Movie Review- "Valentine's Day"

Trust me, dear readers, I'm as surprised as you that I saw this film, let alone reviewing it for you. Regular readers know that romantic comedies are probably my least favorite genre of film. To be sure, there have been some good ones ("When Harry Met Sally" comes to mind). And I'm sure there are others. It's just that I haven't seen them. But, at least I respect you, dear reader, enough to let you know my biases up front.

This movie stars pretty much half of the population of Hollywood at least in terms of the cast. That's a lot of talent for what I felt was a pretty formulaic film for a genre I don't like. But you already knew that, so let's move on.

The film tells the story of a bunch of people in LA, whose lives interact on Valentine's Day. Ultimately, not every character's life and story interacts with every other one, though most end up doing so, even if the characters themselves are unaware of it. If that sounds confusing, it's actually not. At the center of these multiple plots, is a florist (Ashton Kutcher) and his assistant/driver (George Lopez). I won't bore you with the rest of the storylines because they're all pretty much the same: There's love potential, then there's trouble a-brewin', then finally there's love and understanding, then everyone's happy. To be sure there are some genuinely funny moments and lines in the film. But, overall, I was disappointed. But perhaps I shouldn't have been. I should have expected that.

There were some scenes in the film which had some potential. When there was the possibility that love wouldn't work out for the characters, I was thinking, "Hmmm...this just got interesting." But it didn't.

The film was missing one element: Patrick Swayze. I know he's dead. If he weren't, and felt up to it, they probably would have cast him in it. Here's why: writer and social critic Chuck Klosterman wrote in one of his books (not sure which one) that each of Patrick Swayze's films has at least one scene which is totally implausible. He then makes the case that "Roadhouse" is the perfect Patrick Swayze film, because every scene is implausible/impossible.

And that's my issue with romantic comedies. I realize I'm in the minority here. A lot of people really like romantic comedies. I prefer heavy dramas. I just feel that these types of films are overly optimistic, and give the public a distorted view of love. I believe, they set the bar for actual love experiences so high , that people feel that they're getting ripped off when it doesn't reflect what's on the screen. Are these types of films reflective of love? Hardly ever. But they are reflective of culture, I think. Is life as depressing as the films I enjoy? Not always, but it sure can be, and is probably worse. Pessimistic? Absolutely! But again, dear reader, I am just being honest with you. And that's pretty much the deal: If you don't share my pessimism, you'll probably like this movie.

The "That Guy" factor is incredibly high, due in large part to the size of the cast. Notable cameos include Joe Mantegna, and comedian Larry Miller as the airline employee at the airport.

Acting: A-
Directing: C
That Guy: A
Overall: C*

*See the paragraphs which discuss my distaste for this genre, which I discussed above ad nauseum.

Movie Review- "The Blind Side"

I've wanted to see this film for a while now. I wanted to see it since I first saw the trailer last year. And I finally got my chance.

This was a good movie. It had at least two things that really appeal to me: drama and football (or American football, for my international dear readers). I doubt that this film will be nominated for any Academy Awards, but that's OK. I don't it's necessarily trying for that. The film stands on its own.

Americans, by and large, like inspirational stories. This film is no exception. More on that in a moment. First, though, I'd like to take a second to talk about football. Football is regarded as one of the toughest sports in America, but viewed by some outside the US to be too violent. Despite this reputation for toughness, football is often used as a backdrop for inspirational (and dare I say, sensitive) stories. Examples of this are the present film in question, as well as "Rudy", and "Facing the Giants". A case could be made that this applies to any sport. And the good people making those arguments would be right. But for the purposes of this article, we'll stick with the poetry of the gridiron.

As I stated above, this is an inspirational film. And there's nothing wrong with that. To be sure, I personally like my share of heavy,depressing films. But occasionally, we all need something uplifting.

This film tells the story of Michael Oher, a guy with a horrendous childhood. He bounces around life with pretty much no direction, until he's offered a chance at success via a private school education with athletic potential. He's "de facto" adopted by a wealthy white family who takes him in, essentially out of Christian charity and the goodness of their hearts. He flowers under their generosity. Then they legally adopt him. He develops his athletic prowess, goes to college and is drafted by the Baltimore Ravens. This is all based on a true story.

I generally don't care for the film work of Sandra Bullock. I have nothing against her, but she is generally found in romantic comedies, which is my least favorite genre. However, she does a really good job. Also, Tim McGraw surprised me. He didn't look like "Tim McGraw" in this film. I got really tired of the kid, SJ.

I definitely recommend this film. It's worth a view, though, a great case could be made that waiting for the DVD release is not a bad idea. People who saw this movie before me told me it was very emotional and a "tear jerker". I found that tugged at the old heartstrings a little bit, but not to the degree that I was maybe led to believe.

Acting: B+
Directing: A-
That Guy: D
Overall: B+

Movie Review- "Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakuel"

Wow. This is my first movie review in quite some time. Let's see if I remember how to do this.

Regular readers of this blog might be surprised that I am reviewing this film. You wouldn't think that this would be my type of film. And, you'd be mostly right. Regular readers know that my genre of choice is heavy drama. But, I saw it. So let's get to it:

This film is CUTE. That's not a bad thing. It really is adorable. I wasn't feeling bad before I saw, it but it certainly put me in a good mood after.

The plot is pretty much what you'd think it is. It follows the Chipmunks as they try to navigate through "normal" life as rock stars. This includes mostly living with another guardian, as David Seville is in the hospital and going to high school. Along the way, they encounter the normal travails of life in high school. They also find an end to their isolation. By that, I mean they also come across other singing chipmunks, specifically of the female variety. These fellow rodents are an all-girl trio called The Chippettes.

I'm not really an actor by any stretch of the imagination (having been in only a couple plays). But you have to remember that, acting, despite what you may think, is actually hard work. Think about that! Even the worst film you've ever seen, a whole team of people worked hard on that. This is not to say that the end results may not be terrible, because they sometimes are. All I'm saying is when watching a film like this, you should probably know what you're getting into. That's a long, drawn-out way of saying the acting is adequate for a film like this.

So, that leaves 2 things left to mention. The "That Guy" factor is decent here. Jason Lee, of course, plays David Seville. The bigger "that guy" is actually a woman in this film. It's Wendie Mallick. She's well-known for her work on TV. Many of my dear readers will remember her work on "Just Shoot Me". She plays the principal. A principal who has a tattoo of Alvin and the Chipmunks on her forearm. That'd be so rad if she had that in real life. Maybe a bit creepy as well. Still cool, though. Besides, according to imdb.com, she's from Buffalo, NY!

The discussion factor is good if you have kids. You can explore issues of family, friendship, school, etc.

This is a great film for kids, and a good way to kill an hour-and-a-half. It's cute. Not much else needs to be said.

Acting: B
Directing: A-
That Guy: A-
Overall: B+

Movie Review- "Ice Age 3" (in 3D)

What a fun movie! That's the best way to summarize the whole experience. I saw the movie in 3D, as the title informs you. That really enhanced my film watching.

This is the third film in the Ice Age franchise. And, I am a big fan of it! The film features the familiar characters and voices of the previous two. The plot is certainly scientifically inaccurate. More mature viewers will recognize this, and the kids will have plenty of time to learn the science as they advance in school. But, on the other hand, it is a work of fiction. And a fun one at that.

The comparisons to the Shrek franchise are inevitable I suppose. (I loved the first 2 Shrek movies, and was kind of bored by the third.) But I will say this about the Ice Age films. there are enough regular jokes and sight gags for everyone. That is to say, they don't feel the need to resort to a bombardment of pop culture references for the grown-ups (as the Shrek films tend to do). And this is coming from a guy who loves his pop culture references (couldn't love Family Guy if I didn't)!

The discussion factor is not as high as it might be in other films, but the are opportunities for dialogue. Part of it is technical, as in the animation and 3D aspects. But, it might spur a conversation about friendship, families, and other areas of life. The "That Guy" factor is a pretty tough for two reasons: 1) the characters are all voiced by actors, and 2) most of them are well-known actors. The us the grades at the end of the review will reflect that.

But, overall, the film is a good one. It's a great way to kill a little time. Good animation, good action sequences, good family movie. Not too much else I can say. I wholeheartedly recommend this film. Besides, anything with dinosaurs rules!

Acting: NA
Directing: A-
That Guy: NA
Overall: A

The Actress List

I promised last October that I would do this list. Then, I kinda forgot about it. That 4-month hiatus didn't help much. Anyway, here's a list of my fave actresses. As always, the list is in no particular order.

1. Diane Keaton
2. Scarlett Johansson
3. Lauren Bacall
4. Faye Dunaway
5. Pam Grier
6. Meryl Streep
7. Janet Leigh
8. Mia Farrow
9. Liv Ullman

Movie Review- "Harry Potter 6"

I'm going to level with you. I've only seen the Harry Potter movies. I'm not one of those obsesssed fan who starts reading the novels the second they buy it, and then lose sleep trying to finish it. So, for thos eof you dear readers who happen to find themselves to be that type of fan, my review will probably be very simplistic to you. Even still, feel free to comment.

Overall, I found this film to be decent. However, I felt that there was much more that could have been done with it. I know this is the problem with trying to translate a long, detail-filled novel with a rabid fanbase into a film that must have appeal for the masses.

But, let's start with the good. Some of the kids are really finding themselves as actors. As such, their performances are getting increasingly better. This is,I believe, especially true of Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry himself.

The problem with the film is this: It's not the "darkest one yet". It's all teenage crushes and love stories. Was the director trying to make this a "Twilighted" version of Harry Potter? I will say that romance movies are not generaly my cup of green tea. We've been lead on this cinematic journey to believe thatthere's this coming ultimate showdown between good and evil. Suddenly, we need a romantic interlude? Also, I thought the battle in the bathroom between Harry and Draco could have been more substantial. And where was the funeral for Dumbledore? (I was told there was one in the book.)

I am waiting for the director's cut on DVD. There has to be more than just this.

This film left me with a few questions:
1. Why call it "...and the Half-Blood Prince" if that's a minor detail in the movie?
2. Where does Tim Burton end and Helena Bonham Carter begin? (They're married in real life)
3. Why is Dumbledore so "touchy-feely" all of a sudden?

The discussion factor is actually decent here. The most obvious one is the discussion over how much the film differed from the book (I'm told). Other discussions which may stem from this film are the nature of trust, divine plans and purpose, as well as the limits of academic freedom and pursuit. The "that guy" factor is not really that high as well, with the regular cast of Hogwarts faculty doing that particular duty. The new addition here is Jim Broadbent as Professor Horace Slughorn. Broadbent, of course doing his part of filling the role which calls for "Old British gent without a cool, deep voice."

Acting: B
Directing: C-
That Guy: B
Overall B-

Movie Review- "Watchmen"

I actually saw this film twice in as many days. The story behind these multiple viewings is that I saw it on Friday, the day it officially opened. I took in an early afternoon show. The problem was, there was bad sound in the theater for the first half hour or so. I did the best I could to figure out what was going on. I followed the action, but the dialogue certainly would have helped. Anyway, a guy about 3 rows back decided he had had enough, so he walked out. Shortly after this, the sound was restored permanently. His loss. Anyway, after the film was over, there was some sort of assistant manager giving away free passes to everyone because of the sound issues. So,I took it, and saw it again the next day, with my buddy Tom and his family. There were no sound issues on the second viewing.

I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

This film warranted multiple screenings. I found it to be utterly fascinating. The film has dazzling visuals, strong performances, and raised a plethora of issues, which I will touch on later.

The central plot of the film centers on a team of superheroes, which is in s state of quasi-retirement/disarray in 1985. One member of the team, an aging hero called The Comedian, is attacked and thrown out of his high-rise apartment window. This is discovered by another member of the team, a masked avenger called Rohrschack, who believes that, due to the current political/social climate, someone is trying to kill superheroes. The rest of the film centers on him trying to convince the other semi-retired team members to reunite and stop whoever is doing this.

This is a powerful superhero film. Not necessarily powerful in the way that "The Dark Knight" was, but powerful nonetheless. It raises some very pertinent issues. Some of the themes which the film addresses are power and it's limits, heroism, the need for heroes, peace and how to achieve it, as well as others. Any of those would stimulate great discussion.

One very interesting aspect of the film is the soundtrack. The film has songs from the likes of Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, My Chemical Romance, and more. Not since "Pulp Fiction" has a soundtrack meshed so well with the story on the screen. See this movie for that, if nothing else. This aspect ratchets up the discussion factor too.

The "That Guy" factor has a couple of interesting twists as well. The first "that guy" is Jackie Earle Haley. he was that one kid from the original "Bad News Bears". That's pretty standard. Here's where the twist comes in: One of the "that guys" is a familiar voice, more than face. It's retired supervillain, Moloch the Mystic, played by Matt Frewer. Frewer plays a supervillain called The Leader in the Hulk cartoon I posted on earlier in the year. Nice to match a voice with a face.

I loved this movie! But, then again, I'm a sucker for anyone in a cape.

Acting: A
Directing: A
That Guy: A
Overall: A

Oscar Comments and Scorecard

So, how did you do with your Oscar picks, dear reader? We'll get to my scorecard in a bit. First, I want to comment on a few things from last night's telecast.

I thought High Jackman did OK as the host. It's hard to replace Billy Crystal, but the past few hosts have been good. I liked Jon Stewart and Ellen DeGeneres as hosts. But, I know that's also probably a tough, nerve-wracking job, so kudos to anyone who does it.

I also really liked the break with tradition regarding presentations of acting awards. Instead of having last year's winner, the award was presented by 5 winners of the award. Great job, whoever thought of that!

OK, on to the big show. Here's how I scored:

Best Picture:

I was wrong on both accounts. I said "The Reader" should win, but that "Benjamin Button" would win. But, I am completely comfortable with "Slumdog Millionaire" as the winner.

Best Director:

I was right on both accounts. I picked Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire) in both the should win and will win categories.

Best Actor:

I was half-right. I thought the one that would win was too close call between Sean Penn and Brad Pitt. Keep in mind, I posted that before actually seeing "Milk". After that, I had a feeling Sean Penn would take home the prize. I was still a bit skeptical, considering the money that could be made off saying "Academy Award winner Brad Pitt". And I was pulling for Mickey Rourke as the one who should win.

Best Actress:

Again, right of both accounts. I picked her as the should win and will win.

Best Supporting Actor:

Another case of being half-right. I was really pulling for Heath Ledger, and he won. However, I know that Philip Seymour Hoffman is an amazing actor, and I actually picked him as my will win choice, simply because, as science fiction films so rarely get the recognition they deserve, superhero films get even less.

Best Supporting Actress:

Another case of being half-right. I was pulling for Penelope Cruz, mostly because her role was in a Woody Allen film. And that's precisely why I didn't pick her as my will win choice. I think the Academy is still kind of sympathetic to Woody, but most of society is not. But she surprised me by winning.

That's one of things I like best about film: The wonderful debates and discussions that come from seeing and honoring them.

Movie Review- "Milk"

A guy in my position isn't supposed to like this movie. But, I found it to worthy of its Best Picture nomination.

This biopic tells the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay poltician elected to major office. It tells not so much his entire life, but his life and political career from 1970 until 1978, when he was assasinated. It tells the story of several failed campaigns and relationships.

Even if you, dear reader, are put off by the subject material, there is still a good deal to like about this film. The most obvious thing to praise is Sean Penn's performance in the title role. I don't always get Sean Penn. I admit that. But, he's had some dynamite performances. Add this to the list. Penn is phenomenal in this role.

Also, not to be missed is Josh Brolin (who seems to be in everything, like that Samuel L. Jackson fellow I mentioned in the previous post) as dan White. Brolin performs extremely well as every angry white guy you know.

Even though the time frame of the film is the 1970s, the core of the film is very timely. Harvey begins his political career as a simple community activist. He loses several elections, but learns what changes must be made, as well as gaining supporters with each election cycle. He attracts supporters by reaching out across various diversities with a message of hope. Sound familiar?

If viewed only on that simplistic poltical level, you still end up with an inspirational film.

The discussion factor is extremely high in this film. The biggest issue and thrust of the film is, of course, gay rights. Other issues which the film brings up is are poltical campaigns, community activism, what real political power is, among others.

The "that guy" factor is so-so in this film. Emile Hirsch is the most notable.

This film is worth your time.

Acting: A
Directing: A
That Guy: B
Overall: A-

Movie Review- "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

This film has the potential to be this year's "Titanic" for me. And that's NOT a good thing. It's not that I didn't like this movie. I just think it's a bit overrated. Some parts were really cool, and some parts incredibly boring. And it is LONG! I don't have a problem with films being lengthy, but this one is long. It runs nearly 3 hours, and you know it. And at the risk of stating the obvious ad nauseum, I think I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called "Forrest Gump." The connection is inescapable.

Brad Pitt gives a better-than-average performance. By that, I mean his performance is better than say, Ocean's 12 or 13, but not as good as "Legends of the Fall". And, I hate to say it, but I think I'm getting a little tired of Cate Blanchett. Her performance is her standard good.

The film does have an interesting premise. It's based (loosely,I understand) on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, of "The Great Gatsby" fame. It centers around a child born with all symptoms of being elderly. As he grows up, he actually ages backward. So, when he dies, he is an infant. Like I said, interesting premise.

It feels like this movie got its nomination for Best Picture on its technical merits. And from that standpoint, it is very well done. Kudos to make-up, special effects, and costuming. Again, I have to give props to the director for bringing something like this to life. In other words, it takes a great deal of vision to take a short story and make 3 hours of film out if it.

There is, like most of my recently reviewed films a good discussion factor. One, obviously is the technical excellence of the film. Beyond this, there are issues of being in love, what it really means "to age", mortality, and are things that we encounter in our lives chance, or do they serve a purpose (a recurring theme this year)?

The "That Guy Factor" is pretty good here. In fact, one of the "that guys" is a woman. This is Tilda Swinton, as the wife of spy, whom Benjamin meets and has an affair with in Russia. She's been in lots of films, but might be best known (at least among this readership) as the White Witch in the first Narnia movie. Also here in a bit part is a character actor Elias Koteas. He also has been in lots of films. But to me he'll always be Casey Jones from the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie from when I was a kid.

It's easy to see why the Academy would have nominated this film for Best Picture. I don't think it deserved it, especially since I happen to believe that Gran Torino got royally snubbed. If it does win, I'll always remember it as the new "Titanic": An overly long movie that a lot of people liked, but I didn't. Or, I'll always remember it as the new "Titanic": A film that robbed much more deserving films of the recognition they deserved.

Acting: B
Directing: A-
That Guy: A-
Overall: B

Movie Review- "Slumdog Millionaire"

So, I finally saw this film. I had several people highly recommend it to me. Plus, I had to see it as another part of my quest to see all of this year's Best Picture nominees.

It took me a little while to get into it, but once I did, it was pretty rewarding. The film, more than anything, is a love story. It's also a little far-fetched. But outside of that, it was a decent film. At the bare minimum, it was deserving of the Best Picture nod. Much more so than "Frost/Nixon". But, you already read that post.

The film is the story of a young man from the slums of Mumbai, India (formerly Bombay) who gets a chance to compete on the Indian television version "Who wants to be a Millionaire?" He scores better than anyone in the history of the show. Thus, he is accused cheating. The host of the show, as well as the police, want to know how it is that a kid from the slums could know so much. The answers to the questions are provided by his retelling his life story to the police. In other words, every experience he has had in his life has led him to the answer to one of the show's questions.

Like I said, a bit far-fetched, but what love story isn't (except Annie Hall)?

That said, I do have to praise the directing. This was a big story, and it took a great vision to bring it all together, to make sure all the details fit.

The discussion factor is pretty high here. The biggest conversation piece of the film is its view of life. Does everything fit together? Are we the sum total of our experiences? Can love be that strong? It also address issues of family, class, child exploitation, and a host of others.

I am not familiar enough with the actors in the film to even make an attempt at a "that guy" factor.

This film is certainly worth seeing. It also would be my pick for Best Picture, if The Reader were not also nominated.

Acting: B
Directing: A
That Guy: NA
Overall: A-

Movie Review- "The Reader"

There are 2 cards which I must lay out on the table before I begin the actual review. One, I am on a personal quest to see all of the nominees for Best Picture. And 2, drama is my favorite genre of film. I mean, I love a good heavy drama. Those types of movies satisfy me like a good nap or a great meal. If this is the case, then "The Reader" certainly hit the spot.

The film is about a teenager who random meets, then begins an affair with a middle-aged woman. They spend time together, they make love, and he reads to her various literary classics which he is studying in school. The affair lasts a summer, but the young man finds that she has left an indelible mark on his life. He encounters her years later when, as a law student, he observes the woman on trial at Nuremberg, accused of being in the SS and participating in the Nazi atrocities. This, of course, make him conflicted. The rest of the film deals with her life in prison, and how they carry on their "affair", but in a different way. He records classic literature on tape and sends it to her.

The film is at times both touching and depressing. I got the sense that in some odd way, they really do love each other, even though they do not extend the physical aspects of their affair past that one summer. After all, doomed love, tragic love, tortured love is a theme which has inspired some of the world's greatest works of art.

The acting was very, very good. Kate Winslet gives a fine performance. All she needs to become the next Meryl Streep is a few more accents and about 20 more Oscar nods. That said, her performance is really strong in this one. It is easy and tempting to simply say that she gives a powerful performance as a former Nazi. But there are other facets of her character as well. Particularly of note is her behavior at the beginning of the affair. She, teaches the youth to be a lover, and then to be a better one. Winslet pulls this off so well, that the reading itself becomes erotic. Additionally, Ralph Fiennes gives a strong, but understated performance. He plays the teenager as an adult (post-law school).

The film is very deep when it comes to the discussion factor. In other words, the film raises many issues for discussion. These include (but are not limited to) age issues in relationships, the nature of love, the place and limits of forgiveness in relationships, how those relationships change over time, the definition of justice and its relation to law, as well as others.

There's really only one (for me anyway) identifiable person to fit the "that guy" factor. In this case it's Bruno Ganz. He played Hitler in "Downfall". But I recognized him as Staupitz from the 2003 film "Luther."

Just as an aside, this is probably my pick for Best Picture right now.

Acting: A
Directing: A-
That Guy: B
Overall: A-

Movie Review- "Frost/Nixon"

I was very much looking forward to seeing this film. I finally got an opportunity on Saturday. I gotta say, the film left me a bit confused. Not as to the plot or to the message, mind you. I am confused as to why it was nominated for Best Picture, while Gran Torino was snubbed.

This is not to say that "Frost/Nixon" is not a good movie. It is. It features some strong performances by the actors. In fact, these performances (specifically Frank Langella as Nixon) are probably what got the film the nomination. Actually, that's not really a fair statement. Let me explain why.

See, the Academy Awards, in addition to honoring the art of film making, serve as a good cultural barometer. In other words, it's possible to gauge the general mood of the populace by observing what the Academy chooses to honor. (Or, at least, it's possible to gauge the mood of the previous year.) This, I believe, is at the heart of the reason for the nomination.

There was, prior to the November presidential election, a tense mood in the United States. There was also a great deal of anger and anxiety. And a large portion of that anger and anxiety was assigned to the previous administration. Many, including myself) felt the administration was corrupt, and arrogant in its corruption. Many also, including myself, we upset because the administration seemed to be getting away with it. Essentially, we wanted some sort of comeuppance.

This was the way many people also felt about and during the Nixon administration. This is best demonstrated in the line from the film, "I want to give Richard Nixon the trial he never had." A good summation of the times. What I'm getting at here is that there is a sense (or was a sense) of needing a similar event from George W. Bush. I'm not so sure of the necessity for that now. After all, he had approval ratings lower than Nixon's, and gave much more incriminating testimony in our modern 24-hour news cycles. Plus, we are already seeing the results of that administration's policies both domestically (economic crisis) and internationally (America's terrible reputation in most of the world).

But I digress. The point is, you cannot stop the people from making such parallels. Let me share 1 thing which highlights this. The big, climactic line in the film is when Nixon says, "When the president does it, it's not illegal." When that line was aid, several people in the theater around me whispered, "That sounds like Bush." Take that for what it's worth.

One good thing about this movie is that it weaves in archival footage from the times. But, as I said before, without the strong performances, this probably wouldn't have garnered the Best Picture nomination. But the best word to describe this film is "effective".

The discussion factor is high. Not only for the parallels I mentioned above. Other issues mentioned include, but are not limited to the distinction between power and authority, the limits of presidential power, the use of media in all aspects of life, as well as others.

The "that guy" factor is fairly high as well.

Acting: A-
Directing: B
That Guy: B
Overall: B+

Movie Review- "Gran Torino"

My buddy Dave suggested this might be Clint Eastwood's last movie. If so, this is an incredible swan song. This was, I felt, a brilliant movie. Many felt it got snubbed by the Academy. If that is true, then the other films that did get nominated must be very powerful indeed.

Eastwood directed and stars in this urban tale of racism and forgiveness. Eastwood plays an elderly tough guy named Walt Kowalski who knows his neighborhood is declining. The film starts at the funeral of Walt's wife. He seems intent on living out his days proving his toughness to the world and being grizzled. Things come to a head when a Hmong family who lives next door literally spills over into his life.

This film touches on so many different aspects of life. The easiest and most obvious layer here is racism and tolerance. On a completely superficial level, the message is about having your prejudices diminished after getting to know someone. Keep in mind, I said superficial. I did not say this is a bad thing. How else can prejudice and racism be stopped?

The theme of forgiveness is powerful in any film. But it is especially powerful here. The reason for this is also clear in the film. It is one thing to be forgiven. It is another thing to be able to forgive yourself. Often, this causes just as many problems in human interaction.

The problem with seeing movies the way I do, is that I often see them by myself. Sometimes this is OK. But, when it comes to heavy dramas (my fave genre), it's nice to have some instant processing. But, that why I have you, dear readers. That said, the discussion factor is really high in this film. Other issues it addresses are vigilantism, aging and conformity, self-sacrifice, and maturation. You can probably come up with some others as well.

The "that guy" factor is also in full-effect, most notably in the character of the barber.

I will put out one caution, dear readers: This is not a film for the easily offended. Racist slurs and f-bombs abound. If that is off-putting to you, wait until the movie is on network TV.

Acting: A
Directing: A
That Guy: A-
Overall: A

The Directors List

First list of 2009. This is, as you probably gathered, is a list of my fave movie directors. This one is going to be a bit different, though. The top 3 are in order, after that, there is no particular order. Enjoy!

1. Woody Allen
2. M. Night Shyamalan
3. Ingmar Bergman
4. Clint Eastwood
5. Quentin Tarantino
6. Tim Burton
7. Kevin Smith
8. Spike Lee
9. Alfred Hitchcock
10. John Huston

To be honest, even I'm surprised that it took this long for me to post this particular list.

Life Imitating Art

One of these clips is footage of former VP Dick Cheney being wheeled into a limo on this Inauguration Day. The other clip is a scene from the 1946 classic film "It's A Wonderful Life".

Doesn't Cheney Bear a striking resemblance to Henry Potter (the guy in the wheelchair played by Lionel Barrymore)? That's life imitating art! I'll stop there, and let you fill in the gaps as to what I mean.

Movie Review- "W"

I didn't realize how long it had been since I paid a visit to my local picture house. So, last night, I decided to catch a flick. I saw Oliver Stone's biopic of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. I wasn't sure what to expect. After all, Stone's use of history has been sketchy in the past (see JFK, Born on the 4th of July). But, he's directed some really great films (see above, plus Platoon, etc.)

Let me begin my putting my biases out on the table. As regular readers know, I'm no great fan of George W. Bush. I think his presidency is one of the worst in American history. Back in the 2000 campaign, I just thought he was the biggest tool ever. And now, 8 years later, it's a mess.

That said, this makes Bush come off way better than I would have expected. He is not portrayed as a complete idiot, as he sometimes is. He comes off, at least in terms of being president, as naive. As president, he is portrayed as a person who has coasted through his life and career being helped by a lot of other people, doesn't realize it, but is surrounded by "yes-men" who keep the myth alive. In other words, as the biggest tool ever.

Is Josh Brolin the new Samuel L. Jackson? This guy is in everything now, it seems. Just like Jackson a few years ago. And he usually does a pretty decent job. Brolin does a good job of humanizing George W. Bush. And, his Bush impression gets better as the film goes along.

Really, most of the acting is good. And, except for Scott Glenn as Donald Rumsfeld and Jeffery Wright as Colin Powell, they look pretty much like the actual people. The question then is, What to to with these characters? How do they fit in? Are they accurate? The answer here, is a mixed bag. Colin Powell is portrayed as a man who is concerned about going to war with Iraq, vocalizes those doubts, but then sells out and is a team player. George Tenet comes off pretty much the same way. This is probably accurate. Powell put his credibility on the line with his speech to the UN, and despite his grave concerns, puts his stamp on the invasion. By the same token, Condoleeza Rice doesn't fare much better, but for a different reason. She is portrayed as the consummate "yes-man", which is pretty accurate for the time frame in the film. However, she gets the intellectual shaft. The viewer is not shown just how intelligent and insightful Dr. Rice is in real life. I wish more of that would have come through in the script.

The real villains in the film are not the Bush family. In his previous life, the enemies are Bush's struggle with alcohol, and the family name. As president, the real bad guys are (portrayed to be) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove. Richard Dreyfuss gives and excellent performance as Cheney. You really do see him as the power behind the throne. Also, Karl Rove is as ubiquitous in the film as he was in the actual administration.

As I said before, the film humanizes Bush. It steers clear of making Bush into parody. True, there's no shortage of reasons or opportunities for doing so. But, Bush, in his humanity is isolated by the major players in his cabinet. Thus, while wrong, he is totally comfortable thinking he has made no mistakes in the conduct of the war. (In the film. He has recently admitted that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was a mistake. Kudos, Mr. President!) The other humanizing thing is that this film does a pretty decent job of showing just how much Bush loves and is devoted to his wife, Laura.

I was impressed by the directing. As I said before, I wasn't sure how Stone would handle this divisive figure. True, Stone will probably not be nominated for this film (best director). And rightly so. The "That Guy" factor is is nearly off the charts in this film. Jeffrey Wright, an (IMO) underrated character actor is good as Colin Powell. Several others fall into this description as well, notably, Thandie Newton as Dr. Rice, Rob Cordry as Ari Fleischer (who is pretty much there only look like Ari Fleischer), and James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush (the 41st POTUS).

The discussion factor is high as well. Any conversation about George W. Bush and his presidency is a highly emotionally charged experience. Even outside of politics, there is rich fodder for a good discussion: the impact of faith on life and politics, team building, the role of advisers in one's life and career, the limits of power, etc.

Basically, the message of the film is this: You may think that the administration is a complete and abject failure, but it's OK to like George W. Bush as a person. You can kinda see where he's coming from. You don't have like it, you don't have to agree. But you can kinda understand. At the end, you really do want to have a beer with the guy (so long as his in non-alcoholic, by his own admission). That's pretty much how he got elected. So, does that make the film a tragedy or a comedy?

Acting: B+
Directing: A
That guy factor: A
Overall: B+

The Actor List

If you're even a casual reader of this blog, you know that movies are a big part of my existence. You also know, it's tough to have a flick without actors. Here's a list of my favorite actors. Keep in mind, I said favorite. Not the best, not your favorite. Mine. Some are still living and working, some are no longer among us. Again, no particular order. Enjoy!

1. Humphrey Bogart
2. Denzel Washington
3. Basil Rathbone
4. Boris Karloff
5. Frank Sinatra
6. Leonardo DiCaprio
7. Paul Giamatti
8. Anthony Hopkins
9. Javier Bardem
10. Michael Caine

PS: I'm not discriminating here. An "Actress List" is forthcoming.

Movie Review- "The Last Mistress"

I've been really in the mood for a heavy drama as of late. Nothing on TV I've seen recently did the trick. I suppose I could have watched something I already own, but I'm not sure that would have sufficed. So I headed to a local picture house. I watched "The Last Mistress." I was not disappointed. It did exactly what I wanted it to. This is a French film, directed by Catherine Breillat.

Before beginning my review, let me put forth some ideas on non-American directors. I do like some foreign films. I don't have enough exposure to foreign cinema to call myself anything other than a casual observer. Most of what I've seen, I've enjoyed. I am not a very discriminating aesthete. Nor am I a any sort of cinematic elitist. It may sound axiomatic to cinephiles, but I do enjoy the films of Kurosawa and Bergman (Japan and Sweden, respectively). I've seen other foreign films, and have liked most of them. This film gave me an introduction to Catherine Breillat. I have heard that she is a very provocative filmmaker, a true artist. This is my first exposure to her work. Based on this, I'm ready for more.

One more thing I've noticed about world cinema vs. American films. For sheer production values, American movies have the market cornered. However, for plot and acting, as well as willingness to explore things a bit more deeply, the non-Americans win hands down. There are exceptions, and I could probably list them if I thought about it, but I'm kinda pressed for time.

So, on with the review...

This is a period piece set in 1830's France. It's about a guy who is getting married to a woman of high standing in that polite society. He's had the same mistress for about 10 years, and people wonder whether or not he'll be able to give her up after such a long entanglement. he bulk of the film is told in flashback, which I normally don't like, but the flashbacks are long enough to actually say something. Anyway, There's this long romance between the 2.

The acting is quite good. Having no previous exposure to these actors, I could not evaluate their performances against previous performances they had given (see Heath ledger in my review of "The Dark Knight"). All players did a fine job. I felt that Asia Argento (in the role of the mistress) played her part extremely well. She really convinced me that she was a mistress in a tempestuous relationship.

I hate to disappoint my dear readers, but I cannot give a grade for the "That Guy" factor. I'm sure if I were more in touch with French cinema, I would recognize someone. Alas, I cannot.

The discussion factor, though, is moderately high. The issues it raises are obviously fidelity and keeping up appearances in society. Some larger issues would be: what is the nature of love? How does one express love? Is that love and its expression shaped by society? Should it be?

I would definitely recommend seeing this film. It would serve, ideally, as a good first foray into foreign films (though, in my humble, non-professional opinion Benigni"s "Life is Beautiful" is a better choice for that).

Acting: A-
Directing: A
That Guy Factor: N/A
Overall rating: A-

Movie Review- The X-Files: I Want to Believe

I got into The X-Files pretty late. The series, not this movie. But, I still enjoyed what I saw. Despite my protestations about fantasy and sci-fi geeks (and if know anything about Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, you know exactly what I'm talking about), I do find "the unexplained" to be entertaining. Despite there not being an actual bigfoot or Loch Ness Monster, it makes for great storytelling.

To watch this movie, you don't really need to be a hard-core X-Files junkie. You just have to know how the series ended. I'm not publishing that here. Look it up. The storyline stands alone from the actual TV show (except for the ending part I just alluded to.) Actually, that's kinda not true. It doesn't make much sense for me to tell you that it's like watching one long episode if you've never seen an actual episode. That said, it's exactly that: Like watching one long episode.

Performance-wise, there's not much to tell. David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson played their characters as well as they did on the show. (Thus adding to that "one long episode" thing.) But, at least they looked interested in revisiting their characters.

The "that guy factor" was in full effect. The biggest one was Billy Connolly, as the priest. He's been in tons of stuff (rent Mrs. Brown for a great performance by him).

While this film is definitely not worth full-price admission ($9.25 in my case), it does have great attributes. One of the things I've pointed out in my movie reviews is the potential for discussion. This movie is loaded with it, especially for theologians or those who fancy themselves as that. Issues that the movie brings up are the nature of God, the nature of God's forgiveness, medical ethics, psychics and psychic phenomena, as well as a host of others.

There's really not much else to say. If you liked the show, you'll like this movie.

Acting: B
Directing: B
That Guy Factor: A-
Overall: B