District 9 (2009)

Directed by: Neil Blomkamp
Starring: Sharlto Copley

***

Whether or not District 9 could have been a great movie is a better question to ask than whether or not was it. There were elements, scenes and characters scattered throughout that were truly great and while there were aspects that didn't work, they could have been forgotten had the movie known what it really wanted to be. All the great elements, scenes and characters didn't really mesh well together and what we ended up with was a cool idea, some kick ass battle sequences and one great performance.

The film opens documentary style. Handheld cameras follow around members of Multi-National United Corporation as they patrol District 9... the home of non-hostile aliens for more than 20 years. Intermingled interviews explain that most people don't want the aliens around but they are so important to science that the humans refuse to let them leave. What they plan to do instead, is move them to a bigger and cheaper enclosed facility further away from the city and human life. Things go horribly wrong when Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) accidently sprays some strange alien concocted liquid into his eyes. What happens to him, the importance of that liquid and everything surrounding that element of the story is great. What tags along is somewhat of a mindless summer action flick.

As I mentioned, the film really didn't know what it wanted to be. It ranged from a mockumentary, to a compelling character piece, to Iron Man. Wikus was a perfectly created character played perfectly by Copley. So many other characters were one dimensional and did so little for the movie, their absence, even without the conflicts they brought with them, would have been fine by me.

District 9's biggest flaw was its inability to make what was happening believable. It wasn't just that aliens lived on earth and could communicate with humans... there was just something about the way they lived and interacted that didn't work, and I certainly did not believe that they'd been on earth for 20 years. Had the film managed to really implant that aspect, I feel like everything else would have been seemed acceptable. Add on top of all this that the aliens can make complex lethal weapons out of practically nothing but still live in shacks and you have a movie that's not necessary fleshed out completely.

All flaws aside however, I can't say enough about the performance of Sharlto Copley. He easily will fall into my top five leading male performances of 2009 and he single-handedly carried this movie to the approval rating I've given it. Without Copley, who while brilliant, certainly benefited from playing the most detailed, complex and interesting character on the page, this film would have fallen completely flat. He was believable and managed the best he could to make things around him believable.

I feel like I'm being generous with a three-star rating but when it comes down to it, I was entertained. The movie at some points was a mindless summer action flick, but it was an entertaining one. And the good parts of the movie were really good. I feel like had it decided to be simply a mindless summer action flick it may have worked better. It tried to be more and it didn't really work, but again... I was entertained.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Brad Pitt

***

I went to see Inglourious Basterds at 415 on Sunday. Afterwards, I went to drink at the bar while I watched the Sox lose to the Yankees. So now I'm over tired, kinda hungover and trying to write my review of a movie that's not as fresh in my mind as it should be. I don't really want to do this. Fortunately, Tarantino has still failed to make a movie that doesn't linger with you regardless of what you do to prevent that from happening.

Inglourious Basterds runs just over two and a half hours but never felt like too long a movie to me. However, it seemed to be made up of only something like 10 scenes which ran up to 20 minutes each. The individual scenes seemed long and occasionally drawn out. This usually works for Tarantino. He's been a master at creating those "uncomfortable silences" and filling scenes with tension even when very little is happening. Basterds was missing this, however I kind of blame myself because I know the scenes were designed to do that... I just didn't feel it.

Every Tarantino movie I've seen gets better over time regardless of whether or not I even see it again. Something about them resonates. I can only critique the movie now based on my first impression. I can't assume I'll like the movie more down the road and give this film a five-star rating. Right now, after seeing it once it only stands as a three star rating.

Why? Well, it is a bit too long even if it didn't feel that way. When Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) tells the Basterds that Hitler will be a the movie premiere they intend to "ambush", we don't need to then cut to Hitler telling us that he'l be going to the movie premiere that the basterds intend to "ambush". Its repetitive just mentioning it in a review. Despite what Tarantino will tell you... adding scenes probably didn't help his film run more smoothly. Had those scenes that were drawn out, supposedly tension filled and relevant to the story not been intercut with short little scenes like the one I just mentioned, I think they would have been more effective tension wise and rather than calling them drawn out, I might have refered to them as brilliant and perfectly crafted.

Tarantino films have a tendency to grow on me. I could say the same about the performances in the film. Brad Pitt, while absent from the screen for a lot of the film, annoyed me at the get go. But his funny accent and one-tracked objective turned humourous and effective as the film progressed. Several other characters grew on me including Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), and even Eli Roth, who can't act, but got by. Someone who required no getting used to was Christoph Waltz playing Col. Hans Landa ... aka ... The Jew Hunter. A Brilliant performance start to finish to say the least was the highlight of the film. He didn't however, steal the film. In other words, he made every scene he was in work as it was supposed to work. His motives created the tension, and his timing created the humor. A perfect blend.

I recently posted a lost review for Jackie Brown. I pointed out prior to it that when I wrote that review I gave it three stars and that I now consider it to be my favorite Tarantino film. After seeing both Kill Bill films, I wasn't in love with them. Neither cracked my top ten of their respective years, yet now I consider them masterpieces. Can the same be said for my future opinion of Inglorious Basterds... time with tell but history has a tendency to repeat itself.

Ponyo (2008)

Directed by: Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: Tina Fey, Liam Neeson

***

Its unfortunately that I have to begin this review with such negativity but if anyone ever reads this please take into consideration the fact that it is a huge mistake to dub a foreign film into English. Never do it. Ever! It doesn't matter if Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, Matt Damon and Cate Blanchett all agree to do it, it should never happen.

If you don't know... here's why. Even a dubbing done well (that is, one that if you didn't know was done, you wouldn't be able to tell) gives you a film in something other than the way it was intended to be shown. Imagine watching a color movie in black and white or vice versa. It might still be good but its not how its supposed to be. Ponyo lost a lot thanks to its translation to English. There is something about Japanese anime that doesn't seem to require good voice performances however, while I know very little about the Japanese language, hearing it in Japanese works perfectly... hearing it in English sound really strange. Its almost as if the translation was too direct, which is very much a possibility. Everything is just slightly off and it takes away from the real beauty of this story. The voices of Fey, Neeson, Damon and Blanchett didn't help either and only served as further distractions.

Miyazaki really is a master of anime. I can't explain what he does that makes his stories so magical (aside from the obvious magic within the story). His images are so simple, yet so sophisticated that they create perfect feelings of triumph, sadness, love and so on. I'm convinced I could have enjoyed this movie more with out the translation and without even reading subtitles. His whole story is in his visuals, the English dialogue was just distracting. But that aside, somewhere, there is a very meaningful story.

Ponyo is a fish...with a human face. She's the daughter of a one time human, who fed up with his fellow man moves into the sea and proclaims himself the protector of the earth, the sea and everything in it. Yet, he's kind of the villian. Despite Ponyo's desire to be a human, he does whatever he must to keep her from that life. But the love of Ponyo and Soske...two five year olds, is too much with which to combat. Love conquers all.

Its a take on Hans Christian Andersen's, The Little Mermaid but the "magical world of Disney" style is replaced with a much more powerful and intruiging magical world of Hayao Miyazaki.

This film did one thing beyond anything else and that is that it made me want to see it in Japanese. I'm certain not only that I'd like it more but that the magic that clearly exists would feel much more real or fantastical. The characters would be more motivated and the story would just work better... or should I say correctly.

Lost Reviews #8

Jackie Brown (1997)
Quentin Tarantino

--The irony of this review is that I now consider Jackie Brown to be my favorite Tarantino movie... so why only three stars?--

First and foremost I want to know what happened to the majority of that famous and entertaining Tarantino dialogue. Jackie Brown is really the one film that lacks the snappiness of the characters conversations and that is one of the few things that hurt this film. What didn’t hurt it was the acting. Pam Grier was great in the title role, but Robert Forster was fantastic as Max Cherry, a bail bondsman. Pam Grier, a flight attendant, runs money from Mexico for, whom else but, Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Ordell. When she is caught by the police and forced to name some names, she plots on her own and sets things up so no one but her can win. When there seems to be a flaw in her plan, we see that she expected it. The story is very cleverly written, which his certainly no surprise. The conclusion of the film, when we see the on-goings from the point of view of each character is the highlight of the film. While Tarantino doesn’t appear in this particular film, his presence is certainly evident.
***
06/01/05

Little Children (2006)

Directed by: Todd Field
Starring: Kate Winslet

***

Its interesting when a movie is made just about as well as it can be, the story is everything its supposed to be and the performances are exactly spot on but its not a great movie. Little Children didn't really seem to have too many flaws but it was never really good enough to compliment everything that was done well.

Todd Field did a brilliant job in creating suburbia. He began with a group of bitchy women who sit at the park everyday and gossip. While certainly appropriate, had this been the centerpiece of Field's recreation of suburban life, it would have gotten old an annoying. The way he structured and told this story is both a credit to him and the writing.

After introducing all these bitches, we begin to follow just one. Sarah (Winslet), not being the typical suburban housewife, breaks barriers by having a conversation with "The Prom King" aka Brad (Patrick Wilson). The sexual tension that ensues is what drives her story forward. As the film progresses the introduction of characters, their backgrounds and their purposes in the film is masterful. The transition from a partial character piece to a strange sort of ensemble piece is so seemless at times that it all seems to just blend in to the story. In other words, the introduction of Brad's friend Larry, or Ronnie, the local pedophile, all come at such an appropriate points in the film that even when all other characters are absent, we feel like what is happening is very directly affecting everyone else we've to whom we've been introduced.

The performances in this film are simple to say the least. So often a movie that tries to recreate real life ends up going overboard and its boring (see The Wire). Here, the actors cling to the simplicity that is realistic while they let the drama unfold around them. There was no need for overly dramatic arguments or scenes with character sobbing uncontrollably over lost love or the mundane life they are forced to live. Winslet, Wilson and supporting performances by Jennifer Connolly, Noah Emmerich and Jackie Earl Haley are all very good.

Despite my compliments for this film, it all comes back to how I opened. So much of this movie is done well but the film, in and of itself is really only just good.

Lost Reviews #7

Crash (2005)
Paul Haggis

--Over time, my opinion of this movie has changed in the sense that I can't imagine I'd love it if I watched it again. Reading the review however, I'm reminded of what makes it so good.--

Keep your eye on Paul Haggis as the next great writer/director. His academy award nomination of writing Million Dollar Baby got people’s attention and his emotional thriller, Crash has got me hooked on him. Crash is a Magnolia type story about several people living in racist Los Angeles. It’s a story of coincidence but those coincidences are not so obvious that they hurt the film. The movie is brilliantly intense and emotional. The characters are fantastic and believable. The acting throughout, starting with Oscar nominee Don Cheadle, all the way through Matt Dillon, whose performance was fantastic, Ryan Philippe and Sandra Bullock was great. Brendan Fraser was even able to deliver a line well, only one though. The highlight performances came from lesser-known Terrance Howard as Cameron, whose wife is taken advantage of by a police officer during a routine traffic stop. Chris Ludicris Bridges was very good as well. The movie is very powerful and courtesy of its similarities to Magnolia, widely entertaining. The flaw of the film was its opening dialogues. As an audience member, I was a bit overwhelmed with the racism. It was certainly getting the overall point across, but the film did that well without overdoing anything. This and the last coincidental shot that ended the film were the rookie director’s only real mistakes. This is and will be one of the best films of 2005.
****1/2
06/03/05

Funny People (2009)

Directed by: Judd Apatow
Starring: Seth Rogan, Adam Sandler

**1/2

Judd Apatow, Seth Rogan, Adam Sandler, Jonah Hill, Jason Swartzman, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, hell even Maude and Iris Apatow are all funny people. The way all these actors come into play in this film however just doesn't work and the movie had to get by on the fact that things these people said and did were funny.

I will take it from the top because I feel like its easy for me to be too harsh in this case. After all, Apatow has brought me 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up and Undeclared not to mention all the movies that he and his "friends" has spawned. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie beginning with it being too long and ending with Seth Rogan's sideburns. What makes Apatow so successful is his understanding of what makes a comedy work so it surprises me that he'd force his audience to endure a two and a half hour movie. However, I understand what he was doing because another thing Apatow does well is tell real stories. He doesn't just put you in a humorous situation, i.e. people hungover in Vegas. His conflicts, regardless of how obvious they are, drive the story forward and he does this in Funny People. It just takes too long.

Things began to go wrong when we were exposed to so much of George Simmons lifestyle and what got him there. Well, introducing it would have sufficed as the casting told the rest of the story. Adam Sandler is an uber rich comedian who's claim to fame is rediculous comedies. This is George Simmons. We didn't need to see what turned out to be the introduction of the movie go on and on and on. That alone would have not only shortened the movie and moved it along to more important aspects, but it would have brought us back to that pace and mood and everything that makes Apatow films, Apatow films.

Considering the amount of running time Apatow had to structure everything in, the movie is really kind of all over the place especially as we draw close to the conclusion. George Simmons and Ira Wright (Rogen) going to visit George's ex-girlfriend (Leslie Mann) seems like an entirely different movie than everything else we've been exposed to. It doesn't feel real while so much else we've seen to this point did. It wasn't nearly as funny and it was just too small a part for such an important element.

The performances in the film were all pretty much spot on. If anyone was a disappointment it would have to have been Eric Bana who was really only a victim of a lack of screen time. (I think he had more in the trailer than he did in the film.) Sandler was good, but not his best. The same can be said about Rogan, Hill and well, Apatow. Funny People, if I'm being generous, was good, but far from his best.

Lost Review #6

The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
Woody Allen

--I watched this film while in film school and remember having some bogus assignment where I had to act out one of the characters in a completely different situation... hopefully I didn't take that into account while reviewing it.--

I found this film a real rarity for Woody Allen. I felt it was poorly written. It attempted to make connections throughout about the real world and the world on the screen. Those attempts were evident, but those attempts were unsuccessful. Once I put aside the pure ridiculousness of Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels) walking off the screen into the 1930's of the real world, the idea of the film seemed somewhat clever. There was no easy way to make it happen so once that was done, this film had it opportunities to be good. Jeff Daniels didn't help its cause as he continued to turn in, what is in my opinion, a terrible performance. It was essential for him to differentiate between his fictional character in Tom Baxter and his real life character, Gil Shepard, who plays Baxter. Daniels is not a good enough actor to pull this off, while at the same time delivering those subtle lines suggesting the differences and, more importantly, similarities of real life and movie life. Woody Allen is always capable of bringing his random and unique humor to his movies however; in this case, my laughs were few and far between. The bright parts of the film were the performances of Mia Farrow who played the shy, somewhat nervous and confused Cecelia who gets wrapped up in a love triangle with Gil and Tom while she is trying to better her life during the depression all while she is toughing her way through her marriage to Monk, played very well by Danny Aiello. Ultimately the film was a bit over the top and ridiculous and regardless of the performances, I'm not sure this script had much of a chance.
**
04/25/05

Blowup (1966)

Directed by: Michelangelo Antonioni
Starring: David Hemmings

***

If you've ever seen a Michelangelo Antonioni film then you most likely know what happens in Blowup... nothing. Unlike, L'avventura, another Antonioni film I've seen which is much more acclaimed, Blowup makes a little something out of its nothingness and creates a decently interesting story.

The best way to describe the story of Blowup would be a photographer (Hemmings) inadvertently photographs evidence of a murder. The best way to critique the story of Blowup would be to say that it could very possibly have been the greatest short film every made... unfortunately its a feature filled with Antonioni-style nothingness. To elaborate, the story of the inadvertant witness to a crime is a popular subject and an easy one for short film makers so the story alone may not have made the greatest short ever but if you combine that story with some of the master filmmaking that goes on in this film, that is what you'd have.

Antonioni's mastery extends beyond the plot of this film. As I've mentioned, the majority of the feature is made up of scenes where very little is happening, however thanks to the way Antonioni uses the surroundings of the scene to create some interesting (for lack of a better term) imagery, you at least feel like you're admiring some artwork, if not a narrative film.

In addition to the filmmaking, David Hemming needed to and does carry this film. He plays Thomas who is somewhat of a womanizing fashion photographer who tends to get so frustrated with the women he has to work with that he runs off to spend time photographing on his own. Its then when he encounters Jane (Vanessa Redgrave) who suggests Thomas may have photographed something he shouldn't see by the way she behaves. She appears to be willing to do anything to get her hands on those photographs... Thomas lets her prove what she'll do for them (wink, wink).

The only way to really appreciate Blowup is to step away from it and to recognize that the sole purpose of the film is not to present and solve the mystery surrounding the photos that Thomas has. While the story plays out very realistically, its the style of filmmaking surrounding it that makes it work. The question is, was it all necessary? And to be honest, it really wasn't. There is too much fuff (again, lack of a better term). The way the "story" aspect of this film is presented is very, very intriguing. It unfolds at a perfect pace, even if it is slow. Take out everything else and you've got the greatest short film ever made.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Directed by: Darren Aronsofsky
Starring: Jared Leto

***

Drugs are bad. Most people know this. If you didn't prior to seeing Requiem for a Dream, well, then you know now that drugs are bad. This really kind of is the sole message of this film even though you can dissect each character and find the underlying themes throughout. A movie like this only needs one message especially when its attempting one as powerful as it is.

The story surrounds four characters, Harry (Jared Leto), Ty (Marlon Wayans), Marion (Jennifer Connolly) and Sara (Ellen Burstyn). Each character has a drug addiction which leads them to their ultimate consequences. There's not really much else to it, but that's a lot. The most important thing in a film like this is to impact your audience. There a parts of Requiem that really do this well, not even including the very impactful final scene. However, the movie as a whole I think fails to some extent when it comes to this.

This is not to say that the movie itself fails. I think its a very good movie, especially stylistically. The way split screen and rapid cuts and the music (oh, the music is so good) work together to create the paranoia and the inner workings of these characters is brilliant and could not have been done better. However, those split screens, rapid cuts and music (which never seems to cut out) does create kind of a montage/music video type feel to the movie which I think hurts it to some extent. Scenes when Marion stands in front of her mirror motionless while everything around her is motionless forces the audience to sit motionless and only wonder what is going on in her head. These scenes work wonders.

I understand the fast pace and agree that its an important aspect of film's style but the times when the fast pace and slow pace work together are much better than the times I'm overwhelmed by the escalating music and cuts after cuts after cuts.

The character's in this film are all ambitious. They all have something they want but ultimately don't acheive as a result of thier drug addictions which cause their lives to spiral out of control. This in a way is what happened with this film. Its easily one of the most ambitious movies I've ever scene. It has a style and a subject matter rivaled by very few. But that style (like the characters' lifestyles) get in the way.

Its hard for me to criticize the style of this movie because I really like it and I think that it works most of the time. It just gets in the way at the same time. I'm not sure how it could have been fixed or if it should have been done any differently because overvall, Requiem is a really good movie.

2009... so far

I haven't seen a whole lot of movies this year so far and I've been able to review even fewer. So making a top five at the halfway point wouldn't really work out. Instead, a simple breakdown of each film I've seen so far...

Adventureland - At this point, the number one movie of the year. A funny, dramatic and heartfelt coming of age story.
500 Days of Summer - #2 of the year... A funny, dramatic and heartfelt coming of age story (I'm such a pussy)
Up - I suppose this would fall in at number three mostly thanks to a lack of options. While far from what Wall-E was last year, still another achievement for Pixar.
Public Enemies - Failed to meet expectations by a longshot but still had the Michael Mann look and feel that is impossible to escape or dislike.
Terminator Salvation - Could have been worse, but I'm pretty sure there was no way it could have been better, so by that rationale, a perfect movie?
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - A story within a much bigger story needs to be much more compelling throughout than this film achieved, but overall, still a well made movie.
Away We Go - Here's a movie that wanted to be way better than it was. It also thought it was better than it was so tried to get away with too much.
The Hangover - God, this movie sucked.

What's left to see?
Funny People
Moon
The Hurt Locker
Sherlock Holmes
Shutter Island
The Invention of Lying
District 9
The Serious Man
Big Fan
Where the Wild Things Are
Inglorious Basterds
The Box
The Road
Brothers

Expectations aren't nearly as high for any of these films as last year but I think I may have learned my lesson and I think my top ten of the year could be very satisfying.

Rachel Getting Married (2008)

Directed by: Johnathan Demme
Starring: Anne Hathaway

***1/2

The days and hours leading up to a wedding have got to be hectic. Emotions are at a high, everyone is running around to make the last minute adjustments so that everything runs perfectly. But inevitably, things can go wrong, those emotions can get the best of you and its probably easy to say things that you don't mean. This, in a nutshell, is what Rachel Getting Married is.

Anne Hathaway plays Kim, who is allowed out of rehab for the weekend to attend her sister Rachel's (Rosemarie Dewitt) wedding. At first, with the exception of the cliche best friend of the bride (Emma, Anisa George), everyone welcomes her with open arms. They are willing to let the past be the past so that this wedding can go well. What goes on for the next hour of the film would best be described as the wedding preparation. It is that and only that. Any drama or conflicts that occur are within that realm of the story. Basically, nothing all that exciting happens. What makes it work is the handheld camera work. A style that's done perhaps too often has never worked its purpose so well as in Rachel Getting Married. It had a two-fold effect. For starters, it got me as an audience member right in and involved with what was going on and even wide shots created the illusion that I was simply stepping back to get a breath. Additionally, the handheld work complimented the idea that a wedding is hectic and constantly moving in all directions with perhaps no rhyme or reason. This is what got me through what would have otherwise been a very slow moving portion of the movie.

We move on to find out more about Kim's life; what has happened to her and what she's done. This is where the story really evolves into what it is... a story about a family trying their damnedest to cope with what they've lost, not to pass blame while at the same time refusing to accept responsibility. There is a point where the frustrations overstep their bounds after Rachel discovers that Kim lied about her childhood while in rehab. Her overreaction is appropriate for a bride-to-be I suppose but within the context of the movie, it reached the point where I was tired of it all. It does, however, lead to Kim's inevitable backslide of sorts. We see that she's not completely cured, not necessarily regarding her addictions but with getting her life back on track and letting the past be the past.

The movie drags on about 20 minutes too long. It got to the point where I was ready to start fast forwarding because I knew everything that was left to be said or done and there was no need for it. I understand the need for closure at the end of a movie like this, but its almost more impactful to leave it a bit open ended. Suggesting that this story doesn't end... which it doesn't, would have been an important part of everything that has gone on. Unfortunately, we don't get that. The somewhat happy ending, while appropriate, might just have been the wrong choice.