The Messenger

The Messenger (TM) is a story about a wounded U.S. soldier, played by Ben Foster, who is ordered to join the Army's Casualty Notification Unit and inform families when a soldier has been killed in action, generally in Iraq. He learns the ropes from his eccentric commanding officer, an exceptional Woody Harrelson, and he also takes a liking to the widow of one of the women he visits, played by Samantha Morton.

This is a solid film. I enjoyed Foster's performance as Will Montgomery. He does an excellent job of making his character feel like he can never fully get comfortable with what has to be one of the most difficult jobs in the military. As a result, we as the audience never get comfortable with that process, which I think is the way it is supposed to be; death should never feel comfortable. I was perusing one of the DVD's bonus features and a real life soldier said, "Grief is illogical." I can't think of a better way to say it.

Of course many accolades have been heaped on Woody Harrelson for his performance in this film, and I'll add to it. He is magnificent is Tony Stone, a man with numerous demons: he is a recovering alcoholic, he has a unique view of how relationships with women should be, he believes casualty notification should be a completely emotionless, by-the-book process, and he secretly wishes that he had seen combat during Operation Desert Storm. He plays this role so convincingly it's startling.

The toughest part of this film is watching the notifications that Will and Tony do. Anybody that has ever lost someone significant in their lives will relate to the shock and emotion that happens during these scenes. Be warned - this film packs an emotional punch and may make you cry. Have tissues handy.

Will and Tony, because of their very different experiences with combat, have very different opinions on how to do casualty notification. If I have a gripe with the movie, it's this: the film did not spend enough time having these two characters "face off" about this profound difference in approach; it is subtly hinted at a few times and crests in one scene. I think some interesting dialogue and arguments for both the characters and the audience were missed out on by not focusing some more on this.

There has been a real surge in recent years in the profile of the war picture genre. The Hurt Locker (THL) took home 6 Academy Awards last year, including Best Picture. Films like THL, Stop Loss and In the Valley of Elah and documentaries like No End in Sight remind us of the dangers our soldiers face on a daily basis. Even if the films made about the war are not of the highest quality (although all of the aforementioned save Stop Loss, which I haven't seen, are excellent), I feel like it is important that Hollywood continue to make these movies and that we continue to watch them.

Those of you that have seen THL will probably notice a lot of similarities to that film and TM. While an outright comparison is unfair, to ignore the similarities would be silly. Both movies revolve around soldiers undertaking an extremely difficult task, and both focus on characters that struggle to balance the chaos of battle and combat with the contrast of quiet domestic life at home. I think that though TM does it well, THL does it better.

I'll be interested to see how time and history treat TM. I think this is the kind of war film that can last long beyond its years and still resonate with audiences. I guess this mean's that the film's mission is accomplished.

Heat

One of the reasons I finally decided to join Netflix 2 years ago (one of the 5 best decisions I've made in the last 5 years by the way) was that I finally had a way to easily catch up on films that make me think, "Why haven't I seen that already?" Heat has definitely been in that category for some time. Not anymore. Dap to Netflix. (Other films on that list when I joined: Hotel Rwanda, World Trade Center, Gone Baby Gone, Jackie Brown, Zodiac, and Akeelah and the Bee).

Michael Mann's Heat, released in 1995, was a landmark picture because it united two of our country's best and favorite actors to share the screen. That was one of the reasons I had to see it: Al Pacino and Robert De Niro sharing the screen for the first time ever. A movie lover's dream.

And while obviously I would've loved to have seen them share more screen time together (only one scene that matters in this movie, the infamous diner/coffee scene), I felt like what I did get was impressive. If I had been able to see this film in 1995 and been a part of the pre-release hype, I probably would've been disappointed and upset at the lack of quality screen time together.

Fortunately, the film makes up for their being apart with a phenomenal story. Heat is one of the best crime films I have seen in a long time, and even though it is 2 hours and 50 minutes, you never feel like it is a bloated movie. It is one of the most durable films I've seen too. For me, durable means that no matter when you see it, the film holds up and you believe that it can happen in today's world. If you look at early 1930s crime films, they clearly don't hold up in today's world, but if you've ever seen a film like 1959's The Killing, you feel like in many ways that something like that can happen in today's world even though the movie is dated. Heat gave me that same feeling: with the exception of the beepers and Jon Voight's God-awful hairstyle, I embraced the plausibility of this story happening in contemporary society. That's one of the geniuses of the film's writing: it didn't depend on 1995-specific technology or cultural norms to make the plot work.

2 Related Side Tangents:

1. The Killing, one of Stanley Kubrick's first films about 5 guys who decide to rob a racetrack, is not just one of the best crime movies ever; it is also an obvious forerunner to films like Pulp Fiction or Go, where they tell the story out of chronological order. If you liked those movies, go find The Killing. It's worth it.

2. Another film example that fits the durable model: The Fugitive. Yes, they don't use cell phones and the computers in the film are super primitive, but when you watch it you never get the sense the film is dated or that it couldn't happen in today's world. At least I don't. Durable.

Heat does a lot of things right: it captures the spirit of LA, it does a great job of keeping both protagonists' separate stories very interesting, and the overall story keeps you guessing until the end. Of course Pacino and De Niro deliver, but they are surrounded by a really strong supporting cast. I continue to be especially impressed by Mykelti Williamson (for you 24 fans, he was the head of CTU New York this year) and William Fitchner (the bank manager Heath Ledger shoots in the opening scene of The Dark Knight) in anything they appear in. Quality character actors.

This film reminded me of another great crime movie: American Gangster. The similarities are striking: two strong famous lead actors, two separate stories punctuated by a strong scene featuring the two leads, two main characters whose choices and methods almost make them indistinguishable from a moral standpoint, excellent overall story, very solid supporting cast, and fully encapsulates the time and place where the film is set. I've never heard that Heat influenced AG, but honestly, how could it have not?

Christopher Nolan said that this film influenced The Dark Knight, particularly TDK's opening bank robbery scene. If you watch both films, it's easy to see the similarities.

And ultimately, that's why this film is great and worth checking out. When one film begins to impact how other people make their films, you know you've got something special. In Hollywood, imitation is the only form of flattery.

Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2, the sequel to the somewhat surprising blockbuster 2008 hit Iron Man, officially kicked off this year's highly anticipated summer movie season, and it has already made 1390851083 bajillion dollars. So my guess is that most folks have seen it by this point.

IM2 picks up where IM left off, with super wealthy playboy Tony Stark revealing to the world that he is in fact Iron Man. This revelation is the final straw for the Russian Anton Vanko, who worked with Tony's dad before being deported and left penniless. Before he dies, Anton tells his son Ivan, played by Mickey Rourke, that he has the blueprints for an amazing technology that Ivan can harness - the arc reactor, which is the source of Iron Man's power. Ivan decides to take the next several months and build his own weapon of sorts - whips that look like limp lightsabres from the Star Wars universe (I've been told they are liberally inspired by said lightsabres).

Meanwhile, Tony is having some personal problems of his own. The U.S. government is trying to force him to turn over his suit technology to them for defense purposes; this effort is led by a slimey US Senator played by Gary Shandling, and the head of a company that is Stark's biggest competition, Justin Hammer, played with equal used-car-salesmanship by Sam Rockwell. His exploits as Iron Man have taken away his attention from his defense company, so he turns the company over to his right hand gal, Pepper Potts, and hires a new personal assistant, the vampy and athletic Scarlett Johansson. And most importantly, his own blood is poisoning him thanks to the palladium that is supposed to keep his heart going.

But you'd never know it from Tony. Just like in IM, Robert Downey Jr. easily slips into the skin of a billionaire playboy who lives life to the fullest. Much was made about his genius as Stark in IM; he is equally great at playing this carefree, nothing-can-bring-me-down attitude in IM2. When I revisited IM, I felt that Downey was able to shine because he played his role brilliantly and had a wonderful ensemble around him that made his star shine a little brighter. In IM2, he just plain outshines everyone else, and I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

That's not to say the rest of the cast is not solid; Gwyneth Paltrow was just as good in IM2 as IM, Johansson, Rockwell, and Rourke (especially) are welcome additions, and Samuel L. Jackson steals the few scenes he's in as Marvel continues to setup its Avengers project. I mentioned in my IM Revisited post that I was interested to see how Don Cheadle would do in taking over the role of Rhodey. I think that he was great, but for me he wasn't a noticeable upgrade from Terrance Howard. It's really too bad that Terrance couldn't work it out with Marvel and the filmmakers, because I would've preferred to see them keep that continuity. But that is a minor gripe.

My favorite part of the movie is when Ivan shows up in Monaco and first attacks Tony. He just did it so cool - no words, no fanfare, no fluff, just came out, put on his weapons and started whipping stuff. He and Iron Man have a pretty good mini-duel (which Iron Man wins, naturally), and then Downey and Rourke have a phenomenal scene together after that when Stark visits Vanko in jail. For me, this scene illustrates that when done properly, less really can be more in a great action sequence. It got me pumped for the final showdown that they would inevitably have.

It's at this point (about 1/3 to halfway through) that for me the film starts to breakdown some. Whereas IM had a pretty focused plot with an interesting and somewhat thought provoking message underlying it (see my IM Revisited post for my thoughts), this one just meanders and doesn't really do anything from Monaco to the part where Tony discovers how to cure his body's toxicity (which if you're paying attention is probably something you'll see coming). And unfortunately, this film's climax is as loud and brainless as pretty much any other major action movie you've seen in the last 5 years.

Downey specifically asked for Justin Theroux, his writer on Tropic Thunder, to be the writer on this film to play up the whimsical nature of the movie. Unfortunately, I feel like doing that made the filmmakers sacrifice one of the key elements that made the first movie so successful: a level of grounding that made IM feel like it could occupy the real world, something that never happens in this film. It's not that I didn't enjoy it, but I didn't enjoy it as much as IM 2 because IM stimulated my mind as well as my eyes, which is always the right recipe for best success.

In the end, while I thought IM was better than this sequel, I didn't think it was a major fall-off between the films. Hopefully for the 3rd installment the filmmakers realize that having a film more like IM than IM2 will give Iron Man his best suit to show off.

It's Complicated

I will admit that I did have a small bias against It's Complicated (IC) before sitting down to watch it yesterday. IC is made by the same filmmaker that made Something's Gotta Give (SGG), one of the surprise hits of 2003 that I really did not enjoy. But I said to myself that this was a different movie with different actors and convinced myself to keep my mind open to the possibility that this would be a different experience.

It wasn't.

The plot of IC is pretty straightforward: a fiftysomething woman, played by Meryl Streep, begins a torrid affair with her ex-husband, played by Alec Baldwin. They try to figure out what their hooking up means, why they are enjoying it so much, and whether or not it means they want to get back together. In the interim Streep takes a liking to the architect of her house remodeling, played by one of my favorite actors, Steve Martin.

You may wonder what my major objections to IC are. That is also straightforward: I'm not a woman. I'm not middle aged. I'm not White. I'm not rich. I'm not married. I'm not divorced. I'm not the child of a divorced household. I'm not a parent. I don't live in California. I don't have a "Sex and the City" type group of girlfriends. And I don't have unresolved ex issues. Other than that, I related to this movie on every level.

Basically, I'm not the demographic for this movie. And I'm ok with that. My mom poked fun at me when we talked about the movie afterwards; she thought that I should lighten up and just enjoy the humor and the movie experience. But at some point in every movie I need something, anything, that I can somewhat relate to or identify with in order to be even remotely engaged in the movie. And when I don't get that, I just can't enjoy the movie.

I guess my other issue is that I felt like the movie relied on really played out cliches to keep the plot going, such as the "gotta tell my girlfriends about my love life" scenes or the "mom and kids have a teary-eyed heart to heart talk" scene or the always hilarious (being sarcastic) "older people try to recapture their Free Love youth by smoking weed" scene. Notice how all these scenes sound like their from SGG? That shouldn't be. If I wanted that feeling from a movie, I'd just watch SGG instead of IC. And while IC doesn't really follow the all-too-familiar "romantic comedy" formula (would take too much time to explain here, but at some point I'll probably have to lay that one out), it's so close that it feels as familiar as those tired movies. I'm pretty sure you'll know how this one ends before you get there, and that is never a good thing.

And my disappointment was compounded because I was excited about the cast. Meryl Streep is a unanimous first-ballot acting hall of famer, if such a thing existed. But as I thought about it, Streep is no more effective in IC than Diane Keaton was in SGG, so I kept asking "what did she bring to the movie that any other actress of her age wouldn't have?" I couldn't figure it out, and that saddened me cause she is so good. Baldwin is usually pretty funny, and to be fair, he is in this film; he is the only actor to bring charm and genuine hilarity to this movie. And of course I think Steve Martin is always comic gold, or at least I did. Unfortunately, he is sorely and surprisingly underutilized (really only has about 5 quality scenes in the movie). The little of him you get is some of his recycled comedy from previous films.

Ultimately, if you liked SGG then you'll like IC. I didn't like either, but a part of me wants to watch these films in about 2 decades to see if my life experience will help me better relate to them. Until then, my relationship with these films will be . . . well . . . you know . . . complicated . . . (ending on a horrible pun - I'm ashamed of myself).

The Princess and the Frog

The Princess and the Frog (PATF) was the first 2D animated featured from Disney since 2004's poorly received Home on the Range. After that debacle, Disney decided to shut down that branch of the animation department and focus on its 3D animation. The studio then brought it back with last year's PATF, hoping to recapture the magic of previous Disney classics like Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and The Lion King.

And when you see PATF, you'll see that all the major elements of its forerunners are there: a fantastic musical lineup, visually interesting animation, and a fairly engaging plot. While watching the film I thought, "why would they have shut down this branch of the animation department?" When it's done right, these Disney films are among the best films in existence, animated or otherwise. It was nice to be reminded that Disney still has great non-computer generated (to an extent) animation in them.

And the film has great moments too. I thought that there was great comedy provided by the supporting players Louis the alligator and Ray the firefly. Both characters brought great energy and life to the movie at moments when it looked like it was about to drag.

For me, there are 2 problems with PATF. The first is the villain, the Shadow Man. I didn't find him particularly scary or villainous in this picture. When you compare him to other great Disney villains (Jafar, Ursula, or Scar), he just does not possess their menace. For me, the film does not achieve its full potential because of the weakness of the Shadow Man. My other problem, which I will acknowledge is difficult to explain, is that this movie is missing a little of the Disney magic. Think about films like Beauty and the Beast or any of the 3 films I mentioned in the opening paragraph. When you finished watching them, you couldn't wait to see them again, sing along to the songs, and own them on video. I didn't get that feeling after watching PATF. My mom said it best; she said that when Disney announces that movies like Aladdin are going back into the vault she feels compelled to run out and buy them before they disappear, but with PATF, she wouldn't feel the same way. That's what I mean when I say there is some magic missing - it doesn't pass the vault test.

This movie is not only notable for the return of Disney's 2D animation, but for being the first Disney animated film to feature an African-American princess. Before I make my next statement, please understand that I do believe that this is an achievement that should be celebrated. Having said that, while I'm happy Disney finally got with the program and did this, it is somewhat sad that it took until 2009 to make that happen. If you mark 1928 as the start of animation (when Steamboat Willie is made), then it took 81 years for Disney to make history. Guess that means I'll have to wait until 2090 for Disney to make an animated feature with a Latina as the princess.

Don't get me wrong - I liked PATF. I just wish Tinkerbell would sprinkle a little more of that Disney magic on it.

Iron Man Revisited

You may be wondering, "what's this Revisited nonsense?" Well, I've felt obliged to post entries for films that I've already seen at least once or twice to offer my perspective on it as well as add any additional comments that I either missed the first time or gleaned from repeat viewings. So if you ever see "Revisited" in the title, you'll know it's a movie I'd seen at least once before.

For the first film I'm revisiting, I decided to re-watch Iron Man (IM) in anticipation of the forthcoming Iron Man 2. The first installment was released during the glorious summer of 2008, when comic book movies dominated the film landscape. And while I didn't think IM was the best movie of that summer (can't be convinced any movie was better than The Dark Knight that year), it is still a great standout.

Based on the numbers it seems like most everyone has seen IM, so I won't waste time with any plot description. I will say that the plot is, for a movie of this genre, highly believable and very engaging. I really liked the way the film tied into the threats and concerns that radical terrorism poses in today's real world without being preachy. I appreciated the moral journey that Tony Stark goes through when deciding to build the ultimate weapon to rid the world of all the other weapons he designed. Very heady stuff for a popcorn flick.

In general, I felt like this plot could actually happen in the real world; this is why I think Christopher Nolan's Batman movies strike such a chord with the audiences - they can easily imagine themselves inhabiting the world presented. That to me is the biggest battle comic book movies face: if the world is too cartoony or comic booky (making this up as I go - play along), you simply can't totally immerse yourself in the experience, and thus, the film never is as enjoyable as it could be.

I think one factor that contributes to the realistic feel is, obviously, special effects. IM's special effects are outstanding; it is often difficult to tell where the real life stops and the digital takes over. You never get a sense of where the special effects are. For me, the best special effects are unnoticed, and IM succeeds at this in the best way possible.

(momentary aside: this is why I cannot get into the Incredible Hulk as a superhero. Let's ignore the fact that the only thing he can seem to do is break and smash stuff without helping people in any way. Neither of his movies ever gave me the impression that it could realistically happen and the special effects were amateurish at best. The result? No emotional resonance whatsoever. I'm sure the comic book Gods will now strike me down with the power of Thor.)

Enough has been written about Robert Downey's performance, and it is great. But in revisiting the movie I really appreciated Jeff Bridges performance as Obadiah Stain. In comic book movies it can be really easy for the villain to be way over the top and ridiculous. Bridges played his character very subdued and low key, which for me made him more menacing. He did not get enough dap the first time around.

Most folks also probably know that Terrance Howard was replaced for the sequel by Don Cheadle. No disrespect to Don cause he is one of my favorite actors today, but I didn't see anything wrong with Terrance's performance to merit his replacement. I can only guess that it was due to Don being a more "bankable" star. But with Downey and Gwyneth Paltrow already headlining and everyone already sure IM2 will make 2983471306432 billion dollars, why replace him? What is gained? I'm sure we'll find out, but if it was nothing or not much, I'll be disappointed. Terrance is a good actor who deserved better treatment. And I personally dislike when the continuity in franchises are unnecessarily tinkered with.

At the end the revisit was worth it and got me pumped for the sequel. I'm interested to see how Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury (building for the Avengers movie in 2012 or 2013) and Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko add to the mix. I look forward to more action and great Tony Stark wit. I hope we see Gwyneth in a slinky dress (again). But most of all I'm hoping we get the kind of smart film we got the first go around, with some potential upgrades.

3 Pro Wrestling Documentaries

Let me preface this entry by saying that if you do NOT like or have any remote interest in pro wrestling, feel free to skip this entry. I will not be offended.

Waiting . . .

Still waiting . . .

Making sure . . .

Ok. For those of you that are still reading, I'll actually be posting thoughts on 3 different "movies" (you'll see why I use quotes momentarily) that are all centered around one topic: pro wrestling. You may be wondering why. Well, when I was a wee young boy (and teenager and young adult) I watched pro wrestling religiously. I loved the grandeur, the spectacle, the artistry. Yeah, I know it's fake, but you know what, it's no more fake than a live theatrical Broadway play and has way more athletic artistry. So for all you haters that are like "people who watch this fake crap are stupid," you obviously don't understand that the roots of pro wrestling come from carnivals, which feature bearded ladies and fire eaters. Moral of the story: don't be a hater.

Anyway, two of the documentary features, On the Road with Jake the Snake Roberts (JTS) and On the Road with the Honky Tonk Man (HTM), are distributed by RF video, which is so low budget you can't get it on Netflix; you'd actually have to seek these videos out at their website (props to Kelvin Rodriguez for loaning me these videos). Off the top that brings up one of my biggest problems with these videos: these guys do not know how to make a documentary to save their lives. Either the guy operating the camera is a moron or they don't have the requisite video editing equipment to at least make it look moderately entertaining. As a result, you get a ton of nonsensical camera angles, zooms, pans, and a whole lot of extra material that is unnecessary and outright boring (I don't care that HTM bought coffee on his way to the show from the airport. Move on).

As for the actual content, HTM is pretty good while JTS is pretty awful. If you know anything about JTS you know he's had a hard life and all those years of partying, pills, drugs, and booze are showing, and not kindly I might add (if you're interested I strongly recommend the WWE documentary JTS: Pick Your Poison. Very illuminating). Throughout JTS, he mumbles, is somewhat incoherent, and seems like he might still be on something (he does drink an entire bottle of Jack Daniels before heading to the ring). His in-ring performance is lackluster at best; this is due to age and the aforementioned drinking. Had I been a paying customer to that show, I would've demanded my money back. Jake got beat up for 10 minutes, did a DDT, then went backstage. Not exactly thrilling. If he had at least shared some of his knowledge of the business or his memories of his long career I would've enjoyed it a lot more.

HTM is a whole different story. His documentary is filled with all kinds of insights into his career as "The Greatest Intercontinental Champion of All Time" and of his days now on the independent circuit. He shares lots of insights into the business and shoots (speaks truthfully) about many wrestlers, promotions, wrestling incidents, and the WWE. If you have been a fan of pro wrestling since the glory days of the 80s, you'll get lots of goodies from HTM. While his in ring performance didn't exactly set my world on fire, the film was at least moderately entertaining, as was he.

To their credit, both HTM and JTS give fascinating looks into the current state of independent wrestling. It's interesting to see how these independent promotions try to operate considering the lack of deep talent and notoriety. If you want to hear some legends speak on different wrestling issues or get an inside glimpse into independent wrestling, pick these up (preferably HTM).

The other documentary I saw, or rather revisited (see my Iron Man post for my definition of revisited), was Wrestling With Shadows (WWS), an inside look at Bret Hart's last year with the then-WWF before and through the infamous Montreal Screwjob.

Now, no matter what your opinion of Bret Hart, Vince McMahon, and WWE, if you follow pro wrestling you have an opinion on that infamous night in Montreal. This documentary, which profiles many of the events and key players leading up to the event, probably won't shed light on any new information or change your opinion.

What it might do is give you a new appreciation for Bret's career, his legacy within WWE, and what it takes to run a huge pro wrestling enterprise such as WWE. If you watch WWS or are a tremendous fan of Bret Hart's (I am), I strongly recommend you watch what I believe is a great companion documentary, Survival of the Hitman (you can see it in its entirety on youtube). This documentary does a more in-depth profile of the Hitman's career and chronicles his last 12 years since the Screwjob, as well as gives insight into his motivation for finally returning to the WWE. Greatness all around here.

If you like pro wrestling like I did (and still do to a great extent), I think HTM, WWS, and Survival are worth your time. Otherwise, you'll probably wish Jake would do a DDT on you.