Leon: The Professional

Leon: The Professional
"Leon is a hitman, and happy with his life. When a young girl comes home to find her family has been killed by a drug dealer, she runs to him for help. When she discovers he is a hitman, she asks him to teach her the skills to take her revenge." 


3 Stars 
How do you reconcile the contrast that can arise between a piece of brilliant acting and a case of underwhelming story telling?  Furthermore, how do you rate a film when you have simultaneous guilt about begrudgingly overpraising a weak script in order to avoid dismissing a bevy of superb performances?  Well, in the words of my father, "You just suck it up."


Leon: The Professional is a movie that begins with all the promise in the world.  With virtually no exposition, the audience is thrown into the cold, calculated world of contract killing.  Leon (Jean Reno) is given an order to hit a group of thieves who are just passing through NYC.  We aren't told why they're bad guys, and we don't really need to know.  All that matters is that there's are bounties on their heads, and the ill-fated bastards were unlucky enough to have their numbers picked by Leon.  The tension created by the opening scene itself is stressful, if not almost palpable.  The skill and finesse shown by Leon as he deftly picks off each unsuspecting victim is almost as eerie at it is impressive.  Suffice it to say, he makes Jason Bourne and his commendable skills almost look rough and undisciplined.  But, the scene also gives us a glimpse into the code that Leon lives by, "No Women.  No Children."  While it may seem paradoxical, this concept of "moral standards" for a contract killer is necessary for the story line because, how else is the film maker going to get the audience to pull for an amoral leading man who literally kills for a living?


Enter Mathilda (Natalie Portman) who was able to act at a level that no 13 year old girl has any business to be acting.  I hurt with every one of her tears and I rejoiced with every one of her smiles.  I cannot describe it, but this little girl enthralled to a degree that I found myself genuinely concerned with her safety and emotional state, even though every logical part of my brain kept reminding me that it was all just "for pretends".  I know she just won an Oscar for this year's Black Swan, but if I had my way, she would have placed that golden statue on her mantle 17 years earlier.


And it wasn't just the performance of Reno and Portman that carried the team.  The supporting cast of Danny Aiello and Michael Badalucco was firing on all cylinders, too.  But the highlight outside of the primary duo was unquestionably Gary Oldman in one of his first major Hollywood roles.  Oldman plays Stansfield a corrupt, ironically drug addicted DEA agent who is the quintessential loose cannon.  These are the types of villains who really get my adrenaline pumping in a movie.  These kinds of characters who follow no rules and show no mercy to anyone or anything that stands in their way.  You honestly do find yourself convinced that Stansfield is going to kill the 13 year old Portman in the first 15 minutes of the film, even though you're head reminds you that's not going to happen because the movie is two hours long and you may need a protagonist.  There is a fine line between a crazed lunatic and psychotic villain that Oldman treads terrifically.


But, alas, the performances (as spectacular as they are) are pretty much the only thing worth praising about the film.  While the direction is above average, the story just leaves so much to be desired.  The back stories of Leon, Mathilda, and Stansfield are only touched upon, and I found it hard to wrap my head around all that was going without knowing what the characters motives were.  The scenes involving Mathilda's "training" almost felt like an afterthought and the subtle undertones of a potential sexual relationship between Mathilda and Leon was just bizarre.  While in most situations "less is more", in the particular case I felt that further developing the relationships of all the main characters could have done nothing but enhance the plot.


So, while I wanted so badly for this one to become one of my more revered films, I think it has to fall into the category of a disappointment.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's definitely worth watching, but you will have to power through a couple aspects.  Because the movie was shot in the early nineties, the wardrobe and hair styles reflect as such.  Maybe it's just me and my snobbish ways, but I sometimes have trouble taking seriously the guy in a Miami Vice green suit and Kenny G hair firing off rounds from an Uzi, but maybe I'm just old fashioned that way.  But, if you're looking for some shoot 'em up, you're going to find it.  The movie isn't gory, per se, but it is most definitely bloody, and I'm talking Tarentino bloody.  There is definitely a legitimate argument that could be made implying the movie may have been somewhat diminished by getting sucked in to the explosions and car chases that seemed to permeate the 90s film landscape.  So, while one of the final scenes might end (quite literally) with a bang, for me it was just a whimper.

Spread

Spread
"In Los Angeles, Nikki is homeless, car-less and closing in on 30, but he's amoral, good-looking, and adept in the sack, moving from one wealthy woman of 35 or 40 to another, a kept boy-toy. His newest gig, with Samantha, an attorney whose house overlooks L.A., is sweet, although it's unclear how long she'll put up with him. Then Nikki meets Heather, a waitress. Is the player being played, or might this be love? What will Nikki discover?" 


 3.5 Stars 


Nikki (Ashton Kutcher) is living the kind of lifestyle that any man in his 20s would epitomize, any man in his 30s would question, and any man in his 40s would pity.  He spends his days lounging by the pool, his nights partying at posh houses in the Hollywood Hills, and his mornings waking up next to beautiful women.  An yet he is, by most definitions, a gigolo.  He may not actually receive money for the sex and companionship he provides, but the fact that he is jobless and homeless means that he needs these women just as much (if not more so) than they need him.


When we first meet Nikki, he seems to be at the top of his game.  The insight into the gambits he uses for wooing a woman are conveyed through voice over through out the first 20 minutes or so of the film, but they are not necessarily ground breaking.  Any guy or girl who has even a relative amount of relationship experience would realize that he is simply "playing the game."  Which is why I found it so hard to believe that Samantha (Anne Heche) would be the kind of person to fall for it.  Here is a woman in her late 30s who is single, independent, drives a Mercedes, and owns a $5 million dollar cliff side home in Los Angeles.  I started to ask myself, how am I to believe that a woman like this would fall so easily into the sophomoric game of smoke and mirrors that is this guy's bread and butter?  And then, well, it dawned on me.  Maybe she wanted to.  The writer does an adequate job of hinting at the personal issues that have brought Nikki and Samantha to their respective points in their lives, and why they may just be exactly what each other needs at the moment, even if it's far from healthy.


Most importantly, the film does a good job of avoiding any kind of glorification of Nikki's life.  While he is constantly surrounded by beauty and opulence, there are subtle but persistent feelings of loneliness and dissatisfaction.  While any guy would probably trade places with him for a week, I can't think of anyone that would actually want his life.  He is in his prime, sure, but there doesn't seem to be a gradual decline in store for him.  Instead, there is a looming feeling of a dark of a future with nothing but the hope of rock bottom to eventually and mercifully end his fall.


Enter Heather, played by a thoroughly intoxicating Margarita Levieva.  Up to this point in the film, Kutcher does a decent job of playing an emotionally distant narcissist who is trying just a little too hard to make people think that he doesn't care.  But when the sparks start flying between their two characters, I think that the acting gets taken to a whole new level.  As much as I hate to say it, Kutcher is better when he plays a character that shows heart, and that's what finally comes out when these two characters start their relationship.  


But things aren't always what they seem and the realization that Heather is living the same lifestyle as Nikki brings a whole new dynamic to the film that makes the earlier transgressions almost seem tame.  These are two emotionally damaged people who are almost beyond repair and their relationship becomes, for lack of a better phrase, fucked up.  The actual thought that these people are going to live happily ever after is a pipe dream and any semblance of a "Hollywood Ending" would have completely sunk the movie.  Luckily, the film stays true to form and, while I may not think the conclusion was quite harsh enough, there is enough stark reality tied in to make the film worthwhile.

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men

Brief Interviews with Hideous Men
"In the film, Sara Quinn (Julianne Nicholson) is interviewing men as part of her graduate studies. Her intellectual endeavor has emotional consequences as the men’s twisted and revealing stories are juxtaposed against the backdrop of her own experience. As she begins to listen closely to the men around her, Sara must ultimately reconcile herself to the darkness that lies below the surface of human interactions."


5 Stars

Whoa.  I don't even know what to say.  It's like . . . I mean it's kind of just . . . I can't even explain it . . . just, whoa.  Is this film going to be of a 5 Star caliber for everyone?  Absolutely not, but it damn sure is for me.  Let's begin with the obvious reasons why this film is cooking with the right ingredients.  John Krasinski in his directorial debut has recruited the likes of Ben Shenkman (Angels in America), Timothy Hutton (Ordinary People), Will Arnet (Arrested Development), Will Forte (SNL), Joey Slotnick (Boston Public), Dominic Cooper (Mama Mia), Christopher Meloni (Law & Order: SVU), Clarke Peters (The Wire), Denis O'Hare (True Blood), Fankie Faison (The Wire), Josh Charles (Sports Night), and Bobby Cannavale (Third Watch) into composing a film out of David Foster Wallace's short story collection of the same name.  Now, I must begrudgingly admit that I have yet to pick up any of his works and experience them first hand.  But, general opinion AND the fact that every few months something happens to serendipitously bring my attention to his writing must mean that he is someone I need to take note of.

The lone significant female role in this film is played by a stunning Julianne Nicholson.  I don't mean "stunning" in the beautiful sense (although she is lovely), but rather in the way that she utilizes a relatively small number of lines and is able to still be the dramatic driving force behind the entire film.  Now, attempting to mold a series of short stories together into a cohesive manner on screen is definitely a herculean task.  And frankly it's a task that, while noble, still falls a little bit short.  But man, not by much.

The film almost plays like two distinctly different Acts to me.  The First Act is relatively light and seems to take on a similar tone to movies like He's Just Not That Into You and When Harry Met Sally (a personal favorite) in the sense that we are almost given a set of guidelines or insights into the workings of the male mind and its perceptions.  Now, I feel like I do need to take this time to warn some ladies out there.  Many of the revelations made by men in the film are things that I find to be fairly universal truths when it comes to the male psyche and behavior.  However, many of these insights are, unfortunately, things of which I am not necessarily the most proud.  Let's suffice to say that after watching the first half of the film, I don't think any of the ladies out there are going to be particularly fond of their male companions.  And fellas, as a warning to you as well, you may want to slide over on the couch in order to be just out of arm's reach, because your girl may be overwhelmed with the uncontrollable need to punch you in the shoulder.  Obviously, both sides can do as you wish, but you were forewarned.  But, as a person who is perpetually interested in further exploring the human condition, I found most of the interviews in the First Act to be insightful and thoroughly entertaining.  And, I would suggest that you actually watch the trailer here to get an idea of what you are in store for.

Conversely, the Second Act takes a decidedly heavier and darker tone.  It begins, rather abruptly, with an extended scene featuring Frankie Faison as he, almost disdainfully, recounts the job that his father held as a bathroom attendant in a posh hotel.  To be honest, I almost feel like the scene doesn't have any business being in this film, and I mean that in a respectful way.  This scene is so gripping and powerful, that I almost wish it was a stand alone piece that could be examined and revered for its own brilliance.  Plus, with it's glaring racial overtones, I almost found it hard to relate to the fabric of the rest of the film.

We then jump to a scene between Domini Cooper and Julianne Nicholson that is nothing short of superb.  The entire scene is actually an inter cutting of three separate conversations between the characters that is paced so brilliantly, I almost found myself moving to the edge of my chair as the tension grew so tight that it became palpable.  This scene is the one is most obviously added for relative shock value, but the entertainment factor alone let's us forgive the director for adding something so brash.

The last major scene occurs between John Krasinski and Julianne Nichiolson in which the audience is finally given a clearer view as to what exactly has been going on throughout the film and why the female character has been performing these interviews with "hideous men".  John Krasinki actually delivers a powerful monologue that will make you completely forget that the bread and butter of his career has been portraying the affable Jim Halpert on The Office.  He recounts a story that, while the "wires" of it may fray at times in the middle, he concludes with such a blindingly poignant moment that I challenge anyone not to sit back in their seat and say, damn.

So, while I can't predict the reception that each individual person may have to the film, all I can say is that this film was one I whole heartily believe is worth watching, and I hope some of you do too.

Barney's Version

Barney's Version
"Take a ride through the life and memories of Barney Panofsky, a hard-drinking, cigar-smoking, foulmouthed 65-year old hockey fanatic and television producer, as he reflects on his life's successes and (numerous) gaffes and failures as the final chapters of his own existence come sharply into focus."

4.5 Stars

As the film opens, you may find yourself wondering if you have accidentally stumbled in an infomercial about DI-UH-BEET-US because, whether they meant to or not, the make up artists were able to age the initial antagonist Mark Addy into a spitting image of Wilford Brimley.  Now, if you don't understand that reference, don't worry because it wasn't that funny and, I have to admit, a little obscure.

But moving on, let's talk about the movie.  First and foremost it's important that you take the title of  "Barney's Version" into consideration when it comes to interpreting the accuracy of the events of the film.  Barney (played brilliantly in this case by Paul Giamatti) is an unreliable narrator who, although he never actually does a voice over, is giving the audience his recollection and the correlating interpretation of his life.  This intriguing framing device might be most evident in the scene where we see Barney fall in love with his eventual 3rd wife while at the wedding reception to his 2nd wife.  On the surface, it appears as though Barney falls in love with Miriam based on 3 simple criteria - 1) Her looks.  2)  Her appreciation a good Monte Cristo cigar.  3) Her thoughtfulness to update Barney on the final score of a Stanley Cup match he was missing due to the wedding.  Now, this may come off as relatively shallow and almost flippant when you consider the fact that a newly married man is pursuing another woman at his own wedding reception.  But, the romantic in me likes to believe that Barney is experiencing the extremely rare (if even possible at all) Love at First Sight.

Miriam, the object of Barney's affection is played by a surprisingly powerful Rosamund Pike.  I mean, let's be honest, Paul Giamatti can't seem to walk more than 10 feet without tripping over an Academy Award nomination these days.  But Rosamund Pike almost gave me the feeling that she was the critically acclaimed actor instead of the relatively green performer that she actually is.  And that's a conclusion I cam to in spite of the fact that I wasn't necessarily as infatuated with her as Barney was at their initial meeting.  But, even though it took me a little longer, by the end of the movie I was head over heels for her.

There are a lot of other impressive performances in the film too, like that of Rachelle LeFevre and Scott Speedman, but the one I feel I must point out as being superior to all the rest is Dustin Hoffman's.  He plays the boisterous, sometimes border-line inappropriate role of Barney's father Izzy to damn near perfection.  Izzy is a retired New York beat cop who spent 30 years patrolling the "mean streets" and persisted in the face very thinly veiled anti-semitism by administering his own (slightly law-bending) form of justice.  In spite of a hard life, he comes of as a wise, jovial man with no regrets and one I could probably listen to for hours over a glass of good bourbon.

Now, the film does come off as a little left-of-center, but I don't mean that in any sort of negative way.  Nor do I mean that as a code word to imply that this is a weird, artsy movie that only a certain niche of movie-goers are going to appreciated.  But rather, I guess what I mean is that there does not seem to be one particular, all-encompassing theme or direction for the film.  It does jump around quite a bit through various time lines, but the action is never difficult to follow, in fact it's quite the contrary.  This is a direct result of the excellent make up done to the aging characters.  Make up so good, in fact, that it was nominated for an Academy Award.

But, at its very core, I feel like this film is just a portrayal of the common experience we all share of being human and trying to find our own bliss.  Inherently, the mere fact that we are human means that we all have the imperfections and insecurities that have to come along with it, and Barney is no exception.  He is just a decent guy trying to do the best that he can, and this is his story.

The Company Men

The Company Men
"When the GTX Corporation must cut jobs to improve the company's balance sheet during the 2010 recession, thousands of employees will take the hit, like Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck). Bobby learns the real life consequences of not having a job. Not only does he see a change to his family lifestyle, and the loss of his home, but also his feelings of self-worth."

3.5 Stars

One of these days, maybe a few hundred years in the future, the history books are going to look back at this period of American history and, hopefully, they will be taken aback by the lives and work ethics our society has grown accustomed to.  It would seem to me that, for most of human history, people have worked to live.  But the last 75 years or so seem to exhibit a reversal of that philosophy, because people now seem to just be living to work.

From a very young age, Americans buy into the fact that they are born to pursue that elusive American Dream.  That lofty ideal that if we work hard and show others that we are committed to a cause we will, in turn, be rewarded with a big house, fancy cars, and a summer home on a tropical island.  Now, don't get me wrong, I like to indulge in the extravagant just as much as the next guy.  Like Tommy Lee Jones begrudgingly admits at one point in the film, "I like $500 lunches and $5,000 luxury hotels."  But somewhere along the way the American Dream became flawed.  We essentially give our lives to our jobs in the belief that everything will pay off in the end.  We can justify taking on some debt, because we have a good job and there's no reason to think we won't have it forever.  Even more so, our psyches are warped enough to believe that the biggest change that may happen to our status quo is the possibility we'll get a better job with an even bigger paycheck.  I mean, after all, this is America.  As long as you work hard and take advantage of the opportunities that arise, you can only move up the corporate ladder, not fall down it.  We did everything right.  We got the college degrees they told us to get and made the sacrifices they told us to make.  Now it's their turn to hold up their end of the bargain.

Well, more so than anytime in recent memory, we must face the blunt truth that nothing in the corporate world is guaranteed.  While we may be doing exactly what we're supposed to do, it may not be enough.  And even the most fortuitous of us can end up on the street passing out resumes and  going to job interviews with anyone who will grant us an audience.

But if ever there was a time to appreciate a silver lining, it would be now.  Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) goes through the same situation that millions of American across the country have had to endure over the past few years.  A massive and life altering change that leaves him contemplating not only his future, but his self worth as a provider.  But a wonderful thing happens along the way, he realizes that once all the opulence and material possessions are stripped away, he is left with one important thing, his family.  And, ironically enough, isn't that the reason he tried to chase the American Dream in the first place?

The Company Men presents a refreshingly accurate portrayal of the fear and angst that has become an all too common thread in the lives of people across the country.  Now, I will admit that, initially, I had a hard time identifying with the characters and truly believing them as everyday corporate businessmen because I knew (in real life) they were all actors and probably had never seen the inside of a cubicle their entire professional careers.  Luckily, they were able to win me over very quickly.  Perhaps it was the fact that I got distracted by the mention of Mobile, AL (my hometown) as one the firm's shipping yards they had to shut down.  But, more than likely, it was because everyone put forth genuine and heart felt performances.

The cast is full of great actors like Craig T. Nelson, Ben Affleck, Kevin Costner, Chris Cooper, and Tommy Lee Jones.  But, to be fair, Tommy Lee Jones could act in a feature film about Depends undergarments and I would probably find it entertaining, but that's besides the point.  The script is lean and mean.  In his directorial debut, John Wells (of West Wing and ER prominence), has put together a story and a cast that did a sincere and just job in portraying the Great Recession in the most realistic way possible.  And he has done it without mincing many words or drawing out many scenes.  There are numerous plot elements that essentially happen off screen while the audience is left to assume what happened and fill in their own gaps.  But the brevity is sometimes necessary to keep the characters developing and the story lines balanced.  Both of which are achieved very well.  So well, in fact, that the film almost takes on documentary feel (and I mean that as a compliment).  But the added bonus of it being a story of fiction is that the audience is able to see the more intimate moments in the home lives of the characters and the struggles they are having to cope with after being knocked down from their lofty perches.

One criticism of the film might be that the script isn't as realistic as, well, reality.  But I think that's okay.  Granted, the film doesn't end in happily ever after and there are plenty of tragedies along the way, but I can see why some people may think the characters' journeys aren't as grueling as their real-life counterparts.  But we have to remember that it's a movie.  It's meant to be a work of fiction and, if nothing else, it's meant to put forth some semblance of hope.  If it were completely true to form, then it might be too depressing to watch.

And, thankfully, the film doesn't try to do too much.  It doesn't simplify things to the point where the implication is all big corporations are evil and all CEOs have made pacts with the devil.  Although I'm not entirely convinced that they aren't and that they haven't.  But what it does do is paint a picture of what the new normal is in America.  Now, am I naive enough to think that this shake up in the American Dream will prevent us from repeating our mistakes?  No.  I have no doubt that people will continue to do what they can to buy the McMansions and drive the Porsches.  But hopefully this movie can be an reminder of what should be important and what we really should be working for.  An hour at home is worth 10 in the office.  And, I can only speak for myself, but when I look back on my life, I know that I'll be remembering the times when I was surrounded by loved ones and not the times when I was surrounded by cubicle walls.

PS - I don't mean to cheapen the review in anyway here, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that Maria Bello has to be one of the sexiest 43 year olds in the world.  This isn't a new revelation for me, but it is one that I felt I had to reiterate.

Blue Valentine

Blue Valentine

"The film depicts a married couple, Dean Pereira (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy Heller (Michelle Williams), shifting back and forth in time between their courtship and the dissolution of their marriage several years later. Dean is a young high school dropout, working for a New York City moving company. Cindy is a medical student living with her unhappy parents and caring for her grandmother in Pennsylvania. They meet by chance and fall deeply in love in a matter of weeks. They rush into marriage after discovering Cindy is pregnant from a previous boyfriend, Bobby (Mike Vogel). The story of their courtship is inter cut with one disastrous weekend near the presumed end of their marriage. Dean is painting houses while Cindy works as a nurse and they care for their young daughter in rural Pennsylvania. In the hope of resurrecting their troubled relationship, Dean brings Cindy to a tacky romantic motel where they only fight more, and Cindy is called away in the middle of the night to work at the hospital. Dean shows up at the hospital angry, leading to a violent altercation which seems to doom their relationship and make divorce inevitable."

4.5 out of 5 stars

Now, this is what you call a rare and beautiful blend of powerful acting and inspired movie making. Blue Valentine will be one of the best movies you will see this year and, if it isn’t, please let me know what kind of stuff you’re watching because I'm going to need to accompany you to a few flicks. 

This is the type of film that should garner your respect for the sheer fact that it gives you respect in return. Unlike most of your mainstream love stories that have to cater to the dumbest of movie goers, this film trusts that the viewer is smart enough to figure out some things on their own. At times, a simple look is more than enough to convey to the audience what a character would normally have to actually say out loud. And the transition between scenes is peppered with just enough subtle hints to help the audience realize what may have just happened or where the character is coming from. You really do have moments where you forget you are watching a film and, instead, feel like you are sitting in the character’s living room watching their actual lives fall apart.

Truthfully, I haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain or Shutter Island, so I may be coming late to the party on this one. But, Michelle Williams has some legit dramatic acting chops, way more than I would have initially expected. I already knew this was true of Ryan Gosling (just see Lars and the Real Girl or Half Nelson). But she has absolutely no problem going toe to toe with her formidable co-star and, at times, making him blink first.

I should also take this opportunity to forewarn all the ladies out there, who seem to be so infatuated with Mr. Gosling, about his physical appearance. The film’s framing device is a constant switch back and forth from the beginning of the couple’s relationship to (what would appear to be) the probable end. Now, the reason that this may surprise a few of you, is that the makeup artists obviously aged him a few years with the help of a receding hair line and the addition of a few extra pounds. It isn’t something so drastic that it takes you out of the movie, but his multi-toned, 80s style sunglasses in the later scenes definitely make him border on child molester status. 

But back to the framing device. The director does an absolutely phenomenal job of moving back and forth between the time lines sparingly at first and then dialing up the frequency gradually as the tension escalates to a fevered pitch. By juxtaposing the time lines of these two immeasurably different points in their relationship, the director is able to give the audience a much more well-rounded and in-depth look at the characters. They, just like all of us, are flawed and somewhat damaged individuals. Sure, at the beginning of any relationship, things are wonderful and exhilarating. But what happens when we go past the point where most movies end? What happens after Richard Gere climbs up the fire escape to get Julia Roberts? What happens after Tom Hanks meets Meg Ryan at the top of the Empire State Building? 


Sure, we want to hope that they lived happily ever after, but life isn't always a fairy tale.  In fact, most of the time it's far from it. What this movie does is present a look at two people who found each other at a point in their lives where they each had substantial emotional emptiness that only the other person could fill. Does that connection alone create a strong enough foundation for a marriage to be built upon? Probably not. But is the relationship still an important one worth having?  Absolutely. At its core, this movie is just a raw, poignant look at two people who may have been right for each other at one time, but sadly may not be right for each other for all time.

Inception

Inception

"Dom Cobb is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the dangerous art of extraction, stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state, when the mind is at its most vulnerable. Cobb's rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible-inception. Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists have to pull off the reverse: their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But no amount of careful planning or expertise can prepare the team for the dangerous enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming."

4.5 of stars

This review is probably a moot point because it seems that everyone and their mother has already seen the film, but if you haven’t, here we go. I’m not going to hop on the bandwagon quite as hard as most people (the movie already has the #3 ranking of all time on IMDb). Not to say that movie isn’t good (it most definitely is), but let’s take a minute to let the hype die down before we start throwing out Oscars.

First off, kudos to Chris Nolan as both an artist and a business man. He hasn’t directed many films, but the few that he has (Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight) have all been truly worthy of both their critical and financial success. That being said, this film doesn’t stray from that model. We’re heading into the 4th week of Inception dominating the Box Office and, while it may slip, the money is going to keep rolling in. The main reason for this, aside from the film being entertaining, is the subject matter . . . . dreams. If you’re a person who likes to talk or get up and go to the bathroom during the movie, then you’re going to have a hard time watching this. Every scene is important and engages the audience in such a way that makes you feel like you’ve completed a “mental marathon” by the end. But don’t let the cognitive calisthenics scare you. While the subject matter is somewhat complicated, the direction and storytelling is at such a high level that I never had to stop and ask for directions. There may be a few scant moments where you need to repeat what you just heard to yourself to make sure you comprehended it, but then you’re right back in the action. And that’s really saying something seeing as how Nolan basically built this world entirely from his own brain. There aren’t a lot of “rules” once the characters enter the dream worlds, but once they do Nolan does a masterful job of making sure everyone adheres to them.

Character-wise the cast is pretty solid. I haven’t been a Leo-hater like some people. Aside from Titanic, he has had some impressive performances from a very young age (see The Basketball Diaries and The Quick and the Dead), and his portrayal as a tortured soul in this movie really could not have been delivered much better. He is constantly haunted by the appearance of his dead wife in his dreams (played by Marion Cotillard). Aside from her sexuality that almost drips off the screen, the choice of Cotillard as his wife is somewhat ironic. Christopher Nolan claims that this is purely coincidental, but the song that is played in the movie multiple times to alert the dreamers they are about to wake up is "Je Ne Regrette Rien". What makes this ironic is that Cotillard won an Oscar two years ago by portraying Edith Piaf who was the real life singer who made the emotional song so famous. And yet another case of happenstance is the face that she beat out Ellen Page for the coveted golden statuette. Ellen Page, in fact, plays the young architect who Cobb hires to design the world for this most intricate of heists. Now, at first I wasn’t a big fan of the casting choice. I love Page in the things she’s done, but I thought I was going to have a hard time taking her seriously for 100% of the movie. Let’s be honest, her bread and butter is a dead pan delivery of lines that would make John Belushi blush. Nevertheless, she proved to be more than capable of holding her own. I’m not saying someone else couldn’t have done just as good a job, but when I heard they initially wanted Rachel McAdams or Emily Blunt I was glad to see they decided on Page. Mostly because there was no stilted love story that had to be concocted simply because you had two attractive leads. Page is cute, but her age and relative plainness let me focus more in on what was going on around them rather than having to be bothered with the possibility that Leo and Ellen might have a scene where they were knocking boots.

As is often the case, I feel this movie may have a little less edge because it came out after the Matrix. The similarities are undeniable, but are in no way strong enough to really take you out of the movie. As much as I was intrigued that the “rules” Nolan developed for the dream worlds, I was almost as impressed with the things he left out. The basic concept of sharing a dream and the machine that makes it all possible is never really addressed, and it doesn’t need to be. We’re talking about an experience that is unique for everyone, so sometimes a storyteller just has to say ‘You just have to accept this’, and we do.

My only major strike against the movie is probably the lack of character development for the supporting cast. While we are invited to delve deep into Leo’s psyche and learn about his thoughts and experiences, we barely scratch the surface of any of the other characters. I felt like some more weight could have been added to the movie if we had a vested interest in the success of all the players instead of just Leo. But, sometimes, that’s just the way it goes.

At its core, this film really just is a typical “heist movie” wrapped in a mind-blowing blanket of the subconscious world. Set aside my objections about the relevance of time in dreams and a minor plot hole towards the end, and you will have yourself a movie that you are definitely going to watch more than once . . . and probably one more time after that when you’re on ‘shrooms. But the measure of a movie really comes down to whether or not you entertained the audience for the length of time you asked for their attention. And judging by the collective “Awwwww, come on!” that was elicited by everyone in my movie theater at the very end, I think Inception did its job.

City of God

City of God

"City of God is based on a true story that takes place in the 60's where in the slums of Rio De Janeiro two boys growing up in the neighborhood take on different paths in life. The story is told through eyes of Buscape, a poor young fisherman's son who dreams of becoming a photographer one day. His story narrates the violence and corruption surrounding the city and the rise and fall of one of the city's most notorious boss'. Li'l Ze. As war wages on the streets Buscape's only way out of this violent life is to expose its brutality the world through his pictures. Along the way the lives of other are put into perspective as their stories intersect with the events that take place."


5 stars

This movie has actually been sitting in my 'Coming Soon' folder for a while. The reason that I didn't want to write the review was because I was deathly afraid I wouldn't do the film justice. It's an automatic lock for my Top 10 Films of All Time list, and I'm a guy who has seen A LOT of movies, so that is saying something. Because there is no way to do it justice, I am going to stick with the theory that 'less is more', so this review will be short.

At it's very core, this movie is about the struggle between doing what is right and doing what you have to do in order to survive. From its basic premise, the story develops into one that is as beautiful emotionally as it is visually. It transitions effortlessly from scenes of sweetly tender innocence to moments of heart poundingly intense reality. The lines of right and wrong are instantly blurred in a hellish world that most of us couldn't even begin to comprehend. Add all of this to the fact that this film is based on a true story, and I find it hard to believe that anyone will walk out of the theatre without opened eyes and a dropped jaw.

As difficult as this film is to review, it's ever more difficult to categorize. After some serious thinking, this is what I have decided on. When trying to anticipate the scope and theme of this movie, imagine that the movies Snatch and Goodfellas had a baby. Then imagine that this baby grew up a hard, sobering life but was lucky enough to eventually meet a beautiful, sophisticated woman who was the result of a single drunken night of passion between The Lord of the Flies and Blood Diamond. Now, if these two star-crossed lovers (born from greatness) were to have a child themselves, City of God would be it. You don't have to understand that convoluted analogy, you just have to watch the movie.

I've Loved You So Long

I've Loved You So Long

"Former medical doctor Juliette Fontaine travels to Lorraine to live on probation with her younger sister Léa and her family. The bitter, introspective and reclusive Juliette has spent her sentence without any visitors and totally forgotten by her family and now she has problems interacting with her brother-in-law Luc and her nieces. She has to visit every other week her probation officer Captain Fauré and seeks a job to rebuild her life. As days go by, Juliette gets closer to the family of her sister and befriends Luc and Léa's friends, specially Lea's colleague Michel. She slowly changes her behavior until the day Léa discovers the truth."

4.5 Stars

Well kids, it looks like you’re going to have to rely on my review for this movie because Robyn decided to read a synopsis before watching it. I usually do the same thing, but the synopsis she read unfortunately gave away an integral plot point that pretty much ruined the whole thing for her.

That being said, I would highly recommend that you avoid reading anything similar before you watch the movie because you really will be robbing yourself of a great film. You probably need to be in a certain headspace when you watch it as well. The pacing is somewhat slow, but it doesn’t really hurt. In fact, I actually think it adds a great deal to the depth and seriousness of the subject matter. The average viewer’s attention span is so short these days that many movies speed through a characters development in an effort to keep the audience interested. All too often, in my opinion, the pace is so fast that it makes development unbelievable. A character can’t be suckin’ dick for blow in one scene and then be driving the kids to soccer practice in a mini-van 10 minutes later. Sorry, was that analogy a little too on the nose? If a movie asks us to buy into a character they have to make his or her development believable.

But don’t think that you will be bored waiting for something to happen in this film. The mystery and intrigue are very strong and the director does a good job at only revealing small bits of information at a time leaving the viewer desperate for the next piece of the puzzle. When the truth is finally revealed, it is definitely a WHOA moment and one that truly causes an introspection by the viewer as to what they would have done in the same, tragic circumstances.
Now, I don’t say this too often, but no one really could have played this role but Kristin Scott Thomas. Aside from the fact that she had to speak in French for the entire movie, the role was so emotionally complicated only a veteran actress like her could even attempt to take on the material. Needless to say, I think she did an exceptional job (one very worthy of the Oscar nomination).

There aren’t a lot of films today that really make you think the way that this one does. You may have to work a little bit for it, but the reward in the end is definitely worth it.

The Book of Eli

The Book of Eli

"In a violent post-apocalyptic society, the drifter Eli has been wandering to west across North America for the last thirty years reading a unique book that he brings with him. He survives hunting small animals and seeking goods in destroyed houses and vehicles to trade in villages for water and supplies. When he reaches the village ruled by the powerful mobster Carnegie, the man offers a job to Eli to join his gang. Carnegie presses his blind lover Claudia to send her daughter Solara to convince Eli spending the night with him. The girl sees the book of Eli, and when Carnegie beats up on Claudia, she reveals that Eli has the sought book. Carnegie sends his gang to take the book from Eli, but the man is up for protecting the book with his life."

3 stars

The Book of Eli is yet another tale of a lone hero trying to survive in a post apocalyptic wasteland. As much as I hoped that this film would stand on its own, the similarities i t shares with Kevin Costner's Waterworld are hard to ignore. While Waterworld was set in a place where nothing but water existed, Eli's world is a vast desert where water is the most precious resource around. And in this version, there are still roving gangs preying on the weak, but instead of wave runners, these marauders do their duty on motorcycles.

One aspect of the movie that I probably liked was that they didn't delve too deeply into what created the wasteland. They mention that there was a "big flash" about 30 years ago, but any other details are left up to our own imaginations. I feel like it's a good artistic choice because it doesn't really matter to us why the world is the way it is. It doesn't really drive the plot, so there is no sense in wasting important time on it. The only pertinent information we do find out is that all religious texts were burned after the "big flash" because they are believed to have been the reason for the supposed great war that took place. This is really the point where the movie hit a crossroads. I believe that, had they expounded more on the religious undertones, it could have been a very interesting movie. Unfortunately they only touch on the issue briefly, instead choosing to waste more screen time on action sequences that really aren't that exhilarating to begin with.

The fact that all the bibles have been burned, makes Eli's possession of one all that more valuable. He believes that the book contains a message that could prove the be the saving grace of all mankind, while Gary Oldman's character is a tyrant who wants to use the book's words and influence as a way to increase his empire and become a despot. Again, another interesting point about modern religion, but one whose subject matter is dismissed almost as quickly as it is introduced.

The movie itself is just okay. Aesthetically speaking it is somewhat appealing, but that alone does not a great film make. We've all watched super hero and other action movies where we buy into the fact that our lone hero can take on a gang of 20 men and easily dispose of them with an array of well choreographed fight sequences. But this movie puts that faith to the test. After Eli manages to dodge about 200 bullets, he is miraculously able to take out 12 men (each with one shot a piece) almost making the viewer want to roll their eyes.

The pace of the film is almost unbearable for the first hour. While it's obvious the directors were trying to create a sense of drama with long, lingering takes, it instead has the opposite effect and in all truthfulness, made me glance more than once at my watch. Thankfully, Denzel (who had been "phoning in" his performance for the first half) finally comes alive and pulls off a memorable performance in the film's final 60 minutes. Mila Kunis does as good a job as I guess she can. While I respect her comedic ability, I've yet to see her in any dramatic roles that don't seem to be a casting choice based solely on her looks. But the best performance of all is given by Gary Oldman who just seems to be great in nearly every damn thing he does.

The ending does provide a couple twists, but they're more of the caliber that make you simply raise your eyebrows than jolting you to the edge of your seat in a sense of, well, . . . WTF.

Secondhand Lions

Secondhand Lions

"13 year old Walter has had a hard life, with his no good floozy of a mother getting together with many equally despicable men. Before going on yet another husband-hunting trip, she drops him off at the house of his great-uncles Hub and Garth. They disappeared for quite a while in their youth, and are rumored to have acquired a great fortune, which Walter's mother hopes to get her hands on if he can ingratiate himself enough to the two cantankerous men. Though reluctant to put up with him at first, Hub and Garth grow to accept Walter, and even tell him fantastic stories of what they were up to while they went missing. When his mother returns, Walter must take charge of his own life, and decide what he's going to do with it."

2 stars

Now, I know what you're thinking, "Todd, what the hell are you doing reviewing this movie? It doesn't really fall into the category of movies you spend your immensely valuable time on." To you sir, (not ma'am because lets face it, a woman's opinion doesn't matter) I say don't judge so quickly! Wouldn't you like it if a quiet little movie like this were able to fly under the radar and then somehow, as if pulled by the hand of fate, find its way into your life at the exact right time? A time at which, due to your emotional state, you were able to identify so much with it that it automatically becomes a touching, personal favorite that is down right life altering. And a movie that had such an impact that you will be sitting in your living room one day years from now with your starry-eyed grandson on your knee while you play this wonderful film in an effort to connect with your kin and hopefully share a moment that he will remember long after you've passed into the Great Beyond? Well, friend I too share that dream, but unfortunately this wasn't it.

Secondhand Lions is probably pretty much what you think it is, and anyone that has graduated the 4th grade would probably be able to guess the entire plot based on just reading the summary blurb above. I can't say I'm that disappointed because I really didn't have any desire to see it in the first place. I actually only saw it because it was playing during Jury Duty. Between trying to strike up an conversation with the hot girl next to me and vehemently praying to Allah that I didn't get selected to actually sit on the "exercise in human de-evolution" that is an American Jury, I really had nothing better to do than watch the movie that County Clerk Bernice (I swear that was her name) told us Judge Roberts had hand-picked for us.

The plot actually wasn't unbearable and maybe could have managed a little entertainment if anyone involved with the film actually gave a flying fuck. As legendary as they are, Michael Caine and Robert Duval probably wouldn't disagree with you if you accused them of "phoning in" their respective performances. They also weren't able to create enough of a dichotomy between the characters. Michael Caine was supposed to portray the younger, more timid brother. But, as anyone who had seen in him in other films knows, he pretty much owns any room that he walks into, so both Duval and him pretty much ended up playing the same role. Conversely, it seemed like Haley Joel Osment was actually trying, and it was almost unwatchable at times. He looked like he was attempting to remember everything he possibly learned in the acting courses that he undoubtedly had to take once his voice finally cracked and he realized he couldn't make it on his boyish looks and creepy one-liners to Bruce Willis. But it just wasn't that good and frankly it made you feel like you were watching something at a community theatre. Wait, what's that?! Listen children, if you're very, very quiet you may just be able to make out the sound of a child actor's career being quietly suffocated in its sleep.

Again, while it's not horrible, I can't really justify telling you to spend any of your time watching it. If you accidentally end up with the DVD in your possession, maybe it's worth fast forwarding through just to see Emmanuelle Vaugier (one of the sexiest women in Hollywood today) spend some scenes as an Arab harem girl. But overall, the dialogue makes most Disney movies look like a Tarantino film and the pace is about as dull as a party at Sad Keanu Reeves' house.

Vantage Point

Vantage Point

"The President of the United States is in Salamanca, Spain, about to address the city in a public square. We see a plain-clothes cop, his girlfriend with another man, a mother and child, an American tourist with a video camera, and a Secret Service agent newly returned from medical leave. Shots ring out and the President falls; a few minutes later, we hear a distant explosion, then a bomb goes off in the square. Those minutes are retold, several times, emphasizing different characters' actions. Gradually, we discover who's behind the plot. Is the Secret Service one step ahead, or have the President's adversaries thought of everything?"

1 star

I had almost forgotten about this movie until I saw a preview for it coming up on the FX network this weekend. After re-watching about 10 minutes of the movie, I realized that I hadn't forgotten about it as much as I had intentionally blocked its lackluster existence from my memory. This movie is bad, like eye rolling bad. There are plenty of movies out there that are awful, but some of them are at least aware of it (American Pie 4,5,&6 I'm looking at you). But because a movie is aware of its shittiness, it doesn't take itself too seriously and sometimes it can actually pass for watchable fare. Unfortunately someone forgot to tell this to the filmmakers of Vantage Point because the movie's own pretentiousness does nothing more than add to the already copious amount of nails in this particular cinematic coffin.

Once again I was disappointed by a movie whose trailer looked bad ass. The premise seemed to have a lot of potential and the fact that the movie was set in Salamanca (where I studied for a summer) made this a movie I actually went to see in theaters. If only I had known . . .

The film, predictably, relies too heavily on the "replay gimmick". The assassination is basically a 10 minute segment that is replayed 8 times from 8 different perspectives. Had the plot been halfway intriguing or at least provided enough mystery to keep the audience engaged then maybe the movie could have been saved. Instead it's just dull, so much so that the audience I was with actually started laughing by the time the 5th replay started. It was clear we all knew that this was a piece of crap and the mood changed to everyone trying to guess in their heads just how much longer this exercise in futility was going to take to roll over and die. As you might have guessed, the "twist ending" wasn't a "twist" at all and had it come about 45 mintutes sooner, we would have all been a lot happier.

I'll go ahead and make a statement that I will stick by in ALL future reviews. There are only 2 movies out there that revolved around a distinctive narrative style and were still able to be thoroughly entertaining despite the fact that they contained relatively mediocre plot lines. Those film would be Pulp Fiction and Memento. Everything else, this movie in particular, just couldn't quite pull it off. I hate panning this movie so hard especially since Forest Whitaker is in it and I'm a big fan of his. But luckily he had the good sense to pass on directing this one so his sin was only limited to the acting arena.

Scent of a Woman

Scent of a Woman

"Charlie Simms is a boy from Oregon who attends Baird School a Boys boarding school. Not unlike most of the other boys who come from affluent backgrounds Simms is there on a scholarship. He hangs around with George Willis, who's a daddy's boy, and his friends. Now George's friends decides to pull a little prank on the pompous headmaster. The headmaster learns that Charlie and George know who pulled the prank and they refuse to say who. He gives the Thanksgiving Holiday to think about it. He also tells Charlie that he's recommending him to an Ivy League College. Charlie then goes off to a Thanksgiving job--taking care of retired Colonel Frank Slade who's blind when his family goes to visit some family for Thanksgiving. After they leave Slade tells Charlie that he's taking him to New York for his own Thanksgiving celebration."

4.5 stars

Lt. Colonel Frank Slade: Clear them little bottles off. And when I get off the phone here, call the bell man and tell him I want it wall to wall with John Daniels.

Charlie Simms: Don’t you mean Jack Daniels?

Lt. Colonel Frank Slade: He may be Jack to you son, but when you've known him as long as I have...

This was one of the quotes from the first 30 minutes of this film. Needless to say, after this line I WAS IN. Not only does Lt. Colonel Slade (Al Pacino) appreciate the finer things in life like the decadence of a hotel room at The Plaza or the taste of a freshly cut Montecristo cigar, he shares my infatuation with all the mysteries that are women; the way they move, the way they laugh, and (most important to a blind man) the way they smell.

Now, I realize this is an old movie, but I have really never seen the entire film. Sure, I have caught pieces of it while flipping through the channels on a Sunday afternoon, but that is the television version. A version, apparently, that director Martin Brest has disowned because it suffers from censorship and time editing. That’s why I wanted to watch the unabridged, unadulterated version to see what the fuss was all about. Needless to say, the movie did not disappoint. Everything worked in this movie ranging from the setting (New York, New York) to the writing to the music to the acting. Pacino was superb in his portrayal of a tortured War Hero and was able to evoke scenes of such raw emotion that I found myself going 3-4 minutes without blinking. I do feel that I was slighted a little bit just because I am so late to the party in viewing this film. His exclamation of “Hoo-wah!” and unique speaking style in the movie have been emulated and parodied so many times since the movie was released in 1993 that it almost elicited a comedic reaction for me at several points that should have come across as more dramatic. But I can’t place any blame on him because if I had seen the movie when it actually came out I probably would have had a more appropriate response. Then again, I was only 8.

The only two complaints I have with the film are relatively minor. For about 2 hours of the movie, I thought that Chris O’Donnell was the perfect casting choice for the role of Charlie Simms. His boyish demeanor and glaring insecurities were consistent with that of a small town kid from the wrong side of the tracks trying to assimilate into the world of over-privileged children and their powerful families. But the whole point of the movie is to witness Charlie’s transition from adolescence to manhood. While I think O’Donnell did the best he could, the transition is supposed to be exhibited in the penultimate scene of the movie. Well, Pacino definitely puts forth his all and THEN some in the scene, but O’Donnell just doesn’t dig quite deep enough and it left me wanting. My second complaint is about the nature of the “crime” itself. The final scene has a great message about leadership and integrity, but I felt like the actions of Charlie’s colleagues could have been more sinister and, in turn, produced a more complicated and powerful moral dilemma for him. As it stands, the “crime” is just pouring paint on the car of the Headmaster.

Nevertheless, it is a great film worthy of our time and appreciation, if only for the appearance of Gabrielle Anwar. Honestly, I thought she was going to be in the entire movie based on her billing and the fact that she is the main thing I remembered about the movie before watching the entire version. It turns out she is only on the screen for literally 5 minutes. But, needless to say, she makes the most of them.

Pacino basically personified the term “pimp” when it came to his dealings with women in this movie and I think every guy out there would admit either openly or just to themselves that his swagger is something we all want to have. This personification may best be described in the advice he give his cat when Charlie and he are about to leave the house for New York. “When in doubt . . . fuck.”

In Bruges: Robyn's Response

(Todd's review here)

4 Stars

I was in love with Colin Farrell when I was younger. Three friends and I even formed the CFFC: Colin Farrell Fan Club. As I grew older and wiser, I realized that Colin is a hit-or-miss actor, with mostly misses (Miami Vice, Alexander, and The New World, just to name a few). But there are a handful of movies where he really shines: Tigerland (one of my few 5 star movies), Phone Booth, and In Bruges.

In Bruges started off slow for me, and I was just starting to lose interest when things started picking up. I originally thought this was going to be another fast-paced British crime story, but it's grittier and more realistic than that. It has it's violence and dark humor; it's got layers. I loved the interaction between Colin Farrell (Ray) and Brendan Gleeson (Ken). And while Farrell is good, Gleeson is the one who really carries the movie. Ray has baggage, but Ken is helping him shoulder it.

The ending was great, and not what I was expecting. I love it when that happens.

In Bruges

In Bruges

"The Irish hit-men Ken and Ray are sent by the Londoner mobster Harry Waters to the medieval Belgium city of Bruges in Christmas after an awry job in a London church. Ray bungles it. While Ken enjoys the historic city, Ray feels completely bored and misses his home. Ray meets the small time drug-dealer and crook Chloë, who sells drug to the cast and crew of a movie that is filmed in Bruges, and has an incident with a Canadian tourist and later with Chloë's boyfriend. Meanwhile Harry, who has an stringent code of principles, gives Ken special orders."

4 Stars

I completely admit that I may be biased because I was actually in Bruges about a month ago, but I really like this movie. It is definitely one of those weird-in-a-good-way films. Colin Farrell plays a wet behind the ears hit man under the tutelage of Brendan McCann. The movie opens interestingly enough with them engaged in witty banter that you really have to pay attention to. Not only is the writing smart, but both actors’ accents are so thick that you sometimes wonder if they’re talking gibberish just to see if you’re paying attention. The mentor/mentee relationship is evident and amusing, especially since Ken is absolutely enamored to be in the “fairy tale” like Bruges while Ray is bored out of his mind and can’t wait to get back to the much faster pace of London.

Unfortunately, Ray can’t go back to London because he has committed a terrible mistake. In his first job as a hit man he was sent to assassinate a priest, which he did. What he didn’t plan on was one of his stray bullets killing a nearby 8 year old boy who was getting ready to take confession. This clearly haunts Ray throughout the movie. Even with the heavy subject matter of the movie it does a good job of keeping a humorous attitude that doesn’t let the inhumanity involved in the men’s work overshadow the entire movie. Plus, I don’t think I have heard the name of a movie be actually spoken in that movie more in my life.

There is also an intriguing “code of the hit man” that is explored. Even though their profession would cause a knee jerk reaction of disgust because they take human lives for a living, Ken and Ray bring an aspect of humanity to it. They justify it to themselves by saying that they have only killed bad men or only killed in self defense. And they have a strict code about when and where they kill. In essence, they treat it like an actual job and try not to let it consume them.

Chloe (Clémence Poésy) is another bright spot in the film. I really can’t put my finger on it, but there is something incredibly sexy about her. At first glance she’s not drop dead gorgeous, but something about her personality just draws you in. Plus, she has one of the coolest/sexiest moments that I have seen in a long time. When Ken initially asks her out to dinner she just laughs and walks away, leaving us to believe that she is blowing him off. But after she gets about 20 feet away she drops a card with her phone number over her shoulder without even glancing back or breaking stride. I don’t know how to explain it, but watch the scene and tell me you don’t have the same reaction that Colin Farrell does.

If you still aren’t convinced to rent this movie, then I have three words for you: Midgets, Hookers, and Cocaine. If that doesn’t get your Spidey Sense tingling, nothing will. Now, I will admit that the ending fell a little flat for me. There is a metaphor involving some miscommunication that just feels forced. And, I don’t think I’m giving anything away, the movie ends on sort of a cliff hanger. While I think the last scene is executed very well, I don’t like the fact that a movie ends on a cliff hanger. You can do that with a TV show or a movie where a sequel is inevitable, but rarely can you get away with that in a standalone movie.

The Puffy Chair

The Puffy Chair

"Josh and Emily are in a relationship, but he can be inattentive and unromantic and she can shift her focus from small things to emotional issues in a moment. He invites her to drive from New York City to somewhere in Virginia to pick up a chair that he's bought on eBay for his father's birthday. On the way, he stops at his brother Rhett's, outside Philly, and invites him along. Josh tries to save money at a motel, has to negotiate with the seller of the chair and with an upholsterer, and faces tough questions from Emily. He calls her "Dude," he's moody, and it looks as if the relationship will end soon. Is there more than meets the eye here? How do people decide?"

1 Star

I wanted to like this movie SO much, I really did. It had a couple of the same actors of my new favorite TV show “The League”. It is also considered part of the new mumblecore movement which is predicated on the idea of filmmakers shying away from big studios and making the films they want to make, hopefully without compromise. No big studio, though, means no big money so you have entire productions being made for less than $5,000. All I can say it if you’re going to rely that heavily on the story because you can’t hide dazzle with amazing shots and special effects, then you better have a hell of a story or be able to write some amazing dialogue. Unfortunately this movie had neither.

Kevin Smith actually is the litmus test for this genre. He made his signature film “Clerks” for less than $5,000. The difference was that Smith is pretty damn good with dialogue and he made sure his actors stuck to the script. The Duplass brothers admitted that the story line was planned, but much of the dialogue was improvised. This really doesn’t work for a drama. Once in a while we see great comedy movies with a large degree of improvisation, but it’s just hard to create the same magic with drama.

The movie tried to be more than it actually was. It tried to come off as an in depth exploration of the relationships between fathers, sons, and girlfriends. Unfortunately, none of these attempts are developed enough to really be sustainable. The blatant attempts at humor feels forced and the characters are hard to get attached to. Josh’s brother (Rhett Wilkins) is the stereotypical detached stoner that is fun for 15 minutes, but makes you want to punch him in the temple after that. Josh’s girlfriend (played by Mark Duplass' real life wife Katie Aselton) finely dances that line between crazy/psycho/bitch and annoying as hell. And Josh (Mark Duplass) himself is just a lazy unfocused sack of shit who (and I don’t know why this bothered me so much) kept calling his girlfriend "dude".

I have to respect what young filmmakers are trying to do, but it also makes you appreciate the diamonds in the rough that are able to rise to the top and garner the appropriate attention. This movie ends very abruptly and leaves you scratching your head. Unfortunately, instead of leaving the viewer wanting more I found myself flipping to the other channel without much hesitation.

Defiance

Defiance

"On the run and hiding in the deep forests of the then German occupied Poland and Belorussia (World War II), the three Bielski brothers find the impossible task of foraging for food and weapons for their survival. They live, not only with the fear of discovery, contending with neighboring Soviet partisans and knowing whom to trust but also take the responsibility of looking after a large mass of fleeing Polish Jews from the German war machine. Women, men, children, the elderly and the young alike are all hiding in makeshift homes in the dark, cold and unforgiving forests in the darkest times of German occupied Eastern Europe."

4.5 Stars

This is what a film should be. From top to bottom, this is one of the best film’s I have seen in a long time. There are so many layers and aspects to the story that come together beautifully.

It has sort of a Lord of the Flies feel to it, except this story is actually true and not about children. It could almost be a study in sociological behavior. What happens when everything is taken away from you by an evil adversary? How far would you go to survive? Would the situation actually arise where it might be necessary to sacrifice your own humanity to save the lives of others? These questions and many more just scratch the surface of the moral dilemma that permeates through the plot of Defiance.

I really felt like this could have been a novel because there were so many different story lines. The most obvious was the nature of humanity and its perseverance in the form of a community. These were real people and no one was perfect. Mistakes were made by everyone even Tavia (Daniel Craig). So many times in movies we are used to seeing the infallible leader who may have a slight crisis of confidence, but conveniently enough is able to overcome it just before his defining moment. That isn’t really the case here. Tavia actually falters in several of his key moments and falters BIG, but his brothers are able to pick up the slack when it’s needed and the group pushes on, the group does the only thing it can do, it survives.
I think there are an endless number of topics that can be debated on what occurred in these majestic woods. Just how far do people need to go in order to survive when they are being persecuted by a tormenter that has absolutely no regard for their life? Is that even a valid question? Should the immediate response be that there is no limit? As sophisticated as we may like to think we have become as a society, we all have basic animal instincts for survival and that may be one of the few times that our true characters are exposed. At one point, Tuvia shoots and kills a man in front of the group because he was conspiring against him. First off, the situation is much more complicated than it sounds so you have to see the movie. But in this case I think the military state he had created in this community was necessary. Any faction or flicker of fracture within the leadership may have had devastating effects on the morale of the group and, in turn, their future. And it’s easy for us to debate the fact now, when we are so far removed from it. Truth is, these people stared into the face of death everyday and had only one choice, to lower their heads at death and move forward.

Another intriguing aspect was that of the Baglia brothers and their family dynamic. They were brothers in every sense of the word, but had plenty of both similar and conflicting ideologies. Tuvia was more concerned about maintaining a sense of humanity while Zus wanted revenge (and rightfully so) for a slaughtered wife and daughter. But in the end, their mutual respect for one another led them in different paths, but helped them to learn crucial lessons.

The character study in this movie was just amazing. There wasn’t enough time to delve into the complexity that was these people lives and emotions. One of the first things to be wiped away was social status, they were no longer poor or rich, educated or not, spiritual or apathetic, they were just people who came together in an effort to survive. And no one, to me, was predictable. They were so human. Yes, as in real life, you can tell when certain people will make particular choices over others, but that wasn’t always the case here. I couldn’t fit any particular character into a box and stick a label on them because it was too hard. Just when you thought you had a character pegged, they would do or say something that just left your head spinning. You start to think about what you may have done, but I think that’s impossible. Seeing what these people lived through is so harrowing that I don’t think anyone could walk a mile in their shoes.

The movie hit all the aspects of basic human nature like food, shelter, community, and love. But one area that I thought wasn’t touched on enough was sex. Now before you think I just wanted to be a voyeuristic horn dog, hear me out. It is actually touched on (ever so slightly) in the movie a couple of times, but it is never really explored. Pregnancies were forbidden in the group. Now, that may sound harsh, but it was necessary because they could not accommodate a child in their surroundings. But some of the undertones hinted that they were having sex. And they HAD to be. They were in the forest for 3 years and it’s only human nature to want to act on sexual desires, especially when your existence seems to be getting continually more primal. On character does mention briefly that “She knows what it expected of the women.” But that is all that is said. I honestly think the movie would have been a little more well rounded if the physical relationship between the men and women was explored a little more. Even the emotional side was only touched on enough to satisfy a need for the audience to have hope.

Anyway, by the length of my review so far, I bet you can tell that I could probably go on and on about this because there is so much to discuss, but I will spare you and let you decide for yourself. In closing I will touch on the only real objections I had to the movie, and there weren’t many. Some critics have come out saying that some of the details were left out concerning the possible brutality that the Briglias implemented to raid from the local farms. I don’t think it’s that big a deal, though. This wasn’t a documentary; it was a movie with the purpose of telling a story and, in that, I think they fully succeeded. The final battle scene did feel a little forced a couple times and a little predictable, but that happens. By far the rest of the movie does not feel formulaic and I think that is what is so refreshing.

Up In The Air

Up in the Air
"Ryan Bingham's job is to fire people from theirs. The anguish, hostility, and despair of his "clients" has left him falsely compassionate, living out of a suitcase, and loving every second of it. When his boss hires arrogant young Natalie, she develops a method of video conferencing that will allow termination without ever leaving the office - essentially threatening the existence Ryan so cherishes. Determined to show the naive girl the error of her logic, Ryan takes her on one of his cross country firing expeditions, but as she starts to realize the disheartening realities of her profession, he begins to see the downfalls to his way of life."

4 stars

I would watch a movie of George Clooney reading the phone book. And I bet I'm not the only one. His charm and likeabilty carries this movie - and that's not bad thing. His character Ryan fires people for a living, and we sympathize him!

The script for the movie is based on a book written back in 2001, mere months before September 11 changed flying forever. Ryan had the same job back then, but it's even more powerful in today's economic climate. And all those people he fires in the movie? With the exception of one or two recognizable actors, they are all real recently laid-off workers.

The firing isn't really what this movie is about, though. It's about people and our connections. Ryan has none (unless you count his assistant) until he meets a fellow (female) jet-setter. Meanwhile, he's schooling young Natalie about life on the road, which has its own effects on him as well as her. It comes to a head (or so you think) at his sister's wedding in his hometown.

The ending is not cookie-cutter, and for someone who ALWAYS sees it coming, I didn't see it coming. It wasn't shocking or out of left field, just different.

Pretty enjoyable.