Americana oversimplified

Tully (2000) must have been on my Netflix que for years and years before finally making its way to the number one spot and arriving at my door. I don't remember why I put it on my que nor when I put it there, but its long journey finally came to an end after sitting on my coffee table for nearly a month. And lets just say it wasn't worth the journey.

Tully surrounds Tully Coates Jr. a good looking farmers son from rural nowhere trying to make sense of his families past without sacrificing his future. Often times I will point out movies that have achieved a level of greatness in filmmaking, whether it be in writing, acting, style, tension, pace and point them out as a means to learn from them. Sometimes I think one can learn even more from a poorly executed film, and Tully has film-school 101 mistakes in spades.

I don't want to harp on the movies flaws too much because I do understand that it was a low budget feature. And do I ever understand the difficulties of making a low budget film, but what I can't understand is the overwhelming support and adulation for this film from both the public (imdb score) and certain critics I respect (Roger Ebert). So for the sake of argument lets get into where this thing falls short.

At first Tullys biggest problem is being too good looking and not knowing what girl to sleep with in the town. Then we find out that his fathers farm owes 300,000 dollars and his father doesn't seem to know why. Then comes the exposition and the staring. Literally the whole film goes a little something like this, character gets upset about the past, sits on the hood or sometimes roof of his car looks out onto the picturesque landscape and tells his or her feelings to whoever is there with them. Then cuts to them staring and thinking. About what we don't know. Anything relatively interesting that may of happened, happened in the past and is only shared to us through conversation. I wanted to see those scenes! The scenes they described, not them sitting on the hood of their vehicles describing them poorly. If you are writing a screenplay you don't need to have the characters say stuff like "what is wrong" every ten minutes when we the audience already know what is wrong, and if your going to have a film where the past comes back to haunt you, use flashbacks, one can only take so many scenes of characters, being poorly acted, talking about things we are not seeing and then how it makes them feel. And if you are going to have long shots of people staring out into space, at least try and communicate a bit what they are thinking. It is melodrama at its worst.

And to top all that off, the score for this film felt like it could have been done by 12 year old who just sat at piano and randomly made sounds. The score tried to be a mask and tell us what to feel but it couldn't even do that correctly.

Why Tully had any success at all is beyond me. Maybe because it is so uniquely American and sad that people felt like they had to like it. I wouldn't even recommend skipping this film, I almost want people to watch it to learn what not to do if they find themselves writing a script.

*1/2

Eisenberg in a theme park again

After Adventureland I thought I could safely put Jessie Eisenberg's carni character James Brennan safely in my memory bank somewhere between nostalgia and young adult angst, and there he would stay safely tucked in a warm retrospective blanket. Then, not even a year later, comes along Zombieland (2009) where Eisenberg is back in a theme park, this time he is named Columbus and now instead of learning about life, love and friendship he is being chased by horrific zombies trying to rip his larynx from his throat.

So I have adjusted enough to try and review Zombieland on its own merits. And what I have come up with is that this film is a fun, ultra-stylized, kinetic piece that ultimately feels hollow. Right from the get go director Ruben Fleischer pulls no punches when it comes to declaring exactly what your expectations should be. It starts out with some ultra-realistic gore, and then transitions to a sequence where Columbus is explaining to the audience the rules of surviving zombies. It is like Fleischer, right out of the gate says "have fun with this movie, if you don't you are missing the point, idiot". Maybe he wasn't as hostile about it, but I need to make my points too.

And I did had a lot of fun with the movie. Every self referential, winking moment made me either laugh or smile. Zombieland is a series of great "look how fun we are making post-apocalyptic zombie ridden society sequences", especially (SPOILER ALERT) the great Bill Murray cameo.

Eisenberg is good hear, but we have seen him play this virgin ridden character before. I hope he doesn't fall into the Michael Cera trap where he gets type cast, because he is way to talented for that. Woody Harrelson has never been more entertaining as a man who has found his true calling in killing zombies. And what really translates is it seems like everyone involved was having just as much fun making it as I was watching it.

Where Zombieland fell short for me and where a movie like Shawn of the Dead ultimately works is with the balance between the characterization and the reality of the world they are in. I felt with Zombieland they had the opportunity to actually incorporate a plot and form some real relationships between the characters, but instead any plot or relationship was just their to connect the clever zombie related incidents.

It is certainly not a waste of time to watch Zombieland because while you are watching it you will be entertained, but if you are like me will long for something more.

***

Polanski escapes to the Cape

A good thriller is very hard to come by. What passes for a thriller now a days seems to be a horror film with a poor plot line where the character just needs to survive. So it is good to see a master director like Roman Polanski try his hand at the genre with The Ghost Writer (2010). Polanski takes a step back and shows filmmakers how to patiently unravel a thriller, even one who's script may not be as good as the filmmaking on display.

I knew this film was going to be good by how it started. It starts on a ferry, the kind you need to drive your vehicle on to get to an island, the island happen to be Martha's Vineyard. The cars are all exiting the ferry, except one. Where is the driver? Well, turns out he is dead, washed up on shore. Now that is how you start a thriller. They could have easily just shown the guy being killed, and it would have been less mysterious, less dramatic.

Following this opening we are introduced to the predecessor of the dead guy, the next Ghost Writer for the former Prime Minister of Britain. This Ghost Writer is played by Ewen McGregor, we never learn his name, in so many words he is a ghost. McGregor is perfectly adequate here as the man with no past and the man we as the audience use to unravel this mystery.

So much of this movie is spent with Polanski channeling Hitchcock. It is more of an exercise in style than in trying to be that plot driven movie, but it works in both aspects. Not as much as say Polanski's Chinatown, which deals with similar themes of political corruption, but I can make the argument than no other movie in the history of cinema works as well as Chinatown.

So far The Ghost Writer is the best movie of the year and I fully expect it to be on my top ten of 2010. It features interesting parallels to Polanski's real life drama, as well as parallels to Tony Blairs life all wrapped in a conspiracy murder mystery. Not to mention another excellent cameo from the great Tom Wilkinson.

****

Davis Discovered

As many movie as I have seen, there are still directors, actors and writers that despite their fame have for some reason or another escaped my gaze. I can now cross Bette Davis off that list of famous starlets that have done so much for the industry yet I have not seen any of their work. Davis was nominated for 11 oscars in her career, winning two, and perhaps should have won for her work in The Little Foxes (1941).

Directed by William Wyler (who in his own right is historically successful and someone else I need to watch more films of) this film is adapted from Lillian Hellman's play and Hellman also penned the screenplay. What I always notice about plays that are successfully transformed into films is how perfect the structure is without being heavy handed. The Little Foxes surrounds a wealthy southern family and the balance between good and evil, greed and morality amongst the family members. Every line in this movies is their for a reason, and everyone represents some theme that later plays into the plot. To do this well is to be a master writer and Hellman seems to me to be a master.

Davis plays the matriarch of the family, her husband is sick and dieing, her brothers need her husbands money for a business venture. Now in the 40's one would think they would play it safe and have their star play the motherly role as a nurturer, but no, Davis brilliantly portrays this women as a greedy, heartless figure who for the sake of money wants her husband to invest in her brothers corrupt business so she can take a percentage. Herbert Marshall plays the husband, he is a generous man, a man ready to do what is right with the time he has left on earth. They have a daughter played a bit over the top by then newcomer, Teresa Wright, who garnered an oscar nomination for this role. Wrights character is naive and innocent and we see she could go either way, down the road of good like her father or inherit the selfishness of her mother.

The Little Foxes not only brings to light the issues of one family but also is a microcosm of America both then and now. Its about the wealthy taking advantage of the poor. Its about those who commit these acts and those who oppose them, and most importantly its about those who do nothing. It is hard not to see this film on a social level, but even ignoring that, the drama of the family dynamic and great performance (especially by Davis) is entertaining enough to call this a very good movie. On top of all that Wylers direction is above average as you can tell he made efforts to use the camera as a device to move the plot forward, rather than always keeping things classically shot. There is one scene in particular where Wyler keeps the camera motionless and lets the drama play out with gripping tension.

Overall this has been a great introduction to Davis, an actress I always just thought of as a classical beauty, and here she really shows her ugly side. Anyone especially interested in writing characters should check out The Little Foxes.

****

Nothing is more exciting than real estate

Guy Ritchie is a director I never really had the admiration for that many of my peers seem to hold. Lately however I want to revisit his earlier work suck as, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch. The main reason I want to see these works again is because I think I will have more respect for the filmmaking after seeing his lesser efforts such as Sherlock Holmes and most recently RocknRolla (2008).

Unlike Holmes, RocknRolla incorporates more of Guy Ritchie's signature themes of coincidence, humor, gangsters and deals gone wrong. It is complex, quick and stylized with sharp dialogue. On most all accounts it should be considered up there with his other films, but it seems to fall flat where it most counts, with intrigue. The film never gives itself enough time to breathe and let us get to know these characters and the situations they are in that we don't care what is going on.

It is always fun to watch Tom Wilkinson as a bad guy. It is always nice to watch guys who don't seem to let a thing in the world bother them other than trying to look cool. It is intriguing to see people fight to the death in a unusual manner, but the issue is Ritchie doesn't emphasize any of these moments and because of that they all feel like a throw away. A good example of this is a scene where Gerard Butlers character, named One Two, gets found by two Russian mobsters. We think they are going to kill him right away but instead there is a scene where they tie him to the bed and look like they are about to have some psedo-sexual fun with him before killing him. Ritchie presents this very casually with no time to let it sink in, we know, One Two will not have to go through with this. If you compare this scene to a similar scene in Pulp Fiction where Tarintino allows for the scene to play out, you can understand why one film succeeds and the other doesn't.

RocknRolla is better than his more successful film Sherlock Holmes. However don't go into RocknRolla expecting any of the directors best works. You will be mildly entertained, but Ritchie needs to trust his material enough to let his humor and style play out.

***

Leave it to Beaver turned on its head

I have talked before about my slight unfamiliarity with Peter Bogdanovich's work during my review of his great film Paper Moon. Now having seen what is considered by many as his quintessential work The Last Picture Show (1971) I think I have a much better understanding of Bogdanovich as a director and storyteller.

The Last Picture Show takes place in a run down, nothing to do town in texas in the "innocent" 1950s. The interesting thing about nothing to do towns is that is where people tend to do more to make up for their self proclaimed boring existence. The film starts out quaint enough, being filmed in black and white with deep focus, really adds to the authenticity and the nostalgia of the 1950's. We meet the young high school seniors whom we find out early aren't good at football, and the older towns people try and shame them on this, but they don't seem to care. We meet Sam the Lion the purest representation of old time texas, he seems to be straight out of a John Ford movie and we will come to know him as the moral anchor of an other wise morally confused town. In the beginning Bogdanovich is pushing our expectations in one direction so that when the layers of affairs, sex, death, teen angst, the Korean War and loss start pilling up, they hit us hard.

Timothy Bottoms plays Sonny, the eyes and ears of the audience. He goes through his everyday life trying to figure out what to make of his time hear on earth, and what to do with the relationships he makes along the way. All the characters seem to be searching for something deeper and in their reaching out for that only find broken relationships, sex, war and alcohol. It seemed like only Sam the Lion knew how to make this town work, and once he was gone all was lost.

As I mentioned in my review of Paper Moon, Bogdanovich's style is minimalist but at the same time very self assured. With no wide shots, and many deep focus close ups, we get a sense of being trapped with the characters. He is not afraid to hang on someone face, and in doing so he really produces a great sense of longing in that character.

At the time of its release much had been made of the acting in this film. After all it got four acting nominations and two wins from the Academy. It introduced the likes of Jeff Bridges and Cybill Shepard, and was the first of six Oscar nominations for Ellen Burstyn. All of these performances are deserving of their recognition and I would have even added Timothy Bottoms name to that Oscar list.

I can see how when The Last Picture Show first came out it was sort of shocking to audiences. It was about an era that had not long since past, it came on the heals of many films like Easy Rider and The Graduate where consequences where second thoughts to freedoms. In a weird way it almost works in that same vein now. The early seventies were long enough ago to watch a film like this in black and white and not be off put by it, maybe even think its normal, and in evoking a time long since gone, we only have the memories of films and television of that time, which makes The Last Picture Show still shocking to our expectations.

This is a great film and maybe deserves five stars, but what it does in style and substance it lacks in personal connection. I liked Paper Moon better only because I liked that relationship better than any in The Last Picture Show, but the film still deserves praise and recognition for its achievements.

****

Top 10 Movies of 2009

So I have seen around 33-34 movies in 2009. I don't have all the time in the world so I try to see the more critically hyped films or interesting films, but still some where much better than others. Some were bad The Hangover, Away We Go, some were disappointing Public Enemies, The Road and some just missed the cut A Serious Man, 500 Days of Summer. And without further ado.....

10. Precious

9. Avatar

8. Bad Lieutenant

7. An Education

6. Moon

5. Where The Wild Things Are

4. Sin Nombre

3. The Hurt Locker

2. Inglourious Basterds

1. Adventureland

A look at the other side

James Cameron's Avatar has been praised for taking us to another world. A place that we are utterly unfamiliar with but can revel in its beauty. Avatar is not the only film this year to take me to a unique world I know nothing about, but so has Cary Fukunaga's beautiful Sin Nombre (2009). I am now glad to have waited to put up my best of the year list until I saw Sin Nombre because I have a lot to say about it, and it certainly deserves a spot on that list.

Lets start with the direction. Fukunaga is now officially on my top five directors of the year list, right in front of the Coen brothers. That means with all his millions of dollars I am kicking James Cameron off that list. I don't know how he is able to do it, but Fukunaga places his crew and camera in the middle of this culture. You are immersed in these people's lives as they try to escape South America and make their way north to America. I know he couldn't have gotten permission from everyone involved in this movie, they were not extras, he must have just shot and shot and the result is an immersive feeling that all the CGI in the world couldn't recreate.

The story surrounds Willy or El Casper as his gang calls him as he tries to balance his life between his girlfriend and the ruthless gang he is in. You can read on his face that this is not the life he has chosen, but he is strong enough to be apart of it, but smart enough to know its not for him. Eventually the two worlds collide in violence and he makes a decision that ultimately seals his fate, but at the same time releases him from the psychological prison that is being in the gang. Willy is played by newcomer Edgar Flores, who is nothing short of spectacular here. As an audience member you just like watching him, your drawn to his silence, his rage is always below the surface, if he was white and lived in the 50's we would be talking about him on the level of Dean or Brando. He commands the screen with such ease, and I hope people take note of this and put him in other films. The problem with him is I don't know if he has much more range or a broad enough appeal and sadly this may be the only thing we see of Edgar Flores.

Willy has a young friend Smiley who wants to be in the gang. Willy doesn't encourage it, or dissuade him. Smiley being all of 13 or 14 has to commit a murder of the rival gang as initiation. The film deals with this in passing, as if it is just another day, which makes it all that more haunting. Eventually Willy becomes the target of his own gang and it is Smiley who is sent after him. It is the plot of a great noir thriller but set on the rails of Mexico. Structurally the film stays away from the super realistic storytelling of other films of this yoke and instead doesn't forget that this is a movie, and tries to both entertain and inform.

While Willy is going threw his ordeal he meets up with a young lady named Sayra played by Paulina Gaitan who is heading north to meet up with family in New Jersey. Those two's fates become intertwined and that sets off our inevitable conclusion. Unfortunately this is the one misstep this movie takes as I never believed that Sayra and Willy's motivation to be together was ever that clear or believable, and unfortunately it does hurt the films climax. Had that worked better, Sin Nombre may have been my favorite film of the year.

One more huge note to be mentioned is the Cinematography, which is hands down the best of the year. And I am not talking about mistaking beautiful landscapes for great cinematography, but somehow Adriano Goldman was able to get his 35 MM camera in such tight and unusual spaces and with what seemed like just natural light create great contrast and lighting. Some of the stuff on the train should be a class in using natural light.

I can see comparisons to the more popular film City of God, and if you are a fan of that film check out Sin Nombre which in my opinion is a better movie. Sin Nombre combines a landscape not usually seen, with stories not usually told, and near perfect structure and acting that will leave you contemplating it for days. I am very excited to see what Fukunaga will come up with next. Until then, I hope to see Sin Nombre a second time.

****1/2

Michael Cera will continue his success as long as he never gets laid

They were trying to go for a lot in Miguel Artera's Youth In Revolt (2009) and ultimately landed on nothing. It is a film about the angst of growing up and getting laid (Is that really just a teenage problem?). My love affair with Michael Cera may also be wearing thin as his charm and nerdiness aren't enough to save this movie.

Cera plays a dual role in Youth In Revolt, he plays Nick Twisp and his alter french ego Francois Dillinger. Twisp is a loner, and in love with a girl who is mysterious, flirty and seductive. Twisp has a hard time wrestling with keeping the girl and to do this he invents his alter ego to help him be "bad" enough to impress her.

Lets start with the story itself. It tried to be fresh by inventing this alter ego and really having him go off the deep end, but in the end felt forced and ultimately unbelievable. There was no real flow to the film, it seemed to go from one scene to the next without taking into account the little moments of how they got there. And I know this is a movie about youth and the truths in young adulthood as compared to those adults in the film, but the writer and director could not have made more one dimensional adults. Everyone of them from Nicks mother to Sheeni's Christian Parents to the hippy next door neighbor are painted with a very broad and ugly brush.

Maybe the worst thing about Youth In Revolt is that its comic moments are at best scattered. I wouldn't say this is an unfunny film, but for it to work it really needed a lot more laughs. It to often tries to balance the line between absurd and realistic and to be honest that line doesn't really exist.

None of the performances were bad for what was given. I particularly liked Portia Doubleday as Sheeni, the girl of Nick Twisp's desires. Without her intrinsic charm and allure I wouldn't be able to really hang my hat on anything in this film. Then there is Cera, who is not bad here, in fact if this film had been his first people might be talking about his greatness, but other than when he is his alter ego, we have seen this same thing done much better by Cera several times before. It is kind of sad because I love Cera, I love his comedy styling but he really needs to come up with something else soon or he is going to lose all his fan base. There are certain comedy actors that can do the same thing over and over again (Woody Allen, Ricky Gervais) and it never feel stale but for some reason it doesn't work with Cera. He needs to try to find some more depth and emotion.

Overall I say Youth In Revolt is an absolute skip. There is no nostalgic feelings of youth you will come away from watching this movie, it doesn't shine any new light on what it means to be young in America, instead you may be left wondering what is the point. Part of me wants to yell at the characters in this film and say you are only 17 you will get over this chick, and probably need and want to find someone new, not really worth blowing up buildings for.

**

Time travel on a budget

I was excited to check out Shane Carruth's Sundance hit Primer (2004). I had heard a lot of good buzz about the film, and I was curious how Carruth effectively managed a engaging film about the science of time travel on a budget of under $10,000. Unfortunately I don't think he managed to accomplish that feat. I mentioned in my review of Paranormal Activity that any film with a micro-budget must be taken into consideration when reviewing it, and I will do the same with this film. After all, Carruth was able to make a cult science classic, that seems to have kept people engaged just solely on the "nerd effect". And what I mean by the "nerd effect" is this movie appeals to those who want to break down the science and or inconsistencies and theorize about what could or would not have happened. For everyone else, I dare say, it was just boring.

Yes the budget was extremely low, and the filmmakers where clever with it at points, but at points it really hurt the film. There is very poor ADR throughout and during moments where seeing duplicates of people in the same scene would have been effective, the budget obviously doesn't allow for that.

I will be the first one to admit that I may be missing something here. But the problem is I am was not engaged enough in the story to even want to go back and re-watch the film. The reason I have these lackluster feelings about Primer is because without interest in the content there is nothing on an emotional level to grab me either. A film I can see it drawing comparisons too is a great film by Darren Aronofsky called Pi. But the reason Pi works and Primer doesn't is because the science and math are secondary to the story and character.

I mentioned earlier that I believe part of the appeal of this film is "the nerd effect" but also I dare say that there may be a few viewers out there that are to ashamed of not understanding it, that might explain a lot of the reviews with the words, "cerebral", "fascinating", "it will keep you wondering".

Yes maybe LOST can take a tip about how to do time travel from Primer, but they certainly shouldn't go to Primer for story, character or content.

**

Best Director 2009

The what should have beens....

5. Ethan and Joel Coen-A Serious Man

Even if the movie is not a five star film, it is the Coens direction that keeps it engaging. I love watching their work, they are masters.

4. Cary Fukunaga-Sin Nombre

He kicked James Cameron off this list by making a film more rich and emotional than all of Pandora.

3. Spike Jonze-Where The Wild Things Are

A visually interesting and tonally accurate take on the famed children's book deserves Spike Jones a lot more recognition than he has gotten to this point.

2.Kathryn Bigelow-The Hurt Locker

I wouldn't even rank her number 2 but instead 1B. She brings suspense and most importantly interest to a movie about a war we have not yet favored on the screen.

1. Quentin Tarantino-Inglourious Basterds

There is not much left to say about Mr. Tarantino that has not already been said. He has gone from cinematic lore to a master filmmaker that proves he will continue to make good movies for a while.

Honorable Mentions:

James Cameron-Avatar

Greg Motolla-Adventureland

Tom Ford-A Single Man

Duncan Jones-Moon

Werner Herzog-Bad Lieutenant

Best Actor 2009

Where as with the women there was none to pick from, the men have an abundance. I really could do a top 10 with ease. But lets stick to the classic 5.

And They Are.....

5. Morgan Freeman-Invictus

With almost to much ease this veteran actor transforms himself into Nelson Mandela.

4. Sam Rockwell-Moon

Balancing a duel rule and captivating an audience with no one else on screen. Rockwell succeeds in giving a face to humanity.

3. Colin Firth-A Single Man

He may not have physically looked as horrible as everyone was saying but Firth is perfect as a depressive looking for answers in a bleak world.

2. Jeremy Renner-The Hurt Locker

The performance I most want to emulate this year. He is both a "wild man" and comforting in this adrenaline driven performance.

1. Jeff Bridges-Crazy Heart

Its time, give the man his oscar.

Honorable Mentions:

Max Records-Where The Wild Things Are

Michael Stuhlbarg-A Serious Man

Jessie Eisenberg-Adventureland

Edgar Flores-Sin Nombre

Nicolas Cage-Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

Adam Sandler-Funny People

George Clooney-Up in The Air

Sharlto Copley-District 9

2009 A Moon Odyssey (Spoilers)

Other than my title I am going to try and review Duncan Jones directorial debut Moon (2009) without referencing or debating any of the dozens of Sci-Fi films it pays homage too/rips off. I think Moon is strong enough to deserve a review on its own and I shall give it one.

Apparently in the near future a large percentage of our energy will be harvested from the moon. The work is done by mostly machines but one man needs to be stationed up there for three years to oversee the smoothness of the operation. Sam Bell is that unlucky man and he is played by Sam Rockwell. The basic premise of the film is irrelevant other than to put a man alone, in an isolated position for an inordinate amount of time. Bell's only companion is GERTY, a robot who runs the ship, and is voiced by Kevin Spacey. As the film progresses a possible plot hole involves GERTY's motivations/programing. How does GERTY's actions benefit the company he works for? It could be my expectations of what one thinks a HAL like robot (thats the only one) should be like, but it was one small thing that bothered me.

Where Moon becomes a great Sci-Fi film is in its astute questions and probing of humanity. With Science Fiction what you are ultimately doing is using the unrealistic to magnify the realistic, and in that vein Moon starts asking questions right from the beginning and continues throughout the film. The first major theme it explores is loneliness. We meet up with Sam in the last two weeks of his three year tour of duty. He has already started to go a little crazy, but his spirits are relatively high. The only connection with the earth and his loved ones is through prerecorded conversations sent back and forth. So essentially he has not spoken live with anyone for three years. I began asking myself if I could do that? At what point is loneliness worse than any disease?

Then not to much farther along we have the discovery. Bell finds his own body in the wreckage of a crash that took place. Now the films focus jumps from theme based to plot based. Why are there two Sam Bells? The film smartly doesn't let the question linger to long, as to frustrate the audience. We soon come to find out that the first Sam was meant to have died and this new Sam, a clone, is meant to have taken over for the next three years. We find out that his family, loved ones and life back on earth are just memories implanted in his brain. Then the real hard hitting questions start coming. What is it that makes us human? Memories? Shared past experiences? Are these Sam Bell clones even human? There are hundreds of them. Is it immoral to kill them off, if so, would it have been immoral for the two remaining Sam's to have killed one off to save themselves, the Sam's we as an audience grew attached too? The questions keep coming, and the intrigue behind them keeps us interested.

The ending of Moon felt a bit wasted. Jones had an opportunity to really pull at our heartstrings without being manipulative and couldn't find a way to really make that work. I mean how often do you have one man in a position to save or sacrifice his clone? Instead he sort of passively just lets it work itself out, and the doomed countdown doesn't feel as much of a pressure cooker as it should have.

I have mentioned a few times on this blog about the detriment that first time directors have had on their own work, but here Jones is perfectly suited to take this material and run with it. He does a fabulous job orchestrating what is one of the most minimal movies of the year. Everything about Moon is minimal and Jones is able to keep it engaging and rich. The score by Clint Mansell a guy I have mentioned before as one of my favorite composers (Requiem for a dream, The Fountain) adds another great piece of music to his resume. And all this was done for around 5 million dollars.

Last but not least is the great performance by Sam Rockwell. Rockwell is playing dual roles here and you can tell he is having fun with it. Never are you confused about which clone is which and most importantly he infuses a humanity and personality into each, that lets the audience ask these important questions. Rockwell deserves an Academy Award Nomination for his role in Moon, but unfortunately I know that did not happen.

As you can see I had a lot to say about this film. A better ending and it would have been an easy five star movie.

****

Macbeth Rewritten

Premonition is a dangerous game when it comes to storytelling but if you have a master storyteller like Akira Kurosawa then have no fear you are in for an amazing journey, even if the end is foretold. Throne of Blood (1957) works off a little known piece of work by one William Shakespeare, Kurosawa takes Macbeth and transforms it into a 15 Century film about one mans passive struggle to fulfill a ghostly foretelling of his future as king of the hallowed Spider Web Castle. Taketori Washizu, played by Kurosawa regular Toshiro Mifune is running scared the whole film. He feels trapped by the future and his wife's persistence on the truth of the premonition. Now the question becomes, was the premonition true, or did Washizu by his actions force the desired result?

Toshiro Mifune is perfect in this role. His larger than life actions and reactions suite his character. He is a man who's eyes are always possessed with fear and to look into them even for a second you know that he knows his doom is sealed. Another haunting and persuasive performance comes from Isuzu Yamada, the wife of Washizu. She acts as the catalyst for all that happens. She is both persistent and calculated, you as an audience member understand why Washizu follows her lead. She is the perfect contrast to the spirits in the film, she is like the living ghost, foretelling the future by forcing her hand.

Structurally Throne of Blood is a perfect film. It navigates its plot with a foreboding cloud lingering over it at all times. I often worry as a filmmaker how to deal with a story that is so heavily dependent on a passive unlikeable character (Through The Woods). Kurosawa does it by not drawing to much attention to that character and letting the ultimate sense of demise take over. Although, if there is one thing about the film that kept me from being overly engaged it is this lack of connection to any characters.

The combination of this perfect script along with Kurosawa's immaculate direction gives you a truly layered film. First of all, let me say, I don't know how this man uses so much fog. More importantly his direction is unique here in that he lets a lot play out in very wide open spaces. It is like the characters cannot escape the frame, and or their fate. Between the camera moves and the great minimalist set design, we as an audience feel just as trapped as the characters in the film.

The ending of Throne of Blood has to go down as one of the best endings of all times. The images of the fog and trees and Washizu's downfall are both simplistic and haunting. Yes it may be a sometimes slow ride to get to the ending, and some scenes do drag by todays standard, but as a whole it is a masterpiece.

****1/2

Top 5 Scenes of 2009

My own category

5. Shoot out Scene-Bad Lieutenant

I could watch it over and over again, as Nic Cage in all his crazy glory watches and laughs as a blood bath occurs around him. While we are at it, throw in a break dancing soul.

4. Expectations Vs. Reality-500 Days of Summer

This great split screen scene features Joseph Gordon Levitt battling his expectations in that harsh face of reality, welcome to my life.

3. The Discovery-The Road

Forget any horror film you have seen this year, nothing will scare you more than a gruesome discovery our protagonist stumble upon in The Road.

2. Sniper Scene and Opening Scene-The Hurt Locker

There is Hitchcockian tension in both these scenes. The better of the two is the Sniper Scene which not only features a cameo from Ralph Fiennes but some incredible tension and character development all rolled into one.

1. The Opening and Card Game Scene-Inglourious Basterds

Perfect filmmaking. Enough Said.

Honorable Mentions:

Opening Montage of UP

End of A Serious Man

Edward Norton Cameo in Invention of Lying

Don't screw with Demons

If a film was made for under a million dollars that is something to take into consideration when reviewing the movie. It seems like every ten years there is an ultra low budget horror movie that comes out and grosses itself over times 1000. In 1999 there was the Blair Witch Project and most recently there is the Spielberg backed Paranormal Activity (2007).

There are films like Avatar that seem to shatter my hope for a mass audience enjoying an independent film, so one would think that a film like Paranormal Activity would restore that hope, but its a double edged sword. Let me start out by saying that the film is executed nearly perfectly for the equipment and access Oren Peli the director had at his disposal during the shoot. At first the hand held, consumer camera is distracting and hard to take serious, but once you get used to it, you can enjoy the more supernatural parts of the story. The movie surrounds a young couple and there bouts with a demonic creature. The film is not nearly as frightening or engrossing as the brilliant marketing made it out to be, but it is intriguing and if I have said it once I will say it a thousand times, don't fuck with wigi boards, or don't go starting to looking into Satanic things if your not prepared to find something.

The reason I said earlier that when it comes to the popularity of films like Paranormal Activity that it is a double edge sword for independent filmmakers is because these type of films rely to heavily on gimmicks to lure their audience in. I don't think audiences are seeing this film for any other reason that A. it was sold to them, B. they wanted to be scared. They are certainly not going to go see this film because of an interesting story or new filmmaker that is doing something unique. That is also one of the reasons that this type of film happens only every ten years because it needs its freshness to sell that gimmick to an audience. I don't begrudge the filmmakers this, nor do I begrudge the studios selling the movie, I think where it hurts things is in main stream audiences expectations for ultra low budget films.

The best part of a film like Paranormal Activity is seeing what the filmmaker and cast are going to do next. I wish success to director Oren Peli as he continues to make movies. As far as the actors go it was clear that Katie Featherston was better than her counterpart Micah Sloat, and judging by there future lineup on IMDB, it looks like others agree with me.

Paranormal Activity is a fun exercise in style and budget. It wasn't nearly as frightening as it was made out to be, nor does it have repeat viewing appeal but the film did satisfy and for that it is recommended.

***

Best Actress 2009

Continue the should have beens...

There has been many complaints over the years that females don't get a fair shake at the great leading roles in Hollywood. I couldn't agree more. I have not seen Julie and Julia or The Blind Side so I can't vouch for Meryl or Sandra but even with those two out of my race I only have 3 other nominees and one is technically 2008.

3. Tilda Swinton- Julia

Not a great movie, a bit over the top with the performance, but good enough to make this limited list.

2. Gabourey Sidibe-Precious

I mentioned in my review that I hoped the Academy would not over look her great soul sucking subtle performance. They did not.

1. Carey Mulligan-An Education

She is so captivating, smart, and innocent in this film about the dangers of growing up. I can't wait to see what she has in store for us next.

Honorable Mentions:

None

Et, Tu Bruno

Sacha Baron Cohen takes uncomfortable to a new level in his follow up to the immensely successful Borat, with Bruno (2009). For those who don't know Cohen plays the title character a gay Austrian fashionista who tries to make everyone feel uncomfortable about his sexuality.

I have always been impressed with Cohens go for broke performances. He really does know what he is doing and what he is trying to get at, unfortunately in Bruno what he is going for is humiliation and awkward moments, not social commentary. In Borat we saw him cross over that line a couple times but for the most part he was able to make a point about intolerance and bigotry. In Bruno I think that was his ultimate goal but he really failed miserably. I think he just assumed that his audience was going to take for granted that he was working for the greater liberal good, I certainly didn't. I mean really, is Ron Paul the bigot for getting upset at a man for putting him in a closed hotel room and then coming onto him and taking off his pants. There was also a section with some "redneck" hunters who for all intensive purposes would be the antithesis of homosexuals and be the poster boys for gay haters. They actually come across much better than Cohen had hoped, to the point where I was amazed they didn't punch him out, I certainly would have.

There is a segment of Cohens television show with his Bruno character that is better and more poignant than this whole movie. In this segment Bruno is interviewing a bunch of frat guys and making them do provocatively gay gestures and when in the end it is revealed they are doing it for gay television the frat guys flip out. It is simple, hilarious and makes a point. Bruno on the other hand is overt and over the top.

I am not saying there are no funny parts of this movie, because there are. Its just if you are going to go this balls out (literally) have some more depth and in a weird way, conviction. Don't just try to shock and awe us, but try to make a point. Also, I don't know exactly how Cohen works, but even more than Borat he blurs the line between fact and fiction. Concocting almost exactly what he wants in every scene.

I say that if you really want to see an inappropriate movie trying to make a point then just go rent Borat.

**

Best Supporting Actress 2009

What it should have been.....

5. Kristen Stewart-Adventureland

Shut Up! I totally fell for her in this movie, hair twirling and all.

4. Anna Kendrick-Up in The Air

Kendrick is able to walk a line between idealist, professional and romantic perfectly.

3. Julianne Moore-A Single Man

I may have said in my review that she is not stretching herself in this performance, but even an non-streched Julianne Moore is that good.

2. Vera Farmiga-Up In The Air

She handles warmth, sexuality, and deceit with such ease.

1. Monique-Precious

Too explosive, evil and layered to ignore. Had it been a seasoned actress who gave this performance not a negative word would be said.

Honorable Mentions:

Zoey Deschanel-500 Days of Summer

Diane Kruger-Inglourious Basterds

Maggie Gyllenhaal-Crazy Heart

Melanie Laurent-Inglourious Basterds

Look out for George Clooneys Wing Tip

A month ago before I even saw Jason Reitmans Up In The Air (2009) I pegged it as this years oscar winner for best picture. As the award season has unfolded it seems that it may be overtaken by Avatar or the more deserving The Hurt Locker. The reason for my bold prediction was A. there didn't seem to be any other sure fire winner and B. it was pegged as a movie that very specifically captured the time we live in. It certainly is a 00's movie, but does that make it worthwhile as both art and entertainment?.....I shall explore.

Reitman has an affinity for dealing with characters with jobs that the average person would not want. In his best effort, Thank You For Smoking, Aaron Eckhart plays a fast talking, charming lobbyist for the tobacco industry. In Up In The Air George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham a man who is hired by companies to fire their employees when it comes time to downsizing (that sounds familiar). The new young hot shot played by Anna Kendrick wants to cut out the personalized, face to face firings and have it done by video conferencing (video conferencing that is so like skype). There is also, planes, profiling, airport security, sexting, and alienation from personal connections. It is like Reitman thought of everything that defines our society today and put it in a blender and then wrote the rest of the story around it. I have no problem with this, but the question becomes does the story serve the themes or do the themes serve the story?

For the most part I think Reitman succeeds in his effort to give us a story that is not only topical but poignant. Sometimes however he doesn't know how to real it in when it comes to separating his point from his story. For example I think Clooneys character is too emphatic about living his own life, telling people during motivational speeches to cut off all relationships. I mean would a man his age really be this broadly drawn when it comes to this aspect of his life, or is this there more for Reitmans sake to serve the story. I mean we all know that in the end Clooney is going to realize he needs friends and family. And if you didn't know this, there is a point (spoiler alert) Clooneys sister says "Welcome back" (talk about on the nose). Do we really need this whole aspect about firing people with a video to tell us that personal contact with someone is probably better? Again serving the themes not the story. There are a multitude of examples of this sort of writing, which keep Up In The Air from being that great film.

Make no doubt about it George Clooney deserves to be a movie star. There had been a lot of comparisons to him and Carey Grant in the past, but here the comparisons are apt. The fun of this film is watching Clooney and his charm react to Kendricks sensibilities or watching him act off of the great performance by his female counterpart played by Vera Farmiga. The dialogue is not as great as everyone makes it out to be, but it is fun, I think they could have gone even more edgy with it.

Both Kendricks and Farmiga deserve recognition from the Academy for there turns in this film. Clooney is great, but sometimes he can be left out because he is playing Clooney. The acting, and Reitmans wit as a writer and director keep this film from every becoming stale or boring.

Don't get me wrong, as much as Up In The Air tries to be cautionary tale of our time, it smartly does not end with an uplifting answer to all our problems. Despite it being on the nose too many times the film does try to challenge us in the end and I respect that.

***1/2

Not A.....

Big Fan (2009) is the directorial debut of Robert D. Siegel, most famously known as being the writer of the Darren Aronofsky directed film The Wrestler. I bring that fact up not only because it is relevant but also because it gives a good comparing work to use in reviewing Big Fan.

Patton Oswalt stars as a loner New York Giants fan who still lives in his mothers basement and nightly calls into his local sports radio station giving Philadelphia Eagles fans hell while at the same time pushing for his own Giants team. To Oswalts Paul Aufiero this is the life he wants, the life he choses, he has no delusions of greater things and when presented with a realization he could have had, represented by his lawyer brother, he only gets sickened by the thought. I don't know if Paul is necessarily lonely or if he has found his own version of being content in his small world of fan-dome and sports radio. The characterization of Paul's intentions is an interesting question that is never presented with an answer which in a way hurts the movies ending and motivations.

Now lets start talking about Siegels direction and comparing it to that of Aronofsky's in The Wrestler. Lately on this blog I have talked about several films where a first time director has hurt their writing by taking on both duties, this film is no exception. Siegel tries to infuse Big Fan with a grit and naturalism very similar to what Aronofsky did in The Wrestler but instead leaves moments feeling hollow and unemotional. Where as you watch a master director like Aronofsky he can take that same tone and transcend it into a collective memory for his audience, or a moment of emotional truth. Since both films are character peaces then they obviously depend on their main actors both of which were good (Rourke was unbelievable) but Siegels direction added nothing to the character or the moments that character was having. Big Fan is a good start for Siegel but he needs more experience behind the camera to really make a worthwhile powerful small film.

One aspect of this film I really enjoyed is something I am calling "taking a look behind the radio". I often listen to sports radio here in Boston and wonder who these guys are that continually call into the same shows day after day. Here Big Fan gives you a chance to see the other side of a very one sided relationship. Paul Aufiero could be one of many guys or gals calling into my local sports radio shows, and gives me something to latch onto in that aspect.

Now lets get into the very hyped performance of Patton Oswalt. Oswalt is no doubt good here, and does not hurt the film, but I am getting the strong suspicion that people are confusing stillness and lack of emotion with great acting. Oswalt is not getting at anything profound here, and this harkens back to my argument of motivation. I think there has been a tendency in the past few years that if you film a person in this verite, realistic, gritty way, that if they are just still enough then you have a good performance, and that is not true. In Big Fan we are starting to see the realization of this backwards thinking and I am here to try to nip it in the butt before it goes to far.

There is nothing about Big Fan that makes me want to say to someone, go see this movie. I hope Siegel learns from this movie and can improve upon it in the future.

**1/2

Matt's Through The Woods Review

Full Disclosure: This is a friends review of my film, so take what you want from it.

“Through the Woods” is about to go ’round the film festival circuit in 2010. It is an independent production which was shot in MA.

Jeremy Fiske (who also wrote and produced) play Jon, an oddball type of character who wishes he was a bit more secure. About everything. His life. His girl. His job. And when he hears of a hunting accident that happened near his house, he soon begins conjuring up thoughts of foul play and murder. And then becomes insecure about his neighbors.

“Through The Woods” is a slow burn and one that builds towards revelation, discovery, and reconsideration. It is as such that a typical synopsis will not due to the film justice. You either haven’t said enough, of you’ve said too much already. It is all mood, and it is a film that won’t quite leave you warm and fuzzy. Which is of course, just as it makers want.

As directed by Lee Carlo, “Through The Woods” is all character study. There is nothing flashy or overly stylized in his direction. It is tried and true basic filmmaking.

Sure, there are portions of the picture that tend to drag a bit. That might be part of the gamble. Carlo and Fiske want you to enter their world and all its uncertanties. They alot you the time to do that. With that price tag (a brave price for any indie filmmaker to pay) comes the occasional extra fat. But it also gives you plenty of time to live with Jon, and learn how he thinks, and, unfortunatley, the actions that result from that process.

If there is to be criticism of the film, it would be in certain plot points that I won’t reveal as they would then be spoilers. But one can suppose that “Through The Woods” isn’t intended to play in a typical reality anyway. It is tragi-comic . At times overly dark and at times a wee bit surreal. There are moments when I am not sure how seriously to take these characters.

Jeremy Fiske as Jon plays up the oddness well. If Fiske is to be faulted, it might be in the writing of the character; certainly not in his performance. I don’t feel like we are given enough to totally understand the character. And insomuch as that is integral, that is unfortunate. But on a minute-by-minute account as performed by Fiske, Jon becomes a sometimes-ticking, sometimes unwound timebomb. He is the kid you might not have looked out for in class; but should have.

There is an old couple in the film as well…and the better half of that couple brings in perhaps the films best performance. She is given some difficult lines and notions to pull off. But I believed every moment.

The ending of the film ties it all up together with a whollop. Is it a hunting accident? Is there foul play? Is Jon becoming unhinged? Who is this old couple? And when the end credits start to roll, I felt, like most everybody else in the picture, it might be best not to go messing around through the woods.

Best Supporting Actors

If the Academy is listening:

Best Supporting Actors

5. Robert Duvall- Crazy Heart

Duvall is the funniest thing about this movie. His down to earth demeanor and free spirited attitude lifts this film up. He steals every scene he is in and makes you smile.

4. Peter Sarsgaard- An Education

I don't know why this performance is being overlooked but Sarsgaard is outstanding as the charming older gentleman that sweeps Carey Mulligans Jenny away. He allows the audience to understand his charm while at the same time having the knowledge of his depravity.

3. James Gandolfini-Where The Wild Things Are

I know it is a CG character but Gandolfini is able to somehow come across as sad and merciful while at the same time angry and longing. He is a slice of Max's subconscious and he is able to bring a humanity that is much needed.

2. Matt Damon-Invictus

I have always liked Matt Damon, but one problem I have always had with his acting is he is always Matt Damon. In Clint Eastwoods Invictus he is able to transcend himself and pull off a very difficult accent as the Captain of the Box Spring Rugby team.

1. Christoph Waltz-Inglourious Basterds

Not much more to say about this performance. If your a betting person put your money on this horse to win the Academy Award. He is all at once evil and charming with a hint of insanity. As fun to watch as any character you will ever see on screen. Look forward to seeing his work in the future.

Honorable Mentions:

Martin Starr-Adventureland

Seth Rogan-Funny People

Michael Fassbender-Inglourious Basterds

Fred Melamed-A Serious Man

Michael K Williams-The Road