Snow Angels (Dvd) - Matt Suggestion

I’m not sure what is more surprising – the idea that this film hasn’t had any praise whatsoever in a lackluster year for award movies, or that this film was directed by the same individual who directed Pineapple Express (2008). You choose.

The film is a sparse drama set in a snow fallen small town that while showing the cycle of relationships reflects on the pain and loss that can be born from mediocrity in effort. Sam Rockwell, brilliant as always, plays Glenn Marchand, a recently divorced recently born again Christian who skirts the line of worthlessness and significance as he attempts to regain the life he once had. His ex, Annie, played against type by Kate Beckinsale, is obviously done with any relationship that the two could possibly produce and is self-destructive with her other relationships in the small town. The two stumble through their parental duties until the rising action of the film when the here-to-for pawn in their relationship embodied by the little girl goes missing.

Backinsale’s character works in a shabby Chinese restaurant the type you know is about as Chinese as a fortune cookie, while Rockwell works as a wholesale carpet dealer attempting to parlay his newfound religion into sales and advancement. The town’s high school band plays a soulless and mournful version of Peter Gabriel’s Sledgehammer while the band leader screams for them to feel it. Meaning – the tangible qualities of the town are additions to the morose feelings the jilted relationship emanates, it’s all rather depressing.

There are four central relationships that this film attempts to portray that displays four distinct stages in relationships in general: birth (young love), angst (a couple who is being torn apart by infidelity), acceptance (a couple divorcing due to infidelity), and death (a couple destroying their relationship and each other). Rockwell and Beckinsale play the latter of the four who are falling deep into a gulch of self loathing and after the loss of their daughter Rockwell’s character is sunk. It’s all rather depressing.

My biggest complaint in this film lies with its youngest actors and the writing done for them. They are given poor dialog and seemingly worse motivation. Their relationship seems born of confidence and a mutual attraction both of which are hard to come by in high school. This isn’t to say it is impossible, but with the characters, I find it to be against the grain.

But overall this film is a well done yet miserable. Despite the young love flub the relationships are stark and realistic. Accolades are deserved all around, but I fear none will come, which is all rather depressing.

7 out of 10 – a great film that should be seen, but I would never want to watch it again thus it loses a point.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Theatre) - Both

David Fincher is known for making dark films – Fight Club (1999), Se7en (1995), Zodiac (2007) these are all rather pessimistic movies that don’t really celebrate the human endeavor – even Panic Room is darker than most cinema fair. However, Fincher’s latest effort is close to the exact opposite. It has the light charm and sullied optimism of Forrest Gump (1994), and that isn’t the last reference to that film I will make here.

Fincher's touch isn’t as heavy handed as it has been in the past, there are no scoping shots parsing rooms out as action takes place, but as the director grows older his touch with the scissors seems to be waning. While Zodiac came to 158 minutes Button runs the marathon of 166 minutes. And there are numerable scenes that could have found a home on the editing room floor.

To give you an example – the wrapper was a waist of emotion, money, and time. We see Daisy, the central female protagonist, as an old woman slowly dying has hurricane Katrina threatens to strike New Orleans. Why Katrina needed to be thrown into this film, I will never know. Her daughter reads to her the diary that Benjamin has left behind as she, Daisy, dies. This mirrors Forrest Gump’s wrapper in that the audience is constantly drawn out of the story by the two individuals telling it to rehash the information learned. Additionally, we get the emotional dead weight of a daughter finding out that her father is clearly not who she thought it was, but as she finds out through the diary, he was a curious man who happens to age backwards. The wrapper could have never been in the story and the film would have been the same.

The love story in the film also mirrors Gump in its breadth and scope. We are lead to believe that the two main characters fell in love when they were both around the age of ten. This means that we need to believe that a ten year old girl fell for, what looked like, a seventy year old man. An odd concept, I know. And much like Gump, the love isn’t really kindled until much later. They are torn apart and brought together on several occasions, all the while one is growing older and the other younger.

Now, it seems like I’m down on this film. I’m not. In fact, when walking to the car with my wife I exclaimed that I enjoyed this film more than Slumdog Millionaire (2008). But I find that while I thought the film was a subtle epic, which played its cards at just the right moment, it doesn’t stay fresh as I turn its central themes around in my head.

I continue to believe that I loved this film while watching, I love a good epic. They seem so grand. But epics, even Forrest Gump, my favorite, don’t always maintain their luster when taken away from the viewing experience. I’m not sure why. Maybe, it has to do with the fact that you are no longer having to buy each and every coincidence. Maybe, it has to do with the fact that our lives never mirror the majestic highs, lows, or battles that appear in the individual’s life. I’m not sure. But, I can’t think of an epic that stays epic after the theatre.

7 out of 10 – an epic piece of cinema that tries its hardest to maintain the paces it sets for itself.

Slumdog Millionaire (Theatre) - Both

From the opening scene of Danny Boyle’s tale, India is a sight to behold. The bombastic movement that follows the children as they run through their slum depicts a tangible world for his characters to inhabit. Boyle’s cardinal filming techniques are present with quick edits, bright colors, and variable focus lengths. The pinnacle establishing shot jump cuts to a view that shows the children escape through a clearing in the hodgepodge of tin roofs that provide shelter for the slum. And much like Boyle’s last film, the amazing Sunshine, Boyle makes his set piece a character.

But to speak of only Boyle’s filming techniques would be a misstep. The script that Boyle puts to film is a classic tale that brings about thoughts of other old stories from Britain’s great authors. The film’s plot is a mixture of both Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and Dickens’ Oliver Twist, with a little twenty-first century wrapper that pulls the plot together. The wrapper is truly what makes the plot stand out from a simple rehash of old tales of orphans and unrequited love and gives an easy climax to the old narratives.

Jamal Malik, awkwardly played by Dev Patel, uses Who Wants to be a Millionaire to get in touch with his lost love Latika. However, the police are interrogating him based on the idea that a man from the slums can, in no way, know all of the answers to get as far as he has gotten in the contest. The story of how Jamal came to know and fall in love with Latika is then told through his interrogation as he explains how he knows the answers to the entire list of questions. Each subsequent answer to the twenty or so questions chronologically steps us forward in his relationship with Latika.

And while this is one of the better films I have seen in the last year or so, I do have one major qualm with it. Joel pointed this one out before I had seen the film, and so while watching all I could think was the love between Latika and Jamal wasn’t based on anything really. They met as children, had a few harrowing adventures, but that is it. Are you in love with anyone you met when you were five? While this is not unlike Romeo and Juliet, and I still have problems with this plot device. Why would you love someone whom you’ve had very little contact with?

Boyle’s film gives the viewer a tangible India and a classic tale. It’s an optimistic film in a pessimistic season. I can’t wait to see Boyle’s next trick.

8 out of 10 – a fantastic view of India with a universal story.

Seven Pounds (Theatre) - Both

When the advertisements for a movie are as cryptic as they were for Seven Pounds, I go into the movie looking for some profound puzzle that I work at cracking the whole movie. I watch each scene with prying eyes attempting to see something I’m not really supposed to see. A lingering camera, a focused lens, an audio tell, these are some of the things I look for. Often I’m rewarded for my efforts as I foresee a coming danger, or can tell a plot twist coming before it is revealed. I certainly don’t say this to brag, anyone can do it, Jennie often points things out that I have missed, but the joy I get when I catch these hidden minutia usually makes the movie that much more enjoyable.

Will Smith has taken to doing about one film a year. This means he better make that film he does worth it. I loved I Am Legend (2007), despite its inability to give you the amazing ending the novel had. Hancock (2008) wasn’t horrible, but it certainly wasn’t a once a year film. So Smith gave us Seven Pounds. I don’t question his abilities as an actor, I’ve always loved Smith’s characters and go to see almost anything he is in (I have my limits Bad Boys II (2003)). And Seven Pounds doesn’t disappoint.

In one of the first few scenes we see Smith call a telemarketer. This individual, played by Woody Harrelson, is berated by Smith character in an emotionally awkward way for what appears to be no reason. You aren’t sure if Smith is a horrible person or not simply because of Smith’s abilities as an actor. His conflicted facial and body movements seem to contradict every hurtful word his character spews from his mouth. This scene is somewhat confusing in the context of the film as we are not privy to enough information as of yet but Smith’s abilities in this scene are riveting.

The first hour of the movie continues on in this fashion, and the audience is meant to piece things together. As I stated earlier I love doing this. As the scenes reveal themselves you are treated to a rather mundane, if not uplifting thought. Smith’s character is slowly donating parts of his body to good individuals who deserve the transplants. Smith eventually goes so far as to kill himself so that Rosario Dawson’s character may have his heart and continue living.

Although this is certainly an amazing gesture, it doesn’t make for an enthralling plot. Emotional? Certainly. But, I couldn’t help but think that if the timeline of the film would have been linear then there would be no film. As it was the timeline jumped from scene to scene.

I also had to wrestle with the ultimate resolution to Smith’s relationship with Dawson. What made her character so good? What did she do to deserve such a sacrifice? I found no plot point that made her such a great candidate for Will’s gift. In fact, the whole romance that was spun from the two seemed like a wasted plot point.

It certainly made me and Jennie cry, and it was ultimately an uplifting film of sorts, but I question its conviction. And I ultimately ask - what was the point to deciphering the clues?

5 out of 10 – Smith worked hard at pulling the heartstrings, and overall he achieves his goal, but that is about it.

Sex and the City (Dvd) - Both

Well, I have my first repeat movie! I’m not entirely sure what to do with a repeat, but I think I will simply give a short review on how it held up. I will also link to the first review for those that missed it.

Jennie and I purchased this DVD. Pause for dramatic effect. It is the first DVD purchase we have made since… Oh, man. I think, the Ghostbusters two pack over two years ago. We don’t really watch that many movies twice, and thus we never buy them. Though technically isn’t this a TV on DVD kind of thing? I don’t know, you be the judge. Jennie and I certainly buy a lot of TV on DVD so maybe this counts as that.

Anyway, how did the further tales of the Manhattan four stand up, you ask? Not bad actually. I liked the film when it came out, and I still enjoyed it on the second watch. This certainly held up to the standards of the show, unlike some television to movies, and I enjoyed the return to the characters.

I will agree with Matthew’s comments on the original post. Louise, played by Jennifer Hudson, did feel tacked on the second go round. She was there in six scenes tops and then goes off to marry some dude without affecting the lives of anyone. I think I initially liked her because if she had stayed on she would have been a great fifth female to follow. Oh, well.

We purchased the Blu-Ray extended edition, our first Blu-Ray purchase. This contained the added scenes which would have made the movie a lengthy 3 hours. And, not one of the added scenes were that interesting. One or two of them involved Miranda’s mundane actions after Steve told of his infidelity. There was a scene that gave Charlotte a little emotional meat to her movie character which in the previous review I lamented was wafer thin. But over all they were good cuts.

The one scene I might have kept, if it hadn’t had been for the somewhat racially awkward moments, would have been the Goldenblatt's trick-or-treating with Carrie. In this scene we see Charlotte dressed as a cow, Harry dressed as Uncle Fester, and Charlotte’s child dressed as a princess, with a white girl princess mask (very awkward). This mask later plays a role in the scene as Carrie must hide herself from the Halloween parents who recognize her from her messy nuptials. But, I can easily tell you the white princess mask was the reason this scene got dropped. I mean really, did you think it was a good idea to put a white girl mask on a little Asian child? Not sure what they were thinking there.

Will I watch this again? Yes. Well I watch it as often as I watch the show? No, probably not. It is a great translation of the show to screen – a very hard feat. And in this I praise its efforts.

6 out of 10 – A solid watch. Though the only reason I go back is my love for the characters.

The Fall (Dvd) - Ashleigh

The Fall is a gorgeous film that goes nowhere. The plot is a simple story within a story which is told by an injured stuntman to an injured girl, both of whom are recovering from unrelated falls in the depression era. The little girl is an immigrant who fell while picking oranges while the stuntman had an on the job accident which paralyzed him from the waist down.

This film came to my attention when I was perusing Spike Jonze’s latest films. How is it possible that he and David Fincher where involved in a film and I knew nothing of it. Compounding my interest was the actor who portrayed the injured stuntman, one Lee Pace of Pushing Daisies fame.

Oh, wait, Spike Jonze and David Fincher are only presenting this film. (Whatever the hell that means.) One thing I’m sure that means is that they had nothing to do with the production of this film. Shoot.

Lee Pace’s character Roy tells a grand story of five heroes who vow to kill a man named Odious for one reason or another. Roy’s story is told on an epic scale spanning, the back of the box says, 4 continents as these five men track Odious to his country. The back of the box also informs me that it took four years to craft this film. A fact which leads me to believe they should have spent some of that time on plot/character development.

Roy injects himself and the little girl into the story and will only continue the tale each day if the little girl retrieves medicine for him. Her repeated attempts to follow Roy’s orders quickly show that Roy wants the medicine for more than just pain relief. He is looking to kill himself.

The story Roy tells becomes increasingly dark as Roy’s depression sinks lower, but the relationship between Roy and the girl seems genuine and well constructed, and as the narration slips back to Roy’s hyper color hero tale the construction of character development falls apart.

These brief stints into the imagination of Roy’s tale are scene of great cinematic beauty. I truly believe they shot the film on four different continents, and as the camera angles arc and the focus blurs the line between art and film the eye is presented with a magnificent presentation of the filmmaker’s imagination. But while the scene are saturated eye popping wonders the plot is a dull knife serrating the film’s beauty.

Lee Pace’s skills are truly on display in this film and this is exciting. I feared, while watching Pushing Daisies, that his charm and impish idealism wasn’t true acting and maybe Pace was simply that optimistic. But the juxtaposition of Roy with the pie maker shows that Pace has true range – an exciting proposition for the actor’s future.

Ultimately the tale Pace weaves is the downfall of the entire film as it is not very interesting and often drags. I can’t help but think Tarsem Singh needs to find new writers to work with. His only other film, 2000’s The Cell, was similar to The Fall in that it was beautifully shot but the plot was horrible.

3 out of 10: superb visuals and quality acting are betrayed by the horribly slow and mind numbing plot.

Smart People (Theatre) - Jennie

Noam Murro hasn’t directed before, Mark Poirer hasn’t written any other film – according to IMDB this film is the fledgling ship for both of these artists. So, why does this film feel so familiar? In the landscape of Hollywood today most films can be categorized pretty easily: big budget blockbuster, chick flick, raunchy comedy, and charming “indie” just to name a few. This falls so squarely in the latter’s category that I know I have watched this film before. The struggling college professor who must raise his children despite having no clue how to, the hip child who doesn’t know how hip she is, and the icing on this cake of déjà vu – Thomas Haden Church playing an overgrown child who bares his ass for laughs. Didn’t he play this same exact character in Sideways sans the middle school mustache? Despite this being a fairly entertaining film I found myself disappointed by its lack of flavor. I laughed at most of Church’s Man-Child antics, Dennis Quaid sold me on his beleaguered father shtick, hell, even Ellen Page’s rightwing incestuous student seemed fleshed out and real. I’m not sure what I was expecting. This was exactly the film anyone could have guessed would come out of this premise, but for a first film, how can this seem so rehashed?
I also have problems with the idea that all professors of English are depressed while maintaining a delightfully introspective hermit quality. Examples abound: The Squid and the Whale (2005), Wonder Boys (2000), even Sideways (2004) contained an English teacher who couldn’t get his career off the ground. This theme runs rampant in literature as well – John Irving comes to mind. Were all our English professors in college mollycoddled sourpusses? Mine certainly wasn’t. Though, as I think about it now I can understand the impetuous for such characters. I don’t know many English majors who focus on writing and want to become English teachers. No, they want to become writers. Thus becoming a teacher is settling, and writing about how they settled is more interesting than anything else that has happened in their life thus far. Well, I guess I changed my mind. But I still have a problem with it. Can these people only write about their life experiences?
Anyways, back to the film (warning: big spoiler here), the end completely pissed me off. For some odd reason they had Dennis Quaid impregnate Sarah Jessica Parker’s character – this was an annoying plot device in the first place. The two wanted to work with this development and so they get back together in the closing seconds of the film… uh… yeah. The most confusing and thus annoying thing about this was they showed shots of Quaid happily handling a child in the closing credit – ok. But, then, in the last shot they showed him cradling two children, one a baby girl, one a baby boy… she had twins! Yup, after a relatively well written albeit unoriginal film they end with a sitcom quality twist, maybe in real life that is what happened and as we all know English professor can’t write about anything but what they know.

6 out of 10: a humorous film for those that enjoy beards, butts, and books though it was bleakly bland.

Gone Baby Gone (Dvd) - Both

I have picked this movie up from Blockbuster at least two times. Jennifer and I could never bring ourselves to watch it. I’m not really sure why, but I think it has to do with the same magical force that does not allow us to watch all of our tivoed episodes of Law & Order. I think you just have to be in the mood for a crime drama.

The remaining paragraphs contain major spoilers so don’t read it if you don’t want the ending or the plot revealed, but then go watch it. It is certainly worth the four dollar rental charge.

Gone Baby Gone is a tale told in two acts. The separation from each act is so clean that it is almost two distinct tales. Kenzie (Casey Affleck) is a straitlaced private detective in a suburb of Boston, Mass. He is hired by the aunt of a young girl who has been kidnapped. The mother of the girl, the deservedly Oscars nominated Amy Ryan, replays her view of the kidnapping. This tale involves child negligence and indifference to the girls well being, she is presented as a wholly unfit mother. While pursuing the kidnapped child Kenzie joins forces with the detective on the case, Remy (Ed Harris). The two uncover a drug trafficking ring which the young girl’s mother seems tied to and they attempt to retrieve the girl. This plan goes sour and the first act ends with the victims death. As the second act progresses it slowly is revealed that Remy, the detective on the case, and the Uncle of the girl, played the by fabulously mustached Titus Welliver, are somehow tied to the kidnapping and the act of the victims botched retrieval was a lie. The little girl is still alive – hidden from the public. This kidnapping was never a drug-related act but an uncle’s act of salvation for the young girl. The uncle believes that the child would be better off outside of the mother’s reach. These details give the audience a dilemma and as Affleck’s character draws closer to the girls location the audience is seemingly forced to make a choice. Would you want a child to be reunited with a mother who barely wants her and who’s negligence has already put the child’s life at risk, or would you want the child to be raised by absolute stranger’s albeit well meaning absolute strangers? The obvious answer for the viewer, in my opinion, is to allow the girl to remain kidnapped and leave her alone. Affleck’s character cannot seem to allow this to happen though. Previously in the film Affleck’s character is given the chance to kill a child molester after stumbling into his den of iniquity and he takes his opportunity. The audience and the cops praise his character for performing this act of pesticide. However, Affleck’s character hates himself for this act. He feels he is morally repugnant for his impetus. And as the conundrum of leaving the girl be or reuniting her with her mother is presented he chooses the latter. Is this the morally correct choice? It certainly is the legally correct choice. And this is the brilliance of this film. After it ended I turned to Jennie and we discussed our particular views on the outcomes, did the child molester deserve death, should Affleck leave the girl with the well meaning family?

This being Ben Affleck’s first successful venture into film’s in a while it seems his course is laid out for him. He is an impressive director with a surefooted feel for Boston and its people. His script wasn’t dumbed down and provoked genuine discussion after the film.

8 out of 10: a well made crime drama that elicits a response. Ben Affleck should keep his seat behind the camera.

Vantage Point (Theatre) - Jennie

I’ll have to be honest here, I thought this concept could have been good. It was possible. I have seen T.V. shows pull this kind of plot device off with fantastic results. This device goes as follows; the viewer is treated to one scene after another as seen through the eyes of only one character. Other character’s stories are advancing around them; however, we are not privy to their motivations till we see their view point. It is often very difficult to keep the full details of the plot from slipping out while advancing through the earlier character’s stories and revealing just enough to keep the viewer enticed is a key element to this plot device’s success. Confusion is also very hard to escape as some early character’s actions seem very unmotivated and haphazard. However, redundancy is the largest of hazards that can fell this device. Vantage Point fails in all of these areas and more.

Instead of artfully hiding information as to not reveal too much, they simply don’t show the action. Case in point, when Thomas Barnes, played by Dennis Quaid, saw a traitor on a television screen, they held the shot on Barnes, and we got some pathetic eye acting from Quaid. Revealing this information would have destroyed the plot, so instead they simply shot Barnes’ reaction and faded to white, and proceeded to the next character’s story.

Also, Characters motivations were seemingly left up to the viewer to interpret, leading to confusion as to why Forrest Whitaker’s character, Howard Lewis, would run after a supposed assassin when he was simply a tourist with a video camera. I guess he just had to see what happened with the assassin. We were never given a reason for him to follow the action, however his character had to be in the final shot, so he ran for no reason.

Finally, Vantage Point had no qualms with being redundant. They showed the explosion eight or nine times. They replayed character’s interaction; I guess so the viewer didn’t forget what happened. They milked every ounce they could from every car crash that happened, replaying the scenes multiple times.

The failure of the device is the cornerstone to this waste of a movie, but it was not helped by the lackluster performances of some pretty solid actors. The script was stale, with dialog like, “I’ve got you now Mr. President.” And even if these “vantage points” succeeded it would still have been a stale plot about terrorists attempting to sabotage America. It even contained the down but not out cop (secret service agent) who came back to prove he wasn’t done yet, only to end up saving the day (Harrison Ford’s role was played by Dennis Quaid this time).

I must add that Jennie liked it, though. She enjoyed the car chase scenes and that is pretty much all she told me. I prodded for more after declaring, “What a stinkbug,” as we left the theatre, but she didn’t want to placate me with more discussion.

2.5 out of 10: A waste of time, money, and brain cells. Redundant, stale, and annoying.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (Dvd) - Ashleigh

Ever since Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine (2002) documentaries have had a resurgence in popularity. Super Size Me (2004), March of the Penguins (2005), An Inconvenient Truth (2006) have all ridden this wave to fame and fortune. But all of these movies, excluding March of the Penguins, have been reviled as they have been revered, with naysayers and voices of decent crying charlatan and hoax at the filmmakers and their subjects. I say this only to put you in the frame of mind I was in when starting this film. I was looking for the director, Seth Gordon, to play on my preconceived notions (of what, I’m not sure, but documentarians lie right? They show us only half the truth - don’t they? They show us only what they want us to see - right?)

Billy Mitchell, the long lost brother of Wolf from American Gladiators, is the world champion of Donkey Kong. His record of 874,200 in 1982 is the best in the world (actually this is a lie; in 2000 Tim Sczerby obtained 879,200, the current record at the making of this film.) But Billy is also a world class villain. There is no documentary trick to make this guy into any more of an ass than he is. He is simply an arrogant, egotistical – gamer? In Billy’s own words, “Well, maybe they'd like it if I lose. I gotta try losing sometime.” The documentary shows very little of his family life, it contains damning footage of him being overly aggressive in his business practices, and he is a no-show in the one chance the documentary gives him to defend himself. But, he is the villain and the documentarian shows this with a lot of help from Billy.

Steve Wiebe is our hero. He is a nice guy who is dragged into the sorted world of competitive gaming and despite the pressure and upsets he maintains his nice guy persona. Steve is often overlooked, he takes second place in everything, and was recently let go from his job when the movie starts (he becomes a teacher while filming, I can’t think of nobler profession). You can’t dream of a better guy to take on the likes of Billy “Wolf” Mitchell.

The movie sets up that Steve beats Billy score, on videotape, one night in his garage and sends it to Twin Galaxies, the retro gaming record holders and friends of Billy. Steve is given the record and a small amount of fame in his local town. But then referees from Twin Galaxies come out to Steve’s town and look at his machine and claim that the machine is tampered with and thus the score is revoked, giving Billy the record back. (Actually this is a lie; Wiebe held the high score at the moment his score was revoked, and it reverted back to Steve’s high score.) Steve then goes out to FunSpot, a Retro gaming Mecca, to beat the score live and compete against Billy face to face. Billy sends a videotape. Steve beats Billy’s score live (the now reigning live high score), but Billy’s videotape, a scrambled mess of glitches and odd time stops, shows Billy reaching over a million points and Steve’s achievement is forgotten. In this moment the movie shines showing Steve’s everyman defeat against the cogs of the Twin Galaxies and Billy’s suspect tape. Steve’s plight is tangible at this moment as he is helpless to defeat the genius of Billy’s villainy. I won’t go into any more detail here.
This documentary certainly tries its hardest to make you root for Steve and fear and hate Billy. And even when I knew I was being shown half-truths and pandering I still rooted for Steve. You can’t help it. Billy is a villain without the cameras. Steve is a good guy without Donkey Kong. While I understood Steve’s emotional, family loving character could have been a construct of the filmmaker; it’d be hard to fake. And while Billy’s character could have been selective quotes and sharp edits; it’d be hard to fake.

8 out of 10: A fantastic underdog tale that will unexpectedly draw you in.

The Brave One (Dvd) - Jennie

If someone is a bad person do they deserve to live? Can you kill a criminal without feeling guilt? Is it O.K. to murder someone who breaks our rules? Vigilantes – the romantic heroes that pervade justice and right without the hassle of jurist’s prudence can murder, but should we cheer for them? It seems there is some level of society that feels that vigilantism is fine and good, they do the policeman’s job when they legally can’t. This movie speaks to these individuals - a frightening concept in my mind, championing the murder of “bad guys”. Erica Bain’s (Jodie Foster) fiancé is beaten to death by minority stereotypes causing her to see the fear that she always overlooked in her beloved New York City. This fear envelopes her and shows her that it was always there, under the surface, she had previously ignored it. This is the impetus for murder. The movie then turns into the most unlucky series of contrived situations allowing Erica to murder without her looking like a “bad guy” herself.
A man runs into a bodega shoots his ex over a custody dispute, clearly a bad guy, so Erica murders him back. A Detective Mercer, played by Terrence Howard, is on the case. Then, while riding a subway, two minority stereotypes steal a guys iPod, call an old guy homosexual, and threaten to rape Erica with a knife, clearly bad guys, so Erica murders them. Detective Mercer is on the case. Then, while walking around central park and pimp propositions her to join is cadre and locks her in a car with another girl he has captured, clearly a bad guy, so Erica murders him. Detective Mercer is on the case.
I have many problems with this series of events that happen. As my wife pointed out, who gets into all these life threatening, bad guy revealing, situations in a life time, let alone in a span of four months or so? Also, were these bad guys worthy of murder? The subway goons only stole an iPod and threatened rape - no jury would sentence them to death. Dangerous, yes - justifiable murder, no. And Mercer would not have caught all those cases – ever (I know that it is a writer’s prerogative to suspend disbelief but – come on! Mercer starts piecing the puzzle together after the second murder. That would never happen). Logistically this movie was a mess.
The directing was marginable at best. I hate it when directors feel the only way to fully portray claustrophobia or panic is by tilting the camera this way and that in an attempt to disorient the viewer. I believe a good actor can portray this sort of emotion without rookie camera tricks, and Jodie Foster is a quality actor. Why choose this campy method? Jordan does allow Mercer and Erica to gradually realize one is on to the other in a series of beautiful scenes shot with the clarity and understanding. The two actors trade knowing glances as they reveal themselves through a mirror.
The ending could have given the movie a chance to justify itself by having Mercer turn in his now close friend as he has figured it all out. She is a murderer; admittedly, she shouldn’t get away with it. But, no, Mercer gives her a way out and lets her go since he cares for her. Wait, what? Meaning vigilantism is fine as long as there is an excuse? I guess bad guys deserve to die even without their day in court as long as they're bad guys.

4 out of 10: Allows for some interesting discussion on vigilantism/capitol punishment, but logistical nightmares and a disregard for society pollute the viewing experience.

The Invasion (Dvd) - Both

At first glance this movie is a modern Hollywood science fiction thriller. Aliens inhabit bodies; try to take over the world, things explode. And if that is what you go into this movie expecting you will be disappointed. I believe this is why this movie was panned almost universally. I came into it expecting just that and was pleasantly surprised that is was not. Yes, this does happen (and there is an explanation as to why) but not in the Will Smith July 4th blockbuster way. This movie attempts to make a very shallow message with its bodysnatching. I’m sure the original did so as well, but having not seen it I cannot vouch for its success in this area. This message, that humans are themselves a destructive force to humanity. Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman) finds that the world is being taken over by an entity that fell from space that inhabits humans like a common cold (through the blood or bodily fluids). When the humans fall asleep the alien inhabitant is given the ability to put the human into a permanent mode of R.E.M. sleep and thus control it forever, the human looks the same but acts as if they were on some pretty good medication. This method of bodysnatching gives the film a pretty good plot device that the writer exploits. Carol is given the virus pretty early in the movie, and thus has to stay awake for the remainder of the movie, lest she turns. Since the aliens can’t identify themselves she only has to act without emotion to blend in. This lends the film its most suspenseful and successful moments. Carol walks down streets with eerily vacant crowds and must remain calm. The film emits a claustrophobic feeling by just following her. Where the film falls apart is when it turns into the blockbuster it never wanted to be.
Let me give you a little history.
Around October 30, 2005 the film was finished with no green screen action and minimal visual effects by director Oliver Hirschbiegel, this version did not seem viable to the studios (interpret: needed more explosions) and thus the Wachowski brothers were enlisted to infuse it with action. After 17 days and 10 million dollars the film was finished, again.
These “infused with action” scenes are quit obvious, and slowly rip at the films message, integrity, and quality as each extra flies from each resulting explosion till we are left a Nicole-Kidman-saves-the-day moment. Sad, really. I guess studios really know what the public wants…
And this is the general quandary of this film. I believe the film did not succeed because it wasn’t a Blockbuster Alien flick, but it wasn’t a subtle suspense film either. It attempted to be both, and you cannot serve two masters. Might it have been successful without the magic touch of the Wachowski brothers, I think so.

4 out of 10: While it remains subtle, this film works, but when it strays from its origins it fails miserably.

Rocket Science (Dvd) - Ashleigh

This film falls into the categorization of such films like Thumbsucker (2005) and to a lesser extent Juno (2007), a film about high school angst through the eyes of an outcast. This film’s outcast is Hal Hefner, played by Reece Thompson, a shy 15 year old whose debilitating stutter leaves him leery of the spotlight. Thompson gives a fantastic performance that leaves me looking forward to his promise as an actor. His character is enjoyable to watch and easy to side with which is fortunate as Hal’s stutter could have been as debilitating to the movie as it is to his character. The film opens with the state championship debater Ben Wekselbaum, played by Hero’s Nicholas D'Agosto, fervently spouting his resolve while his partner Virginia Ryerson, played by Anna Kendrick, looks on with a mix of desire and respect. Wekselbaum suddenly is silenced by an unknown force and we are introduced to Hal. These three character’s involve themselves in each other’s lives in varying degrees eventually leading to Hal’s attempts at debating. Virginia’s character is erudite and purposeful in enlisting Hal as her partner for competition after Wekselbaum lost the championship for her in the opening sequence. Hal, not being used to the attention, let alone being stunned by the proposal of him stammering publically trying to speak, is drawn to Virginia and this incites purpose into Hal. This movie could have turned into a Rocky/Mighty Ducks-type film where the hero gets over his stutter to win the debate and save the day, but it doesn’t - and this saves the movie. The ending is perfect in its delivery giving Hal small victories in love and in life but not going as far as to ruin it by having an entirely fairy tale ending. The soundtrack, however, stripped scenes often being obtrusive and misplaced. The arrangements were sparse and somewhat spastic which made it feel like a trying rip-off of a Wes Anderson score. The dialog, on the other hand, was hyper articulate and surprisingly accurate for a high school movie.

8 out of 10: This movie succeeds with a fantastic performance and an ending that satisfies, despite its debilitating soundtrack.

There Will Be Blood (Theatre) - Ashleigh

I had high hopes for this film. I have enjoyed Daniel Day-Lewis’ performances in the past and he is one of the few actors I actually follow. This movie is on the top of many lists this year, and is up for eight Oscars. But to be blunt, I was not fond of the movie. Daniel Plainview played by Daniel Day-Lewis is a riveting character. The performance is as powerful as Day-Lewis’ Bill the Butcher with just a little bit of compassion thrown in. He commands the screen with the power of a father and a shrewd businessman. His antagonist, Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano was equally well constructed. I would posit that Dano may have gotten the better of Day-Lewis but for Day-Lewis’ subtle work when he is not at the height of emotion. This movie portrays two actors at the pinnacle of their craft. Yet, I was not fond of the movie. The soundtrack was beautifully constructed with careful attention to the nuanced performances and the bleak setting. The largely stringed arrangement ebbed through the starkly captured American west holding the viewer on edge in anticipation of God-only-knows. However, I was not fond of the movie. The two most powerful scenes, a mirror of each other, where to two protagonists battle each other in a desperate attempt to destroy the other left me drained. They defy each other to denounce their religions, one who’s devotion to himself is selfish at best and megalomaniacal at worst, and the other whose devotion to God is frighteningly posed. Each one falls to the other's demands and in the end are destroyed by the other. These scenes alone are some of the most powerful put to film this year. Though, I was not fond of the film.
My largest complaint is the misstep in introducing Paul, Eli’s brother. The confusion this character represents deflates Dano’s character’s motives. Is he Eli? Many critics think so, despite P.T. Anderson’s denial. If he is not and is the twin of Eli, where was he the rest of the film? I know Daniel gave a synopsis of his life to Eli in their final battle - this actually was a barb Daniel pushed into Eli to draw blood, but that fact makes the character even more confusing. P.T. Anderson’s refusal to construct a plot also hinders my admiration for this film. This is common practice for Anderson, and one of the cardinal reason why I haven’t enjoyed most of his work. I’m not saying all movies need a plot, but Anderson pretends he has constructed one, and I hate this lie.

6 out of 10: I wouldn’t recommend this film, but the acting is beyond anything I’ve seen in the last year.

Joshua (Dvd) - Both

Joshua is a suspenseful sparse drama in the vein of The Good Son (1993) and to a lesser extent The Omen (1976, 2006). The star, Jacob Kogan, plays a child whose conscience and emotions are void and whose family has just welcomed a new baby sister. He seems indifferent to this addition and in the first scene where the new sister is brought home by the couple his character, Joshua, plays a stark dirge on a piano while the family gathers around the newborn. He plays the piano and acts far above his age, and is always in formal attire, even when in his pajamas he seems to be a grown up. Jacob Korgan is incredibly well cast, and his cold stare makes his character seem completely devoid of all emotions. The movie plods through its plot sometimes aimlessly wondering around this child’s creepy actions. In one scene Joshua sits emotionless almost intrigued, inches from his television watching old home movies of his years as a baby, his mother screams and cries constantly in the throws of postpartum depression yelling at the camera that she does not want to be taped. In another scene his father, Sam Rockwell, visits his son’s room and sees him cutting his teddy bears nose and then pulling stuffing from the bear. When asked what he was doing Joshua describes a fascination with Egyptians and their burial processes in rather precise detail. These actions are accompanied by a beautifully crafted soundtrack that pulls you into the world as you watch Joshua’s parents slowly go crazy. Joshua is never fully blamed for any action, and the film does not allow you to conclude any accusations that may be leveled against him. This is how the film succeeds. In one scene his mother drops a glass on the floor and Joshua, standing between the broken shards of glass and his mother, simply steps back. His mother then steps forward to touch him and pierces her foot. You can never fully blame the child, but it is easy to be fearful of him. The film seems to never truly reach any conclusions as to the child’s behavior, and that is a positive thing. The negative thing is that the film seems like a series of vignettes. Scene after uneasy scene roles by, each its own five minute story slowly, rolling to a stop by the end.

6 out of 10: well crafted suspense, a little too empty to be riveting

American Pyscho (OnDemand) - Both

This movie isn't bad. It is superbly well written for the screen. The frank depiction of Patrick Bateman that Christian Bale gave was crisp and clean. It's New York's high fiance as I imagine it to be, all blank white business cards with a hint of cream etched with Payne's gray script. The juxtaposition of manic serial killing and disposable pop music make for brilliant satire. And the open ended discussion that it sparks is a nice after-dinner mint that the writer leaves the audience. Was Bateman a sadistic serial killer? Or was he simply a psychopath in his mind and truly held to societies bosom in real life? All good things. But the history I have with this movie makes it frightening to me.
When I was a senior in college I took an acting class to fill the time. We were given the assignment to memorize a monologue and then act it out in front of the class. We could choose our own monologues but the professor had to approve it. Several of my classmates immediately decided that they wanted to do a scene from this movie. I hadn't watched the movie then so I thought nothing of it. But the scenes they suggested were all turned down due to their content. I now understand why. These freshmen wanted to recite line like:
"Harold, it's Bateman, Patrick Bateman. You're my lawyer so I think you should know: I've killed a lot of people. Some girls in the apartment uptown uh, some homeless people maybe 5 or 10 um an NYU girl I met in Central Park. I left her in a parking lot behind some donut shop. I killed Bethany, my old girlfriend, with a nail gun, and some man uh some old faggot with a dog last week. I killed another girl with a chainsaw, I had to, she almost got away and uh someone else there I can't remember maybe a model, but she's dead too. And Paul Allen. I killed Paul Allen with an axe in the face, his body is dissolving in a bathtub in Hell's Kitchen. I don't want to leave anything out here. I guess I've killed maybe 20 people, maybe 40. I have tapes of a lot of it, uh some of the girls have seen the tapes. I even, um... I ate some of their brains, and I tried to cook a little. Tonight I, uh, I just had to kill a LOT of people. And I'm not sure I'm gonna get away with it this time. I guess I'll uh, I mean, ah, I guess I'm a pretty uh, I mean I guess I'm a pretty sick guy. So, if you get back tomorrow, meet me at Harry's Bar, so you know, keep your eyes open."
Not only that, but they seemed to look up to Patrick Bateman as if he were what they wanted to become! This is a character made to be wholly unlikable (he kills a dog, the worse thing a character can do). Disturbing if you ask me.

6 out of 10: Well made film, watch it if you have the stomach, though don't say I didn't warn you.

The Kingdom (Dvd) - Jennie

This was basically CSI: Middle East. Great Movie, the ending two lines blew me away. The ending made the movie. It was kind of slow at some parts, but largely it was well acted and directed, I would highly recommend it. I never really wanted to watch the "middle east" movies, Jennie forced me to watch this one. A little hackney in the everything is "happy" ending, meaning all American's stay alive. All in all it was as if Michael Bay directed a CSI episode in Saudi Arabiah.

6 out of 10: a little too action movie for my tastes, though I applaud the topical locations