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

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