inter-specie sex? Cool

Much has been made about how District 9 is not just another summer blockbuster. Unfortunately when it comes down to it, I think it is. It just happens to be slightly better and attempts for something greater, but the film can't reign in its many objectives leaving us with a lot of empty promises. 

The film starts with a mock documentary look, which it later abandons because I think it realized it would miss out on a lot of plot. Yes, there is some obvious and smart social commentary, if you don't see it, you are blind (and in being blind, movies might not be your best form of entertainment). In an alien movie I am happy to except that aliens have come to earth, I'm happy to accept that they now live on earth in a shanty town called District 9 that has been quarantined off by government agencies. I am happy to accept that these are some ugly creatures and don't at all have the charm of E.T., in fact they are given the derogatory name "prawns" (gasp, why the hell do they care what we call them). Having accepted all that, why do I care that they are getting so mistreated (maybe I'm part of the problem, I don't know). It is hard for me to empathize with this creature/human relationship. Eventually I did get beyond that, but then every human except our main character started getting painted with one mean broad stroke.  Then this "smart" summer blockbuster turned into a huge shoot em up akin to Iron Man meets Transformers. 

Yes, this movie had potential, but it tried to do too many things and in the end didn't work for me. One bright spot of this film is in the star making turn of Sharlto Copley as Wikus Van De Merwe. This guy was great and managed to bring to life a complex character that was neither a good guy nor a bad guy, just a desperate man. Keep an eye out for Copley as an A lister of the future.

District 9 should garner some praise for its fortitude to put in an ending that doesn't sell out and really works for the film. 

Do I recommend District 9? Maybe. But don't go in expecting the smartest blockbuster in years.

**1/2

Pam Grier is Foxy Brown

As a mid 20's white male living in 2009 I can't claim to be any type of expert or enthusiast on 1970's blaxplotation movies, but being a movie lover I decided to check out the highly regarded benchmark of the genre Foxy Brown. The idea behind all exploitation movies is they are suppose to do just that, exploit; exploit sex, violence and drug use, and on that level Foxy Brown absolutely succeeds. There are brutal scenes of rape, violence and drug use. Certainly the film never gets boring. 

Where I think the film stands a cut above its peers is in Pam Grier's revenge filled performance as Foxy Brown. She is not only beautiful, but tough.  She certainly takes her beatings but is able to bounce back and of course in the end get her revenge. 

There is nothing about the plot, characters or dialogue that will wow you, but I understand the movies significance and the film will entertain. If I wanted to, I could break down the broad strokes of the film, but any one that is coming to see this movie is not and should not have great artistic expectations. Yes, its fun to see the set dressing, wardrobes, and nuances that make it a unmistakable 70's film. Its shock value and political incorrectness are also worth keeping an eye on.

I wish I had the knowledge to compare and contrast it to other blaxplotation movies, but I haven't seen any others. Maybe it is time for me to have a movie marathon and put some more titles on the top of my Netflix que. 

Overall  Foxy Brown delivers exactly what is asked of it.

**1/2

Wate! This didn happen in that thier Worl War 2

So much has been written and said about Tarantino and his style that I feel I will better serve this movie by talking solely about the film and not all the Tarantinoisms on display in Inglourious Basterds. If you are interested in spotting everything that is Tarantino you will, if you are not, it doesn't matter, the movie will work regardless.

Where Inglourious Basterds doesn't work is in certain casting choices ( I'm looking at you Brad Pitt) and certain plot holes (nearly no security in the lobby of the theatre?). But what I have to say to the films faults is "who cares". This director knows the language of cinema better than anyone else and exploits it to its full potential. If someone is going to pick apart the rewritten history, or the now titled "Jewish revenge porn" aspects of this movie than they are missing the point of this movie. Tarantino doesn't work on the level of realistic emotional integrity, he works on the level of cinematic emotional integrity and I dare say when it comes to movies the later works better. I have said it before and I will say it again Tarantino knows how to take genre pictures and put them on the level of art. 

Basterds is filled with more tension, laughter and memorable moments than most any other films this year combined. There are two scenes in-particular that will be studied for years that portray a mix of tension and laughter so fluidly that they could stand as films themselves. I urge any film students to watch this movie to learn how to create tension with nothing but dialogue.

Not only does the film walk the perfect line of comedy and drama so does its stand out performer Christoph Waltz.  Waltz deserves an Academy Award for this performance, and if he doesn't at least get a nomination I'm gonna wine like a baby (thats really all I could offer). 

As of this moment Inglourious Basterds is in a neck and neck race with Adventureland as my favorite film of the year. I hope to watch both again by the years end to really determine a winner. 

The interesting thing about Tarantino films is they tend to get better with each viewing, so if I need too I may alter my star review. This is also something to consider when trying to rank Basterds amongst Tarantino's other films, only repeated viewings and time will determine its place. 

P.S. As my title alludes too, I bet anything that Tarantino did not mean to misspell the title on purpose. He just can't spell. 

****1/2

Life, Death and Love in only 96 minutes

There are only a handful of American directors working today that no matter what, produce interesting and quality work despite if the movie works as a whole. Darren Aronofsky is absolutely one of those directors and his third directorial film The Fountain (2006) is one of those films that may not work in its entirety but there is still so much to take away from the film. 

In The Fountain Aronofsky attempts to deal with the meaning of life, death and love. Hugh Jackman plays a research doctor who is attempting to cure brain tumors by experimenting on monkeys as his wife played by Rachel Weiss is dying from a brain tumor. The plot of the film is not nearly as important as the themes Aronofsky is dealing with. I would put Aronofsky up there with Paul Thomas Anderson as the two best directors that can evoke alot of feelings in there audience without having to show very much (a skill which is so rare it tricks a lot of young filmmakers into thinking they can do this too, with poor results). A lot of the emotional resonance has to do with the score, and Aronofsky has found himself one of the best composers working in film today in Clint Mansell (when will this guy get his due credit?). In  The Fountain he gives another haunting, powerful and somber score that ties the many storylines together and lets the film work as one dramatic peace.

Visually the movie is stunning. It uses special effects (or lack there of) evokes thoughts of Kubricks 2001 A Space Odyssey. Aronofsky always presents us with interesting frames and you can tell he is very confident with the shots he choses and never second guesses himself. 

Oscar nominations should have been in order for both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weis who had to deal with such heavy moments and they projected them beautifully. Both the movie and performances were always on the edge of melodrama but never once crossed over. 

Despite all these ingredients for a masterpiece I don't think Aronofsky ever achieves what it is he is trying to achieve. I don't claim to know exactly what he was trying to say about the nature of life, but I feel like he may have fell short and he most likely lost the audience at some point in this journey. I know there is a masterpiece within this film somewhere, maybe Aronofsky would have been better served with another 4 year delay in the production. 

***

Fractured

There are some movies that just are. They are not good, they are not bad, they are not overly ambitious but they are made well enough, with talented enough people, yet they make no lasting impression. Fracture (2007) is one of these movies. It has a great cast, a well polished look, and an intriguing enough plot, but no real depth. It is a courtroom thriller and nothing else. 

Fracture is helmed by director Gregory Hoblit (nothing of any significance to note here) who takes an intriguing script and films just the words. With such great talent as Ryan Gosling and Anthony Hopkins attached, I would have hoped someone would have said lets give these characters a little more depth. Maybe the idea was that these actors would just bring that extra level through there acting. They did the best they could and did make the film much more watch-able, but they still were not able to save it.

The plot is certainly intriguing even if it is not plausible. It surrounds Goslings Willy Beachum a young and successful attorney who is looking to move up in the world from his state held position. He is granted this opportunity early on when he is hired at a big time law firm but before he can start the new position all he has to do is finish up a cut and dry case. Wrong. It's never cut and dry when you face a murderous Anthony Hopkins. So, clever Anthony toys with Gosling throughout the film as Gosling attempts to find out the truth. 

Unfortunately the movie didn't spend enough time on the intriguing moments that the script presents, it ignores character and concentrates too much on plot. I wanted to know more about Goslings desire to win this case rather than take on a great new job and girlfriend. Speaking of the girlfriend, this is a plot point that fell flat and served no real purpose. I also wanted to know what about the "game" Hopkins character enjoyed so much. Had Hopkins character Ted Crawford done this before, or is it as simple as he enjoys games displayed through the continuous shots of his marble tracks.  

All and all Fracture wasn't horrible, it was well made, and not entirely boring, but I couldn't help but feeling that these talented people could have spent this money on a better product.

**1/2

They are Funny and they are People

The most recent Judd Apatow directed joint is Funny People (2009). Coming into this movie I was among the many that believed Apatow and his crew were the funniest and best comedic talents in movies. Leaving Funny People I am sure he and his crew are the most talented comedians in the movies today, but did I like the film? As a movie, not really, as an idea, very much.

Funny People contains the most laughs of all the Apatow directed films, but part of the reason for this is because the film has an extra 45 minutes of footage that should not be there. That being said I'm going to get out of the way the reason's this movie doesn't work as a whole, so I can then concentrate on the more important aspect of this review and that is what this movie tried to do and where it worked. 

Yes this movie is too long, way too long. Its plot is flimsy and all over the place. Whole scenes, like the one at Laura and Clarks house toward the end seem tacked on, unnecessary and tonally out of whack. Eric Bana is not a comedic actor and was very much miscast. 

There it is, the bad, and they are huge problems, but the good is much more interesting to discuss. Apatow is dealing with subject matter (death, self, life) that would scare the shit out of most other comedic directors and they would either go way to broad with it or won't touch it all together. Here, Apatow shows us his most mature work and deals with the material head on with real characters, and lets the characters be funny human beings rather than trying to get all his laughs out of the situations the characters get themselves in (see The Hangover). Sandler gives the best performance of his career playing the ailing George Simmons, a character much like Sandler in that he became successful through a string of ludicrous and immature comedies. Simmons is selfish, and alone, and because of his recent disease he tries to reach out to people but doesn't know or maybe even understand how. The only person he finds to connect to is his new assistant Ira played by Seth Rogen (in his best performance). He also attempts to connect with "the one that got away", Laura, played by Leslie Mann. This relationship reveals Simmons as he truly is, and Apatow certainly does not play this conventionally. 

These guys are genuinely funny and Apatow gives a sneak peek into the world of Comedians. But more importantly Apatow gets to delve into the human condition, and smartly doesn't make the movie formulaic in that Simmons becomes near death and then automatically changes, his transformation is much more realistic and in the end we still don't know where he really stands. 

I think part of the problem with the film is it tries to pack to much in, and the plot devices that are used to express these ideas fall flat even if the ideas are poignant.  Despite all its flaws I laughed a lot during this movie. I can almost guarantee I will consider it the funniest film of the year. I would love to hang out with any of these characters, especially scene stealer Jonah Hill as Leo.

The bottom line is if you can spare an extra two and half hours and know going in that the movie is going to drag, then Funny People is worth seeing not only for the laughs but for what the movie deals with. 

*** 

Nothing Long about this Goodbye

Robert Altmans The Long Goodbye (1973) presents us with a private eye that I don't know if I would want working for me. By name he is Philip Marlowe, but he is not Bogarts' Philip Marlowe, he is Altmans' Philip Marlowe, and Altman knows that he wants to present this Marlowe as an aloof, smart talking, wonderer. Altman is clearly playing with the film noir genre in The Long Goodbye. He knows how slick the loner private eye is suppose to be and gives us a private eye that isn't always the slickest but still manages to get the job done. 

Much of the characterization of Marlowe should be credited to Elliot Gould, despite his wandering attitude, I found him a funny, likable, and charming loner, and all those qualities "are alright by me." There was one scene, on the beach in which I felt like Gould had trouble with, and it is the only scene where Marlowe really shows some emotion, but thinking back on it, I believe it was done on purpose (doesn't mean it was effective though). 

I've heard a lot of complaints about the lack of plot in this film. I couldn't disagree more, it's not that this film doesn't have a plot, its just that Marlowe doesn't initiate much of it, in fact most happens to him, as he tries to make sense of it and wanders through it. In fact the plot kept me intrigued right from the point Marlowe gets an unexpected guest and drives him to Mexico. 

Altman keeps a constantly moving camera throughout the film, which gives the audience the sense they are just wandering along with Marlowe trying to watch as the whole thing takes place, making it feel like neither us nor Marlowe has any control over the events.  

There is practically only one song that plays over and over in various styles, the song itself is called The Long Goodbye and it was written as an original by John Williams. It's certainly not your normal John Williams score, and the repetition of this song gives a great sense that every where Marlowe goes he finds himself in the same situations. 

The Long Goodbye seems to be almost solely focused on Marlowe or from his perspective except for one scene between Eileen and Roger Wade (played by the great Sterling Hayden) where the couple argue as Marlowe waits outside. I found this odd and it took away from the great flow of the film. 

Overall there is not much to complain about with this movie, but at the same time it wasn't a mind blowing film, it was just expertly made, original and knew what it was trying to accomplish, it also had a bizarre cameo from Arnold Schwarzenegger which is worth checking out.

***1/2