Film: Cold Weather

Director: Aaron Katz
Genre: Comedy?
Source: USA (2010)
Rating: NR
Location/Format: Netflix Streaming
Grade: D

This was a movie I saw. I fell asleep during it. It ended with no real resolution. It felt like a lot of the annoying parts of indie films combined into one, though there was a funny sequence about buying a pipe. Or maybe the whole movie was really good and I was too tired, and falling asleep made me miss the brilliance. Very possible. But I don't care enough to try to watch it again and find out. Dumb.

Alternate Film Title: "Long Pauses Aren't Always Deep. Sometimes They're Just Boring."

Film: The Master

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Blu-Ray
Grade: B

I know in my intellectual bits that I should like The Master a lot more than I actually do. Paul Thomas Anderson is a brilliant filmmaker, and I full believe there is a whole lot more going on in this movie that I picked up on. But I never felt quite clear on what he was going for as a filmmaker, or even (at times) what the plot of the movie was. Joaquin Phoenix has PTSD, sexual hang-ups, and a drinking problem. That much was clear. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays the leader of a Scientology-like cult. OK, check. But the ins and outs were by turns intensely compelling and bone-numbingly dull, so in the end I came away lukewarm on the movie as a whole. Though a lot of critics seem to be calling it his best film yet, it didn't compare to There Will Be Blood, or even less "careful" works like Magnolia and Boogie Nights. I know there's genius there, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Shame on me, perhaps.

That said, there is a lot that I really did like about this movie. It's beautifully shot, for one, from the opening shots to the close. There's a sterility and a picturesque aloofness to the era that is captured well, and the quality of the light and camera plays off the 50s era hairstyles and fashions beautifully. Even when the plot lost its hold on me, the picture kept it.

The liquidity of the film impressed me as well, and I mean that in several senses. Water is everywhere in the movie, from the boat wake (boat unseen) that pops up throughout the film, to the beach on which Freddie Quell, Phoenix's character first appears, to the boat on which he meets Hoffman, there is an emphasis on water that impressed me after the vivid use of oil in Anderson's last film. I think there's a metaphor there for Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman's character) himself, continually shifting his philosophy, his identity, his religion to fit his needs and desires of the moment. His "religion" is liquid, shaping itself around whatever ideas he feels at the moment. An interesting sequence halfway through the film cuts from Dodd singing a song to a group of friends to Dodd still singing the same song, but now with all the women nude. At first I had trouble determining if this was real or if this was Freddie Quell's vision of the world (as mentioned, he has some severe sexual hang-ups and obsessions), but the following scene with Amy Adams as Dodd's wife convinced me that no, this was one possible route Dodd could take his new cult--down a path of sexual exploration. That she convinces him to back off from this only reiterates his own liquid sense of truth.

Similarly, Quell's name itself could be metaphorical in relation to water. He wants to be quelled, to be calmed, the way storms and waves are, and looks to Dodd to make it happen. Their dynamic is complex and ever-shifting, and though Freddie first looks for peace by making ridiculous dangerous alcoholic concoctions, Dodd convinces him to start looking elsewhere. Whether or not he can "fix" and "quell" Freddie's raging demons seems to be at the heart of the film.

In the end, the film didn't quite come together for me. That said, I have to admit that the first time I saw There Will Be Blood I liked it but didn't love it, and now it's one of my favorites, so it's possible a repeat viewing would change my mind. The problem is, I'm not sure I want to watch it again. Blood's Daniel Plainview is such a fascinating figure, but partly because you're not sure whether you love him or hate him as the movie goes on. Quell, on the other hand, I never really liked. While Phoenix's performance was great, the character himself is just a little too greasy and smarmy and mean for my taste. I wanted him to find peace, I suppose, the way I generally want people to find peace. But I can't say I felt particularly empathetic toward him. I just didn't really want much to do with him. 

Alternate Film Title: "Sand Women I Have Loved"

Film: Topsy-Turvy

Director: Mike Leigh
Genre: Comedy
Source: UK (1999)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Streaming
Grade: C-

I will have to take a lot of the blame for my reaction to this movie. It's not that it is bad--I have the feeling it is probably actually pretty good. But it was not what I expected, and it was way, way longer than I realized.

Last night at 9:30 Clementine and I wanted to watch a movie, but The Master, which we have on Blu-ray, seemed to be way too long--in the neighborhood of three hours. Somehow we settled on Topsy-Turvy instead, which had a much shorter running time of two hours and forty minutes. By which I mean, about fifty minutes longer than we really had the patience for.

In theory, it's a movie that's right down my alley. It's a bit of a biopic of Victorian British theater legends Gilbert and Sullivan, and it's broken into roughly two halves: in the first hour and twenty minutes it explores their falling out, disagreements, and various reactions to their fame and reputations. The second half deals with Gilbert's inspiration for their famous opera The Mikado and their reuniting over it. The film also touches on the feelings and responses of several of the actors in their company, though only in bits and pieces, which is one of my complaints. We get enough of these fringe characters to see some of their pomposity, or weakness, or whatever, but not enough to make them full-fledged characters. The revelation that one of the actors is a drug addict (30 minutes before the film ends) should have mattered more, but there was no real hint of it beforehand or resolution to it afterword. It was just a thing that happened.

There were lots of other "things that happened" that could have been shortened or skipped over all together, and by the end of the film, rather than being excited to see the production get underway, I was just ready for the whole thing to end. It became tedious and boring. I liked the actors, I liked the idea of the movie . . . I just didn't really care for large stretches of the actual movie. Maybe I'd like it more if I saw it at a different time, when I knew what I was getting into. After all, this film just recently got a Criterion Collection release, so there must be something there. But last night? Nope.

Plus, there was something weird going on with the sound on Netflix that kind of diluted the experience (since it's about an opera, after all--sound should matter). 

Alternate Film Title: "British Gentlemen Are Ridiculous"

Film: The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

Director: Don Scardino
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinemas
Grade: C

I mean, honestly. Can nothing good come to the theaters in February and March? 

I will admit that I enjoyed this movie almost entirely on the good will I have toward the actors, though the film on the whole wastes a perfectly good setting in the absurd world of Las Vegas magicians. I really like Steve Carrell, though he is a caricature of a person for a good 2/3 of the movie, speaking with a weird cadence that doesn't quite work. I also really like Steve Buscemi, who always seems genuine, even when he's in a sub-par comedy. There's just something about him in this movie that says, "I'm just happy to be here," and that worked pretty perfectly for the character. And once again, my crush on Olivia Wilde allows me to forgive the otherwise average-ness of her performance here.

Jim Carrey, surprisingly, is the only standout to me here, playing Steve Gray (Mind Rapist), a Criss Angel/David Blaine mash-up character who is so absurd and out of touch with reality that everyone wonders if he's an idiot, a savant, or just buys into his own hype. Until his final gags, Carrey works well, with a sincerity and a ridiculousness that makes the character entertaining--even as everyone around him is grossed out.

But still, this one is going to fly under the radar of most people, and deservedly so. Though I enjoyed myself because of my fondness for the actors, most of the jokes miss, the plot is obvious and straightforward, and the emotional resolution unearned. The funniest part of the film is the "revelation" of how the final magic act is performed, which is so ridiculous that one can't help but laugh. Unfortunately, that's one of the very few real laughs in the film--and I don't think comedy is what they meant to make disappear. (Wow, what a bad pun!)

Alternate Film Title: "Too Much of Steve Carrell's Waxed Chest"

Film: Jack the Giant Slayer

Director: Bryan Singer
Genre: Action/Fantasy
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinemas
Grade: C+

Poor Bryan Singer. I don't think he ever fully recovered from the critical slaughter of Superman Returns (a movie I still think is not as bad as everyone else seems to think). Since then he had Valkyrie--solid but not great--a couple of TV movies (Football Wives, which I don't know anything about, and Mockingbird Lane, which is a reboot of the Munsters, and that in itself is horrific) and this.

Now, maybe (as a lot of directors and actors do) he just has kids now and so is turning towards more family-oriented fare. But this movie was just bland enough that it's hard for me to acknowledge that this is the same director who brought me The Usual Suspects and X2. Where is the wit and cleverness that drove those two movies? Where is the tight action and suspense?

This movie is not bad, really. I enjoyed it well enough, and I did like it more than Snitch, our last theater outing (the bleak movie season of the first quarter of the year strikes again). And there were some fun scenes. And if I had a ten-year-old son or daughter, this is exactly the kind of movie I'd be excited to take them to. But overall it's also a movie that will do fine, and it will do fine on DVD, but it will never be anyone's "favorite movie." And it will never be one (as with The Usual Suspects) where I'll be excited to find people who haven't seen it to share with. It's got average CGI, main characters that are just this side of Snoozeville, and a story that really doesn't twist the famous fairy tale in any exciting ways.

On the other hand, it does have a scenery-chewing Stanley Tucci and an entertaining Ewan McGregor, so I guess it's not all bad. It's just not all that good, either.

Alternate Film Title: "That's King Al Swearengen to You" (Deadwood, I miss you)

Film: Butter

Director: Jim Field Smith
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (2011)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant
Grade: A-

Well this was a random Netflix find that I ended up enjoying way more than I expected, and not--as my wife assumed--just because Olivia Wilde played a stripper. In fact, she's less hot in this than in a lot of movies. Instead, this movie was surprisingly funny, surprisingly sweet, and an entertaining send-up of the Midwest. This is full-on satire territory, and it works.

The film follows the twin story lines of Bob and Laura--a retiring butter-carving champion and his social-status-and-political-aspirant wife--and Destiny, a young foster child looking for a home and with untapped artistic talent. As Laura refuses to give up the status (and the political hopes) that came along with her husband's fame, and as Bob tries to contain the stripper he owes hundreds of dollars to, Destiny tries to make sense of her new foster parents, her blossoming talent, and a world that seems to be more and more challenging every day.

Butter has a lot of unexpected comedy as it allows actors to play with the types of roles they rarely get (except Ty Burrell as Bob, who is yet another fumbling but well meaning dad, though he does have a darker heart here than on Modern Family, and he's so good at that role anyway I don't resent his "Phil with fewer morals" take on the character): Jennifer Garner as a power-hungry shrew and Rob Corddry as a really likable and sweet foster father who just wants to develop a good relationship with Destiny both really stood out, and Yara Shahidi as Destiny was also a delight to watch.

But most enjoyable was the incisive dissection of "heartland values" that tries to expose the gaps that the get-ahead mindset of Reagan-era capitalism and Bush-era fundamentalist values leave on the under-privileged. Without being overtly political, the film exposes Laura's willingness to trample anything in her way to get what she wants, even as she uses traditional American iconic imagery for her own ends. Her final butter sculpture in the film is hilarious in its tastelessness, and it skewers those who rewrite American history to suit their own ends.

At least that's how I saw it. But even if you don't buy or notice the political undertones of the film, it's still really entertaining. And it reminds me that this is one of the things Netflix is great for--to stumble on something you would never seek out on your own, and then to find out how much you enjoy it.

Alternate Film Title: "Movie Orphans Are Always the Cutest and Most Talented Kids--I Wonder If Real Orphans Ever Get a Complex About It"

Film: Frankenweenie

Director: Tim Burton
Genre: Animated
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: PG
Location/Format: Blu-Ray
Grade: B-

I'm not sure there could be a more Tim Burton-y movie than this (but then again I think that with pretty much every Tim Burton movie. It's like each gets a little more twee, a little more black and white, a little more Danny Elfman. I made a point in an earlier post about Wes Anderson movies always being immediately identifiable, but that might be more so with Tim Burton, and this time I don't mean it as a compliment. Too much of a good thing, and what not). 

This movie was fine, and relatively cute, but 2012 was also the year Para-Norman came out, and that stop-motion film is superior to this stop-motion film on all counts, from character to animation to paranormal fun to general entertainment value. This one made me laugh and "Aww" a few times, but no more than I expected to, and not in any unexpected ways. Though the nods to Universal Horror monsters of the 30s-40s were fun, I just don't have the connection to that era of films that a lot of directors do. Yes Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are ground-breaking and innovative, but I have more interest in them for their historic value than their inherent entertainment value, which is not the case with all "old" movies.

All things considered, the movie's fine, but I'd rather go watch Para-Norman and Nightmare Before Christmas and Coraline than sit through this one again. All three of those are more original and more fun. 

Book: The Last Policeman

The earth is going to be destroyed. So why bother with anything if it's all about to turn to dust?

That seems to be the premise of The Last Policeman, a fairly standard detective novel with an interesting twist to its setting.  Detective Henry Palace--just recently promoted from beat cop--gets a suicide case in a world where an increasing number of people are choosing to kill themselves now that scientist's have confirmed the inevitable impact of a giant asteroid that will almost certainly destroy nearly all life on earth. But something about this case seems strange to Palace, and even as everyone around him wonders why he bothers, he starts to investigate whether there's more to this suicide than just a suicide.

The novel excels as author Ben Winters catalogs the disintegration and the reactions of the world around him--from those who turn to sex, drugs, and violence as a means of coping, to those who battle depression, to those who, like Palace, seem to throw themselves even more obsessively into the minutiae of their lives. All of these reactions seem legitimate in the face of impending obliteration, and that question of just how I would react is one I asked myself repeatedly as I read. At what point to you pack it all in and do the things you've always wanted to do but never thought you could--from hang-gliding to travelling the world--or is that abandonment of one's life in itself a desperate and pathetic act. Is Palace heroic for his commitment to his job as a cop, or is he pathetic for it?

Winters hasn't really broken much new ground with this novel, but that doesn't stop it from being a short, fun, and entertaining read, and he does put pieces together in new and different ways. There are twists and turns in the case--some expected, some not--and it was enough that I will be happy to tune in for the next installment of the planned pre-apocalyptic trilogy. As long as he keeps things moving the way he does in this novel, and as long as Palace continues to develop as an interesting protagonist, I think there is a lot of promise that the series will continue to be as compelling and readable as this first installment was.

Grade: B

Film: Snitch

Director: Ric Roman Waugh
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinemas
Grade: C

This movie was forgettable and heavy handed on pretty much every count, from Susan Sarandon's ham-fisted portrayal of a true believing conservative to the Rock's believably as an "average Joe" to the movie's obvious message regarding mandatory minimum sentencing. It was a film I've hardly thought about since seeing it a few weeks ago, and the only reason we saw it in the first place was that we needed to get out of the house and we live in a small town with relatively few movie options. Seriously, it was either this or Safe Haven, and I object to Nicholas Sparks on principle.

So instead, let's talk about movie etiquette.

One of my favorite movie podcasts* (which is not to say I listen to it every week, but rather to say that when I listen to a film podcast, his is one I really enjoy, because the hosts are 1) British, 2) smart, and 3) quite funny and entertaining) is Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo's Film Reviews from BBC Radio 5. Kermode and Mayo came up with they called the Moviegoer's Code of Conduct, which I will list for all posterity here:

• No Eating . . . of anything harder than a soft roll with no filling. No one wants to hear you crunch, chew, or masticate in any way. Nachos cause special offense and are of the devil.
• No Slurping . . . of drinks. You've already drunk a 5 liter flagon of pop, you really don't need the melting ice too. You are not six years old.
• No Rustling . . . of super high density, rustle-o-matic, extra rustle bags. No foraging of any kind. If you're going to need it during the film, get it out before hand.
• No Irresponsible Parenting . . . Your five-year-old does not want to come see the latest 12A certificate (insert PG-13 movie for American film-goers): you are using the cinema as a babysitter. Your child's moaning, whinging, and crying is your fault and a profound annoyance to everyone else. Your interrupted sleep caused by your child's nightmares is also your fault and serves you right.
• No Hobbies: This includes knitting, drug dealing, model airplane assembly, fighting, having sex, and updating Facebook.
• No Talking: You're in a cinema--you have come here to watch, not to discuss. Or 'engage,' or 'participate,' or 'explain' or whatever. More importantly, no one in the cinema has paid $9.50 to hear your director's commentary on the movie. Just sit down and shut up.
• No Mobile Phone Usage: At all. Not even in 'flight mode.' This isn't an airplane, it's a cinema. Even if you're not yapping you're still creating light pollution. Put your thumbs away. NB: includes BlackBerries, Palm Pilots, iPads--whatever.
• No Kicking of Seats: The area of floor directly in front of your seat is yours, and is there to put your legs in. The back of the seat in front of you belongs to someone else; do not touch, interfere with, or otherwise invade their space with your feet, knees, or other bodily appendages.
• No Arriving Late: Like Woody Allen in Annie Hall, you're supposed to watch movies from the very beginning to the very end. If you turn up late, tough: go see something else--The Sorrow and the Pity, perhaps.
• No Shoe Removal: You are not in your own front room. Nor are you in Japan (unless you are, in which case, carry on). A cinema is a public space; keep your bodily odors to yourself.

Now, I will admit that I have not always been a faithful follower of every rule on this list. While I've never practiced hobbies or brought my non-existent children to the movies, I definitely have been a perpetrator of the slurping, talking, and eating rules (and I was particularly fond of nachos until I had to cut them out of my diet for other reasons).

But honestly. 

I think in our viewing of Snitch nearly every rule on this list was broken multiple times over. We arrived (not late, but very shortly before the movie began) to find an extremely crowded theater. Normally we like to sit 7-8 rows from the front (we seem to get closer the older we get), but all those "choice" seats were taken, and there were "sets" of seats only at the very front (2nd row) and very back (last row). We stupidly moved up first and took the 2nd row seats. As we moved into the row, however, I noticed that on the 3rd row were six or seven what-can-only-be-described-as hooligans. Spread out across their seats, girls lying in boyfriend's laps, tattoos all over the place. It was teen meth addict night at the movies, I think. We sat down to find that not only were our seats way too close for comfort, but to hear our friends behind us talking full voice and showing no signs of stopping as the previews began. 

We made it through one preview before moving to the back of the theater. Once on the back row (apologizing to the people we had to walk past to get there) we thought things would be better. But a woman followed us onto the row--sitting just a couple of seats down from us--and as the movie began, got out her cell phone and proceeded not to text but to call a friend, apparently to inform her she was at the movies and couldn't talk.

People streamed in through the rest of the film, rustling, slurping, loud eating, and talking all occurred, and I firmly believe the only reason I didn't get me seat kicked or smell someone's socks was because we were on the back row.

I take my movies seriously. I want you to have a good time, but you have that good time by watching the movie, not by partying with your friends or texting your girlfriend. I will make exceptions--children are allowed to laugh and talk during animated films, because it's for them, and frankly one of my favorite movie experiences was MST3K-ing Starship Troopers when there were only two other people in the theater--but do not ruin my experience. Yes you can ask what happened when you went to the bathroom. No you can't do it full voice. Yes you can check your cellphone--if you go to the back of the theater where you're out of sight of every other person there.

I came to the movies to see a movie. Not to be entertained by you. Because you're not that entertaining. You're just annoying.

Alternate Film Title: "Who the Hell Knows. It's a Rock Movie and Everyone In This Place Deserves to Be Punched in the Face."

*The other podcast I really quite enjoy is Filmspotting. Those guys are much smarter than me, but the lists and themes they put together, as well as some of the games they play, are really interesting and thought-provoking. It's basically "NPR Does Movies" in tone and style, so if that's not your thing, it probably won't be your thing. But still, smart.

Film Catch-up: Side Effects, Beautiful Creatures, Here Comes the Boom, Taps

Four short reviews, since I've been behind on writing entries on this blog and need to get caught up.

Side Effects
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinemas
Grade: A-

Steven Soderbergh has been somewhat hit and miss for me in the past, but I loved Side Effects and its metamorphosis from psychological drama to psychopharmological thriller to noir. Rooney Mara and Jude Law are excellent, and Soderbergh plays with film conventions in ways that are not outlandish but are effective, such as the bookending of the film's opening and closing shots, to the disturbingly modern colors, to the effective use of cuts and perspective to layer the meaning of scenes and events. Add to that the realization that the film is particularly interested in the gray areas that motivate human behavior--and the question of what limits we are willing to transgress to fulfill our ideas of happiness--and you've got a smart, thoughtful, and highly watchable film. One of my favorites of the year so far.

Beautiful Creatures
Director: Richard LaGravenese
Genre: Fantasy/Romance
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinemas
Grade: B

I have no real excuse for enjoying this movie as much as I did. It totally looks to be in the vein of Twilight--silly supernatural teenage love story. Not even my teenage students had any interest in seeing it when I had my weekly "weekend movie wrap up" with my film class on a Monday. But when your parents, who don't see R-rated movies, are in town, and want to go to a movie, and you're in the dark film release months of January and February, sometimes you suck it up and go to a magic teen romance. And sometimes you're pleasantly surprised. The mythology behind this movie is silly and convoluted--and frankly forgettable, since I'm not even clear on how the supernatural angle was "resolved" by the end of the film--but the actors seem to be having such a good time that it's hard not to enjoy yourself. Emma Thompson, Jeremy Irons, and a surprisingly beautiful Emmy Rossum all acquit themselves well, but the standout performance here is by Alden Ehrenreich, a kid I'd never heard of before. When his narration begins I was ready to roll my eyes and go to sleep (I'm not sure where he learned his Southern accent, but it was all over the place) but he proved to be exactly the charismatic, likable, and funny lead the movie called for. He came across as sincere, smarmy, spoiled, and special all at the same time--in fact, he reminded me of some of my students. My parents and my wife all agreed that his film was much better than we expected, and was a good--if forgettable--popcorn movie. And that is much more than I was expecting.

Here Comes the Boom
Director: Frank Coraci
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (2012)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Blu-Ray
Grade: B-

Mark this film in the same category as the above-mentioned Beautiful Creatures--a shot in the dark at a non R-rated film that my parents might enjoy. Granted, I have a soft spot for Kevin James, but as a teacher this utterly cheesy movie kind of (dare I say) inspired me. James's unlikely rise in the ranks of the UFC in order to save his school's music program is silly, movie-fantasy stuff in which every problem can be solved and everyone comes together in the end, but the desire to motivate your students, to find passion and strength for your job in the fires you seem them lighting within themselves, really gets me. I know UFC is the new boxing for inspirational sports movies, and this movie can't hold a candle to the much better Warrior, with which it shares a few subplots, but it is enjoyable fare that had me rooting for James despite my initial cynicism. I liked it.

Taps

Director: Harold Becker
Genre: Drama
Source: USA (1981)
Rating: PG
Location/Format: Netflix Streaming
Grade: C+

It's very difficult to imagine this film being made today, when concerns about school violence and disturbed youths seem to be at an all-time high. But I also thought it served as an interesting (though far inferior) counter to typical "inspiring boys school" fare like Dead Poets Society (one of my personal favorites) in which the students seem to take their mentor's words far too literally. When the Valley Forge Military Academy is scheduled to close, and when a terrible accident hastens the school's closing by several months, a group of cadets steal the weapons, take over the campus, and demand that the institution remain open, even as the national guard and the local police try to force them to surrender. The film was very 80s--in both good and bad ways--and was even more fun than I would have otherwise expected thanks to the performances of very young versions of Sean Penn, Tom Cruise, and Timothy Hutton. Tom Cruise in particular was a lot of fun to watch since this film was made before he was Tom Cruise Movie Star and his stature is obvious--in fact, I think the director played up his height, as he seems to be suffering from some "little man's complex" in regards to the stronger figures around him. An interesting film, though not a must-see by any stretch.