In Home Viewings - "Tree of Life"

NOTE: I'm about to write what is sure to be one of the shorter (or at least insubstantial) reviews of my professional (read: "not professional at all") career. I have been trying to put my thoughts into words regarding Tree of Life for the better part of three weeks now and both attempts to write have resulted in long-winded, dull, and filled with tangents that really didn't make a lot of sense. As a result, I've gotten to a point where I just need to spit this review out and be done with it because the further I am away from my viewing, the tougher it becomes to put together a cohesive review. Please do not take my limited words to be an indication of the value of this film as a whole.

Ostensibly, Tree of Life is about Jack (Sean Penn and Hunter McCraken), a child of the '50s whose father, Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pitt), was a hard man to live with. I say ostensibly because...well...you'll see. O'Brien isn't a drunk, abusive, or even particularly mean; he's simply hard, the poster boy for the hardworking, blue collar man of his generation. He loves his sons tremendously but has a tough time showing it and Jack takes the brunt of that difficulty. Most of the time Jack is shown in his teenage form and he is used to illustrate the concept of growing up. TOL cuts back and forth between the past and present which finds Jack as a businessman who shows many of the same characteristics of the father who he's always struggled to connect with. In many ways, Tree of Life could really be called Circle of Life and I think (think is a key word here) that's a big part of what director Terrence Malick is going for.

But really that's only about 25 percent of the story. Using a non-linear narrative that is all at once difficult to stick with and wholly engrossing, Malick weaves together a tapestry that appears a bit jumbled when looking at each stitch individually but becomes a near masterpiece when viewed as a whole. TOL stretches out its focus to include the creation of the earth, the reign of dinosaurs (yes, this movie has dinosaurs), and the dawn of man. It then diverts to include nature of God, the role of prayer, and what I believe is Malick's own vision of heaven. If that sounds too wide-ranging, let me say that I'm probably not hitting on a number of other subjects that make their way into this film and yet it all blends together spectacularly. It is an insanely personal film, too, and that comes screaming through in every almost every scene. I have no idea what Malick's beliefs may be but whatever they are, he's clearly wrestling with his spiritual identity (again, no idea if that identity is Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, or whatever else). You can see why it took Malick so long to fine-tune and craft TOL and why the reactions to it have been so extreme between those who would call it the best film ever to those who couldn't make it through the first 15 minutes.

I wouldn't say I fall into either of those camps. TOL is so challenging that I would stop short of calling it perfect or "one of the best ever." Personally I think there has to be a level of accessibility for a film to be included in those categories and that's definitely not a big part of TOL. At the same time, it is a supremely well-made film that is almost completely left up to the interpretation of the viewer and that in and of itself is a stroke of genius. (It's also the most beautiful film I have ever seen; if TOL does not receive some serious attention from the Academy Awards then I may have to consider anarchy.) In truth, my review and any other review you might read couldn't possibly do Tree of Life justice. It's the sort of film you simply have to see for yourself before judging it one way or another.

Grade: A

In Home Viewings - "Rio"

After being illegally smuggled from his native Brazil, Blu (Jesse Eisenberg), a rare species of bird, spends the next 15 years of his life living peacefully (and safely) with his owner, Linda (Leslie Mann). Things change, however, when a bird expert shows up on Linda's door and tells her that Blu is one of only two remaining members of his species and the little bird is needed to repopulate the wild. Blu and Linda travel to Rio de Janeiro where Blu meets Jewel (Anne Hathaway), the last female, and the mating process gets underway...until Jewel breaks out of the holding cell and gets them both captured by more illegal bird smugglers. While Linda searches for her lost pet, Blu and Jewel must work together to both secure their freedom and help Blu face his fear of flying.

If that plot summary made Rio sound in the least exciting then I apologize for misleading you. It isn't. It's quite boring, really. In the entire 96 minute run time, almost nothing of real interest happens save for a handful of musical numbers that quickly become repetitive. It's a colorful, lively-looking film which is a shame given how dull it turns out to be. Blu and Jewel hop from one dangerous encounter to another but much like the music, these detours seem to be somewhat redundant. I get that illegal animal smuggling is an issue but how often can one little bird fall into the wrong hands before we start to wonder if every Brazilian is, in fact, a smuggler? With the vivid landscape Rio had to work with, I expected the plot to pop a little more rather than moving in a continual circle.

In addition, the voice talent, while palpable, is somewhat misused. Perhaps this is a personal issue as I find both Eisenberg and Hathaway to be off-putting but Blu and Jewel came across as too whiny for my liking. It's almost a given that the audience roots for the main characters within a kid's movie; that's just the way these films work. But I found myself struggling to care whether or not Blu got home and the supporting characters (voiced by Will.i.am, Tracy Morgan, and Jamie Foxx, among others) seem uninspired. Like the movie itself, the actors are going through the motions. There's also no real heart in Rio and that pushes it away from being a decent-enough kid's movie into the realm of near uselessness. Beyond the bright colors and the occasional song, I can't imagine there's much within Rio to really keep a kid's attention and that goes double for adults.

Grade: C+

A Scary Movie Hater's Top 10 Scary Movies

In my review for The Thing last week, I made it clear that I have no love for horror movies. I'll never be able to shake the fear I felt watching Something Wicked This Way Comes in my elementary school library despite numerous efforts as a teenager to embrace the all-American tradition of late-night horror movie viewings. For some time now, I've taken the approach that since I know I won't enjoy these films, there's no point in bringing down the excitement of those who do enjoy them. Also, I rather like being able to sleep. There are some films within the genre, however, that appeal to me. I won't go so far as to call them "horror" movies because that word brings to mind the Saw films and Cabin Fever (which I hold up as the worst movie I've ever seen). But "scary" movies seems appropriate. With that in mind and in keeping with the Top 75 Horror Movie Countdown that Rotten Tomatoes posted last week, I have assembled a Scary Movie Hater's Top 10 Scary Movies. Please enjoy.

EDITOR'S NOTE: I chose not to include horror-comedies (Zombieland), thrillers (Silence of the Lambs), or true sci-fi films that happen to come with some scares (Alien) as I don't consider them to be truly "scary." Rest assured that all of these films would find a home on this list if I had expanded it to include them. 

10. The Shining (1980)

I've never felt that The Shining is quite the classic that it is often made out to be. Perhaps it's because I didn't see it in a theater or watched it at midnight during a slumber party but it never really frightened me all that much. That said, the iconic scenes and their accompanying lines ("Here's Johnny!", "Red Rum", etc.) within this film are magnificent. 

9. The Ring (2002)

This is one of only two films on this list that I saw in a theater so perhaps that has something to do with the sheer terror this film caused me. In my adult life, I don't think I've ever been closer to soiling myself than I was near the end of The Ring. That little girl still haunts me from time to time and I'll never, NEVER, be able to remain calm if a TV suddenly goes to the fuzzy screen. Also, if you think my roommate and I didn't go back to our dorm and immediately call the girls we went to see this movie with to creepily say, "SEVEN DAYS!" then you've got another thing coming. 

8. Psycho (1960)

Much like The Shining, I think Psycho suffers in my book from having never seen it in a theater. It's always creeped me out a bit but I wouldn't say it necessarily scared me. On the other hand, from a strictly film standpoint, this could be the best entry on the list. So incredibly well-made. It does lose some points, though, for that horrible Gus Van Sant remake. I just can't shake the memory of Anne Heche sucking the life out of the film. 

7. Scream (1996)

I just watched Scream 4, one of the worst movies I have ever seen, so I'm already doubting where I placed the original film on this list. It's been a long time since I've seen it so maybe it's just as cheesy and horrible as the newest installment was. But regardless, Scream messed with my head in a major way. Up until this point, I had always operated under the assumption that, should I come face to face with a knife-wielding nutcase, I could at least run away. Then Scream came along and introduced me to the concept of serial killing teammates. My world has never been the same.

6. The Sixth Sense (1999)

I struggled with whether or not to include this film because part of me thinks it belongs more in the "thriller" category than "scary." But then I thought about the wave of terror that went through my body the first (and second...and third) times I saw Sixth Sense in the theater when Mischa Barton rips the sheet tent that poor little Haley Joel Osment set up for himself. It's easy to forget how stellar this film is given how M. Night Shyamalan had a mental breakdown and made two of the worst movies ever (The Happening and The Last Airbender) but it completely changed the genre (for better or worse).

5. 28 Days Later (2002)

In my mind, anyone who has profited from this whole Zombie Craze that has swept the world over the last half-decade should have to see a percentage of the proceeds to Danny Boyle. I can't remember anyone in my circle of nerds caring about anything zombie related (and certainly nothing current) until this film. The open of 28 Days Later is outstanding, the type of scene that immediately sucks you into the film's atmosphere and it doesn't let you go until the very end. And the zombies are horrifying.

4. The Thing (1982)

I saw The Thing for the first time only a couple of years ago but I really, really liked it more than I ever thought I would. It's probably due in part to its sci-fi leaning which I dig. I wouldn't say the story within The Thing is all that much better from your standard horror film but it tells it well. Solid special effects (for the time) help it, too, and when the creature starts shape shifting, I find it to be quite scary. 

3. The Exorcist (1973)

This film is the reason for my personal "no demons in movies" rule. The quintessential possession film, nothing could ever top The Exorcist in that realm and honestly, if it could, I'd probably never be able to sleep ever, ever again. I just can't handle this subject matter. I'd like to punch whoever it is that forced me to watch this film but I've blocked out all details of that fateful evening save for the film itself which I can't get out of my head. The second the opening credits begin to roll, you're on the edge of your seat and nothing about The Exorcist disappoints in the scare department. At the same time, it's one of the few films on this list that sees its scariness equaled by the quality of its acting. It truly is an exquisite film though I'll never see it again.

2. 30 Days of Night (2007)

This is admittedly a bit of an odd choice. You won't even find 30 Days of Night on Rotten Tomatoes' Top 75 List and I think that's a real shame. I've never been a fan of vampire movies (even before Twilight made it very easy and trendy to hate vampires) but this one is so appealing and tension-filled. The concept is brilliant and the setting is so incredibly creepy. Even more impressive is the performance of Danny Huston who brings more freakish, terrifying personality (as it were) to the animalistic-type of vampire than I would have ever imagined. When I saw this film, I really thought I might have just seen the best straight horror movie ever. I can't be alone in that, right?

1. Jaws (1975)

If you feel that Jaws does not belong on this list, I understand. I couldn't classify it as a true "horror" movie and I wouldn't expect anyone else to, either. But as far as "scary" movies go...I don't think Jaws can be topped. For one thing, it's an incredible film; acting, direction, shot selection, score...it's all fantastic. Some of the scenes are as iconic as any you'll find in a film from this list. More importantly, its impact is almost incalculable. It didn't simply change a genre; it both created a new genre (summer blockbusters) and changed the way millions of people thought. How many films, period, can say that, let alone scary films? Before Jaws, humans paddled willy-nilly about in the depths of the various oceans with little more caution than they might take when sinking into a bubble bath. Jaws made entire generations afraid to go into the water and really started a national (worldwide?) fascination with sharks. The Discovery Channel basically owes its existence to Steven Spielberg and Jaws. Every time I watch this film I become more hardened in my conviction that the ocean is not the place for me.

Review: "The Thing"

There are a number of reasons for my dislike of horror movies but they can all be summed up in three points:

1.)    I hate bad dialogue and stupid plot points and many (or most) scary movies depend on both of these weaknesses;

2.)    I’m not a fan of gore and superfluous blood and while I can accept it in a war movie or justify it as “real or gritty filmmaking”, I can’t handle it at the hands of Jigsaw or Stephen Dorff in Blade;

3.)    The combination of mild insomnia and ADD makes it hard enough for me to get to sleep at night without wondering if Freddy Krueger or the ghost from Paranormal Activity are waiting for me in my closet, thank you very much.

I’ve seen my fair share of scary movies, though, because that’s what you do when you’re hanging out with your friends on a Saturday night and you’re not cool enough to be invited to the raging party that you didn’t want to go to, anyway, so you’re glad you weren’t included. (No bitterness here in the least.) One of the horror movies that made its way into my viewing history somewhere along the line is John Carpenter’s The Thing which I hold up as one of the best the genre has to offer. The idea of a prequel/remake of that film (which is itself a remake of a 1951 version) appealed to me more than any horror movie has in a very long time and while it certainly doesn’t live up to its predecessor, I must say I don’t understand the heat The Thing has taken critically since its release.

In 1982, a near accident in Antarctica leads to a startling discovery: buried deep beneath the ice lays an alien space craft and the body of one extraterrestrial. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a paleontologist with a friend connected to the discovery, is called in to examine the body and help with the excavation. It is a career-making find and one that brings great joy to all the inhabitants of the Norwegian research station where the thing is brought…until it reawakens from its slumber. As the creature creates havoc throughout the facility, Kate soon discovers that it spawns by eating its prey (human or otherwise) and pushing out a replicate copy, leading her to realize that not everyone within the small group is human. As a strong storm pushes in, Kate and American pilot Sam Carter (Joel Edgerton) must fight to destroy the thing before it can find its way to more populated areas.

 The Thing can’t decide whether it’s a remake or a prequel and that is both the concept that made it interesting to me in the first place and keeps it from reaching its potential once the opening credits roll. It struggles to find its own path while paying homage to a classic and seems stuck within said classic instead of creating new material to work with. As far as scares go, it is lackluster, relying entirely on special effects rather than tension to convey the horror. I think at least some of the blame for this, however, is due to the fact that we’ve become desynthesized. The terror within this version of The Thing is very similar to that within John Carpenter’s version and yet it falls flat at least in part because what scared us in 1982 doesn’t hold the same weight in 2011. I also think that this version is really more of a sci-fi film with a little horror mixed in while I consider the ’82 film to be the exact opposite, a horror movie with a sci-fi undercurrent. If director Mattijs van Heijningen would have delved into the more science fiction-y elements of his film, it could have created its own identity but again, I don’t think he was given the chance to differentiate from the ’82 version.  

That said, these issues don’t make The Thing a bad movie. It is a perfectly reasonable sci-fi-horror flick that creates a sufficiently dark and creepy landscape and some thrilling if unspectacular action sequences. The actors all perform admirably though like most scary movies, they are hamstrung by ho-hum dialogue and plot points that don’t provide many opportunities to really act. I’ve spoken often of my affection for Edgerton and Winstead is, in my mind, a star in the making. Neither will be able to point to this film as a career highlight on their respective resumes but neither will they need to dread the negative impact that more than a handful of talented up-and-comers have felt when appearing in a horror film. All told, this may not be the scare-fest some people had hoped for but I think it is of high enough quality to make it worth my Friday night investment.

Grade: B

Joel Edgerton will win a major film industry award at some point,

Brian

In Home Viewings - "Everything Must Go"

Nick Halsey (Will Ferrell) has had better days. After getting fired from the job he's barely been trying at for months, he comes home to find the locks on his house changed and all of his stuff on the front lawn. His wife won't answer the phone and so Nick does what any reasonable person would do: he gets drunk and passes out in the recliner under his tree. With the help of his cop friend and AA sponsor Frank (Michael Pena), Nick is given a few days to hold a garage sale and clear his eyesore of a yard. He pays a neighbor boy (Christopher Jordan Wallace) to assist in the sale but when it comes to actually closing a deal, he finds that he's unwilling to let go of the life that got away from him and therefore the items he's collected. And as he witnesses his new neighbor (Samantha) going through the same troubles that plagued his relationship with his wife, Nick begins to evaluate his life differently and accept responsibility for where he has ended up.

The thing that people don't always understand about Will Ferrell is that the guy is a very talented actor. Non-Ferrell fans see the "man-child" persona that he owns so incredibly well in his most popular films and they write him off as a buffoon who lacks the ability to do anything more advanced. But the man-child is only half the story and while Ricky Bobby and Buddy the Elf might be his more well-known characters (outside of Ron Burgundy, an entirely different kind of man-child), they don't properly display Ferrell's greatness. If you fixate on those characters, you might miss, for instance, his incredible straight-man performance in the lackluster film The Other Guys or the fact that almost everything he does is unscripted and off-the-cuff. He is quite possibly the most talented player that Saturday Night Live has ever had and what sets him apart is his extreme versatility, his ability to nail the physical side of comedy in one turn and then become a rigidly straight edge in the next. Dramatic (or dramedy) roles don't come Ferrell's way too often but when they do, I always look forward to his work and expect it will bring a few more people over to my side in recognizing his merit.

Everything Must Go is just this side of a one man show. Everyone around Ferrell is there only to push his character in one direction or another, to help him or hurt him or help him by hurting him (which is the most common narrative). Nick is at his heart a good person who simply got lost somewhere along the way, a sentiment many of us can understand. He has become so consumed by his own shortcomings that he can no longer believe that he is anything but a failure, completing a very sad but very common vicious cycle. Essentially, he just can't get out of his own way and he doesn't know who he is anymore. All of this comes across plain as day thanks to the depth of Ferrell's portrayal. I felt while watching that I knew this man despite his being a fictional creation and the fact that I'd only spent a few short minutes of screen time with him. Ferrell gives Nick enough of a sense of humor to keep the film from dragging but unlike many of his past characters, Nick is not inherently funny; neither, however, is he tragic. That's a tough row to hoe in my mind but in doing so, Ferrell makes Nick inherently likable, a character that you root for in a very organic manner. It's the type of performance that I would love to drag out and force Ferrell Haters to watch in order to show the man's range.

Unfortunately, almost everything else about EMG is unequal to the work of the star. As I said, it's a one man show so I am inclined to give the rest of the cast a break because they aren't given much to work with. Hall and Jordan Wallace get the most attention and both do well enough in their limited scenes but each are completely overshadowed by Ferrell at almost every turn. One scene in particular finds the nasty side of Nick, a lashing out of powerful proportions that should be a key moment in the film. Instead, it falls somewhat flat because Samantha simply doesn't seem to be up to the task of properly challenging Nick. EMG falls into some "curmudgeon-changes-his-tune" traps and contains more than a few cliches that really could have been avoided. More importantly, the other characters who knew Nick before his garage sale are all terrible people. From his boss to his wife, his neighbor to his friends, all of them come across as total jerks. I think the film, and Nick himself, would have been better served by supporting characters who appeared to be real humans (like Nick is) rather than miserable caricatures. That's more than a bit frustrating to me, a huge Ferrell fan, because while his performance is strong enough to draw attention to his skill, the film as a whole is somewhat forgettable. Altogether, EMG is worth watching but it isn't the reputation-changing film that it could have been.

Grade: B

In Home Viewings - "Gnomeo and Juliet"

Recipe for gnome-related family fun:
Take William Shakespeare's most famous play, Romeo and Juliet;
Replace "Romeo" with "Gnomeo" (leave Juliet as it is) and turn our star-crossed lovers into garden gnomes;
Replace "Montagues" and "Capulets" with "blues" and "reds";
Add in some quality if unspectacular animation;
Change the disturbing finale to something a little more kid friendly;
Top it off with some killer music;
And voila, you've got a decent enough animated adventure to serve as your child's primer for the most depressing and seriously inappropriate piece of literature that their future high school English teachers are likely to shove down their throats! (Seriously, of all the great works that Shakespeare wrote, why is Romeo and Juliet the one that gets so much pub? Give me MacBeth or Julius Caesar any day.)

I don't have kids of my own but when I watch a kid's movie, one of the qualities I look for is a wide-ranging appeal. Meaning, if my hypothetical child demanded to see a given movie, would it make my soul scream to sit through it or would I be able to find some enjoyment? The best of the best, like everything from Pixar (minus Cars 2 which I think we can all agree should be stricken from the record), How to Train Your Dragon, and the better Disney films, are excellent films on their own accord; it just so happens that their target audience are youngsters. The worst of the worst, like Alpha and Omega and Hoodwinked Too (it hurt me to even type that title), are so bad that even smart toddlers bemoan their failures. Gnomeo and Juliet plants itself firmly in the middle ground and that's good enough in my book.

The people behind Gnomeo assembled quite a brood of voice actors, including James McAvoy, Emily Blunt, Jason Statham, and Michael Caine (though perhaps Caine shouldn't be included in that list as I'm pretty sure he would narrate my home movies if I could come up with a million dollars). Too often a big name cast like this ends up becoming a distraction in an animated film but in this case, each actor does a solid job of meshing with his or her persona. I also rather enjoyed the cameos that popped up throughout the film. Anytime you can cast Hulk Hogan as a monster lawnmower, I say go for it. The story is as lighthearted as a tale about two teenagers who destroy their families in the name of puppy love (I really don't like Romeo and Juliet if you couldn't tell) and the pace is quick enough to keep a kid entertained and an adult (I guess that would be me) from losing the will to live. Plus, a soundtrack that is heavy on Elton John never hurt anything, right?

There is a real lack of comedy in Gnomeo, however, and maybe that's what keeps it from becoming anything better than what it is. Sure, there are humorous moments but nothing that strives for "laugh-out-loud" funny or that would really get either kids or adults rolling in the aisles. Everything about this film is very safe, serving as a paint-by-numbers type of kid's film that isn't special because it never attempts to be special. And hey, there's nothing wrong with that. I'd much prefer a safe, straight-down-the-middle children's movie over one that tries to make the sexual reproduction of two mismatched wolves into a family outing. (Also, Marmaduke. Enough said.) Gnomeo and Juliet is mildly enjoyable and relatively entertaining for kids and adults alike and since that's clearly all it is striving to be, I'm willing to accept that.

Grade: B-

Review: "Blackthorn"

If you're a guy and you haven't at some point had the dream of becoming an outlaw who takes down government banks and rolls with either a wicked car or a massive horse then...well...you're weird. Let's just be honest: being an outlaw is just super cool. Robbing from the rich and corrupt, taking out bad guys (even though you're kind of a bad guy yourself), and living outside of the law are all exciting ideas and make for even more exciting men (and women). We gravitate toward those characters in movies because they are always charismatic, fun, and give off an air of freedom despite (and perhaps because of) always being just one step ahead of certain death at the hands of stodgy law makers and guys who don't have the stones to be outlaws themselves (I'm talking to you, Pinkertons!). Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is one of my very favorite films, the rare "classic" that plays just as well today as I imagine it did when it opened in 1969. The idea, then, of an alternative history in which Butch and Sundance escape the doom that awaited them at the end of that film (and in real life, I guess) is beyond interesting to me. I saw a blurb about Blackthorn a couple of months ago and immediately knew I would seek it out. I'm awfully glad I did.

20 years after the standoff in which he and the Sundance Kid supposedly died, an aging Butch Cassidy (Sam Shepard) still lives in Bolivia, laying low and breaking wild horses for wealthy riders. He has a good life but one that is a good deal quieter than he experienced in his outlaw days and that lack of action wears on him. So when he comes in contact with Eduardo Apodaca (Eduardo Noriega), a Spanish engineer with a plan to steal thousands from a mining company, he senses an opportunity not only to relive the glory days but to buy his way back home. The heist turns south, however, when it becomes clear that Noriega isn't who he says he is, forcing Cassidy into circumstances he may not be able to overcome.

Blackthorn (which is the name Cassidy goes by) is a slowburn that moves methodically through both the narrative and the Bolivian landscape, providing action in short, contained bursts rather than excessively throughout the run time. Part of the story is told in the form of flashbacks that fill in the blanks between BCSK and while these aren't the best parts of the film, they re-engage the audience with the Cassidy storyline and essentially create an immediate rooting interest in the character. This is a big part of what makes the film work. It progresses exactly the way a Western should when it concerns itself with an aging protagonist and that makes for a rich and intriguing narrative. (And by the way, can we please have more Westerns, Hollywood? They don't have to be big budget entries like Cowboys and Aliens, just simple little films like this and Meek's Cutoff. More of that please.) In addition, the behind-the-camera work on Blackthorn is excellent. The shot selection is simple yet purposeful and the settings are well-chosen. The cinematography is outstanding, highlighting the tremendous and beautiful geographical diversity of South America. The landscape is in many ways the premier supporting character.

But as you might expect, Blackthorn depends almost entirely on the performance of Shepard and the man delivers magnificently. Shepard is one of the greatest actors of his generation and yet he is often overlooked when that conversation comes up and I am one of the guilty who has too often neglected to mention his name. I can't think of a single actor who I would prefer to play the aging Cassidy and he completely lives up to that statement. I think it would have been very easy to play Cassidy as some sort of knock-off of Paul Newman's interpretation of the character. Instead, Shepard makes him wholly his own with just a hint of reminiscence for the iconic original. The years have taken their toll on Cassidy but Shepard never makes him come off as bitter or even overly tired so much as hardened and slightly more crotchety. Cassidy shows the physical rust that would accumulate during a 20 year hibernation but he displays the wits and reflexes that make men like himself so exciting. There are a few moments in which I found myself thinking, "The guy still has it!" the same way I would if I was watching an aging slugger take one monster swing that sends a ball 450 feet up into the stands. It's a powerful yet understated performance that has reminded me of Shepard's true greatness. I won't be forgetting his value again anytime soon and the same should be said for Blackthorn as a whole.

Grade: B+


I will forevermore believe that Butch and Sundance lived,
Brian

Review: "The Ides of March"

To say that I am apathetic towards politics would be somewhat of a misstatement. I hate politics; I hate the political system; I hate what politics do to otherwise intelligent humans; and if I must be honest, I generally hate politicians. But for some reason, political thrillers intrigue me. Maybe it’s because the majority of them are all about pointing out the same holes in the political system that bother me or maybe I just like seeing politicians, even fictitious ones, suffering. Whatever it is, I’m usually on board for a well-paced political thriller and as such, I was quite excited about The Ides of March. In hindsight, I probably could have tempered my enthusiasm a bit.

Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) is the type of presidential candidate that inspires young voters and scares the snot out of stodgy traditionalists. He is a fresh thinker, filled with the kind of ideas that you can only get away with in the movies, and a man who refuses to participate in the shady backroom dealings that plague the political system. His campaign is run by Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), an experienced campaigner who has put numerous candidates in their rightful positions over the years. But Morris draws much of his campaign strength from Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), an idealistic media whiz-kid who serves as second-in-command within the Morris campaign and will undoubtedly go on to an important post within the White House. Just as Stephen begins to think the presidential nomination is in the bag, everything begins to crash around him. A secret meeting with Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), who manages Morris’ opponent, reveals that Stephen’s polls are wrong and the race is far from over. He then discovers that Molly (Evan Rachel Wood), an intern with whom he has been cavorting, has a dark secret that threatens not only him but the campaign itself. With all of his hard work so close to coming to fruition, Stephen is forced to make decisions that go against his very nature and the beliefs on which the Morris campaign is built while attempting to stay one step ahead of the media and his political opponents.

The best thing that I can say about March is that it is a good film and a well-made one at that. As the writer and director, Clooney does an outstanding of painting an accurate picture of the political climate. Morris is an appealing candidate, the kind of guy you might truly consider worthy of a vote if he were not, in fact, a fictitious person. There is earnestness and a sense of realness to him which is exactly what he has to show in order to delve into the darker side of politics. The script isn’t great in the dialogue department (I move to make it a law that all political films must be written by Aaron Sorkin. Seconded?) but it succeeds in limiting the scope of the political sphere in which Stephens, Morris, and the rest operate; that is to say, it doesn’t bog the story down in all the detail that made your high school government class so painfully boring and thereby allows the audience to invest without having to remember too much about how this whole mess works. As someone who (as stated before) hates the political system and checks out at the words “delegate” and “lobbyist”, I appreciate this dedication to simplicity while remaining intelligent. All of the leading actors turn in good performances, though it would be a shock if any of them didn’t. March is mostly concerned with Gosling’s Stephen but the best moments belong to PSH and Giamatti, both of whom deliver with impassioned panache in their limited scenes. Shot selection, cinematography, and the dark contrast are all strengths and add to the overall “goodness” of the film.

What March isn’t is a great film. Clooney sets the table for a dramatic, genre changing (or at least defining) film and the trailers had me believing this would be an epic achievement. But in the end, there’s very little punch in Marchand not enough substance to fulfill its promise. The ground covered within the narrative is interesting but old; there’s nothing new or fresh about the twists and turns that take place and the final reveal(s) are simply not the powerful moments that I think they were designed to be. March simply isn’t specialand while there’s certainly nothing wrong with that, I think it’s fair to expect more from a film that has this kind of pedigree. Whether fair or not, if you tell me Clooney will direct and co-star along with Gosling, PSH, and Giamatti, I’m going to immediately start thinking “Oscar” and March doesn’t quite reach that vaunted mark. If, however, you can go in with managed expectations, you will be rewarded with a solid, quality, goodpolitical thriller that will keep you engrossed even if you’ve seen the twists a hundred times before.  

Grade: B+

I’d totally vote Clooney for president,

Brian

In Home Viewings: "Conan O'Brien Can't Stop"

In 2010, Conan O'Brien famously resigned from The Tonight Show after Jay Leno stabbed him in the back and NBC gave him (and the show) the time slot run around. As part of his agreement with the network, Conan was prohibited from appearing on any television or Internet program for six months. While his return to the airwaves was inevitable, the idea of sitting around and doing nothing for a half a year wasn't an option for Conan, a known workaholic. With that in mind, Conan and his team set out on a 40 city comedy tour with his star-studded "Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on TV" showcase. Filmmaker Rodman Flender rolled tape on the entire affair, recording over 140 hours of footage that was whittled down to the contents of Conan O'Brien Can't Stop.

In my mind, there are three types of documentaries:

1.) Informative/investigative documentaries - These are the documentaries that generally get the most attention. The idea is to bring light to the truth of a given situation or event and usually involves background information and often interviews with the subjects. Joan Rivers: Piece of Work would be a recent example. Another would be my favorite documentary of all-time and my pick for best film of 2009, It Might Get Loud.
2.) Faux-umentaries - A documentary that is clearly scripted, at least in part. Think Catfish, I'm Still Here, or even some parts of Waiting For Superman.
3.) "Turn the camera on and see what happens" documentaries - To be clear, this is an element of almost every documentary. Perhaps the best part of It Might Get Loud is when Jimmy Page, Jack White, and The Edge sit around in front of a camera and simply talk about music. But whereas other docs might take it a step further and delve into the details of the subjects past or a given event, this category of films stays at home and lets the subject do the storytelling, so to speak.

Can't Stop falls into that third group of docs. At the outset, a few simple sentences are splashed across the screen describing the events that led to the "Legally Prohibited" tour and from there on out, it's just Conan and his team going through their day-to-day lives on tour. And what very strange lives they live! One minute Conan pitches the idea of a tour, the next the shows are all sold out (the one in Dallas was sold out before I could log into Ticketmaster) and he's taking dancing lessons, fine tuning his guitar chops, and developing new bits with his team of writers. Before long, they're on the road, jumping from place to place taking shots at Jay Leno and working with a litany of celebrity guests from Eddie Vedder to Jim Carrey. It is the behind-the-scenes footage, however, that Flender focuses on the most.

Above all else, Can't Stop is incredibly honest. It does not pull any punches or attempt to paint Conan in a positive light. In fact, there are plenty of moments in which Conan comes off as a jerk and a demanding one at that. Much of Conan's humor is of the self-deprecating variety and his work ethic is legendary and the truth is, those two traits often make one a sarcastic and sometimes harsh employer. It isn't that he's mean-spirited but rather that he's made a living for 20 years making fun of others and pushing himself to be funny all the time. That doesn't happen without making a mark on your life. To their credit, you get the impression that all those around him know this and have accepted it. And as an audience, you must remember that when Can't Stop was being filmed, Conan had only just been booted from the network where he'd worked for almost two decades. There is an undercurrent of depression and anger that runs through the film and while it never boils over or becomes the center of attention, it is a pretty big supporting player that has a little more to do with the man's mood than might seem readily apparent.

At the same time, Conan's affection and understanding for his fans shines through throughout the film's runtime. He takes the time to sign every item that is pushed in front of him and heads out into the masses even when his handlers tell him not to. In his trailer he complains about the toll all the handshaking and storytelling has taken on him but when push comes to shove, he jumps right back into it on each and every leg of the tour. Conan has built a rapid fan base over the years and what sets him apart from Letterman, Leno, and the rest is his endearing understanding and appreciation for those who have made him popular. As a lifelong and loyal Conan fan, it is this quality that keeps me coming back for more, whether he's at NBC, TBS, or BET and a big part of what makes Can't Stop so engrossing.

And while there is certainly some creative editing at work, Can't Stop does a wonderful job of displaying Conan's greatest strength (and maybe his biggest weakness): he cares. He cares what his friends think, what his family thinks, and perhaps most of all, what his fans think. It is this caring that drives him, that pushes him to the edge of sanity at times. It is also what makes him successful and what will probably kill him at some point, hopefully many years in the future. Like so many performers, the stage, whether it be a late night television program or a tent at Bonnaroo, is where he gets affirmation and at least part of his self-worth. While neither he nor anyone involved with Can't Stop comes right out and says this, it becomes clear that in many ways, Conan needs his fans as much if not more than his fans need him. This is why the title of the film is Can't Stop rather than Won't Stop or Doesn't Want to Stop. It is an excellent, well-made film and its subject rivals even the best documentaries in terms of complexity and intrigue.

Grade: A-

Review: "Moneyball"

NOTE: The core concept at the heart of Moneyball is a term that is used more than once in this review: “sabermetrics.” To avoid any confusion later, let it be stated up front that sabermetrics are, simply put, statistics that go beyond the standard statistics that you might see on the back of a baseball card. Sports nerds often call them “deep stats”, another term that may be used in this review, because they are much more complex and sometimes controversial than the traditional stats that have been used in baseball since the Civil War. While even the most apathetic baseball watcher knows the basic concept behind a batter’s average, sabermetrics (and the ideas behind Moneyball) measure things like OPS (on base plus slugging percentage) and various other stats that give a more complete view of what’s actually happening on a baseball diamond. Also, if this paragraph interested you in the least and you haven't read Moneyball, I recommend picking up a copy right now.

Confession: Once upon a time, I hated Brad Pitt. Hated him. I’d like to say there was some hardened reason behind my hatred but alas that was not the case. No, I hated Brad Pitt because every girl, ever, loved Brad Pitt and I felt it was my duty to hate the guy that every girl loved. (I also hated Leonardo DiCaprio if that makes you feel any better, Brad.) In my defense, I wasn’t alone in this hatred; the vast majority of guys in my middle school also hated Brad Pitt and we all gathered together, jocks and nerds alike, to wish ill will upon him while our would-be girlfriends (not really) all carried mini posters for Legends of the Fall in their binders. Somewhere along the line that feeling changed. I found myself begrudgingly admitting that Pitt “wasn’t awful” in various films and slowly coming to the realization (somewhere around Ocean’s Eleven) that this guy was legit. Again, it wasn’t just me. An entire generation of males woke up one day after having hated Brad Pitt for years and suddenly it was acceptable to admit the dude was a baller. These days, Pitt is one of my very favorite actors and someone who I trust implicitly to provide quality films and stellar performances. Moneyball is no exception.

In 2002, the Oakland Athletics rode an unprecedented winning streak (20 games in a row) to propel themselves into the Major League Baseball playoff picture and the national consciousness. A 20 game winning streak would be impressive enough but what made the A’s really special was that their roster was made up of a rag-tag group of has-been veterans and haven-yet-been youngsters. Their cumulative payroll was around $38 million dollars, the second lowest in all of baseball, and leagues away from that of the New York Yankees who spent over $120 million that year (a number that has only gone up, by the way). At the center of their unexpected success was Billy Beane (Pitt), the general manager who had embraced a system that other teams once scoffed at. Moneyball is the story of what it takes to win when the odds are stacked against you.

Authored by Michael Lewis (who also wrote The Blind Side), the book Moneyball made a huge splash when it came out in 2004. Hardened baseball people hated this book in the exact same way I hated Pitt in middle school: they hated it because they didn’t understand it, because they didn’t want to admit that someone had something they didn’t. For me, that something was the bad-boy good looks and sheer charisma that Pitt had and I never would. For baseball people, that something was an advantage that Billy Beane had and they didn’t. The kicker is that while there wasn’t much I could have done about securing Pitt’s looks or his fame, baseball people had access to the tools used in Moneyball but shunned both the statistical evidence that sabermetrics provided and the proprietors of these newfangled ideas. It is important to understand this because these feelings are a big part of the dramatic tension which drives the film. Beane and his aides, particularly Peter Brand (in the film)/Paul DePodesta (in real life) who is played by Jonah Hill, were laughed at by their colleagues, questioned by the media, and cursed by the A’s fans. And that’s exactly why the Moneyball system worked: because no one else was doing it. If every other team bought into the principles of Moneyball, it wouldn’t matter how smart Beane and his team were, they wouldn’t be able to fill out a competent roster. But no one thought this would work. “You can’t win baseball games like this” was the general sentiment around the league and that’s an overriding theme within the film. Director Bennett Miller does an excellent job of bringing the criticism and stress, as well as the satisfaction that came afterward, from the time period into the tone of Moneyball and creates a compelling narrative through it.

Moneyball is a true human interest story wrapped up inside a sports movie. Baseball is only a conduit for the profiling of an interesting man with a radical idea. Beane is more than a little haunted by his past life in which he did not live up to his promise as a highly touted baseball prospect. At the same time, he is keenly aware of the pressure he is under to see his system through to success. Add in the stress of providing for a young daughter and you get the perfect recipe for someone who is willing to take chances. The most interesting thing about Beane (both in real life and as depicted in this film) is that he is not a genius who came up with the Moneyball system; these concepts come from others. But he gets an incredible amount of credit for embracing a philosophy that everyone else rejected. Pitt does a remarkable job of painting the appropriate portrait of the man, of blending the toll of stress with a healthy amount of bravado. It is a much more subtle performance than playing, say, a man who ages in reverse or a muscled-up figment of another man’s imagination, but it might be his best yet. He receives solid support from Hill (a much different role than we’re used to for him), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (who isn’t give just a whole lot to do), and particularly Chris Pratt, who steals every scene he is in. But the cinematic vale of Moneyball rests on the shoulders of Pitt and he comes through with flair.

My complaints about Moneyballare few and pertain solely to the desire to see more of the behind-the-scenes strategy and the building of the Moneyball system. I am borderline obsessed with sabermetrics and their usage and I personally think that what Billy Beane did in Oakland (during his heyday) was nothing short of brilliant. I would have loved to see the development of the system laid out in greater detail but then again, that’s not interesting to 90 percent of the moviegoers on a Friday night. I also thought that the baseball action, while solid, was too drawn out at times. Too much time and melodrama is spent on a single, solitary baseball game that will stretch the A’s win streak to 20 games. It was an important game, sure, but as a viewer, it is much more difficult to get truly invested in the drama of a mid-season game than, say, the last game of the regular season which will decide if our heroes will make the playoffs or not (Major League). I’m all for historical accuracy but I felt it was an odd place to stop down for dramatic emphasis. Still, Moneyball is a good, quality film headlined by one especially strong performance that could very well be the highlight of an outstanding career.

Grade: A-

Sorry for hating on you Brad,

Brian

Review: "Drive"

NOTE: I left a LOT out concerning Drive. To be honest, I probably could have gone on and on about this film for 3,000 words and turned this into a critical essay rather than an "average moviegoer" review which is what I strive for. It's very near to a masterpiece and that's a word I save for only the most special of occasions.

Coming into 2011, I have to admit that Ryan Gosling wasn’t anywhere near the top of my list of actors who could get me to the theater just by being involved with a given film. Oh, he’s an outstanding actor, to be sure, but most of his films (and his performances therein) are purposefully off-putting and difficult to connect with. He has essentially shunned mainstream films, choosing instead to take on the weirdest roles that come his way. Even in his most commercially successful film, The Notebook, he plays a character that is difficult to engage. As such, I’ve treated him much the same way I treat Paul Giamatti: I know his movies are good and his work within them is stellar but they’re not for me. Basically, I’ve admired his ability from afar up to this point. 2011, though, is a turning point for me and I would imagine many other average moviegoers. Crazy, Stupid, Love was a completely different turn for Gosling and one that showed he had a much wider range than you might think (or at least much wider than he’d allowed us to see). Ides of March will debut in a few days and it is a near lock to receive some award attention, at which Gosling may well be the center. But Drive will be the film that I remember, the one that takes the display of his talent to an entirely new level, and the one that puts him on the list of actors whose movies I will see no matter what.

 A man of few words, Driver (Gosling) makes his living fixing cars at Shannon’s (Bryan Cranston) auto-shop and working as a stuntman for big Hollywood productions. On his downtime, however, Driver is a freelance wheel man, a get-away driver with an excellent reputation. He is guarded and has limited human interaction. Just as he begins to develop a relationship with his neighbor, Irene (Carey Mulligan), her husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), returns from prison and brings with him a problem: he owes some bad dudes a lot of money. Against his better judgment, Driver agrees to drive Standard and help him pull a heist that will erase his debt. When the deal goes south, Driver finds that he’s gotten himself mixed up in a much bigger mess than he could have ever dreamed and sets out to insure the safety of Irene and exact a little revenge in the process.

Drive is very close to a perfect film, a seamless blend of summer blockbuster action and art-house drama. Honestly I have no idea how this got a wide release but I’m sure glad it did. (To me, the success of Drive should signify to Hollywood that there is an audience for lower budget, independent films if they would just give us an opportunity to see them. But I digress.) It is beautifully shot, incredibly well written, and completely secure in its identity. It is a truly intelligent action film like I’ve never seen before. Director Nicolas Winding Refn has made a number of films that were well received critically but unseen by audiences. That should all change now. What Refn has done behind the camera here is impeccable; every element, from casting to the choice of the hypnotic synthesizer beats of the background music, fits the story and more importantly, the main character. It is almost impossible to properly describe how well Drive flows and how everything that happens fits together. From one line to the next, one scene after another, everything works in perfect harmony to create a film that is truly outstanding. The narrative is slow and the film really only features a handful of traditional action sequences and yet it is thrilling and tense even when nothing much seems to be happening. The best action films are able to keep you enthralled when there are no explosions or gun fights taking place on screen. Drive does this so well that I was almost disappointed when the proverbial crap hit the fan and the film moved from a character piece into the action realm; it was that good on the narrative side of the equation. But then again, the quiet and balanced pace of the film outside of the action sequences make Driver’s hyper-violent confrontation more shocking and hard-hitting than they might have been otherwise.

My only complaint about Drive is the excessive “blood and guts” that come along with each “fight” scene. It isn’t that I’m offended by the violence or the gore (as it were); on the contrary, not only did I expect some violent confrontations, what happens to those around Driver dictates such actions. The problem is that the shocking, bloody nature of these scenes actually detracts from the overall realism of Drive. This is an incredibly realistic, gritty film but the horror movie-like blood that comes along with Driver’s physical destruction of an opponent is over-the-top and doesn’t gel properly. Refn’s style is excessively bloody (see: “Valhalla Rising”) but in this case, a muted approach would have served his film better.

The real power of Drive, though, is in its protagonist and Gosling’s portrayal. All of the remarkable work behind the camera would be for naught if the headlining star wasn’t able to carry the load. Driver is an exceptionally complex character masquerading as a simple man. He is extremely well-defined, a no nonsense kind of guy who wears an '80s style satin white jacket all the time and yet somehow makes that cool. He speaks in short sentences and says even less with his facial expressions and mannerisms. But his body language says it all; from cautious hope with Irene to clear disgust for those he works with right down to the rage he feels over being betrayed. What Gosling is able to do without speaking is immensely impressive. When he wants to be, Driver goes beyond intimidating and borders on becoming downright menacing. You do not want to mess with this cat and everyone else around him seems to know it (they just realize this too late). Yet even when he’s on the rampage he is calm and collected, as if his quiet nature feeds his violent side and vice versa. There is a scene in which Driver puts on his driver gloves and delivers a smack to a traitor who is withholding something. It is in this moment that Drive switches gears and instantly transitions from a romantic drama to violent action film and in this moment, I was genuinely afraid not just of Driver but of Gosling himself. If you’d have told me 12 years ago that the scrawny kid from Remember the Titans would be able to send a ripple of fear through my body, I would have laughed in your face (and then punched you, as I’m prone to doing). This is just a microcosm of the brilliant performance Gosling delivers and a sign of all the things to come in his career. This would be a good film if Paul Walker was the lead (I already regret typing that) but Gosling makes it GREAT.

Grade: A+

I retract what I just said about Paul Walker,

Brian

Review: "Contagion"

I feel like “disease” movies used to be plentiful enough to take up a genre all their own. From The Andromeda Strain to Outbreak, disease flicks ran rampant at one time, reflecting a worldwide fear that seems to have died out with the Swine Flu. As a kid I was somewhat concerned about the Ebola virus. Maybe “concerned” is the wrong word but I was definitely aware of the disease and vigilant in my quest to make sure I never contracted the disease. (Seriously, I knew way more about Ebola than any elementary school kid should ever know.) But I wonder now if pre-adolescents even know what Ebola is. Somewhere along the line disease movies turned into the zombie movie resurgence and Hollywood hasn’t looked back since. As a result, I honestly cannot tell you the last time I watched a movie concerning some sort of virus or outbreak that did not result in the victims becoming zombies or another undead creature. It may well be that Outbreak was the last one I saw (and by the way, there’s nothing wrong with Outbreak; totally acceptable action-thriller). Contagion, then, represents a dying genre that probably needs a bigger push than what this film is capable of giving.

On a business trip to China, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) becomes sick. Upon her return home, what she assumed to be a simple cold begins to ravish her immune system resulting in her husband, Mitch (Matt Damon), taking her to the hospital, where she quickly dies. Simultaneously around the globe, others fall ill and die while those who came in contact with them start showing symptoms. The Center for Disease Control takes note and begins investigating only to discover that the virus is brand new and boasts a remarkably high death rate. Before long a worldwide outbreak is underway and it becomes a race between the rapid spread of the virus and the scientists who are working to produce a vaccine.

Steven Soderbergh is, in my book, one of Hollywood’s very, very best directors. He has an outstanding track record and with the exception of a couple of misfires, he always delivers movies that must be considered good or better. He is not, however, predictable. He has taken on a wide range of films in his career, from big budget flicks to barely seen indie dramas. He basically does whatever project he wants to do and does it his way with very little regard to how it will be received by critics and audiences. For example, The Informant! is an odd film with some bizarre quirks that I personally enjoyed but most people (critics and moviegoers alike) didn’t know what do to with it. Did that bother Soderbergh? No, I don’t think it did; he made the film he wanted to make and at the end of the day, that’s all he really cares about. Contagion is quite similar in that way. It poses as a thriller, maybe even a horror film, but it plays out almost like a documentary. It is an INCREDIBLY well-made film with near perfect shot selections and cinematography. (These behind-the-camera techniques are a big part of what makes Soderbergh so great.) The narrative, though, is very slow paced and almost burdensomely methodical, focusing entirely on the virus itself and the search for a cure and leaving almost no room for character development. It isn’t boring but there’s not a whole lot happening, either. As such, from a cinematic perspective, Contagion is a great film but as an experience for the audience, it is only above average.

The lack of humanity is what really holds Contagion back. Despite an incredible cast that includes Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, and Marion Cotillard, there’s not a single performance in this film that warrants attention. That’s because the actors are given almost nothing to do, resulting in the feeling that they’re all just going through the motions. This plays into the documentary feeling but it also leaves a real disconnect between the screen and the audience. I honestly can’t decide if this was Soderberg’s intention or if he just failed to find the mark. Throughout the film’s runtime I kept wanting to buy into the characters, to care about their plight, but I was never given a reason, either organic or manufactured, to do so nor scenes that would illicit any attachment. Characters struggle and die but I didn’t find myself grieving their loss. Near the very end, we are given two very powerful, human moments (one in which Damon absolutely nails it) but by this point I had written off this part of the story and the impact was much less than it should have been. There are numerous storylines that don’t provide much of a payoff, resulting in an ineffectual use of the ensemble method. In hindsight, it might have been a better idea to emphasize a few main characters rather than spread the attention across the global landscape.

Contagion gets it right in a number of places and it is easy to see Soderbergh’s hands at work. There are some spectacular elements within the film that are truly inspired. But a film is only as strong as its weakest link which in this case is an utter lack of connection to the viewer. It is good, not great, worthwhile, but not a must-see.

Grade: B

I’m going to go watch Outbreak now,

Brian

In Home Viewings: "The Beaver"

Walter Black (Mel Gibson) is a chronically depressed, miserable man who has been lost in a dark cloud of despair for years. He has driven the toy company his father founded to the brink of bankruptcy and that's nothing compared to the damage he's done to his family. His youngest son (Riley Thomas Stewart) doesn't essentially doesn't have a father, his oldest son (Anton Yelchin) despises him, and his wife (Jodie Foster) has kicked him out of the house. As the voiceover tells us, Walter died inside long ago but his body didn't have the decency to follow suit. On a serious bender, Walter finds a beaver hand puppet in a dumpster and when he comes to after a failed suicide attempt, he begins to speak to himself through the beaver (with a British accent, no less). He develops his own form of therapy, speaking only through the beaver and begins to reintegrate himself into the lives of his family members and his company with great success. Before long, however, Walter can no longer find the line of reality between himself and the beaver and watches as all the progress he had made washes away.

The similarities between Walter and Gibson himself are obvious and significant. Add in some unfortunate voicemail rants and a touch of anti-Semitism and this could play as a Gibson documentary. These similarities are also where "The Beaver" makes its money. Walter's transition seems authentic (to a point) as if Gibson himself is undergoing the therapy along with his character. He exhibits the right character traits of man who has lost his way and is struggling to find a way back and the work he does with facial expressions, body language, etc. is rich. It's quite possible that, as a Gibson fan and someone who wants to see him get back on track, I could be exaggerating the overall quality of his performance but I think a great deal is asked of him in this roll and he delivers. I wouldn't go so far as to call this a superb performance but it is solid and compelling and an example of just how good Gibson can be when he gives himself a chance. 

The other elements within "The Beaver" represent a decisive step down from the work done by Gibson. Foster's character never really finds a foothold to become substantial and her work as director is satisfactory but unspectacular. Kyle Killen's script is uneven, too drawn out in some parts but rushed in others resulting in a film that doesn't develop quite the way I believe it was supposed to. And while I am generally down with a darker narrative, "The Beaver" is almost overwhelmed with it to the point of frustrating bleakness. Yelchin and Jennifer Lawrence (the Valedictorian cheerleader) have some nice moments together but their relationship is poorly developed and is treated at times like a distraction from the storyline involving Walter. A lot could have been done with Yelchin's character and his relationship with Walter but it stagnates early on and just barely reaches for redemption in the end. All totaled, "The Beaver" is a good movie with one great performance that carries the film much further than it could have gone otherwise. It is a worthwhile viewing but not one that I'd look forward to seeing again. 

Grade: B+

Review: "Warrior"

I’m a sports guy. I watch a ton of sports, I talk about sports incessantly even when no one cares what I have to say, and I work in sports. As such, I find that most people assume that I love sports movies. The truth is, though, that because I know a great deal about sports, I’m generally far more critical of this genre than I am of others. Look, I am of relatively average intelligence and I wouldn’t claim to be an expert in many things (including cinema, oddly enough). But I am a leader in the following fields: French fries, making fun of others, and pointless sports knowledge. I’m not bragging; it’s just the facts. When I watch a sports-related film, I see all the mistakes and continually have to fight the urge to say, “That would never happen.” I imagine it’s the same for doctors watching a medical drama, crime scene investigators watching “C.S.I.”, or homeless clowns watching the work of John Travolta (see what I did there?). “Warrior”, however, is the exception to the rule, the rare sports film that combines realistic action and a compelling storyline and creates an outstanding experience for any moviegoer. It truly bums me out that no one is making a big deal about this film and no one is going to see it ($10 million total gross to date).

“Warrior” focuses on the men of the Conlon family. Tommy (Tom Hardy) is a former marine returning home for the first time in 14 years. Brendan (Joel Edgerton) is a high school teacher struggling to make ends meet. Their father Paddy (Nick Nolte) is a recovering alcoholic who drove them both away with his many forms of abuse. The one thing that binds them all together is fighting. Boxing, wrestling, MMA (mixed martial arts for the uninitiated) brawling, or whatever else, the Conlon men know how to fight. When a fight promoter puts together a winner-take-all five million dollar MMA tournament, both Tommy and Brendan enter the field and are set on a collision course with one another. But this battle is nothing compared to the real question at the core of “Warrior”: is there anything that can heal this broken family?

From a sports standpoint, you can’t get much better than “Warrior” even if you’re not a fan of UFC or MMA. (For the record, I am not a UFC guy. I’ve always enjoyed boxing but with UFC I always feel as if I’ve just paid $55 to watch a man die. I’m not prepared for that step in entertainment.) There are a few clichés to be sure and I’d bet that hardcore MMA fans could poke holes in the action but for the most part, director Gavin O’Connor maintains a terrific air of reality when his characters are inside the octagon. The punches, kicks, and strangle holds are graphic but not overly so, just enough to convey the physical beating an MMA fighter takes on a nightly basis. The film also goes to great lengths to portray the dramatic differences in the various fighting style of each competitor, a major part of the MMA world. Tommy is ruthless and wild; you can feel his inner rage with each and every strike. Brendan on the other hand is calm and cautious, almost reluctant, everything built around waiting for his opponent to make a mistake. I’m not entirely sure that these details will matter so much to the average viewer but I found this to be indicative of the attention paid to each facet of the film as a whole.

But the real value of “Warrior” isn’t in the sports action at all but rather in the complex relationships of the Conlon men. In truth, this is really a character study under the façade of a sports movie. All three of these characters are tremendously well-written and intricate and the actors who portray them are worthy of serious award consideration. Their interactions are often heartbreaking and honest but with enough of a loving undercurrent to allow the audience to remain hopeful for a resolution between the characters. Hardy’s Tommy is initially hard to connect with and difficult to embrace but the film leads you on a journey to understand and accept him and delivers an excellent payoff when it’s all said and done. Nolte gives us his first meaningful performance in over a decade, reminding me and every other member of the audience that, yes, when this guy is on, he is an OUTSTANDING actor. Every word that Paddy speaks is racked with grief, the weight of his actions evident in every action. It is Edgerton, though, who makes the film in my book. I’ve long been a fan of Edgerton so I’m far from unbiased but his performance is subtly brilliant, quiet and yet extremely powerful, his face always full of the emotions you would expect a struggling father to have. He epitomizes the underdog perfectly and carries that with him throughout his scenes both in and out of the octagon. Hardy and Nolte are more likely to receive the attention of the various awards committees but it is Edgerton who holds the film together.

The secret to creating a great sports movie is not to get the audience to root for the team or contestant on the field (or in the octagon, as it were). That part is easy and it comes naturally. No, the secret is to get the audience genuinely and actively involved with the off-field narrative, to make the audience root for the characters in their flawed, human forms instead of their superhuman on-field personas. This is where many sports films fail and where “Warrior” succeeds. It is a few steps shy of a perfect film considering the handful of clichés it cannot avoid and a few sub-character scenes that aren’t entirely necessary. But these are small cracks in a solid foundation that makes “Warrior” a film to remember.

Grade: A

Kindly go and see this movie please,

Brian

An Open Letter to George Lucas

Hey George,

It’s me, Brian. You remember me, right? The toddler who walked around the house quoting the first 15 minutes of “A New Hope” word for word and sound for sound? The kid who spent every penny of his allowance trying to put together the complete collection of “Star Wars” action figures? The teenager who skipped school to see the first screening “Phantom Menace” on opening day? The adult who has an entire bookcase filled with Chewbacca memorabilia despite the constant mocking of his wife, family, and friends? No? Well, probably if you saw my face you’d remember.

Anyway, George, whether you know it or not we’ve been pals for 28 years. Your hard work took me to amazing places that I could have never imagined and helped lay the foundation for the nerd I am today (and all the beatings that came along with that). You’re not exactly a father figure so much as a “cool uncle figure”, the guy who takes you to awesome movies and maybe sneaks you a beer or something. Everyone needs an uncle like that, right George? It is because of this relationship which we’ve cultivated over the years that I feel I must write to you today and express my concern. Just know that it comes from a place of love.

I’m concerned about you, George. This is a big week for you and I don’t think it’s going to go as well as you might have hoped. On Friday your “Star Wars” films will be available on Blu-Ray for the first time ever. The greatest trilogy in the history of film (plus the three prequels which, quite frankly, suck) will finally be available in a format compatible with the greatest home viewing technology to date. I’m a simple man, George. I wear t-shirts almost every day, I drive a Ford Explorer that has 100,000 miles on it, and I’d prefer a Whataburger over just about anything a fancy restaurant has to offer. I don’t spend extravagantly and I have few luxuries. But I love HD, George. I’ve completely embraced the HD phenomenon to the point that my friends know not to even suggest I watch a television show if our cable provider doesn’t offer an HD option. I am constantly upgrading my DVDs to Blu-Rays and not just the ones that will look appreciably better in HD than in standard; I just bought “The Blues Brothers” on Blu-Ray. “The Blues Brothers”, George! If any film didn’t need to be upgraded to HD, it’s an early ‘80s comedy with almost no value in the cinematography department. Suffice it to say, upon learning of the “Star Wars” Blu-Ray  release, my initial glee was indescribable. In my joy I skipped around the block, smoked a celebratory cigar, and had the logo of the Rebel Alliance tattooed across my back (one of these things is not true but I’ll never say which). It was a truly glorious day. I half expected Carrie Fisher to knock on my front door in order to present me with a medal of honor.

And then the bottom dropped out.

Within 24 hours of my initial high, disheartening reports concerning this box set began to surface. I refused to believe these erroneous rumors at first; surely you had learned from your mistakes, George! But alas, I realized I had to do the research. I almost wish I hadn’t, George. I almost wish I would have ordered my copy of the box set and blindly ridden the wave of “Star Wars” euphoria the likes of which I hadn’t felt since Jar Jar Binks attempted to drive me to suicide 12 years ago. Instead, I nervously flipped on my computer and ventured over to Amazon where I typed in “Star Wars Blu Ray”, said a quick prayer, hit “enter”, and scrolled down to the comments section to see for myself.

My thoughts are best summed up in the words of Darth Vader: “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!”

Not only will this box set NOT feature the original versions of the films that multiple generations of “Star Wars” fans have come to love, you’ve also indicated that you NEVER intend for those versions to see the Blu-Ray light of day. Instead, our beloved trilogy will be jam packed with the added scenes and remixed sequences that plagued the “special” editions of the films in the mid-‘90s. To be honest, excluding the infamous “Han Shot First” moment in “A New Hope” and the stupid finale at the end of “Return of the Jedi”, I’m not that bothered by these changes. They’re unnecessary, to be sure, but they don’t fill me with the homicidal rage that other fanboys experience. But you couldn’t just stop there, could you George? You had to take it a step further. Over the last few months, more and more details of this set have surfaced and despite Lucasfilms’ best attempts to gloss them over, the negative aspects of these features have inevitably come screaming forward. You’ve added more changes, changes that on the surface may seem small but that further alter the original vision of the film.

Currently adorns the wall of my office. Yes, I am 28.

More importantly, George, you’ve spit in the face of your fans; you know, the people that made you the multibillionaire that you are today. I love everything about the original version of the original “Star Wars” trilogy. EVERYTHING. I love “Star Wars” more than any other piece of pop culture EVER and I love it just the way it was in 1977, 1980, and 1983. Allow me to speak for the billions of “Star Wars” fans worldwide when I say we don’t want your changes! We don’t want Ewoks that blink. We don’t want Hayden Christensen added into the final scene of “Jedi” in place of whoever the old guy was that played Jedi Ghost Anakin in the original version. (In fact, we don’t want Hayden Christensen AT ALL. If you’re going to make changes, can’t you edit him out entirely and replace him with Chris Pine, Ben Foster, or literally ANY OTHER ACTOR in the world?) We don’t want Ben Kenobi screaming like a drunken hobo to scare off the Tusken Raiders. And while we’re at it, dadgumit George, we don’t want Greedo shooting first!!! Han Solo knew the crap was about to hit the fan and he blew that little green freak away with the calmness that a normal man might show when swatting a fly. That’s part of what makes him so awesome! You took that part of him away, George; you robbed an entire generation of “Star Wars” fans of that knowledge.

There’s been a lot of internet noise about your Blu-Ray set, George, and a number of people who have simply said, “Well, they’re his films so he can do with them as he wishes.” But that’s not entirely the case. Sure, you made these films, God bless you. You changed the world with your revolutionary special effects and your rejuvenation of the sci-fi genre as a whole. You put together a set of films that have accepted more love across the globe than any other film franchise and that’s really not an overstatement. As such, they are your films and you can mess them up if you want to. But this sentiment fails to take into account the fact that without us, the fans, without ME, you’d be living in a three bedroom townhome on the outskirts of Malibu producing mediocre films that receive mediocre reviews and wondering about what would have happened if people would have just embraced your vision. We did embrace your vision, George. We flocked to theaters in a way that had never been seen before. With just the returns on “A New Hope” we set you up for life and that’s not even taking into account the sequels and prequels, the numerous theatrical and home viewing re-releases, the parodies and the merchandising. You made the films but we made you.

The thing you have to realize is that this is a partnership, George. You make films and we go to see them. You create merchandise and we snatch it up like it’s coated in gold. You put together a freaking Disney World thrill ride and we stand in line for hours to ride it. Without you we have a “Star Wars” sized hole in our lives but without us, your work following “A New Hope” doesn’t exist. Simply put, if no one buys into your product it doesn’t matter!  And if you don’t believe me just ask Joss Whedon and the cast of “Firefly.”

I’ve stood beside you, George. I’ve handled the ups and the downs and I’ve done my best to deal with the changes that you seem hell bent on shoving into my life because at the end of the day, my life is better with “Star Wars” than without (Jar Jar Binks aside). I have owned no less than five versions of this franchise on VHS and DVD and I would like nothing more than to walk into Best Buy on Friday and pick up my pre-ordered copy of the Blu-Ray set. In all honesty you have jammed this set with INCREDIBLE bonus features and it will kill me to not delve into those extras with the voraciousness of a Wookiee attacking an opponent following a loss (I stretched it a bit too far there, didn’t I?). But I can’t do it, George; I can’t continue to support the glee you seem to take in destroying my childhood memories. I can’t trust you, George, and that is perhaps the greatest tragedy of them all. As someone who paved the way for understanding and drawing upon the power of the fans, your inability to comprehend our ownership of your films is STUNNING. All of this animosity could have been avoided simply by providing the original version of these films in addition to the altered version you claim to like better. Would that have been so hard, George? Wouldn’t that have been worth the extra cost to avoid all the hate, anger, and frustration? The effort you made to put these films together so long ago has been repaid a trillion times over and now it’s time you repaid us in kind. I want my cool uncle back, George; I want the guy who showed me a wide world of awesomeness, not the guy who shows me dorky YouTube videos and treats me like an eight year old. Make this right, George. Make it right.

With love and concern,

Brian

Review: "The Help"

DISCLAIMER: I do not know how historically accurate this film is nor do I care. There has been some controversy, on both racial and factual levels, regarding “The Help” and while I’m sure some of it is valid, much of the negative press seems at best nitpicky in my book. Regardless, I am here to report on this film and the story it tells and nothing more. If you’re looking for a historical commentary, I would suggest finding another review.

There was a time in my life when if you’d asked me what I wanted to do for a career and excluded all ridiculous things like professional basketball player and Will Smith’s best friend, there’s a decent chance I would have told you civil rights historian. This was a short period of time, mind you, because I soon learned that to be a historian you had to spend a LOT of time studying which was never my strong suit. Even if I managed to master the art of studying, between interviews for features on the History Channel and the extras they put on disc two of a special edition DVD that no one watches, I would have to do something else like teach History or manage a museum, neither of which held any interest for me. Still, I’ve long held an interest in civil rights and I can very rarely resist a film or book centered on this topic no matter how historically inaccurate it may be. I didn’t read “The Help” (because if I don’t stand up to Oprah’s immeasurable power then no one will) but my wife did and I kept the film adaptation on my radar as a result. My attention was rewarded with one of the better films of the year and one that will certainly garner plenty of attention when Award Season rolls around.

After her college graduation, Skeeter Phelan (Emma Stone) returns home to Jackson, Mississippi with a new job and a new outlook on life. She soon finds, however, that she is much different from her group of childhood friends, particularly their leader, Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas-Howard). Looking to make a name for herself as a journalist, Skeeter begins interviewing two lifelong maids, Aibileen (Viola Davis) and Minnie (Octavia Spencer), in hopes of putting together a book written from the perspective of the help. In the very midst of the civil rights movement, Skeeter’s book (and those who lent their voices to its creation) becomes a hot button issue that has much more impact than even Skeeter could have imagined.

The narrative of “The Help” is engrossing and relevant. Very rarely does a film grab my attention on an emotional level as quickly as this one did. While I am a self-professed cry baby, I usually don’t have to fight the urge to weep within minutes of the opening credits like I did this time around. “The Help” is emotionally charged but in an organic way that doesn’t feel forced. Given that this is the first real film for writer/director Tate Taylor, I was a little concerned going in that he would overload the audience with fake emotionalism. That’s an easy trap to fall into but Taylor navigates around the typical “tug at your heartstrings” pitfalls with the panache of a much more experienced hand. The script is strong, providing natural moments for both laughs and tears. Taylor’s characters are extremely well defined; they know who they are and so does the audience and through that, their personal evolutions are much more meaningful. He also takes great pains to avoid the vilification of most of the white characters. What I mean by this is that it would have been very easy (because it’s been done a hundred million times before) to turn all of the white characters aside from Skeeter into vile, racist scumbags one step away from membership in the KKK. Instead, Taylor illustrates the ignorance and the cultural failings that many people would exhibit in 1960’s Jackson, Mississippi. Skeeter seems more open minded than her counterparts and that, I feel, leads the film away from becoming a prolonged celebration of the white woman who led the way and allows for more focus on the true stars of the show, Aibileen and Minnie.

The cast of “The Help” is exquisite, almost perfect across the board. Bryce Dallas-Howard makes Hilly sufficiently hateable and as the only character in the film that is truly a bad (or even evil) person, she’s asked to carry a lot of the load. It is somewhat of a one-note character, truth be told, but Dallas-Howard maximizes her screen time and shows just what a force she will one day be. Allison Janie and Sissy Spacek are both excellent in limited screen time with Spacek providing quality comedy and Janie embodying the change that Skeeter hopes to provoke. As a social outcast, Jessica Chastain is absolutely dynamic. She brings a presence to the screen that is eerily similar to that of a young Julia Roberts (incredibly high praise in my book). Stone isn’t overly impressive but then again, she isn’t much to work with. Every time she is called upon to carry a scene she does so beautifully but “The Help” really isn’t about Skeeter and as such, Stone isn’t asked to do much.

In the end, the power of “The Help” comes down to the performances of Davis and Spencer, both of whom are MAGNIFICENT. Aibileen and Minnie are wholly different but together they form a brilliant team. Aibileen exhibits quiet strength; she says little but when she does speak, it is always worthwhile; she misses nothing and the years of witnessing the changes in the children she’s raised have clearly worn on her. Minnie, meanwhile, is filled to the brim with sass; she is quick to speak and even quicker to lash out with hilarious if truly unfortunate methods; she is hard but not unsympathetic to those around her. Both of these actresses absolutely nail their parts and bring humanity to the struggle for equality that is often, quite frankly, lost in many civil rights films. Both seem born to play their parts and both deserve the accolades which will undoubtedly come their way.

“The Help” tells a sprawling tale, though at times at times it deviates a little too much from what makes it special and becomes a bit long winded. I imagine readers of the book will enjoy the tangents (such as a love interest for Skeeter) more than I did but still, the transition from second to third act is a little sluggish. That said I found “The Help” to be bold and compelling, a human drama that pulls the audience in and doesn’t let go until the final credits roll. It shines a light on an underexposed segment of the fight for civil rights and portrays its subjects not as larger than life heroes but instead real people with genuine courage.

Grade: A-

How is “hateable” not a word?

Brian

"The Debt"

I’ve always had a slight fascination with Nazi war criminals and their pursuers. I can’t tell you why, exactly, other than the obvious appeal of justice being done but regardless, the whole concept always piques my interest. I never miss a film that centers on this subject and if I come across a TV show that delves into the subject, I’ll record it every time. “The Debt”, therefore, has been on my radar for quite some time. Originally slated for a late 2010 release, it’s been pushed back a couple of times until finally being dumped at the end of the summer, which is never a good sign. Still, with its quality cast and interesting subject matter I went in to “The Debt” with relatively high expectations and was rewarded nicely for my patience.

In 1966, three young Mossad agents are sent to East Berlin and given the task of capturing Nazi doctor Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen) and bringing him to trial in Israel. The team consists of Stephan (Marton Csokas), David (Sam Worthington), and Rachel (Jessica Chastain), who is the key to their plan as Vogel, known as the Surgeon of Birkenau, has been working as a fertility doctor since the end of the war. Posing as a wife unable to get pregnant, Rachel drugs Vogel and her teammates smuggle him out of the clinic. But when their plan to get him across the Berlin Wall fails, the agents are left to wait in East Berlin with their silver tongued hostage. On a rainy New Year’s Eve, Vogel is shot dead during an escape attempt, allowing the agents to return home without their prize but as heroes nonetheless.  We fast forward 30 years when rumors begin to circulate about a great secret the agents have held on to since that fateful night in Berlin. With their reputations on the line, it is left up to Rachel (now played by Helen Mirren) to cover up their secret once and for all.

“The Debt” weaves a compelling tale that doesn’t so much keep you guessing as it does keep you engaged, a slow burn that stalls at times but never becomes boring. It’s a fairly straight forward thriller though the narrative unfolds in a non-linear form, jumping back and forth between 1966 and 1997. “The Debt” is taut and director John Madden (not that John Madden though now that I think about yes, yes I would watch a movie director by that John Madden) does an excellent job of keeping the film’s momentum moving through the first two acts. The third act was a bit of a letdown for me. The conclusion is fairly obvious and while I don’t think it was the desire of the filmmaker’s plan to keep the twist a giant secret (I believe you’re intended to know the majority of what’s going to happen) I would have liked the film to get to it with a little more urgency.

Where “The Debt” excels is in the outstanding performances of its pitch perfect cast. Top billing goes to the older versions of the Mossad agents, Mirren, Tom Wilkinson (Stephan), and Ciaran Hinds (David), and each hold their own. Mirren is asked to do the most work amongst these three and she does a solid job of exhibiting the mark that the weight a 30 year secret would leave on a person. Wilkinson isn’t used much, quite honestly, and isn’t given much to work with. Hinds, though, is exquisite in each of his limited scenes. One of my very favorite “Actors Who Rarely Get Starring Roles but Are Always Awesome No Matter How Little Attention They Get” (a list known as the “Barry Pepper All-Stars”), Hinds absolutely nails his role and made me want for more. As their younger versions, both Csokas and Worthington give strong portrayals. Their characters are dramatically different, Stephan overflowing with arrogance and confidence while David boils with quiet rage, and each is given depth by the actors. Jespersen, too, gives Vogel a terrifying aura of refined hatred and menace. Vogel really isn’t given much room to develop but Jespersen makes the most of his screen time.

But in the end, “The Debt” hangs entirely on the performance of Chastain who gives Rachel equal parts fear and courage, which is exactly what I would imagine an inexperienced field agent would have when confronted with a monster like Vogel. Her portrayal is measured and cautious and often her best moments are those in which she does not speak but instead lets her eyes and body language do the talking. You have to wonder what life must be like for Chastain, an actress that virtually no one had heard of at the beginning of the year. With only a handful of credits to her name, the best of which is a short stay on one of the “Law and Order” spinoffs, by the end of the year, she will have appeared in no less than six films in 2011 and has vaulted herself into the “Leading Lady” category. In a film featuring some incredible actors who have garnered a ton of attention over the years, it is Chastain who stands out and who carries the film. It is a terrific performance.

In the end, I don’t think “The Debt” as a whole is equal to the sum of its better parts. There’s a lot of good here but beyond Chastain, there’s nothing truly great about the film. Madden and his group of writers (including “X-Men: First Class” director Matthew Vaughn) have crafted a quality thriller that has plenty of moments but isn’t overly impressive. In essence, it is good but not special, though certainly worth the price of admission.

Grade: B+

Would that John Madden use a telestrator on his own film?

Brian

Review: 50/50

If I had a time machine (this flux capacitor thing is turning out to be much more complex than I originally thought) I’d go back to around 1995, find some underhanded Hollywood oddsmaker, and lay down some serious cash on Joseph Gordon-Levitt becoming a big deal. Whether it was his turn in my generation’s most uplifting sports movie, “Angels in the Outfield” (I’m only half kidding) or his consistent scene stealing on “3^rd Rock from the Sun”, I just always had a feeling that this guy was going to make a serious mark. He disappeared for a few years and I bided my time, knowing that he was just one role from a breakout, hoping to be proven right. And then, BAM! 2007 rolls around and JGL shows up in “The Lookout”, a smart thriller that Roger Ebert himself raved about. From that point on, it’s been one well-respected film after another (we can all forget about “G.I. Joe”, right?). JGL is now a go-to-guy for leading indie roles and a mainstay for Christopher Nolan, perhaps the biggest director in the industry right now. I’ve been wrong many times (how is Danielle Fishel not taking roles from Ginnifer Goodwin?!) but I was spot on with JGL and “50/50” is my sweet vindication for touting his many virtues. Adam (Gordon-Levitt) is a rule-following, mild-mannered twentysomething who lives in Seattle with his girlfriend, Rachael (Bryce Dallas-Howard), and works at Seattle Public Radio. His life takes a sudden and dramatic turn when he is diagnosed with a rare form of cancer that has taken over his spine. A laidback kind of guy, Adam handles each hurdle with surprising ease and levity while engaging in somewhat helpful counseling from Katie (Anna Kendrick), a young psychologist the hospital assigns him. Before long, though, his complex relationships with Rachael, his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen), and his needy mother (Angelica Huston) become even more convoluted with the introduction of chemotherapy and medicinal marijuana into his life. As the severity of his condition increases, Adam begins to reassess his life, his relationships, and the nonplussed façade he uses to get himself through.

The inevitable comparisons between “50/50” and 2009’s “Funny People” are unfortunate. While I stuck up for “Funny People” more than most of my colleagues, even I will admit it is an incredibly flawed film that misses the mark on many levels. “50/50”, then, plays out a bit like what “Funny People” should have been, right down to the performance of Seth Rogen. It is, first and foremost, a very funny movie and that is where “Funny People” first went awry. You can’t make a comedy about cancer, or any other serious illness for that matter, and fail to produce a genuinely funny script. Laughs come often and organically. I also quite liked that writer Will Reiser (who based his script on the events of his own battle with cancer) makes it clear early on that he intends to laugh at cancer and if you’re not up for that, you’re in the wrong theater. That is not to say that the disease itself or the havoc it wreaks on Adam’s life is disrespected or ignored; in fact, “50/50” gives a fairly realistic view of the hell that is aggressive cancer and the sometimes even more aggressive treatment. “50/50” is bold but soft, a combination that works well.

The dialogue between the characters in “50/50” flows with tremendous ease, especially in the scenes involving Adam and Kyle. This dynamic between JGL and Rogen is the meat of the film and the two play it out brilliantly. They have a chemistry that Anne Hathaway only wishes she could develop with…well, anyone. (That was an unnecessary shot at Miss Hathaway. My apologies.) They reminded me of the type of friendship I might have with any one of my closer pals if we cursed more and occasionally smoked pot. Adam’s other relationships are a bit awkward but whether this was done on purpose or not, it serves the narrative well. In my mind he would have a tense partnership with Rachael because they’re clearly not suited for each other and any furtherance of his friendship with Katie beyond doctor-patient would be a bit odd.

All of the supporting actors hold their own. As spot-on as I might have been with JGL all those years ago, I would have never guessed, after reluctantly watching “Twilight”, that Kendrick would be an actress whose performances I truly look forward to. This isn’t quite to the level of her work in “Up in the Air” but it is good and believable nonetheless. Huston’s character seems a bit over-the-top in the early going but the depth of her character comes to light in the late stages and Huston pulls it together splendidly. And Rogen gives what might be his best performance to date. To be fair, I’m not much of a Rogen fan so I’m far from an expert on his value as an actor. But whereas he was completely outclassed in “Funny People” and pretty much plays the same character in almost every film, he shows a little more strength in “50/50” than he ever has before (with the possible exception of “Knocked Up”). I actually liked him and I haven’t felt that way toward him very often.

But of course, the weight of “50/50” rests almost entirely on the shoulders of JGL and he holds up to the challenge. One of the best compliments I can give an actor is to say that he and his character become one and the same. That’s what JGL does here and that’s why “50/50” succeeds. He envelopes himself into the Adam character and makes his portrayal incredibly believable. It is almost like watching a documentary on a young cancer patient. Adam handles his disease with class and dignity but not without emotion. His outbursts are few but powerful and through them JGL sells the story beautifully. Simply put, this guy is a star and “50/50” serves as the announcement of such to those of you who didn’t already know this to be fact.

“50/50” is honest and at times tough to watch but never purposefully harsh or depressing. In fact, it is generally positive but in a way that isn’t all sunshine and unicorns. It is smart, hilarious, and even touching while all the time remaining respectful of the audience’s ability to relate to difficult circumstances without artificial emotional fishing. It is an excellent film marked by one outstanding performance that deserves the attention received come Award Season.

Grade: A+

I used italics a lot this time around, Brian

Review - "Our Idiot Brother"

I am, if nothing else, a planner. I think ahead, do my research, and put together an agenda, whether in my head or in written form, for just about anything. It doesn’t really matter if what I’m planning for is something life altering (like a career move) or something as frivolous as seeing a film. If I’m going to the movies, I plan ahead and figure out the what, when, and where just like I would if I was trying to determine a course of action regarding a major medical procedure. And when my plan gets derailed, I’m starting to believe that whenever possible, it’s better to just go home, reboot, and come up with another plan rather than forge ahead. In other words, the next time I head to the theater to see “The Help” and it’s sold out, I’m headed home to watch “24” reruns rather than going to see “Our Idiot Brother” instead.

“Our Idiot Brother” begins with Ned (Paul Rudd), a genuinely nice, simpleminded hippie making the unfortunate mistake of selling weed to a (uniformed) police officer. Eight months later, after being release from prison on good behavior, Ned finds that in his absence, his girlfriend (Kathryn Hahn) has left him and taken control of all his possessions, leaving him homeless and dog-less. Unsure of what to do with his life, Ned begins jumping from couch to couch, crashing with his sisters (Emily Mortimer, Elizabeth Banks, and Zooey Deschanel) and intruding on their assorted social and professional lives. Despite his good heart, Ned manages to wear out his welcome with each of his sisters and likewise, each of his sisters manage to let him down in some way or another, forcing Ned to come to grips with reality and make some tough choices.

On paper, the makers of “Our Idiot Brother” did a number of things right. They assembled an outstanding and diverse cast. It doesn’t seem possible that a film that features Rudd, Deschanel, Banks, and Adam Scott could fail. Rudd, while not what I would call a movie star, has shown the ability to carry a film and has wide ranging appeal. They kept the production budget extremely low ($5 million) keeping monetary expectations low. And they cut a set of outstanding trailers that pegged “Brother” as a fun but sensitive R-rated comedy that could be a breath of fresh air in a summer so heavily packed with less sophisticated comedies.

Would you trust this guy with the direction of your film?

Unfortunately, movies aren’t made by what you see on the IMDB profile. If you will allow me a generic sports metaphor, “that’s why they play the game.” From the outset, “Our Idiot Brother” is one uncomfortable misfire after another. Outside of Ned, none of the characters are likeable or relatable in the slightest, creating an immediate and awkward disconnect with the audience. They are also uncommonly shallow and one-dimensional and their relationships with one another reflect that, especially when the sisters are involved. The actors almost across the board seem somewhat lost and aimless which is (clearly) an indictment of director Jesse Peretz, best known for his work on “The Ex” (yikes). Rudd is able to create passable chemistry with a number of supporting actors (especially Scott and T.J. Miller), but his interactions with Banks, Deschanel, Mortimer, and Rashida Jones (who plays the girlfriend of Deschanel) range from unsatisfying to downright depressing. The way in which Ned is treated by his family occasionally strays into the territory of being cruel. Even so, the inevitable change, when Ned’s sisters realize how poorly they’ve treated him is too easy and too sudden to hit home, leaving the distinct taste of underdevelopment in the audience’s mouth.

Still, the greatest crime “Our Idiot Brother” commits is its overall lack of humor. I must be honest: I’m an easy laugh. I like dark comedy, physical comedy, witty comedy, and stupid comedy. I’m the guy you want in the room when you’re telling a joke because the odds are stacked in your favor in terms of getting a laugh. So I think it’s a bad sign when I can sit through a comedy without having a good hearty laugh or two and “Our Idiot Brother” didn’t provide that. I wasn’t alone in my laughlessness, either. I cannot remember seeing a true comedy that elicited less laughs from the audience as this one did. It was almost silent in my theater as one “joke” after another failed to land. It was a truly uncomfortable situation for us all and I felt like everyone in the room had the same thought: “So…when is this going to get funny?”

Without question, Paul Rudd is the best part of “Our Idiot Brother” and his performance is solid enough. But the film falls apart around him scene by scene. In the end, you’re just left to wonder what the point of all this is in the first place. I really wanted to like this film but it simply is not smart, is not funny, and is not quirky enough to recommend.

Grade: C

I just created the word “laughlessness”,

Brian

Review: "Rise of the Planet of the Apes"

I have mixed feelings about the “Planet of the Apes” franchise. The 1968 original is one of my favorite sci-fi films. In spite, or perhaps because, of the cheesiness and ridiculousness of that film, it brings joy to my heart every time I catch a few minutes of it on TV. In high school, because we were really cool, two of my best friends and I once rented every “Apes” film Blockbuster had in stock and watched them all back-to-back. We probably should have tried to find dates instead but oh well. I loved this franchise. Then the summer of 2001 came and brought with it Tim Burton’s reimagining of “Planet of the Apes.” It’s a terrible film. Just terrible. Honestly I get a little angry every time I even think about it. In general I have a pretty open mind as far as what films others like and dislike; it’s all subjective. But I judge harshly anyone who actually likes Burton’s “Apes”; that movie sucks, plain and simple. The 2001 version left a bad taste in my mouth and took away some of my zeal for the “Ape” universe. I couldn’t muster up any excitement for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” when the trailer started running and I just wasn’t up for throwing my support behind another reimagining. But the overwhelmingly positive buzz surrounding this movie finally wore me down and I was able to step into the theater with guarded optimism.

Will Rodman (James Franco) is an elite geneticist on the verge of a cure for Alzheimer’s through his experimentation with a group of apes. Just as he is ready to present his findings to his company’s board of directors, something goes horribly wrong and an ape on Rodman’s drug gets loose and causes havoc before being killed. With his findings rejected and the rest of his apes put down, Will’s life is changed when he is given charge of a newborn ape (the offspring of the ape who went mad) who becomes an unlikely companion for his father, Charles (John Lithgow), who is slipping further and further into the darkness of the disease Will had hoped to eradicate. The ape, named Caesar, is far from ordinary, however, and soon Will finds that Caesar’s cognitive abilities were enhanced through the drug that was given to the ape’s mother during her pregnancy. Will uses these findings to create a new, better drug that works wonders on Charles and transforms him back into the person he once was. Their happy new life is threatened when Caesar, now a full grown beast, attacks a neighbor and is locked away in a shelter. Here Caesar discovers his true power and stages an uprising that will eventually change the face of the world and lead to Charlton Heston’s horrible discovery.

I must say I didn’t love “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” as much as many of my colleagues did. We’ll get into the reasoning for this in a bit. But what “Apes” does exceptionally well, however, is provide an example to Hollywood of how to make a quality summer blockbuster without breaking the bank. “Cowboys and Aliens” was tagged with the “bust” label last month but it certainly wasn’t alone in failing to perform relative to the budget. “Apes” has a much more reasonable budget ($90 million) than many of the other blockbusters despite the fact that it has a brand and a history to rely upon, making it easier for the film to turn a profit in a shorter amount of time. (With overseas returns and DVD sales, “Cowboys and Aliens” will probably break even eventually but that won’t stop it from being considered a huge bust. Part of the issue is the engorged budget that “Apes” avoided.) In addition, the success of “Apes” wasn’t pinned on a single actor or pair of actors. We live in an age that is lacking in movie stars and more importantly, research will tell you that actors don’t draw audiences anymore, at least not the way they used to. Banking on the star power of a given actor or actress, especially when you throw in a huge budget, has become a risky proposition. I’ll be honest and tell you that I am still extremely actor oriented; there are many actors and actresses who can and will get me to a theater based solely on their involvement with a film. But I am by far in the minority these days. Franchises and brands (“Harry Potter”, “Twilight”, etc.) replaced actors in the hierarchy of Hollywood power some years ago and now we’re seeing that story, director, and good old fashioned word of mouth (read: “this blog”) are taking more and more pull away from this or that actor. “Apes” features a solid, well respected cast but almost all of the press and attention was smartly directed at the branding and the amazing special effects.

And make no mistake, the special effects of “Apes” is truly amazing. Andy Serkis, best known for his work as Gollum in the “Lord of the Rings” films, provided the movements and facial expressions of Caesar and several of the other apes and his work is breathtaking. I’m not sure exactly what award he should be nominated for as I’m not certain you can nominate a guy for Best Supporting Actor if he never actually appears on screen but he deserves some attention when Award Season rolls around. The blend of CGI with the actors and sets is seamless and the apes move effortlessly. It’s quite beautiful, really. Given how extensive the CGI work is on this film, it’s almost unbelievable that this is the film that had a lower budget than most of its compatriots. Director Rupert Wyatt (“The Escapist”) is relatively new to the scene but the structure of this film is that of a seasoned pro. Wyatt has earned himself a major pay raise on his next project. Franco gives an understated and honest portrayal that I appreciated very much. I never know what to expect with Franco and I think he takes the “quantity over quality” approach to choosing his roles. But as “127 Hours” showed, when he’s on, he’s an outstanding actor. Lithgow, too, is excellent and steals almost every scene he’s in. And like any good origin film, “Apes” gives the fanboys a few quality references to the source material it draws upon which I greatly appreciate.

The rest of the cast, however, fails to deliver. I think Bryan Cox is an outstanding actor when he’s asked to stretch himself but as the owner of the “ape refuge” that Caesar is sent to, he’s just Bryan Coxing all over the place, playing a caricature of the same character he plays in every movie. Frieda Pinto (“Slumdog Millionaire”) provides the inevitable love interest for Will but unfortunately the character is completely and totally worthless. A note to Hollywood: if you don’t invest in a romantic relationship then neither will we. Many of the side characters (the hothead neighbor, the cravenly ape attendant, etc.) are all painfully over-the-top and take away from the more centered, balanced personas of the main characters. All of these issues are nothing, however, in comparison to the cringe-inducing performance of Tom Felton. I thought Felton was probably the worst actor in the “Harry Potter” cast (Draco Malfoy) and after having seen “Apes”, I would guess that his best days are behind him. As the angry and power hungry lead handler in the ape shelter, Felton’s character is so paint-by-number that I actually let out an audible groan at one point and it infuriates me that this was the character given the opportunity to repeat Heston’s trademark “Apes” line. He may have single handedly knocked this film down a grade.

My real problem with “Apes”, though, is the mediocre script that plays out too much like a horror movie for my liking. The supporting characters do things they would never do and too much of the plot is driven by a chain of events that would have to happen exactly as they happen in the film’s narrative or else it would never work. For example, in the opening scenes an experienced, supposed world-class ape handler leaves the door to the rest of the facility (where Will is conducting his meeting with the board of directors) open while trying to essentially capture an ape that he knows to be hostile and ready to attack. I realize this is a small complaint but there are dozens of issues like this and it makes for a plotline that is too easy to poke holes through. “Apes” deserves better than the lackluster script it was given.

Overall, I found “Apes” to be a frustrating but worthwhile film. Its strengths are impressive and engrossing, particularly the relationship between Will and Caesar and the development of Caesar’s power. But its weaknesses make it impossible for me to recommend wholeheartedly. If nothing else, though, “Apes” has helped erase some of my memories of Burton’s version and might just help with my ape-related anger management issues.

Grade: B

Keep your stinking paws off me,

Brian