24 Hour Party People (2002)

If I'm being honest, I paid very little attention to 24 Hour Party People. I'm a big Joy Division fan but once Ian Curtis was swinging, my interest fizzled fast. Unfortunately, that was about forty-five minutes in. Maybe one day I'll try again. Maybe not.

"This is a film about the music. And the people who made the music."

Sorry Steve Coogan, it didn't quite feel that way...

127 Hours (2010)

I have mixed feelings about 127 Hours. James Franco is incredibly charming and this movie definitely used that charm to the max. But the direction (from Danny Boyle who I ADORE. 28 Days Later is pretty much my favorite movie) was incredibly hyper and quick. Screens split three ways, lots of motion, lots of color and light. Very ADD. I suspect this style was implemented to contrast to the slow, I'm-trapped-in-a-cavern pace but I found it distracting.

Also, I had an issue with the arc that is imposed upon Aron Ralston.  It felt heavy handed. Like a beacon every so often flashing in my face saying "He didn't connect with people!" only to return to the present where he's epiphinizing (SO not a word) about how he should have connected with people. It wasn't necessary. Being trapped like that would change a person - I think the audience can be trusted to realize that - without the arc being so forced.

And the whole thing was incredibly short. The rainy escape dream sequence was unnecessary and an obvious time filler.

This was in no way a perfect film. I think the fact that it's a true story is elevating it beyond its merits. It's no Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, or Slumdog. But James Franco is a charming actor and watching him is always fun.

Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

Aaron Sorkin wrote Charlie Wilson's War and, as far as I'm concerned, Aaron Sorkin can do no wrong. Having said that, this was not my favorite Aaron Sorkin work.

Normally, screenwriters treat their audience as though they are dumb. They explain everything in great detail, often times, more than once. They make sure even the dimmest amongst us will not get lost so everyone can pay their money and enjoy the movie. Aaron Sorkin does not, and never has, written this way. From Sports Night to The Social Network, he treats his audience as intelligent individuals. And I greatly admire and appreciate that.

However. Charlie Wilson's War is about what's going on in the middle east during The Cold War. Guess what I know about what happened in the middle east during The Cold War. Zilch.

It's not that the movie was difficult to follow - as a story, all the parts were there. But as someone who is bringing nothing to the table in terms of previous knowledge, I felt uninvested and disconnected. Tom Hanks was just as perfect as he always is and Phillip Seymour Hoffman was brilliant as well. But the far reaching ramifications of what's going on - or even what the world was really like while it was going on in the first place - did not hit home with me.

There is one moment during the end of the film when Tom Hanks loses a fight to get schools built in Afghanistan. It is a glimmer of why Afghanistan becomes the hostile place we see on the nightly news today. Of why, after having defeated the Russians, things do not improve. That moment spoke to a citizen of 2010. I wish more moments had.

This was in no way a bad movie. Nothing Aaron Sorkin writes will ever be bad. I have such high expectations going into a story with Aaron Sorkin attached, if I'm not blown out of the water, I am disappointed. Usually, I am blown out of the water. This one time, I was not.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

It had been quite a while (like, high school?) since I'd seen Rocky Horror. I'm not a mega-fan. I'm not really even a fan. I'm an appreciator. I like that it exists. I like that it's weird and crazy and all about sex. And some of the music is quite catchy. But I don't find it so entertaining that I'll watch it over and over. I don't feel like the characters are my friends. Or that I'm even meant to really care about any of them. It's spinning wheels and bright lights. It's camp. And all that's cool. But spectacle alone isn't enough for me to be in love with something. And while the themes and ideas are appealing, I don't need to watch the movie to believe in or tout them.

Rocky Horror isn't a good movie. I don't think anyone really thinks that it is. It's what's behind the movie that inspires and enthralls people. It's the fringe society aspect, it's the sexual liberation goings-ons, the flaunting of things that make your mother uncomfortable. Rebellion. Rock On! (I've almost convinced myself that Rocky Horror is genius...) I wish it actually had a good story. Or...any story. But it is what it is and my mild critique isn't going to stop bazillions of people from thinking Rocky Horror is the shiz.

I think, in a large way, it's the people that love Rocky Horror that make Rocky Horror so loveable. It's the guys who freeze their asses off to dress as Magenta or Rocky for Halloween. The people who sing along with reckless abandon during midnight screenings. It's the rebellious. I love rebellion. And for cultivating that spirit, Rocky Horror gets top marks.

Plus, some of the music is catchy.

Dead Man Walking (1995)

I had very mixed feelings about Dead Man Walking. Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn were both phenomenal. Had it been the Susan Sarandon/Sean Penn show, I would have been far more into it. As it is, there are too many scenes, mostly early on, that play like a debate.

All films, by their very nature, are manipulative. But when you can feel that manipulation, something is wrong. It's what I hate about Nicholas Sparks stories. I could feel it in Dead Man Walking. I could feel a screenwriter concocting the most polarizing circumstances upon which to put the death penalty up for debate. It felt like an issue movie and that is bad bad bad. When you have such a specific issue being parsed in a film, you've got to almost subvert it. Hide it under the stories of real people.

When it was just Sean Penn and Susan Sarandan, talking, arcing, being, they felt like real people. It felt like reality. But scenes with the parents of the victims, with prison guards, with lawyers and politicians - all that felt like fat. And the score was terribly over the top and dramatic.

I will say - that screen cap up there? That was a neat effect - being able to see her reactions in the reflection of the glass. Pat on the back, Tim Robbins.

Ondine (2010)

I have mixed feelings about Ondine. I had pretty high expectations going in and I think they led to my being disappointed. The story is about a fisherman, played by Colin Farrell, who catches a woman in his fishing net. His daughter Annie, brilliantly played by adorable Alison Barry, comes to believe this woman is a Selkie (essentially a fancy mermaid). The story plays off this mystery from beginning to end, mostly providing evidence to support the theories of Annie. It has some very mild twists and turns, but ultimately, the filmmakers relied too heavily on their theme and let plot fall by the wayside. 

It's a lovely looking movie - the cinematography is perfect for the sort of magical realism feel it's going for. And all the performances are strong. The DVD didn't have English subtitles which I would have turned on given the choice. 

Overall, the film was worth seeing. With such a fun concept, I do wish they had done a bit more with the plot, but it's got a very sweet message about belief and hope. In fact, I found myself comparing it to Miracle on 34th Street at times. And, personally, I greatly enjoy Colin Farrell when he turns his acting ability on. Let me take this moment to recommend In Bruges - now there's a great Colin Farrell performance. 

The Son's Room (2001)

A happy tale The Son's Room was not. An Italian language film about a family that loses one of its members, this story is about guilt and acceptance. It's extremely simple in its structure and moves at a languid pace. The real knife cuts happen when the father imagines all the things he could have done differently the day his son died to prevent the accident. His wife is right when she says going down that path can only lead to madness. 

The story is mostly told from the father's perspective. And I suppose, to a degree, we wonder if his marriage will stick together. But the movie makes such an attempt at realism, we know from the beginning there will be no conclusions. This is a story that does not end, and this family, while changed forever, will continue on.

It's not the most unique film, nor the most exciting. I'm not sure exactly what about it earned it the Palm d'Or other than tragedy and sadness abound. I don't think I'm being harsh when I say it was just okay. It was exactly what you'd expect when you sit down to watch a story about a family that loses a son. 

The Town (2010)

The Town (or as I like to call it, Good Will Hunting 2: The Chuckie Story) is getting far better reviews than it deserves. FAR better. It's okay - Jeremy Renner is electric and the three (slightly long) heist scenes are fast and fun. And the film definitely sparkles most when it's being funny. But the plot takes some stupid and unrealistic turns and chunks of the dialogue are insanely bad. Take, for example, the Good Will Hunting ripoff scene where Ben Affleck and Rebecca Hall (the pretty British lady slummin' with the boy from the wrong side of the tracks) are sitting outside at a cafe. She looks around at the lovely sunny day and out of nowhere says "My brother died on a day like this."

There's also the little problem of Rebecca Hall's character being the dumbest chick on the planet. Their first date together, Ben Affleck drills her about what she knows and what she told the FBI about their robbery. She doesn't, for a second, question where this random bad-ass rough-edge guy game from? She's dense and I hate her.

Also, there are probably fifteen scenes where characters are talking about what happened to poor Ben Affleck before the movie began (including poor Ben Affleck). It is exposition city up in there and it's heavy handed and eye roll inducing.

Blake Lively was fine, Jon Hamm's accent was in and out. The nun costume might be my pick for Halloween this year.

The thing is - it's not a bad movie. But it's not the brilliant cops and robbers drama RottenTomatoes would have you believe (94% REALLY?). And the ending is a weird amalgamation of Nicholas Sparks and The Shawshank Redemption. If you like action movies - go see it. If you're expecting something loftier that may rise to your indie drama tastes, you'll be sorely disappointed.

Dead Man (1995)

At the risk of damaging my film school cred, I'm going to be honest about this one. It took a few weeks of Dead Man sitting on my t.v. stand before I finally popped it into the DVD player. Jim Jarmusch is known for his independent, art house ways and as much as I like to play at film snob, these movies aren't exactly fun to watch. They take concentration, thought, attention, and you can't be anywhere near the realm of tired. I just haven't been in the mood.

I'll admit, Johnny Depp helps. But only a little. It was a smart, lyrical film with plenty to think about and plenty of vagueness. It swiftly moved to the shelf of my brain labeled "Glad I saw it. Won't watch it again." Johnny Depp's performance is fantastic. The black and white cinematography looked amazing. Lots of funny (not as in haha but as in odd) cameos were speckled throughout - Billy Bob Thornton, Iggy Pop, Gabriel Byrne (who I think was the only character it was easy to emotionally connect with) and Crispin Glover (who just can't seem to get away from creepy these days).

I'm sure there were themes and motifs that went woosh over my head (because I was a little too close to the realm of tired - I'll admit) but I'm pleased I can now stick it in my outgoing mail pile and send it flying back to Netflix.

Before Night Falls (2000)

I didn't really enjoy this movie. Yes, Javier Bardem is a fantastic actor and the story, at its core, is interesting. But this film felt like a project made by a director who is so in love with his own abilities he just spews random visuals all over the place to demonstrate his magnificence. I preferred The Diving Bell and the Butterfly by a mile. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly required some directorial trickery but this movie did not. The filmic blah blah blah of trees and waves and hot air balloons was pretentious dribble and a snooze to boot.

One other complaint was the inclusion of Sean Penn and Johnny Depp. Both are actors I love, but neither needed to be in this film. They're distracting. Throughout Sean Penn's scene, I missed every bit of dialogue because I was too busy thinking "Is that Sean Penn. Yes. That's definitely him. No, that's not him. Why would that be him? But I'm pretty sure that's him."

On the bright side, Diego Luna was in this for about two minutes. So that was a nice surprise.

Overall - not my fave.

Body of Lies (2008)

Body of Lies was a movie I could have lived without. It wasn't bad and it wasn't really good. It wasn't boring or too complicated but it also wasn't very interesting or unique. It came and went. I shrugged.

To be fair, this isn't my preferred genre. I often say - and I'm about to say it again - that a good movie is a good movie and people who discount any film based on genre alone are dumb. Or lazy. Or they don't care - which is acceptable. But film people who say it are dumb. Or lazy. However, I can't deny that everyone prefers some genres to others. I'm always going to enjoy a musical more than perhaps its filmic worth would indicate. I would never try to argue that Rent is a good (or well made) film but damned if I don't enjoy it. Okay - so - point. Espionage action, especially set in the Middle East, aint my bag. And this movie isn't good enough to overcome it's genre. So I'll probably never watch it again.

Ebert said, and I agree, "'Body of Lies' is a James Bond plot inserted into today's headlines." That's my other issue with it. It was like they decided to write a movie where us awesome Americans actually get to catch Osama Bin Laden. Without ever actually showing a terrorist attack on American soil. We're catching the guy that bombed Amsterdam who is threatening to bomb us. Whatever.

And the protagonist. He's what should have made us care. But there is almost zero about him as a person. He's getting a divorce. That's all we know. Do we care? Not really. And I'm sorry, but on no planet would Leonardo DiCaprio be able to pretend he's Middle-Eastern. (I wasn't quite sure he was pretending to be Middle-Eastern - but Ebert thinks he was. So we'll go with Ebert). There just isn't enough character. Anywhere. Russell Crowe's role was all but unnecessary and I'm surprised Russell Crowe's people wanted him to do it. It must have just been because of Ridley Scott. His character was an aged version Ari Gold from Entourage, barking orders into his bluetooth while dropping his kids off at school.

Maybe I dislike this movie more than I initially thought. I saw it because Leonardo DiCaprio is a great actor and I'm a loyal fan who will see him in pretty much anything. Now that I can check this movie off my list, I never have to think about it again.

Withnail And I (1987)

Withnail and I was a funny little film. In many ways, it reminded me of an existentialist play. They aren't totally waiting for Godot, but there are scenes where it feels like they are. Normally, a film with so little plot would irritate me. But this film was funny. And charming in a strange sort of British way. Richard Griffiths as Withnail's gay, rich uncle was my favorite character and I found the scenes involving him funniest.

I don't have a whole lot to say about this film. I read somewhere that it's Johnny Depp's favorite movie, so take that as you will. It's funny, it's thinly plotted, it has some British absurdist humor throughout that you may or may not enjoy. It's worth a whirl.

Last Days (2005)

Last Days. This one's a stumper. I'll start with two general thoughts:

1. I love Gus Van Sant.

2. There are shots in this film where Michael Pitt looks so much like Kurt Cobain it's chilling.

This isn't really the kind of movie one enjoys. It's slow paced, sad, quiet, no real characters to invest in and no real plot. It's the kind of flm one dedicates to a memory; a film that wouldn't exist without its reference. A film where people who are already invested in some way might want to spend a few hours watching.

If you don't know what it's "about" let me break it down. A blond grunge rock star (Blake) wanders around his large home and the surrounding woods, high, avoiding people and then blows his head off in a shed to be found by a maintenance person. There's no point to it, no meaning behind it, no ramifications or pontifications. It's just what happened.

I made the mistake of venturing into the IMDb forum for this movie. Ugh. I need to stop going there in matters concerning dead idols. There's the "this movie is boring and sucks" contingent. The "Kurt Cobain was nothing like this. He was hansome and bright and brillaint" contingent. And the "This is not about Kurt Cobain at all. The character's name is Blake" contingent. Why do dumb people need to exist? Or more specifically in matters involving me - why do they need to watch movies and talk about them? (Door wide open if you think I'm dumb).

This movie is what it is. He's a Kurt Cobain shadow who we watch exist through his last days. There's a scene with Kim Gordon - arguably the only scene with emotion behind it - in which she's trying to convince Blake to leave with her. Imagine being Kim Gorden, who was actually close friends with Kurt Cobain, sitting face to face with this man who is embodying your dead friend so totally. Acting out this scene, pleading with him to come with you. Attempting something you know is going to fail because this is how it went the first time. That's hard core, man. This film is for her.

For the rest of us, it's Gus Van Sant saying this is how it might have gone. Isn't it sad?

Above is one of the final shots of Last Days along with the infamous photo that ran after Kurt Cobain's death.

The Last Station (2009)

James McAvoy is in The Last Station and that is reason enough for me to recommend it. I find him one of the most enchanting actors to watch and it is a hard and fast rule of mine to see whatever he does. That being said, I was somewhat dissapointed with The Last Station.

I'll start by admitting that I know next to nothing about Tolstoy. My grandma bought me Anna Karenina a few years ago and I've been toting it around ever since, never quite brave enough to actually begin reading it. After seeing The Last Station, I know a bit more, but what of the film was true and what was fiction I cannot be sure (nor do I care to do any research to find out).

That's what The Last Station missed. Most biopics, especially those of artists, writers, poets, or other such people that I feel I ought to know about, inspire me to investigate further. Bright Star sent me flying to my Norton Anthology to reexamine the poems of Keats. Even lackluster biopics tend to have this effect on me - Little Ashes reminded me how much I loved Lorca in college and had me looking up the closest museum with any Dali work.

The Last Station didn't make me want to know more. I don't care about Tolstoy anyore than I ever have (and truthfully, that's not much). Christopher Plummer played him like Santa Clause, all smiles and good natured old guy charm. And while Helen Mirren was very good (and man is she pretty), she contriubted to the overall sense of Britishness that this cast exudes. If you said to me, "Name five things you know about Tolstoy" I might have been tapped out after saying, "He wrote War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and was Russian."

Finally, James McAvoy. His role in this reminded me slightly of his role in The Last King of Scotland. In both films, he is clearly the protagonist, although I would wager that if you asked someone what either film was about, they would neglect his characters entirely in their response.

There's a tendency, and it's one I don't much care for, to examine larger than life figures through the eyes of a bland bystandar. I'd be willing to bet people who did not see The Last King of Scotland haven't the faintest notion that James McAvoy was the lead (or even in it). Why? Why must he take these roles where he he's just a sounding board for men to claim their oscar nominations. I'm indignant on his part. He does a fine job of brining something to these characters - making them more than just the young naeive guy who is in awe of the oscar nominee - but why does his role even exist? The stories aren't about him even though they're about him. It's irritating. It's not a story of a young kid learning his hero isn't all he thought. Or learning his friendly dictator friend isn't so friendly. They're films about the hero and the dictator. I assume the idea is to make these figures accessable through an every man but that's dumb. It's a movie. These figures are accessable through Christopher Plummer and Forest Whitaker. I'd rather follow the people with the interesting lives than be forced to hang around the edges.

All that asside, James McAvoy really is brilliant. He does that thing where his eyes are full of tears but he doesn't actually cry in almost every role he plays. Seriously - look for it. One of these days he'll play the "figure" rather than the bystandar and then maybe he'll get more of the recognition he deserves. Until that day, I will remain his vocal champion.

Eclipse (2010)

Okay - if you're one of those people who hasn't read the books or seen the movies but claim Twilight is stupid just because you're obviously much cooler and more inteligent than the tween fangirls, you can suck it.

That being said, Twilight is stupid. Okay, I'm only 85% serious. I've read all the books and seen all the movies and yes, the writing is attrocious, and yes, Twilight (movie #1) was so incompetantly made that it's funny to watch. I love a good unnecssary swooping camera movement in a wood. However - as Stephen Colbert would say - the free market has spoken. And there are at least a dozen scenes in the novels that I found gooey sweet enough to make up for the five minutes it took to read them. And movies #2 and #3 were not incompetantly made. Great cinema? No. Filmmakers who clearly know their audience? Yes.

Everyone knows it's funny how frequently the wolf boys are shirtless. You aren't special or clever because you point out that the gratuitous shirtlessness isn't at all realted to plot. And - can I just say - in a land where women on screen are CONSTANTLY wearting slut clothes that no actual self respecting woman would ever wear (Megan Fox) it's nice that the pendulum is swinging a little bit the other way.

Back to this whole Twilight thing. I feel sorry for people who can't find entertainment in Hollywood drivel. Your life is less silly than mine. If you're completely uninterested, that's fine. You don't bother me. It's the vocal haters who don't know what they're talking about that I can't stand.

Okay. Eclipse. I'll actually talk about that for just a moment, too. First off, Billy Burke, who plays Bella's dad, is always the best thing about these movies. He's really good with very limited screen time. In Eclipse, when Bella graduates high school, I got slightly choked up at the way he jumped to his feet to applaud her. It was cute. And he tends to bring a bit of comic releif to an otherwise very melodramatic story. So well done Billy Burke.

Second, Xavier Samuel! Who's seen The Loved Ones? Show of hands. The Loved Ones is this uber sick horror movie about this crazy chick who kidnaps this guy who turned her down for the prom. She procedes to torture him during her creepfest makeshift livingroom prom. The guy? Xavier Samuel. I saw this back in October and immediately thought "Ooo! New hot Austrailian actor who can actually act! Fun!" Then I saw he was going to be in Eclipse. A little dissapointed, yes, but a little pleased that he'd be in something that would have a N.A. wide release. He was very good. And very pretty. Lots of screaming and grrr from him. It was delightful. If only they had cast someone that attractive in the role of Edward. Sorry, RPatz. You were a fine and dandy Cedric Diggory but Edward you are not.

It's looking like my longest post to date is going to be Eclipse centric. How awesome am I? Final thoughts: This was the best of the films and probably the best of the books too. It actually has a plot, which is a nice change, and it has that tingley scene on the mountain where Jacob has to get into the sleeping bag with Bella while Edward watches because otherwise she'd freeze to death. Squee! Pretty much the entire planet agrees that Bella is annoying but I'm working on a theory that vampire story girls are meant to be annoying so we can all fantasize about how much better we'd fit with the dashing fellas. (Everyone also seems to agree that Sookie Stackhouse is annoying...fleshed out theory to follow).

I'm also pretty excited for the next movies where we get to see Edward beat Bella up during sex and a creepy blood hungry fetus scratch and crawl and bust its way out of her uterous. That'll be awesome! Not to mention Jacob falling in love with an infant - whoop whoop!

Eventually these films will finish and the hype will die and I'll stop being annoyed with people on their high horses haten on everything that's popular (even if it DOES actually blow). You know what was REALLY awesome about seeing Eclipse? The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows preview on the big screen. Now there's something to really squee about!

The Brothers Bloom (2008)

The beginning of The Brothers Bloom was fun. It has a fairy-tale style opening with rhyming voice-over that I found charming. The crux of the story rests on the relationship between the two brothers played by Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody. Except, about halfway through the film, the crux of the story stops relying on the relationship between the two brothers and starts relying on the cons.
For a while, it had me. Just when I thought “Maybe Mark Ruffalo is actually conning Adrien Brody” Mark Ruffalo says to Adrien Brody “You’re the last person I would ever con.” Touche, Brothers Bloom. But as it progresses, it gets caught up in its cutesy con craziness and when the audience loses track of who is actually caring about what, the audience stops caring about anything. When we finally reach the end and the final con that we know is coming, it makes no sense. Movie lost.

If you particularly like any of the actors, it’s a fun enough movie to sit through. Rachel Weisz was very endearing – especially in the beginning – and Rinko Kikuchi as Bang Bang was also fun. It was four good actors being overshadowed by a script that was trying too hard to be clever.

Alas, I am still left waiting for another brilliant Mark Ruffalo performance.

Push (2009)

I almost liked Push. Let me first say that Dakota Fanning is terrific and probably the best thing about this movie.

So – this movie. Let me give you a brief synopsis because I mentioned this film to a few people and none of them had any idea what movie I was referring to.

It’s the one with Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning and Djimon Hounsou that had the rock video trailers with vague information about people with special powers. Ring any bells? It sort of came and went without much fanfare. The general idea is that some people have powers and the evil government wants to lock them up. And there’s this girl who escapes them with some extra special drug that they want back. Heroes-esque. At least early Heroes-esque.

Truthfully, it’s not bad for what it is. Lots of magic action sequences, a cute-ish relationship between Dakota Fanning and Chris Evans, and some creepy evil Chinese men who have a scream that can make people bleed through their ears until they die. It ends open for a sequel that I doubt will ever come and thinking too hard about the plot will ruin the illusion, but I wasn’t bored, I wasn’t irritated by anything, and again, Dakota Fanning is very good.

Not a glowing review, I know, but if you like this variety of movie, this is an okay way to spend 111 minutes.

Stardust (2007)

Overall, Stardust was relatively enjoyable. It had some whimsy, it had some magic, and it had some fun performances – especially Robert De Niro as a gay pirate. But I’m not over the moon about it and I don’t know exactly why.

One gripe – perhaps a silly one – is that the lead, Charlie Cox, isn’t hot enough (Don't judge - I warned you it was silly). But Ben Barnes is in the beginning of this film and he’s a terribly charismatic actor. I couldn’t help but wish him and Charlie Cox could have switched roles. I don’t care that the character is supposed to be nerdy in the beginning. Play nerdy. Don’t cast nerdy.

It was also a tad long for the sort of movie it was. Perhaps the problem came from the big names. Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer were given more screen time than their characters warranted, no doubt because they’re Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer.

The things I loved? The idea of traveling by candlelight - how magnificent. And there’s a scene where a voodoo doll of a man is dropped into water. We watch as the man, in air, floats up toward the ceiling and slowly drowns. It’s delightfully creepy. And there’s also some amusing comic relief from a gaggle of very British ghosts.



The movie was fine – worth a few hours but I don’t regret not seeing it in the theater. Mostly it just made me want to read the book.