Where the Wild Things Aren't

It's hard to not get excited about a film that had one of the top five best trailers of all time. So my expectations going into Where The Wild Things Are (2009) where needless to say were very high. I wanted nostalgia to pour over me in the theatre, I wanted to feel like a child again, I wanted to go to where the wild things were. That didn't necessarily happen, but Spike Jonze had something else in store for me, something that reminded me that childhood is not all warm nostalgic feelings, but there were also times of loneliness and struggle.

The only skepticism that I had coming into this film was from the many rumors I had heard about the delays, and reshoots that this film suffered. Those didn't seem to be an issue and I hope the final product is something the director is pleased with and it carried out his original vision. And it was only his vision that was at stake but also the author Maurice Sendak who helped produce the film. I have a feeling that Sendak must be pleased because Where The Wild Things Are not only made a 5-10 page book into a feature length film but kept the spirit of the book, the essence that made it such a classic.

This film is not only about the innocence of a child but also about the anger and the rage a child can have. Max's parents are divorced and his mother played by Catherine Keener is dating a new guy (played unnecessarily by Mark Ruffalo). Despite these heavy topics Jonze steers away from cliches and concentrates on the essences of the emotions, something all children have. To escape Max makes up an imaginary land, with imaginary beast, that like him are at once ferocious and kind. All the wild things are different parts of Max's psyche, from the understanding to the outright angry. They serve the purpose to expose Max to his own strength and weakness's, and by the time he leaves them, he is more the wiser.

There are 4 categories in which I would like to see Where the Wild Things Are nominated when it comes Oscar time. The first being Jonze's cerebral direction, and his ability to take the spirit of children's novel and turn it into a full movie without it dragging. The second being Max Records as best actor. Children tend to get nominated for playing more mature characters than there age dictates, (Tatum O'neal, Abigail Breslin) but here Max does an outstanding job of conveying complex emotions of a child his age. Jonze should be ever so grateful he found this kid. The third is with Lance Acord's amazing cinematography and his ability to create a totally imaginary world out of our own. The fourth is a best supporting actor nomination for James Gandolfini as the voice of Carol, the often misunderstood wild thing. Gandolfini brings an emotion and a complexity that outwardly shows Max's struggle.

The question of if children should see this movie has come up a bunch. The answer is yes they should, they can handle and understand more than we like to acknowledge and Where The Wild Things Are provides it to them in just the right way.

****

On Broadway but based in Boston

The only reason I saw this little indie movie is because I knew some of the producers and talent involved in the film and the entire film was available to watch on Hulu. On Broadway (2007) is done by writer director Dave McLaughlin a local Boston guy who was able to with the help of his producer Charlie Harrington raise about a million dollars and to attach local actors like Will Arnett, Mike O'Malley, Eliza Dushku and Amy Poehler to make this film. Essentially it is a passion project, which I am sure on some level mirrored the struggles of the characters in the film.

Joey McIntyre of New Kids On The Block fame stars as Jack O'Toole, the son of an Irish immigrant living in Boston. As the movie opens up we witness the death of Jack's uncle, a man that seemed to have more impact on his life than his own father. Now before I lose your attention because you saw that McIntyre stars in the film, let me say that he is very good, and comes off extremely like able as a guy who decides to write and construct a play based on the funeral and wake of his uncle. Now the set up of the movie doesn't really hit home, in fact the first 25 minutes are boring instead of what they should be which is to make the audience realize what Jack realizes so we understand why there is a drive for him to make this play. But to the critics of the first part of the movie, I say, bear with it and except it, and if you do, the rest of the film will be much more rewarding.

McIntyre's character wants to make a play about family, loss and loyalty, but so does McLaulin, and I think both succeed. To be perfectly honest, the big reason this film worked for me despite its predictability, it's weak plot devices and on the nose dialogue is because there was a lot of truth that I personally can relate too. I am a Boston based guy who understands the difficulties of putting together something creative, the toll it takes on loved ones, wanting parental approval, the frustrations and anger when everything goes wrong, and doing it all not knowing the end result. This movie really speaks to those things, so if you are a struggling artist, ignore the artist integrity of the film, but jump right to the sole of the picture and it will tug on the old heart strings.

Its interesting to note that the performances that really stood out in the film where not the likes of Arnett and Poehler, in fact those two felt out of place in the story. It was Eliza Dushku, Lucas Caleb and especially Mike O'Malley as Father Rolie who brought both an authenticity and truth to the story.

There is absolutely some personal bias in this review of On Broadway. There is nothing original or gritty about this little film, but it did effect me and really isn't that what we are all striving for when creating art.

***

What is Happening?!

I very rarely see a film based on a majority WTF reaction. However I made an exception for M Night Shyamalamadingdong's The Happening (2008). I had heard so much negative reactions to this movie that I thought I must check this out for myself. I mean how bad could it really be? It's pretty bad.

Let me start out by saying that I thing Shyamalan is a good director. He understands the language of film and especially the language of horror. There are a couple of very creepy and creative scenes in The Happening that remind me why he is still a filmmaker. Specifically I am thinking of the scene where one person after another picks up the same gun and kills themselves with it, or the image of all the construction workers jumping to there death from the top of the building. I also understand why Shyamalan made the film; the concept of an unknown toxin resulting in people offing themselves is a pretty freighting concept.

Where to begin with where this film went wrong....... (breath). I don't understand what Shyamalan was watching when he saw his talent actors struggle so heavily with his cheesy, on the nose dialogue. He MUST have been coaching them to speak in those rhythms because everyone in the film does it. Maybe his mind set was to go all out with this being a B movie, then decided no, I want this to be real, but never changed the dialogue or the rhythm in which it was deliver. I just can't imagine anyone on set thought either the acting or exposition with the dialogue was good (If I was a PA on that set I could have been a hero by going up to Night and saying " Ummm..... maybe everyone should suck less). But instead I imagine the directors instructions to his lead actors to go something like this "ok mark, you're a scientist (giggle), yet you don't know what's going on, so I need you to look more confused. Zoey, you need to open your eyes wider, WIDER!!! And Action"

The love story between Wahlberg and Deschannel fell soooo flat, and I was really rooting for them to not make it as a couple (or live), because they would be horrible parents. (Spoiler) There is a scene at the end where they decide they love each other even though Zoey had tiramisu with a guy (fucking bitch), so how do they show their love, by meeting each other in the middle of a field even know they knew it would kill them (how Shakespearean). That is all well and good, but did you have to drag the little mute girl along with you to die! If I was that little girl I would have been bullshit. Are you serious!

For those people who are still interested in watching The Happening for comedy reasons there are a couple things I need to prepare you for. John Leguizamo has the best performance in the film, apparently if you walk into a lions den those lions become terrorist, Zoey Deschanel is very good at pointing out cars, and at one point about 3/4th of the way through the movie Mark Wahlberg figures out that the toxins are making people kill themselves and announces it out loud.

I don't revel in piling on top of the shit storm of reviews for The Happening but Shyamalan needs a kick in the balls. I loved Unbreakable and admired The Sixth Sense I refuse to give up on such a talented director, but please Night, don't make this mistake again.

*

Escaping with Jack Nicholson

Michelangelo Antonioni's The Passenger (1975) stars Jack Nicholson as a reporter who mysteriously decides to switch identities with a dead arms dealer he casually met who died in the same hotel he was staying. Nicholson doesn't take the dead man's identity for any journalistic reasons, but simply to have new start. This may sound like an intriguing plot, but as in most Antonioni movies, plot is not something he concerns himself with. I appreciate directors who don't give a lot of exposition, but it will take much patience from an audience member to mine the vast emptiness of this film.

The motivation of Nicholson's character nor of Maria Schneiders is ever apparent, they are drifters, one running from his past and the other perhaps running toward her future. Antonioni somehow seems to create a world that is both vast in stature but at the same time small as in one can't escape their past no matter how remote the location your hiding is. It strikes me that Antonioni judging by the two films of his I have seen so far (this and La Adventura) is obsessed with loneliness or maybe more specifically our inability to cope with ourselves. Despite the downfalls of this movie, these thematic elements are consistent throughout the film, and they do convey to the audience a tone to relate too.

There are two surprisingly negative attributes to The Passenger that must be discussed. The first is in the cinematography, everyone mentions the impressive last shot, and it is somewhat impressive (the camera just goes through some bars that move) but more so in content than in its technical prowess. Throughout the film we have awkward frames where characters are half in and half out. There is excessive head room and camera bumps throughout. The film works, but I expected better from a master filmmaker,instead I got what looks like a very good student filmmaker who got his hands on some equipment.

The second and even more surprising unfortunate element is in Nicholsons performance. Its not that it is bad its just not very good. He doesn't have very much dialogue but when he does you can see him struggling to convey it, almost as if Jack Nicholson the actor didn't quit understand what his characters motivations where and why he was saying what he was saying. Maria Schneider on the other hand came off nicely, with a sense of ease and understanding of her character. I was not familiar with Schneiders work previous to this film, but I will keep an eye out for her moving forward.

The Passenger does do a lot wrong, but maybe it is to Antonioni's credit that despite its flaws it works as a whole. It sets a tone and doesn't apologize for it, leaving the audience to think (about what is up to each one of us).

**1/2

The Invention of rudeness

I am an unabashed Ricky Gervais fan. Ever since I discover the British Office on DVD about 5 years ago he has been my favorite comedian. But maybe it is time he does something that knocks him down a peg or two, and I think The Invention of Lying (2009) with all its comedic star power, cameos, and high concept may be the swift kick in the pants he needs. However I don't think he thinks there is anything wrong with the film, and that is what scares me.

I read the screenplay previous to having seen the film, and maybe that was a mistake because I laughed much harder at the written word and my concept of how I thought the actors (who I had looked up on imdb and were familiar with) would perform them than I did during the movie. In all honesty I thought it was one of the funniest things I had ever read, maybe it was meant for the page and not the screen.

This movie suffers from three main things, too many cheesy montages, Gervais's own obsession with his Atheism, and the too frequent use of the word "genetics". The concept of the film is a world without lying as we learn from a lazy narration at the beginning of the film. We also learn in this narration that Gervais character Mark Bellison will be the first man to discover how to lie (so there goes the impact of that discovery). Throughout the movie the funniest people in comedy today (Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Jeffrey Tambor, Louis C. K., Jonah Hill) pop up and get to say the rudest things or "the truth", and yes sometimes these line hit, other times there is an unsettling discomfort, and not in the funny awkward way Gervais is so good at.

I don't mean to bash this movie as much as it is coming across, but I think I was more disappointed than anything else. The combination of Gervais, this script and the best comedy cast in years should have produced a comedy classic. However Gervais got way to caught up in cliched rom-com melodrama especially in the final third (I mean the final third was horrible) and it really hurt the movie. He would have been better off letting someone else direct The Invention of Lying, or maybe the simple answer would have been to bring his long time partner (not like that) Steven Merchant on board to help him.

** 1/2

I am a serious man

The Coen Brothers are the type of filmmakers I would one day like to be like, there stories develop slow, deliberately, but never boring and always have humor. They understand that you don't need quick cuts or forced jokes, they know that they can let things develop cinematically and they do just that with there newest film A Serious Man. I didn't love this movie as much as I loved the artistry and idea of this film.

A Serious Man is the Coen's take on religion and the keys (or lack of them) to living a happy life. It surrounds Larry Gopnick played perfectly by Michael Stuhlbarg as a man who just tries and live life how he thinks he is suppose too, doing nothing wrong, but nothing extraordinary. Stuhlbarg doesn't play Gopnick as pathetic or a complainer, just a man that doesn't know how to take control of his own destiny and keeps taking one blow after another. I don't care to delve into what exactly the Coen's are saying about the significance or insignificance of religions impact on life (although I don't deny its importance in the film). But the answer to these questions are not as important as the questions themselves and the fact that the Coens set out to make a film that addressed these issues.

There is a lot of small parables to latch onto like the fact that Gopnick is a professor of math and can't find any answers and neither can the film. Life happens, for the good or for the bad and maybe the people who can survive in the world of the Coens are those that don't try and find the answers.

Also to be applauded is how the brothers can get such pitch perfect performances from all there supporting actors. I don't know how they do it, but they get everyone on the same page from the small asian student who tries to bribe Larry to the women who won't allow him to see the Rabbi.

Where this movie falls a bit flat and why it in no way can compare to the great No Country For Old Men is in the lack of story. I kept expecting more to happen, for everything to build to something, but it never came. I think that was the point, but it doesn't make for as good a movie.

I would place A Serious Man in the middle of the Coen Brothers cannon, but it is absolutely worth seeing and as of now would crack my top ten of the year.

*** 1/2