The Year So Far...Part 2

I apparently didn't get the memo for the rest of the country's legitimate film critics that the moment to do your mentions for the year's best offering at a given point was moved from the end of June to the middle of July (probably another decision that was affected by the release of The Dark Knight, which was July 18 of last year). I certainly wish that I had known, since immediately following I saw Tetro, Moon, The Hurt Locker, and (500) Days of Summer, which I proudly call my favorite film so far and is a much better contender than Drag Me to Hell. So, since there's no new movie worth reviewing this weekend (I'll politely pass on The Ugly Truth and G-Force: 3D), I thought I'd make another mention on what the year has offered, in terms of great performances and some technical aspects.

Leading Actor: As I mentioned in my review, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has yet to give a performance that I haven't fallen in love with. In (500) Days..., he is able to convey so much emotion while saying and doing very little. He commands every accomplishment his character requires. The same goes to Sam Rockwell for the well received Moon, doing a fantastic one man show and providing more evidence that he's a great actor than taken as he gives a deep, psychological and emotionally involving turn. I'd also give shout-outs to John Krisinski for a surprisingly good role in Away We Go, Vincent Gallo's leading performance in Tetro, and the always reliable Johnny Depp as John Dillinger in Public Enemies. Two little seen movies, The Escapist and Is Anybody There?, had two great leads in Brian Cox and Michael Caine, respectively. Don't expect greatness in either role, but expect them to elevate the material in every scene they appear in.

Leading Actress: Hands down, my favorite actress at this point is Maya Rudolph in Sam Mendes's Away We Go. She's funny and incredibly dramatic, and completely blew me away after seeing her successful run on SNL. She carries so much expression in her eyes and quiet voice that you'll believe she cries more than she does in actuality. She is incredible in this film. Zooey Deschanel, who I've never been a big fan of, finally gave a performance that didn't annoy me in (500) Days..., and she was a perfect compliment to Gordon-Levitt, which is what the girl in a couple film should do. This category hasn't been stellar so far, but I would mention Kristen Stewart giving a mature performance in the surprisingly mature Adventureland and even Alison Lohman giving a devilishly twisted version of the damsel in distress in Drag Me to Hell.

Supporting Actor: Tetro has to be the most contradictory film for me. It is a movie that I did love, and I stand by my review, but it is completely forgettable and I sometimes have to remind myself that I saw it. However, I really remember relative newcomer Alden Ehrenreich conveying a lot of powerful emotions in his soft spoken mannerisms. Watchmen is a movie that I now find dissatisfying, but Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Rorschach was really the most interesting thing about the entire movie, and that definitely deserves special mention. The very little seen The Escapist had a great supporting cast, whose highlights include Damian Lewis as a sadistic prison bully and Liam Cunningham as the wise, long term inmate. I was also genuinely surprised at how well Ryan Reynolds carried dramatic work in Adventureland and he flexed those acting muscles very convincingly (he's got the talent, he just needs to pick the right project).

Supporting Actress: I don't have a lot to report here, and in all honesty I hardly ever do, but I will say that Mabriel Verdu once again amazed me, this time in Tetro, providing a supporting performance that doesn't try to steal the spotlight, but only gives the film a grounded feeling and steals the show anyway because of the great performances. I also want to give recognition to Helen Mirren as the tough-as-nails newspaper editor in State of Play, overplaying that British acting style really well, Lorna Raver as the infamous Gypsy lady in Drag Me to Hell, camping it up really good, and Zoe Saldana, giving a much appreciated re-imagining of Uhuru in Star Trek, turning her from forgettable bit player to commanding screen presence.

Director: In keeping with my favorite film this year, Marc Webb provided great creative energy in (500) Days... and turned a generally passive story into a visually stunning and emotionally driven work of art. The same thing can be said for Duncan Jones (son of David Bowie, BTW) for Moon, delivering a cool and often times chilling portrait of solitude. I appreciated Francis Ford Coppola's personal touch in Tetro and a big mention has to go to Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker, who knew exactly how to make an audience care about the small ensemble enough to get the tension racked up in the well executed suspense scenes. Recognition also to Michael Mann for providing an overstuffed, but engaging Public Enemies and Sam Raimi's playful sense of manipulative humor in Drag Me to Hell.

Screenplays: At this point, original screenplays are just laying waste to the adapted material so far this year. (500) Days of Summer, Moon, Tetro, Away We Go, Up, Duplicity and Drag Me to Hell have all been better than even the best adapted screenplay I've seen this year, which the best has been State of Play. The others that have been qualified for mentioning only to fill up slots have been films like Star Trek, Angels & Demons, and the latest Harry Potter film. I hope some adapted material will be better later, but I'm not seeing it right now.

Techs: My favorite technical category is cinematography, and Tetro dominates in its glorious black and white scheme, with honorable mentions to the glorious wide shots in Sin Nombre and the bleak, French impressionist hues of the latest Harry Potter. Editing is next, and (500) Days of Summer takes it for its inventive, back and forth, storytelling style. Michael Giacchino is always noticed for Pixar work, and Up has been no exception, but two underrated, and forgotten, scores this year have been James Newton Howard's energetic and jazzy tracks to Duplicity and the always great Hans Zimmer doing his operatic best for Angels & Demons. And I know that when we get to the sound categories, many people start to tune out, but a big special mention has to go to the teams behind The Hurt Locker, who really made the tension work, and Harry Potter who especially gave the flashback scenes a aurora of mystery.

Well, I think that about covers it. I'll be back next week hopefully with a review of Funny People. I have yet to love a Judd Apatow film, but maybe third time will be the charm. I doubt it, but we'll see.

Review: (500) Days of Summer

Summer of Love

Boy, I don't know about you, but 2009 has been one stinker of a year so far. Don't get me wrong, I still have a fondness for some films like Up, Star Trek and The Hurt Locker, but those are only small examples. For goodness sake, Drag Me to Hell is still in my top five. In all honesty, I was about ready to give up hope and fear that I had seen the best the year had to offer until the "prestige" pictures started to come out and would make me like films only I was told to like by the Oscar campaigns. But just as all hope starts to fade, a film like this peeks over the horizon and breaths a much appreciated and welcomed bit of fresh air into a disappointing movie season and a generally contrived genre. And what fresh air it is.

Summer in the title refers to the girl Summer (Zooey Deschanel) and the boy she meets, Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Both are young, attractive twentysomethings working for a greeting card company in Los Angeles. The film yo-yos to different moments in the 500 days of their complex relationship to explore their ups, downs, highlights and low moments that eventually leads to their break-up. That isn't a spoiler because as it is blatantly said by the film's stern narrator, "This is not a love story."

I'm not prejudice against the romantic comedy, but I am a strong skeptic of it because rarely does it feel genuine. Even in this day in age, we still get movies like The Proposal which morphs unrealistic characters with not an ounce of likable or realistic personality and puts them into contrived situations not even fit enough for a bad episode of "Three's Company". But every once in a while, one breaks the mold, and it is when the film not only has likable, and most importantly believable, characters that also spins its tale in a creative way. That creativity is something that director Marc Webb is capable of providing. Making his feature film debut after a career in music videos, he brings a high sense of creative energy that surges through the entire film.

Webb's sense of direction, coupled with that of writers Michael H. Weber and Scott Neustadter, is really what makes the film special than some of its predecessors. The jumping back and forth within the narrative is only one part of that. One notable scene is when Tom attends a party of Zooey and the screen splits in two, showing what Tom's expectations were that night and what happens in reality. Some of the differences are more subtle than the other, but it is definitely a scene that shows how a little creativity can go a long way. Another one would be a sort of faux musical number by Tom and passers by on the street. If you can look at that scene and keep a smile all the way through, then you've found the odd sense of humor the film carries and you will enjoy it for that.

Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt are really perfect for these roles. He has yet to provided a bad performance in any movie I've seen him in, and he can make every character he takes on reach a broad range of emotion while providing so little movements in his character. He's expressive without chewing the scenery. She finally fits into this role comfortably and makes that flighty, earthy persona she's carried for so many years feel like a credible match against Tom's grounded, yet occasionally delusional, mindset. There's also some good supporting work from Geoffrey Arend as Tom's co-worker friend and Chloe Morentz as Tom's wise-beyond-her-years younger sister.

In the end, this is a really sweet movie that always knows its place. It is smart, energetic and delightful, and just when it begins to be a little long winded, it cuts the scene short and moves onto the next that is just as fascinating as the last. The cast is terrific and they work off of a very creative approach to this story. I guarantee that from every moment, even the last tacked on bit, will bring a smile to your face and you'll appreciate the sense of realism the movie carries with its extravagant storytelling. If you don't, then I guess you'll just have to go on grieving with the rest of the year. As for me, I'm relishing in the experience that is the best film of the year so far. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Spellbound

It's always amazing when a series of books manages to put a chokehold around the pop culture world and massively feed the global masses until a time before this period seems like it never existed. What is even more fascinating is when that excitement even bleeds into the film adaptations. Not many have been able to hold onto both, but few have, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But now, we have the barley lingering Harry Potter series, which is now limping onto its last legs but still showing that there still can be plenty of surprises and adrenaline left over to fulfill.

It's the sixth year for Harry, Ron and Hermione at Hogwarts and the atmosphere has certainly changed. The Death Eaters, followers of the evil Lord Voldemort, are carrying out attacks, both on the magical and Muggle world alike. Dark themes are abound at the magical school, as they welcome a new teacher, Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), and the trio of friends look into a new, sinister cast given to Malfoy, as well as trying to educate themselves once again on the secrets of teenage love.

David Yates returns as the director of this film after helming the previous entry Order of the Phoenix. That film was good, but I did blame Yates for allowing the movie to become muddled, emotionally flat and lacking on the charm. This time, Yates has taken the notes and delivers a movie that improves on nearly aspect. Following an intense Death Eater attack in the first few minutes, the movie has action sequences that are more exciting (and comprehendible), emotional scenes that carry more weight, and characters feel more believable. Also, the movie just contains more humor than any of the past films, which is a big reason this stands above many of the others. Another reason would be the new cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, who creates a colorfully bleak palate reminiscent of his French-impressionist work on films like Amelie and A Very Long Engagement.

After so many years, the three leads have had plenty of time to get comfortable with these characters and they certainly don't disappoint here. Daniel Radcliffe is continuing to show the emotional range this character can bring, while Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are making a case for them to be taken seriously as well. Michael Gambon as Dumbledore is really exceptional here, and it is nice to see former bit players like Alan Rickman's Snape, Tom Felton's Malfoy and Helena Bonham Carter's Bellatrix Lestrange find a greater place to carry in this film. The new addition of Broadbent is well placed, and he is magnificent in this role, giving much needed humor and serious emotion whenever needed.

The one hiccup the film sometimes has is in the screenplay. Steve Kloves returns as the writer for the series, having been the sole employee here until a break from the last film. Kloves's familiarity with this story and characters still feels like its going strong, but there some moments when it includes some melodramatic scenes that linger on a bit too long. I would have also considered him ending the movie with a false one he put in that would have left a much more serious emotional impact. However these are not serious complaints, as the movie still manages to flow rather well.

This film soars high above the previous film and makes a serious mark in the franchise. It's looks great, carries many endearing characters and has an intriguing story to go along with it. And don't be fooled by the PG rating; this film still offers plenty of dark elements in its story while also finding the great humor to go along with it as well. In truth, that's the same thing that was found when Alfonso Cuaron did the third installment Prisoner of Azkaban and for the longest time that was the best of the series, in terms of film. At the risk of sounding like one of those TV blurbs, I can say with confidence that this is the best Harry Potter film yet. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Review: Bruno

Queer as Folk

Three years ago, when an extremely long titled movie that was short-handed as Borat hit cinemas, I was convinced that I had seen a completely different movie than the rest of the world. I heard people that Sacha Baron Cohen, the film's star, had taken a hilarious character and used this outrageous platform as a way to peer into the American culture and expose our subtle racism and anti-Semitism in order to bring a better understanding of our way of life. What I saw was a man who put on a funny accent and got gullible people to admit and do things they normally wouldn't do, put it on camera and point and laugh at their lapse in judgement. That was essentially the movie, and most of the time it worked. The success is not found the second time out, and the spark is never even close to being ignited like it was before.

Cohen once again uses one of his characters made famous by Da Ali G Show that was popular in his home country of England. Bruno is a gay, Austrian fashionista who works for a fashion centric television show in that country. The film's surprisingly heavy handed plot has Bruno making a trip to a fashion show where his new Velcro suit causes a major disruption on the runway. Bruno is fired, but he travels the world with his assistant and jumps from place to place in order to achieve some kind of fame.

Like I said, I didn't fall in love with Borat like the rest of the country, but I did admit that it was at times humorous. The execution isn't really that much different here (even the stories have similarities), but I think what gave the character Borat an edge was that he was a likable guy, in his own anti-Semitic way. He was crass, but always stored a humble personality that made his adventure have a reason to care. The problem with Bruno is that for all of the film he is a self-absorbed, arrogant jerk who's smug persona as personified by Cohen makes his tactics feel even more cheap, contrived and painfully aware of themselves than they were three years ago. Bruno is not the type of person that a movie is made for.

Cohen is a great comedian, I can recognize that, and I even liked his under appreciated, and somewhat forgotten, turn in Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd. He is generally good at taking characters and investing enough of a spirit in them to get invested. But here, he never lets Bruno settle down and humanize him. He is always making Bruno be on, and force feeding the people around him with so many over the top caricatures of the gay community. His intentions are to get people to admit their homophobia, but that is only when he pushes the boundaries so much that even the most tolerant and accepting of audiences would have to raise their voices. It is unclear where Cohen wants to take us with this character, but it is always in uncomfortable territory.

Larry Charles returns as director, and since then he's also directed Bill Maher's religious lampooning documentary Religulous. Here, the set up is pretty much the same, but the payoff isn't nearly as great. There are more and more moments that feel staged and then don't really have the value of good entertainment. When that fails, the film reverts to truly outrageous and gross out moments. Borat had one really funny scene in which Cohen and his short, stocky assistant wrestle with each other nude and extend it to the hotel lobby downstairs. Parts of that scene were probably fake, but there was a delivery about it that made it humorous (the extra long black bar on Borat for example). This film relies far too heavily on shock value, and includes far too many genital close-ups for my taste.

Maybe there was a good film here to start with, but it is not what is out in theaters right now. Instead, we have a rancid film that is ugly to the touch. There is no endearing center to this film; it is rotten and moldy right down to the core. It is offensive, vulgar, conceded, malicious and, most importantly, not funny. There are a few clever moments sprinkled in, but they are far too few to list off in great number. One that comes to mind would be an interview Bruno does with Ron Paul, trying to boost his fame by participating in a sex tape with the congressman. Paul walks out in a fiery passion, and it is generally funny. A little while later, I saw other people doing the same thing in my theatre. I wish I had followed suit for, at this moment, the worst film of the year. * / ****; GRADE: D 

Reviews: The Hurt Locker & Moon

Bombing Experience

In the last few years, there has been a rather obvious trend that has emerged regarding films which are set against the contemporary backdrop of the current Iraq War as well as the political realm of the war on terror. Recently, we have seen films like Home for the Brave, In the Valley of Elah, Stop-Loss, Rendition and Lions for Lambs. All of these movies dealt with that subject matter and they all have another element in common: none of them were at all warmly received by the public or the critical masses. It just seems that people today don't want to watch a movie about the current Middle Eastern crisis. What this movie does is that it succeeds where the others have failed: it drops the labels and politics in order to focus on the intimate characters, and it is a move that is deeply appreciated.

The film focuses on the bomb disposal unit that is deployed in Baghdad, Iraq. Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) is brought in as the new leader of his unit, which feature Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) who has the love/hate relationship with his new CO's unorthodox tactics, and Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) who's mental state is a little more fragile but still sees things to respect in the new Staff Sergeant.

As I said, the main reason why this film is at a much higher level than all of its predecessors is because of its stripped down way of delivery. Director Kathryn Bigelow has serious credentials in this type of field, having directed films like Point Break, K-19: The Widowmaker, and Near Dark. Not only are these serious action movies, but they are also films that focus on the characters within them, getting the audience invested in their plights and augmenting the tension the scenes put them in. Bigelow allows us to get a real feeling for these guys and their personalities are endearingly felt. Then, when their jobs as bomb defusers begin, the suspense has us wound tight and in a high state of anxiety.

Renner has been a face that has popped up in so many places that he may be described as the youngest character actor working today (Joseph Gordon-Levitt may be an alternate choice). Here he takes a good natured man and makes him a figure to care for and his actions always have a conscious reasoning and likable quality. Mackie delivers some quite emotional scenes in his time and Geraghty truly carries most of the psychological weight and his character is always one wrapped in a fascinating mystery. It is interesting that these three men offer the film's greatest insight into the mind of the army, especially when bigger stars like Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes offer little in their scenes.

Even with all that, I don't want to completely oversell this movie. The film stops short many times at becoming a great movie because of Mark Boal's screenplay. Most of the time he does a well enough job of creating the framework for the film to follow through on. However, his script more times than necessary meanders into uninvolved subplots and linger on scenes that soon wear out their credible welcome. Boal worked with Paul Haggis's In the Valley of Elah, and while much of that screenplay's errors lie with Haggis, it still shows where Boal's writing is, a world that has an intriguing genesis but questionable follow through.

Again, The Hurt Locker isn't a great film, but it is one that is pretty good, especially considering where the genre has been in the past. Here is a film that focuses on a great field of characters and is executed extremely well by its well qualified director, but unfortunately is hindered greatly by its mediocre script. Still, I'm not going to deny that this is one of the best films the year has to offer, and we finally have a movie that does the soldiers in these types of films proud. I only hope that we can find the same accomplishment on the political side. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Bad Moon Rising

I've made it no secret to people that when it comes to a certain genre of films, I find myself having a soft spot in

my heart. Specifically, this is the epic, sci-fi picture that is packed with its extravagant shots of huge spaceships among vast amounts of space and glances into elongated and claustrophobic corridors inside. I just can't help myself from loving these films, particularly because these are the only types of movies that truly benefit from the huge canvass of a movie theatre. However, this film isn't one of them; it's a much more smaller and intimate film than one might realize. Still, that doesn't mean the quality is diminished nor should you miss this one in the theaters.

In the not too distant future, Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell, an engineer on a three year contract for mining the moon in order retrieve helium absorbed in the surface and then send it back to Earth to help with the energy crisis. His on board companion, as usual, is the interactive computer system GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey. While on the job, Sam has an accident and when he awakes from unconsciousness, he finds a surprise: there's another body moving around that looks exactly like him.

With such a limited scope, the biggest selling point on whether or not the film will work is how well the its leading star handles the material. Rockwell is a fine actor who's been doing great work for a while. Here he puts on a phenomenal one man show and lays out the deep psychology of this character in a fascinating way. He never becomes dull and breathes excitement in every scene as he showcases the dynamic personalities that he conveys. It's an amazing performance that fortunately will deliver the acclaim that he has deserved for a long time. Also to note here is that Spacey's cold tone is a perfect match for the mood created.

Director Duncan Jones creates an eerie and atmospheric setting that always engages the audience. His original story, that was adapted by Nathan Parker, sometimes functions well as a mystery puzzle piece, but works more effectively when it dives into the psyche of its leading character and flushes out the deep emotional baggage the film can carry. Jones offers a chilling vision, draped in a cool resonance with occasional bursts of high energy that ultimately satisfies. Perhaps him being the son of David Bowie has something to do with that.

This is one of the many small films that I ultimately highly recommend. It might not be for everyone, but for those who are intrigued by an intimate character study that is set against the science fiction genre, then this is definitely the film for you. It succeeds on nearly every level it wants to take, and Rockwell is the main reason for that success. It may not be big, but it still struck that soft part in my heart. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Review: Public Enemies

The Enemy Within

I am a great admirer of Michael Mann, and while I regret that I have not come to know all of the films in his reportage, that doesn't mean I don't fall in love with his techniques and passion for characters. That's generally where Mann's films succeed, particularly in ones that often get remembered as action films: it's the well rounded characters that help the film sustain its momentum. That is usually why Michael Mann has been considered a favorite filmmaker of mine (extra points added because he hails from Chicago). His newest film has many of those elements that seem reminiscent of his films from the past, but from afar don't really come on the exact level of what he's done in the past.

Leading man Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger, the notorious gangster who became an endearing figure in the public eye for his method of robbing banks that had been responsible for the Great Depression (isn't it great that lesson was learned). The film focuses on a very narrow time period in his life, really only the last year when he was on the FBI's most wanted list, with the J. Edgar Hoover's right hand man Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) leading the manhunt not only against Dillinger but several key members of his gang as well.

Most people use the shorthand and call this the "John Dillinger" movie. That is a false conception, and there is perhaps the film's greatest, and most visible, weakness. The film is based on a book that extensively covered the crime wave and rising of the FBI from 1933-34. That is great material for a mini-series. For a feature film, it is a bloated effort that is subjected to too many storylines and not enough time to give each justice. There are multiple plot lines dealing with Dillinger, his extended gang and their own illegal doings, along with Melvin Purvis and his dealings with the FBI and Hoover (which their questionable relationship is never flushed out in the film). Both storylines have interesting appeal, but are more than enough for one film. Having them together loses something in each, and the plot ends up suffocating under its own weight, not to mention flat out bad writing that poorly attempts to mimic Depression-era street talk.

Still, I do give credit to Michael Mann for infusing this movie with a classic sense. Not classic in the time period, but classic in the way that it feels like vintage Mann. His action scenes are well choreographed and always include the burst of energy (though I condemn the shaky digital camera) and the quite moments between the characters continue to showcase the power softer scenes can have. Mann is still stuck on the digital kick, and as a strong skeptic, the method works most of the time in this period film, often times allowing some vibrant colors to come alive as well as offer a grittiness to the piece. I'm not endorsing the use of digital in future films, but I recognize that this is the closest it will ever come to looking good in a period piece.

Depp is going to magnificent in anything he does, and he perfectly captures Dillinger's ability to be charming, cunning and ruthless. Depp allows this character to show some true colors, and he lets the audience believe in the little bit of humanity he might have. It's not really a tricky performance, but it is one that once again showcases Depp's more than capable ability to carry a film, no matter what side his character's morality may fall on. Bale had room to shine, but the screenplay unfortunately limits him, which is a shame given the kind of complex character Purvis was. I do wish Bale had been given more to work with from the story and we could have really seen what he was capable of. Oscar winner Marion Cotillard is Dillinger's girl, but her "God bless her" attempt at an American accent is too distracting, and in the end she just gets forgotten by well placed character actors like Stephen Lang as a special agent assigned to the Dillinger case to steals enough scenes of his own.

Hit and miss is a sure perfect way to describe this movie. It succeeds on the level of acting, the direction from Mann and some of the technical aspects (I am expecting Collen Atwood to be nominated again in the costume category at the Oscars). However, some technical aspects are at fault (Elliot Goldenthal's over the top music has all the wrong cues) and the script nearly sinks this movie completely. This is certainly not a perfect film, far from it in fact. However, there are enough elements here to keep you entertained in your seats. I do wish I could have seen this in four parts on HBO, because it would have been much better. But given as is, it's a passable effort, but I certainly expect better from Michael Mann. *** / ****; GRADE: B