Funny Games (1997)

Directed by: Michael Haneke
Starring: Susanne Lothar

*****

Where to begin? Michael Haneke said of his original version of Funny Games that if it is successful, audiences will have misunderstood the meaning behind it. I don't think there is a better way to describe what he did with this film. In my opinion, he was successful regardless of whether or not the film was or if audiences understood what he was doing. For those who do understand, its because this film was perfectly crafted into a great movie that, at least for entertainment purposes, I'm not eager to watch again.

I'm not a good enough writer to cover everything that so intelligently went into this movie. The word perfect gets thrown out nonchalantly and its bold to suggest that Funny Games might be a perfect movie. Its close. Not because I was so entertained throughout or because the acting or the story was so great. Entertainment value, acting and story in this film were all pretty standard. It was nothing we haven't seen before. The genius of this film, its perfection is derived from what else we see, or what we don't see and how we see it. This is far more than a movie in the narrative sense. While not an experiemental film, it is an experiment and an insight into an audience's psyche. Yes, two sadistic teenagers play deadly games with an innocent family, games they think are funny, but more importantly, the film is playing a funny, sadistic game with its audience and that is where it succeeds just as was its intention.

I watched an interview with Michael Haneke after finishing the movie and in doing so, I was able to make some sense of everything that was going on in my head. When I watch a movie like this, I spend more time pondering over the point of a particular shot or a line of dialogue than I do wondering what will happen next. Haneke himself says that this movie was never intended to be a horror movie and I completely understand that. Movies like The Last House on the Left or The Strangers fail because they rely solely on horrifying their audiences with shock value and suspense. Having not seen either, I can only speculate that the violence and gore play a big part in providing those shocks. Haneke turns that on its head, it takes that violence which we as a society are so accustomed to and shows us that the consequences of violence isn't necessarily violence with a vengence. More likely is sitting still, head down, in shock for ten long minutes before you can even bring yourself to accept what has happened. The chilling ten plus minute long shot where the aforementioned innocent family does just that is as effective a long take as I've ever seen.

Haneke uses longs takes often in this film. At times it seems like he's putting on a play, one location, one long shot, actions happening off screen (stage) only create suspense and speculation. The advantage of film of course is the close ups and the emotion. Haneke uses these close ups not only to show how terrifed (for some of his characters) or calm and composed (for others) his characters are but to create a clostraphobia. The inescapability that Anna, Georg and their son are faced with is expressed through the close ups not because fear is across their face but because we are stuck watching that fear. Haneke allows no escape for his audience. He forces is us to watch a facial expression react to the violence that is happening off screen. Its almost as if he wants us to want to see it. Finally, when we do see some violence it appears to be a outlet, a way out of his trap and we welcome the violent images on screen... but its taken away from us in a most unorthodox but I think brilliant fashion.

Haneke really made this movie to challenge audiences. I know this because he comes right out and says it in one of the few instances he breaks the forth wall and speaks to his audience saying, "You're on their side aren't you?" Well, of course we're on the side of the innocent family who has done nothing to deserve the torture betowed upon them. However, I found myself wanting to see less of said family and much more of these two charming but again, sadistic teens. What makes them tick? There isn't a whole lot of depth to these two characters but there doesn't really have to be. They have no background or past. They are archetypes. The came from seemingly nowhere, played their game and then disappeared, perhaps off to play the same game with someone else.

Haneke said that if Funny Games is successful, audiences will have misunderstood the meaning behind it. I like to think I understood the meaning because I found it to be one of the most successfully crafted films I've ever seen. Perhaps its as simple as a commentary on violence in film and in the media but I think it goes much deeper. The movie challenges what we as a society consider to be acceptable. It brings to mind how fragile the idea that the majority of us don't kill just because we can, that we repsect our fellow man just enough to let him live his life peacefully. Should we chose, there's not really any way to stop our society from falling victim to a string of funny games.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

Directed by: James Foley

Starring: Jack Lemon, Al Pacino

**

For anyone who works in the real estate business or anyone who works on the level of commission as the characters of Glengarry Glen Ross, the film is probably a masterpiece in authenticity. For anyone else, its more of an overacted but well shot adaptation of something I believe should have stuck with the stage.

A film that really came to mind while watching Glengarry Glen Ross is Louis Malle's My Dinner with Andre. Both are films that rely so heavily on dialogue that if performances are spot on, a lot is left to be desired. Both films are based on plays and neither strays far from a single location in which the camera must remain consistent but never boring. Director James Foley does a very good job in managing his shots often with simple close ups or medium shots and never mroe complicated than a simple dolly back to highten suspense. The conflict that creates that suspense is simple. Four salesmen attempting to sell premier properties in Arizona. None of them however have very good prospective buyers and won't get any good ones until prove they can sell. There's also a Cadillac up for grabs and of course the one who fails, gets fired.

The premise here is much more engaging than what is made of it throughout the film. Yes, there are times when you are interested in who will get fired or what alternatives these characters will find in order to save their jobs but none of them really make you sit on the edge of your seat begging the intelligent dialogue to reveal answers. Its almost as if the movie is too intelligent for its own good. Like I said, I have no doubt that its authentic, but as I've said many times, authentic doesn't necessary make something entertaining (see The Wire).

So with a simple plot, smart dialogue and appropriate filmmaking, what makes this movie fail? Well, Al Pacino is in it so few will be surprised when I suggest that the performances are way over the top. I'm not one to criticize Pacino for overacting as even when he does it works. Not here. Here he just yells too much for no reason. His co-star Ed Harris, yells all the time. Those are the two glaring examples of overacting. Alec Baldwin is guilty of being way overly dramatic as I always accuse him of being in anything except a comedy. Alan Arkin isn't over- anything. He's kind of a ghost in this film and Kevin Spacey's character is just a jerk for no reason. He comes across very one dimensional and is only construde as the bad guy because there's no way someone with so little depth could be the good guy. That brings us to Jack Lemon. The one bright point of this film, at least when it comes to performances. I wasn't suprised to see that the lone Oscar nomination this film receieved was for Pacino but I was disappointed to see how overlooked Lemon was. He was excellent in every aspect of his role. He plays a sleezy salesman perfectly but he's human enough to understand his plight. If nothing else, his scenes were entertaining and authentic... something the rest of the film was missing.

Being based on a play, Glengarry Glen Ross relied on its dialogue and performances. Like My Dinner with Andre, that dialogue was too smart for its own good but unlike Dinner with Andre, the performances weren't consistent with the film. To put it in a much more simple context... the characters were just very angry all the time, no wonder they couldn't sell any properties.

Zombieland (2009)

Directed by: Ruben Fleischer

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg

***

Is it fair to bring up the inevitable comparison between Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead? Fair or not, it is inevitable but I'll try to keep it to a minimum because while they are similar in concept, they are two distinct films. I think why the recent trend of zombie movie spoofs and comedies work is because beneath the gore and shock horrors of your typical zombie film there are simply ugly, bleeding people walking around really slowly biting people who seem to have a hard time running away from the slowest moving creatures alive (or dead). These zombie movies are perhaps more ripe for parody than any other genre. It only a matter of time before the people who brought you Scary Movie and Date Movie and Superhero Movie and every other cheap spoof will bring you Zombie Movie. It will make more money that Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead combined and it will be horrible, except maybe for the scene with the hot naked zombie running around, that part will be good.

In Zombieland, like every zombie film, we're introduced to a desolate world that's been plagued by a virus leaving very few alive. Columbus as we know him (Jesse Eisenberg) is one of those few. I know what you're thinking. How did the non-athletic, nervous, virgin manage to live this long in a world full of flesh eating monsters? And yes, Eisenberg is a non-athletic, nervous virgin in this film too. Well in addition to those three traits, Columbus is also overly cautious. He has a list of thirty one rules that he follows religiously in order to ensure his survival, rules that pop up on screen to remind us of them each time he follows one appropriately, or on occasion, when he fails to and pays the consequences. Soon he meets his polar opposite, the gun-toting, fearless, twinkee craving Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) who's calling in life, or at least best skill is zombie killing. Against their better judgement, the two travel together, kill zombies that get in their way and share some humorous banter that highlights their differences.

It isn't really until two conning sister's, Witchita and Little Rock (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin) steal their truck and guns that there's any real conflict. Very quickly, however, Columbus and Tallahassee find a better truck with more guns in it, so that's good, but then the girls steal that one too. Unfortunately, it appeared that director Ruben Fleischer took a page out of the Cormac McCarthy adaptation of The Road rather than sticking with its cousin picture Shaun of the Dead. One of my biggest critiques of The Road was the film relied solely on a desolate world and some canibles roaming around as its conflict. Zombieland has its protagonists roaming around a desolate world, trying to avoid being eaten. This is essentially what made up the majority of this movie.

However, Jesse Eisenberg wouldn't be the star of this film if there wasn't one more layer to this movie. It is what makes Zombieland better than a movie like The Road even if it doesn't quite reach the caliber of Shaun of the Dead. Columbus' one desire when it comes to girls is not so much to have sex with them, although I'm sure he wouldn't scoff at the idea, but to pull their hair back behind their ear. The film is very effective in making this desire familiar at least to this twenty-five year old. I think the sensuality of that brushing the hair back is real and in this instance more effective than Columbus just trying to get laid. My concern for Eisenberg's range presented themselves after seeing Adventureland but with that movie I just loved his character so much I didn't care. I acknowledged how much better an actor he is than Michael Cera and cursed his repuation as a poor man's Cera. In Zombieland, my concern mounted because for starters, the film nor the character are as good, but the character is the same. Like I mentioned, he's a non-athletic, nervous, overly cautious virgin. Fortunately, Eisenberg doesn't rely on his dry sense of humor to completely carry his characters the way Cera has begun doing. He's a very good actor, at least in the character he's continuing to play and if that's all I see of him until he's too old to play post-teenage angst, I think I'll continue to enjoy it.

Story and conflicts aside, the biggest difference I found between Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead was in how funny each one of them is. With the exception of just one scene, I didn't find Zombieland laugh out loud funny. There were some humorous moments and some clever lines of dialogue but I think ultimately, the characters were not very funny. I consider this a failure of the film because they were intended to be funny. Tallahassee's whole search for a twinkee really kind of fell flat for me and seemed like such a weak joke. I believe it was supposed to take what seemed like a weak joke and make it one of those funny because it shouldn't be type of jokes. Tallahassee being such a bad ass did on occasion generate a few laughs but part of the problem is that Woody Harrelson is just too hard to take seriously in this film. The twinkee thing didn't help but just in general, because this film does try to employ a certain level of dry humor, not being able to take a character seriously hurts that aspect. To top is all off, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, two actresses whom I've come to like, weren't funny at all. In fact, there weren't really much at all. They were just kind of there most of the time to give Columbus a girl to like and Tallahassee a girl to train in zombie killing.

Overall, Zombieland turned out to be very much as advertised. It was a fun movie that I never found boring, even if I didn't always find it funny or good. On occasion it did try to use the zombie's as a story crutch so it didn't have to delve to into anything too deep which is on some level appropriate when you're just making a fun summer romp but this movie had more potential than that and the proof is in Shaun of the Dead. I'm glad it wasn't an Americanized version of the same movie, but it proved that taking a real story and playing out with a zombie infested backdrop is effective. Trying to make a zombie movie with a secondary story isn't nearly as entertaining.

Death Sentence (2007)

Directed by: James Wan
Starring: Kevin Bacon

*

Uggghhhh.... It is without question much more difficult to review a poor movie than a good one. My excuse for seeing Death Sentence is as simple as a lack of options. Neflix were in the mail, no good games on and the director of the original Saw (a film I like and respect for its originality despite the crap it spawned) had another of his works showing on FX. I'm going to leave out the fact that I only watched about ten minutes and DVRed the rest to watch on a night when there would likely be an alternative... yeah, gonna leave that part out.

So the film stars Kevin Bacon as Nick Hume. He's a loving husband and father of two. He has the perfect life. Okay, enough of that. That's the film speaking not me. Before too long, Nick's oldest son Brendan, destined to become a great hockey player is senselessly murdered by a gang member at his initiation. While Nick's pumping gas and Brendan buying a slushy, the gang storms the gas station and blows away the attendant before the rookie cuts the Brendan's throat with a machete. But Nick gets a look at him as the rest of the gang drives off without him. Then he runs away and gets absolutely smashed by a car in the middle of the street... he's okay though. Just a few bruises.

This scene at the gas station, in addition to several of the action scenes are actually pretty decent scenes. The gritty and hand held style of film making that's used served them well. Unfortunately, everything in between is very stale. The efforts exerted into making some violent and raw action scenes did pay off for each scene in and of itself but the jarring mood swings we're exposed to anytime there's no real action is what makes this such a bad movie. Despite the overwhelming emotion displayed by the characters as music plays and the shot pulls away from the greiving family, the scene is emotionless. The films success in creating good scenes in turn became its failure in making a good movie. Its a bit of an oxymoron.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I'll point out that everything about this movie wasn't as bad as it came across. The concept, while somewhat cliche and overused, actually managed to make itself known enough to recognize. The contrast between Nick's life prior to his son's death and how it turns is interesting. The unnecessary garbage that leads him down this path of destruction for everyone involved is what hurts the journey. Shades of Taxi Driver exist only in action and dare I say style. Strangely enough, Nick Hume had more motivation to go on his murderous rampage than did Travis Bickle but it only proves how a concept is only one small step in making a good movie.

There are a lot of things that would need to be taken away from this film before anything could even be added to make it good but its biggest problem is how bogged down it is with cliches. Of Nick's two sons, the golden boy son is the one who's murdered, not the younger one who gets in trouble in school. This would have been fine if we didn't have to have the overly dramatic argument between father and younger son when son comes right out and says "the wrong son must have died!" One dimensional characters like Nick's wife Helen (Kelly Preston) only increase the liklihood of laughter at what should be gut-wrenching or heartwarming scenes. She fails in every frame she's in. Its not completely her fault, but she needs to shoulder some of the blame for such a bad performance.

Performance critiques lead us to the appearance of John Goodman in this film. I don't know what else to say. There is a partial reveal of his purpose towards the end but the film's begging to have a deeper meaning at this point overshadows any chance of rational thought or acceptance. What Goodman's character did do is enforce the fact that this film didn't have any balance or consistency. At no point was it walking a straight structural line. At times, I admired the direction it went as it took no regards of an audience's feelings and was, dare I say, hauntingly realistic. However, I've seen far better gang-related realism as recently as the best film of 2009, Sin Nombre and while similar heartlessness might exist with these characters, that's about where the similarities end. On top of that, it seemed the minute I began to respect this film for being clever, it snatched it all away from me by revealing that this ruthless gang is so incompetant that they failed to kill two of the three people they shot point blank. The scary part is not that they shot three people point blank but that they aren't supposed to be incompetant. Billy Darley (Garret Hedlund) the gang leader is such a bad ass in fact that he just walks around with his gun while people are getting shot all around him. He is, afterall, bulletproof until he's face to face with our protagonist. How could a film like this work otherwise?

The joke I've made of this review is the exact joke that this movie is. I laughed endlessly at the stupid lines of dialogue, the unmotivated situations presented to any and every character and the sad, failed attempt to make this film something more than it was... or wasn't. It didn't even manage to be something on the surface. It is however, one of those movies that I can not say whole heartedly that you should skip. If you're in for a violent rampage combined with some good laughs, this could be a movie to check out after a few drinks. I, unfortunately, hadn't had enough drinks.

Amadeus (1984)

Directed by: Milos Forman

Starring: F. Murray Abraham

***1/2

If I was anything after watching Amadeus for just the second time in many years, it wasn't blown away, nor was it even all that impressed. In fact, I was disappointed. I remembered little other than that I really liked the movie as I sat down for the three hour biopic of sorts. Now, having seen it again, I think that I may have just been swept up in the truely amazing performance by F. Murray Abraham as Antonio Salieri and the miraculous tune of Mozart's compositions.

Very few scenes in this film go unaccompanied by music. The DVD actually has a special track on which only the music is played underneath the photography. That alone suggests that there's not much time spent without it. The music is not wasted in the sense that I don't want to hear it because it is beautifully composed music. It is wasted, however, in that it overwelms many scenes. It takes away from performances and drama because it commits the cardinal sin of using music in a film... it minipulates the audience. It minipulates the audience in a positive way however, positive enough for this film to take home a best picture Oscar.

Now its not like the music manipulated the film so much that people have adored a Plan 9 from Outer Space quality of film. Amadeus is a very entertaining movie that is primarily driven by a very compelling character. Antonio Salieri, after attempting suicide, confesses to a priest that he is responsible for the death of the great composer Wolfgang Amadeus Motzart (Tom Hulce)thiry-two years ago. We go on in flashback format to see Salieri's jealousy and rage mount towards Motzart and learn through his confession that he had plans to kill Motzart. I wouldn't really consider what ends up happening to be murder but Salieri's motives can not be misunderstood. Despite his desire to honor God with his music, he admits that he represents God's image of mediocrity.

The scope of the film is very much what you'd expect from an 19th Century period piece. The set designs and costumes are extraordinary, even if at times overkill. There is only so many castles and those weird wigs you can deal with before you start to wish this movie could take place in modern day Hollywood. But Amadeus is quite the contrary. Its Shakespearan in story and style and by staying true to that it makes all these real-life events as shocking as they are believable. On the other hand, with a film of such grand stature and one that had no qualms about running long, I was discouraged by the jarring leap it made incidently at the flipping of the disc. It appeared that there were two movies in one. On side one of the DVD were the character introductions and more importantly and suggestion that Salieri wasn't a big fan of Wolfgang. On side two, all of a sudden we are knee deep in a plot to kill him. Granted, the plan has to start somewhere but it was so sudden and too fast a jump to seem provoked. That, I would call the biggest problem with the movie as a whole as the time spent trying to accept that jump was time invested lost.

If I'm being consistent with my review this is a three star movie but I need to be honest with myself. I came right out and said I was disappointed after watching this movie for a second time and I'm relatively certain that the few problems I mentioned are not the reason. Despite the four star netflix rating starring me in the face all these years, I've convinced myself that Amadeus is a five star masterpiece... perhaps my favorite movie of the 80s. Its only logical that when expectations so high aren't met, disappointment sets in. In short, I may have been disappointed with how I felt about the movie, but this movie is far from a disappointment.

Groundhog Day (1993)

Directed by: Harold Ramis
Starring: Bill Murray

****

No one wants the groundhog to see its shadow. After all, it means six more weeks of winter, i.e. misery. I think that's why the people of Puxsutawney, PA groan when Buster, the city official (Brian Doyle Murray) announces that Puxsutawney Phil the groundhog saw his shadow. I didn't count, nor do I think anyone should, how many February 2nds Phil Connors (Bill Murray) must endure in Groundhog Day but if I were to, I think it would probably come up short of 42 days. However, I think that those six weeks would be an appropriate amount of time since Phil's reaction and approach to each repeating day is much like how the average person goes about bearing those hard winter weeks.

I'm going to go on assuming that each day that Phil wakes up for is a metaphor for a winter day passing. On the first groundhog day of the film, the aforementioned groundhog, Puxsutawney Phil, does in fact see his shadow and thus incinuating that six more weeks of winter lie ahead. After that, Phil wakes up every single day to the tune of Sonny and Cher's I Got you Babe and the obnoxious radio DJs complaining about the cold. Each day that we wake up, whether it be winter, spring, summer or fall, I believe that our subconcious approaches that particular day differently. Often times, in the dread of winter, we wake up groaning and we sleepwalk through the day without much hope or longing for tomorrow. Once Phil accepts the fact that he's going to continuously wake up on February 2nd (a sequence that very appropriately goes by quickly) we see him wake up miserable and he sleepwalks through each day, slowly learning how to cope with the routine challenges that are presented to him. Avoiding a puddle in a pothole could very well represent any everyday annoyance one must learn to sidestep. Soon, we see Phil put on a different approach. That approach that occasionally we all wake up with and we think that we'll just take the bull by the horns and make the best out of each day. Finally, Phil is so miserable, he contemplates just ending it all.

Groundhog Day very wisely focuses on its story. It lets the comic genius of Bill Murray provide the laughs. By doing this, we get a very structured, well thoughtout story with good characters, believable relationships and real conflicts. Its funny because Bill Murray is, like I said, a comic genius. As it tells this story of a man living the same day over and over again, it presents us with every situation we as an audience would like to see unfold when someone has the luxury of knowing exactly what will happen. When Phil asks a women where she went to high school and who her 12th grade English teacher was, he knows that he'll be able to use that information tomorrow to convince her that they know each other and then of course to..... Its brilliantly funny to see and to understand how this trick he plays would probably work if what's happening to Phil could happen in reality. When Phil tries to win over Rita (Andie MacDowell) by buying her a drink and proposing a toast to the groundhog, he learns that Rita always drinks to world peace. So the next day, after ordering the same drink as he knows she'll order to suggest they have much in common, he admits that he likes to say a prayer and drink to world peace. So they do so and... he closes his prayer with the subtlest, yet funniest "Amen".

At first, I began to criticize this film for moving to fast. Before I knew it, I was already watching the third and forth and tenth February 2nd and was thinking, I don't know anything about this man, I don't really care to see someone I don't know every single day. Well, neither does Phil which could be the reason he punches Ned Rierson (Stephen Tobolowsky) before he can again explain to him that he sells life insurance and that even if Phil doesn't remember him, he sure as heck fire remembers Phil. The point is, we learn more about Phil as each day passes. Its not as important who Phil was to begin with, its who he becomes. Phil changes in an Ebeneezer Scrooge type of way. He gets to see what his mistakes cost him and he gets another chance, a lot more chances actually.

I've laughed harder and more consistently at other Bill Murray movies but there are only a handful at most that are better overall than Groundhog Day. The laughs in this film don't come cheap and as a result they compliment the story rather than try to make up the whole movie. Its a smart comedy with a message hidden somewhere deep enough that its not cheesy but close enough to the surface that its understandable. All that aside, I think if I were put in Phil Connors shoes for those long, continuous February 2nds, I'd probably pull all the same tricks.

Bullets Over Broadway (1994) - My 100th Review!

Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: John Cusack

***

There are a lot of things about Bullets Over Broadway that I really like. Among them are the concept and the actors. Writer/Director Woody Allen on the other hand has never been one of my favorites and the execution of concept in this film or lack there of suggests why I've never been a fan.

Juxtiposing the mob with the average days in the life of ordinary people is a comedy that I've seen used to varying successes. Some Like it Hot could be the best example. Analyze this is a well done parody also and I would say more on the level of Bullets Over Broadway. Here, Allen takes a struggling play writer played by John Cusack who's inability to finance a show, turns to dirty money. Mob boss Nick Valenti (Joe Viterelli) fronts the money for the production under the one condition that his girl Olive (Jennifer Tilly) gets a part. Well, Olive can't act, but her struggles are masked by the all-star cast that David Shayne (Cusack) puts together. Its not really until this point that the story begins to take shape. If there's a criticism towards that aspect of the film its that while its not a long time, there's litte to invest in prior to that. In other words, the character introductions aren't all that entertaining. Why this is important to mention is that the characters eventually turn out great and I would have liked to have spent a little more time getting to know them right from the get-go.

As rehersals for David's play progress, things don't go right for a number of reasons. Olive can't act, Warner Purcell (Jim Broadbent) keeps getting fatter, David is falling for his star actress, Helen Sinclair (Dianne Weist in a well-deserved Oscar nominated performance) and ultimately, Olive's bodyguard Cheech (Chazz Palmentari) keeps interfering. And here lies the story. Cheech's interferring starts with simply insisting that Olive gets what she wants. This of course frustrates David... he quits like three times... but eventually, his suggestions become accepted by his cast and with no support, David is forced to make the changes and it turns out, Cheech really knows what he's talking about.

The biggest strength of this film is its ability to create laughs without telling jokes. Adding to that strength is that this is not done by using over the top charactachures. Cheech exhibits all the traits one would expect from a mobster. He's tough, intimidating, loyal to his boss by doing his job without complaint. So Allen raises a simple question of "...did you ever want to do anything else (like write)" to which Cheech responds he's been collection since he was fifteen. The idea that a lifer mobster can't possibly good at anything else is an interesting topic. So David and Cheech begin to work together transforming the script into what is universally considered brilliant. David gets all the credit thanks to Cheech's mafia rule of thumb... he's not a rat.

I wish there was more of this. While, I believe that Cheech's contribution to the play is by extension a big contribution to the film itself, I didn't get the impression that it was Allen's primary plot point. The story between Cheech and David had every element necessary to make a good movie. It had conflict, humor, story and resolution and it managed all of these elements well. Allen spent a significant amount of time on the relationships in the film, something that didn't always have conflict, humor, story and resolution... at least when it did, it wasn't as strong as the former story. Saving this leg of the story was the brilliant performance by Weist but even that didn't really make it a believable love story. Cusack too was very good but there was nothing fleshed out enough. Pair that with David's relationship with his girlfriend Ellen (Mary-Louise Parker, a Mary-Louise Parker not nearly as... we'll say pretty just to play it safe... as the one in Weeds) and I expected to at least have a compelling conflict. However, Davids admission to Ellen that he's in love with Helen Sinclair only prompts her to explain that she's having an affair with Sheldon Flender (Rob Reiner, who just showed up now and then so at least it was nice to learn why). It turned out though that love conquers all... in this case, a love that didn't appear to exist between David and Ellen but whatever... there had to be some kind of resolution.

There were some side relationships that garnered a chuckle. The overweight Jim Broadbent and Jennifer Tilly affair was humorous in theory but never really delivered, also the breifly covered relationship with Cheech and his girl Violet (Debi Mazar) was only funny because the two of them are very good actors and do well in delivering their lines in a humorous way. Perhaps Allen did well in writing a comedy but just didn't get the delivery of his lines from his cast. I doubt it. With the caliber of cast he employed, combined with the fact that on a few occasions, that cast did deliver those lines with great success, suggests that this film didn't quite reach its potential. What I think it could have used is a re-write with the help of Cheech who clearly has a knack for turning a few things inside out and really making something good, into something great.

My general thought that Woody Allen is an overrated filmmaker makes me want to slight this film a bit and call it average but overal, it was an entertaining movie throughout. It not being what I think and wish it could have been can't discredit what it actually is so ultimately its an above average film, with some good performances and some decent laughs.

The Academy Sells Out (In the Truest Sense of the Term)

I expected that the most publically pretigious council in the film world would embrace the prospect of ten best picture nominees. After all, I remember reading that films like The Dark Knight were annually getting snubbed because only five films were nominated for Hollywood's top prize. I mistook this argument as a suggestion that The Dark Knight was a great movie, therefore should be mentioned among the year's elite. I should have realized that in the eyes of the Academy, The Dark Knight was last year's Avatar. The ten nominees aren't there to honor universally praised films like Where the Wild Things Are or Goodbye Solo, but rather to draw in the same massive crowds that flooded theaters for weeks in a row.

Its hard for me to imagine that the Academy Awards is merely a ratings ploy but its also hard to argue with its desire for a large audience when its best picture nominees are made up of Avatar (#1 at the box office in 2009), Up (#5), The Blind Side (#8), Inglourious Basterds (#25) and District 9 (#27). Whether or not some of these films are worthy of the years top ten is irrelevant. Comparitively, in 2008 the best picture nominees stacked up as follows... Slumdog Millionaire (#16), Curious Case of Benjamin Button (#20), The Reader (#82), Milk (#89), Frost/Nixon (#120). I wonder what won?

If a field of five can include some great films (Benjamin Button not included), the majority of which earned less than 50 million, then why must the expanded field leave out films like Adventureland and Bad Lueitenant to make room for The Blind Side and District 9. Its kind of a shame when there is an element of surprise when Star Trek misses out on a best picture nod. My first reaction to the announced nominees was that box office successes made up the majority with a couple of indies sneaking in so no one would notice what's going on. After all, The Hurt Locker and An Education barely made 20 million combined.

Am I being bitter and just making a case for my favorite films of the year, only three of which were given best picture consideration and none in my top five? Perhaps yes. However, looking at my top ten, it would appear that I took more time to find some of the smaller films in 2009 than all those Oscar voters who get screeners mailed to their house. Box office statistics are all I have at my disposal to gauge how many people have seen a movie. If I haven't seen it, I can't plug it. Its why Precious is left off my lists. With all its accolades, I could make a good case for including it on my lists just out of assumption (Of course, I'm glad I didn't do that with Sandra Bullock). So low box office numbers for a given movie means fewer people have seen said movie, thus fewer people can vote it into consideration. Well, out of every film nominted for an Oscar this year, I spent approximately $96.00 seeing eight of them in the theater. For several more, I spent $10.00 a month for a year on rentals. That $96 only includes Oscar nominated films. It doesn't include Where the Wild Things Are, Adventureland and Bad Luietenant, films I believe to be among the year's best. My point... I believe a lot of the Academy's voters get screeners free of charge. If I can spend over $200 in a year on seeing films so I can compile a meaningless list, surely a little more effort can go into putting together what the world will consider the best of a given year.

To be fair, the box office doesn't decide everything... well it kind of does. Going back to 1980, only two best picture winners have been outside the top 25 at the yearly box office and that was No Country for Old Men and Crash beating out box office runts Good Night and Good Luck, Munich, Capote and upsetting Brokeback Mountain. Those may not have been the best of 2004 but at least something other than income was considered. So maybe people like good movies. Or maybe networks like good ratings. Well, both are likely true but the fact remains, networks will always like good ratings but people very often also like bad movies (see #2 at this year's box office).

This year, however, the two films vieing for the statue are Avatar (601 million to date) and The Hurt Locker (12 million and holding). If the past has taught us anything, there should be no argument as to which film will win. In the past decade, only four best picture winners were not tops at the box office among their competitors. Two of those films were A Beautiful Mind and Chicago, both hitting theaters the same years as Lord of the Rings films (Just one of the most popular stories ever). Another, Million Dollar Baby, just missed the lead by two million less than Aviator. That having been said, interesting stories boost ratings and the ex-spouses at the helms of each of these vastly different films in financial terms kind tightens up the race. Kathryn Bigelow could become the first woman to direct a best picture winning film as well as become the first woman to win best director. That combined with that she was once upon a time married to her primary opponent, James Cameron, and the small little factor that, you know... a lot of people think The Hurt Locker is a way better movie could give her an edge. Its a situation where I hope I'm wrong, but if I was a betting man... and I am, I would put my money on Avatar. It is, afterall, the big money maker.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

Directed by: Franklin J. Shaffner
Starring: Charlton Heston

*****

George Taylor (Charlton Heston) opens Planet of the Apes with a short monologue explaining that he and his crew of four are heading back to Earth after six months in space. Those six months, he explains, have passed while traveling at the speed of light meaning that the amount of time passed on earth is closer to seven hundred years, by the time they land, its been 2000 years since the last time Taylor stepped foot on Earth. This is about the extent of science fiction within this film despite the fact that it can only be categorized as science fiction.

The reality of the fiction that takes place in Planet of the Apes creates such a brilliant concept that's combined with, good acting, filmmaking beyond its time, and if your interested, an good message about the treatment of animals. This movie is apparently preaching the consequences of racism but I'll argue endlessly that there isn't really a connection. Yes, class divisions can segregate and destroy societies but if the intention was to be as obvious as so many suggest, the movie would have had a black president in rule, not an ape. I really saw little to suggest that there are racial undertones in this film.

The "how'd you like it if we locked you in a zoo" argument surrounding the mistreatment of animals is a weak one at best but it is the basis for this movie and surprisingly one that works really well. Taylor crash lands on a planet where everything is that exact opposite. Civilization is on the up and up but Apes are the superior being and humans are the inferior.

There is a hokieness in the opening of this film as the three men who crash land try to make sense of when and where they are. I'm not sure if this is to be blamed on acting or script or just the 60s style of filmmaking. That flaw was quickly lost amidst what was actually great acting both by Heston and all of those portraying the world ruling apes, as well as the aforementioned concept. There is a very good pace and flow to this movie. Its a two hours that goes by very quickly and its a story that unfolds in a very deliberate fashion. Nothing in this movie is forced and that includes the concept. If there is any attempt to convince its audience that what is going on is believable is a simple line of dialogue, "...its a fact...buy it, you'll sleep better."

If I can't fault this film with anything its the poor and overused music that is continuously screaming at me what to feel at any given moment. In a movie that does have a layered message to it, it avoids such influential tactics for the most part. The music doesn't really hurt the movie as a whole, but it distracts on a number of occasions. Bad music in a bad movie is just salt in a wound. Often times, its dismissible in a movie as good as this one. It is just that here. Its almost not worth mentioning but for the sake of an impartial review, I bring it up.

There is such an intelligent way this film presents itself. There's an irony to the situations presented and the dialogue. An ape pointing out that Charlton Heston is so ugly is ironic, and an irony that we recognize as a believable statement. Jobs, behaviors, relationships are all familiar to us as audience members because the apes are essentially the humans. There are even members of groups like PETA. Apes who try to prevent the inhumane (or inapeane) treatment of man. We need no exposition because this bizarro world is created using aspects of our own world that we know and understand and simply flips it on its head.

I didn't have the highest of expectations for this movie going in. I knew enough about the plot and I (regrettably) have seen Tim Burton's remake. Like the music, that "remake" is not even worth mentioning in the review of this movie. They are vastly different in story and quality. My reasons for having lower expectations was simple common sense reasoning. I couldn't imagine this movie working as well as it does. So, part surprise and part great movie are the two components that rank this movie so high.

Most Disappointing of 2009 and Most Anticipated for 2010

In 2008, I think every movie I saw made my most disappointing list. This year, the list is small, but it does exist. I was really excited about a handful of movies that didn't quite live up to my expectations. Here's the list in no particular order.

Public Enemies

By saying this film was disappointing isn't to suggest that it was bad. I'm not sure that it was good but it definitely failed to meet expectations. This was the kind of movie that was perfect in the hands of Michael Mann. His gritty, handheld style of filmmaking seemed like a perfect match for John Dillinger but it never really did it for me.







Funny People

A movie called Funny People, starring Adam Sandler, Seth Rogan and the rest of the Apatow gang should have been much funnier. Even so, what was more discouraging is the length of the film and the unnecessary length at that. The last half hour was so wrong for this movie that without it, this would have been a much better film.







The Invention of Lying

Going into this movie, I had little expectations. Its disappointing because I read the script which, considering the cast attached, could have turned into the funniest movie ever. It wasn't. I chuckled, but the film turned out to be a waste of some great material. I kind of wish I'd never read the script and never knew what could have been.







The Road

I credit the Coen's for making No Country for Old Men what it is more than I credit Cormac McCarthy. Even so, I expected more from The Road... forgive me... but I expected a story. The Road had a few great scenes and some cool set design but that's about all it can really boast. Without trailers, there'd be far fewer disappointing films, but there are trailers and The Road had a good one. It wasn't much of a movie though.






Inglourious Basterds

Yes, I was disappointed in this film. Not in the same way I was disappointed in the previous four films I've discussed, more disappointed that the collection of such masterfully crafted scenes didn't blend into a great movie for me. I have a strange relationship with Tarantino films as I've repeatedly made known. I often like his films more over time. With Basterds, if my opinion has changed at all since seeing it, its gotten worse. My frustration with the film has mounted. I admit, seeing it again could change everything, but I don't think that my disappointment in the film as a whole will completely disappear.

There are a few films making their way into theaters in 2010 that I'm excited for. Who knows what kind of year it will turn out to be, but based on a few trailers and some story/director pairs on the horizon, it could be another good year.

Shutter Island

It doesn't matter that I know what happens in this movie or that the studio maybe didn't think it was good enough for Oscar buzz so pushed it to February, its still a Scorsese movie and I'm excited about it.

The Social Network

Never has such a dumb idea for a movie excited me. David Fincher at the helms of the Facebook movie with Jesse Eisenberg starring is enough for me to buy a ticket. It could turn out to be another Benjamin Button, but it could also be another Seven.

Green Zone

I'm not on the edge of my seat waiting for this one but Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon do garner some excitement. The last time those two paired up they made a kick ass, albeit, forgettable movie but its still fun stuff to watch









Inception

This will, of course, be the best movie ever made. I anticipate it will be 2010's box office record challenger. The James Cameron Christopher Nolan competiation (that isn't really a competition) will continue with Nolan making the best movies and Cameron making more money. All that crap aside, Inception looks so good that I'm excited just writing this anticipatory review!

Best of 2009 - Best Director

Best Director:

5. Ramin Bahrini - Goodbye Solo

I wanted Lynn Shelton to make my best director list for her work on Humpday but Bahrini deserves the spot, partly because of the way he shaped this film but additionally because he actually helped his actors with scripted dialogue I'm sure.






4. Carey Fukunga - Sin Nombre

Part of this nomination comes from the meer fact that Fukunga made what I consider to be the best movie of the year. Its also a credit to his work shaping brilliant sympathetic characters confronted with extraordinary challenges.



3. Spike Jonze - Where the Wild Things Are

Jonze is so good at what he does and what he does is make movies like Where the Wild Things Are. Its a kid's movie for adults thats magical, fun, and heartbreaking all at once.






2. Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

This is a credit to the way Tarantino put together some of the best scenes I've scene recently. He blends suspense and humor possibly better than any director and had those scenes tied together better, he could be one slot higher.






1. Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

The subtlety of her direction is what makes it so good in The Hurt Locker. The little things that add extra layers to a film where essentially the same thing continues to happen, just in slightly different ways. Bigelow put together the full package, performance, story, action, suspense, humor.

Best of 2009 - Best Picture

Here they are... my top ten movies of 2009. Each one links to my review of that movie. I've said it before and I'll mention it again... 2009 was one of the best years in recent memory. A year in which films receiving four star reviews or perhaps higher at the time I saw them are left out of the top ten. Films like Avatar and 500 Days of Summer. Even films overrated films like Up in the Air and Inglourious Basterds were still good movies. But here are the elite.. the top 10 of 2009.

Best Picture:

10. Goodbye Solo
9. Up
8. Big Fan

7. An Education
6. The Hurt Locker
5. Humpday
4. Bad Lueitenant: Port of Call - New Orleans

3. Adventureland
2. Where the Wild Things Are
1. Sin Nombre

Best of 2009 - Best Actress

I'm going to change gears here a bit as the 2009 field for best actress nominees is small. Again, with the exception of Precious, I'm confident I've seen enough films to make intelligent picks. This year, slim as it may have been, I was hardly impressed with the performances by leading ladies. Sandra Bullock, perhaps the front runner for the Oscar was nothing special... perhaps because she was the only bright spot in an otherwise horrible movie is the reason people give her credit. Michelle Monaghan has gotten some praise for what I consider to be her less than stellar portrayal as a Trucker.  Deserving mention are Meryl Streep and Amy Adams for their performances in Julie and Julia.  So why mention them here rather than in my top five? The answer is this... no performance by an actress in 2009 is in the same class as the one I'll turn my focus onto...

Best Actress:

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Mulligan had the benefit of performaning in a great movie, something else few leading actresses can claim in 2009 but I make no excuses for her. She is outstanding as a too smart for her own good high schooler who gets swept away by an older man. There are several parts of this film that wouldn't otherwise be believable had it not been for Mulligan defining her character so well. She's a pleasure to watch throughout the film, even when the idea crosses one's mind that perhaps she's getting what she deserves. She won't win the Oscar, she'll probably get nominated. If Streep wins over her then well... I mean, its Meryl Streep, but if Sandra Bullock wins over Mulligan... well, I'll do something...