Coming Up- August 22, 2009

This weekend I am looking forward to viewing the film I most looked forward to at the beginning of the summer.

The last Tarantino movie that I saw was Death Proof. This, along with with its double-feature guest, Planet Terror, provided an amazing amount entertainment. Pure Awesomeness.

Inglourious Basterds, also directed by Quentin Tarantino, has been promoted as at least the equal of Death Proof in terms of awesomeness production.

At the same time, there is another new release that seems to look a little bit interesting.



Post Grad may just be trying to take advantage of the recent recession business, but it seems to me to be the kind of story that has been ignored in a lot of ways. There have been multiple stories that tell the coming of age story from the male perspective, but few that tell the story in a seriously funny way from the female perspective.

Read on...

Contrarian Critics

I don't really think that I am a contrarian critic. Apparently though, it is possible to be one. Whenever I write a review, I do honestly try to achieve the standard I described in the mission statement of this site. You can read it by clicking the 'about' link to the right.

Usually when I do pan a film, I try to point to several concrete examples of things that are just terrible. This summer, there have been several of those.

Read on...

Summer Of The Limited Release

Last Year, there were only a few limited release films that I was unable to see because of my geography. Mongol, a 2007 film made the rounds last summer, and I eventually was able to view it in Cleveland while on vacation. Son Of Rambow was another that I was looking forward to, but it never came to a theater in my region.

This summer is even more of the same, with In The Loop, The Hurt Locker, and 500 Days of Summer, all as limited release pictures.

It begs the question: Why have all of the best reviewed films this summer not been given a wide release?

The answer of course, is economics. Film studios license certain films for a run specific geographic areas. They do this because in most cases, these films were made for less money and the studios don't want to spend a lot of money to distribute a film that may only have earning potential in major markets. In some cases, after a film has made enough to cover the cost of its production, it is then given a wide release. This is usually only done when studio executives believe that the film has garnered enough attention to earn a major profit. The best example of this, is probably last year's Slumdog Millionaire.

Luckily, 500 Days of Summer will be in Kansas City next week. The Hurt Locker just got here after nearly a month in an even smaller list of select cities. Hopefully, the rest of the great films this summer will be given a wider release at some point or make enough money to be given the full treatment in every theater in America.

Read on...

Summer Blockbuster Update

Most Disappointing film of the summer thus far?

URBAN: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

I agree that it is sometimes nice to watch a movie that is less engaging, but this film goes entirely in the opposite direction. I just hope that one of the adventure movies this summer comes close to the success achieved in Ironman/Dark Knight last summer. I'm afraid that GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is going to be a joke.

Best Film of the summer thus far?

Star Trek

Star Trek was good. The story, characters and action were interesting and fun, but it was too dependent on time travel and its paradoxes while avoiding serious themes that are required for a film to make a lasting impression.

In an odd way, I believe that it is going to be the films that aren't blockbusters. The Hangover impressed and 500 Days of Summer has been reviewed really well and I am really looking forward to Funny People. I don't quite know what to make of the upcoming District 9, which is produced by Peter Jackson. The advertising so far has caused ambivalence. On one hand, it looks Verhoevenish and counter-culture. On the other hand, the aliens seem really corny. Who knows?

Read on...

The 400 Blows

Urban:
Truffaut's The 400 Blows is a cinematic experience. The story revolves around the tale of Antoine Doinel and his life as an adolescent in the city of Paris during the 1950's. The story owes a lot to Salinger as Antoine faces difficulty with discipline at home and at school.

Truffaut is said to be one of the originators of French "New Wave" Cinema, along with Jean Luc-Godard. These two are also credited with ownership of the "auteur" theory of film criticism. With these things in mind, The 400 Blows is obviously a film that focuses more on the telling of the story, than the story itself.

By this comment, I mean to say that the story, while brilliantly rendered, functions primarily as a vehicle for the filmmaker to demonstrate his ability to render beautiful shot compositions that are also technically sound, organically place allusions, and also to stretch the limits of cinema style from the period.

The film is shot beautifully. The film's credits roll along with a rolling shot of the city of Paris. Throughout the film, Truffaut attempts to display beautiful subjects, from Antoine's mother, to the brilliant architecture of Paris, in their natural poses. As a native of these things would be used to viewing them. To do so, instead of simply profiling these subjects, he portrays them at work, in the natural hustle and bustle of everyday life. Usually these shots are long tracking shots from a crane, following an individual or small group as they progress through the streets toward a destination, stopping to interact or accomplish tasks along the way.

The film is also full of allusions. Truffaut, in interviews from the period mentions his love affair with all types of cinema, and watching this film is also an object lesson. The most striking allusion that I picked up was the nearly constant framing of the city's neon lights, framing most, but not all of the letters in the picture, and then panning back slightly to include most,,, but still not all of the neon sign. The same practice is done in Citizen Kane, most notably on the sign above the lounge where Susan Alexander is interviewed. The scenes within the apartment all bear a strong resemblance to Hollywood versions of stage plays. A Streetcar Named Desire is obviously a strong influence here. On top of these "classic" film references, Truffaut pushes his allusions even further, into areas not usually referenced in serious film. Many of the scenes, especially those in the classroom, refer as far back as the silent film era with the slapstick jokes and pranks of children. These jokes, the less than covert passing of notes and grabbing of another's objects, do not require words. In fact, these jokes are never told with words within the film. They are just there, as slight gags, allusions to a past that is clearly present. The most notable and best example of this technique is done as the gym teacher leads the children on a run through the streets. As he moves from street to street a few children bleed off to cut class at every turn. By the time he realizes what is happening, only a few children remain.

As much as this film is built upon the tradition of past filmmakers, the film is quite significantly an example of French New Wave cinema. To begin, the last two scenes of the film radically depart from the linear storytelling of most of the film. Antoine's running is filmed from a moving platform that is moving at the same pace. The shot lasts 1:18 and it does an excellent job of depicting the long life of running that Antoine faces. The other ending scene that is a dramatic departure from cinema of the period is the ending. Instead of the "Hollywood" ending, complete with loving embrace and smile, Antoine looks from the surf with a look of complete realization of his past/position/future. The film ends there.

The 400 Blows is a film that was initially considered controversial because of the subject matter. The film openly discusses adultery, abortion, and abusive authority/child reform. Even more, it does not shy away from relating the possible ramifications of these subjects upon children. Today, however, the film has become notable because of the way that this story was told. By fully participating in the past and then pushing the boundaries recently explored Truffaut was able to participate in his vision of film auteur, rendering cinematic beauty along the way.

Read on...

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Urban: A superhero movie in the same mold as Spiderman 3.
Lucas: Poor writing, poor directing, poor CGI.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is director Gavin Hood's first major effort. It stars Hugh Jackman, playing Wolverine for the 4th time, focusing on the origin of his character, and his central role in the X-Men franchise.

URBAN:
I will start this off by saying this movie wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be. The film compares well with Spiderman 3 as a comic book film that aimed to please a younger audience. There were plenty of little jokes throughout the film, and there were scenes that were obviously attempts to move the audience, but they fell flat because the attention to detail wasn’t there. The lack of darkness and depth really affected the film, causing it to seem like something intended for much younger audience, rather than the overwhelming majority of the audience, which were adults.

LUCAS:
I should have lowered my hopes. This movie was a vehicle for the studio to cash in on a popular franchise. The story and writing were disjointed, the directing was mediocre, and, perhaps most unforgivably, the CGI was awful. While certain components were strong, they were assembled into something completely lackluster.

URBAN:
The most disappointing thing was there was plenty of source material that could have been used here. Instead, it seemed as though the production team set out to create a new story that is only loosely based on the original. The result, is a real mash of stories, characters, and themes that doesn’t fit anything very well. For me, the entire project was off course. For readers of the comic book, Wolverine really isn’t the leader, or fact-finding investigator that he is painted as in this film. Wolverine is the enforcer, and the guy who is always looking to break up the game plan with an individual mad dash that either blows the entire plan, or works because of his audacity. Neither characterization is to be found in this picture. At various times, the story alludes to the mutant/racism issue that is the focus of the first three X-Men films. Major Stryker alludes to his work as an attempt at a pre-emptive strike against the mutants, which is an interesting idea that has obvious political parallels to our current times. But aside from this one line, we never are allowed to ponder the ramifications/meaning of this move as another big fight immediately proceeds this line.

LUCAS:
Yes, there was no strong direction for this. No purpose. Who is the bad guy? Stryker? Sabretooth? Deadpool? There was a mish-mash of fan-favorite characters who had been missing in the first three movies, but they couldn't come up with a strong, unused bad guy. But even with re-hashes of Sabretooth and Stryker, they couldn't settle on one. Ryan Reynolds was excellent as Deadpool for the two minutes of screen time he has at the beginning, but they he disappears for the entire movie, only to show up for another two minutes at the end... with his best characteristic, his mouth, sewn shut. Choosing any one of the threads the movie hinted at in the beginning, sticking with it, and developing it would have yielded a much more satisfying story.

URBAN:
I guess I don’t understand why they begin the story in 1845. Unfortunately, the most artistic part of the film is the opening credits, which portray Wolverine and Sabretooth (brothers) as they fight side by side in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. This is unfortunate, because no explanation is given as to why these two decide to fight in American Wars (they are Canadian) and gives no clue as to why one of the brothers begins to go a little too far with the bloodshed after his 130th year. Overall, the lack of explanations is probably the biggest cause of frustration with this film. It is never explained why Major Stryker decides to inject Wolverine with Adamantium, or why after he is injected, that he suddenly decides to erase his memory, or why Wolverine is in a murderous rage after the adamantium is injected, or why his brother can’t be injected with Adamantium, why Patrick Stewart suddenly show up……. The list of what is unexplained goes on and on. On a final note, the timeline is very uncertain. Wolverine fights in Vietnam,,,, then 6 years later is a lumberjack in Canada, but the medical facilities where he in injected with Adamantium look very much modern day. The three mile island accident took place in 1979, which I guess, is built in to the storyline, the shots of Patrick Stewart in heavy makeup, with the superimposed helicopter are so grainy that they look as though they were filmed with a camera from that era.

The action scenes looked good, the fighting wasn’t extremely martial arts, and it was filmed with an eye for impact. I just couldn’t help but notice that no one ever had any blood on their blades. In fact, the total lack of gore (considering that Wolverine has blades coming out of his hands) was a little bit mystifying.

LUCAS:
I was extremely disappointed by the CGI. I remember seeing, just a couple weeks ago, that there was a leaked copy of the film on the internet... but the special effects weren't done, there were still green screens and wires. I thought it must have been an older copy of the film, but after seeing the finished copy, I'm guessing they were rushing to meet the release date. Certain scenes were obvious green-screens (explosions, especially). The claws in the bathroom scene looked like they were from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. If there's one thing you need to get right in a mindless summer action movie, it's the special effects, and this film couldn't even get that right.

URBAN:
There are just so many things that could have been done better. It is too bad that this didn’t find its way into the hands of a more accomplished director/production team. Considering the extremely harsh reviews that this has been taking, its obvious that the bar has been raised for superhero movies.

Oh yeah,,, the ending. Not cool. Pulling the amnesia card is the lamest trick in the book.

LUCAS:
Yes, I think the ending was a symptom of a flaw that permeated the whole production. By showing events that happened before the previous movies, but still remaining continuous with them, the movie was painted into a corner from the very start. But even with that problem, they could have done a better job than what ended up on film.

Urban: Not Recommended, but watch it because everyone else will.
Lucas: Not Recommended.

Read on...

Obsessed

URBAN: A feature that some will love, some, being those that like Beyonce Knowles. Everyone else will be very frustrated because this film never answers the "why".
LUCAS: The first half is interesting, the rest is mostly garbage.

Obsessed features The Wire's Idris Elba as Derek, a high-powered executive, with a near-perfect marriage to Sharon (Beyoncé Knowles), a young son, and a beautiful new house. His storybook life is interrupted with the arrival of a new office assistant, Lisa (Ali Larter). Lisa becomes obsessed with Derek, and in a series of escalating incidents, tries to live out her fantasy of being with him.

URBAN:
I can't really describe what I feel as a disappointment, because I didn't expect much. On some level though, I did want there to be a backstory that explained why Ali Larter was so aggressive.

LUCAS:
I agree, Ali Larter's character had no explanation whatsoever, and while that doesn't make or break a movie, in this case it broke it. The film set itself up as a psychological thriller. The first half builds up tension nicely, you wonder what Lisa's angle is, and you cringe as Derek just manages to extricate himself from sticky situations. Then it turns out she has no angle, she's just nuts. It could have been so much more. It was like the screenwriters watched Disclosure and wanted to re-make it, but forgot to give the crazy girl a motivation.


Really the two halves of the film could have worked if they had each been separated and expanded into separate movies. The first half, a psychological cat-and-mouse game, the last half, a pure horror movie.

URBAN:
More important that the story and the total lack of artistic expression here was the cultural phenomenon that we stumbled upon. Without even looking for it we scheduled ourselves to see the most popular movie of the weekend (I'm calling it now). The Soloist should have been called "Reek of Desperation, Seeking Oscar". Fighting a remake of Step up to the Streets with fists. What Obsessed had that those didn't was simply Beyonce.

People, especially particular demographics will turn out in droves to see Beyonce Knowles in a film. While it wasn't especially marketed as a vehicle for her, by the end, this film is all about Beyonce, showcasing her fierceness in a long fight scene against the homewrecking Larter. I was surprised at how violent this scene was. It was too bad that this theme, and playing up on these race relations wasn't more of the subject of the film.

LUCAS:
Yes, they missed out on a chance to make intelligent and insightful commentary on race relations, but instead shied entirely away from the issue. The one moment I thought they were going to make a go for it was when Derek's co-worker is warning him to watch out for Lisa... but they just breezed on by.

URBAN:
Overall, I had to say that one of the primary reasons that I didn't care for this film was the anti-feminist story over-arching throughout the film. It is really unfair that one of the women is solely to blame, and that the other one is made to look foolish for continuing to support her male counterpart. This squaring-off of the females is an easy play and doesn't rely on any subtlety.

LUCAS:
Ah yes, another opportunity for subtext that the film missed entirely. Instead of commenting on the different ways social contact can be perceived by different people, they make one perception (Derek's) absolutely right, and the other perception (Lisa's) absolutely wrong. It seemed at the beginning that they may play with the idea that Derek was leading Lisa on, but instead they turn Lisa into a parody of a jilted lover and play it for all it's worth. Ham-handed and boring.

LUCAS: Not recommended.
URBAN: Not Recommended.

Read on...

State of Play

Urban: Thrilling at times with lots of Twists and Turns, maybe one too many.
Lucas: A slowly-growing story of an investigation, that mutates too suddenly.

In State of Play, director Kevin Macdonald, goes behind the scenes of modern day Washington D.C., detailing the combination of government, big business, and press in order to tell a tale where the lies and twists are plentiful. Russell Crowe (Cal McAffrey), Ben Affleck (Rep. Stephen Collins), and Rachel McAdams (Della Frye) provide the star power, portraying the old school press, the government, and the new school of blogging press, respectively. When a link is found between two seemingly unrelated murders, the great machines of D.C. go into gear working with and against each other.

URBAN:
One of the marks of a great piece of art is that it can stand up to criticism from a variety of angles. This film can be taken apart on many levels. While the conflicts between government accountability, the press, and privatized security companies that thrive off of government contracts take center stage, the film could also be read as a variety of critiques on sub-conflicts that our society currently deals with. The issues that the press deals with; withholding the names of sources, catering to media corporations instead of local leadership, the fight for resources between newspaper reporters and new style bloggers, biting that hand that feeds you with government stories and sources, getting too close to the source, misplacing the role of story when a police case is still open, and most relevant- the decline of news in print form, are all felt quite strongly in this film.

LUCAS:
As mentioned above, the film sent a strong message about the importance of the journalistic process. Crowe is a white knight battling against all those who would turn journalism into a purely money-gaining enterprise, nicely paralleling Affleck's fight to keep national defense in the hands of the government rather than a for-profit company. The theme of corrupted ideals is prevalent, which may be why the filmmakers opted for the ending they did.

URBAN:
While the characters are good, the intrigue of the story is really what drives this film. Despite this, it is hard to give too many details because of the nature of the many twists of the plot. The action is limited to only three short scenes. The rest of the film consists of conversations between the characters and shots of people driving too and from meetings. While it seems like this may get dreary, the combination of Crowe and McAdams actually is quite interesting and works to develop many of the themes found within the film. Affleck plays himself as always. In this one he’s a toolish Congresman from Pennsylvania who finds himself in a perilous position when his lover (even though he is married) is murdered and he realizes that his position on a powerful committee has been compromised.

LUCAS:
The movie was about the chase, digging deeper and deeper into a story until the truth starts to take slow shape. One clue means a dozen new angles to check out, all but one of which lead nowhere. But that one new clue starts the process all over again. Finally, after many phone calls, much wheeling and dealing, and even some shooting and low-level extortion, it seems as though Crowe and McAdams have a handle on what really happened. Then, the movie decides to turn into an Agatha Christie novel, and a subtle clue turns the whole story on its head.

Crowe turned in a typically fine performace, playing the petulant child for his editor, the gruff mentor for McAdams, and the grown-apart old lover for Penn, all within a single character. Some of the minor characters, such as Jason Bateman's sleazeball PR guy, and the two reporters assigned to help Crowe with his investigation brought welcomed comic relief to a movie that was in danger of being over-dramaticized.

URBAN:
Artistically, the only real theme that rose to the surface was the repeated shots of helicopters flying above the city. We never get ‘feed’ from these choppers, we just see them flying. So, we never know whether they are surveillance by the government, a news team reporting, or even, some combination of the two. Nevertheless, director Macdonald does maintain a certain amount of art in the consistency with which he portrays his characters. One of the best shots in this vein occurs during the first meeting between Congressman Collins (Affleck) and his wife. Affleck is easily recognizable in a back hallway, but he is maintained in the shadows during the entire meeting with his wife. In fact, Affleck is filmed in the shadows, or briefly emerging from the shadows in nearly every scene in which he makes an appearance. Of course this is foreshadowing, but it also seems organic within the context of the film.

LUCAS:
This film had a love affair with the city of Washington. As far as I could tell, all of the exterior shots were done on location, and as an area resident, it did a lot to enhance the movie's credibility. They didn't concentrate on the monuments that everyone and his high-school tour group has seen again and again, but rather on the monuments for the locals, such as Ben's Chili Bowl, the Americana Hotel, and even the Metro system. Kudos to the filmmakers for keeping the film authentic in that regard, and showing off some of what D.C. has to offer for non-tourists.

URBAN:
I feel that I must say this, even though it may ruin the film for some. The ending is garbage. It would have been much better and more satisfying (for the viewer) to end the film about 15 minutes earlier, before the big twist kicks in. To add to this, the images being shown over the credits really bring home the point about the importance of the newspaper and reporter as a democratic necessity. It just seems kind of out of place considering that this was a theme that arose, but certainly not the central issue of the film.

LUCAS:
The last 15 minutes felt like a deus ex machina set up to allow Crowe to take his stand on the side of journalism rather than friendship. That's a fine ending, and it makes sense for Crowe's character, but it wasn't supported by the rest of the plot. Even Affleck's character says that he thought Crowe's initial theory on the murder was correct. Drop the last 15 minutes, and you lose Crowe's life choice, but gain a coherent movie.

Urban: Recommended, mainly because of the other weak offerings at the cinema this weekend.
Lucas: Recommended, for D.C. residents, and those don't mind non sequitur endings.

Read on...

Adventureland

CARL: Smart, emotionally honest, and funny.
JAY: Smart, serious, funny (but not as funny as you would be led to think by watching the previews, basically, a marketing problem)

Adventureland is written and directed by Greg Motolla, who got his street cred directing Superbad. The film follows James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) during the summer of 1987, when a change in financial situations forces him to forego his post-grad tour of Europe to work at a local amusement park. The film's main focus is on Brennan as he develops a romance with Emily Lewin (Kristen Stewart). Complicating things are a ditzy but 80s-sexy co-worker called "Lisa P" (Margarita Levieva) who has eyes for Brennan, and Emily's on again/off again affair with a married ride repairman, the cool-as-hell Connell (Ryan Reynolds).

CARL:
Adventureland feels autobiographical, and apparently Greg Mottola did work at Adventureland amusement park. This contributes to the feel of authenticity surrounding the work-a-day life of carnies. A fellow movie-goer, who had worked many summers at an amusement park, said it was like having flashbacks. The authenticity doesn't end there, either. The film's relationships stand out.

Brennan and Emily have a romance that actually develops, as he sheds his shyness and insecurity, and she opens up to a relationship that is emotional as well as physical. One of my favorite relationships, however, is the friendship between Brennan and Connell. They both throw each other under the bus, Connell by convincing Brennan into going out with Lisa P, and Brennan by spilling the beans on Connell's affair with Em. As Brennan says goodbye to Connell at the end, they both know that there was no malice, and each was living his life the best way he knew how: Connell by being a womanizer, and Brennan by being an optimist.

JAY:
Personally, I loved the way relationships were portrayed here. Rarely do viewers get to see the strong feelings of early adulthood without the compulsory look down from the perspective of adulthood scorn. In fact, the parents barely register in this film, and when they do we see them for who they are, people living with the results of the decisions they made when they were in there early 20’s. It isn't ideal, but it is a reality for most people.

I agree with your perspective on Connell, Ryan Reynolds (Van Wilder) provides a bad-guy performance with subtlety that I didn’t think he was capable of. I would say that both of them left as friends, even though both portrayed the other in a very negative way.

For me though, the picture was made by its artistic impressions more than simply dialogue. Watch the 4th of July scene, right after Brennan says that he celebrates Bastille Day. The shot perfectly breaks up the ridiculous prose with concrete, sparkle and fade Americana. It is the metaphorical hole being shot in his dream of spending a summer in Europe, but also demonstrating that these new plans have a benefit of their own.

I also was impressed by the scene which occurs when Brennan confronts Lisa P. about spreading the gossip of Em and Van Wilder. All of the impressions he projected upon her because of her beauty all go out the window once Amadeus comes in over the loudspeakers and she starts dancing.

All in all, the ending was weak and the first 10-15 minutes really didn't catch me at all, but by the end I was enamored with this film, probably the best I have seen this year so far. It had great music, funny jokes (satin lives) great characterization, and the story was told extremely well. My only serious gripe was that the soundtrack (which was amazing) wasn't featured more prominently.

CARL:
Ahh, the soundtrack. I had been listening to The Velvet Underground, as well as some of Lou Reed's solo work, the same day, just before I saw the film. So, to hear "Pale Blue Eyes" featured so prominently felt like my mind was playing tricks on me. The music drew distinct lines in the movie. Brennan and Em listen to the Cure, Lou Reed, and other emotionally honest and intelligently written music, while at work they suffer through an endless barrage of pop songs, worst of all Falco. Connell recognizes Brennan's superior musical tastes, wants to be in the "cool crowd", but in the end Brennan gets his one instant of superiority over Connell, when he corrects Connell's mis-naming of a Lou Reed song, whom Connel claims to have jammed with.

I don't think the soundtrack was too minimized, but I've been arguing for a while that movies should get away from the Garden State ethos of making the whole movie one gigantic music video.

The beginning was weak, I agree. There was nothing to make you feel sympathetic about this idiot kid who can't get laid because he's too neurotic, and the ex-girlfriend never had any screen-time and never made an emotional impact.

But as for the ending, other than cutting off the 30-second scene inside Em's apartment, it was the best way they could have ended it. Doing a Good Will Hunting ending, with Brennan finally having the stones to go see the girl, would not have told the full story, because both sides of this relationship are messed up. To have closure, you need both of them in the same place, both deciding to be together.

JAY:
I agree that the ending was storyboarded well. By that I mean that all of the characters were in the right places at the right times. The failure that I saw was including the foreplay and portraying the certainty of the near future in the dialogue. Certainly, the dialogue remained consistent with the characterization, but I'm not sure that the situation did.

Besides the beginning and the very end this is a strong film.

CARL: Recommended.
JAY: Recommended.

Read on...