Dark Knight score ineligible for Oscar

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

Here's a link to an article at Variety

Zack and Miri Make a Porno, and Changeling

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

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

Michael Crichton
1942-2008

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Miracle at St. Anna

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

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

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

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

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

Paul Newman
1925-2008

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

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

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

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

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

"Let's hurt somebody..."

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

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

Burn After Reading

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

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

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

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

Snow Angels

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

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

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

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

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

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

RE: Zodiac

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

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

The Promotion

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

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

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

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

Pineapple Express, and some other random thoughts

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

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

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

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


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

Isaac Hayes
1942-2008

Bernie Mac
1957-2008