtime with a similar sequence. The idea is to keep your listener listening, or, in this case, keep the viewer watching. By the end of the film, I didn't care. I just wanted to go home and listen to a real album, where the track order made some semblance of sense. The biggest problem with the music in the film is there's simply too many songs (34 in all) featured in the just over two-hour runtime. The Beatles-music idea was handled much better in I Am Sam (another film which uses covers of Beatles songs, as the original recordings are much too expensive to use).

One word of note: There are reports that the studio had attempted to take the film away from the director, Julie Taymor. While I'm not usually for that kind of thing, this is one case where it makes sense. The film is a complete mess in its second half. There are entire sequences here that could have been omitted. Particularly the horrible "I Am the Walrus" and "Mr. Kite!" scenes, which add nothing at all to the film. Taymor was reportedly under pressure to get the film under two hours, and she refused. Well, you could truthfully remove a half hour from this film and not even notice. This is one of the few cases where the studio was totally and completely right. Usually the studios are overstepping their bounds when they try to interfere. Usually. There are situations like The Magnificent Ambersons, and then there's this.

Random thoughts about a great show

I've always thought that the real way to gauge the quality of something is if you’re immensely thankful that it actually exists. When it comes to my all time favorite things, every time that I pop in that CD or DVD, it occurs to me that no matter what happens, it will always exist. Long after all of the people involved have left this earth, what they have created will always be here. It happens every time I put in a Dylan album or watch something like The 400 Blows.


Case in point: Freaks and Geeks. I watched the show during its brief run, and, since it was many years before it was officially released, I ended up buying copies of the show on eBay. Back then, I figured this would be the only way I’d ever get to own the show. I didn't care about the shitty quality – the fact that I was even able to watch it was a great thing. I vehemently recommended the show to friends, and I estimate that in my first few years of high school I made over 25 copies of the show for many people.


It was to my immense surprise and joy, of course, that the show was released on DVD in my senior year. The excitement of being able to have perfect copies of this show may seem silly, but it’s great to know that it will always be there -- it’s a strange comfort thing, I suppose.
As with most of your favorite things, you can’t wait to share them with others. I’ve done that with this show already, of course, but it’s great to know that when my kids are high school age, I can pull this out and give it to them their freshman year. This show means a lot to me, and it truly informed my high school years in a way that nothing else did. It’s only fair to try to provide that experience for someone else.

Clips from the series:

• "Will girls ever like us?"
• The geeks discuss kissing
• The chair
• Bill has the time of his life... by himself
• Bill's mom's new boyfriend sleeps over
• Bill and his mom's new boyfriend make a connection
• Mr. Rosso sings Alice Cooper
• Ken thinks he's gay
• Bill as a ghost
• Nick's dreams are crushed
• Mr. and Mrs. Weir listen to The Who
• The A/V teacher explains the world

Click on the picture below to
watch Dr. Drew on Tom Green Live - again!
(runtime: 1 hour, 30 mins)

Click on the picture below to watch Adam Carolla on Tom Green Live (runtime: 1 hour, 15 mins)

More Loveline clips

Click on the picture below to watch Dr. Drew on Tom Green Live (runtime: 1 hour)

The trailer for Wes Anderson's new movie, The Darjeeling Limited. God damn, this looks good...

I'm Reed Fish

It's always a little annoying when a film comes this close to greatness, only to get bogged down in other shit and never quite get there. That is the case with I'm Reed Fish, a little movie with a big heart that tries to take a familiar story and turn it into something fresh.

Our story concerns Reed Fish (Jay Baruchel - Undeclared, Knocked Up), who is the morning radio show host of the only station in his small town. He took over the job from his father when he died, and, now in his early twenties, isn't quite sure whether he should stay in his small town of about a hundred people, or move on to something else.

There's lots of things this movie gets right. Small-town life is captured with spot-on accuracy, and the restlessness of people who have nothing to do but complain about "that one bad intersection in town" is painfully familar to me in a sharply funny way. It shouldn't be any surprise that these aspects connect in the right way, as this story is based on true events and the "Reed Fish" of the title also wrote the script. The problem with the story is the structure of its screenplay. It resorts to using the gimmicky "movie-within-a-movie" thing, where, in this film, Reed Fish is filming a movie about the events that transpired in his life, and about a half hour in, we see that the two female roles in the story have actually been played by two actresses, and the real girls come up and speak to him (during the premiere) and we learn that these are the actual people. Confused yet? That's not the worst part. Instead of following this thread all the way through the film, we don't see anything more of this "premiere" until the end, where the rest of the story continues, but this time the emotional ties are wrapped up with completely different actresses talking to him. This was a great, simple story, and had they stayed true to that, there would have been a wonderful emotional payoff at the end. As it is, you have to constantly remind yourself at the end who he's talking to, and the energy that could have been invested in the moment is wasted concentrating on the formalities of the story.

All in all, this is a wonderfully made little story about growing up. It's not the surprise that Garden State was, but still completely worth a look. Particularly of note was how tame the film is. It's rated PG, and the event that tears everything apart is not a murder or an affair, but a kiss, and the purity of that was refreshing. There's a little too much music playing over lots of scenes, and the humor feels a bit forced at times, but I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with this. Baruchel won Best Actor at the U.S Comedy Arts Festival (which is quickly becoming the new Sundance), and it's richly deserved. Another thing which lifted the film much higher in the second act was a couple of actress Schuyler Fisk's original songs (particularly this scene, which gives a nice, grandiose feeling and sense of longing to the rest of the movie).

A nice spin on an old story, I'm Reed Fish attempts to go beyond the sum of its parts, and that's a welcome thing.

The TV Set

"Truthfully, 'original' scares me a little... you don't want to be too original."

A wonderful little film, The TV Set is the new movie from Jake Kasdan (Zero Effect, Orange County). In this story, we follow a writer and his ongoing struggle to bring his TV pilot from script to screen, all the while trying to keep his original vision for the material intact. Along the way, he deals with the incredibly stupid head of the network (Sigourney Weaver), an inept TV director, and an unbelievably over-the-top actor who he's forced to hire for the show.

The TV Set clip 1

Truth be told, the film is really a thinly-veiled account of the trials and tribulations that Kasdan and company went through bringing Freaks and Geeks to NBC in 1999, albeit with the situations reversed - the network gave very little input into the creation of the show, but after it was completed, they were horrified (frequently, notes given to them by the network were blatantly ignored).

The TV Set clip 2

Kasdan even lampoons the "testing" process, which he has probably endured dozens of times through all of his TV work.

The TV Set clip 3

Kasdan knows his subject well, and in my opinion, this goes down with Living in Oblivion as one of the best films about filmmaking ever made. Too often, a film which incorporates filmmaking into its plot loses sight of the characters and tone among everything else going on. Not in this film - the characters are intriguing and the sharp black humor shines right through.

Superbad

Superbad. Wonderfully awkward and painfully funny, this film just proves that everything Judd Apatow touches turns to gold. Having been a follower of Apatow and co. all the way back when Freaks and Geeks was still on the air, it's really nice - and really refreshing - to see good, talented people finally getting success in this business.
Apatow didn't direct this one - taking the helm is independent filmmaker Greg Mottola, who hasn't directed a feature since 1996's The Daytrippers. Mottola gives the film a little edge, shooting in harsh light and throwing in some handheld camerawork, in direct contrast to Apatow's comparatively slick and polished productions. This gives the film a sense of immediacy, and helps to hide the film's somewhat low budget (reported to be $18 million - and this movie has lots of exterior night photography).
The screenplay (co-written by co-star and frequent Apatow collaborator Seth Rogen) doesn't quite have the sophistication of Apatow's writing, but it's still pretty damn good. While Apatow is nearing closer and closer to dramatic work (which, in my opinion, is a great move and it's what I eventually see him progressing to), this film is strictly in the realm of comedy, although it's also touching in its own way. While Knocked Up was the better film overall, this one will probably score higher with people looking for an out-and-out comedy. It's safe to say that you probably won't have a better time at the movies this year.
(Oh, and P.S. - guess who had a little cameo? Krumholtz!)

And yet, even more Loveline...

Even more Loveline

The Best Films of the Year, so far (in order)

1. Zodiac
2. Waitress
3. Once
4. Rescue Dawn
5. Sicko
6. Knocked Up
7. Grindhouse
8. The Lookout
9. 28 Weeks Later...
10. Hot Fuzz

Yes, we're all the way into August and there's only ten films on this list. Unfortunately, that's the way it goes. We're still about two months away from the "serious" movie season.

After my whole rambling about the future of video in filmmaking (i.e. "Film is Dead"), I was reminded of Francis Ford Coppola's famous quote about video. I was just simply going to post it here in text form, but then I remembered that at the end of Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, there's a brief clip in which he actually says this quote. So, here we go:

Michelangelo Antonioni
1912-2007

Ingmar Bergman
1918-2007

"Probably the greatest film artist, all things considered, since the invention of the motion picture camera."
- Woody Allen

László Kovács
1933-2007

Film is dead

People that know me know that in the past, I've been a HUGE supporter of movies shot on film, and I always have been. My opinion has always been that if you can afford to shoot on film, then that should be your medium, and you should leave video to the people who can only afford to shoot on that. Well, although high-quality video has been slowly creeping into big-budget productions in the past 10 years, I've only just now been convinced that film is dead. Yes, you've heard me right. I've said the thing I never thought I ever would: film is dead.
Don't get me wrong - I hope it never goes away and that people continue to shoot on it for years to come, but in terms of film production, the technology has finally caught up to the point where you simply can't tell it's not film.
One word of note, however: this doesn't apply to all shot-on-video films recently. Although Robert Rodriguez's Sin City and Once Upon a Time in Mexico were both shot on video, the former used so much green-screen photography that there really was no basis for comparison, and the latter was shot almost completely in daylight. Besides, Rodriguez is DP on all of his own films now, and he really doesn't "light" anything, so there was really no way to judge how the equipment handled shadow.
I also don't want people to think I'm including films shot on cameras like the Canon XL-1 and the Panasonic DVX-100A (films like 28 Days Later, Murderball, and Once), which are great films, but which obviously have that "video look". I'm talking about films that are using the latest cameras, and in that respect, we are very close to revolutionizing the film industry.
I'm now going to talk about the movie which single-handedly changed my mind on the whole film/video situation. Before this movie, there were really three different uses for video in major films:

1. Low-budget films shot on an "inferior" video format (i.e. November)
2. Used in major films as an experimental element (approximately half of Collateral was shot on Hi-Def video)
3. Expensive, advanced cameras used in effects-heavy films (Superman Returns)

I was waiting for a mainstream, narrative film to really step up and try to use video in a way which wouldn't call attention to itself. Michael Mann had used video in Collateral and Miami Vice in a highly stylized way which mostly highlighted the video aspect rather than attempt to make it blend in.

That all changed with Zodiac. This film also used Mann's Viper Filmstream camera, but lighted the footage in such a way that it was nearly impossible to tell that it hadn't been shot on film. There's only one scene in the entire 3-hour film which belies its video-based medium, but I believe the "flaw" had to do more with the fluorescent light-lit diner it was filmed in (and the reaction of that light with the video lens), rather than the camera technology itself. Below are several film stills from Zodiac, taken from a DVD source, at different points in the film. Notice how well the camera handles shadow and black levels. The biggest give-away with video - the slight "jerkiness" in moving images that comes from the video being shot at an artificial 24 frames per second (rather than video's usual 30) - is entirely absent in Zodiac, giving the movie a very film-like smoothness (although this is obviously absent from the simple still frames below).

Zodiac film stills

I saw this movie projected twice in the theater, and although I knew prior to its release that it was shot on video, I knew after seeing it that this movie would fool many uninitiated people into believing it was shot on film. I knew after the first, beautifully-lit sequence with the two kids in the car that I had just heard the death-rattle of film.

More Loveline

These are really funny, check it out...
(At-work warning - strong language)

The "Angry Nintendo Nerd" reviews old, bad games:
Back to the Future for NES
Ghostbusters for NES

Edward Yang
1947-2007