Space, man... Space...

First off, I'm just going to say this - I don't have a frickin' CLUE how they shot this without actually being in space. Alfonso Cuaron is a great filmmaker, but with this, he either sold his soul to the devil, or he is a magician. The effects are AMAZING. AMAZING. I even paid $17.00 to see it in 3D on an IMAX screen, and I won't do that for, well, anything. For all the hoopla surrounding the effects, this is a well-made, emotional film. You probably know the story by now. Sandy B. playing an astronaut stranded in space, trying to get home. Georgie C. plays the veteran astronaut helping her out (By the way, there has never been an actor better suited to playing a veteran astronaut than George Clooney.). Chaos ensues. Crap happens. But one of Cuaron's great gifts is that he always remembers that, no matter what bells and whistles he wants to throw into a picture, the characters and the story always come first. Inbetween the chaos and the danger, there are small moments of silence and peace that really put the story together. Bullock's character has built-in baggage that gives her story an emotional heft beyond just wanting to see her live. She and Clooney have an easy chemistry that gives the story some humor and flavor. And no matter what you think of Sandra Bullock as an actress (I happen to think she's da bomb, FYI), any expectation you have will be shattered by her performance in this. It's by far the finest work of her career. Clooney's quite great, as he most always is. I'm hoping that, because this is coming out relatively early for awards season, it won't be overlooked by whatever overblown 3 and a half hour movie ends up getting all the nominations. It should get noms across the board, from sound to acting to directing. I really can't recommend it enough.

I wanna goooooooo...

I'll just get this out of the way first - Austenland is not a very well made movie. It's structured poorly and written badly. And that hack who wrote Twilight produced it. Really, there's nothing for anyone except Jane Austen freaks and chicks who like guys with British accents. Luckily, I fall into both those categories. Lucky you! Mostly, this movie is a romcom and a love story to Jane Austen fans. Jane (yes, that's the lead character's name) is an Austen addict who bankrupts herself to go to a gaudy Austen theme park in England, and she embraces it at first until she realizes that she can't really tell what's real and what's being acted out. Really, that's it. It's based on a cute book, though. Read the book! Keri Russell (Felicity, bitches!) does a cute, ditzy turn as Jane, and she has a meet-cute with Bret Mackenzie (of Flight of the Conchords and the coolest Muppet songs ever written - he won an Oscar last year!), and a meet-Darcy with JJ Feilds (whom I recognized from his preformance on a Northanger Abbey rendition made a few years back - I need help). The traditional love triangle ensures, but I say Bret wins just by charm alone. Jennifer Coolidge gets to ham it up as the resident comic relief, and James Callis (of Battlestar Galactica fame)is a hoot as one of the actors. (Even though, yes, the character's gay, movie writer. No need to shove it down our throats.) The actors make the movie what it is. Anyhoo, it's all over the place. I can't wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone, but it's funny and cute and has a great joke revolving around Nelly's "Hot in Heeere" song. Enough said.

Abra Cadabr....oh, who gives a crap?

So, finally saw "Now You See Me" (or is it Us?  Eh, who cares?) on video, and while I found the movie to be at times entertaining, mostly it was just utter crap.  But, being the supposed academic I would like to be, I did find myself asking many questions when the film was completed.  Among them are:

1.  Is Jesse Eisenberg just a really good actor who gets constantly typecast as the arrogant assmunch, or is he just a gigantic d-bag in real life and can't act worth a crap?  I found myself hating Facebook after watching him in "Social Network" (Yes, I know, I put the link to this on FB.  Shut up.)  And now I kind of hate magicians because he played one.  Gallagher must be very disappointed.

(By the way, did you know he played the main love interest in one of Woody Allen's movies in the last few years?  Who made THAT wise casting decision?  That's like making, well, Woody Allen a love interest.  Sorry Woody, that pedophilic train left the station a loooooong time ago.  But I digress.)

2.  Did Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine need to pay off bookies, so they had to take this film?  Their roles are negligible, especially Caine's, and I can't imagine either one of them read the script and thought, "I gotta have me some of that!"  Mr. Caine, I've seen pictures of your beautiful wife.  GO HOME, and leave this nonsense to lesser actors.

3.  Mark Ruffalo is a great actor, and I mostly wanted to see this film because of him.  This man played The Hulk onscreen, and yet this is the movie where he decides to overact his face off.  I would have thought that playing a giant green monster would have brought out the jazz hands onscreen, and yet he's surprisingly subtle in The Avengers.  With this movie, he's doing everything but swinging from the rafters.  I guess my question is: Mark, what gives, man?

4.  You know how you saw adds for this movie and how it looked like Woody Harrelson et al were the stars of it?  Au contraire, mon frere.  Their roles are almost non-existent, and their characters are written so paper-thin, you could shine a light through them.  So what does it say about a movie when the marketing for it is better than the actual film?

5.  And last, while I realize movies are just...movies, not real life, WHO COMES UP WITH A PLOT LIKE THIS????  No one in their right mind could formulate a plan this elaborate.  Look, I know that I'm trying to assign reason to a medium where Supermen fly, vampires sparkle, and Kristen Stewart could be paid a fortune to be onscreen, but come ON, people!  I like my stories twisty, not spine-crackingly stupid.

In short, it's fine.  Just don't go into it thinking you're going to get any more out of it other than the occasional good moment and two hours worth of MST3K jokes out of it, and you'll be, well, not satisfied, but at least...  Eh, I don't know what you'll be. 

"We are the true love gods."

I have a serious, serious jones for Joss Whedon.  I also find Shakespeare pretty darn awesome, too.  So when I found out Whedon was adapting "Much Ado About Nothing" as a movie, I pretty much did a major happy dance.  And while it's taken a while for it to show up in my town (twelve thousand showings of Fast and Furious instead, BTW), I'm happy to say it was well worth it.

Let's face it, Shakespeare can be kind of difficult to interpret at times.  He was a chatty fellow, and could have done with a hobby, in my humble opinion.  So the language of his plays can be hard to follow, but credit Whedon for staging the movie in a way that helps to keep up with the action while not sacrificing the words.  The movie's intimate, as it takes place over what would seem to be no more than a week in one house (Whedon's house, actually, and I want it).  While the language is kept intact, everything else, from the costumes to the setting to the gadgets, is modern-day, which helps keep it fresh, which with this play is pretty important as it has a lot of absurdity to it.  They fake a girl's death to shame her would-be husband, for goodness' sakes.

(Speaking of which, what is it with the friars and their obsession with fake death in Shakespeare's plays?  Romeo and Juliet's friar comes up with the oh-so-bright idea to fake Juliet's death to get her out of marrying Paris.  Good call, padre.  And the friar in this one also comes up with the idea of Hero's death.  Yeah, Claudio was an idiot and treated her wrong, but jeez, talk about tough love.  Anyhoo...)

Whedon's always been good and finding the fine line between dramatic and absurd, and that continues in this.  There's lots of physical humor and visual gags that really help the story move along.  He also does a great job in incorporating the setting for maximum effect, whether it's humor, romance, or darama.

The cast includes many members of the Whedonverse, and they don't disappoint.  Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof bring the same chemistry they brought to "Angel" for Beatrice and Benedick, and the language just trips off their tongues.  Everyone else is also great, especially Clark Gregg and Reed Diamond.  But it's Nathan Fillion and Tom Lenk, in pretty small roles, that steal their scenes.  They have the idiotic thing down, and it's pretty wonderful to watch.

All in all, this was a great little film done with love, and a great palate cleanser for the bloat of the usual summer-film fare.

 

You are getting sleeeeeeeeppppyyyyyyy...

So, this is what you need to know going into this movie, Trance.  James McAvoy is in it.  Oh wait, that's not it.  Well, he IS in it, but that doesn't help the few of you who do not lust after him.  Anyway, James (X-Men First Class, Wanted, Becoming Jane, my dreams) plays an auctioneer in an art house who gets caught up in the theft of a Goya painting that a nasty man, played by Vincent Cassel, tries to pull off, and has to employ the services of a hypnotist, played by Rosario Dawson.  That's all I'm telling you, because to tell you any more would give away the film. 

Actually, now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't give anything away.  This is one of those films where you need a score card to keep up.  Think Usual Suspects on acid.  Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, Trainspotting, 127 Hours) directs it, and he brings his usual style and feeling to the film.  The colors are spectacular, and everything has a dreamy quality to it, which is appropriate, given that you are dealing with memories, both real and imagined, to make up the bulk of the film.  Probably the strength of the film is the complexity of the characters, which I would imagine that would have been the draw for these actors.  No one is really as they seem, and that helps keep you off-center and paying attention.

It's also violent, which I put out there for anyone who's a little put-off by that.  It's not Drive-violent, but it's got its moments.  It also helps to pay attention to the little details, because they all come back in some fashion later on in the movie.

Ultimately, I think the movie's criss-crosses and double-crosses kind of weigh in on themselves, ultimately hurting the film.  I love a good twisty mystery, but this one got a little extreme.  Still, the acting's good, the story keeps you invested for most of it, and I got to see James McAvoy's naked heiney.  All in all, a movie worth seeing.

To Boldly Go, blahblahblah....

You know what makes any movie better?  Benedict Cumberbatch (Benny C to his buds).  Also Chris Pine's eyes.  But mostly Benedict Cumberbatch.  In fact, I shall compose an ode to him:

Oh Benny C, I love you so.
You are the cat's meow.
Your accent, your stare, your almost 'fro.
You just make me say wow.

Uhm, okay, I'll stop now.

He's good in Star Trek, really.  And everyone else is.  And there's a great Kirk/Spock bromance.  And it's just cool.  That is all.  Go see it!

I can't do anymore.  The muse has left me.  Count yourselves lucky.

Love and Dead People

While watching "The Great Gatsby," I was struck by two revelations I have made about Baz Luhrmann.  One, he apparently only gets interested in a project if someone stupid's going to kick it at the end after experiencing their great love (see: Romeo, Jay Gatsby, both played by Leo, although this is not a slight against him), and two, he finally got a clue and got rid of the editor he's been using.  You know, the one who edits like a drunk ADHD victim who threw away their meds.  I actually got a chance to watch whole scenes for more than five seconds at a time!  It was a revelation!

Yes, it's still full of Bazisms - the long tracking shots over scenery, in-your-face party scenes, strong emphasis on music, etc.  But there's more care here.  He's trying to actually give you a sense of character and motivation, rather than just flying it up there onscreen and hoping that it sticks.  His attention to detail and beauty are still as prevalent as ever, but it's not all artifice.  I mean, 90% of it is, but the other 10% tries to get to the heart of the story.

Of course, one of Luhrmann's greatest strengths is his casting ability.  At least, he can find actors who aren't afraid to make complete asses of themselves in pursuit of his vision (I still have bad flashbacks to Nicole Kidman trying to seduce Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge.  Brrr...).  I think he made a great choice in Leo for Gatsby.  He kind of fills in the character holes that Luhrmann basically leaves wide open, and you can't help but to feel for Gatsby, stupid as he is.  Joel Edgerton does a great job playing Buchanan.  He plays bully well.  The rest of the cast is good, but their characters aren't nearly as fleshed out.

All in all, it's a serviceable vision of Fitzgerald that's beautiful to look at .  I can't call it one the great literary adaptations ever, but I think he got the vapidity of the Twenties while keeping the longing of the love story front and center.  And I can see!  Great movie Gods above, I didn't have to barf after watching it!  Huzzah!

Looney Over Downey

I'm just going to say it right out: the world is a better place for Robert Downey, Jr. being in it.  He is the I Ching, the shiznit, the coolest mofo going.  Doubt me?  See Chaplin, Less Than Zero, the Sherlock Holmes films, and Soapdish.  Most importantly, see the Iron Man films, and tell me I'm wrong.  He makes me want to start writing bad poetry (and I almost did.  Lucky you.).  And Iron Man 3 just keeps it going strong.

Did I mention Downey's good in this?  Yeah, he's okay.  He's got a presence and an attitude that just fills the screen.  He's of course dominant in his smart-ass persona, but makes Tony Stark into a fully-fleshed character with very little effort.  I often wonder how much he improvises in these films, and how much is scripted.  If it's scripted, then the man should win an Oscar just for his word interpretation alone.  Either way, he's got a wicked sharp mind and one amazing wit.

Of course, even he can't make things work without a little help from the movie (see: Iron Man 2, I'm sorry to say.  It just could have been better.).  Thankfully, director/writer Shane Black gets it (see his Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, also starring Mr. Downey, now) and knows how to structure a film well.  The movie moves fast and transitions almost seamlessly.  More importantly, it actually has a story.  Cool, huh?  And the man knows humor.  REALLY knows humor.  It's almost a perfect storm of actor and writer, considering the enormous amounts of wit flying around in this movie.

But Downey and Black aren't working alone here.  The rest of the cast is pretty damned good.  I go hot and cold with Gwyneth Paltrow (You only let your kids watch cartoons in French, Gwyn?  Hopefully, they will get back at you when they're teens.), but she's never better in these films, and she gets a much bigger role in this one.  She's fun.  Don Cheadle, Rebecca Hall, and Guy Pearce all have what looks like a great time in their roles.  The real fun comes with Ben Kingsley.  Really.  Without giving anything away, I can promise you you'll love his performance.

So, to conclude: great acting, great writing, great directing, great action.  This movie's great, to get all redundantty on you (shut up, it's a word).  It's not Shakespeare by any means, but it's going to be hard to beat this for my favorite summer movie this year.  Viva La Downey! 

 

It Ain't Easy Being Green

     I'm not a great fan of 3D.  It mostly stands to distract from the fact that there's no story whatsoever (Hello, Avatar!), or it's so invasive that your eyes cross and you forget you're supposed to be enjoying this.  That being said, I actually broke down and paid (okay, I had a gift card) for the 3D version of Oz the Great and Powerful, and I have to say it was well worth the price.

     The movie's just, well, beautiful.  It's bright and colorful and you can really tell how much time and effort was put into the little details.  The movie copies Wizard of Oz where it starts out as black and white and the dimensions of the screen are small, and goes to color and stretches out when the action reverts to Oz.  Items are flying off the screen and stretch out of the boundaries of the screen.  There's one scene with a field of sunflowers that I can honestly say was one the most beautiful things I've seen onscreen.    The credits at the beginning of the film were almost worth the price of admission.  It's luscious, and whatever money was spent on the film actually shows up onscreen.

     Unfortunately, that didn't leave a whole lot of money for the script.  There was more of a story than I honestly expected, but it's still pretty thin.  I did appreciate the fact that they used a good deal of L Frank Baum's story in the onscreen tale, but a lot was underused.  But I have to say that I wasn't that upset, mostly because my expectations were low for story anyway, so win!

     As for the performances, James Franco can alternately irritate or delight me in some of his past roles (Hey James, General Hospital sucked already.  No need to add your special brand of cray-cray to make it worse.), but he usually will give something worth seeing.  The character is set up as a charlatan, liar, and womanizer who gets redeemed, and Franco's got the charm to pull it off, but I never stopped thinking of Oz as kind of an ass.  I read that Robert Downey Jr had this role and dropped out, and I can't help but to think he would have kicked it sideways.  But hey, Franco will do in a pinch.  The three ladies do a good job.  Their characters aren't very fleshed out, but at least they had the wherewithall to get good actresses to do the best job they could with what they had.

     Overall, it's well worth seeing just for the techinical artistry.  You won't be disappointed for that.  Just don't expect much else.

  

"Love Makes You Do the Wacky."

If you're going into Silver Linings Playbook expecting a traditional romantic comedy (and who can blame you, given the way it's been marketed), think again, my movie-going friend.  Yep, it ends with a romance, but it gets there in a most unconventional way.

Bradley Cooper gives probably the most interesting performance of his career.  He's always shown a hint of what he can do in his previous roles (and frankly, he'll always be Will from Alias to me), but here he really shines.  He holds his own against DeNiro, which is saying a lot, since this the most interesting role DeNiro's had in years.  Cooper plays a guy who's been diagnosed as bipolar and does not have a filter whatsoever.  Anything he thinks, he says, to the point of extreme bluntness.  But, and I think this is a testament to Cooper's strength in the role, Pat has an eagerness, patheticness, and energy that is infectious and makes you want to root for him. 

Really though, the movie belongs to Jennifer Lawrence.  She's brittle, tough, acidic, emotional, neurotic, sympathetic, and just plain messed up, and Lawrence gives all of that onscreen and more.  She's not afraid to put herself out there to show that Tiffany's deeply flawed, yet in need of love and understanding.  There's one scene between her and DeNiro, and it's almost like you're watching a handoff of acting greatness from one generation to the next.  She's fearless in the role, and the movie lights up when she's on.

Like I said, this is DeNiro's best role in years, and it shows in his work.  He looks engaged and eager to stretch his skills in the role, and doesn't disappoint.  Jacki Weaver evokes sympathy in her role.  The big surprise of the secondary roles is Chris Tucker.  Yep, the guy from those bad buddy cop movies with Jackie Chan.  He plays a fellow mental hospital inmate and friend of Pat's, and really gives a great performance.

Ultimately, this movie's about love in all its forms, and how love, as well as life, is messy and doesn't always look good.  If you're expecting a movie where the boy and the girl to have it all in their lives except that ONE person who would make it all worthwhile, like with any cookie-cutter rom-com, then Silver Linings is not for you.  If you want to see real people with real problems and flaws succeed in this world, even just for a minute, then run out and see this. 

Be All You Can Be

There's a certain pattern to a lot of military films.  You know the drill - rousing music, jingoiistic "Rah-rah America" platitudes, testosterone spraying all over the set, blah blah.  Well, I'm here to say that "Zero Dark Thirty" is not one of those films.  That's not to say that it's not patriotic or heroic.  It just achieves those ends in its own way.  Maybe having a woman directing it made the difference, who knows?  According to Bret Easton Ellis, Kathryn Bigelow's looks got her the recognition for it (although that tweet apparently never made it to the Academy).  Well Bret, I'm here to tell you, she's damned talented too.

Any movie where I know the outcome, but still am on the edge of my seat waiting for it to get to the outcome is a good movie in my book.  And Zero keeps you there.  It's basically a docu-drama told in a clinical way, but has the chops to keep you interested and in the action.  This is due in no small part to the cast, especially Jessica Chastain.  She's excellent - tough when needed, but with enough vulnerability to make the character of Maya likable.  And she's surrounded by a huge cast of interesting actors and actresses (Hi, Elizabeth from Pride and Prejudice!  Hi, Michael from Lost!  Hi, Andy from Parks and Recreation!) that do a more than admirable job of portraying the folks who for ten years worked tirelessly to locate Bin Laden.

And that's another way the movie works - it doesn't fall back on coincidences or deus ex machina devices to get to the inevitable conclusion.  The work put into finding Bin Laden was long and laborious and not always pretty.  But these people had a job to do, and they did it as best they could. 

Yes, there are torture scenes in this.  A lot of them.  It may not make the USA look like the good guys every time, and Senator McCain might still get his Depends in a twist about it, but torture happened.  I know it, you know it, anyone with a brain knows it.  And if this story is accurate, Bin Laden would not be dead without it.  There's a lot to think about in this movie.  Do the ends justify the means?  Was a door closed on terrorism with the death of Bin Laden?  You may not come to any answers, but I applaud any film who dares to ask the question.

I think ultimately it gives you a new way of looking at heroism.  It's not all about the hero saving the day and wild celebrations when the Evil is vanquished.  It's exhausting, heart-breaking, and bleak.  The men and women of the CIA and the armed forces who brought about this moment in history may not have been the best people in the world, and they may have done things we as humans don't agree with, but they did their jobs to the best of their abilities.  Knowing that there are people out there like that makes me feel a little better sleeping tonight.