| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who's Harry Crumb? - PG-13 | May 5, 2012 | N/A | ||||
| The Giant Mechanical Man - PG-13 | May 5, 2012 | N/A | ||||
| Lumière and Company - Unrated | A 55-second film from Lynch using a 100-yr old camera under tight restrictions. He still works in some very Lynchian images. | March 30, 2012 | N/A | |||
| Casa de mi padre - R |
Thanks for ruining my birthday, Will Ferrell. Tuesday was my birthday, and on Tuesdays I can see movies for free at Clearview Cinemas, thanks to my Optimum Rewards card. Ah, but there was nothing of interest at my favorite Clearviews this Tuesday, so... I spent SEVEN DOLLARS for a matinee showing at a different theater chain. Hey, why not, treat myself! It was my freaking birthday. And I had really been looking forward to Casa de mi Padre. I thought, this is the kind of movie other people won't like but I'll like a whole lot. You know, like Cabin Boy. I saw Will Ferrell interviewed. I read a lengthy article about it. Will Ferrell does what he likes to do, damn the corporate pressures! This could be a gamechanger for Mexican-produced films. But it had such a small budget and was having a small release. It would have to do well to expand into more theaters! Oh how I was rooting for this little movie. You forgot one thing, Ferrell. You forgot to make a movie that didn't suck. Now, I totally admire the guts it took to do a movie in Spanish with English subtitles. (Though immediate points off for having a voice at the beginning tell us, in English, that the movie is in Spanish. Trust your audience much, Mr. Ferrell?) Ferrell pulls it out, playing it generally straight. He's working hard, he's wearing funny outfits, he's singing, he's trying to entertain us and I appreciate it. But I'd led to believe that the laughs would come from the fact that there weren't laughs--that they were playing everything straight. Not the case. There is lame, sophomoric humor throughout. This is not a cleverly written film. I looked up Andrew Steele--one of Ferrell's "Funny or Die" buddies. His only previous screenplay was "The Ladies' Man." Not a great moment in SNL film history. And the movie is supposedly an homage to a bygone era in Mexican films. Except, it's not cleverly directed. Guess what? This is Matt Piedmont's movie-directing debut. And you know where he's done a lot of previous work? "Funny or Die Presents." Which is famously hit-or-miss. So things that are supposed to look like spoofs of low-budget sets and choppy editing instead come across as cheap and careless. The talented Gael Garcia Bernal is on hand, but with so little to do, I could only concentrate on his resemblance to a young Pauly Shore. Nick "Ron Swanson" Offerman shows up and is not funny. This week it was announced that an Anchorman sequel is finally in the works. But Will Ferrell announced it on Conan, so maybe he doesn't want anyone to see that either. |
March 29, 2012 | N/A | |||
| The Salt of Life - Unrated |
Is this me in 20 years? (The Salt of Wound?) Sixty-three-year-old writer/director Gianni Di Gregorio plays 63-year-old Gianni, a prematurely-retired admirer of beautiful younger women who is a bit too shy to pull the proverbial trigger. Ninety minutes later, you've got a light, charming film that either you will totally love, like I did, or at the very least, be inspired to book a vacation to Rome. And what a beautiful Rome that we see here. The sun is always shining. There is wine, music, food, and yes, lots and lots of beautiful young women. They're everywhere, and Gianni can't help but look, often stopping dead in his tracks while walking the dog to turn and stare, entranced. This is his true life's work but he is constantly being distracted from it by his overbearing mother (a terrific character and performance), his sex-obsessed lawyer friend, andâ"oh yesâ"his immediate family. Gianni lives with his wife but they seem to be just "friends." His daughter is more sympathetic to Gianni, and then there's her can't-quite-break-up-with-him boyfriend, who is the Italian version of that sweet dumb kid from The Descendants. The story is fairly episodic in natureâ"amusing little vignettesâ"but themes definitely develop. Aging, for sure, and can we still be attractive and vital. Obligations to family, and the excuses we give ourselves for not pursuing our passions. And the modern economy hangs over the proceedingsâ"characters can't find decent work. I was enjoying the movie well enough, and then the final 3 minutes, 22 seconds brought it to a whole other level for me. A perfect ending to the movie. Bravo, Gianni! |
March 9, 2012 | N/A | |||
| The Artist - PG-13 |
The Artist is a pretty nice film, but it doesn't have a lot to say. I didn't want to see it. I resisted seeing it. The trailers seemed too cutesy for me. A little too slick. You know who does good homages to the silent era? This Canadian guy named Guy, Guy Maddin. His movies are artful and darkly comic and awe-inspiring. But this... this seemed... cute. Then I saw that it was made by the son of Claude Berri. He had directed those movies I loved so much in college, Jean de Florette and Manon of the Spring. Might be a nice "homage" to him to see his son's film. Wait, the son produced it, didn't direct it. Hmmm. Then The Artist won a bunch of Academy Awards. I still didn't feel compelled to see it. So what changed my mind? Well, I was in Teaneck, New Jersey, and it was 9:30 p.m. on the day of Hoboken's St. Patrick's drunken idiot-fest, and I wasn't in much of a rush to head back to the Mile Square City. And there is a $5.75 movie theatre in Teaneck. And The Artist was playing at 9:50. It's cute. It is stylistically very well-done. Not Maddin quality, but well-done. There are gentle laughs and many smiles. The French guy who won Best Actor, he's good, he's very good. Star quality, you might say. I don't think he's better than George Clooney in The Descendants, but, he's quite good. The best French actor in a silent movie since Marcel Marceau in Silent Movie. The female lead is charming. She's fun to watch. Who else is in this? Seems like an awful lot of English-speakers for a French movie. And those Weinsteins produced it. Is this an actual French movie or an American movie made by some French people? John Goodman is here, looking slimmer (well, it's either Goodman looking good or Jonah Hill has gone to hell). James Cromwell has gone from babysitting a talking pig to babysitting a silent Frenchman. And is that Eddie from Frasier? Oh wait, he's dead. Malcolm McDowell (sans droogies) and Penelope Ann Miller are in this for about 8 minutes combined and I'm not sure why I mentioned them. The story is, well, you know how talkies replaced silent films, and video killed the radio star, and the Internet finished off newspapers? That's all that happens here. Writer/director Michel Hazanybodyseenmygirl doesn't have anything to add to that familiar idea. (Though there are several cleverish winks to the fact that we're watching a silent movie.) And also there's the tired A Star Is Born love story, the down-on-his-luck veteran, the peppy newcomer (named Peppy). Michel Havananights doesn't really know why the French guy should leave his wife so she very conveniently leaves him. There, we don't have to view our protagonist as a cad! As we say in France, voilà ! And the movie is long. Well, feels long, anyway. A very long 100 minutes. Late in the film I thought, with really no disrespect, "This would've made a very cute commercial." Instead it's a feature-length movie. Eh, it's cute. Maybe it will make you fall in love with the golden age of silent film. But if you already love movies, you can probably skip this. |
March 4, 2012 | N/A | |||
| Wanderlust - R |
The basic premise of Wanderlust is that we're all stupid: city people, suburban people, off-the-grid types. If you can get behind this philosophyâ"and were also a fan of The Stateâ"I think you'll find this to be a very, very funny movie. It turns out to be one of the stronger movies from The State crew, working with their extended Children's Hospital family, and a dash of Apatow (including a very funny newscast sequence with the State members not in the main cast here). Paul Rudd is reliably Ruddian as put-upon likable everyman [insert whatever his character's name is this time]. Jennifer Aniston seems better suited to this goofy role than much of the cinematic dreck she often associates with. Alan Alda is amusing as a wacked-out elder statesman, and Linda Lavin gets some laughs as a Manhattan realtor. Rudd and Aniston flee the city in what initially feels like a rip from Albert Brooks' "Lost in America." And I got a little hung up wondering what they did with their mortgage in what's explained as an impossible real-estate market. But the jokes come fast and furious and I was laughing too hard to worry about little inconsistencies. Rudd has an extended sequence talking in a mirror that had me in tears. Some of the jokes have a very "sketch comedy" feel rather than coming naturally from a realistic situation. That was fine with meâ"it's comedy. In fact, when the movie tries to get a little more plot-driven/true-to-life, that's where it starts to falter. (The Apatow factor?) The last 20 minutes or so felt a lot more standard issue: how will the lovable hippies get the land back? How will Rudd and Aniston patch up their differences? But the laughs that precede this are definitely worth checking out. |
March 2, 2012 | N/A | |||
| A Dangerous Method - R |
I think about Keira nightly. What? Oh, sorry, it's spelled Knightley. I've been an admirer since the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, but I guess I've only seen her in that, Bend It Like Beckham, Pride & Prejudice, and now this. And maybe she's not the greatest actress of her generation, but you know what, she's pretty darn good. As Sabina Spielrein, she has a bit of a moose-und-squirrel Russian accent, and the mentally-unbalanced tics and moans of an actor thinking "ooh this is the role that gets me nominated again." But she doesn't overdo it and thus is quite effective in the part, nicely balancing madness, intellect, and sexuality. And sex comes up a lot here. I don't know too much about Sigmund Freud (despite reading his Civilization and Its Discontents and Character and Culture in a great college course). And I know even less about Carl Jung. And I'd never heard of Spielrein. So, first off, there was fascinating history in this for me. And amazing that the psychological analysis of sexual urges that we take for granted now was first seriously discussed not much more than a century ago. Freud is sexualizing everything, Jung is getting mystical, and in between them steps this kooky Russian Jew who has some compelling notions of her own. Talk about a beautiful mind! Viggo is solid as Freud but it is Michael Fassbender-like-Beckham who really impresses. Whether he is standing up to Father Figure Freud or fighting a losing battle against temptation, Fassbender makes us feel for Jung. ("You make me feel so Jung....") This is not the sort of film that gets a sequel, but apparently Jung's life gets even more interesting later. I was hungry for more. David Cronenberg frames things beautifully in what is a fairly talky movie. (Well, it is the "talking cure" after all.) I must say, a lingering shot on some polygraph-esque machinery did make me long for the twistedness of Dead Ringers, etc. Still, a very worthwhile entry in his canon. Which I would word-associate with cannon, which Freud would say is⦠|
January 16, 2012 | N/A | |||
| Young Adult - R |
I was feeling 3.5 stars for a long time, I really was. Maybe even 4 early on, and "Oh no, will I have to revise my 2011 best-of list?" It starts out very refreshing, because the main character in this sort of movieâ"well, and also, in my lifeâ"is almost always a guy. As Mavis, Charlize Theron displays a flair for comedy we haven't really seen since Arrested Development, Teenage Fanclub's "The Concept" is prominently featured, the Juno dream team of Reitman and Cody is reunitedâ"I was feeling really good about this movie. Didn't hurt that I could relate to it. Mavis's life and lifestyle hit a little close to home. And of course the Facebook era has made many of us wonder, "What if things had gone differently with so-and-so?" Patton Oswalt is in his wheelhouse here as a lonely schlub. (Though occasionally his performance seems a bit more like stand-up Patton than actor Patton. Who am I kidding, I was more concerned that people leaving the theater would point at me and say, "It's him!!!") Reitman once again navigates a potentially clichà (C)d situation: a fish-out-of-water tale of the city girl returning to her small townâ"and makes it feel true. Nice comic touches abound. Charlize and Patton's slowly developing friendship feels real. So what's wrong here? Well, a couple of things in my estimation. Though Mavis is very amusingâ"and gorgeous, very gorgeousâ"she isn't real likable. No one is. So the movie doesn't really have a moral center. And then, the movie takes a hard, sudden turn from realistic comedy to heavy, heavy drama. There are hints of this throughout (spolier alert: Mavis pulls at her hair), but at least for me, the movie hadn't earned the right to get so serious. Ooh, wait, a third thing: The ending didn't feel satisfying. My advice: Wait for cable, watch it, you'll mostly enjoy it--at the very least, another great Reitman soundtrack and a J.K. Simmons audio cameoâ"and then see if you feel differently about the ending. |
January 10, 2012 | N/A | |||
| Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol - PG-13 |
I hadn't gone to see a movie starring Tom Cruise since, well, Mission: Impossible III. And guess what? The crazy bastard can still put together a totally entertaining action film. It won't win any awards, but Ghost Protocol was much more enjoyable beginning to end than several other recent "quality" films. Tom himself is looking a little tired, but remarkably, the series isn't. We must give credit to yet another top-flight director (Brad Bird, who follows Brian DePalma, John Woo, and J.J. Abrams). Whether it was a budget decision or just confidence in the material, this Mission is less star-packed than the previous installments. Yeah, we get Jeremy "Hurt Locker" Renner, but otherwise it's Simon Pegg (back for comic relief), a couple of quick cameos, and generic quasi-Hispanic tough-as-nails team member. (Michelle Rodriguez is not returning calls post-Avatar?) Ah yes, and because this feels like an excellent episode of 24, we get President Omar Hassan in a funny little sequence. The M:I movies may not be as good as the Bourne films, or even the recent Bond movies, but for what it is, it's pretty terrific. The music, the gadgets, and lots of clever and/or thrilling set pieces. We want action and the movie delivers. There wasn't one moment where I thought "Now that is over-the-top stupid," and I have to say, that's pretty high praise. |
January 3, 2012 | N/A | |||
| Hugo - PG |
Are Hugo and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close the same movie? A boy, a key, a search for a message from a dead father. And, if I can trust the reviews of Extremely Loud, both disappointments. What? A disappointment? But you gave it 3.5 stars! And you love Martin Scorsese. You loved Shutter Island, fer crissakes! What can I say, I was underwhelmed. Not for the first hour, though. There is a magic here, I was under its spell. I was a wee bit concerned with Scorsese directing a kids' movie. He hadn't even done a lighthearted film since 1985's After Hours (which I loved, loved, loved). But this has a great feel at the beginning. It was how I wanted the first couple of Harry Potter movies to feel. Likewise, the 3-D early on is handled masterfully, not in a "ooh watch out for that red-hot poker coming right at us!" sort of way, but in giving the film a beautiful sense of depth, as we walk down corridors and enter large spaces. We've got our requisite tousle-haired orphan boy, behind-the-scenes clockworks at an old train station, and all is right in the world. For me, the spell was broken in the movie's second half. I blame the source material and Scorcese being too close to the topic at hand. Some stories focus on character, some on plot. This has neither!! The book won a Caldecott? Really? The movie's second hour feels like a Disneyland attraction on the history of film. Yes, Scorcese, we know you're obsessed with film preservation. It's important and we appreciate it. But you don't have to shove it down our throats, especially after making us pay the 3-D surcharge. (Coincidentally, there seem to be more inside-small-room scenes later in the movie, where the 3-D is generally pointless.) They actually have a character say, "Time has not been kind to old movies." Oh for crying out loud!! Performance-wise: Harry and Hermione, er, Hugo and whatever the girl's name is are portrayed by Asa Butterfield (whose blue eyes currently have more depth than his acting ability) and Chloe Moretz, whose character loves big words and adventure and this becomes tiresome after a while. There's no real spark between the two, maybe because the Moretz character seems destined to grow up to be a lesbian intellectual. Ben Kingsley and Christopher Lee add gravitas and do decent work. Borat is here, and has some amusing scenes. Scorsese must like Serious Man Michael Stuhlbarg's work on Boardwalk Empire, because he shows up here smiling in a beard. The usually great Emily Mortimer has very little to do here beyond look adorable. ("Why yes, Mr. Scorcese, I'd be honored to play this important role in your movie. What's that? Call you Marty? Well, OK then, Mr. Scorâ"Marty!") It's a well-made movie. It looks great. There are moments of wonder. Ultimately though, I'm thinking it's best for its intended audience: kids. Maybe some will seek out old-time movies as a result. Perhaps a handful will grow up to be film preservationists. That's all good. But to me, it all felt a bit like a Selznick-Scorsese circle jerk: "Books are great!!" "No, no, MOVIES are great!" "No, you and your books!" "No, you and your movies!" Marty has made his love letter to the movies. Few other current filmmakers have earned that right. Grown-ups may just want to rent Cinema Paradiso. |
January 2, 2012 | N/A | |||
| The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - R |
Spoiler alert: It's a temporary tattoo. OK, I hadn't read the books, nor seen the original movies. But the trailer looked good, and David Fincher directed, and oh man do I love me some David Fincher. (Social Network was my favorite movie of 2010, Fight Club one of my all-time faves, and hey don't forget Zodiac.) And for quite a while this felt like another one of his best. But then it didn't anymore. What happened? We start out with some pretty standard mystery/police-drama devices. The discredited protagonist. The doesn't-play-by-the-rules investigator. A room full of people in which one is likely... a murderer! And yet for almost two hours it doesn't feel like a genre flick, for many reasons. The titular Girl is a terrific character, with Rooney Mara showing she's a far superior actress than her American Horror Story sister. Daniel Craig is subdued and very un-Bond-like. The snowy, bleak, shades-of-grey Swedish setting adds to the feeling of tension that begins in the opening seconds and doesn't let up. The only things that bothered me in the early going were a way-too-convenient plot-development visit from Craig's character's daughter, and what seemed like (though wasn't confirmed in the credits) product placement from Apple and Epson. This from the man who mocked IKEA culture so effectively in Fight Club. (Actually, IKEA is name-checked here, appropriate for Sweden.) But still, the movie chugged along, clues being gathered, with sprinkles of Nazism and a healthy serving of sadism. And then⦠i don't know. I suppose i have to blame the late Stieg Larsson. In a movie that had avoided stupidity, what feels like a climactic scene is tremendously stupid. Ironically enough, very Bond-like. But it's not the end! Like the Energizer bunny, the movie just keeps going, and going. And like The Dark Knight, the last half-hour-plus felt extraneous, like another movie. Salieri thought Mozart used too many notes. To the no-longer-alive Mr. Larsson, i say: Too much plot! Much like Spielberg in War Horse (man, I am doing a lot of referring-elsewhere in this review!), Fincher doesn't give up after the stupid moment. He is stylish, and had a good ending to work with. But too much of the film's later section felt like the genre exercise that it had avoided being early on. Enjoyable, but maybe my least favorite Fincher? (Honestly can't recall how I felt about Panic Room, though now I see that a young Kristen Stewart was in it. Huh!) |
December 31, 2011 | N/A | |||
| War Horse - PG-13 |
In my lifetime, there have been many notable horse movies: International Velvet, Black Stallion, Phar Lap, Sylvester, and Seabiscuit quickly come to mind. And I didn't see ANY of them. Why? Horses are for girls! (Though I did think Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken was an awesome title, and I used it as the chorus of a song I wrote. I didn't write a song, just a chorus.) But war is for boys. So could this be the equine flick that would finally make me saddle up? Add my man Spielberg to the proceedings and the answer was a resounding yes. And I almost liked this movie a whole lot. Almost. Immediately, it has a different feel to it. An old-fashioned feel. You're almost surprised that War Horse is filmed in color. There isn't any cynicism here, or bad language, or graphic violence. And not a lot of subtlety either. The plot is straightforward: Crusty farmer outbids conniving land owner for wild young horse. That horse will never plow a field, ha ha! Farmer's strident son trains the horse and proves everyone wrong. The British takes the horse away to World War I. Will the boy and horse be reunited? Well, this is a Spielberg movie. But is it a children's movie? I'll say yes, but certainly for kids of a particular age, temperament, and maturity. There are a couple of battlefield scenes hereâ"during and afterâ"that are pretty intense. Not in terms of gore or bullets, mind you. But war is scary, and this movie definitely conveys that idea. For a kid who can handle that, there are some important lessons here: of friendship, loyalty, fear, bravery, determination, and the classic soldier's dilemma--how can you fight someone when you realize he's not that different from you? OK, that's all well and good for the kids, but, is this also a movie for adults? For more than half of it, I absolutely thought so. There was a consistency to the tone and some real Spielbergian brilliance. A scene is which soldiers on horseback rise out a wheatfieldâ"pollen floating into the air, the pounding sound of stampeding horses contrasting with the rustled wheat, with the camera perfectly placed at wheat-levelâ"that is my opinion one of his greatest filmed moments. There are beautiful panoramas, and we already know Spielberg can handle his way around a battlefield. (Troops advancing into "No Man's Land" quickly reminded me of Band of Brothers.) But the elements that make this palatable for young viewers ultimately stretch believability too far for the discerning adult. What began as a hokey-but-realistic tale starts to take on the obviousness of allegory. We jump from vignette to vignette, locale to locale each exposing a different side of the folly and horror of war. (The actors are generally excellent, especially Niels Arestrup, the windmill-dwelling grandfather, who I hope gets a Best Supporting Actor nomination.) A scene late in the film with a British soldier and his German counterpart was entirely too corny (was it directly from the Broadway version?), and at that moment I realized, this is more for kids than for me. Still, Spielberg is a master, and he knows how to end a movie, so he... excuse me... reins us back in. A tug on the heartstrings here, some gorgeous cinematography there, and we all live happily ever after. |
December 25, 2011 | N/A | |||
| The Sitter - R |
It's Jonah Hill's last movie as a big fat guy! (For now, anyway.) And like the thinner fellow we've seen emerge, there's a mediocre movie trying to break free from this unfortunately crappy film. It almost gets there, but alas there is too much shoddiness and willful stupidity from the filmmakers to be overcome. Which is a shame, because Jonah Hill gives a funny, warm-hearted performance. With his work here and in Moneyball, he's had a solid few months. (Thought the trailer for him in 21 Jump Street was shown before this, and boy that looks like utter garbage.) This starts out harmless enough: It's Adventures in Babysitting with a fat guy instead of Elisabeth Shue. Or After Hours with a fat guy instead of Griffin Dunne. Slacker Hill saves his single mom's night out by filling in for a neighbor's sitter. Zaniness ensues, and that's watchable enough. Where does it go wrong? All over the place. Two of the three kids' characters immediately become unbearable. There's the celeb-obsessed, overly mature little girl who quotes naughty rap lyrics. Yawn. Then there's a crazily racist portrayal of the adopted Latino son. What the hell, guys? The little anxious fellow doesn't add much, but I didn't hate him at least. Hill's character takes everyone aside at some point and lays some gentle, philosophical truth on them. It feels so forced into the script. Which is also a shame, as Hill delivers these monologues with real feeling. He's trying here, he really is. Sam Rockwell shows up as a quirky, male-loving drug kingpin. He's mildly amusing but overall it feels like he's slumming. Leon from Curb Your Enthusiasm is Rockwell's sidekick. Whatever. Then the writers and director get really lazy and start piling on explosions and guns and car chases. (Good to see Method Man again, at least.) And the movie gets worse and worse. It's only 81 minutes long, but feels much, much longer. David Gordon Green is the director. He also helmed Your Highness, perhaps the worst movie I saw this year. (Will be compiling that list soon.) While this is significantly better, believe me, that's not saying very much at all. |
December 13, 2011 | N/A | |||
| Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - R |
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is a smartly written, wonderfully performed, expertly directed film which I enjoyed very much... and yet, left the theater wondering, "Wait--what the hell just happened?" I never read the book, mysteries not really being my bag, and I was too young for the mini-series. But it's one of those titles that just seemed to be everywhere during my youth. In supermarket racks of paperbacks, with Coma, Shogun, All Creatures Great and Small, etc. And I shouldn't have to read the book to totally get what's going on, right? The fact that it was adapted as a 7-part mini-series is a bit of a red flag: By stretching things out, I imagine various confusions were handled quite clearly. Still, a pleasure to watch. Gary Oldman bounces back from paychecks like Commissioner Gordon and Sirius Black to really inhabit a role. It's much more subdued than the young man I remember in Sid and Nancy and Track 29 but no less compelling. As veteran intelligence officer George Smiley, he's been professionally and personally wounded but, well, you've seen movies--he's called back to crack one more case to, well, you've seen 24--to uncover a mole at the highest ranks. Oldman is surrounded by other great actors: John Hurt (very different role than in Melancholia but just as believable), Ciarán Hinds (who I enjoyed very much in The Eclipse), man-of-the-hour Colin Firth, various other Brits you may or may not recognize including young Al Capone from Boardwalk Empire. Tomas Alfredson (who also directed Let the Right One in, which I really need to put on my Queue) puts you right in the bleak 1970's days of the Cold War, with England uncomfortably wedged between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. We don't get car chases or a lot of gunplay: The tension builds as Smiley slowly unravels the mystery. As in any time period, lust for power and, well, lust for lust have gummed up the works. We also see the ingrained institutional nonsense that The Wire did such a nice job of highlighting, which can often get in the way of doing a good job. Smiley, weary but dogged, peels away layer after layer in his pursuit. Clues are slowly collected, ample flashbacks flesh out relationships, and then, there's the conclusion. Which I won't spoil. It makes sense, but to me it felt like we meticulously went from A to B to C to D, etc. etc, but then jumped from V to Z. Which then made me wonder about G, and wait, didn't M say that.... So I'll be on Wikipedia trying to sort things out. Or maybe looking for a used paperback. |
December 10, 2011 | N/A | |||
| Melancholia - R |
It's the end of the world as we know it, and Kirsten Dunst feels... melancholy. This is an art film with a capital A, so those of you who don't care for that sort of thing, stop reading right now. I beg you. Don't tell anyone, but I've only seen one previous Lars von Trier film, the Bjork-starring Dancer in the Dark way back in 2000. (Which I liked a lot.) No, I never saw Breaking the Waves, OK? Have I lost some independent-film cred? So be it. I think I have Dogville on my Netflix queue, if that's any consolation. Is this a big "metaphor" movie? I suppose you don't name a planet Melancholia without some imbedded meaning there. A planet that is heading toward Earth, possibly on a collision course. Though this the slowest sci-fi film since Solaris. Which I also liked a lot. So nyah, nyah, n-nyah nyah. That's more the second half of the movie, though. The first half deals with the most dysfunctional cinematic wedding since Rachel got married. The reception is stocked with top-flight actors turning in strong performances. John Hurt is terrific as the playful, irresponsible father of the bride. You can feel the conflict with Charlotte Rampling (excellent in Swimming Pool), the bitter, cynical mother of the bride. Stellan Skarsgard and Alexander Skarsgard are two different actors, and I apologize to them both for not locating the little circle at the top of the "a" for the second syllable. They're both good in this movie, especially Alexander as the hapless groom who just wants everything to be OK but knows in his heart that it never will be. And then there are our leads: Dunst as the bride, and Charlotte "Yes I'm Serge's daughter" Gainsbourg as her sister. I can imagine them both getting Best Actress nominations... and I imagine Charlotte winning!! They're both super-good. Part I of the movie focuses on "Justine" (Dunst). Part II is called "Claire" (I'll let you figure out who plays her). And they're both portrayals of women desperately trying to hold it together but ultimately failing. Succumbing. Dunst's performance is a bit more subtle, a bit more layered. Gainsbourg is asked to really go from one extreme to another, so it's her character that really tugs at our emotions. Interesting role reversals here: As each sister breaks down, the other becomes necessarily becomes stronger. In terms of fall releases, it's a more compelling look at sibling dynamics than Jack and Jill provided (which is not to totally knock the brother-sister portrayal in that movie). Von Trier creates a sense of anxiety very early on (a limo having a hell of a time making a K-turn on a country road) and never lets up for 2+ hours. It's an impressive piece of work as writer and director. The artsier elements are generally kept in check, though the movie begins with a montage of beautifully shot, somewhat surreal set pieces. Perhaps this is Claire's view of the world's possible end, funneled through her advertising career. Meanwhile, the wedding reception and family scenes bristle with hyper-reality. So much tension! (No wonder Claire keeps wanting to sneak away for a nap.) It all leads up to a conclusion whose power really snuck up on me. I like that in a movie. I like that a lot. I cannot end the review without a mention of Kiefer Sutherland as Claire's husband. I don't know if he auditioned, or was cast as a goof, but by gum he does an OK job. He's believable as a wealthy science hobbyist, the one trying to be rational, the typical male problem-solver. If the movie is too slow for you, it's fun to pretend he's Jack Bauer under deep cover, trying to prevent the end of the world. If you squint, you can even pretend that short-blond-coiffed Dunst is Kim Bauer. Sorry, no mountain lion. |
December 6, 2011 | N/A | |||
| The Muppets - PG |
The Muppets were huge in my upbringing. Kermit had been such a dependable friend on Sesame Street. So it was easy to make the transition to the edgier Muppet Show with Kermit as a guide, as I got progressively edgier myself. The first Muppet Movie came at a perfect time for me (Steve Martin! my hero!). And the Show wound down as I was losing interest: While my mom and sister saw the second movie, my dad and I went to see Superman II. So in many ways I'm the perfect audience for this--shall we call it a re-boot? No, let's not. Because this film steadfastly resists what must've been a strong temptation to be ultra-modern or to go for a lowest-common-denominator appeal. But the plot is perfectly taken from real life: Can the long-forgotten Muppets find relevance all these years later? I have to admit I was a little nervous with the reins being handed to Jason Segel and his Sarah Marshall co-creator Nicholas Stoller. I guessed they would make a valiant effort but fall short. And while this may not have the manic inventiveness and out-and-out silliness of the original Muppet Movie, I'm happy (and relieved) to say it comes very close. Segel and Stoller show great respect to the original material. There's a sweetness and gentleness throughout that I won't call old-fashioned, because those things should never be out of fashion. (The only true misstep I sensed was a goofy version of Cee-Lo's, um, well, the end credits called it "Forget You." And even though the lyrics were delivered as chicken clucking, the understood reference seemed unnecessarily crude.) The story is straightforward enough for any kid to understand; and there are enough random old references for those of us of a certain age to appreciate. Jason Segel does a terrific job as the human lead. He sings, he dances, he's earnest as all get-out. Chris Cooper makes an excellent villain. Amy Adams and Rashida Jones do respectable if not amazing work. Leading a long list of cameos, Jack Black is very funny. Other humans deserving credit are Bret from Flight of the Conchords, who wrote several original songs for this ("Muppet or a Man" sounding very Flight-of-the Conchordish). The cleverness of the lyrics and melodies lifts the music above what we might expect from a children's film (well, one without Randy Newman as composer, anyway). And Conchords' director James Bobin keeps the action brisk and easy-to-follow, and nothing looks too slick; there's a low-budget appeal to the proceedings. Of course the real stars are the Muppets. It was a real joy to see them again. It took a little while getting used to hearing them again: Except for Gonzo and others voiced by Dave Goelz, these are not the voices I grew up with. But, you know what, they're close enough, and it wasn't long into the film when I generally accepted them. Maybe not as many laugh-out-loud moments as I hoped for, but the smile never left my face. The Muppets did not disappoint. MINI-REVIEW: There was a Toy Story short before the movie. A quite-clever look at Happy Meal-esque toys, while admirably avoiding product placement (aside from the trademarked toys in the gang, who it was nice to see again). I did find the ending a bit abrupt, but, it's a shortâ"I'll let it slide. |
December 3, 2011 | N/A | |||
| The Descendants - R |
I am going to see a George Clooney movie every day. (OK, the streak MAY end tomorrow.) He's reliably excellent. Generally, he plays some version of himself, which is fine with most of us: He's a classic "women want him, men want to be him... and fine, we admit it, men also want him" persona. Here, Clooney stretches his talents: Yes, the archetypal Clooney is visible in the relaxed Hawaiian setting, but it's a more grown-up, put-upon character than we're accustomed to seeing him play. And the handsome S.O.B. hits it out of the park once again. Of course, Hawaii is also playing against type here: It's a cloudy Hawaii. A Hawaii with traffic. Clooney's opening narration lays it on the line: They've got the same problems there as anywhere else. And yet, those damn palm trees and Aloha shirts are everywhere. It's something I've thought about for a long time--nice places are the worst places to be miserable. Everything around you is telling you to be happy and the contrast can be devastating. And there is a lot of devastation in this story. The ads paint the mood as a bit brighter than it actually is. The Descendants is without a doubt a tearjerker; it is the most emotional movie I've seen in a while. There are laughs, there are smiles, but there's also a woman in a coma from the opening seconds, and the movie never lets you forget that. Ah, but Alexander Payne is a skillful enough director that it never crosses over into melodrama. In a way, I was reminded of Jason Reitman's direction of the Clooney-starring Up in the Air. Like in that film, there are many points during this when the source material could've led to a bad, over-the-top movie. Payne, like Reitman, lets the movie teeter on the edge, but always steers it back to safety. (Now, a totally bad filmmaker would've had Clooney humorously struggle with the challenges of becoming a real dad, and then, when he leasts expect it, fall in love.) While Clooney does the heavy lifting, he's nearly matched by a superb performance from young Shailene Woodley. Her character is forced to transform very quickly from bitter, disaffected teen to emotionally ruined daughter to forced-to-step-up maturity. She is 100% believable every step of the way and must be considered a serious contender for Best Supporting Actress. Nick Krause as goofy teen Sid also does some fine work. Younger daughter Amara Miller is not quite as effective, but when it counts she nails it. Not a perfect movie--it drags a bit after the halfway point, before a very solid conclusion. And the real-estate subplot doesn't totally mesh with the main thrust here. But oh how that main focusâ"on grief, betrayal, trying to come to terms with both, and trying to move forwardâ"is handled with subtlety and excellence. The Descendants stands as one of the year's better films. (Even if a certain punk band has always had me spelling it "The Descendents." I thought you went to college, Milo.) |
November 25, 2011 | N/A | |||
| The Ides of March - R |
The thing about politics: It's too political. And this movieâ"though very well-made, smartly written, and sharply performedâ"unfortunately doesn't have much more to say than that. Clooney has already proved himself more than competent behind the camera. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Good Night and Good Luck, and Leatherheads: All good, enjoyable, and diverse movies. This time director Clooney tackles political intrigue and is once again quite adept with the subject matter. Of course, we're well aware of Clooney's own political leanings, so the content here is a bit of a surprise. It feels like the work of a disillusioned liberal, which certainly captures the zeitgeist of the times. It's also an interesting "inside look" at the machinations of political campaigns. A movie hasn't spent this much time inside a campaign office since Taxi Driver. The cast is top-notch and each captures their character very well. Ryan Gosling is very believable as a slick but idealistic campaign strategist whose world becomes unraveled. Clooney is the perfect choice for a seemingly earnest presidential candidate, a send-up/mash-up of Clinton and Obama. Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti prove they're not the same guy, though their rival campaign-head characters are mirror images of each other, one a little more willing to indulge in trickery. Evan Rachel Wood is great as the mature, seductive, but in-over-her-head intern. And yet, maybe as you read that list of characters, you thought, hmm, this all seems a little familiar. Slick candidate, idealistic staffer, dirty tricks, sexy intern. We know that politicians are creeps. We know that politics is hopelessly crooked. We know that idealistic folks get jaded and become what they despised. Clooney tells the story well, but it's a story we already know. This ends up as very good movie that, if you feel like you want to see it, then you don't really need to see it. |
November 24, 2011 | N/A | |||
| Jack and Jill - PG |
I can see movies for free on Tuesdays. So occasionally, I'll see something on a Tuesday that I otherwise might not choose to see. Today was such a Tuesday. Now, Jack and Jill has been absolutely panned by critics. Still, it wasn't so black-and-white for me. You see, I've enjoyed a lot of Adam Sandler movies that were poorly reviewed. Very poorly reviewed. I'll lump the Rob Schneider movies into this category. (I saw Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo in the theater, for god's sake.) But something happened to Adam Sandler. As he was seemingly losing interest in the silliest, crudest movies, he reached a crossroads. I hoped he would pursue more artful projects like Punch-Drunk Love. There have been a couple of more "serious" outings, fairly lousy in my opinion (Spanglish, Funny People. I didn't see Reign Over Me. )Instead, he has mostly followed the Eddie Murphy path into family-friendly (or, if not, family-themed) bland mainstream "grown-up" comedies. So we've gotten Click. I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. Bedtime Stories. Grown Ups. Just Go With It. I haven't gone to see any of these. I haven't been happy with a Sandler movie since You Don't Mess With the Zohan. Which brings us to Jack and Jill. Hmmm.... family Sandler again. But... Sandler in drag. Could it be a return to the screwy Sandler of old? For free, it was worth a shot. There is plenty not to like here. Rampant product placement (Pepto Bismol, Dunkin Donuts, Royal Caribbean cruises, etc.). Fart jokes. A character that is a blatant rip-off of Fred Armisen's Fericito. Put-upon family man Sandler being grumpy throughout. And a slick Hollywood sheen to the proceedings that makes it feel kind of crummy. But.... there are a few signs of life. Sandler in drag, doing a crazy New York voice, is occasionally amusing. (The inevitable scene of the male twin dressing as the female, not so amusing.) It's comforting to see Sandler's loyalty to his old pals: Norm MacDonald, David Spade, Nick Swardson, Allen Covert. Then you get a slew of cameos which feels lazy but at least gives you something to look at. And there is some goofiness here. Al Pacino hamming it up. A (genuinely) cute kid obsessed with Scotch-taping things to himself. This isn't a good movie. But, I couldn't bring myself to hate it. It just didn't feel as cynical as the ads for those mainstream movies--you know, the ones with Kevin James in them--that Sandler seems to churn out so often. And besides, it was Tuesday. |
November 22, 2011 | N/A | |||
| A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas - R |
Just when we need them the most--well, at least, I do--Harold and Kumar are back. Their first film I consider a classic. The second, while not as great, was funnier than it had any right to be. By the third, perhaps afraid that fatigue would set in, the filmmakers add not one but TWO Hollywood fallbacks: the Christmas movie and the 3-D movie. And while I think this installment is a slight fall-off from part 2, it's a respectable and highly enjoyable entry in the series. I don't see a lot of the 3-D movies, but the use here seemed pretty ingenious and of a very high quality. Sure, you get a lot of pot smoke blown in your face. But you also jump back many times and laugh while you do. I would guess that they blew most of the 3-D budget early on in the movie, as the effect is used much less often later in the film. Coincidentally, the film drags a bit in its second half. Perhaps bracing for this as well, the filmmakers save the always terrific NPH for some hilarious scenes later on. He's just one of the dependable charms of the film. Cho and Penn are once again excellent--their chemistry has never been better. David Krumholtz again brings a smile. We get in-jokes: About the 3-D itself, Kal Penn's White House job, NPH coming out, and even the possibility of another sequel. And sorry Seth Rogen, but these guys are the best at stoner humor. (Even if nothing will ever quite match Kumar's courtship and relationship with the giant bag of pot.) As far as new additions, Thomas Lennon is very funny as Harold's new suburban pal, and Danny Trejo gets to flex his comedic muscles as Harold's father-in-law. We also get winning cameos from Patton Oswalt, Brett Gelman, and RZA. So.... maybe a bit cruder than before, and not as consistently entertaining. But as before, the movie ultimately has a good heart, and it's genuinely nice to see the old friends together again--which isn't a bad message at all for the holiday season. |
November 15, 2011 | N/A | |||
| The Rum Diary - R |
I want to give it 3 stars, I really do. Depp, Hunter S. Thompson, booze, exotic locale, period details. It's just, well, it's just that the movie isn't particularly good. It's sort of a cinematic Treme: Its heart in the right place. There are good performances. You learn about a different culture. And... nothing much happens. I'm going to blame the source material, which I'm guessing is a not especially good or coherent novel by Hunter S. Thompson. Reporter Depp come to Puerto Rico, gets job at newspaper. The Man won't let him do real journalism. He falls in with corrupt businessmen. He wants to uncover them but The Man won't let him! He drinks a lot and also does some drugs and there is a hot lady. The End. Depp loves Thompson and I love him for that. He does a good job here, as he usually does. (I'm going to guess the character in the book is much younger than Depp.) Aaron Eckhart is decent as a slick business jerk. Giovanni Ribisi is entertaining as a rum-ruined looney. Richard Jenkins is OK if a little over-the-top as the jaded, ethically-challenged editor in chief. Michael Rispoli is amazingly annoying. Amber Heard is very attractive but miscast. Really doesn't seem like the sort of woman the Depp character would fall for. (Though, hell, what do I know, he IS with Vanessa Paradis in real life.) The movie, and apparently the young Thompson, have an admirable idealism. Takes more than that to make a good movie, though. |
October 29, 2011 | N/A | |||
| The Big Year - PG |
A movie about birding is admittedly a tough sell. For a stretch there, I was the only one in the theater. Eventually four other people came in. The five of us watched a gently entertaining if somewhat flawed film. Also, we learned a lot about birds. In fact, all that information about birds/birders/birding earned this an extra half star from me. Otherwise it was feeling like my archetypal 3-star, typified by Dan in Real Life: harmless, watchable, ideal to watch with the folks on Thanksgiving. On top of that, I was intrigued by this NPR-friendly bird-counting competition that I'd never heard about. Mind you, it's not a documentary (though based on a nonfiction book). So we get the comedy dream team of Steve Martin, Owen Wilson, and Jack Black. Wilson continues the strong streak be started with Midnight in Paris. He's funny and likable, even if he's the "villain" of this piece. Jack Black takes it down three notches (only a couple of seemingly forced manic moments) and gives his best performance in a long time. He's essentially the film's lead. Steve Martin is also subdued--oh how I'd like him to be wild-and-crazy again, though this wouldn't be the place for it. (But when the time comes, they should cast Bill Murray as well.) Lots of other recognizable faces show up; of these, Rashida Jones and Rosamund Pike do the best work. The film's failing is the writing. Too often, they spell out the obvious. And the couple of times when there's a seemingly nice touch, the filmmakers don't seem to trust us, so the joke is explained. (Martin describes a bird that goes in for the kill at the last moment--then HE behaves like that! But the guy from Community has to point it out. Later, there's a Birds-type moment. Cute. But Wilson has to utter, "Hitchcockian." We get it!) Overall, though, the good-natured quality of the movie--and the honor and decency inherent in the birding competition--won me over. |
October 16, 2011 | N/A | |||
| Moneyball - PG-13 |
Between last night's trip to Yankee Stadium and this night's trip to Yankee Stadium, I decided to see a movie about baseball. It's a good one. I'd maybe give it 3.75 stars out of 5, but in the spirit of the stats that are so important to the story, I'll round up. What you have here is a compelling true story (to a sports fan, at least), anchored by two very strong performances from Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill. It's a charismatic, rebellious Pitt that we've seen before, but he also seems a bit more grown-up: tired, frustrated, weighed down by life's worries. Maybe this stands out because he's surrounded by mostly much younger characters. They push him to take on a flawed authority figure persona I haven't really seen from Pitt, and he wears it well. Jonah Hill is terrific, probably his best performance to date. He's likable, vulnerable, awkward, without resorting to his stock-in-trade manic bumbling. I guess we can credit director Bennett Miller for that too. As the newbie, Hill is also the stand-in for the audience as we learn about the closed-door secrets of major league baseball. Chris Pratt, who is so funny as Andy on Parks & Recreation, does nice subtle work as Scott Hatteberg, whose role really becomes a metaphor for Billy Beane's system. People who watch the same TV shows that I do will enjoy seeing Agent Aaron Pierce from 24, and Rubicon's Kale Ingram (as Red Sox owner John Henry, giving a speechy monologue). Philip Seymour Hoffman didn't impress me; he won an Oscar with Miller but wasn't really necessary here. And too paunchy for Art Howe. Robin Wright is also fairly generic in this. While the wonky true-life facts make for an watchable enough tale, it was interesting to me that an on-field moment--like in the best baseball movies--elicited the most emotion from me. |
October 1, 2011 | N/A | |||
| Contagion - PG-13 |
1) It's fun to think of this movie as an immediate sequel to Rise of the Planet of the Apes. 2) I simply cannot take Demetri Martin seriously as a lab tech. Contagion is for the most part very watchable, quite compelling, often frightening, but somehow doesn't add up to a very good movie. That I forgot till the end credits that this was directed by Steven Soderbergh certainly tells me something: That my memory is finally going, but also, that this isn't quite as artful or smart as it should be. Still, as a look at what would happen if a virus spread throughout the world, it feels very real. Kudos to the filmmakers for not adding a villain or love story. And yet, the lack of an over-arching personal storyline is ultimately what dooms this movie. It's set-up, set-up, set-up, that doesn't really end up anywhere. What we do get is several mini storylines. Of these, Marion Cotillard's doesn't really go anywhere, and Jude Law's (as a dentally-and-ethically-challenged blogger) feels forced and just kind of annoying. Matt Damon is reliably excellent but he ultimately doesn't get enough screen time. And kind of sad that I thought "Oh this is the movie he gained weight for" and then remembered that that was The Informant. (See, the memory's going.) So... enjoyable in a "what-if" documentary sort of way, but with all the grade-A Hollywood talent, it probably should've been a bit more. |
September 17, 2011 | N/A |
Explore | Movies | Actors & Actresses | Photos | Theaters | News | Lists | Quizzes | Best Movies | Blog | Reviews | Mobile
More Info | Copyright, Privacy Policy, Terms of Service | Ad Choices | About Us | Jobs | Advertise | Twitter | Flixster SuperReviewers
Copyright © 2010 Flixster, All Rights Reserved Trademark Use Guidelines
330 ratings
273 reviews
