Review: Tetro

Coppola Rising

I'm going to start this whole thing by saying something that might seem a bit unusual, perhaps even blasphemy to the regular film fanatic: I'm not a big fan of Francis Ford Coppola. Well, let me make that a little clearer. I am a big fan of the Coppola who gave the world perhaps the greatest mafia saga in film history as well as the truly awesome and epic Vietnam War story that to this day remains on a level that its successors have not even come close to. I am not a fan of the Coppola we have been seeing lately, the Coppola that has given us The Godfather Part III, Jack, The Rainmaker, Youth Without Youth and Sofia Coppola. That is the man I have started to despise little by little, as have many others. Now it seems Coppola has heard those calls and has delivered this film, his first based on an original screenplay of his in thirty-five years, and arguably one of his best since then.

As I said, this is Coppola's first film based on his original writing since The Conversation in 1974. Vincent Gallo is the title character, a frustrated and somewhat failed writer living his life in Buenos Aries with his live in partner Miranda (Mabriel Verdú). Their simple and mysterious life is disrupted when Tetro's younger brother, Bennie (Alden Ehrenreich), stops by for an extended visit when the cruise ship he works on has some engine trouble. Bennie clings to Tetro in order to piece together some of the family's strange history, particularly the falling out between Tetro and his renowned composer father (Klaus Maria Brandauer).

There's a lot of room for the typical moviegoer to become annoyed with Tetro's tedious pace, non-linear plot, cut-a-ways to strange, symbolic opera scenes, and odd ending to it all. I myself was tempted to dismiss the film for having many of these elements with not much point. However, knowing Coppola, there is a method to the madness, and if you're willing to look at it at the right angle, you can find the beauty. Coppola isn't trying to make some epic movie in the same vein as The Godfather. There is no grand point that it makes. He simply wants to invite you in and feel the emotions of the characters. The way Coppola frames the movie provides that path, and he quietly draws you in until you are engulfed in its glorious picture.

Most people only know of Vincent Gallo as the rather pompous filmmaker behind The Brown Bunny, which found himself on the receiving end of Chloe Sevigney orally pleasuring him and then placed a hex on Roger Ebert's colon based on a negative review of his film. Here, in front of the camera, he's a character that conveys nearly every emotion. You might question the legitimacy of those outbursts, but Gallo always makes a definite impact. Ehrenreich has a brilliant subtlety and quite sensibility to his character, providing an emotional anchor to the film and professing so much while speaking so little. Verdú, of Pan's Labyrinth and Y Tu Mamá También, is again fabulous here as every word she speaks and every action she takes provides great emotional baggage.

Even if you disagree about all of those other aspects, the one that everyone seems to agree upon is the absolutely beautiful cinematography. Mihai Malaimare creates a flawless and magnificent black and white portrait with this film. Not only does it give the film a hypnotic haze, but it also creates a rather timeless feeling to it, as if no specific date can be assigned. That is quite appropriate when Coppola is dealing with some timeless themes in the film itself. I normally don't count on the Oscars to give the Best Cinematography award to the most deserving film (Brokeback Mountain, Children of Men, The Assassination of Jesse James..., and The Dark Knight are all consecutive examples), but I hope the lesson is learned here.

I will emphasize that there is a good chance that you might not be a big a fan of this movie as I was. I'm used to that, and even at times may want to agree with that viewpoint. However, long after the film ends, its haunting visuals stay long with you. Coppola has created a odd portrait but ultimately filled with little gems. You will probably not get it all the first time, Lord knows I didn't. I do look forward to a second time, and I hope you all will give it a first. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Reviews: Transformers 2 & Whatever Works

Fallen from Grace

I realize up front that it really doesn't matter what I, or any other critic, say about this movie. Studios love this type because it is generally known as "critic proof." You can talk up a storm about the inadequacies a movie has, but because it is stuck on high octane action and constantly bombarding the audience with explosions and visual effects, the masses flock to the film anyway. Basically, you can make a movie that can be lazy on the actual storytelling but still manages to be a big box-office success with the help of heavy promotion. Such is the description of nearly every Michael Bay film until this point, and his latest is no different.

Accurately picking up two years after the events of the first film, Shia LaBeouf returns as Sam, the protagonist from the first film who is off to college now and is desperate to keep the long distance relationship with his girlfriend (Megan Fox), perhaps the only woman in the world who wears lip gloss and short shorts while working in a body shop. However, Sam just can't escape the hectic battles between the Autobots and the Decepticons. The robots are still battling, and have now raised Megatron back from the dead in order to retrieve a device to activate a machine hidden beneath the Giza Pyramids that steals the energy from the sun and direct it to the robots home planet where the evil races can reign again.

As you can see, this plot is needlessly complicated, and original Transformers writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, along with newcomer Ehren Kruger, don't do great justice by dragging out this premise for all that it is worth. Orci and Kurtzman, in particular, are capable of creating a script that can be a tad skimpy on the plot but is able to flush out interesting characters (this year's Star Trek is a great example). Here, they have tried to overload the plot with so many details that they have left the characters to become none note caricatures of their former selves. The plot in these types of movies are always going to be the least interesting part, but the writers want to try to make up for that. They are inherently unsuccessful.

When they said Michael Bay was directing the first film, it was somewhat expected but only with a hint of sarcasm. With that standard, Bay delivered a movie that wasn't without its flaws, but almost seemed to celebrate the ridiculousness of his films and laid out those overblown elements to an almost comedic level that found enjoyment. I did enjoy the first film. Now Bay seems to think that all of those things that were harpooned a bit in the first film are to be taken seriously now, and the film continues to be littered with the rotating camera shots around two characters, disorienting editing, varying degrees of sunlight within a single scene, and slow motion sprinkled in fast action sequences. Bay only does what everyone despises him of doing, and even worse, believes it will make the movie better. His intentions are misguided, as would anyone's who think a scene where flaming balls of fire from the sky hitting battleships is a good placement even when it brings up memories of Pearl Harbor and Ardmageddon.

I will say that LaBeouf is perhaps one of the few things in this movie that provides some excitement. His quick delivery and nervous energy seem like perfect fits in any movie of his, and he is able to deliver some great laughs. The same can be said of John Tuturro as the secret service agent disgraced from service and a little robot who seems to be possessed by the spirit of Ron Carey (if you know who that is, then you already know you won't like this movie). Other than that, Fox is continually bland along with returning stock characters like Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, and Kevin Dunn and Julie White as the parents (White particularly cranks up the annoying mannerisms here).

In short, this movie contains nearly everything that annoyed me about the first film amplified by about a hundred times. The nauseating action sequences, and uninteresting plot, the long blocks of expository dialogue, the slow motion between the fast action, Sam's mother and robots that perpetuate racial stereotypes overpower whatever humor a few people let onto. This is a really bad film that will more than likely make $200 million in the first weekend. And there's not a thing any critic can do about it. *1/2 / ****; GRADE: D+





Working Title

I thought I had Woody Allen figured out last year. I was almost certainly convinced that what he needed was a change in location time and time again. After his work started to suffer a bit while he was dormant in New York, he picked up his bags and moved to England where he gave us the brilliant film Match Point. Most people bolstered that the return, that was until it seemed like he stayed there too long (Scoop and Cassandra's Dream ring a bell? It doesn't for most people). So he picked up his stuff again and moved to Spain, and we got Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I wouldn't have called that a great film, but I guess enough people liked it to let Penélope Cruz be another in a long line of supporting actresses to win an Oscar for one of his movies. I thought we'd have to wait until he got to South Africa before he gave us another great film. Instead, he's back in New York, and I this film reminds us why he needed a break from the big city.

Allen returns to New York for the first time since 2004's Melinda and Melinda for his 40th feature film as director. Here he continues his popular tirades on life, love and the pursuit of pessimism now through Larry David, of TV's Curb Your Enthusiasm, essentially playing the type of character Allen plays in his own movies, only with slightly more cynicism to work with David's comedic timing. David is Boris Yellnikof, a self-proclaimed genius with content for the world; so much so that he tried to commit suicide by jumping out a window but landing on the awning below. Now alone and divorced, he is met with Melodie (Evan Rachel Wood), a young and sweet Southern girl making a life in New York and begs her way to staying with Boris. As their relationship grows, he world view is tested and he continues to view the world in his own special way.

What I notice about many of Allen's contemporary films is that he has his characters move around a lot which creates this kinetic energy for the characters until it reaches a tension peaking moment at the end. That doesn't really happen here, and instead the characters feel like their wallowing in the film's premise. Allen has Boris go through these monologues that break the fourth wall and talk directly into the camera. That's a major selling point for the movie, and if you like it, then you'll accept most of what follows. It's difficult to do so, however, when all his talk goes around in circles and never comes to any significant conclusion. All his speeches circle around the same ideas and eventually become rather tedious.

All of those complaints are in the first part of the film, which lacks the energy and wit to be on par with what Allen can do. He introduces Patricia Calrkson as Melodie's grassroots, Christian mother who is initially provided to be the dumb religious fanatic to foil the secular progressive mindset of Boris. In the second part, however, the film starts to lighten up a bit, and becomes more complex. It attempts to deconstruct the stereotypes of similar films in a more subtle way, and the idea of falling in love and changing one's personality is handled with a much gentler hand.

David is a very good comedic actor, but the familiarity of this character often times prevents him from becoming endearing. Because he is basically playing Allen himself, his entire insight is dismissed because it has been handled better in the past. Same is said for Wood, giving a reminder of Mira Sorvino in Mighty Aphrodite and not really giving much more of a personality trait than that. Clarkson was on the verge of being wasted like in Allen's last film, but this time she is given a well handled character arch that is provided nicely. Henry Cavill makes a sweet and engaging turn as a younger man pining for Melodie, but Ed Begley Jr. as Melodie's father makes an appearance in the second half to almost makeup for the lack of humor that was gone when Clarkson's character changed. There was potential for him to be funny (he mentions that he thought his Protestant daughter was kidnapped by Mormons), but that quickly fades away and his character arch feels tacked on and forced.

Whatever Works is only about an hour and a half, but it quite honestly feels much longer than that. That is because it feels like an endless speech in what it's trying to say and when it finally gets there, the satisfaction is little felt. The truth is that Allen has done this film in much better circumstances, and the rather lazy feeling that New York gives him here can't be amended by some good acting and a surprising second half. Allen is still going to be capable of doing great work, but I think now is definitely the time for him to extend that break a little longer. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Reaction to the Recent Announcement

By now, hopefully, the news has already sunk in, and the rest of the Oscar bloggers out there have already put in there two cents regarding the news that just broke. For the collective masses who don't follow anything about the Oscars, here is a recap of the big news of today: at the next ceremony, the number of Best Picture nominees will be doubled. The category will play host to ten nominees instead of the usual five, the standard for every Oscar category, excluding Makeup, Visual Effects, and occasionally Original Song.

For the record, the Academy originally chose ten nominees in this category starting in 1934, and continued this practice until Casablanca took the top award in ten years later. Since 1944, there have only been five films selected as Best Picture nominees. In a statement made to the press, still-President of the Academy Sid Ganis talked about this bringing more films onto the playing field to compete with Best Picture, and even cited 1939 as a great example to revive this tradition, when the ten nominees included Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Dark Victory, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Of Mice and Men and Goodbye, Mr. Chips.

Now, let's talk about the real reason the AMPAS is deciding to do this. It doesn't take too much brain to understand that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the amount of negative press the Academy received for its previous selection. Popular films that scored critically and commercially high, like The Dark Knight and, to a lesser extent, WALL-E, were shut out of the Best Picture category despite heavy campaigns and strong precursor showing. Instead, the surprise pick was The Reader, an art house film that seemed intentionally baited for Oscar recognition. The masses through their arms up and said a lot of nasty things about the Academy, accusing them of being out of touch and in poor taste. Like any institution with strong political backings, they rushed into this decision only when the previous year could have benefited more.

Now, I would like to think that having ten nominees this time will give an opportunity for more films to receive the honor that they deserve. It is true that I would have loved to have seen The Dark Knight nominated, and it probably would have if this system had been in place. But that is the past and there is nothing that can be done about that. I look at this year as being more inclined to think that Pixar will finally receive a Best Picture nomination. Up is on a whirlwind of success right now, and this is the best news for it. I still don't think it's their best, but consensus says it is so they finally have their legitimate shot at a nomination. Opening the field up does allow some other films to slip through that might have gone unnoticed before.

Still, in the end, I don't think I really support the AMPAS for doing this. For one thing, opening up the field may mean that some films get a Best Picture nomination that may not deserve it. Of course, that is all objective, but sometimes trying to find legitimate films to place that high honor onto can be a difficult one, hence why five are usually the best. Also, the more films competing for the top award, the less valuable it seems. There is something special about being honored in the top five, making the group very selective. If not a lot of films are eligible for the award, it seems like the award itself carries more prestige. Only one other awards group have 10 Best Picture nominees: the Critic's Choice Awards, and that is to match the symbolism of a critic's top ten list at the end of a year. It would be a shame if the Oscars become as useful as the Critic's Choice.

There is a reason why the Oscars are the most coveted entertainment prize. It's because it's hard to get one. Awards like the Emmys or the Grammys don't carry much baggage with them because it's so easy to receive multiple nominations and wins. If it seems like anyone can win, then the honor of winning is fairly light. The Oscars carry that prestige because of their consistency to limit the amount of awards it gives out, even sometimes striking out credited producers just cap the limit to three nominees. Ganis said that only one winner will emerge, but it still means that more people are invited to win, and the ceremony might lose something in the process. I said that had this been in place last year, The Dark Knight would have been nominated. But its nomination would have meant more if it came from a list that narrowed down five nominees instead of a list that includes the excuse, "It's only nominated for Best Picture because four other films had to be nominated with it."

I think the change is unnecessary and don't think it's going to be a radical new thing that's going to catch on because it's already too late. Besides, I don't think last year was the proper year to do it. I would have liked ten nominees in 2005, which not only included nominees Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Munich, Capote and Good Night, and Good Luck., but also had films released like A History of Violence, The Squid and the Whale, Proof, Batman Begins, Jarhead, Cinderella Man, King Kong, and many others. Once again, the Oscars react to something without thinking it through. If this blows up in their face, which it probably will, I hope they go back to five. But this news has proven one thing: no matter what the Academy does, people are going to find a reason to be upset with them.

The Year So Far...

We are pretty much at the midpoint of 2009, and with what I have seen so far, I suppose it's now time for me to comment on the films that have been released thus far. Like last year, I've found a lot of movies that I consider to be good, but am confident that they will probably not hold their top spots indefinitely. Likewise, the films that are low on my list aren't particularly terrible, and hopefully (or tragically) there will be others to take note of. Right now, I'd like to say what I think are the best out right now and name one film that is the worst of the bunch at this point.

Best So Far: Drag Me To Hell
-Sam Raimi's horror-comedy succeeds on nearly every level. It delivers great suspense in the horror realm while at the same time making the over-the-top nature of the genre recognize the comedic abilities it possesses. The film is a perfect example of that great blend that is helped by strong performances throughout the whole cast, headlined by Alison Lohman. She particularly is great because she herself is complex and not quite so much the damsel in distress stereotype. A great time at the show by an ace filmmaker.

Rest of the Best:

Adventureland
-A great disservice was done to this movie by the advertisements. They promised a comedy on the level of Superbad when it was anything but. It was actually much better that. It was a sweet comedy that based its characters in reality instead of the realm of caricature. Everyone gives a great performance and delivers at making this late 1980s world full of real problems for real people. This was a film that deserved better than what it got.

Away We Go
-Finally, a Sam Mendes film that actually leaves you happy at the end. His direction does help move the comedy along, but what really sells this film is the strong and complex relationship between stars John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph. Rudolph in particular is absolutely astonishing in a role that is magnificently well played. A few false notes with some over-the-top characters aren't enough to bring the movie down tremendously, particularly with the two leads playing so wonderfully.

Coraline
-The look was maybe a little too similar to Nightmare Before Christmas, but the story and characters were still dazzling. I've never been the biggest Henry Selick fan, but his vision of Neil Gaiman's tragically beautiful world was definitely worth the look. It'll be out on video soon, and I encourage all to take the trip.

The Escapist
-Unfortunately, I didn't get to see this in theatres. Still, that didn't stop me from recognizing what a masterfully crafted film this turned out to be. Brian Cox heads a really great ensemble that works with a familiar premise executed in a really striking way. I'm not sure when the next opportunity to see this film will come around, but I highly encourage all to see it.

Star Trek
-I almost passed this up, but I do think this film deserves special mention because of how well it was able to succeed with hard core fans and oblivious summer moviegoers. The story may have taken a backseat, but that sometimes is preferable in order to focus on the characters, and they are particularly acted well by the whole ensemble. Director J.J. Abrams did an excellent job at bringing Star Trek into the new century, complete with style and substance.


The Worst So Far: The Soloist
-Wolverine stunk pretty bad, but at least it had the somewhat expectation to fail. The Soloist is the type of terrible movie made even worse by the good intentions from the cast and filmmakers. Everytime a sincere moment is trying to be conveyed, it comes across instead as overbearing and irritatingly slow. Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. are fine actors, but the material makes them sit in a vat of pretentious pudding. Joe Wright feels more contrived than ever, even more so than his previous films like Atonement, and the whole thing eventually suffocates itself with its own preachy messages that fall on uninterested ears. This was meant to be an Oscar contender at one point but was delayed a release date. I can see why, and beg you to not figure it out yourself.


The next six months hold many good things, and I'm definitely looking out for many of them, including Public Enemies, (500) Days of Summer, Inglorious Basterds, Shutter Island, Invictus, The Lovely Bones, Nine and many others. It will certainly be interesting, and I'll keep you all posted.

Review: The Hangover

The Lost Weekend

I am not a fan of familiar retreads on similar ideas that have been present in many films time and time again. It's usually a boring presentation that does little to offer any moviegoer anything to hold onto. This film has that set up and easily falls into the perception of it becoming another in a long line of sophomoric frat boy comedies that is shallow in its maturity and humor. At times, there are moments in this film where some elements may want to surprise you, and you may think that you're actually watching something that may give a bit of a surprise. If you blink, you might not see the trick. However, if you have the intention to actually pay attention to the film, you'll realize that whatever good qualities are left to behold get undermined by the film's self-deprecation of its style.

Oh, the old familiar places. It's the eve of a wedding day for the handsome groom Doug (Justin Bartha). To celebrate his last day of bachelorhood, do his friends try to give him a meaningful gesture that would have an impact on his future life and bonding with them? Of course not. They go to Vegas for the most superficial time of their lives. Doug's posse includes Phil (Bradley Cooper), the brass and crude one, Stu (Ed Helms), the soft and nerdy one, and Alan (Zach Galifianakis), Doug's soon to be brother-in-law. The next morning, the three friends discover their hotel room in a mess, a baby in the closet, a tiger in the bathroom, and sans Doug (as well as one of Stu's teeth). The rest of the day is tracking the events of the previous night and piecing together the information to find the groom before the wedding.

In complete honesty, I absolutely hated the first part of this movie. That is where the familiar premise is at its ugliest, with characters to match. Phil is a high school teacher that is rude to his students and even steals from them in order to pay for his Vegas trip. Stu is so passive that his cartoonishly shrill girlfriend constantly emasculates him. Alan has the mess of a mind and gets into awkward situations like shouting at strangers and hugging people with no pants on. None of these characters are particularly likable and it makes a hard case to care about their plight come later on in the film. Not to mention the countless homophobic jokes in that first part, I was ready to completely be turned off from this film.

Then, as the detective story started to surface, I could give or take certain things. I did appreciate no sudden flashbacks into what happened as we are clearly within the mindset of these characters. They have no memory of these events so the audience will not have a visual representation of what happened. That is something I can give director Todd Phillips (Old School) and writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore (Four Christmases & Ghosts of Girlfriend's Past) credit for in trying to make this movie more interesting than some of its predecessors. However, they also have to take the blame for in irregular comedic tone, unlikeable characters, and often times humor that strays away from edgy to just downright stereotypical, cheap and offensive.

Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis do their best, and I will say that the chemistry they all have is worth watching many times. Of the three, it is Helms who is the standout. Mostly known on The Office and his stint on The Daily Show, Helms is able to take any character, no matter what range of insanity they hold, and make them entertaining and heartfelt, and the same is said here. Cooper and Galifanakis are good in their roles, but their characters are so unlikeable that you just want to keep seeing them hurt rather than awaiting their advancement. I like Justin Bartha, and believe he showed great comedic timing and energy in the National Treasure films. Unfortunately, he's sidelined by the film's premise which should have made use of a less talented actor. Other supporting players range from the brilliant but wasted (Jeffery Tambor as the father-in-law; Heather Graham as newly wedded stripper) to the distractingly bad (Ken Jeong, a good actor in an offensive role as an Asian mob boss; Mike Tyson playing himself as bad as it can be).

I will admit that there were times when I laughed at parts of this movie, but I did not laugh nearly as much as other comedies. A comedy can get a slight pass on me, but it needs something to take me over the edge to strongly recommend it. Not only did this film not get close to that edge, but it ended up back tracking a bit. Some of the cast is good, but not all of them are able to save a movie that is burdened with a weak premise, faulty execution and, most importantly, unfunny jokes. Then again, many people probably won't care and will think they've seen the trick. Please, though, keep your eyes open; don't blink so you can expose the falsities for what they are. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+