Stop-Loss and The Beautiful Ordinary

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

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

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

Reservation Road

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

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

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

Anthony Minghella
1954-2008

The Mist, revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.