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

Film Noir Recycled

I love films that can channel a certain nostalgia. I like when a writer or director can breath some new life into a genre that people have grown to love but maybe has fallen off the radar. Film Noir is one of those genres that can never be recreated as it was in its hey day with films like The Maltese Falcon or The Big Sleep so instead you have to try and put a modern spin on it and that is what Shane Black tries to do with Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (2005).

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang stars the always entertaining Robert Downey Jr. as a man who stumbles upon an acting opportunity and with that follows around a gay private detective played by Val Kilmer. Yes, there are funny moments, yes there are funny lines, Downey Jr. is great and Kilmer is very good, but this film falls far short of being entertaining and or enjoyable. If you are going to do a modern day telling with all the elements of a film noir then you really need to sell them as realistic within that world. Some very successful examples are The Big Lebowski and even more recently Brick. Instead Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang tries to be to much, it plays to hard on coincidence, and Tarantinian moments that don't ring true at all. The film is confusing and it never makes an attempt to make any of the characters likable or interesting enough for the audience to be engaged.

Shane Black is a good writer and he really does his research but tries to fit to much into this story. He probably would have been better served with someone else as a director, someone who could rein in the important elements of the film and keep it from being one big self referential attempt at a modern noir. Most of the time I felt like the film was just screaming at me: "look what I am doing, aren't I clever".

If it wasn't for the performances of Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer I would probably have hated this film. I say skip it and rent Brick instead.

**

The Big One

So where to start with James Cameron's little film Avatar (2009). It cost nearly 300 million to make, nearly 400 million with advertising. It has grossed a gizzillion dollars, it has taken home the golden globe for best picture, it proves once again James Cameron can do no wrong no matter how big the risk. Overall the film should be considered a success and no blogger is going to derail it, nor do I feel like it deserves to be derailed.

Overrated seems to be a word that is thrown around when it comes to this film. However I don't think that word really applies. It is rated how it should, it is visually stunning, engrossing, but the dialogue and story are old and recycled. When your watching it for the first time (and you should watch it in 3D, not only for the glasses, but because it does add an element and isn't distracting) it doesn't matter how one dimensional the characters are, Cameron sweeps you up in this amazing new land and if you go with it you will have an amazing time. What the characters are saying doesn't really matter either, they could say something like "Gammill would make a super hot Avatar" and you would just gloss it over because Cameron's strengths are not in his writing but in his visual storytelling.

What I am really interested in, is what this technology means for future films. I see this going one of three ways. You could have the Pulp Fiction problem where a bunch of movies come out after that try to be like Avatar but don't have the same talent behind them. The technology could stay to expensive to use frequently and we only see the bigger and better names using it for good. The final option is it could kill cinema as we know it and everything turns into a technical free for all, and all our filmmakers forget completely about story and acting. I hope for the middle option.

If you are the only person who hasn't see Avatar, see it, what's another 12 bucks to James Cameron at this point? I don't think Avatar has repeat viewing appeal, its magic is in discovering Pandora for the first time, just like its main character Jake Sully.

****

Straight guys trying to do it? Chick must have directed it

As I continue my round up of the notable films of 2009 I decide to watch Humpday (2009) from writer/director Lynn (girls name) Shelton. Now apparently Humpday is part of a movement called mumble-core, which are films that are mostly improvised and done super cheap (it gets its name from the actors mumbling their lines). I started watching one other mumble-core movie in my day and had to turn it off after ten minutes (the movie will not be named). Despite my one negative experience with the genre I had heard lots of good things about Humpday and was in one sense eager to see it, I also knew the premise and was curious how that was going to be pulled off realistically.

I wouldn't say that it was ever really pulled off so that the audience, especially a male audience would believe that for the sake of art two straight men would have sex. However the film was able to transcend the concept and make it more about thirty somethings trying to cope with adulthood and the differences in there lives. The movie never feels improvised and there are some really really funny yet awkward scenes.

Humpday is about two friends Ben and Andrew, who after Andrew unexpectedly shows up at Ben's house the two reconnect but at the same time realize the differences in their life. Ben is white picket fence, wife and about to start a family. Andrew is a loner, always on the move and experimental. One kind of idealizes the others life and as sort of a plot point and experiment they want to both prove they can do the one thing all straight guys are most scared of....gay sex.

To Shelton's credit the film masterfully presents these characters and their feelings over time and really gets close to nailing (excuse the pun) some human and generational truths. Ben's wife seems to be used as the eye of the audience and the rational character which is very much needed with such a high concept film.

Overall I liked the characters in Humpday, they were just two relatable guys talking, and I felt like I knew them. Maybe I didn't buy the plot points, but the themes and relationships all rang true and that to me was the success of this film. The film may be a mumble-core movie, but it also takes the Bromance to a whole new level.

***1/2

Booze and Country Music

Well I'm getting closer and closer to being able to list my favorite films and performances of 2009. One film I have seen recently with high hopes that it would make that list is Crazy Heart (2009) starting the Jeff Bridges as a (shock) boozy country singer. One reason this film doesn't completely go down a cliched road is Jeff Bridges very truthful and amazing performance, he is Bad Blake.

As I sit here trying to think how to review Crazy Heart I come to the realization that there isn't that much to talk about with this film. It is a total character piece. Yes there is a relationship with Maggie Gyllenhaal but the relationship serves the sole purpose of showing us Bad Blakes strengths and weakness's. We see that Blake is great with children, has a good heart but really can't shake the booze or the life of being on the road. Gyllenhaal is fine here but I didn't believe the two of them together, there was never those moments where they fell in love, and if you can't buy their relationship then half the film is just a simple exercise in characterization. I think the director relied to much on the great music and the lonesome cinematography to supply us with the emotional core of the film. If Bridges was not as good as he was I'm not sure what would be left.

Crazy Heart is a simple down and out film about the difficulties of art and the life it causes. Part of me can relate to Bad Blake and how easily you can go off the deep end. It is entertaining enough and I was never bored by it, but absolutely never engrossed other than in those contemplative moments with Bridges. Bridges is so good here that you believe that these depressive alcohol fueled moments must have really happened to him. You compare it to another performance about an alcoholic that came out this year in Tilda Swinton in Julia where as good as she is, you know it is acting, Bridges doesn't seem to be acting. If I didn't know who Bridges was and saw this film, I would have assumed he has been a great country singer for the past 30 years.

As great as Bridges was, one aspect that is very oversimplified is in his recovery from alcoholism. It happened very easily with no relapses or difficulties after wards. I would have like the film to delve deeper into that recovery process rather than using it as a means to an end.

Two other performances that must be mentioned are Collin Farrell and Robert Duvall. Farrell has been really underplayed here by all the marketing, he has a decent role, he is fine in the film (maybe distracting because he is Collin Farrell), but if he is singing, he is even a better singer than Bridges here. Duvall is the most fun thing about this movie, he is just great to watch, as he plays the mentor with such humor and ease.

I recommend Crazy Heart but don't go into the film thinking your going to connect emotionally. See if for Bridges and see it for some of the music.

***

Single because he is gay....in the 60's

Colin Firth is an actor that I have enjoyed when I saw him in a film. I never sought him out, but never disliked him either. In A Single Man (2009) you see exactly what kind of talent Firth can bring to the table. It is the subtle performance of the year and will be sure to garner both a spot on my list of best performances and a not as impressive Academy Award nomination.

Firth plays a man who has lost his lover to an automobile accident. Firth wonders through the days dark and depressed with a sadness in his eyes, but he is never overt about it. This film was entirely hinging on finding the actor that could express his grief in a way that was subtle and due to the times internal, and director Tom Ford got that with Firth. In a weird way Firth's depression is soothing to the audience, like after you have had a good cry and fall asleep. Julliane Moore plays a women whom Firth is friends with and at one time they were an item. She too is going through similar despair after losing her husband to divorce. The difference is Moore's relationship did not have the same love that Firths did. Moore is also very good in this role, but I have seen her so good so many times I don't feel like she is stretching herself here.

There is nothing remarkable about the story or structure of A Single Man the reason it works is because it is flawless filmmaking from the first time director Tom Ford. Ford first success is in hiring Colin Firth to anchor his film. Ford's eye to find the perfect and beautiful shot is stunning. The cinematography may be the best of the year, and you can see Ford's background in photography in every perfectly executed frame. Thirdly the score is maybe the best of the year, Abel Korzeniowski gives us a haunting and hyptnotic sound that blends perfectly with the visuals. The combination of great acting, beautiful composition and cinematography and a pitch perfect score are the successful ingredients to any film. Also notice the subtle way he ups the colors during those few times that Firth is able to have a moment of happiness whether the joy is genuine or comes from nostalgia of better times.

Despite all the things A Single Man did right, it didn't leave me thinking about it for much time afterwards. It is only now in retrospect that I appreciate so many of the qualities this film brings to the table.

***1/2

There is a murderer on the loose

Does David Lynch hate his audience? It seems to me he does, but yet his audience always rewards him because he is such a talented filmmaker, no matter how much he tries abstract the art. I am not saying there is not a place for mind bending, confusing surrealistic movies, but they don't always appeal to me and sometimes I don't know why people don't get more upset that the wool has been pulled over their eyes. This brings us too Lynch's Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992) the follow up to his popular television series of the same name. Going into this film I was not very familiar with the TV series and expected to be able to take the film as its own story. I think however it would have served me better to have seen the television series, maybe I could have filled in some blanks.

I am not going to go into very much detail about the plot because I don't think it really matters for this review or to David Lynch. Lets just say the film surrounds two murders in the twin peaks area and those looking to solve the murders and those who are involved. What frustrated me most about this film is I know somewhere in the recesses of Lynch's mind it all makes sense, there is a reason for everything he puts in here, but had he toned backed the insanity a few notches and left us with some semblance of plot I would have loved the film. I look at his other works that I admire like Blue Velvet or my personal favorite of his The Elephant Man and I know what he is capable of without losing his, for a lack of a better word, quirk. Twin Peaks has some great characters and acting, despite or because of Lynchs' matter of fact dialogue and over the top emotions. The stand out here is Sherl Lee who plays the doomed Laura. Lee gives a breathtaking performance that is both sexual and sorrowful. She somehow manages to get us on her side, despite her off the rails behavior.

The end of the film is really where I sort of had to check out and just observe. At points when characters where being so over-dramatic and almost winking at the camera, I pictured Lynch laughing and saying they will fall for this. I think most people did, but I have my reservations, and where the film really shows its cards is in the fact that despite my confusion I don't have any desire to revisit the material to see if I can pick up on it next time. Twin Peaks becomes a futile exercise in the bizarre.

**1/2

Life Hurts, Truth Hurts, but its all funny

I finally got around to re-watch a film that had been pronounced my favorite movie of the year, but I wanted to see it again to make sure I wasn't being delusional or just sentimental. Adventureland (2009) directed by Greg Mottola of Superbad fame is hands down my favorite film of the year. It is disappointing to see that most critics are not giving this coming of age story its due.

With Adventureland you get a film that is both sweet and dark simultaneously. Jesse Eisenberg plays James a college graduate who is about to go on a trip of a lifetime to Europe until his father gets a salary cut and his parents can't afford to send him, so instead he has to get a summer job at the theme park Adventureland. If that plot description sounds mundane and simple, well maybe it is, but why it works so well is because the film is about the characters and the relationships that are formed in a summer that turns out to be pretty transformable for all those involved, especially James.

Films like Adventureland may be sentimentally enjoyable for me, but why I love this movie is because I can relate to the main characters struggles with life, the film has very funny but realistic characters and every time I go to turn it on I feel like I am visiting with old friends. Mottolla is able to not only be smart and funny but also consistent (other than Bill Hader and Kristen Wigg's over the top characters).

One of the best decisions Mottolla made was to cast Eisenberg for his lead. I used to say that Eisenberg was a poor mans Michael Cera, that couldn't be farther from the truth, he is a more intelligent, and talented actor than Cera, and carries this film with an ease and a sympathy that allows for the audience to go with whatever decision he may be making. Kristen Stewart is very like-able as the girl James is desiring even if she is always acting with her hands in her hair, you understand why he is interested in her. Ryan Reynolds also gives a nice and subdued performance as a womanizing maintanance man. What really impressed me about Reynolds character is that he finds a way to never alienate the audience from his character making for one of the end scenes between him and Eisenberg really work well. Other than Eisenberg maybe the best performance is given by Martin Star as Eisenbergs friend Joel who is able to be a source of reason while never being able to figure out his own problems.

Adventureland is about discovering love, disappointment, failed expectations and simply what it is like to be a twenty something both now and in 1987. Had I seen this film before I made my top 25 of the decade it would have been in there. So consider it an honorary inductee and my third 5 star movie.

*****

He certainly isn't a bad dad

Where to begin with Bobcat Goldwaith's World's Greatest Dad (2009)? I like to see all the potentially interesting films of the past year so when it comes time to make my best of.... lists I have enough to pull from. I was warned that World's Greatest Dad was a very dark comedy, which of course I like more, but I was still almost not prepared for how sickly dark this movie could get.

WGD stars the great Robin Williams who may be one of the best actors at straddling that line between over the top comedy and pure drama. Here, Williams is in all his reserved glory as a father to a son who quit frankly is very unlikable. It is an interesting concept for a film, what if your child just sucks and is a clear cut future pedophile or rapist. Well Williams does his best to care about his son, and he genuinely does, his son is really all he has in his life, but you can read his disappointment.

Then the movie takes a dark turn and Williams character has to deal with a new life and that is when he decides to take his destiny into his own hands. This film touches on interesting topics such as loneliness, what is art, expectations, and memory. I don't want to touch on these topics anymore because I feel like going into WGD blind is much more rewarding.

Where the movie falls short is in the direction. You can tell certain scenes, especially the ending, where the film works against itself and what it is trying to say by drawing to much attention to the direction. A more experienced director would have done more with the material, but it is a good start for Goldwaith and I will keep an eye out for his future projects.

World's Greatest Dad is far from a light hearted comedy but it also never realizes its dark potential. It had some really funny moments but whenever it got to the point where it could have been more funny and innovative it pulled back. I recommend the film but there are a lot better movies that came out in 2009.

***

Elementary

This is the second film representation of the famous detective Sherlock Holmes I have seen. The first was helmed by one of my favorite directors Billy Wilder when he made The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes in 1970. Despite it being a Wilder movie, I felt it didn't have the wit or speed that would fit the renowned detective or the wit or speed that Wilder himself had become famous for. Now we have Sherlock Holmes (2009) directed by the famously fast and witty Guy Richie, who's cult classics Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch are fun and fast past, a style I could see working well for a movie such as Holmes. However where Wilder failed to deliver with pacing, Richie failed to deliver with character and story.

When I think of the character of Sherlock Holmes I think of a troubled man that is to smart for his own good. You get that here to an extent but what doesn't work is that I never felt worried or anxious for him, I always new he would figure out how to get out of any tough situation. It took the mystery away, and mystery is what makes Holmes such a great character. Maybe part of the problem was Richie though he would just cast the great Robert Downey Jr. and he would bring all the charm and Wit needed that the script lacked. Downey did his damnedest and was fun to watch but couldn't elevate the banality of the story.

Richie's stylistic and for lack of a better word "cool" direction really hurt this story because he jumped around to much, it tried to be to showy and never let the story breathe. I want a Holmes detective story where I am on the edge of my seat, where I don't know where it is, or where its going. With Sherlock Holmes the spectacle is all you get. I didn't care about the villain played by the snarly Andy Garcia look alike Mark Strong. Rachel Mcadams role as the femme fatal was shallow and nearly pointless. Jude Law served the story fine as Watson.

So for me Sherlock Holmes does not deliver and there has yet to be a Holmes movie that I have seen that has. This film needed a little less style and a little more substance and that scene in the trailer with Mcadams in some sexy dress (it wasn't in the film).

**1/2

Best of the Decade

#1

Happy New Year! Here it is, the number one movie of the last decade. My favorite films, have the rare combination of originality, a great structure, great characters, and a truth that works on a emotional level. Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind (2004) has all those qualities and a dreamlike feel that I have never seen before. Charlie Kaufman the writer of the film has already been mentioned once on this list with his brilliant Adaptation, he tops himself here because he is able to get to a truth about love and relationships that has not been expressed before. Just like John Cusak in High Fidelity, Jim Carrey is forgiven for all the bad stuff he does because of this film. Michel Gondry figures out a very unique visual style to tell a story that takes place all in one man's head. Not enough credit is given to Gondry in film history for his superb direction in this film. And then there is the great Kate Winslet who gives one of her best performance. If you have not seen Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind I encourage you to see it (it is the best movie of the decade after all).