Minute with Abe: Quadruple Feature Part Four

My live reactions to the fourth film of my exciting quadruple feature, "Julie & Julia."

Minute with Abe: Quadruple Feature Part Three

My live reactions to the third film of my exciting quadruple feature, "In the Loop."

Minute with Abe: Quadruple Feature Part Two

My live reactions to the second film of my exciting quadruple feature, "Inglourious Basterds."

Minute with Abe: Quadruple Feature Part One

My live reactions to the first film of my exciting quadruple feature, "District 9."

Movie with Abe: Funny People

Funny People
Directed by Judd Apatow
Released July 31, 2009

A movie with a title like “Funny People” is bound to feature characters that specialize in making people laugh. Spotlighting stand-up comedians is a great setup for a film, especially because comedians, especially those in a Judd Apatow movie, are likely to lead humorous, interesting lives. “Funny People” has the right idea with the story of George Simmons (Adam Sandler), a comedian slash actor who discovers that he’s dying. Trailers for the film made it look like George was training Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to be his replacement, but that isn’t really the story. It’s actually quite unclear what George’s motives are, and it seems he’s only actually looking for companionship. The problem is that it’s not a very fulfilling experience for Ira, and it’s not a very fulfilling experience for the viewer either.

Every time I see a movie directed by Judd Apatow or starring one of his regular actors, I can’t help but think of his previous efforts. Even if the premises aren’t terribly similar, the dialogue is very much the same, no matter who’s penning the script, and avoiding comparison is impossible. The last film with Apatow players, “I Love You, Man,” bares a strong resemblance to “Funny People” in the way that it takes an idea that sounds smart but doesn’t actually have enough steam to run through a whole movie. Audiences and critics have always stated that even the best of the Apatow group films are about twenty minutes too long. “I Love You, Man” was an hour and forty-five minutes. This one runs two hours and fifteen minutes. It’s way too long, but it’s hard to discern what should be cut out and what should be left in.

It wouldn’t inherently be a problem for the film to focus solely on George’s life, but it’s titled “Funny People,” not “Funny Person.” The notion of a comedian’s story and the idea of the world of “funny people” could work, but Ira just feels unnecessary. George is pretty much just taking Ira along for the ride and showing him what a celebrity lifestyle is like. Ira doesn’t have much to offer – he’s not particularly funny and he lacks the goofyness that generally makes Seth Rogen’s characters appealing. Jokes are made about how Ira has lost weight, but it’s clear that the intended benefactor of the joke isn’t Ira, it’s Seth. Following a comedian through his celebrity comeback tour is just what Apatow’s disciples likely dreamed of when they were just starting out.

Rogen has done the dramatic comedy well before, but here he’s saddled with an unenthusiastic role and no real opportunity to play either comedy or drama strongly. Sandler’s never been much of a skilled dramatic actor, and while watching him get sad isn’t as cringe-worthy as Jack Black crying in “Margot at the Wedding,” it’s not much better. Leslie Mann adds some worthwhile sentimental charm, but the real highlight is Eric Bana, for once using his native Australian accent. Without putting all his effort into sounding American, he’s actually a pretty funny guy who out-acts all three aforementioned comedy veterans. Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzmann contribute additionally to some of the movie’s funnier scenes.

It’s not a failure of a film, but there’s just not much of a hook. The movie runs one hundred and thirty-five minutes, but it’s not easy to decide where the movie gets derailed. It’s more likely that it was doomed from the start – it just isn’t a strong enough idea out of which to milk a movie. It’s never terribly interesting, and there’s never a sense of where it’s heading next or where it wants to end up. Unsurprisingly, the film’s conclusion isn’t very satisfying, and an occasionally enjoyable experience doesn’t seem overly worthwhile, especially compared to what audiences have come to expect from Judd Apatow when he’s behind the camera.

B-

Home Video: I Love You, Man

I Love You, Man
Directed by John Hamburg
Released March 20, 2009

The latest film from the actors most frequently seen in Judd Apatow’s movies follows the general pattern of the previous features. From the premise and even the trailer from this film, it wouldn’t seem that “I Love You, Man” would include sexually explicit conversations and a generally raunchy tone. Part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t quite fit – this film would work just as well if it wasn’t rated R. The premise itself is entirely simplistic, and so is the movie.

The notion that a man with a wonderful fiancée and pleasant enough life but lacking in male friends would embark on a quest to find a best bud sounds like just the kind of story actors Paul Rudd and Jason Segel would want to tell. Writers John Hamburg and Larry Levin are new to the group, but it makes sense that someone well-versed in the world of “Knocked Up,” “Superbad,” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” would want to make this movie. Apatow didn’t produce this one, but he left it in the hands of the writers behind “Along Came Polly” and “Meet the Parents.” With slightly tamer films on their resumes, it might have made sense to tone this one down accordingly. No such luck, and the awkward middle ground between family-friendly and “40-Year-Old Virgin” doesn’t really work.

All of the previous films like this have starred likeable enough lead characters and relied on a flurry of supporting funnymen to make inappropriate quips and move the story along. The main problem here is Segel, who’s usually the one playing the nice guy (see “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) is saddled with the entire burden of representing all of those supporting stalwarts, and it’s too much for him. He’s certainly funny, but he almost doesn’t seem unlikable in any way, and he really should. Attempts to make him seem crude by outfitting him with gross-out characteristics don’t really work, and when they are effective, they’re not very funny. Along those lines, Paul Rudd isn’t as able a lead as is necessary to carry this film. He’s portrayed as a dorky, fumbling real estate agent – two descriptors that don’t really fit that career bill.

Mainly, the first presents an intriguing story, but there’s not much mystery to it. It’s pretty obvious that Rudd’s character will find a friend, and the other men he meets along the way aren’t very memorable – in fact, only one really remains in the film, and another man-date, which is completely lacking for laughs, ended up on the cutting room floor and can be found on the DVD with other deleted scenes. Basically, it was a fun idea, but there’s really not a whole movie behind it. The main complaint of many who liked but didn’t love movies like “40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up” was that they were about 20 minutes too long. In this case, it’s about an hour too much. I paused 45 minutes into it, and couldn’t imagine what would possibly be coming next. It’s decently entertaining and not overly off-putting, but there’s not much motivation to keep watching. Nothing to see here, keep moving along to the next feature from these guys.

B-

Movie with Abe: 500 Days of Summer

500 Days of Summer
Directed by Marc Webb
Released July 17, 2009

The first theatrical feature film from director Marc Webb is determined not to be a love story. The necessity to avoid a cliché chain of events and stray from the norm could have really damaged the impact of the film and resulted in a sub-par experience. Fortunately, the film has a style all its own which more than allows for creative storytelling and an atypical tale of a love that just wasn’t meant to be.

Many will compare “500 Days of Summer” to Woody Allen’s first major critical hit, the classic “Annie Hall.” It involves a similar plot, to be sure, highlighting ups and downs over an extended period of time in the relationship of two people simply infatuated with each other. This couple, Tom and Summer, is young but their story isn’t any less timeless. Tom and Summer go many places together, and their conversations are about architecture and art and literature, all subjects that don’t lend themselves to a particular time period or setting. It’s a wonderful way of keeping the characters afloat and purposely neglecting to ground them in any kind of temporal reality, and that’s exactly how the movie operates.

Five hundred days of summer is on the menu, but it’s not served in any logical order. Snippets are taken from good and bad times, and the way in which it’s presented is absolutely compelling and gives a satisfyingly complete picture of their courtship, honeymoon period, and breakup stage perfectly. It’s hard to get too attached to the couple because, after each positive memory, an unfortunate downturn in their relationship comes up on screen, with Tom’s goofy smile turning into an angry frown. The relationships’ over before it started, in a sense, but the movie’s still enormously worthwhile while it lasts.

The two leads are perhaps the most significant successful aspect of the film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has grown up a great deal since his time on NBC’s “3rd Rock from the Sun,” and his maturity is wonderfully refreshing. As greeting-card writer Tom, he’s unflappably positive and sports a smile that’s incredibly contagious. Zooey Deschanel has possessed an undeniable charm since she appeared briefly in the road movie “Almost Famous” back in 2000. As secretary Summer, she displays the same level of joy and exuberance with a completely different way of looking at things. The two leads are extremely likeable and they light up the screen both separately and together. Supporting actors Geoffrey Arend, Matthew Gray Gubler, Chloe Moretz, and Clark Gregg enhance their scenes as well.

Most importantly, the movie champions both Tom and Summer’s views on love without taking a definitive side. Tom believes true love is possible, and Summer thinks things will always find a part. The film finds a brilliant middle ground between their viewpoints, and it’s all a part of the clever way in which the expiration-date tale is told. Even though things aren’t fated to work out, it’s still nice to see an entertaining and often moving snippet of the intersection of their lives. It’s occasionally funny and altogether enjoyable.

B+

Home Video: Fast & Furious

Fast & Furious
Directed by Justin Lin
Released April 3, 2009

This is a movie that shouldn’t really exist at all, but somehow it came to be, and that’s a marvelous thing. The first film in the franchise, the similarly-titled “The Fast and the Furious,” spawned two less-than-stellar sequels, “2 Fast 2 Furious” and “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.” Despite diminishing box office takes, a fourth film was green-lit and the unexpected, probably unprecedented reunion of the original cast occurred, pretending that number two and three never even existed. The way of looking at this movie is that it’s a completely unnecessary, absolutely supplementary film which no one was really clamoring for, but serves as a great piece of (you guessed it) fast and furious entertainment. And, wouldn’t you know it, this fourth film managed to out-gross the first one!

Like many supplemental film franchise installments, “Fast & Furious” doesn’t bother recapping the events of the first film and jumps right into the current lives of the characters. The film opens with a spectacular heist in the Dominican Republic which immediately ups the adrenaline and sets up the film’s speed-laced pace. The story isn’t really terribly important; it’s all about the cars and the racing. Bringing back the original cast is a lot of fun. No one can match the distinctive angry, arms-crossed stare of Vin Diesel, and though Paul Walker’s not very effective as an actor, it’s amusing to see him get all excited about driving a nice car. Again, the plot should be dismissed altogether since it doesn’t really make much sense, since the action and the thrills make up this ride.

Once suspension of disbelief is taken care of, the film is actually a pretty damn enjoyable trip. Getting on board at the start with the fact that the film doesn’t make a lick of sense ensures that the film will be an enjoyable, enthralling experience. A pitch-perfect epilogue humorously caps the film, and if this is your kind of thing, you’re likely to love it. It’s pretty much exactly like the first film, and if you’re eager to revisit that, see this film. Otherwise, stay far, far away; you’ll probably only like this movie if you’re expecting to like it.

B+

Movie with Abe: The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Released June 26, 2009

There haven’t been many movies made yet about the war in Iraq. Films like “The Lucky Ones” have probed the effects of time in Iraq on soldiers returning home or set action films in the Middle East, like “The Kingdom.” Many, including Michael Moore, have dabbled in theories about false motives for going to war in the first place. Others, like “Taxi to the Dark Side,” have exposed the darker side of the United States’ response to terrorism after the September 11, 2001 attacks. “The Hurt Locker” is the first major release to really explore what life is actually like in on a daily basis for American soldiers serving in Iraq.

This is hardly a revolutionary concept – war movies set in the midst of the conflict. A slew of well-known Vietnam war movies were released in the 1970s, and more recent films like “Platoon” and 2007’s “Rescue Dawn” revisited that era. What’s significant about “The Hurt Locker” is its contemporary relevance. The war in Iraq is a very vivid memory for everyone in the United States, and making a film about it is just as meaningful and important as all of the 1970s Vietnam movies. The most crucial aspect is that “The Hurt Locker” is the first, and – good news – it’s great.

“The Hurt Locker” most resembles Sam Mendes’ 2005 film “Jarhead” in the way that its featured soldiers are rarely involved in traditional frontline combat with the enemy. Instead, they’re holding their ground, making sure that people stay safe. It’s hardly a tranquil environment, as dangerous, deadly bombs are found on a frequent basis and the team is sent in to clear the street and disarm the device. The certainty that the tour of duty won’t go quickly (the soldiers have 39 days left at the start of the movie) makes the experience all the more inescapable. They’re not going anywhere, and they’re determined to defend their territory, but that won’t stop insurgents from trying to kill them each and every day.

Most of the scenes in “The Hurt Locker” go on for an extended period of time, trapping the audience in the moment and driving home just how uncertain and unbearable waiting to outlast an enemy combatant can be. It’s an immensely real film, which doesn’t spare audiences the gritty moments, and its focus on a small unit of soldiers helps to create more emotional connections to the characters and for the viewer to become part of the terrifying experience. The film editing and cinematography are deliberate and sharp, highlighting the intensity of situations and stressing the emotions on the soldiers’ faces. It’s an extraordinarily well put-together film, and each of its 131 minutes takes the viewer deeper and deeper into the minds of these young soldiers thrust into an unknown enemy land.

The performances in this film are all top-notch. Lead actors Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty may not be overly familiar to audiences, but in this case that’s a tremendously good thing. The experience is heightened by the fact that famous actors aren’t popping up at every turn, and the deserted Iraq streets seem all the more horrific and unknown with less recognizable stars at every turn. Fortunately, more familiar faces like Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, David Morse, and Christian Camargo (“Dexter’) fit in just fine, and their minor appearances are nothing short of terrific. Director Kathryn Bigelow, whose most recent major film release is the underrated 2002 thriller “K-19: The Widowmaker,” deserves enormous credit for guiding a fantastic cast and creating one hell of a war movie. It may not features big explosions and loud gunfire like battlefront films, but this is the most powerful film you’re like to see for a while.

A-

Home Video: Watchmen

Watchmen
Directed by Zack Snyder
Released March 6, 2009

The combination of an alternate reality and superheroes sounds like a fascinating idea, but there are many ways it can go wrong. The new universe can be too far-fetched, the superheroes can be unoriginal, and the villains and conflict can be entirely unexciting. When the film is a highly anticipated adaptation of a popular graphic novel, there’s even more at risk. Incredibly, “Watchmen” manages to excel in all areas and present a fantastically compelling story with vivid imagery and sterling characters.

“Watchmen” isn’t a typical superhero story, and its gritty setup is far more reminiscent of “V for Vendetta” than the brightly-colored adventures of a friendly neighborhood spider in “Spider-Man.” The characters aren’t wholly heroic, and many even resort to physical and sexual violence without giving much thought to how it will impact the public’s perception of them. And that’s the key to “Watchmen” – society doesn’t fully embrace the Watchmen, but they’re nonetheless determined to better the world, even if that doesn’t initially appear to be the case.

In a stunningly impressive montage that begins after the opening catalyst scene, the history of the Watchmen is recounted to the tune of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changing.” The opening credits sequence is a masterfully powerful introduction to a society where superheroes emerged in 1940 and were seen as emblems of patriotism. The group is very much akin to the spirit of Captain America, but it’s clear from the brief moments shown that not all of the heroes were destined for glory, and that the Watchmen program was gradually dismantled as its members were institutionalized or killed. That beginning parade of clips is so crucial to setting up the tone of “Watchmen,” and it does a marvelous job.

“Watchmen” has all the ingredients of a great film, and it mixes together all its elements in a wonderfully effective manner. There’s spooky voiceover narration, exciting action scenes, explicit realizations of unexpressed passion, and a level of violence that’s hard to match (except perhaps in Snyder’s previous film, the preposterously gory “300”). “Watchmen” is a dark tale of heroes far more conflicted than the Dark Knight, and an extensive focus on the characters’ histories and motivations doesn’t detract from the film being a thrilling action vehicle.

I haven’t read the “Watchmen” comic, but I was simply amazed by the visual proficiency of the film. The superheroes and their world are brought to life in a dazzling three-dimensional way, yet the haunted grayscale backdrop of the alternate 1985 remains intact. The bug-eyed space pod the superheroes travel in has a perfect retro feel to it, and all of the costumes hark back to the original outfits donned by pop culture icons like Superman and the X-Men. But the great thing about the Watchmen is that they don’t stand by and make sure civilians don’t get hurt. They’re not above charging down a hallway headfirst and letting heads roll, all in the service of, well, being heroic.

The special effects are simply magnificent, and I’m particularly awed by the depiction of the blue superhero Dr. Manhattan, and his expedition to the incredible vastness that’s supposed to represent Mars. It’s a tremendously well-filmed movie that draws out the starkest and most expressive qualities in each of its shots, and it’s impossible to look away from the screen. That dedication to powerful, intoxicating scenes also involves a refusal to cut away when most other films might, choosing to show a butcher knife slicing through someone’s head and the devastation it wreaks upon the previously peaceful murderer instead of cutting to his hardened face twenty years later.

“Watchmen” is extraordinarily well-cast, pairing actors who play off each other perfectly. Billy Crudup brings a shocking sedated and quiet tone to the omnipotent Dr. Manhattan (his delivery of the line “I wasn’t told” is particularly stellar). Jackie Earle Haley is unbelievably creepy in the role of mad hatter Rorschach, and the sight of him and his cold eyes is even more haunting than when the character wears his blotted mask. Matthew Goode captures the true image of a hero catapulted to elitism by his celebrity. Patrick Wilson channels the geek in him to portray the “Watchmen” version of Cyclops – a do-gooder who seems like he’s entirely impotent but ultimately comes through. Jeffrey Dean Morgan ditches his nice-guy-dying typecasting to portray a decidedly not nice guy. And (relatively) fresh face Malin Akerman brngs a certain optimistic ingénue quality to her leading female role. It’s an extremely strong cast with no weak links.

The final element of “Watchmen” that really sows it up as a fantastic film is its soundtrack. Classic songs like “Unforgettable” by Nat King Cole, “The Sounds of Silence” by Simon and Garfunkel, and “Hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen all contribute to the very definitive feel of this film, and that introductory sequence accompanied by “The Times They Are A-Changing” completely got me into the mood of the film. The most impressive music selection, however, comes courtesy of Philip Glass’ score for the dialogue-free film "Koyaanisqatsi", and is hauntingly paired with images of Dr. Manhattan’s disassociation from humankind. It’s simply brilliant and highly intoxicating. This superhero film, which wasn’t terribly well-received by critics, is far better than it ever needed to be and it’s a fully terrific experience.

B+

Movie mit Abe: Bruno

Bruno
Directed by Larry Charles
Release July 10, 2009

Any viewer who willingly goes to see “Bruno” should know exactly what to expect. Based mostly off of the success of “Borat” in 2006, “Bruno” stars impersonator Sacha Baron Cohen as the flamboyantly gay Austrian fashion expert and television host Bruno. Anyone going in to see the film knows to prepare for lewd jokes throughout, plenty of embarrassing situations, and a whole lot of Cohen making random people on the street feel uncomfortable.

Unfortunately, that’s not quite the case. The first facet is absolutely true – “Bruno” lives for shots of naked penises and gross-out depictions of sexual scenarios no one need ever consider. The truth is that “Bruno” takes it too far; while Borat’s ten-minute naked fight was uproaringly hilarious, the extended graphic and explicit scenes just aren’t funny, and they go one for far too long. The main problem, particularly with those scenes, is that they’re not included because of their ability to shock people on the street. Instead, it’s all for the benefit of the audience, and that’s just not as fun.

Perhaps it’s because “Borat” was too popular for its own good (Cohen did have to retire the personality after the film became a hit and his con was too well known to fool many anymore), but “Bruno” hardly showcases any interactions with random people who have no idea they’re being interviewed. Those precious few that are included seem remarkably and painstakingly staged, such as Bruno’s service in the army or a test audience’s reaction to his extensive penis-dancing pilot. Bruno is an entertaining character, but he would be infinitely funnier if Cohen and director Larry Charles weren’t trying to appeal directly to their audiences. Targeting random people who make fools of themselves with their ignorance is what “Borat” was all about, and “Bruno” would have been so much better had it taken the same route. On only two occasions does Bruno seem to be really conversing with unknowing individuals, when he speaks to two airheaded blondes on a TV program, which isn’t overly amusing, and when he tries to convince a homophobic religious minister that he’s actually gay, which is far too reminiscent of Bill Maher’s recent documentary “Religulous.”

It may be unfair to constantly compare Cohen’s latest character effort to “Borat,” but the reason it’s so easy is that “Bruno” fails over and over again in all the ways that “Borat” succeeded. “Borat” told a surprisingly coherent story of a man in search of the American dream. To be honest, Bruno is a much less entertaining character than Borat, and making Bruno’s story would require some finessing. Whereas the plot of “Borat” appears to have come out of the footage that was shot and pieced together, the story of “Bruno” feels like it came straight out of Cohen and his writers’ team’s minds, and footage was shot afterward in order to fit this preset bill. While actual events may not have transpired that way, the film suffers from an overly focused premise and the continuous need to fulfill that premise while inserting shots of unnecessary nudity at every possible moment.

The question is, is “Bruno” funny? A little. The fact that it’s trying way too hard is a real kick in the balls to the film (an analogy Bruno would be sure to appreciate). The reality that the initial success of “Bruno” was based almost entirely on the popularity of “Borat” is even more of a shame. It’s as if Cohen and Charles saw how well “Borat” was received by much of the public in 2006, and set out to recreate an even more ridiculous adventure featuring the last remaining Cohen character (an Ali G film was released in the U.K. prior to “Borat” but failed to stir up much buzz). The disappointing result is this is the best they could come up with – everything’s riding on good memories of “Borat.” The tagline for “Bruno” even reads “Borat was so 2006.” Is it 2009 already? It took them three years to come up with this? It’s like a bad sequel that just doesn’t live up to the hype of the original film(s), only the bar was so much higher here. Of course it’s going to consist of immature humor, but “Borat” was far more intelligent than it should have been. Maybe “Bruno” is simply proof that some things, once drawn out, really are just are idiotic as they initially seemed.

F

Rent This on DVD: Waltz with Bashir

I haven't been to see many movies in theatres lately, but I was delighted to note that Blockbuster is offering a deal this summer where you can get one movie at a time for $10.99 a week, as many times as you can exchange it. My family has done it several times now, and it's been very worth it. That said, I'm probably more likely to be seeing movies on DVD than in theatres this summer, and my focus until the fall is my TV blog and my contributions to TVTango. In the meantime, here's one movie you may have missed in theatres. This is a re-posting of my review from last December, but I can't recommend this movie highly enough. It's in Hebrew with subtitles, and it's the most incredible movie I've seen in a while.

Waltz with Bashir
Directed by Ari Folman
Released December 25, 2008

Last year’s “Persepolis” took the world by storm with its innovative animation and intriguing focus. This year, there’s another foreign animated offering that may draw comparisons. It’s equally interesting in concept and even more fascinating in its execution. “Waltz with Bashir” is Israeli director Ari Folman’s exploration of his repressed memories of the Lebanon War in the 1980s. While it’s a documentary, it hardly feels like one due to its subtle editing and remarkable animation. It’s an unparalleled, incredible visual experience from start to finish, with dazzling colors and backgrounds. Folman is investigating his past, but he’s telling it in a narrative fashion that incorporates moving flashbacks and vivid dream sequences. The choice to make the film as an animated documentary is a fantastic one, as it highlights each of Folman’s memories and is able to illuminate them in detail without trivializing them at all. Though animation might sometimes distract from reality, in this case it draws the viewer in even more with a fully intoxicating experience. The fact that Folman’s recollections and conclusions become overtly political may be problematic for some, but it is an important message that he’s putting forth. Regardless of political feelings, the movie’s form makes it more than worthwhile. The movie’s score is alternately energetic and haunting, and Max Richter deserves enormous commendation for truly enhancing the animation experience. While many will be boasting about how a trash-compacting robot inspired them, “Waltz with Bashir” is really the best animated film of the year. For the moment, it’s only being released in New York City and Los Angeles, but if this movie ever comes to your city, see it right away. Not only is it the best animated film of the year, but it’s probably the best film of the year as well.

A

Home Video: Taken

Taken
Directed by Pierre Morel
Released January 30, 2009

An ex-spy tries to protect his seventeen-year-old daughter from going abroad by herself, and lo and behold, she gets kidnapped by slave traders within an hour of landing in Paris. He vows revenge on her abductors, and gets on the first plane he can to get her back. It’s a clean premise which could easily have resulted in a film with little or no substance. Instead, it’s powered by the incredible abilities of Liam Neeson, who makes a very likeable hero who just wants to bond with his daughter, who’s spending more time with her mother and stepfather, and is ready to head overseas and rescue his daughter without a moment’s hesitation. Neeson has a very well-rounded persona, avoiding any jumps to blind vengeance and stupid moves and instead proving himself incredibly clever at every turn. The moment he finds out his daughter is in distress, he pulls out a homemade recording kit to ensure that he can recall every detail and do his best to find her speedily. Neeson also shows off awe-inspiring moves like slapping a villain in the face and jumping through a glass window to take someone down. The story leading up to all the action is decent as well, and includes a fierce performance by Famke Janssen as Neeson’s haughty ex-wife and a welcome (if far too brief) return to the screen by Xander Berkeley (George Mason from “24”) as her rich second husband. The film doesn’t try to pretend it’s anything more than an action thriller, and it fits the genre bill perfectly. It’s unceasingly entertaining and succeeds in delivering suspense and intensity. The most surprising thing about it is its PG-13 rating: most films like this spew blood from every villain and include graphic torture sequences. This is a great example of how a film can still be a whole lot of fun without the need for much of that.

B

Film Review: Moon

Moon
Directed by Duncan Jones
Released June 12, 2009

Previews made “Moon” look like classic sci-fi films like “Alien” and recent releases like “Sunshine,” where a crew in deep space in the future encounters unexpected phenomena as they travel further and further away from civilization. The hook with “Moon” is that astronaut Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is out there on his own, mining the moon for resources that help provide the Earth with unlimited power. He’s accompanied by computer Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey), who provides him with assistance, guidance, companionship, and even smiley faces via a small television screen. Bell’s three-year solo mission is almost up, and just as he’s ready to go home, he begins questioning exactly what’s going on up on the moon. The mystery is quickly solved, and while it presents an intriguing moral thesis, it should be more complex. It’s not that science fiction should be difficult to comprehend, it’s just that the story doesn’t have much to do it. It’s regrettably simplistic, and so much more could have been explored beyond simply posing a question about how one man can and should operate while disconnected from civilization. Rockwell is an able actor whose initial bickering nature is obnoxious, but over the course of the film becomes sympathetic. Spacey has an incredible voice perfectly matched to that of the ship’s computer, and it would have been nice to have seen him do more. The musical cues front master composer Clint Mansell help to propel the film along as its main driving force. “Moon” is an interesting diving-off point, but there’s nothing much to analyze in terms of actual occurrences in the film. It suffers from a severe case of not needing to go anywhere quickly – because after all, in space, what’s the rush?

C+

Film Review: The Taking of Pelham 123

The Taking of Pelham 123
Directed by Tony Scott
Released June 12, 2009

Sometimes it’s clear from a film’s opening credits that a movie’s got style. Regardless of the story or plot, the movie has a certain distinctive way of carrying itself and presenting its characters that will define it. The credits roll out over shots of the subway flying furiously underground and suspicious-looking hijackers preparing for their day. The movie operates like the MTA trains do, on a schedule with routine checks and periodic delays. Recently demoted MTA officer Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) notices that a 6 train has stopped moving on its track, and begins trying to contact it. When it’s clear that things have gone awry and hijackers are holding the train passengers hostage, Garber moves on to the next logical step and opens a dialogue with the lead hijacker, Ryder (John Travolta). The movie is fairly formulaic in that sense, adhering to a strict script of hostage thrillers where the primary villain gets attached to someone who’s not the hostage negotiator. It’s fairly obvious how the film will turn out, and it doesn’t have any surprises hiding around any corners. It’s sleek in its execution, occasionally freezing the frame to provide a time-stamp update. Protagonist Garber isn’t quite a saint, but Washington makes him likeable enough. Washington plays a good nice guy, and it’s easy to root for him as the hero. Travolta does crazy well, and his wacky facial hair perfectly embodies his hot-tempered character. Hearing the two of them square off is fun, and that’s about all there is to this mediocre film. It’s attention-grabbing and engrossing, but after all is said and done, not much has actually happened and the film hasn’t really gone anywhere.

C+

Film Review: The Girlfriend Experience

The Girlfriend Experience
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Released May 22, 2009

There’s a tendency when it comes to independent films to be daringly experimental, and the idea that less is more is terribly enticing. Why bother with an expensive cast and detailed backgrounds when a camera lens and a bare, human performance can heap layers of meaning onto the thinnest of premises? Director Steven Soderbergh lives to have it both ways, alternating between awards (Traffic, Erin Brockovich) and box-office (the Ocean’s Eleven series) successes and smaller, art-house films (The Limey, Full Frontal) where he can really experiment with the form and see where film can take him and his audience. “The Girlfriend Experience” is unabashedly a purely investigational film, probing the possibilities of film without much of a plan for how to really pull it together.

Soderbergh’s first step in attempting to establish an untouched reality is casting porn star Sasha Grey in the lead role as a prostitute who operates her business while still maintaining a long-term relationship with her boyfriend, an ambitious physical trainer. The film meditates on fleeting moments to stress their importance, and the camera lingers on its characters, desperately searching for meaning in their elitist, superficial interactions. Plot is almost non-existent in “The Girlfriend Experience,” and the narrative is far from linear. The film’s brief 78-minute runtime almost ensures that nothing of substance can actually occur, and the purposely choppy editing seals the deal. It’s an incomprehensible experience from the start that only confuses itself more as the film goes on.

Documentaries consist of pieced-together interviews which shed increasing light on the subject of the director’s investigation. The reason for including interviews is because experts and witnesses can provide their relevant thoughts on why it is that something exists or works a certain way, and because further clarification can only be helpful. In the case of a scripted film, the characters should be able to do the storytelling, and viewers shouldn’t be forced to construct their own version of events and perception of relationships because the film refuses to do so on intellectual grounds. A narrative film can be artsy and take an indirect approach to its conclusion like “My Blueberry Nights” or “In The Mood For Love,” but there should be some point or concrete notion in sight.

“The Girlfriend Experience” employs nonprofessional actors in a flagrant attempt at capturing reality at its grittiest. Grey has only pornography experience on her resume, and therefore uttering legitimate sentences seems to take a great deal of effort. The actress’ transformation from sex symbol to legitimate performer doesn’t yield a stunning tour de force performance; instead, she’s maddeningly unimpressive. The same is true for the rest of the cast, who speak casually as if they’re perpetually responding to an off-the-cuff question from a reporter. Reality is great, certainly, and aiming to showcase it in its most unadulterated form is noble, but sometimes people talking is just people talking. Hidden meaning doesn’t suddenly arise simply because actors are trying not to give anything away. Movies are movies for a certain reason, and part of that reason is to dramatize events and craft something out of them. Here, Soderbergh leaves the pieces scattered as they are and expects his audience to pick them up. It’s substantially different from watching George Clooney and Brad Pitt steal from casinos in Las Vegas, but it’s about as interesting as talking to a new neighbor who just doesn’t have any particularly notable qualities to offer.

F

Film Review: Star Trek

Star Trek
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Released May 8, 2009

Updating the “Star Trek” franchise made sense. The show had been off the air for the first time in eighteen years when “Enterprise” got cancelled after its fourth season on UPN. Before that, “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,” and “Star Trek: Voyager,” had all introduced new crews with different directives, bizarre alien races, and amiable personalities. In between (and during) this string of new shows and the end of the original “Star Trek” series in 1969, no less than feature films were released detailing the continued adventures of our future Starfleet heroes. An eleventh film was due inevitable. What didn’t strike everyone as common sense, however, was opting for a complete reboot. As casting news came out, this new “Star Trek” seemed like a teenage edition with each character seeming more cartoonish than the one before. This grandscale relaunch could have been a massive, all-out disaster.

Fortunately, 2009’s take on “Star Trek” is far from a disaster. With talented action / sci-fi director J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost, Fringe) behind the wheel, this reboot is a grand reimagining of the origins of the Starship Enterprise and all of its crew. It’s perfect for new viewers, or rather those who would die before being called “Trekkies,” but it still contains reference after reference that can make a diehard fan go wild with joy. Even the plot is generally intact, with one major history-changing shift which is easily explained and even centrally important to the film’s story. The “Star Trek” of 2009 is a fresh look at the final frontier explored in the 1960s series, and it succeeds in crafting a completely new set of characters who aren’t all that different from their historic counterparts.

Casting is a major part of the film’s success. Newcomer Chris Pine is a perfect fit for the loose cannon, cocky Kirk, although unlike the character’s original portrayer, William Shatner, Pine can actually act! Zachary Quinto is a dead ringer for Leonard Nimoy as Spock, and his onscreen work with Pine is absolutely incredible. Neither Shatner nor Leonard Nimoy ever evoked as much emotion or fought quite as well as these two young actors. The rest of the cast includes capable rising stars filling the shoes of the crew, including a feisty Zoe Saldana as Uhura, a hilarious Anton Yelchin as Chekov, a spot-on Simon Pegg as Scotty, and a truly entertaining Karl Urban as Bones. The movie even allows in someone over the age of 35 to guide them, and Bruce Greenwood is a terrific choice as the courageous Captain Pike. An unrecognizable Eric Bana also makes for a good villain as the time-traveling, hell-bent-on-revenge Nero.

The film jumps right into the action in its opening minutes, foregoing what might have seemed like a necessary recap for non-Trek fans. It quickly establishes its own universe where Kirk enters Starfleet always due to pure chance, and the inevitable crew of the Enterprise is forged due to extenuating circumstances which drive the film’s narrative core. It’s an altogether exciting adventure dusted with humor at almost every spot. The spirit of “boldly going where no man has gone before” is still there; this installment in the franchise is just working its way there. Some were beyond concerned when the teaser trailer included shots of the ship itself being constructed on Earth, but this film doesn’t stay tied down to the ground. It launches its young cast into space quickly and easily, and while it’s not as heavy on the aliens as the original show was, it’s still a fascinating and fun exercise in restarting a franchise successfully. There’s little to complain about, as the film doesn’t really do anything wrong, and a sequel is already in the works. Consider this an extremely positive experiment, and an entertaining and enjoyable one at that.

B+

Crazy Change for Oscars 2010

It's out on the web that next year's Oscar ceremony will feature ten nominees for Best Picture instead of five, for the first time since "Casablanca" beat out 9 other movies in 1943. Nathaniel R has interesting thoughts on what this will mean, whether we'll see filler nominees like "Finding Neverland" and "Seabiscuit" or if this will open up the opportunity to honor films like "Eternal Sunshine" and "Wall-E" that were just never going to make the top five but might have had a shot at the top ten. I think this is a sort of cool idea, but then again I do like tradition and think that adding it this particular year is a bit strange and random. It's better than the Emmy decision to nominate 6 instead of 5 actors and shows in each category, but it's still just weird. I have no idea what movies might make it in this year, but last year probably would have seen "The Dark Knight," "Revolutionary Road," "Defiance," "Wall-E," and "Doubt" included as well. But for every organization that always announces a top ten, there's always a surprise in there. That could be cool for the Oscars, but it all just feels too experimental.

Thoughts, anyone? Is this a good change? Are you happy about it? What films could benefit and get recognized? "Up," maybe?

Film Review: Whatever Works

Whatever Works
Directed by Woody Allen
Released June 19, 2009

Any director who establishes himself inevitably starts essentially making the same movie over and over again. In some cases, an attempt to branch out is made, like Martin Scorsese, who moved from gangster pictures like “Mean Streets” and “Goodfellas” to period fare like “Gangs of New York” and “The Aviator.” Some, like Steven Spielberg, shed their fantasy roots of “Close Encounters” and “E.T.” to tackle important subjects in “Schindler’s List” and “Munich.” Those directors eventually come back to what they originally knew and loved – Scorsese with “The Departed” and Spielberg with “War of the Worlds” – but something’s changed, and it’s a positive thing. “The Departed” is hip and quick, and “War of the Worlds” is a thrilling action piece whose effects can at least be defended by most. Woody Allen tried fantasy elements with “Curse of the Jade Scorpion” and “Scoop,” and ventured into dark drama with “Match Point” and “Cassandra’s Dream.” Now he’s back to his original area, and, in his case, not much has changed.

Allen, now 73 years old, has perhaps realized that it’s a bit of a stretch for people to believe that he’s still some dashing, irresistibly handsome intellectual who can make young, pretty woman fall head over heels in love with him (not that he necessarily ever could, but his characters certainly imply that it’s the case). The story is still generally the same: an older man with a pessimistic view of life, who charms a young ingénue (with his lack of charm) into falling for him and his unique outlook. Characters, especially Allen’s lead, banter expectedly. It’s a traditional Woody Allen story, set in New York and following a distinctly Woody Allen character through his various highs and missteps. The trouble is, the slightly appealing Allen isn’t the one leading the charge.

Larry David made a name for himself writing “Seinfeld.” His later show, “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” picked up on the former’s theme of not having any real theme, save for Larry offending someone in some dastardly way at nearly every turn. David isn’t really an actor, simply uttering his humorous quips as he might deliver them at a dinner party or talking to his wife at home. On “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” it’s not a problem. No one is supposed to like Larry. But when David has the starring role in a motion picture where he’s not supposed to be playing Larry David, it gets in the way. Allen has a wonderful way of making the audience forget he’s so thoroughly obnoxious because there’s something inherently unthreatening and likeable about him. With David, that’s not the case. He’s constantly rude, and doesn’t seem to feel the need to impress even himself. Worse still, he’s supposed to be an elitist intellectual, which means that he knows he doesn’t need to work hard in any other area of life because he’s smart enough to get through on his wits alone. People like that may exist, but they don’t make for terribly interesting protagonists, especially when Allen’s screenplay is pretty much already written and polished in audiences’ minds before the token Allen credits roll at the start of the film.

David’s intrusive nature plagues the entire film since he is its critical center, but fortunately, a number of highly skilled actors pop up throughout the film to offer their dramatic abilities. Evan Rachel Wood adopts a Southern accent and dim-witted attitude which would probably be able to tame Allen, though she doesn’t have a shot against David’s perpetual ignorance of her. Patricia Clarkson earns her typical “best in show” award as Wood’s flamboyant mother, whose transplantation from Mississippi to New York transforms her in a radical way. Ed Begley Jr.’s brief role as Clarkson’s former husband is also fun, but Allen should really look back at his older films like “Crimes and Misdemeanors” and “Hannah and Her Sisters” to appreciate how he successfully used so many actors in small parts. Begley has little to do, and Michael McKean, who is capable of being flat-out hilarious, isn’t given a single scene to show off his talents. Allen’s characters have always been self-absorbed, and David’s Boris is so full of himself he takes up the entire movie. The tragic mistake there is that he’s its least interesting character, and he’s unbelievably familiar – a clear takeoff on so many past Allen incarnations. This film is more like last year’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” in the way that its premise makes for a fun trailer indicating cleverness, but once the movie gets going, it’s clear that it isn’t headed anywhere interesting. It contains a number of very funny lines, but they’re smushed together in the middle of an unexciting story and crammed into Boris’ rants like items on a checklist. The aimlessness of “Whatever Works” makes it seem like Allen just isn’t trying anymore. He’s content with what he’s produced in the past, and wants to make more. He likely thought, based on his history, whatever works.

C

Film Review: Away We Go

Away We Go
Directed by Sam Mendes
Released June 12, 2009

Sam Mendes has only made four films to date, and they have been heavy-handed dramas (Road to Perdition, Revolutionary Road) often-twinged with a wicked sense of humor (American Beauty, Jarhead). He’s taken a three-year break between each of those, finely honing his very carefully put-together films. His fifth film comes only months after “Revolutionary Road,” and it’s a starkly different movie from the rest of his filmography. “Away We Go” is a simple story about two people who head on the road in search of the perfect family after discovering they’re going to have a baby. Mendes has focused in on couples before in “American Beauty” and “Revolutionary Road,” but never has he so clearly presented the characters they meet through their eyes.

Bart and Verona are quiet, unassuming people who live their lives without much flair but also without really interacting extensively with other people. Bart and Verona’s cross-country exploration is a search for the kind of world the couple would like to live in, since they exist in a very solitary sort of bubble, and they realize they should know what’s out there so that their child can be prepared for the world. Bart and Verona know each other well, but they’re still very prone to discover things about themselves along their journey as they encounter a wide variety of parental and family units. The subtle chemistry between Bart and Verona is the film’s driving heart, but there’s so much the film does right.

A fellow critic remarked that the film contains every independent film cliché as well as every family cliché. I cite that as a major strength for the film, in that it covers so much ground and allows Bart and Verona to see every possible future themselves through the lens of some wonderfully entertaining characters. The flow of actors goes from good to great, featuring Allison Janney as a tireless wacko, Maggie Gyllenhaal as an even crazier alternative-lifestyle mother, Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey as a functional couple, and Paul Schneider as a desolate father whose wife has left him. Catherine O’Hara and Jeff Daniels ever stop by to play Bart’s off-kilter parents. The cast is so strong, and each of the characters are so richly developed despite appearing on screen for such a limited time.

The supporting cast is stellar, but the stars of the film are equally tremendous. John Kraskinski, who appears weekly as sweet prankmaster Jim Halpert on “The Office,” sheds Jim’s overconfidence and need to cause trouble and embodies an entirely sentimental Bart, who gets exciting in the least apparent of ways and, despite his own hang-ups, does everything he can to support his pregnant girlfriend. Krasinski proves that he’s made of more than just “The Office,” and watching the comedy series after seeing the movie proves that Krasinski has in fact stepped out of his shell, and succeeded gloriously in the process. Maya Rudolph gets a similar opportunity to abandon her comedic upbringing, leaping far away from her “Saturday Night Live” stint and her role in 2006’s “Idiocracy” to play a mild-mannered woman who can crack jokes without stealing attention from showier players. Verona accepts things as they happen, and Rudolph is marvelously gracious in her silent reactions. The chemistry between Krasinski and Rudolph is unspoken, but it feels just right for Bart and Verona.

The film does have a decidedly independent feel, but that takes the pressure off of Mendes, who usually infuses his films with serious music and lavish sets and cinematography. Simple titles and a smart script peppered with fantastic actors in small parts makes for a terrific experience that can leave an unsuspecting viewer extremely surprised and satisfied. “Away We Go” defines its story in its title, and it’s a magnificent adventure that doesn’t try too hard to proclaim itself. Mendes knows how to make a stinging drama, but he’s also capable of a quirky dramedy that doesn’t take itself too seriously and still packs a delightful punch.

A-