I don't think I've ever played a game quite like Heavy Rain before. In a lot of ways it's a series of quicktime events, a basic style of gameplay that often isn't so much of "game" as it is just "pushing buttons." But there is a cool wrinkle in the game: you can fail or mess up tasks and you might change the course of the story by doing so. I read that there are 22 different endings to the game, so in some ways it creates a strange blend of being the actor, director, and writer of a film. You can explore and miss clues. You can harm or improve relationships. You can let characters live or die, all of which changes the course of the game's plot.
Opening with a gut-wrenching prologue wherein our main character watches one of his sons get hit by a car, the game then jumps forward a few years to find the protagonist divorced and living alone, struggling to connect to his other son. At the same time, an FBI agent and a private investigator are trying to determine the identity of the Origami Killer, a serial killer who abducts young boys and then leaves their bodies a few days later, always accompanied by an origami figure. Meanwhile, a reporter finds herself exploring the story from a slightly different angle. Throughout the game, you take on the role of all four characters, trying to determine the identity of the killer (sadly, that does NOT vary from play-through to play-through) and make your way through various obstacles and scenes.
As an example, in one scene you have to investigate a garage/salvage yard for clues about the murderer's car (the FBI agent has special glasses that allow him to scan for clues in a Batman Arkham Asylum-esque fashion), question a suspect, fight off an attacker--the last of which you could fail at, meaning the story would progress without your agent being a part of it anymore. The game's maker encourages people to play through one time without resetting, even though you may lose some characters or make bad choices along the way. That's all part of the experience. I did that, with two exceptions--I reset once when I failed to properly remove my fingerprints from a crime scene, and once when I was confused on what I was supposed to do and ran out of time on a particular task. Still, for the most part I decided to let what happened happen, and I enjoyed it a lot because of it.
The game features some pretty impressive graphics, especially given that it's a few years old, well before the PS3 knew how to get the most out of its hardware. Unfortunately, voice acting is another matter. French accents aside (gamemakers Quantic Dream are based in Paris), the actors simply were not quite as good as the writing and story, which was disappointing. Still, it was a great gaming experience, something very different than I'd done before, and I'm trying to decide if I should go back and replay sections to get alternate endings. I like the emphasis on story here, as the more I age the more story becomes my driving motive in playing games, and Heavy Rain engaged its story well.
Director: Preston SturgesGenre: ComedySource: USA (1942)
Rating: Unrated (Probably PG)
Location/Format: TCM
Grade: A-
A good screwball comedy has the ability to go to absurd places while still getting most of the laughs from snappy dialogue and good chemistry. The Palm Beach Story is a good screwball comedy. Director Preston Sturges starts the film with what feels like a recap of a whole different madcap adventure (in fact, we had to pause and make sure we weren't watching a sequel without knowing it) in a series of shots that are only sort of explained at the film's end. But hey, realism isn't exactly the film's major focus, so why not give that wacky little inclusion a pass.
Claudette Colbert shines as Gerry, the wife of a struggling inventor named Tom, who decides that given their money troubles, her good looks, and her husband's aspirations, the best thing for both of them (despite still being in love) will be for the pair to divorce so that she can remarry a rich man who will invest in Tom's inventions. She heads to Palm Beach to get that divorce, and Tom follows along to stop her. Along the way she uses her charm to make her way onto a train, a boat, and the heart of rich J.D. Hackensacker (and if that sounds a lot like Rockefeller, it's supposed to).
The film really did have a lot of laughs, and I found myself particularly entertained by Toto, the foreign hanger-on of Hackensacker's sister, Princess Centimillia, played with unstoppable pleasure by Mary Astor. Her annoyance with him, and his desperation to be included, were surprisingly entertaining, as were Colbert's various shenanigans, like her run-in with the drunken Ale and Quail club.
The climax and resolution here are pretty silly, but I get the feeling Sturges isn't concerned with the destination, but more with the journey, and frankly the journey is a lot of fun. Definitely a film I'm glad we DVRed.
Director: Kasper Barfoed
Genre: Thriller
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Streaming
Grade: D
Move along, there's nothing to see here.
In an attempt to determine whether I could watch movies on my iPad before going to bed, I stupidly began with this flat and uninspired John Cusack picture. Cusack is awesome, when he has a character that he can give a little personality to. Here, his CIA agent, suddenly struck by a bad case of conscience, decides for no particularly compelling reason that maybe his life of assassinating people is not the healthiest of lifestyles and is reassigned to apparently the black ops equivalent of a desk job. If you want to see a John Cusack movie about a regretful assassin, you should be watching Grosse Point Blank and ignoring this film completely.
Plot holes, unexplained motivations, poor characterization. This movie has nothing to say and, even at 89 minutes, seems to take a long time to say it. I'm assuming this thing went straight to video, and if it didn't, it should have.
Somebody needs to put John Cusack in a good movie again.
Alternate Film Title: "At Least Malin Akerman Is Pretty"
Director: Shawn LevyGenre: ComedySource: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Regal Cinemas
Grade: B
Look, I get that as far as comedies go, This Is the End is probably the cleverer of the two movies, with more innovative jokes and more film pedigree. I get that this movie is basically a giant commercial about how amazing Google is. And I get that Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn are basically doing the same schtick they've been working since about 1997.
But I'll be damned if I didn't really enjoy this movie.
I'm trying to put my finger on why that is. I think it has something to do with my soft spot for Vaughn and Wilson. Like a lot of people, I discovered them in the late 90s with Swingers and Bottle Rocket, and at the time they had on-screen personalities of the type I hadn't really seen before, or at least a type I hadn't noticed. Both of them were (and are) goofy, strange, relying on their words and delivery more than their looks. And when they are allowed to run free, they can create a wall of words that overwhelms you, in a good way. I loved it in '97, and though the more they throw the same punches the less effective they become, they still have the ability to occasionally connect with a solid uppercut that leaves you reeling. Subpar director Shawn Levy knows where the magic is, and so the film feels as though the two stars are kind of given free reign, and it works.
The plot is stupid. Most of the characters are silly and predictable. The ending is assured from the beginning. But when you sit back and let Vaughn's avalanche of words take you away, or when you see the occasional solid cameo (Will Ferrell, I'm looking at you), the movie works. It's a fun time, a good date movie, and an entertaining trip. I don't have a problem with that.
Alternate Film Title: "Google: The Movie"
Director: Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Regal Cinemas
Grade: B-
I really do think Seth Rogen is funny, perhaps a 21st century comic mastermind, and he has the good sense to surround himself with hilarious people. But at a certain point, if you're lifestyle doesn't center fully around weed and partying, then movies all about weed and partying get a little tiresome. This Is the End is funny, yes, but also tiresome, and ultimately I left the theater entertained but unsatisfied.
Rogen and his writing partner, Evan Goldberg, have a lot of fun playing up caricatures of themselves, and I do have to wonder just how close these characters are to the actual individuals for whom they are named. I know Michael Cera, for example, is a complete reversal of his normal personality (at least according to everyone who has interviewed or worked with him ever), but what about Rogen and James Franco? Are they still the goofy dweebs they portray themselves to be--just goofy dweebs with boatloads of money? Is Danny McBride always an ass or does he just play one really well? And just how obsessed is James Franco with himself and with Rogen? All of those questions are mined for some solid comedy. The film also works in a few apocalyptic parodies that made me chuckle (as well as roll my eyes at the childish inclusion of penises)--particularly the Rosemary's Baby tribute, if only because I had just watched that film a few weeks ago.
That reliance on the over-the-top gross out humor has worn a little thin with me, however. Some of the funniest moments in the film take those gross-outs to extremes (the fight between Franco and terrible house guest Danny McBride over a dirty magazine was so filthy that I couldn't not laugh), but Rogen and his crew also seem to think that the mere sight of a penis is still hilarious. I guess it is if you're fifteen, which might be the target audience, but at 34 it starts to get old. It's a little bit lazy, when there are so many more clever moments throughout.
The film has some great twists and some dumb twists, and there was plenty to be entertained by. Perhaps I was just disappointed because so many others have talked about it as though it were the greatest comedy in the last few years, and it is not. The overall "moral of the story" (be nice) is itself pretty lame. But still, there were things to enjoy here, and I enjoyed them. A little self-parody goes along way, and if they miss on a lot of the jokes, these guys at least know how to make fun of themselves.
Alternate Film Title: "Cameos! Cameos for Everyone!"
Director: John CarpenterGenre: HorrorSource: USA (2010)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Streaming
Grade: D
I like a good thriller, but Netflix, why did you recommend this to me?
I swear, sometimes it's like you don't even know me.
Alternate Film Title: "Jared Harris Slumming It"
Alternate Alternate Film Title: "What the Heck Happened to John Carpenter?"
Director: Richard LinklaterGenre: DramaSource: USA (1995)
Rating: R
Location/Format: On Demand
Grade: A
"Film is a visual medium," I always tell my students, but sound has been a tool in the filmmaker's arsenal for nearly as long as the art form has existed, first through musical accompaniment, and then with the addition of sound effects and dialogue. It's easy to find the beauty in Richard Linklater's 1995 romance, with shots of Vienna at dusk, of early morning light shining in empty streets, of Jesse and Celine walking through the streets. But the real beauty of the film comes from the dialogue, from the richness of conversation that these two engage in. It is in the dialogue that the film shines most brightly, and it is the dialogue that makes me excited to see the next two films in the series.
A part of me thinks that if I had seen Before Sunrise when it came out in 1995, I might have ditched college and gone to wander through Europe, trying to meet beautiful strangers and read intelligent literature. Ethan Hawke's Jesse is a lost soul, in a lot of ways, posturing for Celine even while opening himself up as honestly as he can, and I think he represents a search for self and identity that is common to a certain type of young adult male--the type, for example, who would be drawn to this film. He is not proud, exactly, just assured in the way that only twentysomething men can be. He sees the romance and the mystery in life as clearly as he seems to see the faults of an older generation, of spurned loves, of himself. His journey seems to be geared towards a greater and more honest sense of himself. Celine challenges him even as she reveals herself to be as complex, as rich, and as interesting as he is, and I wonder if there's a part of Jesse that is surprised by the revelation that others have as much as depth as he himself feels. Julie Delpy really is perfect here, sexy without being overt, enigmatic while still being open, vibrant while still seeming real. Their connection feels real, feels sweet, feels hopeful, feels right.
Somehow it's that connection to another person--not just on a physical but on a spiritual level--that the film captures so well. Their conversations sometimes make me feel that my own are flat and uninspired, but at the same time they remind me that those connections are there to be had if we allow them to blossom. I wonder if that same connection would be as easy to find today when we are all so caught up in social media, in technology, in documenting and digesting our lives in bite-size pictures, tweets, and posts and missing out on the deeper possibilities of dialogue, of conversation, of discovering the worlds within someone else.
The film ends on such a strong note, that I wonder about the nine years in between this movie and its sequel. What happened to Jesse and Celine? Did they meet up? Did they lose touch after this one perfect night? What will bring them together again? Can you sustain that spark of life nine years later?
I can't wait to find out. In the meantime I want to relive these conversations, and rediscover a little more about myself in the process.
Director: Fritz LangGenre: Sci-FiSource: Germany (1927)
Rating: Unrated (Probably G)
Location/Format: Blu-ray
Grade: A-
I can't say that I loved Metropolis as much as I hoped to, but I will say that I can see why it's had such an impact. Fritz Lang is a visual master, and the world he creates in this film is clearly a grandfather of later films--shots and moments and elements here would go on to be the impetus for films from Star Wars to Blade Runner to Modern Times to Vertigo and beyond. The art deco city of Metropolis, even when obviously matte painted, is iconic and monumental, and I can see why film lovers worldwide have looked to this film for inspiration. And Lang even uses the camera itself in creative ways, employing sudden zooms that shock and even, at one point, a first person perspective that is surprisingly effective. Here--perhaps even more than in M, which I enjoyed more overall--his creativity and innovation are on full display. He truly was a groundbreaking filmmaker.
While the scale and much-ballyhooed elements that have gone on to be homaged again and again remain impressive, I was perhaps more surprised by the scenes and images that I am not as familiar with. Lang uses bodies as effectively as he uses scenery, and throughout the film surging crowds--some surging in anger, some in lust, some in desperation--blend into a pulsating whole, amoeba-like in its movement. When Maria and Freder attempt to save the children from the destruction of the underground city, for example, they move to the exits in through a sea of clutching and waving arms that almost seem disembodied from their owners, a grasping symbol of need that is as effective as any of Maria's preaching. Similarly, the rioting workers, broken free of the mechanical ranks in which they first appeared, become an unstoppable mob that surges over walls and barriers like a wave. It is as effective in its apparent madness and lack of order as earlier scenes are in their use of choreography.
Lang also makes clever use of artwork brought to horrifying life, both in the dance of the whore of Babylon and in the animation of the statue of Death itself. As the figure begins to move and wave its scythe, I was genuinely creeped out by the imagery. I didn't really expect that.
Storywise, the film was a mixed bag. While the class warfare angle was interesting, it didn't really pan out as clearly as I hoped, as some of the character's motivations (particularly Joh Fredersen) seemed unclear. There was one line about why he wanted the workers to riot, but it seemed somewhat contradictory to earlier and later statements. And the film's driving sentiment--the need for a heart to mediate between head and hands--ultimately comes off as something of an ode to middle management rather than the revolutionary manifesto it seemed to want to be. The biblical allusions and allegories felt muddled--though that could be changed on a second viewing--and the romance between Freder and Maria seemed far too generic given the innovative nature of the rest of the film.
Still, it's hard to argue against the ways this film has gone on to inspire and affect other filmmakers, and there was so much going on here--so many ideas packed into the film's two and a half hours--that my critiques seem a little petty. My enjoyment of the film aside, Metropolis clearly is a film that matters and that can help fill in a big piece of the puzzle of film history for those interested in that kind of thing. And if you're not--well, there's still a lot of great stuff to look at, and that's not bad. After all, film is a visual medium.
Alternate Film Title: "Robo-Maria's Awesomely Weird Dance Moves"
Director: David Palmer, Dax Shepherd
Genre: ComedySource: USA (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Streaming
Grade: C
This film is clearly Dax Shepherd's baby, and while I can't fault a guy for wanting to make a film that highlights his sense of humor (occassional), his interests (cars), and his girlfriend (Kristen Bell), at times it feels a little too self-indulgent and self-satisfied. I'm not sure if I actually like his character of Charlie Bronson/Yul Perkins (two terrible names, which the movie at least acknowledges) or just have good will built towards him because of my fondness for Kristen Bell. Either way, I liked him/them enough to keep watching for a while, but eventually his inconsistent character and her deliberate naivety got a little bit old.
I mean really, your boyfriend tells you he's in witness protection and you just assume he witnessed something? No thought that he might have actually been involved in something? Do you not understand how witness protection works? And how, given the accomplishments that everyone talks about so much, is her character so seemingly clueless in so many areas?
:
Tom Arnold and Bradley Cooper both actually kind of made me laugh a few times, so that's saying something, but overall this movie was more hit and miss than just hit. And that is a terrible pun.
Alternate Film Title: "I Don't Think You Understand How Witness Protection Is Supposed to Work"
Director: Francois GirardGenre: DramaSource: Canada (1998)
Rating: R
Location/Format: DVD
Grade: C
Though there are interesting ideas to be found here, the multiple narratives of The Red Violin in some ways compete against themselves. Certainly viewers will be drawn to some narratives over others (I was particularly fond of the Pussin/Kaspar story), and lost interest in the violin and its meaning in some of the other stories (I admit I fell asleep briefly during the China scene). I understand that there are some bigger themes being explored here regarding fate and destiny, choice and accountability, etc. but the movie didn't compel me enough to get drawn into them, and if the revelation of the Red Violin's origins were meant to be a surprise at the end . . . well, they weren't.
The idea of tracing the history and importance of an object--and how it gains historic, emotional, personal significance--is interesting, but the final scenes of the film undercut that for me. I've seen a lot of debate online about what Samuel L. Jackson's actions at the end might mean, but I'm not sure I care enough to get enmeshed in them.
Alternate Film Title: "Samuel L. Jackson Loves Auctions"
Director: Zach SnyderGenre: ActionSource: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: B-
Major Spoilers Ahead!
Here's the thing: Superman is not Batman. I'm not opposed to making a Superman film more adult and less candy-colored fun than the classic Christopher Reeve films (and I will admit to being in the minority who thought Bryan Singer's Superman Returns from 2006 was actually a whole lot of fun and had some interesting things to say about the Superman mythology), however Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan have instead created a film that is not overly dark and brooding but also forgets that Superman is in part built on fantasy and fun. There's a lot of action in this film, a lot of destruction, a lot of effects and adventure, but there's not a lot of joy to be had, and the film ultimately felt hard to connect to. Superman would have been a great character to push toward the Iron Man/Avengers route; instead they went with The Dark Knight, and I don't think it fully works. As many other critics have noted, for example, Superman is so wrapped up in his own story he doesn't seem to spend much time trying to save Metropolis--instead he uses it as a battleground. It's super, and it's large scale, but it's kind of cold as well.
That's not to say there aren't a lot of great elements here. Henry Clavill (though at times very wooden with dialogue) has a great look for Superman, and Michael Shannon was excellent as Zod. Then again, it's Michael Shannon, so what else would you expect. Costner is a solid Jonathan Kent, and while they play up his role in teaching Clark, I think they drop the ball on showing him bonding with the young Kal-el. He is always in "lesson/nagging" mode, and though we understand that comes from a place of love and concern, they could have included a few more scenes of him actually being loving and Dad-like. Amy Adams is a respectable Lois Lane, and all sorts of people pop up in cameos (including A.I./ghost/all-knowing Russell Crowe) but the film seems to be in a hurry to get through so much plot, I don't feel like we really know anyone, and that includes Clark/Kal-El/Superman. They play up his alien and outsider status a lot, but they don't really show why he loves/should love humanity. His arc is overly-simplified in that it's not really an arc. It's a path: step A and then step B. He's mopey and confused, and then he's heroic. Also he has a magic key.
Which brings me to a bigger problem: goofy plot holes galore. I really don't think the story line will stand up well in time. First, massive space opera aside (and we spend a lot of time getting to know Kryptonian politics, etc.), how does A.I. Jor-El know so dang much about Clark's time growing up and human society, etc? It's like you plug in your Jor-El USB stick and suddenly it knows what you've been doing for the last 33 years. And really? All purpose USB sticks--store your holographic dead father, magically pilot any vehicle, save to the cloud? And why did the colonizing ship sent thousands of years before Kal-El landed on Earth have a Superman suit ready and waiting inside of it? Also, why is Superman's suit red and blue when EVERY OTHER KRYPTONIAN wears black? Also, why does he bother wearing the suit at all? He just has an imbedded Kryptonian fashion sense? Why does Zod need Kal-El at all? If the DNA of all of Krypton is in his cells, and they already have a blood sample, can't they just do their Krypton recreating thing already? Why do they need to kill Kal-El to make it happen?
The more I think about it, the goofier this movie is. Even if I think playing up the alien side of Superman in the first Superman movie in an anticipated series is a bad idea, at least do it better than this.
And let me just say this: Bryan Singer got a lot of crap for playing up the Superman = Jesus angle to heavy handed-ly, what with the cross pose, the kryptonite hand piercing, the Superman hearing prayers (basically) and so on and so forth. But Zach Snyder gives us the cross pose again, he emphasizes Kal-El's 33 years (Christ figure alert!) and he gives Kal-El a speech where he decides whether or not to save humanity while standing in front of a stained glass window of Jesus. Do I need to repeat that? Half the screen is Kal-El, half the screen is Jesus! At least Singer made you work for it a little bit.
There's plenty to like here--Snyder does good spectacle, and he creates some great imagery, and the final battle with Zod really did feel "super" to me. But this film is so focused on getting through its dense plot and on action and destruction that it forgets the number one thing that makes Superman such a great hero: heart. He sees the best in people, and he acts toward them accordingly. This Superman is so lost in himself that he forgets to really think about others. And that's unfortunate.
In some ways, this would be a better second Superman movie than a first. As a franchise reboot, it's not all I hoped it would be. Still, Michael Shannon. Put that guy in more movies.
Alternate Film Title: "Obligatory Gritty Superman Reboot"
Director: Stephen ChowGenre: ComedySource: Hong Kong (2001)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Streaming
Grade: B
Well this was unexpected fun. One part Looney Tunes cartoon, one part Hong Kong action movie, one part underdog sports story. The three disparate portions go together surprisingly well, and if the outcome was never really in question, the film created a lot of genuinely entertaining moments getting there. I actually laughed out loud a couple of times, and even when I wasn't laughing I was smirking knowingly at the kung-fu movie references (nice Bruce Lee suit, goalie), the goofy jokes, and Stephen Chow's face. Just a generally enjoyable experience.
I have to admit I was also pleasantly surprised by the quality of the CG. While it was definitely cartoonish (by design) and dated (by technical advances), it looked better than I expected it to, particularly when the focus was just on a little soccer ball doing ridiculous things. Granted, I was watching this on an iPad screen at the gym, so it might not stand up as well on a full sized television, but this was still pretty good looking. I can imagine showing this to my ten year old son (if I had a ten year old son) just to do a little movie bonding once he had grown tired of Kung Fu Panda.
One note: apparently there are multiple versions of this film. I'm guessing the version on Netflix is the more heavily edited US version, though I'm not sure. I would like to find the longer version just to compare. And also because I would enjoy sitting through this once more a few months or years down the line.
Alternate Film Title: "Live Action Roadrunner"
Director: Terrence MalickGenre: DramaSource: USA (1973)
Rating: PG
Location/Format: Blu-ray
Grade: A-
Backlog Marathon Lesson 1: Terrence Malick
In a beautiful convergence of events, I decided a) that this summer I wanted to do a Filmspotting-style back catalog marathon of an "essential" director who I don't know enough about, taking in their filmography in chronological order, and b) I decided I wanted to buy some Criterion Collection films which had recently dropped in price on Amazon. My initial thought for a) was to do Stanley Kubrick, but with 13 full-length films in his filmography, it seemed a little daunting for a director I'd had mixed reactions to so far. Enter Terrence Malick, auteur behind only six films in 40 years--though he seems to have entered a sudden busy period, with five films currently set to release between 2011 and 2014. Since his first three films are already on Criterion, it seemed a fitting match for a summer endeavor.
Badlands is actually my third Malick film. I watched The New World several years ago and was impressed by its beauty but distracted by its meandering narrative (I had no knowledge of Malick as a filmmaker at the time). Tree of Life stunned me when I saw it in the theater. It might be the best movie I've ever seen. I'm looking forward to revisiting it with my wife, who has not seen it. She joined me for Badlands and immediately fell in love with the director's style and imagery.
It's incredible to me that Badlands is a first film. Watching the supplementary materials on the blu-ray it was fascinating to see old and young pros talk about his methodology as a director, the visual canvas which he sees, as well as the process of discovering a film through editing, voiceover, re-editing, and so forth. He is not just a filmmaker, but an artist, and that artistry comes through in every frame.
It is no secret that this first feature is Malick's most straightforward film, but that is not a knock against it. I see him delving into themes that have a rich and meaningful history in art and literature: identity, love and desire, morality. At the same time this is a very American story. Kit (a hypnotic and crackling Martin Sheen) spends the film trying on personalities as easily as he does hats, trying to figure out what role he will play, how he will be somebody important, even as he is leaving a wake of destruction behind him. I'm not sure he sees himself as a killer, though he does describe himself that way. Instead I wonder if he doesn't see himself as a Romantic figure--misjudged, misunderstood, with greatness within that the rest of the world isn't recognizing. He is in some ways obsessed with things--the rock he takes to mark the first time he and Holly sleep together, the hat and jacket from the rich man's house, the many belongings that decorate the treehouse--even as he finds himself in settings more and more desolate, more and more removed from society and civilization. He drives aimlessly through the desert, aiming towards a mountain, but in reality he never gets close, and he has lost sight of the road altogether. Sheen, seriously. Is that guy underrated or what?
Holly's role in the journey is in some ways more amorphous, and I think that's fitting. Is she ok with Kit's actions? Does she justify them because she loves him? Because she's too young to understand their weight? She, more than the older Kit, is caught between childhood and adulthood, and Malick seems to frame her in both worlds easily. When they burn down her house, we see the objects of her childhood melting away, and yet where do they go? To a treehouse, a symbol of youth and play. Is that because she is naive or because she is unwilling to face the consequences of Kit's actions? Malick doesn't provide us with easy answers, but he allows us to see both sides of her personality. And I should add that Spacek, like Sheen, gives a really natural and compelling performance.
Badlands is also pretty stunning from a visual perspective as well. That seems to be a consistent quality in Malick's works: the power and beauty of the image. Whether shots of the treehouse, or Kit standing in the magic hour light, or a bed surrounded by flame, Malick (who had three cinematographers) has an incredible eye for beauty. The images are iconic even without the audio that heightens them; it's one reason I was happy to buy his films: I know I'll want to watch them again. I feel like there's a lot more I can and should say about this, but I want to keep thinking about it.
These are rambling thoughts, I guess, but Malick seems ok with free association and stream of consciousness. Days of Heaven arrives next week, and I cannot wait! I know it's a film renowned for its cinematography, and I'm excited to see where the director goes next.
Director: Mike Lerner, Maxim PozdorovkinGenre: DocumentarySource: Russia? (2013)
Rating: NR (probably R)
Location/Format: HBO
Grade: C+
I remember when the theatrically named Pussy Riot case was all over the news last year, but I never really followed it very closely. Some on Reddit and other sites praised them, some criticized them as little girls playing dress up. Some laughed, some venerated. But I was glad HBO films picked up this documentary to allow a little more exploration of what the group (are they a band? An art collective? A political action group? A feminist campaign? Anarchists?) is all about. Though I would have appreciated a little more exploration of the impact of their activities (after the trial and imprisonment, I mean), I feel as though Lerner and Pozdorovkin do a pretty competent job sitting back and letting the major actors speak for themselves.
Musical and artistic quality aside, I think the documentary touches on (though not as fully as it could have) an issue that affects both Russia and the US, though in different ways: the connection between church and state, and how to manage it. In the US, of course, separation of church and state is built into the constitution--there can be no national religion. On the other hand, Christianity is clearly the dominant religion in our culture, and in its name plenty of things--both terrible and wonderful--happen in society today. However much culture warriors may antagonize non-Christians, we do have a fundamental freedom of religion that protects free speech and freedom of belief in a variety of meaningful ways. Whether the freedoms of believers, non-believers, and non-Christian believers can be authentically protected at the same time continues to be a challenge, but with luck it is an issue that the nation will continue to debate and value.
Russia's history is not so straightforward. Religion was outlawed in the early days of the Communist takeover, and so as a religious believer I sympathize with those believers who had to hide their faith underground for seventy years, and who are perhaps justifiably angry and Pussy Riot's disrespectful cathedral-storming performance. On the other hand, the punishment with which the band's acts are met (a misdemeanor at most, according to one lawyer) does indicate a relationship between church and state that could sway too far the other direction and lean toward the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. My knowledge of Russian law, politics, and religion is too murky to fully grasp the indications (such as Putin's connections to the Orthodox church, for example) and the documentary doesn't really make them clear.
What it does draw is a portrait of political protesters who seem to have some basis for their concerns and who may be the beginning of a movement towards further freedom or further oppression in Russia. This case really does say something about the current state of Russian political culture . . . I just wish it was a little more clear about what that is.
Alternate Film Title: "Now I Know What a Balaclava Is"
Director: Todd Phillips
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: D
This is a movie that seriously overestimates my fondness for Alan and Chow.
The first Hangover movie was funny--often very much so. The second Hangover movie was a carbon copy of the first in all but setting, trying to hide the exact same storyline and beats by adding a monkey. It didn't work, and it was bad. Probably the worst of the three, mostly because it was ripping itself off so blatantly.
This third (and hopefully final) installment of the franchise tries to go too hard in the opposite direction. Despite the title (and note the poster plays up the Part III, not the actual title of the movie), there is no hangover here, or bad behavior of any type. Rather, the three find themselves trying to hold off a crimelord who has kidnapped Doug. For me a lot of the fun of the first film came from watching them realize how out of control they got when faced with the consequences of their own bad choices. They weren't really likable guys, but at least Ed Helms' Stu was enough of an everyman character that we could be both entertained and horrified by the shenanigans they got themselves into. Here Stu and an apparently suddenly ego-less Phil (Bradley Cooper's unapologetically douchey personality was a key element of the previous films' dynamic) are sidelined so that the off-putting, unrelatable, and generally cartoonish Alan and Chow can take more prominent roles.
It doesn't work. They move from being an absurd element to an otherwise entertaining story to becoming the whole story, and I got bored. The addition of typically reliable champs Melissa McCarthy and John Goodman still isn't enough to keep this sinking franchise afloat.
At the end of the film (and I suppose this is spoiler territory) we're given a tease that shenanigans will continue to ensue, but frankly I don't care if we see them or not. The magic of the first film has now been unrepeatable two films in a row, and I'd rather see all of these comedians move on to something new.
Hey, at least it was free. This MoviePass thing might have been a good investment after all.
Alternate Film Title: "Zach Galifanakis--Better in Small Doses"
Director: Seth GordonGenre: ComedySource: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Blu-ray
Grade: C
Sometimes, even when you get a lot of really funny people together, not very much funny happens. Such is the case with Identity Thief, a middling comedy from actors and a director who should be much funnier. Gordon, whose The King of Kong is always a favorite when I teach documentary in my film class, has had a middling career as a feature director, with both this film and his previous pairing with Bateman, Horrible Bosses, surviving on moments of comedy but otherwise being predictable and oddly flat. Character arc here does nothing surprising, with (spoilers!) both characters learning lessons, growing to like each other, and bonding in the end. It's a typical road movie, a typical odd couple movie, a typical R-rated comedy.
And it's about thirty minutes too long. Honestly, did we really need two sets of people after McCarthy's character (whose name I forget and don't feel like bothering to look up)? And why were they after her again? And is this really a likely scenario--driving cross country with a felon so you can get your job back?
I know, I know, it's a movie, and I didn't hate it. I just wasn't bowled over either. McCarthy is annoying, but not always funny. Bateman is the straight man, but comes off as dull. Neither of them are given as much to do as they should have been, and though a few cameos brighten things up (Eric Stonestreet--or Cam from Modern Family--I will never look at you quite the same again!), but overall it was just a little too flat for me. Perhaps my disappointment is not that it was worse than most comedies (Hangover III review coming soon!), it was just not as funny as it could have been.
Alternate Film Title: "Criminals Are Just Misunderstood!"
We live in a strange world. Celebrity has grown from a byproduct of accomplishment to an end in and of itself, and the upshot of it is a culture that is increasingly obsessed with itself and with its own image. We create viral superstars--cats with angry faces, news bystanders with catchy phrasing, children caught on tape being children--and then we discard them without a thought. We obsessively follow traditional celebrities--to confirm that they're just like us, that we could be living their lives if the cards had been dealt slightly differently--and then we revel in their failures, their flaws, their shortcomings.
Teddy Wayne's The Love Song of Jonny Valentine chronicles a piece of this modern world, as well as in the additional burdens placed on child stars, by following eleven-year-old superstar Jonny Valentine on his second cross-country tour. As Jonny deals with the re-emergence of his disappeared father, the challenges of puberty, and an increasingly slew of bad publicity, he also must rise the challenge of performing in sold-out arenas across the country. Wayne shines a satirical light on the trappings of celebrity--the hangers on who may or may not be true friends, the obsession with body image and media savvy attention to detail, the stereotypical manager/mom parental nightmare--but he also has a lot of sympathy for Jonny, who does not seem to realize when his parroting of the tabloid culture he lives in sounds more pathetic than knowing. He is, as the title indicates, a boy searching to be loved, and to define what exactly that means.
At times Wayne is overly obvious with his metaphors: Jonny's obsession with whether or not he is officially in puberty (and he models plenty of bad teenage behavior as the book goes on) is about as direct an acknowledgment as you could expect of the way he is trapped between the worlds of childhood and adulthood. His attempts at beating his favorite video game and his tutor's subject of choice (slavery) also have clear ties to Wayne's somewhat obvious sentiment that this sort of lifestyle may ultimately be extremely unhealthy for a child, tween, teen, or young adult--even the strongest of them. Subtlety is not his strong point in addressing this theme, but he does ultimately draw an interesting character in Jonny. While the young star idolizes the rare star that does seem to emerge unscathed (Tyler Beats, as obvious a Justin Timberlake stand in as Jonny for Justin Bieber), Jonny's future is no where near as certain, as increasing revelations about his own behavior and that of his mother and father threaten to drag him down. Yet as silly, spoiled, and naive as Jonny was, I did still find myself rooting for and sympathizing with him. And as I am as quick as most to roll my eyes at the endless line of child-stars who seem to go off the deep end (Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, etc. etc. etc.) but Wayne reminds us with empathy that perhaps escaping such a fate is the exception rather than the rule and that children are after all children, and to expect them to grow up in such a crucible and come through unsinged is just not realistic. There is a cost for our entertainment, and it is paid with the souls of the entertainers.
It reminds me of the opening lines of The Great Gatsby--another, much better novel exploring the damage and the contorting impact that money and success can have. As Nick remembers his father's advice:
In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since. “Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”
I'd always assumed those lines were about the ways Nick judges people less successful than himself and his own moneyed family. But perhaps they're a reminder to be careful in how we judge Gatsby, Daisy, and even Tom. Money, success, and (today) fame may bring temporal satisfaction, but we cannot forget the price they charge as well. Being normal--like Nick, like Jonny's audience, like me--has its advantages.
Grade: B-
Director: Gene SaksGenre: ComedySource: USA (1968)
Rating: G
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Streaming
Grade: C+
It's clear that The Odd Couple is from an era in which America is in transition. On a superficial level it's all very clean-cut and wholesome, centering around a plutonic male relationship that focuses on the mundane: poker night, housekeeping, finding romantic interests. On the other hand there is a subversive element to the film that could reflect the counterculture bubbling beneath the surface all over the country: gender roles being subverted, the nuclear American family being undercut (both Felix and Unger are fresh from divorce), an implicit need to cut loose and let go. That subversion doesn't go far enough, however, and it keeps the story in territory a little more stale than I would have hoped. Felix may need to lighten up, but Oscar also needs to settle down, and the film ends up coming across a little more like lukewarm tea than I would have hoped.
Of course, there's still plenty to enjoy here. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau (who always looks like an old man, and is pushing 50 here) are a fine comedic duo, and they play off each other perfectly. There's a reason the phrase "odd couple" has become such common shorthand for a mismatched pair that works, and there's a reason people still wanted to see the two together thirty years later. It's not their strongest work--Jack Lemmon has yet to top The Apartment or Some Like It Hot for me, and Matthau's more dramatic (and imposing) turns in Charade or The Taking of Pelham 123 grab me a little more than his curmudgeon--but it's still plenty entertaining. Though I wish we could have seen more of the transition from Oscar's pig sty to the perfectly maintained apartment it becomes, there is enough to keep the story moving. Neil Simon's script remains entertaining ("It took me three hours to figure out "F.U." was Felix Unger!"), and the film does offer a few unexpected moments. I was not expecting it to open, for example, with a long scene of Felix contemplating suicide, but the black comedy works well and sets up a really funny scene at the poker table as his buddies all worry about how to handle his depression. It's a little saccharine, perhaps, but I can see it straining against more traditional film conservatism, and it has the desired impact.
I wish I could say the same for the ending. The movie builds to a strong climactic argument between the two men, and then it just sort of seems to resolve itself. I'm not sure whether it was giving us an implied assurance that whatever schisms exist in society we ultimately need and want each other, or if it just lost steam. What it felt like was that there was a scene missing, and so the film as a whole left me with a bit of disappointment.
Either way, there were still several laughs to be had, and though it didn't hit all cylinders for me, I can see why it became so popular. Definitely one I would show a younger set to show them older movies can still be quite entertaining.
Alternate Film Title: "Homophobic or Subverting Homophobia?"
Director: David AyerGenre: DramaSource: USA (2012)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Streaming
Grade: A-
I can't call this film underrated, because I recall it actually got a pretty positive release. But I was not prepared for this movie walking in. I'm not sure what I was expecting, exactly--a traditional cop story, where a good street cop discovers there's more corruption going on in the department than he originally thought, perhaps--but I was hugely wrapped in what I got.
The film does follow a good street cop--two of them really, played by Jake Gyllenhaal (as Brian Taylor) and Michael Pena (as Mike Zavala), and it is definitely thanks to them that the movie really works. If the film is about anything other than the trials of being a police officer, it is about their friendship and partnership, and because there is no driving plot (more on that in a moment) Gyllenhaal and Pena are given opportunities to simply interact and play off one another. Their friendship seems real, their partnership feels authentic, and so when they tease one another, or protect one another, or fear for one another, the stakes feel real. The two characters have extremely likable personalities (I was surprised that a few times during the movie I actually laughed out loud), and as the film goes on our desire for them to succeed and our fear for them both grow accordingly.
As I mentioned, I was expecting a typical cop story, and though this hits most of the traditional cop notes, it also feels like a truer attempt at portraying the life of the street officer. Zavala and Taylor find themselves in the middle of big cases--human trafficking, a torture and execution drug-related crime scene--and yet they don't deal with the cases after those initial encounters. They hand it over to higher ranking officers, fill out paperwork, and then head back out on patrol. In the meantime we get pieces of their personal lives as well--a growing relationship with a girl for Taylor, a growing family for Zavala--but those are also given to us in pieces, the background to the hours the two men spend riding the streets of South Central Los Angeles together. We see moments of heroism and moments (though definitely fewer moments) of questionable behavior. We see cops who are washed up, and we see cops who have climbed the ladder successfully. In all the world the two inhabit feels full, and it feels like we only see a slice of it, but what we see in that slice tells us all we need to know.
My only knock against this film is the pseudo-documentary style used haphazardly throughout. The film offers the conceit that Taylor, who is apparently attending college, is taking a filmmaking class as an art credit and has decided to film his life as a cop. He has a variety of cameras, and so do other groups we see--black and Mexican gangbangers, ICE agents, etc. While the conceit allows for some great footage and unique camera angles (a camera apparently attached to the end of a shotgun, for example, facing back at the holder, is one such shot that stood out to me), it also feels very contrived and haphazard. At times the filmmakers go to great lengths to show characters filming each other and holding cameras. At other times they include large numbers of shots that are clearly not from any of the established cameras, which leads me to ask what the real point is of the choice? I guess it's what I alluded to before--an attempt to show a more realistic slice of life as a police officer. I just think they could have handled it a little more suavely.
But that's just a small knock. Overall this was smart, engaging, and intense filmmaking, and it stands out as one of my favorites seen this year. Easy to recommend.
Alternate Film Title: "So Many F-Words"
I don't think I've ever played a game quite like Heavy Rain before. In a lot of ways it's a series of quicktime events, a basic style of gameplay that often isn't so much of "game" as it is just "pushing buttons." But there is a cool wrinkle in the game: you can fail or mess up tasks and you might change the course of the story by doing so. I read that there are 22 different endings to the game, so in some ways it creates a strange blend of being the actor, director, and writer of a film. You can explore and miss clues. You can harm or improve relationships. You can let characters live or die, all of which changes the course of the game's plot.
