Holiday Reviews

Sherlock Holmes

Guy Ritchie's flash-bang adaptation of Arthur Canan Doyle famous character offers some enjoyment in a few well staged action sequences and a great comedic performance by Robert Downey Jr. as the title character, as well as Jude Law as a more thuggish Dr. Watson. However, you have to try to get over a convoluted plot, an uninteresting villain, a bland love interest, and Ritchie's over-the-top direction that brings the film to a screeching halt in too many places. With all that, I can't quite say that you should seek out this film, but give it some time when it comes on video, then you might have a good time. The only real reason to recommend this film is for Downey Jr. and, to a lesser extent, Law. The rest of the cast, as good as Rachel McAdams and Mark Strong are, feel wasted under Ritchie's misplaced direction and Hans Zimmer's unimpressive score. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Crazy Heart

A lot of people have described this as the country music version of The Wrestler, and there are a lot of plot points that borrow heavily from that film. Jeff Bridges has the role of Bad Blake, a singer who was on top at one point but is now playing second rate venues. There's also a budding love interest with a reporter (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and glimpses of a fellow musician (Colin Farrell) who was a protégé of Blake and took off financially while Blake was left behind. Even though all of this sounds familiar, it all comes together to make a truly great film. The center of it all is Bridges's performance, which engulfs a lot of warmth and passion and creates a character that succeeds at every emotional point. Gyllenhaal, Farrell and a brief appearance by Robert Duvall are well played and writer/director Scott Cooper creates a film that feels genuine, energizing and completely enjoyable. Bridges delivers a career best performance for one of the best films of the year. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Nine

Being Oscar season, it is yet again time for another movie musical based on a popular Broadway play that itself was based on a famous, non-musical film. This one's source material was inspired by Federico Fellini's 8 1/2, one of the best films ever made. This musical adaptation, sadly is not, as it tells the uninteresting tale of a famous Italian director named Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) balancing shooting his next film with his messed up personal life and the many different women in it, which include a fashion magazine writer (Kate Hudson), his wife (Marion Cotillard), his mistress (Penélope Cruz), his costume designer (Judi Dench), his muse (Nicole Kidman) and his mother (Sophia Loren). All of them collide in a film that is a complete mess. Rob Marshall, who directed the Best Picture winner Chicago, directs this material just about the same, but the problem is that the material is dull which leads way to a showcase of poorly staged musical bits against overwrought, melodramatic Broadway showtunes; each musical number feels like a participation in excess, offering very little to the characters and drowning the movie in its own style. The only good things to point out are the quirky new song "Cinema Italiano", Dion Bebee's cinematography, and Cotillard's performance, the only performer who strikes any emotional resonance. Truly one of the most disappointing films of the year, and one that squalors its reputation from the talented cast and crew. ** / ****; GRADE: C

It's Complicated

If you saw Nancy Meyer's previous films like Something's Gotta Give and The Holiday, then you'll know the pace this film operates and come out enjoying it at the end. The love triangle plot is nothing new, only this time it is transported to the middle aged community as Jane (Meryl Streep) and Jake (Alec Baldwin), who has remarried to a younger wife, start up an affair almost a decade after their divorce. The other complication is that Jane's architect, Adam (Steve Martin) is also having feelings for Jane. In all aspects, it is Streep that makes this sitcom material work, and her abilities as an actress continue to show what a great talent she is and incapable of giving a bad performance. Baldwin and Martin are also quite funny in their roles, and there are also some good supporting turns by the children of Jake and Jane, even though they are written kind of one note. The big exception is John Krasinski in a role that usually goes to the family's best gay friend but here is awarded to the son-in-law, and he scores some good laughs in the film. Meyers's direction is a little off at some points, and the pace isn't always feeling right for a film that come close to overstaying its welcome. But in the end, it's a nice, fun and light piece of entertainment that is sure to please the crowd that has already been flocking to these types of films. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Reviews: Avatar & Me and Orson Welles

Blue Moon

So the wait is finally over. After months, and quite honestly what felt like years, of buzz and teases, we are finally treated to the real thing. I went in with a heavy amount of suspicion and skepticism, as I generally do, with this film. Anything that is this talked about should have the thought in the back of your mind that it's going not going to live up to your expectations. And as the lights dimmed, and I had my Urkel style 3D glasses wrapped around my head, I was just laying back ready for anything to show up on the gigantic IMAX screen. What I was treated to was Dances with Wolves meets FernGully. However, do not be mistaken by that comparison. I fell in love with this film for offering an abundant visual spectacle against a story that is both parts exhilarating and tedious.

It's one hundred and fifty years into the future, and Earth is going through an implied energy crisis. The solution is to mine a precious mineral out of a distant moon called Pandora. The problem is that the natives, twelve foot, blue creatures called the Na'vi, aren't willing to give up their home without a fight. A private corporation uses some military men to do the dirty work, leading the pack with Col. Quaritch (Stephen Lang). On the diplomatic side is Sigourney Weaver and her "Avatar" program, which uses lab grown Na'vi bodies to link up to the human mind. Sam Worthington is paraplegic marine Jake Sully whose deceased twin brother was a part of the Avatar program. This allows him to use the Avatar successfully. What happens from here is a budding romance between Jake on one native named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and a final battle between the Na'vi and the military forces.

James Cameron is a man that seems incapable of making a bad film. However, he's gotten a bad rap, justly I'm afraid, for his tardiness on delivering a new narrative film after the mega success of Titanic twelve years ago. But here he reminds us why he's such a celebrated filmmaker. Cameron's eye as a director is one that is rich and visually stimulating, and he constantly fills the frame with a wealth of interesting images. Cameron is a man who knows how to tell an interesting story and let his characters help guide the story among the exceedingly excellent visual effects.

Still, I would have to say that the premise of Cameron's script is better than the actual execution. The film is peppered with corny dialogue and the final battle carries on for quite a while. This has been an issue with all of Cameron's scripts, and his invention and imagination as a director is sometimes undermined by his shallowness as a writer. However, this isn't to say that the script is bad; in fact, there are many moments in which the story and premise offer interesting paths to take. It's in the execution of the dialogue and the overindulgence in some of the set pieces that gets in the way of it becoming a perfect film.

Worthington has been popping up here and there for a while, and he was undoubtedly the best thing in Terminator: Salvation. Here he presents another performance that embodies that everyman quality that is essential for an action movie. Worthington is slowly becoming a household name, and his performance is one that is easy to become involved in the story. Other players like Weaver, Saldana, Lang, Joel Moore as a fellow Avatar compatriot, and Laz Alonso as a high ranking Avatar warrior are also good additions to the cast, though a few like Giovanni Ribisi as the weaselly corporate big head is a little off. But then, this isn't a film to see for the acting.

But, there is an element to the acting that is worth seeing. The greatest mark the film has to offer is the performance capture used to its fullest advantage. All the emotional markings on a face, both grand and minute, are perfectly captured here. I think this is where Zemeckis and his company wants to go in his films, and even though I like his films, there shy in extreme comparison to what is achieved here. You feel these computer generated characters in the same way you would respond to a live action one, and as the film goes on (and on, and on), you forget you're watching a CG creation. That is a miraculous gift a film can bestow on an audience.

Some of the scripts flaws do prevent it from being a truly great film, but there's enough here to offer a great time at the show. The visual spectacle alone makes this a film worth seeing, but there is also enough in the story and acting that keeps one in the seats at all times. I wasn't sure exactly what to expect before I walked in, but after I walked out, I knew what I had seen was fantastic, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this was a marvelous film from a genius in the medium. Congratulations Mr. Cameron, just don't take another twelve year break for us to get another reminder of that genius. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Acting Out

I've talked a lot about whether or not a single good performance is enough to recommend an entire film. This comes up in many films, mostly comedies. Though some recent examples have included The Reader and The Road. Both of those movies had powerhouse performances from their leads, but it ultimately wasn't enough to recommend the film as a whole. This is another film that features one great performance. However, there's also enough here within the rest of the ensemble and the execution of the film to find a very enjoyable movie.

Zac Efron, most known to tweeners everywhere as the headliner of the High School Musical franchise, plays Richard Samuels, an ambitious high school senior in 1937 New York with dreams of fame, fortune and acting. While downtown, he crosses path with a theatre company putting on a modernist retelling of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and the man directing the play as well as starring as Brutus is a young Orson Welles (Christian McKay), a good four years before he became a huge success with the release of the now classic Citizen Kane. Welles is an egotistical maniac, but extremely brilliant, and the entire company tiptoes around his erratic behavior. Samueles also has a budding romance with the Welles's chief assistant Sonja (Claire Danes).

The main reason to see this film is because of McKay. It's a daunting task trying to take on a role of someone as known as Welles, and McKay does a perfect job. He captures the voice and look of Welles, but he doesn't simply do an imitation. He makes Welles an actual character, not just a dramatic set piece in the background. McKay puts in an incredible amount of passion and energy, to the point where it actually feels like your watching the famous actor/director on the screen once again. He gives us as Orson Welles that we've always remembered, and it's a commanding performance deserving of all its acclaim.

The rest of the cast is good, though nowhere near the level of greatness that McKay offers. Efron is trying to breakout of his trap in the Disney musicals, and he does show enough charm and likability to be taken seriously as an actor. Although, if he wants many good notices in the future, it would be nice to have him get roles that don't shoehorn in unnecessary musical numbers, as is done here, particularly when Efron's popstar voice doesn't gel well with the '30s atmosphere. Danes is all smiles and charms, and she gives another well done performance here.

Director Richard Linklater and writers Holly and Vincent Palmo perfectly create a world in that feels genuine to the time period, but there are times when the story feels like it meanders, and the goal at the end of the picture doesn't feel like its that important. The execution of the play is fascinating, but it doesn't feel like there's much value there. The whole film has a lot of whimsy and charm, but there isn't much beyond the surface. The story isn't much and the only thing that's here is pretty much here is a group of individuals trying to put on a play that never reaches the sense of importance or greatness that the film is telling us. Still, it's a trip that is enjoyable pretty much all the way through.

The film's far from perfect, but there's still plenty to enjoy in this film. The cast is able to carry the premise, and while the story isn't always on task, the atmosphere still plants you in a carefree world that feels genuine. Add all that to the miraculous performance by Christian McKay, who deserves an Oscar nomination, and you've got a film that mines plenty of praise to warrant a recommendation. I don't think this would be a great film without McKay, but it's a pretty good one with him. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Commentary: 2009 Chicago Film Critics Nominations

A few days ago, the Chicago Film Critics Association named their nominations for the 2009 awards. Now, after this group gave so much love to The Dark Knight last year, I was so elated that I did a commentary and predictions on that race as well. In the end, I didn't know my Chicago critics as well as I thought I did. But since commentary on the Golden Globes and SAG Awards have been done to death, I'll take an in-depth look on the home front.

Best Picture

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

A Serious Man

Up in the Air

Where the Wild Things Are

In the past years, this group has chosen films like Sideways, Crash, The Departed, No Country for Old Men, and WALL*E as the top winners, sometimes making this category a difficult one to predict. Sometimes Chicago goes with the rest of the pact, and sometimes they decide to be an individual. Because Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker have been the favorites so far, I'm going to venture they're going to chose between the two of them. My guess is the latter. The mentions for A Serious Man and Where the Wild Things Are make excellent mentions, I don't think they'll have much traction.

Predicted winner: The Hurt Locker

Possible Upset: Up in the Air

Best Director

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Joel Coen, Ethan Coen - A Serious Man

Spike Jonze - Where the Wild Things Are

Jason Reitman - Up in the Air

Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

The second consecutive year in which the Best Director and Picture nominees are five for five here. With that, I'm going to give the edge to frontrunner Bigelow. Although, the Coens and Tarantino have been shown love here before, but I actually think the upset here will be Jonze, considering Wild Things's great showing, and it would be great if that ended up happening.

Predicted Winner: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Possible Upset: Spike Jonze - Where the Wild Things Are

Best Actor

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

George Clooney - Up in the Air

Matt Damon - The Informant!

Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

Michael Stuhlbarg - A Serious Man

The absence of Morgan Freeman and Colin Firth make this a little bit more interesting, the this is still a race between the two that are also guaranteed nominations. I'm pretty confident that either Bridges or Clooney will end up taking it here, but considering Crazy Heart has only had an advanced screening, it's difficult for me to fairly judge. As of now, I'm going to say Bridges, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Clooney ends up the winner here. Also, the Stuhlbarg mention is kinda nice.

Predicted Winner: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Possible Upset: George Clooney - Up in the Air

Best Actress

Abbie Cornish - Bright Star

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Maya Rudolph - Away We Go

Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

So glad about the mentions for Cornish and Rudolph, the latter in particular. These are two strong performances that deserved more attention than they got. That said, I don't see this group's pick being very different from the rest of the groups out there, so I'm going ahead with Mulligan. Maybe Sidibe might take it, but she's got the Breakthrough award going for her already.

Predicted winner: Carey Mulligan - An Education

Possible Upset: Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Best Supporting Actor

Peter Capaldi - In the Loop

Woody Harrelson - The Messenger

Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones

Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

I love, love LOVE the nomination for Peter Capaldi. In the Loop was the year's best comedy, and much of that is because of Capaldi's shark like performance. I also like the mention for Christian McKay, who looks really great in his movie as well. I think it is pretty much confirmed that Harrelson will get a nomination, which is a little nice since all this buzz started with the NBR nomination. Needless to say, we have another year of Best Supporting Actor with four place holders to make way for the big winner.

Predicted winner: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Possible Upset: Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Best Supporting Actress

Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air

Mo'Nique - Precious

Julianne Moore - A Single Man

Natalie Portman - Brothers

The one mention for Brothers should have gone to either Tobey Maguire or Bailee Madison. Portman is good, but the other two are incredible. Other than that, it's a pretty tame list featuring the usual suspects. Look for Mo'Nique to take another one.

Predicted Winner: Mo'Nique - Precious

Possible Upset: Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

Best Original Screenplay

Away We Go

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

A Serious Man

Up

Away We Go is a nice surprise, and about the only one here. Now, it would make sense to choose The Hurt Locker, but this is going to be my bold prediction against the film. I will actually call it for A Serious Man, only because it seems that some Chicago critics have complained about The Hurt Locker's script. However, if it did win, I wouldn't be surprised.

Predicted Winner: A Serious Man

Possible Upset: The Hurt Locker

Best Adapted Screenplay

An Education

In the Loop

The Informant!

Up in the Air

Where the Wild Things Are

Again, another great mention for In the Loop and Where the Wild Things Are. While I think both of them could have good possibilities of pulling off an upset, I really don't see either taking it away from Reitman's script. Chicago has shown time and time again they love this guy, and they'll reward him.

Predicted Winner: Up in the Air

Possible Upset: Where the Wild Things Are

Best Documentary Feature

Anvil! The Story of Anvil

Capitalism: A Love Story

The Cove

Food, Inc.

Tyson

Predicted Winner: The Cove

Possible Upset: Capitalism: A Love Story

Best Foreign Film

Broken Embraces

Red Cliff

Sin Nombre

Summer Hours

The White Ribbon

Predicted Winner: Sin Nombre

Possible Upset: The White Ribbon

Best Animated Feature

Coraline

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Ponyo

The Princess and the Frog

Up

Predicted Winner: Up

Possible Upset: Coraline

Best Cinematography

Avatar

Bright Star

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Where the Wild Things Are

Predicted Winner: Where the Wild Things Are

Possible Upset: The Hurt Locker

Best Original Score

Avatar

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The Informant!

Up

Where the Wild Things Are

Predicted Winner: Up

Possible Upset: Where the Wild Things Are

Most Promising Performer

Sharlto Copley - District 9

Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Max Records - Where the Wild Things Are

Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Predicted Winner: Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Possible Upset: Max Records - Where the Wild Things Are

Most Promising Filmmaker

Neill Blomkamp - District 9

Scott Cooper - Crazy Heart

Carey Fukunaga - Sin Nombre

Duncan Jones - Moon

Marc Webb - (500) Days of Summer

Predicted Winner: Neill Blomkamp - District 9

Possible Upset: Duncan Jones - Moon

The winners will be announced Monday. Let's see how close I am.

Review: Invictus

Hardball

Again, we have another film that the National Board of Review just devoured. While it didn’t claim the top Best Picture prize like Up in the Air did, it still managed to nab a shared Best Actor prize for Morgan Freeman as well as Best Director for Clint Eastwood. Now, this group is a big fan of Eastwood. Last year, this group gave him the Best Actor award for Gran Torino, and the year before he got Best Picture for Letters from Iwo Jima. I very much agreed with the latter, and violently disagreed with the former. Still, this group and I have that much in common when it comes to Mr. Eastwood: we both have a lot of respect for the guy. Still, we have another disagreement about a single film. They loved this one; I did not.

The film starts with Freeman’s Nelson Mandela and his recent release from a twenty-seven year prison sentence. Now he is the newly elected president of South Africa and is trying to accomplish the daunting task of uniting a country divided against the whites and the blacks. Mandela’s idea for unification is in the form of the country’s rugby team and their success of at the World Cup. Matt Damon is Francois Pienaar, the team’s captain who is pushing his team to an underdog victory.

The main reason, for me, why the film never quite gets to the point it needs to be is that the entire emotional crux of the film is based upon a game that I know nothing to very little about. The issue with this is that because most of the film's stakes rely on this premise, it's difficult to get into the emotional journey. Whenever something happens during the game, the only emotional cue to go on is the faces of the characters. After a while, you realize that movie is telling you how to feel instead of actually getting that emotional genuinely through the story. That emotional blockage goes away a little at the end with the climatic sports finale, but that is only because the end is relying on the many underdog/sport movie cliches.

My ignorance about rugby is an issue, but it's not an issue of the filmmaking. However, that's not the only problem the film presents. Anthony Peckham's script sidelines Mandela in his own movie, and turns what started out as an intriguing look at South African politics and the task of Mandela's challenges into a standard sports movie where the underdog triumphs in the end. The power of Mandela feels muted by the sports premise, and it is another misstep that causes the story to have a less emotional impact. It isn't a terribly written film (Gran Torino was), but it is one that doesn't feel like it has the right story in mind.

However, I will say that Eastwood shows us once again his versatility as a director. His approach is never flamboyant or flashy; it is stripped-down and grounded. His matter-of-fact way of directing is one that is seamless within any story, and there are even times when Eastwood allows us to become invested in either the sport scenes or the quiet emotional ones, like when the team visits the prison that held Mandela for almost thirty years. Though, I still don't think Eastwood has found effective use for his son Scott just yet, particularly when he gives him the character of the one who scored the winning goal for the team. Eastwood seems to have taken more time and effort with this film, and I am grateful for it.

Freeman is another actor that I have a lot of respect for, but I can't help but feel as if most of his roles now no longer require much stretch. It feels like the case here, but there are moments when you can see the good actor in Freeman coming out. The downfall is that his character doesn't feel like the center of this film. His screentime is the greatest, but the impact of the man is never really felt because of the story. Freeman gives a "good enough" performance as Mandela. The same goes to Damon, who most of the time treks through a harsh accent and shallow character. The only one here that really shines is Adjoa Andoh, who plays Mandela's chief secretary. She brings the right amount of energy and emotion to an ensemble that usually plays on one key.

There are a lot of things to admire in this film. I think Eastwood still shows that he's got a great eye behind the camera and allows you to somewhat get into the film. The performances for the most part are solid, though never mindblowing. There's also good work from Eastwood's regular cinematographer Tom Stern, and an upbeat score from son Kyle and Michael Stevens. But the film never finds the emotional ground needed to be a completely fulfilled movie. It's a great deal better than Eastwood's last film, but not quite there to be called one of his best. I guess this is just one more thing I disagree with the NBR with. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Reviews: Up in the Air & Brothers

Layover Fights

Every year, there is always one film out there that seems to have almost universal appeal from critics and awards groups that I just can't fully get on board with. That's not to say that I don't like these films, but only that I don't believe them to be the cinema changing masterpieces that they are made out to be. For instance, last year's Slumdog Millionaire was a very well made film that won awards left and right, but I did not proclaim it the best the year had to offer. There's already plenty that this film and that one have in common, including taking the National Board of Review's Best Picture award. Like the other film, I don't think this one is the absolute best of 2009. Still, it is a well put together piece of entertainment that is quite difficult to dislike.

George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a cool and slick worker for a downsizing company that loans him out to different places to deliver the news of firings to the employees. Along the way, two major developments cross his path. One is that he is forced to take on newcommer Natalie (Anna Kendrick) under his wing, who has big ideas about revolutionizing the company with computer based firing but little knowledge about the intimate one-on-one touches in dealing with people directly. The other one is a complicated romantic situation with fellow frequent flyer Alex (Vera Farmiga).

As I said, this is a well crafted piece of entertainment that certainly shows the eye of a maturing filmmaker. This is only Jason Reitman's third feature film, following Thank You For Smoking and Juno, for which he never received much of the credit that instead went all to Diablo Cody. All three films seem to take rather dire situations and creates an endearing spin on them. Here, Reitman is able to take a depressing, ripped-from-the-headline premise and makes it funny and charming. He zips us around from place to place, never letting the pace get too muddled and presenting quite a keen eye as to what it takes to keep up with this story.

However, the story presents a bit of a problem. The script, co-written by Reitman and Sheldon Turner, based on the book by Walter Kim, seems divided as to which story it feels is more interesting. There's a big divide between the sentimental love story featuring a man afraid of commitment wanting to come around and the one about the analog player coming to terms in a digital world. The film can't decide which one is better, so it tries to take the best of both worlds and smushes them together. The downside to that is that the film is not able to develop one story enough to feel mature enough to be complete. What ends up happening is that the story tends to meander a bit and feels unfocused. Still, the script is still witty and insightful, even when it isn't sure which one it wants to be.

Clooney seems to embody every character he has played up until this point, and it showcases what I pretty much have thought since the beginning: Clooney is quite a limited actor. However, his lack in range is forgiven when he is able to play a character that augments his personality, which shines a realistic and credible light. Clooney gets that here, and while to an extent I think it's a same extension of what he's been doing before, he still shows that he does it quite well. Farmiga, on the other hand, is always given one new character after another, and it's nice to see her shine in such a role that allows her to be a mix of humorous and mysterious. Kendrick does play her role well, but I couldn't help but feel as if her character doesn't serve much use than to push Bingham to his next emotional cue. She plays it well, but it's a role with not much purpose. Other bit players like Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, Zach Galifinakis and Danny McBride offer a little bit of smile in their limited roles as well.

I'm not going to jump and say this is the best film of the year (an honor I still hold to Precious at the moment), but I will say I was thoroughly entertained. The performances are all pretty good, and Reitman's direction keeps the film at a nice pace, even though the jokes only land in square spots in the plot that is divided in its attention. I do believe Reitman's films are getting better and better as they go along, and maybe one day I will agree on the film that everyone seems to love that eludes my extreme praise. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Brothers at Harms

Over the past couple of years, we've seen plenty of films dealing with the current war on terror, with many of them focused pretty much on Iraq. Some of them have been mild successes (Stop-Loss, Lions for Lambs), but most have been critical duds and box office disasters. The reason why these films keep failing is because many of them are centered on one political point and not paying much attention to the acting and the characters. This film steers clear of politics, but that isn't the only change in mind it has. This fight moves from Iraq to Afghanistan, rather fitting given the coincidental announcement of the US's surging involvement. This is also one that finds a lot of rich characters to drive an execution that is nowhere near flawless.

A remake of the 2004 Danish film Brødre, the brothers of the title are Sam (Tobey Magurie) and Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaa). Tommy is the black sheep in the family, recently released from jail after a bank robbery and attending the last meal at Sam's home before he is shipped off for a tour in Afghanistan. While there, his helicopter goes down, and the army declares him dead. To help the grieving family, Tommy tries to shape up by proving himself to his tough Marine father (Sam Shepard) and being an impromptu father figure in the home of Sam's wife Grace (Natalie Portman) and her two daughters. Then, the family discovers that Sam survived his ordeal, and he returns home a very changed and disturbed man.

Jim Sheridan is a director who seems most comfortable with intimate family dramas that deal with melodramatic circumstances. In those moments, that is where he seems to find the right amount of emotions to build up, and the interactions between the characters feel quite genuine and real. However, when the film jumps from the quiet family moments at home to the events that happen to Sam under captivity, the film comes to a halt and the emotions are flat. It would have made the film much better if David Benniof's script cut out those moments because they never feel like they gel with the rest of the film. Having that out of the film would give more mystery to Sam's psychosis and would have made the emotional climax at the end that more powerful. Sheridan does what he can with those war scenes, but they are obviously not his strong suit.

Of the three leads, this film obviously belongs to Maguire. He's an actor that has been given dramatic work outside of the Spider-Man franchise, such as other great turns in Seabiscuit and The Cider House Rules, but he's never been given characters outside the mousy and sheepish qualities they usually posses. Here, Maguire is finally given a character that offers quite the amount of depth and grand emotion. It's a performance that constantly demands much from him, and no matter what the key, Maguire delivers it in strides. Gyllenhaal does well in this role, but I think he's applied himself to much more charm and emotion is other roles and doesn't present the greatest foil to Sam. Portman does give her character enough feeling for the audience to sympathize with her, and she does well in her role. Supporting turns from Shepard and Mare Winningham are quite endearing, but one is a true scene stealer. Bailee Madison plays the oldest daughter, and it is quite amazing how much she is able to pull you into an emotional center not quite seen in child actors. It isn't flashy or contrived; it is real, grounded and credible in a way that has a difficult time reaching adult actors, let alone children.

This is a far from perfect film, as I think the pacing to the film is always jilted by the war scenes and not every emotional peak reaches the destination that is required, along with some odd musical cues from Thomas Newman's score. But the powerful performances save it from drowning, in particular the remarkable turns from Tobey Magurie and little Bailee Madison. We may very well get an onslaught of new modern war films that look into the war in Afghanistan. If we do, then I'd say they have a pretty good starting point here. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Reviews: Fantastic Mr. Fox & A Christmas Carol

Fox is a Hound

There are some animated films out there that are to be admired solely for their attempt to tell an interesting story without being confined to the shackles of misleading marketing. For instance, there was a small Australian film called Mary and Max that came out this year. Like this film, it's stop motion but is nowhere near kid friendly. I didn't think the film was magnificent, but I applauded its attempt to be a little edgier without dumbing itself down to appeal to kids. Only in America, it seems, are animated films always sold as family fare. With this film, the marketing makes it seem like its for the whole family, but with so much quirk and slow jokes, I have a hard time believing kids will go all out for it. I am not a small child, and even I grew restless with this often humorous and tedious exercise.

From the book by Roald Dahl to the offbeat interpretation of Wes Anderson, the film centers on Fox (George Clooney), an ambitious and sneaky chicken thief who promises to settle down into a normal job after his wife (Meryl Streep) announces she's pregnant. Fast-forward tow fox years, and Fox is working as a newspaper writer and living in a hole in the ground with his family, now added by son Ash (Jason Schwartzman). But across the fields, three big-top farmers and their hordes of livestock tempt Fox back into his illegal ways, until they turn on him.

I admit that I'm not the biggest Wes Anderson fan. I do admire the style of his films, but sometimes it's all a little too quirky for me, and it tends to cover up some rather shallow characters. Even though Anderson has never worked in animation before or adapted someone else's work, this film still retains the offbeat humorous edge that all his films comply with. Some of the humor is right on and delivers a smile or light chuckle, and all of it is aided by the great texture the old-school style of stop-motion. Most of it, though, doesn't register much and instead overindulges a bit on the fancy. The script by Anderson and Noah Baumbach (big fan of his since The Squid and the Whale) doesn't have much traction in providing a concrete storyline to invest in from beginning to end. Not every character works, but I will say the script does offer a fair amount of funny lines and surprisingly poignant moments balanced out with ones that offer little and make a film under 90 minutes feel quite long.

The voice acting here is actually quite good, and is almost a saving grace for the film. Clooney and Streep provide the right amount of humor and sorrow in their characters, and find the balance quite well. Schwartzman's quite sarcasm and snippy attitude attract much glee, as well as Eric Anderson as the cousin who comes to stay with the Foxs and gets begins a rivalry with Ash. Michael Gambon also has some nice time as the most notable farmer, and his voice always pierces through the dull moments of the screen. Other talent like Wally Walodarsky as a meek possum friend, Bill Murray as Fox's badger lawyer, Willem Dafoe as an antagonistic rat are not present enough to get a good sense of their importance. Their presence on screen is enlightening, but not too much depth to their personas.

I don't think this is a terrible film, and in some parts of it I think it's quite excellent. I like the voice talent behind the film, I like the look of it, and I even think it's quite funny in some parts. However, there's just too many moments of slow patches and uninspired humor for me to fully recommend the film. I do applaud Anderson and his company for trying something different with the animated genre, something I wish more people were willing to do. If that were the case, then we'd get movies that are a little different from the rest, but still offers something just as good as the live action stuff. It'll be a good day when animated films can be looked at as not just family films, but just films. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

A Christmas Gory

The hate now brewing inside the film loving community against Robert Zemeckis and his new found love of motion capture animation is extremely palpable. With every new announcement of an upcoming Zemeckis project, the haters seems to be ready to pounce directly on his doorstep and tear his ideas to shreds. I can't quite figure out why, but my guess is that they feel the animation doesn't look realistic, which is Zemeckis's intention. That's not really an issue for be because I recognize that it's animation and I don't go in looking for a realistic face. I look for an interesting story, which is something that Zemeckis's two previous films The Polar Express and Beowulf have been without. I can't say the same this time as Zemeckis is working off of a universally praised story and comes up with a thing or two that is really inventive.

Everyone should know of what is perhaps Charles Dickens's most famous story about the stingy old miser Ebenezer Scrooge and his Christmas eve visits from three spirits that send him on a change in character to become a merry philanthropist. Jim Carrey inhabits the role of Scrooge, as well as the three spirits that haunt him throughout the night. Also showing up are Gary Oldman playing Bob Cratchit and Marley, Colin Firth as Scrooge's more joyous nephew and Robin Wright Penn as Scrooge's long lost love from the past.

The number of Christmas Carol adaptations are countless (my favorites are the Disney animated one with Mickey Mouse's characters and the updated Scrooged with Bill Murray), but this one manages to offer something the previous incarnations don't have. This is perhaps the closest adaption to the book, and a lot of the power and creepiness is retained through Zemeckis's direction. He handles many of the silent moments quite well, and manages to showcase all the right moods when necessary, whether that be suspense from the ghosts or tenderness from the sadder moments. I do think Zemeckis lets his faithfulness get in the way a bit, and sometimes allows the dazzle of the animation to take over from the story, particularly in an extremely out of place chase scene during the third ghost's arrival. Still, I think Zemeckis is getting better with each new film.

Carrey's Scrooge is helped both by the animation and his performance, and both do well at their respective jobs. Scrooge is always going to be a familiar character, so while his character arc is predictable, it's still fascinating to watch his sunken features change as the story progresses. As the ghosts, Carrey also does a good job with them, though I think he piles on the Ghost of Christmas Present on a little too thick. The older version of Scrooge obviously had the most attention, and other characters seem to look like similar molds of the background players, with the exception probably going to Cratchit, who bears a good resemblance to Oldman. We're still at a point where it's difficult to judge a performance here as credit to the actor or the animator, but both tend to do their jobs well here.

Zemeckis still has a bit of a way to go with this technology, but he has come a long way from the creepy children's eyes in The Polar Express. It's difficult for a film like this to have many surprises, but it manages to pull off quite a few, as it manages to provide the same amount of emotion from the other incarnations as well as adding a level of genuine suspense that has never been achieved before, unless I just didn't see another film adaptation of this film in which Marley's jaw falls off; I could be mistaken. Maybe Zemeckis can finally get it right with his remake of Yellow Submarine. I doubt it, but one can dream. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Review: The Road

The Road Not Taken

Leave it to Hollywood to continue their duality of films in the marketplace. It seems like there's always going to be one film out about a particular subject matter, and then not too long after that there's another one. Take 1997, for instance, when Dante's Peak was followed shortly after by Volcano. The following year saw a back-to-back double feature of Deep Impact and Armageddon. Now this year we have another one, another in the realm of fighting global disaster. There is this film and Roland Emmerich's schlock-tastic 2012. Between the two, one definitely has a bigger budget, one definitely has better acting, but only one is comfortable enough to sit through and waste a few hours of your life. Sadly, it isn't this one.

Based on the well renowned book by Cormac McCarthy (No Country for Old Men), this is another tale of a close knit group of people surviving a planet that has been torn apart by a global apocalypse. The specific event is never shown, but it has left the face of the Earth a barren, gray toned wasteland with bleak skies and raging fires. Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee star as a father and son trekking their way to the coast, constantly trying to avoid the elements, staggering starvation and aggressive, cannibalistic groups of surviving humans. Charlize Theron pops up in flashbacks as Mortensen's wife before he left home.

I am thoroughly convinced that Mortensen is incapable of giving a bad performance. Every character he takes on has such an emotional well that he mines to perfection, no matter how large or small the part. Here is no exception, and he gives a tender and complex performance of a man not on a definite mission, but only to make sure his son stays alive. From Mortensen, he remains a man that isn't completely figured out, but we totally buy he strength and sensibility. McPhee doesn't soar in every scene he's in, but shows that he's capable of delivering an emotional side. Also, the makeup and cinematography are pretty good.

And that is about the extent of the praise I can give this film. The main fault of the film is that throughout all it's fantastically bleak looking visuals, there's not too much in the story that convinces you to stay through it. Director John Hillcoat and screenwriter Joe Penhall offer some great touches here and there, with the direction offering an interesting angle and the screenplay giving some nice conversational dialogue, but the whole thing never goes anywhere. It's very meandering and finally leads into a misanthropic mess. It looks good on the surface, but underneath it all, there isn't much as these two characters go from place to place with not much significance in between.

The one other major problem is related to the acting, and that is the connection between Mortensen and McPhee is never felt to the extreme that the film needs. The two are good in their own right, but the bond between father and son in extreme situations never pulls us into the story convincingly. Then, when an emotional peak is met at the end, it feels cheap and contrived rather than feeling touching. That lack of a connection is also felt between Mortensen and Theron, making a handful of those scenes feel like filler for an emotional reveal that is never felt. Robert Duvall shows up late in the film for a brief role as a blind man who crosses their path, but he feels wasted and more like an opportunity to show off the makeup budget.

I don't rely on the adage that one good performance can save an entire film (see my review for The Reader to reaffirm that). Despite the best efforts that Mortensen tries to put on the screen, the rest just doesn't hold up. The direction feels aimless and allows the film to become quite long winded, and the severe lack of emotional connections between the characters is the main reason why the film doesn't succeed. It's strange for me recommend a Roland Emmerich film with a phoned-in cast over one more ambitious and starring Viggo Mortensen. But I guess there's a first time for everything, a phrase that Hollywood hasn't heard in quite some time. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Review: An Education

World Hues

This has been one of the most elusive and, conversely, sought after films of this year for me. For the life of me, I'm not certainly sure why. The premise for the film is certainly not something completely out of the ordinary and upon first glance, at least from the trailer, it looks like a pretty tame presentation. Well, after a month of bitching to myself, the film has finally arrived at an easily accessible theatre. This isn't groundbreaking cinema by any measure, but this is a mostly well crafted piece of filmmaking that offers an intriguing story flushed out by its equally enjoyable characters.

Budding new breakout star Carey Mulligan has the leading role of Jenny. Jenny is the only child in a middle class, British home in 1961. Her restrictive parents (Alfred Molina, Cara Seymour), as well as her literary school teacher (Olivia Williams) hammer into her a strict schedule of school, music and language so that it all can lead to a hopeful destination towards acceptance at Oxford. She begrudgingly goes along with their plans until she one day runs into the stranger David (Peter Sarsgaard) in the rain. From there, David introduces her to a world outside of rigorous study: a world filled with expensive dinners, lavish gowns and culture at every turn alongside David's friends Danny (Dominic Cooper) and Helen (Rosamund Pike).

Nick Hornby is a well known writer both in the literary and Hollywood circles, but he's mostly known in the latter because of the former. Many of Hornby's published works have been turned into films (About a Boy, High Fidelity, Fever Pitch), but Hornby hasn't had too much practice at actual screenwriting. Here, he gets the chance and allows the story to unfold into some rich areas. It's all a bit rushed and awkward at the beginning, the story wanting desperately to leave the exposition, but soon the right rhythm is set and breathing room is established for the characters to develop. Hornby offers that usual light, British charm but also allows the script to become a meditation on '60s rebellion, generational hypocrisy and personal conflicts.

However, while the screenplay falters here and there, while mostly succeeding, the direction has a hard time finding the right place to strike. This is Danish director Lone Scherfig's first English language film, and while I am not familiar with her body of work, there is something about the execution here that feels off. It's not simply the problems of the beginning's rushed pace or the film's unwillingness to give up near the end. It's more basic problems like continuity mistakes in the editing and scenery. While they are simple slip-ups, it takes you completely out of the film and starts you on a direction away from the story. I have to say the direction is the weakest part because it feels rather amateurish, which is sad to say of someone as accomplished as her. Perhaps the old adage "practice makes perfect" applies here.

Mulligan has been getting a lot of press for her performance, and it is certainly well served. While the twenty-three year old (at the time) actress doesn't always seem like a sixteen-year-old, she fortunately has the talent to make you believe in a young body that is forced to grow up very quickly even when she emotionally isn't at that stage. Mulligan does a fantastic job at capturing the paradoxical mixture of certainty and confusion that propels her forward. She doesn't hit a single wrong note in this performance. Sarsgaard fits comfortably with an English accent, and lets David become a figure whose charm is easy to be distracted by and never becomes someone to fear. The same goes a bit to Molina, whose fatherly figure is never cartoonishly cruel and even allows a great emotional complexity to sink in. There are also nice supporting performances from Cooper and Pike, with Cooper providing a good amount of subtext and intrigue in his performance to allow admiration and Pike providing a real scene stealer of a comedic turn.

It's certainly not a flawless film, and you can even see some of those flaws as the film is being shown in front of you. However, the film is most certainly saved by a terrific ensemble, that also includes a brief appearance by Emma Thompson as the school's headmistress, as well as a script that is equal parts deep sophistication and light wit. The one film that always seemed to escape my grasp has finally landed, and I have caught it. Now there's only about a dozen more before the end is out. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Reviews: 2012 & Pirate Radio

Apocalypse Now and Again and Again

You know, I had almost given up hope on old Roland Emmerich. I thought that his heyday as a great action director from films like Independence Day and The Patriot were slowly coming to an end. The Day After Tomorrow was a mild success, but it really wasn't his success entirely. And then there was 10,000 BC, a film that was so bad that I thought for sure that this was the final nail in the coffin, and the deliverer of the news that Emmerich's time as the new "master of disaster" had passed. Well, it might still be true, as Emmerich has stated that this will be his last disaster epic. But if it truly is, then he has gone out with a definite bang in this cheesy, over-the-top piece of riveting popcorn entertainment.

Like most of these types of films, and what is probably the best callback to those '70s flicks, there are a plethora of melodramatic storylines among an assortment of characters that circle around the natural disaster. The disaster this time is the destruction of the earth itself that happens to fall right on the Mayan calendar's prediction of an apocalyptic end to occur on December 21, 2012. The pseudoscience tries to explain that intense particles of the sun's rays are internally heating up the earth's core which is causing the crust to become unstable and produce massive earthquakes. Then that causes the polarity of the poles to shift and with it even greater tremors which then all leads to massive tsunamis all over the world.

The many subplots concern an out of work writer (John Cusack) trying to save his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), her new boyfriend (Tom McCarthy) and his kids, the lone scientist (Chewitel Ejiofor) going up against cold hearted politicians like Oliver Platt, a Russian billionaire (Zlatko Buric) and his own efforts of survival, the president (Danny Glover) dealing with the strained relationship with his daughter (Thandie Newton) and a little bit of Woody Harrelson's wacky mountain man who knows all the hidden government hidden secrets.

This whole film is what Emmerich has worked all his career for. Our modern day Irwin Allen is hellbent on destroying the earth a thousand different ways, and he does so here in some really spectacular manner. But it's not just that the destruction is so descriptive, it's that it is deliberately over the top extravagance. There's something fascinating about Emmerich's unabashed imagination at destruction, and the result is several action scenes that are incredibly over the top but ultimately fascinating in their path of great destruction. Emmerich does indulge in a little too much exposition, some flawed character types and a third act that adds one malfunction after another when the film should be wrapping up. But so what, nobody says this was a perfect film.

This is also not a film about the acting, but I will say that it isn't atrocious. In fact, Cusack doing an autopilot performance still manages to squeak out the charm enough for us to get invested with him. The same goes for McCarthy, a sometime writer/director (he make The Visitor, which didn't have even a tenth of the budget on this one)Performances from Platt, Newton, and Ejiofor seem so serious and good that they're almost out of place in this film. Peet and Glover give disappointingly bland turns, but Harrelson seems to be the only one who's having fun with this ridiculous film, and his brief screentime is some of the film's most memorable.

The film is filled with flaws and cracks, and some of them are as the ones that tear through Los Angeles. But on the whole, this is what going to movies is about. That fun, entertaining thrill ride and takes the mind on a roller coaster of effects. Emmerich has delivered just that in all its glory. Just when I thought he couldn't do it anymore, Emmerich manages to pull it off one last time. He says this will be his last, but can we really imagine him doing a little indie drama? That might be just as harrowing. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Cast Away

There was a movie that came out earlier this year that not too many people saw. That was Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock. Now, I liked that film, but I know some others that weren't quite too fond of it. I can understand that viewpoint because many people wanted a light, breezy comedy that would be accompanied by the sweet classic sounds of the era. Instead we got a heavy dose of character study that was followed by a third act that was tethered by faintly heard music and too much melodrama. I dug a good deal of that film, but many didn't, as was reflected in its poor critical and box office reception. Quite similarly was this film in its native England back in April, when it was called The Boat that Rocked. Since that time, it was given a trim, slapped with a new name and put out in American cinemas. I don't know how it compares to the previous version, but this film ends up being quite a fun ride and everything that Ang Lee's film should have been.

It's 1966, and the authoritative rule of the British government has zeroed in on rock and roll music as the element that is corrupting the nation. One politician (Kenneth Branagh) is in charge of shutting down a broadcasting ship in the ocean that is away from most on the onshore regulatory laws. On board is the head American DJ "The Count" (Philip Seymour Hoffman), along with another well known English one (Rhys Ifan), the ship's actual captain Quentin (Bill Nighy), Quentin's godson Carl (Tom Sturridge), who is the main focal character of the film, as well as other nutty character actors like Tom Brooke, Rhys Darvey (from "Flight of the Concords"), and Nick Frost of Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz fame.

A big deciding factor as to whether or not you're going to like this type of film is if you love the music as much as the characters and filmmakers do. For me, I don't know if I'm willing to die in a fight for The Hollies, but make it the Rolling Stones and The Who, maybe so. Needless to say that the music from this era has been part of my life for a long time, and the soundtrack is full of nostalgic energy (though there are a strange number of references to the Beatles without their catalogue being heard). Still, the film is also quite funny, and writer-director Richard Curtis's well placed blend of quirky humor among a sea of sophisticated accents keeps the film afloat.

Well, most of the time it does. Despite the trim, the film still carries on longer than it should, particularly at the end when the ship meets an unfortunate accident. The sequence is well shot, but feels overly dramatic and out of place when next to the light comedy that came before it. That scene also goes on too long. As well, the motivation behind Branagh's actions never seem quite clear, and he's seems to only exist as an uncompromising, square authority figure to rebel against. On the one hand, it's nice that the film doesn't get bogged down in elaborate details of the specifics on the government's issue and creates a real mindset that the '60s were really about just standing up against who was in charge. At the same time, it makes the fight to stand up have little value when the stakes aren't really made clear. It's a win some, lose some approach that falters the film slightly.

Everyone in this cast contributes quite well, and it comes close to breaking the normal comedy rule that one person is the showman while everyone else stands around doing their best to keep up. It almost does, but the singling out has to go to Nighy, with his light attitude and always on the mark responses. The rest from Hoffman, Branagh, Ifan and particularly Frost all have their moments of comedic showcase and add a great deal to the film. As the central character of the film, Sturridge plays the part well, but his character presents a fault. He's not the most interesting character on this ship, and it's a bit of a shame when the film deliberately wants to make him be that. His struggles of searching for his long lost father are not interesting, and when we get a cameo by Emma Thompson, who plays his mother, the film really feels like it comes to a halt.

The film's has got some faults in it, for sure, but most of the film achieves what it sets out to do. It's a nice, breezy comedy that equally indulges on the laugh track and the soundtrack. If anything, you should see the film for the music and Bill Nighy's wonderfully comedic turn, as well as some other members in that very talented cast. I don't expect Ang Lee to take any notes from this film, but he probably should. But then again, Curtis should also take some notes from Lee whenever he decides to hit it heavy on the drama again. That would be a win-win in my book. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Review: Precious

Harlem Nights

I remember first seeing the trailer for this film and not being too enthused about seeing it. The story of an inner-city black youth dealing with a destructive home and encountering the few adults that decide to take an interest in her was a premise that always seemed present in the trailers, and to me it was just another story about peering into the downtrodden life of a black teenager. It's a story that has been done before, and I was skeptical that I would respond to it. Then the buzz from Sundance started to grow, and I became a little more interested, but was still wondering how a movie that seemed this predictable was able to garner so much acclaim. Upon finally viewing the film, I finally understood why so many people had latched onto this truly emotional and powerful film.

As the subtitle to the film clearly states, this is based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire, and it tells the story of Clairice "Precious" Jones, played by newcommer Gabourney Sidibe. Precious is overweight, illiterate, poor and has two children, both fathered by her own father. Her mother (Mo'Nique) is a monstrous woman who physically and emotionally abuses Precious with frying pans and degrading remarks about her image, along with the insistence to get her to get welfare. After Precious is kicked out of school, she attends a special class to help with her reading. There is where she meets the teacher (Paula Patton) who is the one who takes a liking to her.

What's particularly amazing about this film is that it continually allows you to get invested in the extreme melancholy of this world without it feeling too manipulative. There's a rich blend of forceful and delicate touches that director Lee Daniels institutes for this film. Daniels is most known for producing Monster's Ball, but I did not respond so warmly to that film as others. However, this is an effort that finds a much more sympathetic leading character and earns every heart-wrenching moment through a character that doesn't beg for that sympathy. That is the real key.

Newcommer Gabourney Sidibe is really amazing in this role. Her relatable persona and upbeat personality in the face of such horror is the real spirit of the film, and she infuses the film with an incredible amount of believability. She is funny, charming, depressing, and hopeful all at the same time. As the horrific mother, Mo'Nique has been getting a lot of press. I don't want to oversell her performance, but I do think she's very good in a role that requires you to despise her throughout and try to get some sympathy by the end. It might totally succeed, but she does a truly remarkable job at providing so much energy to a hateful person. And that is more than I thought I would ever say about the person who starred in Soul Plane and Phat Girlz. There are also nice supporting players from Patton, the many schoolmates in Precious's class, and even Mirah Carey in a deglamoured role as the social worker and far away from Glitter.

There are some times when this film comes dangerously close to histrionic melodrama. However, just when it's about to get to that point, it settles down and offers the drama to then unfold in the energy of the performances. Sidibe, Mo'Nique, their incredible cast and Daniels have to take credit for that. This is a film that may not look like much on the surface, but draws you into the many layers it hides. What is there is humor, tragedy, hope and what will probably end up being my favorite film this year. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Review: Where the Wild Things Are

Wild at Heart

This film probably has the second greatest magic trick seen in film this year, right next to The Hangover's ability to make people believe that it was a successful comedy. Upon the very first glance, there's an assumption that a film based on a literally paper-thin source material might not meet the challenge of offering a film that is stimulating to the adult mind. Then, when you actually dive into the film itself, there's an uneasy pace about it that shifts dramatically from scene to scene, and it is a mystery if the film will ever find the right tone of consistency. But then, with a slight of hand and a bit of flash, the trick is pulled off. You suddenly start being pulled into this emotionally rich world that offers a buffet of topics to invest in. All this is done without you realizing what has happened, and you fall in love with ever second of the piece. It's perhaps one of the greatest tricks a film can pull off, and I'm glad to say that it has been successfully done here.

Maurice Sendak's uber-classic 1963 children's story has now become basic reading in almost every young child's library. There's hardly a person I know that isn't aware of the young, restless boy named Max, whose naughty behavior sent him to a fantastical island where giant creatures roamed. That incredibly simple story is the premise for this more complex storyline, which finds Max (played by the aptly named Max Records), the youngest sibling in what appears to be a divorced home. After a huge spat with his Mother (Catherine Keener), he runs away and finds a boat. That boats takes him across huge ocean waves and eventually to the island filled with those monsters. But here, they have personalities, like the ostracized little goat Alexander (voiced by Paul Dano), the couple in love Ira (Forest Whitaker) and Judith (Catherine O'Hara), the collective second-in-command Douglas (Chris Cooper) and the de facto leader Carol (James Gandolfini), who proclaims Max their king.

The question has been asked whether or not this is a children's film. I'd say yes and no, but that is a brilliant line that Spike Jonze walks on. It is true that the rather dark presentation of the monsters at times, particularly their very expressive faces, and the fact that most of the book's readers are adults now suggest that this is meant more for nostalgia. Jonze delivers well on that note. However, he also creates a world that seems through a child's gaze: most of the shots are at Max's eye level, and the sometimes erratic pace gives a parallel to a child's own ever changing emotions. The balance is well found through Jonze's direction.

It's particularly amazing how Jonze and his co-writer Dave Eggers have managed to take a sort of nothing story and turned it into a rich piece. The answer to that is they have not dumbed down their film to make it overly simple. Every emotional peak that appears within those few sentences of the story are revealed here, but they carry so much more emotional weight because the story has allowed the time and personalities to flourish. Jonze and Eggers have done the greatest service: paying respect to the source without being shackled by it.

Max is a very difficult character to try and pull off, and there are times in the beginning when it doesn't seem like Records lives all the way up to that challenge. Then, when he arrives at the island, he pulls you into a strong emotional core, made all the more impressive because he is conversing with creatures that physically cannot converse back. It's one of the few remarkable child performances that doesn't feel gimmicky. Also, every voice actor is perfectly cast here, and I wouldn't change any one of them. Dano's trademark shy voice works perfect for Alexander, Cooper's authoritative tone compliments Douglas's organized personality, and Gandolfini breathes every emotion he can into Carol and makes us care for him. Every outburst feels genuine, and the amazingly subtle visual effects for facial movements on large monster suits add to the wonderment.

I admit that I was a little weary in that first part, and I'm still not convinced it all works there. However, once the film gets going, it completely pulled me in, and before I knew it, I was laughing, happy, and depressed at all the right moments, and it all felt genuine to the film. Spike Jonze and his company should receive high praises for their work here (are you listening, Oscar?). They have taken a work that's as bare as bone and used it to create a world that I found just as complex as the so-called "real one" outside. Mr. Jonze continues to show that he is one of the industry's best magicians, and his latest effort, I think, is his best trick yet. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Review: A Serious Man

Chosen Cones

In my humble opinion, I do not believe the Coen brothers can make bad very often. In fact, there's only one film of theirs that is fundamentally bad, and that would be The Ladykillers. Even one of their least involving films for me, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, still manages to impress at the very least on a technical scale. Lately the Coens struck gold, literally, with their 2007 Oscar guzzler No Country for Old Men and reclaimed their status as ace filmmakers after getting a little shaky post-The Big Lebowski. Even Burn After Reading is an underrated gem that makes a great companion piece to their greatest film Fargo. While thematically this film and that other masterpiece don't have that much in common, they do go together well because this film is the best since Fargo, and I'm well aware that glosses over the so-called Best Picture.

Part semi-autobiography, part reinterpretation of the Bible's Book of Job, the film circles around Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg). He's a normal man trying to deal with some abnormal circumstances happening in his life. His wife (Sari Lennick) wants a divorce and a spiritual divorce so she can remarry a family friend, so he moves out to a second rate motel. His application for tenure as a college professor is in jeopardy. A Korean student (David Kang) who attempted to bribe Larry for a passing grade is potentially suing him for defamation. Larry eccentric relative (Richard Kind) refuses to get his life together and stays in his home. All in the days leading up to his son's bar mitzvah. To try to cope with all of these escalating problems, Larry tries to seek out a trio of mysterious rabbis.

As good as a film No Country for Old Men is, I have to admit that it does not have a great amount of re-watch value. It's a style you get used to after a while, and the power of the filmmaking isn't retained. This film feels so packed with subtle plot points and nuanced character moments that there feels like there's a treasure trove of elements to discover. The Coen brothers set up the framework quite well, and their inventiveness with the camera continually draws the audience in. They perfectly capture the mid '60s feel, and their world is completely believable and credible, and that is an appreciative effort.

What also tends to happen in some Coen brothers films is that there is an accusation of them looking down at their characters and mocking them. That can be true to an extent, but on the whole, the characters that populate the film feel fleshed out and never exist solely on a caricature level. Also, in order to really appreciate the story, a basic knowledge of the story of Job's terrible plight. Having that in the back of your mind allows you to see some of the strong and subtle parallels to such a famous tale, and it is intriguing to see how the Coens transform the story and take it to interesting areas. On a note about the story, this does have an abrupt ending like No Country, but having the knowledge about Job gives you a better appreciation about that where the story ends and a realization that anymore would be overindulgent.

Stuhlbarg doesn't give a mind-blowing performance, but he fortunately doesn't sleepwalk through this role either. He presents a grounded character who feels believable enough for us to become invested in his struggles. Other members of the ensemble also deliver, like Lennick's deadpan aggressiveness and Kang's monotone aura. Kind is an endearing character, but I will lament that his character feels so limited that I would either have preferred him to have a more prominent role or be eliminated completely. Also, Kind is an actor who portrays the slightly different variations on the same character. However, he does it very well.

There are small quibbles I have with the film, such as Kind's character and the story meandering at some points, but they really shy in comparison to the many great things about this film. It is one in which the Coens put the ultimate faith in their characters, and it has a nice payoff. The story is fascinating, the execution is flawless and the ensemble truly delivers. I am of the honest opinion that this is the Coens' best film since Fargo, and I'm not ashamed to say that it is better than No Country. Unlike that film, this is one I want to watch many times over. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Reviews: Capitalism & Bright Star

Capital Punishment

There are some figures throughout the world where the simplest way to describe them is their own name. Nothing seems to better sum up Michael Moore than the statement, "Michael Moore is Michael Moore." With that, you already know all the baggage that comes with that name: all the controversy, criticism, genius, entertainment and all the mixed emotions you can handle fall squarely in front of Moore's doorstep. His latest film is no different, and it is like most of his others. There's always some things you have to take with a grain of salt, but overall, Moore creates another compelling documentary that if any is bound to stir the conversation.

After tackling such big subjects as the GM Corporation, gun control, healthcare, and the entire Bush Administration, Moore now goes after a pretty broad topic, that of what the title blatantly tells is capitalism. Moore's thesis is that capitalism is an economic system that invites greed and corruption so easily that it is inherently evil and must be removed. What it is to be replaced with, Moore never really says, but gives examples such as numerous banking methods such as foreclosing on the homes of those barley making ends meet by jacking up monthly payments, taking life insurances out on employees so that when they die the bank inherits the payment, and cutting off final paychecks from a Chicago window making company that led to a famous sit-in and reversal of decision.

The one thing that has always clouded Moore throughout his career is that his documentaries have a difficult time being sincere, which is where they are the most effective. His first film, Roger & Me, still remains his best film because it wasn't about attacking partisan issues but more so about distinguishing between the social problems dealing with what is right and what is wrong. After getting muddled a bit with Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 (my least favorite of his documentaries), he seems to be getting back to that. Moore goes for more of a mouthpiece of mostly the poor, nearly bypassing the middle class. It is a move that shows a lot more compassion and credibility for Moore's arguments, and he continually presents thought provoking ideas usually dressed with really great comedic set ups (there's one involving Ronald Regan early in the film that is really funny).

However, the film isn't without the usual "Michael-Mooreisms" that detract from some of the film's credibility. Moore still paints his canvass with a far left brush, and his imbalanced attacks on Republicans versus Democrats don't give the biggest and fairest picture. Moore continues to be very manipulative in this piece, as his trademark moves of being shunned by security guards and getting close-ups on crying family members start popping up within the first ten minutes of the film. Also, Moore's coverage of that famous Chicago sit-in also has some shaky credibility because it seems a little too coincidental that Moore and his camera crew just happened to have insider access to this group just before they decided to protest. The film is still filled with Moore's usual tactics that often make him one of the most despised filmmakers working today, and sometimes this is justified.

Still, in the end, this is a wonderfully put together film that I would argue is Moore's best since his debut feature. The reason isn't really because of his message because, in the end, Moore doesn't really have a clear one to begin with. Eliminating capitalism won't solve what Moore's discussing, but that's a political conversation not needed here. What the film does offer is a plea that seems to be limited on partisan bias and even asks its own audience to join the revolution while more depressing economic tidbits run across the ending credits. It is true that, whether you love him or hate him, Michael Moore is Michael Moore. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Dead Poet's Society

I’ll admit that there are a few genres out there that I’m not the biggest fan of. The most notable for me is the modern romantic comedy, for which very few films have been made an exception. However, another genre that has difficulty in getting me invested would be the period piece, specifically the one set in Victoria England. There aren’t many films that take place during this time that I find fascinating or even willing to have be believe in their hollow characters that fill out the fluffy costumes. Even last year’s The Duchess had only one believable character (Ralph Fiennes). When it comes to this film, there seems to be a stronger emphasis on the characters, which is a huge plus concerning this often pretentious genre.

This is a tale of famous romantic poet John Keats (Ben Whishaw), who like all poets of his time was critically panned in life, but is now almost universally praised years after his death at the untimely age of twenty-five of tuberculosis. During his short time, he worked alongside a fellow poet named Brown (Paul Schneider) and struck a passionate love affair with an admirer, his neighbor Faye Brawne (Abbie Cornish). Their affair would last the final three years of Keats’s life.

What normally happens in these types of films is that there is more of an emphasis on the art design of the film and that leads to the films having very weakly developed characters that only pad the space between the sets and costumes. However, writer-director Jane Campion does something very different here. She keeps the scope rather limited and maintains a strong focus on Keats and Brawn. Because of this, there is time to flesh out the qualities of these characters, and they think and behave in believable ways. Campion’s script is witty, enthralling and passionate. While her direction is not quite as tight as her screenplay, she still does an admirable job at creating a world that feels real and credible enough for us to seek out the emotions in.

Whishaw is good enough in his part, although I do admit that it does seem like he’s striking the same chord with this character scene after scene. His speech or ideas never change and he seems like the caricature of the thin, pale, sickly looking writer. Still, he does present a charming character that we feel like is very easy to fall in love with. Beautifully opposite him, Schneider’s poet is crass and rude, but never feels forced to do so. His performance strikes all the right enough notes of a man frustrated with the conditions around him and the happier life that has been bestowed on his friend that has eluded him. He’s never totally nice, but you never believe him to be a cartoonish bully.

However, this movie really belongs to Cornish. She always presents a delicate amount of energy and passion when she moves across the screen. There is never a sense of overindulgence in her character, and she always strikes the right balance of forceful independence, love struck schoolgirl, and wildly depressed faux widow in equal proportion. Cornish is the key to the film’s success; she’s endearing and passionate, and hopefully that will translate into an Oscar nomination.

While there are many things to admire about this film, I would still point out some flaws that do hinder the picture a bit. Not every character is realized quite as well as Keats, Brawne and Brown. Faye’s younger sister, in particular, never quite seems necessary beyond her role as a comedic annoyance for Faye. I also think this movie on more than one occasion believes the word’s from Keats’s poetry are more powerful than the images, and a lingering shot of Faye’s funeral march for Keats loses some power when it drags for what seems to be as long as the third act itself is.

Still, this is a really remarkable film that genuinely surprised me at how much I ended up enjoying it. Cornish’s beautiful performance is the key ingredient here, but most of her co-stars and a very compassionate execution from Campion add to her contributions. I know there are many out there who have the same reservations toward this genre that I do. However, I urge you to take the chance because you’ll be pleasantly pleased. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+