If talking to her is all it took

Alicia's dance instructor in Talk to Her towards the end of the movie says something along the lines of "nothing is simple"; this sums up Pedro Almodovar's Talk to Her (2002). The film is an exercise in humanity by using the back drop of coma patients (entities that are alive, but can't experience the human condition, but by the grace of God may again one day join civilization). 

I have never been a huge Almodovar fan in that I would run out and see his next film the moment it is released, but do have an appreciation for his artistry. Talk to Her is my favorite of his films, it is disturbing yet not judgmental (which may have some viewers upset).  I am not going to profess to understand the ultimate message of the film, or if it even has one, but it indeed leaves an impression and makes you contemplate the true depths of friendship and love. 

I am realizing as I am writing this review that I am writing in very broad terms, and can't seem to pin down any concrete aspects to comment on about this film. That is partly because this film deals in broad strokes and partly because I had a bit of difficulty relating to the individual characters. I feel like the characters served the thematic elements well, but were either too complex to always grasp there motives or are used as a simple devices. I am sure it is the foremost option.

There are some great performances, especially by the male leads played by Javier Camara as Benigno, and Dario Grandinetti as Marco, both men in love with women and the art that has inspired these women, and in turn inspired them. Neither woman can respond to these men anymore, and with that similarity the two men develop an unusual friendship, which had me at points asking out loud why Marco was so close to Benigno. Why did he still want to associate with him? 

There is much to be said about Almodovar's camera work and use of color. He never creates a dull, dreary or disparaging world, his colors pop and his frames are perfectly balanced. This workmanship leads to the feeling that no matter the troubles of the characters, hope is always present in the world. 

Talk to Her can be weird, disgusting, beautiful, enraging, you could love it, you could hate it, but just don't call it simple (and certainly don't try and pigeon hold it in one review).

***

The Hangover; you will find it funny

I am baffled by the near overwhelming love for The Hangover. I am convinced that I missed something, that the movie was more than broad easy jokes about drinking to much and getting drugged in Vegas. However the film is exactly what it was advertised as. I'm not trying to be bitter, I really wanted to like this movie, and fully expected to be surprised given the great responses and box office success, but there was nothing to surprise me. It was a Todd Phillips film, and not even his best. 

A good comedy consists of at least one of two things, unique characters that in some way you can relate too or get behind, and a well structured unique story. The closest The Hangover comes to either of these things is with Zach Galifianakis pervy yet innocent character, Galifianakis gives us the few funny moments where a "shock"  talented comedian delivers "Gasp" funny lines.  On the opposite end of the spectrum is Bradley Cooper, he may be a talented actor, I don't know, I haven't seen evidence of it yet, but he is NOT a comedic actor and needs to stop being put in comedies. Unlike Galifianakis, he has no comedic timing and can't deliver a line without sounding like a total Asshole. I don't know him, but I want to punch him in the face, and definitely don't want to be stuck in Vegas with him for any amount of time. As far as Ed Helms performance, I enjoy him as a comedic actor, but he split the difference between Galifianakis and Cooper here. 

The actors can only do so much, they also need a director who is not going to sell their skills down the river for the most obvious joke at any given moment. The big reason Philips comedy doesn't work for me is because he paints with such a broad brush, he shoots for the moon with every joke and because of this they lose there impact. A good comedy should trust the actors and the situation and let something funny organically come out of the circumstance, Phillips forces unrealistic situation after unrealistic situation onto his characters without giving them more than a "what the fuck is going on" reaction. A naked asian guy jumping out of your trunk should be funny, but he didn't work for the joke, it just happened and in the context of the movie was nothing more shocking than any number of things that had happened in the previous 5 minutes. So what is the point?! Your just throwing jokes away. Philips needs to take a page out of Greg Mottola's (Superbad, Adventureland) book, funny actors, playing interesting characters in good stories. You don't need to hit a baby in the face with a car door, or leave a baby in a car or marry a hooker or get tazzed by 4th graders or any number of other over the top desperate jokes to make a good comedy. But alas it doesn't matter, looks like there will be a Hangover 2.  Although, the one place the movie does work for its jokes is in the credit sequence, but its hardly worth waiting through the rest of the film.

I also want to make a note that I am far from against crude comedy, I think Apatow and his gang do this really well, but the bottom line is it has to be funny, and the characters delivering the lines have to be genuine or likable. 

*1/2

A Map of the Human Heart; Everything you need to know about a movie in it's title

It takes a certain type of sentimentality to really appreciate movies like A Map of the Human Heart (1993) as it is meant to be appreciated. I don't say this in a negative way, I just personally couldn't love the film, but I can see how some could. It is one of those sprawling love stories that spans continents decades and wars. 

Where this film has an advantage over others like it, is in its detail and thematic elements. All of which should be accredited to director Vincent Ward.It incorporates comparisons of the dangers and difficulties of mapping new land to that of life and love (in the title). It attempts to deal with race and the experience the characters have being half white and half another race (with much less success).  It should also be noted that the cinematography by Eduardo Serra is breathtaking, especially the war scenes which conjure up hellish images that are reminiscent of those in Apocalypse Now. It is worth seeing the movie simply for Serra's work, which elevates the film above the normal boring what I call English theatre Cinematography. 

Where the film and other love stories of similar value fall flat is in its inability to convince me that these two are even meant to be together. I understand the value of true love when it comes to cinema, but these two met as young children and then didn't see each other for another decade. Even if you buy the love story, there is a lot of awkward dialogue between the older Avkine and Albertine and it hurts the believability of the relationship. 

I enjoyed the acting for the most part from both the children version of Avkine and Albertine and the older versions. Vincent Ward did a good job in just letting the children be, and be in the moment, it helped give a feeling of a genuine relationship blooming. The best performance comes from the Clark Gable like Patrick Bergen as the adventurer and mapmaker Walter Russell. The relationship between Walter and Avkine is complex as he starts as the hero and turns into the villain (but is he ever really the villain?) 

Some people will go with A Map of the Human Heart and enjoy it immensely and I can understand why. I however couldn't quite follow the relationship and because of that the film turns from unforgettable to forgettable. Ultimately the film tries to encompass to much including a random appearance from John Cusak. 

**1/2

UP; simple enough

What else can be said about Pixar? They are the first production company that I will go see there movies just based on the fact they are making it. I usually allocate this distinction to great directors and some actors. They simply just don't make bad movies and UP is no exception. It is the funniest of all the Pixar films, but not the most engrossing. 

The action follows Carl Fredrickson (Edward Asner) as he embarks on a journey to South America to place his house at the sacred paradise falls where he had once at a young age promised his future wife that they would have an adventure there. We have all seen the posters, so we know he gets there by using balloons that carry his house and an unexpected guest the length of the trip. 

The plot is set up for an unusual friendship to bloom between a boy-scout named Russell and Carl, and like all great Pixar movies the characters and relationship feels real. The advantage animation has over live action is it's ability for its characters to overemphasis emotions without it feeling false or contrived. That allows the audience to feel exactly as the filmmakers intended without being manipulated. UP is masterful at this technique and despite the looseness of the story or the contrivances of issues like Russell's father, we feel for and are with the characters, whether they be dog's or big birds.

What I think this film does especially well is in its dealing with the heavy subject of aging and failed expectations. Some people may say those particular themes are to heavy handed for children, but I disagree and think they are presented perfectly.

What it doesn't do well is to create exterior conflicts with the villain. Pixar has yet to make a great villain an here they don't even come close. I found nothing "wrong" with him, yet at the same time there was nothing memorable and his motivations seemed false. The story could have been better served without the villain and instead should have stuck with both Carl and Russell's internal conflicts. 

UP has its shortcomings and it certainly isn't as good as last years Wall E, but I would rank it the fifth best Pixar film and that is saying a lot. 

***

Suicide is sad, whether it be by virgins or not

I recently re-watched Sophia Coppola's 1999 film The Virgin Suicides. I don't remember much from my initial viewing of the film maybe 5-7 years ago. I just remember not really getting it, or understanding what the point was. Watching it now, a bit older and supposedly more mature (debatable), I not only understood it, but related to it deeply. It's interesting that a women took the helm on a movie that is essentially the point of view of some young high-school boys and their infatuation with a group of blond and beautiful sisters. However it was the perfect decision, those feelings of enthusiasm and what I guess we called love back then are pitch perfect. She really filmed the unfilmable. This is the stuff that happens in the mind of teenage boys, the perfection we bestowed upon certain women, the unattainable quality we would give them (Or maybe I just couldn't get them). 

Trying to capture such allusive things with a camera would seem like you would end up with a boring film, with trivial images, but Coppola is able to create a soft mood that keeps us engrossed throughout. She is able to capture those huge moments in the life of a teenager, like almost holding hands in a theatre and make them real and engrossing. 

However, there is that dark part of the film that the title alludes too. I don't want to delve to far into what exactly happens, but I found myself questioning if it was really needed, and I came the to the conclusion that yes it was. The reason is because if it hadn't the retrospective part of the film wouldn't have worked, the moments wouldn't have been so sharp. The question of why, lets audiences experience the Lisbon sisters with a clarity that couldn't have otherwise happened. 

It must be noted that Kathleen Turner gives a great understated performance here as the girls mother. James Woods also shines as the father who keeps his wounds hidden deep. 

Despite the dark tones of the film, what Coppola does best is not dwelling or heightening those darker moments, but instead concentrating on all those little things that make growing up so engrossing. We also see what we know now as the great muted green's and pink's as well as mystical pop music that would come to define her later movies also. 

***1/2

Away We Go and other things you never say when your leaving

Sam Mendes is not my favorite director, but it took a film that had really no stylistic traces of the filmmaker to make me appreciate him as a director. This is not a Sam Mendes film, it is not even an art-house version of a Sam Mendes film, this was made by a man that wanted to distance himself from everything he had done before, weather it be because he just wanted a change of scenery or because he was to exhausted after dealing with the dark devastation's of a failing marriage in  Revolutionary Road. 

Away We Go follows a couple Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph) as they travel around North America to find where they would like to live and start a family after discovering Verona is pregnant. The discovery of this pregnancy in the first scene is the funniest part of the movie (unfortunately it goes down hill from there). Burt and Verona are two sides of the same person, they react together and bounce situations off of one another, they don't ever really fight and have some interesting quirks themselves. It is actually refreshing to see a romantic comedy in which the couple's relationship is strong enough so that they don't have to have the typical break up and get back together situation, and to top that off, to have a strong couple in a Sam Mendes movie, that is a miracle!

There is clever dialogue throughout, and some genuine laughs, but the issue I have with this movie is in it's forced premise and insanely quirky characters. The format goes a little something like this, go to a city, meet up with weird, socially inept characters and worst of all unrealistic characters and then decide you don't want to live in that whole city because you had some bad hosts. Structurally it is too easy and too lazy, which is a disappointment considering the dialogue and themes of anxiety in the modern world are nicely touched upon. And since the formula is so lazy it ruins otherwise great supporting performances from Allison Janney and Maggie Gyllenhaal.

I'm still not convinced John Krasinski has any range as an actor and all Burt was is Jim from the Office with a beard and a more aloof attitude. Maya Rudolph fit the role well, but didn't have the chops for more difficult lines, however I look forward to seeing her mature in the future (hopefully she will continue to get movies).

The great thing about movies like Revolutionary Road and to a lesser extent American Beauty are they touch on a tone and mood that transcends the films themselves. He can't ever find the truth in this comedy and because of that the whole thing feels forced. 

*1/2