There have been movies that are more shocking and more depraved, but most of them go so far off the deep end that any semblance of reality is lost. A strong performance from Harvey Keitel keeps things centered. The story is still out there, but you can believe the actions and reactions portrayed by Keitel.
Keitel plays an unnamed NYC cop, one who possesses almost every vice one could. He's a drug addict, a compulsive gambler, an adulterer, and a pervert. He drops his kids off at school, and snorts some coke before he even drives away. His gambling debts escalate from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars as he keeps going double-or-nothing on games during a baseball playoff series. He has a family at home, two women somewhere else, and a third that he does drugs and presumably enjoys other things with.
The rape of a nun by two teens is the spark that starts the redemption of Keitel. The nun claims to have forgiven her attackers, but Keitel cannot understand her reasoning. There isn't really any of the typical movie police work, but Keitel is able to get to the two. I won't spoil any more details, but the end of the film leaves you open to a good amount of questions and interpretation.
The visual aspect is what caused the most controversy upon release. Director Abel Ferrera held nothing back. There are graphic depictions of drug use (snorting, smoking, and injecting). A threesome sex scene features two females along with a full-frontal shot of Keitel. The rape of the nun is horrific; obviously just the thought of a crime like that is disturbing, but seeing and hearing it on-screen is just emotionally draining.
If I had seen this movie in 1992 when it was released, I'm sure the impact would have been much greater. As so many years have passed, not only have I personally been desensitized, but film-making in general has gone beyond what would be considered shocking back then. It's still something interesting, something I would recommend to people who like Reservoir Dogs or Natural Born Killers, but nothing that was totally mind-blowing.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Bad Lieutenant gets a 6.
~chris v
Youth in Revolt
July 27, 2010
Release Date: January 8, 2010
Damn you, Michael Cera. Damn you. I was trying to take a break from Cera after "Paper Heart", but I was with a group of people who decided they wanted to watch Youth In Revolt. I ended up once again hoping that I wouldn't be disappointed by another Cera hipster faux-indie comedy.
I don't think I was automatically biased against this movie just because I am tired of Cera. I really tried to approach it openly and give it a shot. I liked the rest of the supporting cast (Galifianakis, Buscemi, Liotta, Long, etc). I even thought there was comedic potential in having Cera simultaneously play his usual character and his opposite.
Once I sat down to watch it, however, I realized it's possible to be both disappointed and pleased at the same time. I laughed a few times, it wasn't completely void of humor, but too often they were more quick chuckles than actual laughs. The script had lots of ups and downs; Cera actually had the best lines of the movie, as both himself and his badass alter ego.
The biggest problem was just the way the two young lovebirds, played by Cera and Portia Doubleday, spoke. I feel like it was supposed to be a sort of mock of the wave of over-intellectual youths being portrayed in movies lately (a la Juno), but it never got quite to full-on satire level. It ended up just feeling unrealistic, taking me out of the movie, and ending my suspension of disbelief. The delivery of the lines was the rapid-fire, quick-thinking pace, so it felt like we were supposed to believe these characters actually processed thoughts and speech in this way. But some of the lines were so over-the-top that I had to believe it was written intentionally to be as though these characters are aware of their pretentions. There's also a distinct possibility I'm delving way too far into the characterization.
The rest of the cast had their ups and downs as well. The roles played were rather small, so actors like Steve Buscemi and Fred Willard didn't get a chance to really shine, but were able to do what they could with the limited scenes. They were funny, but it felt like if a few characters had been eliminated, more focus could have gone to the ones that remained.
Despite my initial anti-Cera sentiments, I didn't completely hate Youth In Revolt. I also didn't enjoy it enough to change my mind about putting a moratorium on watching Cera movies. Scott Pilgrim can suck it.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Youth In Revolt gets a 5.
~chris v.
Franklyn
July 23, 2010
Release Date: November 1, 2009
Some movies take viewers through the twists and turns, leading us in one direction only to surprise us with a twist to spin our heads completely around. The real success of a shocking twist is the ability to have the viewer taken totally by surprise. Watching Franklyn, however, I felt completely aware that I was being led down false roads, and by the time the twist was revealed, I had stopped caring.
Writer/director Gerald McMorrow makes his feature-film debut with Franklyn. It alternately takes place in London and in Meanwhile City, a dystopia where religion has taken over completely. The establishing storylines jump back and forth so much, there is never a chance to set a pace for any one. The characters have seemingly no connection, but so much time is spent trying to develop each one that they all collectively suffer.
It was an interesting story, one that definitely had potential in the hands of a better writer. McMorrow just doesn't have the experience or the polish to make it work. The script is weak, and the direction is heavy-handed. It could draw a comparison to a poorly-written mystery novel. Just because the movie doesn't explain everything and gives a "surprise" twist doesn't mean it's good. Ambiguity only works with a strong writer, one who is able to drop hints and leave things open-ended without giving the feeling that they're winking at us while doing so.
The most positive aspect was the visuals. The location of Meanwhile City had a great dystopian look, yet brought in many influences of old Gothic architecture, creating a sort of future-past. The costumes of the residents of Meanwhile City were also good, especially the bizarre police force wearing all black with tall hats, sunglasses, and ghost-white skin. Each of the four main characters also had a distinct visual style of their own, from gray and drab to a more vibrant color scheme.
Franklyn mostly suffers from the inexperience of the writer/director. The cast tried to make it work, and the visual arts people came close to bringing it up, but overall it could be chalked up to a learning experience for McMorrow, and help improve his future.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Franklyn gets a 4.
~chris v
L'armée des ombres (Army of Shadows)
July 20, 2010
Release Date: May 12, 2006
Army of Shadows follows the story of French Resistance fighters during World War II. Even if your knowledge of that historic time period is limited (as is mine), it's still an intense and interesting movie. Originally released in 1969, it never received an American release until 2006, with a beautifully restored DVD from the Criterion Collection.
The Germans occupied France during World War II, and had cooperation of most of the police force and upper class. The Resistance was led by the working class, those who opposed the Nazis and could not just sit by and expect other people to take care of it. This film follows a small group as they deal with the stresses of fighting an underground war. We see the cycle of espionage, capture, and escape repeat itself over and over.
Many movies glamorize the world of spies; they dress in expensive clothes, drive fancy cars, seduce gorgeous women and pull off tricks to make the enemy look silly. Army of Shadows uses none of those techniques, instead showing the exact opposite of glamor. It is dirty, dark, and deadly. The Nazis are brutal, and the Resistance fighters are forced to resort to the same brutality to protect themselves.
The cinematography from director Jean-Pierre Melville is beautiful. There are a lot of interesting camera angles and movements, and considering a lot of movie takes place in small areas (jail cells, airplanes, old houses) it really shows the skill of Melville. The acting is also outstanding, from the main cast of Resistance fighters to all the supporting actors that fill out the rest of the film.
The pacing may be too slow for some, but I feel like it just highlights the plight of the Resistance. There are long sections where there is little or no dialogue, no music, no action; these all serve a purpose, though, showing how life can be for a prisoner. When you are sitting in a cell with others, essentially waiting to be tortured or killed, there isn't much to say or do. Melville highlights that with the drawn out scenes of "nothing". Even when they are not being held prisoner by the Nazis, they are still held prisoner in their hideouts, unable to interact with the outside world for fear of being caught.
The only drawback is the length, clocking in at just under two and a half hours. I don't want to sound like the attention-deficit crowd, but there were parts that felt like they could have been shortened. The rest is still a great film, excellent direction, great cast, and a story that pulls you in and makes you ask questions.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Army of Shadows gets an 8.
~chris v
Invictus
July 16, 2010
Release Date: December 11, 2009
I never thought I would watch a sports movie and be so bored. I also never thought I'd watch a movie about Nelson Mandela and end up feeling simply uninspired by anything that happened.
It's never a good sign when you keep checking the clock while watching a movie. While watching Invictus, I couldn't stop. After about half an hour, I felt like nothing had happened. I understand the need to give some historical background, but are there really that many people who do not know the basic story of Mandela's life? You may not know all the details, but most people are aware he spent a great deal of time in prison, then was released and became the president of a segregated nation. All the devices director Clint Eastwood used to highlight the segregation were cliched and heavy-handed.
The clock was checked again and again, still expecting to have a scene with some impact. It amazed me that in a film focusing on using rugby to unite a nation, the sport was never really explained. Maybe this just highlights my American ignorance towards other world sports, but for a movie released in America for American audiences, it just left too many questions. We can watch a football movie knowing that the underdog needs to score a touchdown in the last few seconds, or watch a baseball movie knowing there must be a dramatic home run; the average person doesn't know the rules of rugby, so how can the average person be drawn into whatever drama is coming from the game?
The saving grace of the entire movie is simply Morgan Freeman's performance. Nelson Mandela himself once said the only person that could portray him was Freeman. The speech pattern, the accent, the body language, all aspects of Mandela that Freeman made perfectly natural. The rest of the cast, unfortunately, does not stand up to Freeman's standards. Matt Damon is normally good, but just seems overwhelmed. Admittedly, I don't know the Afrikaans accent well enough to know if Damon's was realistic, but I do know that good or not, Damon seemed awkward and almost self-conscious.
I had some trouble trying to give a proper rating to Invictus. It was not necessarily a "bad" movie, but it just left me disappointed. Nothing ever felt "right", from the very beginning. The pacing was off, some parts took far too long while others were quickly glossed over. Twice the music pulled me further out of the movie than I already was. Morgan Freeman pulled the movie up a few notches, but not enough to compensate for the rest.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Invictus gets a 3.
~chris v
In the Loop
July 12, 2010
Release Date: July 24, 2009
Easily one of the funniest, most enjoyable movies I have seen in a long time. Good plot, great acting, phenomenal script. Everything was damn near perfect.
In The Loop is a spin-off of the British TV series "The Thick Of It", written and directed by Armando Ianucci. The series revolves around the inner workings of the British government, and the movie incorporates the US government as well. Only a few characters are featured in both, but many of the actors from the television series also star in the movie, just as different characters.
The movie is similar to a Christopher Guest movie, done in a mockumentary hand-held camera style. Most movies like to present politics in a more glamorous way, but In The Loop focuses on the dirty behind-the-scene parts. Everyone knows that politics is extremely reliant on spin doctors and image consultants, and this movie highlights those that try to keep everything in line.
The plot itself is interesting, and when you incorporate the British humor aspect it brings everything one notch higher. British humor tends to rely on a more dry wit, but the language used here is anything but subtle. It's not just a bunch of f-bombs and dumb insults; it's a wonderful creative dirty language. Anyone can tell another person "You're stupid", but to really make the insult count, it has to be memorable. It usually takes a lot for me to laugh out loud, but this had me going the entire time.
It's impossible to choose one aspect that really stands out, because everything is so good. The actors bounce back and forth with each other so well it's hard to believe that the entire movie wasn't improvised; the script is hilarious and full of amazing one-liners that are definitely going to be worked into my daily vocabulary; the plot is totally believable yet ludicrous at the same time, full of twists and turns and backtracking. Top to bottom, great movie.
On a scale of 1 to 10, In The Loop gets at 10.
~chris v
Unthinkable
July 9, 2010
Release Date: November 5, 2009
Unthinkable's controversial subject matter prevented it from receiving a theatrical release, instead being sent straight-to-DVD. It's unfortunate that such a thought-provoking movie lost it's biggest chance to be seen by the masses.
A first-rate cast of Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Sheen, and Carrie-Anne Moss shine. Sheen plays an American Muslim who plants three nuclear bombs in three random US cities. Moss is the FBI agent trying to find the bombs before they kill 10 million people, and Jackson plays a "man who does not exist", a black-ops interrogator who will stop at nothing to get the information he wants.
With one horribly cheesy exception, the script was good. All three of the main stars worked well with eachother. Jackson and Moss had some great "good cop bad cop" exchanges, and Sheen was amazing in his conviction.
The torture scenes can be brutal, but for the most part the violence doesn't delve into horror movie levels; a lot of things occur just out of view of the camera, or at least not in close-up view. There are a few excellent moments where the viewer simply hears Sheen's screams, opening up the imagination to what could possibly be happening.
The entire movie hinges on how the viewer feels about torture. The official governmental stance is that torture is illegal, although it's certain that some forms are still practiced. The film presents both sides of the argument: a terrorist killed dozens (or hundreds, or
thousands) of people, won't reveal the location of his other bombs, but somehow it's against the law to smack him around to make him talk?
The obvious rebuttal is that people will say anything to stop being tortured, thereby making any admissions unreliable. Jackson and Sheen's characters are both brilliant manipulators, and each knows how to play the game against the other. Is one really a step ahead of the other, or does the other just want them to think that?
I strongly recommend watching the Extended Cut rather than the Theatrical. The only difference between the two is an alternate ending, but the Extended ending has a much greater impact.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Unthinkable gets an 8.
~chris v
Daybreakers
June 22, 2010
Release Date: January 8, 2010
Vampires are the top of the food chain. What happens to any predator when they run out of prey? Daybreakers could be viewed as a sort of sequel to almost any vampire movie, showing what could happen if vampires did overtake humans. When the food supply dwindles, the population is thrown into a panic.
Set in the near future, there was a distinct attempt to make the movie look realistic. It isn't taking place in a post-apocalyptic dystopia. Instead, it takes place in an average city, average suburbs, average countryside. With vampires making up the majority of the population, there is no need for them to hide in old castles or graveyards. They go about their daily routine, going to work, watching television, just reversing times so everything happens at night.
The number of details shown to accomodate vampires highlights the care the writers/directors gave. Vampires drive cars specially modified for day-time driving, they have video cameras installed where the vanity mirror would be, "subwalks" are built to allow vampires to walk whenever they want regardless of the sun.
Once you get past the details and the initial premise, the writing and directing take a hit. It started off very well. The plot and main characters were introduced and I was quickly pulled into the story. However, at times it seemed like the writers said "we can't make this movie too cerebral, let's throw in a quick scene full of blood and guts." I'm a full supporter of vampires being brutal and vicious (as opposed to romantic and sparkly) but many of the violent scenes threw off the pacing of the rest of the movie.
Ethan Hawke played a great emotionally-conflicted vampire, and Sam Neill was a classic sinister-yet-calm villain. I was disappointed in Willem Dafoe, though. Normally he's one of my top actors, but here he played a cheesy character with a bad Southern accent. I credit most of the problems with the character to a bad script, but Dafoe almost seemed to not be taking it seriously, which clashed with the rest of the cast.
It wasn't a perfect movie, and the various plot holes (mostly revolving around the human rebellion movement) knocked it down to somewhere between "great" and "real good".
On a scale of 1 to 10, Daybreakers gets a 6.
~chris v
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
June 18, 2010
Release Date: January 8, 2010
It is a totally unique moment in cinematic history; the death of a star mid-shoot, with three superstars signing on to replace him. This film is the last Heath Ledger ever worked on, and after his death, it was reworked to allow Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell to play his character.
Unfortunately, those circumstances almost overshadow the film itself.
Before watching, I already had it in my mind to wonder what it would have been like if Ledger had just starred through the whole thing. I can't help but think that Imaginarium would not have received the same amount of attention it did, instead just being "the latest Terry Gilliam movie." With the whirlwind around the movie, one almost overlooks the fact that it is a shining moment in Gilliam's career.
Terry Gilliam is known for his strange, fantastical films. The Imaginarium takes cues from his entire previous career, from Monty Python through the rest of his filmography. The story is new and refreshing, and of course the imagery is outstanding. Dr. Parnassus is an ancient monk who has the ability to let people into their own imagination. As in reality, every person has a different world inside their head, and they are all represented beautifully.
The acting was amazing, for each of the main characters. Ledger, Depp, Law and Farrell do seem to have some sort of connection, as corny as it sounds. Normally if multiple actors play the same character, it's only to portray various ages. Here, each actor takes an element of the character's personality and expands upon it. In addition to those four, the rest of the cast is perfect. Christopher Plummer plays Parnassus, and completely becomes him. Tom Waits plays the villain Mr.
Nick, and has the ability to make you hate him from his first moment onscreen. Andrew Garfield is fun to watch, and model-turned-actress Lily Cole is stunning.
With everything that happened during the shooting, it's hard to judge the film by itself. Inevitably we look at Ledger in a different way, we look at the rest of the cast interacting with him and with the others and compare, we just look at what could have been. Putting all those things aside, it's still an enjoyable movie, and definitely one that will not be forgotten.
On a scale of 1 to 10, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus gets an 8.
~chris v
Paper Heart
June 11, 2010
Release Date: August 7, 2009
Part documentary. Part mockumentary. Part romantic-comedy. Part quirky indie nonsense. Part good. Part bad.
Paper Heart blends reality and fiction in an attempt to make a completely non-fiction movie. Director Nicholas Jasenovec (played by Jake Johnson) follows his friend Charlyne Yi (played by Charlyne Yi) across the country interviewing people. She tries to figure out what love is, whether or not she believes in love, or if she will ever fall in love. She meets Michael Cera (played by Michael Cera) and the audience/camera crew watches them connect and grow.
The strongest part of the movie was the actual documentary interviews. Yi talks to everyone, newlyweds, couples married fifty years, divorcees, gay couples, straight couples, little kids. Saying that love is hard to define is such an obvious answer, but when real people actually sit and tell their stories, there is still something engrossing about it.
The added-on parts with Yi and Cera are what make the movie lose it's steam. Both actors just totally failed to entertain. There are tons of girls that are able to be awkward and cute at the same time, the shy quiet socially-inept type. Yi instead comes off as annoying and a person I wouldn't want to hang out with. She had good moments in Knocked Up, but listening to her giggle and stutter her way through a whole movie becomes intolerable.
Is it possible for Michael Cera to be typecast as himself? There's a contradiction in there somewhere. Every Cera movie I've seen led me to believe he really was the sort of, yknow, that guy who um, just like, sorta tried to uh, well, no yeah no, just um, that guy who uh. In Paper Heart, he's playing himself, but more like a fictional version of himself, almost as though he's taking his personal life and using that as motivation for his character who is portraying his personal life. It sounds deep, but in the end comes off slightly uncomfortable. It's like when someone tells you to act natural, and you just freeze up because you know you're being filmed.
Paper Heart failed on a few levels. The fictional behind-the-scenes-but-on-camera romance fell flat. The real documentary parts weren't enough to carry the movie through the weak parts. Would a straight documentary have worked? Or would a straight fictional adaptation been better? Maybe, but what we are left with just didn't work.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Paper Heart gets a 3.
~chris v
La Moustache
June 8, 2010
Release Date: May 24, 2006
Initially, it seems an odd premise for a movie: a guy shaves his moustache, and no one notices. When he calls them out, they claim he never had one. He thinks they are all playing a joke on him, then realizes they are serious. That alone wouldn't be enough to sustain a full movie, but the more things begin to unravel and the more things are questioned, the further the movie is propelled.
Emmanuel Carrère directs the film, based on a book he wrote. The advantage of having the author direct his own movie is that he has a more clear vision of what he wants. There is nothing extraordinary about the direction or cinematography, but it fits the film perfectly. Rather than go for flashy or trendy camera work, Carrère instead relies on a very structured, very composed perspective.
The composed perspective is also reflected by the two main characters. Marc and Agnès Thiriez, played by Vincent Lindon and Emmanuelle Devos, are both relatively calm despite the fears they are faced with. Marc first is angry at being the butt of a joke, then confused, then begins to question his own sanity. Agnès tries to be a rock for Marc, while she watches his life spiral into what she perceives as nervous breakdown. There were opportunities for both people to blow up at the other, but they keep an even keel because both characters still love eachother and want to support the other; still, the doubts are always just below the surface.
The chemistry between Lindon and Devos is superb. There is complexity in each character as they look both inward and at their partner to try to make sense of everything. Even the audience is taken back and forth, trying to figure out who is sincere and who might be crazy. A strong script gives the relationship a sense of realism that connects the characters to the audience.
It is a film that leaves you with more questions than answers. Almost everything from beginning to end is open to different interpretations. It is the sort of thing that will keep you thinking long after the credits end.
On a scale of 1 to 10, La Moustache gets a 7.
~chris v
Edge of Darkness
June 4, 2010
Release Date: January 29, 2010
The main reason I was interested in this movie was just to see what could have pulled Mel Gibson out of an eight-year acting lull. Certainly people had made offers to him, scripts were sent, but he turned them all down. I was curious to see what this movie had that would convince him it would be a good vehicle for his return to starring roles.
That being said, my expectations were sort of mixed. I figured there must be something special for Gibson to sign on, but most of the trailers did nothing to get me excited. It felt like it would be another crime drama, where a cop loses a family member and goes rogue to get vengeance.
Edge of Darkness took the basic vengeance formula and worked it into a big conspiracy story involving the U.S. government, terrorist organizations, black ops, nuclear warheads, and coverups piled on top of coverups. It was an interesting attempt to spice up the simple story, but the attempt went way too overboard. It took far too long for the meat of the story to really start to unfold. Understandably you can't reveal the entire plot in the first act, but it felt like a lot of things could have been left on the cutting room floor without hurting the flow of the story.
As far as Gibson himself, I had no issue with his performance. The Boston accent is one that is easy to go way over the top with, but he managed to keep his under control and sound, to my ears, fairly believable. The rest of the cast had strong moments as well. Every time I've seen Danny Huston he has played a villain, and he is truly a magnificent bastard. Ray Winstone played his warrior poet role decently, even if he grumbled his way through the script so much that I needed subtitles a few times.
If Edge of Darkness tried to compete with some of the more indie films that have been previously featured here, it falls short. If it's just taken for what it is (a big budget mainstream Hollywood action movie), then I feel like it was a fun ride.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Edge of Darkness gets a 5.
~chris v
Max
May 28, 2010
Release Date: December 27, 2002
Most movies about World War II depict Hitler as a madman, a psychotic bent on world domination, a demon that crawled out of hell to breathe fire and contagion upon the world. How many movies ever tried to show what Hitler was like before all that? Despite the imagery, Hitler wasn't spawned directly from Satan. He was a human being, he grew up awkwardly; this film focuses on what it was that turned him from an ordinary soldier in the German army to the sinister leader he became.
The movie takes place after World War I, while the Germans were struggling to rebuild. The National Socialist Party was just starting; there was not a huge organized anti-Semitic movement, but the seeds of anti-Jewish sentiment were beginning to grow. John Cusack plays Max Rothman, a Jewish art gallery owner living in Berlin just prior to World War II. He crosses paths with a young German artist named Adolf Hitler. Despite their differences, the two have mutual respect. Adolf wants to express himself through art, and Max encourages him.
Hitler is portrayed by Noah Taylor, who does an excellent job playing a very difficult role. The audience has to accept that this person is a struggling artist who just wants to find a way to express himself, a way to make a difference in the world; the whole time, however, we are still aware that this person is Adolf Hitler, so we know how this will end. There are a number of ominous lines that predict future events.
There is truth in the story. It has been documented that Hitler was a failed artist before the war (even Eddie Izzard has a bit about it in his "Dress To Kill" show). The film does try to ask the question of what could have happened if Hitler's art career took off. It's not to say it has an "alternate reality" type of ending, but it does make you wonder.
Many history books and movies still paint Hitler as an entity of pure evil. Max took a controversial stand to show the human side, and the risk is well worth watching.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Max gets an 8.
~chris v
Blindness
May 25, 2010
Release Date: October 3, 2008
Wholly unrealistic, yet totally believable. On one hand this would never happen, but on the other hand, it definitely could. The concept of a plague of blindness sweeping through a population seems outlandish, but people in the Middle Ages probably said a plague wiping out over one-third of Europe seemed outlandish.
Perhaps a more appropriate way to describe it would be "This could never happen, but if it did, this is how it WOULD happen." It's a great study as to how people would react under duress. None of us can say for certain what we would do in this situation, but the movie manages to keep a believable tone. The sick are rounded up and placed in quarantine. Groups form within, people ally themselves with others, fights break out, and civilization devolves into chaos.
A few of the actions and reactions were over the top, and I feel like the pacing rushed the change from calm to chaos. I would like to think that people would last longer before hoarding food and medicine and forcing women to have sex in exchange. I also don't really think that being blind means you no longer care about finding a bathroom and just defecate in the hallway on piles of clothes.
Julianne Moore plays the "hero", a woman who was immune to the plague and can still see. She doesn't want to let her husband go into quarantine, so she feigns blindness. That action immediately turned me off to the character, and just about everything she did made me dislike her. An abridged list of infractions: complaining about being stuck in quarantine when you volunteer yourself to go in; treating your husband like an infant as opposed to a grown man who simply can't see; being unable to disarm the gun-wielding blind guy trying to declare himself king.
The whole thing combines metaphors for our society. It looks at how we react with eachother, how we treat our sick, how we come together and how our entire infrastructure could fall apart. It was a believably disturbing movie.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Blindness gets a 7.
~chris v
Extract
May 21, 2010
Release Date: September 4, 2009
It's not entirely fair to draw straight comparisons between Extract and Office Space, but when it is written & directed by the same guy, and dealing with the same type of "workplace hilarity", the comparisons are inevitable.
Office Space managed to combine everything: good writing, good lead acting, and great supporting characters. Extract had occasional good jokes, a good lead actor stuck in a bad character, but missed the mark on supporting characters.
Jason Bateman doesn't get many starring roles, usually relegated to a supporting actor, part of an ensemble, or a cameo. Here he gets a chance to shine, but is stuck in a worthless character, Joel Reynolds. Joel is completely whipped, by his wife, his coworkers, his friends, just by life in general. He had numerous chances to have that eruption where he tells everyone off, but never gets there. Everyone walks all over him, but he's supposed to be a "hero" in the film?
Office Space had a list of great supporting characters, but Extract fails in that department. The only character I liked was Ben Affleck's drugged-up bartender, and even he didn't do anything that will stick with me for a long time after viewing. David Koechner's bit as the annoying neighbor went on far too long, which I guess was sort of the point, but it just stopped being funny very quickly.
There wasn't much success when Office Space came out, most of it's fame came through a cult following after the DVD release. I would be very surprised if Extract ever reaches that same level.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Extract gets a 3.
~chris v
Man on Wire
May 18, 2010
Release Date: July 25, 2008
1,368 feet in the air. 7/8 inch-thick cable. A distance of 140 feet. In 1974, Philippe Petit pulled off one of the most amazing and beautiful performance stunts in history, walking across a tightrope suspended between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.
Man On Wire is a wonderful documentary by director James Marsh. It combines present-day interviews, old home movie footage from Petit himself, reenactments of the actual event, and numerous still photographs. The original footage highlights some of Petit's earlier stunts, walking across the towers of Notre Dame and across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in Australia; it also shows rare footage of the preparation for the Twin Towers walk.
The style is actually that of a "heist movie". Many of Petit's friends make reference to his love for old crime movies, cops and robbers, detective stories. We watch the boss recruit friends into his gang, each with a different role to pull off the great trick. They research the towers, observe how people come in and out, where IDs are necessary, and what kinds of people go to which places. The scheme they create is crazy enough on it's own, without even adding in the fact that the end result will be walking across a piece of string less than an inch thick a quarter-mile above the ground.
The act itself is so mind-blowing that I could barely believe it was real. I knew it was real, I had read about it when I younger, but I still found myself thinking "that can't be possible, there's no way." Petit was obviously part of the present-day interviews, yet I still thought "there is no way he could survive that." It was almost like thinking about the size of the universe; we have no frame of reference to wrap our mind around it, even though we know it to be true. I just could not comprehend the mindset of this person, nor could I comprehend the actual physics of the stunt.
I had the privilege to visit the top of the Twin Towers when I was a kid, and the memory has stayed with me. I am generally not scared of heights, but there were moments, just with still photographs, that made me squirm in my seat.
There is a noticeable omission of direct mentions to the attacks on the towers. There are a few subtle references, oral and visual, but even those are open to interpretation. I side with Marsh in this situation; Man On Wire is not about pain or death or tragedy; it is about Philippe Petit, his dream, and his realization. It's about the positive, the uplifting, and the inspiring.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Man On Wire gets an 9.
~chris v
Pirate Radio
May 14, 2010
Release Date: November 13, 2009
Sex and drugs and rock n roll. That is what ruled the North Sea off the coast of the United Kingdom in the mid-to-late 1960s. Writer/director Richard Curtis combines a number of true life events and people and mashes them into one big fantastic story.
Assembling a cast with such talent as Philip Seymour Hoffman, Bill Nighy, Kenneth Branagh, Nick Frost, and Rhys Ifans sets up a number of great scenes. The only drawback of such a large ensemble cast is that there are so many supporting characters that very few get to fully develop.
There is also not really a "plot" so much as a bunch of vignettes. There is an attempt to chose a central character, Carl, played by Tom Sturridge. The rest of the supporting characters all take time to interact with Carl, from hazing him as the new guy on the boat, to helping him lose his virginity, to finding out who his father is. Most of the other bits, though, are just randomly spaced throughout the movie. It turns into a collection of running gags as opposed to a focused story.
There are a lot of laughs and memorable characters, but many times the movie felt compressed. It was trying to jam so many different jokes and so many different quirky characters and so many crazy situations into one storyline.
If you're going to make a movie about radio, the music obviously needs to be exceptional. Although there were a number of anachronistic choices, all of the songs chosen felt appropriate. Even if they were released a few years after the story is supposed to take place, the songs feel natural in the situations used. There aren't many deep cuts featured, most of them are songs in heavy rotation on classic rock stations, but that is just a testament to the enduring spirit of rock. That sounds corny, but it was fun in the old "damn the man!" style.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Pirate Radio gets a 6.
~chris v
Crazy Heart
May 11, 2010
Release Date: February 5, 2009
There are a few cases where an ordinary movie can be elevated by the performance of one single actor. Jeff Bridges deservedly won an Oscar for his role in Crazy Heart, taking a story that's been told many times and carrying the whole thing on his back.
Bridges plays Bad Blake, an old country singer still trying to make a living with music. He tours around the southwest in a 1978 Suburban, playing at bowling alleys and dive bars. He is a four-time divorcee, has a son he hasn't seen in twenty-four years, and no family to mention beyond that. He also has to watch while a former band member, Tommy Sweet, becomes famous playing "new country".
It can be hard to judge the performance of someone who has played so many iconic characters; one tends to see the character instead of the actor. There were similarities between Bad Blake and The Dude, and at times it seemed like a sort of sequel, as though The Dude had become a musician. There was just a certain moment where a switch flipped, though, and Bridges became Blake through-and-through. Bridges sings himself, and his voice isn't bad for the "old country singer" style. The added depth comes from everything else Bridges does, not just the twang in his voice, but the way he walks, his posture, he truly becomes Bad Blake.
Maggie Gyllenhaal tends to be hit-or-miss, but was cast well in this movie. She's attractive enough to warrant Blake's interest, but not so attractive that we can't believe she's falling for a man who is probably close to twice her age. Colin Farrell plays Tommy Sweet, and does better-than-I-expected country singer accent, and even sings along with Bridges.
With a weaker star, the movie would have been a cliched "old has-been finds new love, loses love, gets clean and starts a new life" movie. The award-winning performance of Jeff Bridges is what puts this movie up a few notches above the rest.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Crazy Heart gets a 7.
~chris v
Ôdishon. (Audition)
May 7, 2010
Release Date: August 1, 2001
It's a love story. Then it becomes a mystery/suspense thriller. Then it switches to terror/horror. There aren't many movies that can withstand so many changes, but Audition makes each style work.
Ryo Ishibashi plays Shigeharu Aoyama, a single father living with his teenage son. Seven years have passed since the death of his wife, and he is urged by his son to find a new woman. Aoyama meets up with a friend, a television producer, who presents the idea to hold an audition for a new wife, under the guise of being cast for a new television series. We know this will end bad, but director Takashi Miike pulls the viewer along for a ride that still manages to surprise. Asami Yamazaki, played by Eihi Shiina, is the beautiful yet dangerous girl who passes the audition. Immediately certain things come to light that should have sent Aoyama running, but he chooses to ignore them and continue to pursue a relationship with Asami.
The film starts off very slow, and just gradually snowballs into a totally frenetic ending. We are taken through a range of emotions, from sadness to loneliness to fear to confusion to pure terror. There was a moment where the scare was so unexpected, I admit I jumped a bit.
The balance between the styles is what makes the movie as a whole so effective. If it was just a man trying to find a new love, it would be a chick flick. If it was just things waiting around every corner yelling "BOO!", the scares would wear off quickly. If it was just blood and gore, it would wear off even quicker. Even though I knew the movie would end horrifically, I had no idea what direction Miike would take to get there.
Some people may be inclined to give up early on, but the last fifteen-to-twenty minutes are completely mind-bending and will leave you questioning exactly how much was real and how much was hallucinated.
On a scale of 1 to 10, Audition gets an 8.
~chris v
Brick
May 4, 2010
Release Date: April 7, 2006
Many movies have failed in trying to "modernize" a story by inserting it into the present time, or putting it in a high school setting. Brick manages to create a compelling story about high school while also being a perfect homage to the film noir genre.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Brendan, a high school student attempting to put together the pieces of a puzzle that ended in the death of his ex-girlfriend. The trail leads him into a world of sex and drugs and murder, but never seems too unbelievable to be taking place in a group of high schoolers.
Gordon-Levitt nails his role (and cements himself on the list of my favorite actors), and the rest of the cast was great, including Lukas Haas, Matt O'Leary, and especially Nora Zehetner. Haas plays the crime boss, O'Leary is the information-gatherer, and Zehetner is the femme fatale. Each plays their role flawlessly.
What truly shines is the dialogue. The film noir genre is known for it's stylized lingo and rapid delivery. Trying to incorporate that into a modern high school could have resulted in a ridiculous parody, but the acting from each character maintains the tone amazingly. No one hesitates, no one winks, no one breaks character. The dialogue may present a few problems because the slang is so bizarre, but as long as you pay attention you'll glean the meanings from context.
The cinematography and editing were really gave the movie it's personality. During the conversation-heavy scenes, the pacing is filled with quick cuts, back-and-forth between the characters. To contrast, during flashbacks Brendan uses to solve the crime, the editing is slow and dreamy. There were no wasted frames, everything moved the story along and kept an underlying tension running just below the surface.
It's hard to call any movie "flawless", but Brick comes damn close.
The story is a perfect crime thriller, with all the right twists and turns. The pace of the movie catches stride with an ebb and flow that feels natural. The acting is straight-on. The dialogue is the kind of thing I wish I could incorporate into my everyday life. There aren't many movies I wish I could live in, but Brick is one.
Release Date: November 20, 1992
Release Date: January 8, 2010
Release Date: November 1, 2009
Release Date: May 12, 2006
Release Date: December 11, 2009
Release Date: July 24, 2009
Release Date: November 5, 2009
Release Date: January 8, 2010
Release Date: January 8, 2010
Release Date: August 7, 2009
Release Date: May 24, 2006
Release Date: January 29, 2010
Release Date: December 27, 2002
Release Date: October 3, 2008
Release Date: September 4, 2009
Release Date: July 25, 2008
Release Date: November 13, 2009
Release Date: February 5, 2009
Release Date: August 1, 2001
Release Date: April 7, 2006
