Flight

I'm just not sure how I feel about Flight.

My biggest source of conflict is Denzel Washington. I like Denzel Washington, but I don't like his character Whip. Within the first 5 minutes you learn you're not going to like Whip, and this role is unlike your typical Denzel role.

Don't get me wrong: Denzel is his usually reliable greatness in this movie. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why he is in this movie. There's a point in the film where he's yelling at someone about why he drinks alcohol and I thought to myself, "what about this screenplay jumped out at him and made him think he had to be a part of this film?"Isn't he better than this movie?

The other odd phenomena that stuck out to me is that he doesn't shine the brightest in this movie. What I mean is that whenever I see a movie with Denzel in it, his performance almost always is the strongest, the one that stands out most. In this movie, John Goodman as his drug dealing best friend and James Badge Dale as a cancer patient outshine Denzel; when I think about Flight 5 years from now, I'll think of them first before Denzel. I think any Denzel movie where he isn't the best performance is problematic at best.

I also struggled with some of the plot points. Towards the end, Whip's final alcohol bender hinges on a very flimsy, next-to-impossible chance that made me cringe. I also really disliked the Hollywood-ish ending this movie got. It wraps up too nicely and too upbeat for all the depression that preceded it. The movie breaks no new ground and does nothing terribly interesting, and when Denzel isn't Denzel, it creates an underwhelming experience.

I won't hold this movie against Denzel or even Robert Zemeckis; both have done a lot better, but have shown a history of greatness that cannot be overlooked when I see their name on their next film. But hopefully I get no emotional turbulence the next time around.

The Town

I really did not think that I would enjoy The Town (TT) because part of my movie snobbery made me think that it would be illogical for a movie to get me to believe that bank robberies or heists in general were still possible in today's technological and information age. People can't just roll up into a bank and rob it right? Aren't there too many safeguards at this point? Haven't we learned how to effectively thwart any would-be robbers out there? That was a big mental hurdle for me, so from the start, TT had it's work cut out for it.

The great thing about TT is that it actually makes me think that if properly planned, a heist or robbery of most any kind is still at least theoretically possible, which gives the film the credibility legs it needs to stand up for the 2 hours you watch it. I was engrossed by the way TT constructs the thievery. It all made sense and was very believable. Once I got passed that (and really, the opening bank robbery sets the solid foundation that the other 2 heists rest on) I was able to let myself get drawn into TT's characters, which were fantastic.

Ben Affleck is often knocked for his acting abilities, and to be fair, sometimes he deserves it (Pearl Harbor or Hollywoodland anyone?), but I really enjoyed his work as Doug in TT. I think that since the movie takes place in a setting he's very familiar with, Boston, he's able to really envelop himself into this character. He's supported strongly by Jeremy Renner, playing his lifelong friend and literal partner in crime (sorry, I'm a sucker for good wordplay) Jimmy. Renner was nominated for an Oscar, and this role further cements his status as a quality actor. Rebecca Hall as Doug's love interest and Blake Lively as Doug's ex-girlfriend are solid.

I don't really want to delve into the plot much because it is dense, but I will say that even though TT felt familiar, it wasn't predictable, which for a well established genre such as this is truly a great accomplishment. With the actors involved doing a great job of setting the mood and tone for the film, you really get wrapped in that rough, tough Bostonian lifestyle. You couldn't ask for more.

I also think Ben Affleck is developing into a really strong filmmaker. TT marks his second foray into the director's chair, after Gone Baby Gone, and I've been quite impressed with both of his pieces. He has a great understanding of establishing tone and mood in his films, and he gives his audience a great sense of the place, which he should be able to do easily since he grew up in the areas that both of the films are set. I also appreciated how he shot all of the heist sequences; some directors in their films really try to stylize or heighten the robbery experience with fast cuts, zooms, close ups, and other slight tricks. Affleck did a great job of not succumbing to those temptations too often, and it made the action feel much more realistic and natural, which I prefer; several of the sequences had a Heat-esque feel to them, which is no small feat. I think Affleck is showing signs that he could follow in the path of other actors who have achieved directing success, such as Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood.

Overall, TT was a fun and interesting experience. You'll get lost in the setting and the story. It's fun yet sad, interesting yet deliberate. TT is definitely a job worth signing on to.

127 Hours, The Kids are All Right, and Winter's Bone

I've decided to combine these three movies into one post as I have very few thoughts on each of them individually and don't think they'd make interesting reading on their own. So here we go:

127 Hours:

Aron Ralston (James Franco), an adventurous young man who loves time in the canyons and outdoors in Utah, gets his right arm pinned under a big rock that he can't move. He also didn't tell anyone where he was going, so he spends the next 127 hours trapped with no hope of rescue. He finally reaches a breaking point and cuts his own arm off to free himself and survive. The film follows Ralston on his journey while stuck under the rock.

Honestly, I blame me for not enjoying this movie beforehand. I knew he was going to cutoff his arm, and I know how much I don't enjoy seeing graphic medical stuff like this, even though I know it's fake, so I think I psyched myself out. I spent most of the movie waiting for the climactic scene, so I didn't get as emotionally invested in the film as I should have. I bet I would probably enjoy it upon a second viewing.

I will also give James Franco his due, he did a great job carrying this film on his own, since he's the only one on screen for the majority of the movie. He didn't do as good a job of holding a movie individually as Tom Hanks did in Cast Away, but he did a great job and has firmly established himself as a legitimate leading man in Hollywood. He's got an Oscar in his future.

The Kids are All Right (TKAAR):

TKAAR is the story of a lesbian couple, Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore), who had 2 children via artificial insemination, Joni and Laser. Laser gets curious about their biological dad, so he and Joni track him down and find Paul (Mark Ruffalo). When Nic and Jules find out that Joni and Laser have contacted Paul, they try to get to know him. Paul upsets the family apple cart in a variety of ways, the biggest by having an affair with Jules. This makes life difficult for everybody, but in the end Nic and Jules find their way back to each other before taking Joni to college.

I didn't really enjoy TKAAR. My biggest issue was that I didn't believe the plot point about Jules and Paul having an affair. I just didn't believe it, and since so much of the plot was dependent on it, it made much of the movie seem false to me. I did think Julianne Moore was wonderful in her role.

I will give TKAAR dap for finally addressing an issue I've had with pretty much every movie ever made. At the end when Jules and Nic take Joni to her residence hall room, it actually looks like a residence hall room!!!! It is not ridiculously large, it doesn't have outrageous furniture or look like it's been designed by an interior decorator. It looks like the right size of a residence hall room and has residence hall furniture. I wish more films did this. I'm just saying.

Winter's Bone (WB):

WB follows Ree, a 17 year old girl whose dad, a meth lab cooker, bonds out of jail, using the house Ree, her mom, and two younger siblings live in as collateral. She has to find him before the bond is defaulted and Ree and her family are kicked out of the house. She then explores the drug underworld of the Ozarks trying to find him, meeting many colorful characters and getting unexpected help along the way.

My biggest problem with this movie? It. Is. Boring. Really. Really. Boring. I didn't at all connect emotionally to this film either. I did however, understand that southern, roughneck mentality that permeates pretty much every character in this film, as I've had many friends that reminded me of some of these characters - whether or not that's a good thing, I haven't decided yet.

I know this was a critical and indie darling; it just never hooked me. And if you can't hook me into a story about drug dealers and crime, what's the point really? (Ironically, I thought the same thing about the TV show Weeds and yet I keep watching. Probably out of habit now more than anything)

The Green Hornet

The Green Hornet (GH) is a movie that I'd been pretty excited about when the announcement of its production came over a year ago. My enthusiasm diminished significantly when the release date got pushed - twice - to this January. If the movie was any good, it would come out either in the summer or the post-Thanksgiving to End-of-the-Year time periods. So I went into this not expecting a whole lot.

And that proved to be for the best. How do I describe GH's plot? It's a lot like watching an episode of WWE Monday Night Raw or Friday Night Smackdown. There are three basic elements of the WWE plotline: 1. Spend the majority of your time following a story that is ridiculous, ludicrous, and otherwise silly in every respect (and if you stop and think about it long enough, illogical and nonsensical); 2. Have your main protagonists win your audience over through continuous sophomoric and juvenile one liners at the expense of the bad guys; 3. At the end, have everybody beat each other up (there's even a modified hardcore match between Britt Reid and Kato halfway through the movie). I've basically just described to you GH. There's nothing in this movie that will surprise you or shock you - it runs through the checklist of comic book movie cliches fairly smoothly. And the 3rd act of GH truly spirals into the depths of ridiculousness; at one point, I leaned over and asked a friend I was with about a continuity error and said, "Oh, who gives a crap?" That sums it up.

(Random Aside: There is an infrequent 4th element of WWE plotlines that GH does use to an extent: the hottie. Occasionally WWE storylines will involve one of their Divas as part of the story to ramp up the tension between the good and bad guy or use to garner audience sympathy for the good guy. This happened in basically every Macho Man Randy Savage storyline ever - thanks Ms. Elizabeth. While Cameron Diaz's Lenore Case doesn't necessarily ramp up the tension, she does garner audience sympathy for Seth Rogen's Britt Reid. Honestly, much like WWE Divas, the plot doesn't really need Lenore to be very noticeable or do very much, and again, much like WWE Divas, that's probably for the best, as in most scenes Diaz looks like she's calculating how much straight $$$ homey she plans on getting. Let's just move on.)

The actors seem to be going through the motion here. My folks saw GH and she hated Seth Rogen's performance. I think her stumbles on a line between funny and irritating; there are some moments of genuine hilarity and others where the jokes fall flat on the floor and he sounds like a baffoon. I wouldn't say he's not good, but considering he's the co-writer of the movie his comedic fingerprints are all over it, so if you're not a big fan of his, you won't like GH. I've already commented on Cameron Diaz, and I would say the exact same thing about Tom Wilkinson and Christoph Waltz, Oscar nominees who are better than this inferior material. The only standout is Jay Chou as Kato. He is legitimately charming and fun to watch.

Ultimately, you know what you're getting with GH. If you go in with the right mind set and appropriate expectations, you'll get what you're looking for. If not, you'll get stung.

I've really gotta stop ending these entries with bad puns . . .

The King's Speech

The King's Speech (KS) is the dramatic and sometimes cleverly humorous true story of England's King George VI aka Bertie (Colin Firth) in the years leading up to World War II. Bertie's got plenty of troubles long before he ascends to the throne. Most notably Bertie stammers, with pretty much everyone everywhere, a thorny problem when you're a member of the Royal Family and expected to speak publicly to your countrymen. He also is at odds with his older brother Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), who, though next in line for the throne when their father George V (Michael Gambon) passes away, is seen by everyone as disrespecting the crown by dating a divorced American woman. Can Bertie make his brother see reason? Can Bertie overcome his stammer? Can England persevere during these dark times?

To totally summarize KS's plot would be laborious, so I'll try to be brief. Bertie's speech impediment is his major flaw; he can't seem to get through any kind of conversation without, well, stammering his way through it. Despite numerous attempts to correct his issue and at his motivational end, Bertie's wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) convinces him to try one more man: Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel uses his rather unusual methods to try and help Bertie speak properly: speech exercises, physical movements, singing what he has to say, etc. These speech therapy sessions run concurrently with other big moments in Bertie's life. Bertie and his dad are worried that Edward will marry the twice divorced American Wallis Simpson and disrespect the crown. Hitler and Nazi Germany are continuing to threaten Europe. Bertie sees his ascension to the crown coming like a train on the tracks, but he doesn't want the job because he doubts himself - this doubt is primarily fueled by his stammer, which he doesn't fully believe he can fix. It's a vicious cycle.

KS does an excellent job of balancing all of its storylines: Bertie and Edward's contentious relationship, the slow march of England to war with Germany, and the difficulties of the speech impediment on Bertie, all while keeping the relationship between Bertie and Lionel at its core; the gradual growth of their friendship through the film is truly beautiful to watch. KS builds the dramatic tension while finding the precise moments to inject humor and warmth. The screenplay is exceptional, and the subject matter, which is handled so appropriately, is accessible to anyone; there is not a single person I can think of who wouldn't enjoy watching this movie.

The pacing of KS is perfect. Historical movies such as this sometimes fall into the trap of either moving to quickly through the events or crawling too slowly towards its obvious climax. KS avoids these snares. Not too fast yet not too slow, it rhythmically builds to its climax: King George VI's speech to all of England which essentially starts WWII. By the time Bertie gives his speech, you are so wrapped in the story and his success as a character that you can't help but be excited, cheering him on internally with every spoken cadence. In the theatre I saw KS in, during his climactic speech, numerous members of the audience were literally on the edge of their seat. That's a pretty amazing feat considering the climax of the movie is a man talking.

Beyond the story, the other major strength of this movie is the acting. Every single actor in this film is perfectly cast - there are no weaknesses. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are locks for Oscar nominations, and they are more than deserved. Individually they both establish themselves as excellent actors that have true dramatic skills, yet their on-screen chemistry is so good, so authentic, so genuine, so touching that I half suspect that when a day's shooting was over they went out for beers together. I wouldn't be surprised if either or both actually won the Academy Award. Additionally, Firth's chemistry with Helena Bonham Carter is also strong. She does an excellent job of embodying a woman that is supportive and loving yet challenges her husband when he needs it. Guy Pearce is excellent as Bertie's contemptuous brother, and Derek Jacobi shines in his few scenes as the Archbishop Cosmo Lang.

My only complaint, if you can call it that, is that there were times when the camera angles or shot choices were a tad distracting. I can sometimes be frustrated by films that are "over-directed." While there certainly are instances when that happens in KS, like a few of the elongated tracking shots when characters are walking (the scene that best exemplifies this is when Lionel and Bertie are walking and arguing in the park), it doesn't happen often enough for it to be a true sticking point. This really is a minor quibble.

I loved KS. Right after the Social Network, I thought this was the 2nd best film of 2010. It is engaging yet endearing, thought-provoking yet insightful, poignant yet funny. As I said before, I cannot think of a single person who wouldn't enjoy this movie. Go see it. You'll be glad you did.

Long live the King!

True Grit (2010)

True Grit (TG10) is a remake of the 1969 classic of the same name starring the legendary John Wayne. This iteration was written for the screen and directed by Ethan and Joel Coen, and stars Jeff Bridges in the iconic role of Ruben "Rooster" Cogburn, the angry, drunk US Marshal employed by Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) to capture and bring to justice evil Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), the man that killed her father in cold blood. Cogburn and Mattie are joined in their quest by LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), a Texas Ranger that has been chasing Chaney for quite some time.

I'm normally quite averse to most movie remake ideas, particularly ones where they remake a classic that stands up well to time. I know it's mostly for economic reasons, but honestly some iconic movies just need to be left alone (could you honestly imagine ever hearing of a remake of the Lord of the Rings? Or the Harry Potter films? Right. That feeling of confusion and wave of ridicule you just got is why I don't really like remakes). The one reason I did give TG10 a chance was because of the Coen brothers. The Coen brothers are on a big roll and have proven, particularly in the last 4 years, that they are gifted filmmakers who understand how to properly construct a story. 2 of their last 3 films have been great, critically praised, and nominated for Best Picture: No Country for Old Men (NCFOM), which won them an Oscar for Best Director, with the film winning the BP Oscar, and A Serious Man (most folks seem to have ignored Burn After Reading. Having seen it, I'd say that's a good thing). Because this story was going to be in their capable hands, I went into the theatre keeping an open mind and reminding myself that every once in a while the remake can do the original justice (think King Kong of a few years ago).

Unlike book to film comparisons, I have no trouble comparing remakes to originals, as they are on the same medium. Fortunately for us, TG10 delivers the goods and is the original's equal. This film does a great job of setting the atmosphere of the movie's time period from the jump, drawing us in to the classic, idealized American West. We get the sense of lawlessness and incivility that the West is known and celebrated for in American cinema. The movie is also beautifully shot; as with NCFOM, the Coens once again show a great aptitude for putting the American West landscape on film and finding strategic moments to fill our eyes with beauty - shots where there is light snowfall, particularly at night, immediately spring to mind. That's not to say that TG69 (1969 was when the original was released - get your mind out of the gutter) didn't effectively capture the West; it just didn't do it as thoroughly as TG10. I know a lot of that has to do with the advancements in camera technology, but it nonetheless makes a big difference. The Coens also bring a lot more wit and humor to this incarnation than the original, with some scenes being laugh out loud funny. I appreciated that small thread of humor woven throughout.

Although it's been a long time since I've seen TG 69, there are a few differences, some big, others tiny. The biggest one is that, for me, TG10 really fleshes out and completes the Mattie Ross character, rather than regulating her to a tag-along like the original. I suspect the original gave much of her character's chutzpah to the Rooster Cogburn and LeBoeuf characters so as to make them seem more heroic and important - in a postmodern, more feminist world, I like TG10's interpretation of Mattie better. Additionally, as best I remember TG69, LeBoeuf stays with Cogburn and Mattie throughout their adventure, whereas in TG10 he goes away for a while and comes back. I think this is pertinent as it increases some of the antagonism between LeBoeuf and Cogburn. And finally, some scenes, like the finding of Emmett and The Kid in the small house, are set at night in TG10 as opposed to the day in TG69. While I imagine that TG69 had to set most of its action during the day for technical reasons (harder to film things on location at night in 1969 vs today), the nighttime setting is preferable as it adds to the tension of the action. TG10 is just as good if not better than TG69 in most respects with one exception: the iconic, climatic Rooster vs Lucky Ned and his gang shootout. While Jeff Bridges is great (see below), he ain't John Wayne. You just don't get the same adrenaline rush and chills as the original gives when Rooster rides into his adversaries. John Wayne will always own that scene.

My biggest complaint about TG10 would be something that a friend pointed out to me before I saw it and then subsequently noticed in the viewing. The film is set in Arkansas in the late 1800s, yet all of the characters, with very few exceptions, speak perfect, proper English with fantastic diction. I have lived in the south for many years, and though I've never lived in Arkansas, I know several people that have and I can assure you that it is hard to be in a southern community and not have people that have a drawl, speak with improper grammar, or sound awkward. While I recognize some of that is the Coen brothers style of dialogue, it seemed nonsensical to not at least attempt southern speech. Even Damon's lame attempt at a Texas accent doesn't cut the mustard. A story set in the old south where everyone speaks properly? That dog don't hunt.

No conversation about TG10 can be complete without talking about the amazing cast. It's kind of impossible to takeover a role that's already been cemented in most people's mind as legendary - John Wayne did win his only Academy Award for TG69 - but Jeff Bridges does an excellent job as Rooster; he will no doubt get an Oscar nomination. Bridges' Rooster is more drunken, slovenly, and ill-tempered, which is probably how the author of the TG novel imagined him. Damon adds to his list of impressive supporting roles as LeBoeuf. Brolin is serviceable as Tom Chaney, and Barry Pepper makes a pleasantly unexpected but welcome appearance as Lucky Ned. But the real star of this movie is Hailee Steinfeld. She is fantastic as Mattie Ross, perfectly capturing her character's determination, gumption, wit, and intelligence; you know almost immediately that this is no ordinary 14 year old girl. Her scenes with Colonel Stonehill perfectly encapsulate the essence of her character. She is a real joy to watch, and she should grab an Oscar nod. It is well deserved.

Overally, this is a great moviegoing experience. I think TG10 is slightly superior to TG69, but they are both worth your time. Let the hunt for Tom Chaney begin (and then begin again).

The Black Swan

Darren Aronofsky's latest film, The Black Swan (BS), is, to be kind, a true mind screw. BS follows ballet dancer Nina, portrayed by Natalie Portman, who lands the coveted roles of the White and Black Swans in Swan Lake. Her company's director Thomas, played by Vincent Cassell, one of my favorite foreign actors (most know him as the Night Fox from the Ocean's movies, but his French film La Haine is awesome), explains the White Swan is beautiful, technical, untouchable, somewhat distant, while the Black Swan is gorgeous, seductive, enticing. Thomas casts Nina because while he knows she can do the White Swan easily, he believes she can portray the much haughtier Black Swan, which is far outside her comfort zone; he also casts Nina because there is a sexual attraction undercurrent in their relationship. Can Nina learn to portray both roles convincingly by opening night?

As Nina struggles to embrace the Black Swan, Thomas brings another skilled ballet dancer, Lily, played by Mila Kunis. Lily is carefree and has a hint of rebellion in her, and dances more like how Thomas wants Nina to dance the Black Swan. This makes Nina very insecure about her ability to keep the coveted role. She works harder.

BS is ultimately a psychological character study of Nina. We get deep inside her mind to see all the things that fuel her insecurity, and we witness the battle she has in her mind as she struggles with maintaining her good girl sensibilities while being attracted to and embracing her darker yearnings. What forces Nina to her psychological breaking point? Several things. The constant specter of Lily potentially taking the role from Nina is always in the background of her mind. Further, Lily continuously encourages Nina to be more adventurous and daring, taking her for a night out where they get a bit crazy. Nina lives with her mom, played brilliantly by Barbara Hershey, a former ballet dancer herself, pushes Nina to be better technically and harasses her to ignore outside influences, mainly Lily. Thomas keeps prodding Nina to push herself farther and be more seductive so that she can be the Black Swan and become the new face of their company, replacing the past-her-prime Beth (played by Winona Ryder in a pretty bizarre cameo - she's on screen maybe 5 minutes).

With all of these outside forces pushing and prodding and pulling Nina, she spends the movie descending into psychological madness. Her mental health deteriorates like it is going down a drain, slowly at first, but then faster, more frequently, more violent and volatile. Scenes that are terrifying to watch turn out to be figments of Nina's eroding imagination - or are they? Aronofsky submerges us fully into Nina's psychotic breakdown, to the point that towards the end of BS, Nina literally turns into the Black Swan, feathers and all. For Nina, she had to do that psychologically or she would be unable to dance the way she needed.

Eventually, Nina's real and imagined worlds collide and are indistinguishable, which is I'm sure what Aronofsky is going for. If Nina cannot tell the difference between the real and the fantasy, why should the audience? There are two sides to this coin though: some folks will find the breakdown fascinating and enjoy the tease of fantasy and reality, while others will be hopelessly frustrated and annoyed. I was somewhere in the middle. Shortly before the end of BS I told my girlfriend that the film is weird. It most definitely is playing a different tune, one that will draw in some and repel others. I anticipate this being a polarizing experience.

Natalie Portman has been getting lots of Oscar buzz for BS, and today I think she is the frontrunner. And while she is great, I never got the sense that her performance was at the level of an Academy Award; when you compare her performance with the women who have won Oscars in the last few years, I don't see it at the same level. It's not that she's not good; I just don't think it's Oscar good. But the Academy love people that transform themselves or bury themselves in a character, which Natalie does. She clearly underwent several months of preparation for this role, as she does many of the artistic dance movements herself (or the special effects department did a phenomenal job of transposing her face on the actual dancer. Knowing the tight budget this film was on, I'm sticking with her preparing). You totally believe her as a ballet dancer, and I will give her props for deftly handling the psychological complexities of her character. I just don't know if I would give her the Oscar for it (at the end of the day, there may not be a better performance to give the Oscar to).

To me, BS is like a previous Aronofsky movie, Requiem for a Dream, mixed with All about Eve. It's good, but I don't know if I would watch it many more times, if at all. It's definitely a movie that will challenge your brain. When it was over, nobody in the theatre moved; we all kind of looked around thinking, "what just happened?" I imagine we'll be talking about that for years to come.

Love and Other Drugs

Meet Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal). Jamie's a guy who knows how to seduce the ladies without getting attached or committed. He's smart, funny, and good looking, but he's also shallow and treats women like sex objects. It's 1997 and Jamie's brother just sold his internet IPO for mucho dinero. Jamie's parents pressure him to be successful, so he decides to become a pharmaceutical drugs salesman. He goes to work for Pfizer and gets trained by his partner Bruce (Oliver Platt) to approach doctors and push samples of Pfizer's drugs. While working with fairly slimy Dr. Stan Knight (Hank Azaria), he meets Maggie (Anne Hathaway), a 26 year old with Parkinson's Disease. Because of both their hangups - Jamie hates commitment and Maggie doesn't want anyone taking care of her when her condition worsens - Jamie and Maggie decide to have a purely sexual relationship free of any attachment. But how long can that last? This is the story of Love and Other Drugs (LOD).

There's a lot to like about LOD, primarily, Jake and Anne. Now I'm a big Anne Hathaway fan (she's my #1 celeb crush), but even if I wasn't, you can't deny how good both she and Jake are in their roles. They fit easily into the skins of their characters and have excellent chemistry together. A lot of hoopla was made of the actors being naked in this movie, and yes, they are naked quite a bit, but I didn't think they were naked for any longer amount of time than in many other movies of this kind (if famous people getting nude on film is your thing, you're in for a treat). As a guy in a relationship, there are many pieces of their romantic connection that I could relate to. I also appreciated the wonderful job that Anne did of portraying the physical manifestation of the degenerative disease; it's evident that she did her research. I found myself invested in this relationship and rooting for these characters to come together, which is the hardest trick for any romantic film, and because of Jake and Anne LOD pulls it off.

Which isn't to say that the other performers are slouches either. Oliver Platt continues to add to his impressive résumé of supporting roles as Bruce, Jamie's partner in crime who keeps telling Jamie he wants him to carry them to Chicago, the Shangri-La of pharmaceutical sales. While Jake and Anne carry the movie, Oliver is the most interesting character. He steals almost every scene he is in. Josh Gad plays Jamie's brother. His character is used as comic relief throughout the movie, and while he manages it well, lots of his gags seemed forced and contrived. This is one of the few weak spots of this movie. And does anybody play a slimy, skeezy, sketchy guy better than Hank Azaria? Hank is like a designated hitter in baseball: he may not play all the time, but when he does, you have to respect his game. I always enjoy his performances. And in LOD, he is funny, mean, and creepy. Fantastic.

I was worried prior to seeing LOD that by adding the Parkinson's element into the movie it would get preachy. Films like this that have these kinds of elements can veer into the "we should be finding a cure at all costs" territory (and all the furor about stem cell research the last 10 years or so only fueled my concern). LOD mostly steers clear of this familiar plot trapping by focusing on the love and relationship of the two characters as they both slowly realize they want to be together for the long haul. The only scene that I felt dipped its toe into the preachy pool was when Maggie accompanies Jamie to a convention into Chicago and attends a gathering of people with Parkinson's sharing their stories (and it's right across the street from the convention. Convenient plot device anyone?). While I get that it is important to talk about these kinds of issues, most movies don't know how to balance and focus the story between the actual plot and the other human issue they're addressing. LOD delicately and appropriately strikes the right balance.

Is LOD somewhat predictable? Sure. But the story is a lot of fun, and the 1997 setting provides some amusement: I chuckled the first time they talked about Jamie responding to his pager (we still use one at FSU for duty purposes) or when Jamie takes out his cell phone and it's one of the early ones that looks like a door stopper. There's plenty of humor, particularly as Jamie spectacularly fails at selling in the first half hour, but there's also a lot of heart and emotion that clicks. Whatever drug they used to make this movie, write me a prescription because it cures Stale-Movie-Syndrome with no side effects.

The Social Network

I have found my favorite movie of 2010 so far, and it is The Social Network (SN). SN, written by exceptional screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, directed by David Fincher, and based on the book The Accidental Billionaires, is the story about how Facebook was founded and established and the ensuing controversy surrounding it. I was initially reluctant to see this movie as I didn't think it would be particularly interesting to watch how the largest social network on the planet got started.

Boy was I wrong.

SN crafts its story not based on the technology or how it is introduced but instead decides to use all the key players in its founding as the foundation for studying human and corporate behavior. The resulting dissection is so engrossing, so absorbing, so utterly fascinating that you can't look away. Not only that, but if you're on Facebook (and let's be honest, you probably are) you will start to reflect on how you personally utilize it and how your social behavior has been modified as a result of its existence in your life. That sounds like a rather grandiose proclamation for a fairly straightforward movie about a website, but it is true.

SN follows Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard student who in 2004 who creates a website called Facemash, where Harvard students are given the pictures of 2 girls and then asked to rate which one is hotter. The site explodes overnight, but makes Zuckerberg look like an insensitive jerk - which we discover continuously throughout the movie that he probably is. This act grabs the attention of 2 other Harvard students, the Winklevoss twins, looking to meet girls, so they enlist Zuckerberg to help them create a new site called Harvard Connect, a social website exclusive for Harvard students to meet each other. Zuckerberg decides on his own to take this small idea and expand it into a site exclusive for college students that can be adapted to any college or university; with the help of his business-savvy friend Eduardo, they create The Facebook company.

thefacebook.com takes off, acquiring thousands of members and expanding to other campuses virtually overnight. As the site evolves, the Winklevosses try "gentlemanly" means to get Zuckerberg to acknowledge he stole their idea. Zuckerberg ignores them, so they eventually decide to sue him for theft of intellectual property. In the meantime, Zuckerberg and Eduardo meet Sean Parker, the founder of Napster, who encourages Zuckerberg to make Facebook ("drop the 'the,' it's cleaner") bigger, as he feels it's a billion dollar idea that could be revolutionary. He also encourages Zuckerberg to go to California, as that is where "it" is happening, so Zuckerberg decides to go west.

Zuckerberg starts to be influenced more by Parker and the California lifestyle and listens less to Eduardo. Zuckerberg decides to restructure the company, which leaves Eduardo out in the financial cold. He decides to sue and Zuckerberg finds himself the subject of lawsuits from Eduardo and the Winklevosses. The ugliness grows.

What do I love about SN? Many things. I truly appreciate the symphonic dialogue that Sorkin creates with every single project he writes (The West Wing tv show, with The American President as its forerunner, is one of my 3 favorite dramas of all time). The first scene of SN, where Zuckerberg's girlfriend breaks up with him, is genius. It's smart, sharp, witty, and engaging. Sorkin is a screenwriting king, and SN may end up being his crown jewel.

I also loved SN's acting. Jesse Eisenberg is fantastic as the socially inept and corporately defiant Zuckerberg. He really embodies the character and makes him someone you both like and dislike at the same time; this is an incredibly difficult feat to pull off. The actors playing Eduardo and the Winklevoss twins are really good for their first major roles. My only complaint for the whole movie is that I've seen the real Sean Parker and Justin Timberlake is nothing like him. While I get he is playing a character, it is difficult to separate what I know in real life from what I see on screen.

Fincher excellently showcases the numerous subcultures within SN. As someone that works with college students on a daily basis, he expertly captures what it is like to be in a college environment. Unlike other Hollywood movies, which make college students very wooden, 2D, non-thinking characters, the students in SN are fully realized. I see these students everyday on my campus, and I guarantee that anyone that works or attends a private school will identify with the elitist air that those students, like the ones at Harvard where this film is set, walk around in. He also wonderfully displays the business world, its cutthroat, underhanded, and greedily seductive nature. As a former business major, I haven't been this engrossed in the corporate environment since watching Wall Street on dvd. Anyone who likes that climate or has tried to create a viable website will enjoy it. And of course how can we forget the social environment? The film raises interesting questions about how and why we interact with people in a social context. It makes us think about what information about other people is important to us (like "relationship status").

It's been about 4 days since I saw SN, and I keep thinking about it. It is one of those movies that sticks with you after you've seen it. You process various scenes in your mind. You wonder about issues the film raises. You chuckle at lines that tickled you. I believe that if a vote were held today it would win the Best Picture Oscar. I thought it was too early to try and analyze how technology how we interact with the world and people in it. I now think that it's never too early to start reflecting on our world, no matter how long I take to get 500 million friends.

The Fighter

The Fighter is the story of "Irish" Micky Eklund, a boxer from Lowell, MA who overcame long odds and a difficult family to become Welterweight Champion of the world. Marky Mar . . . I mean Mark Wahlberg plays Micky, and when we pick up the story he is stuck fighting no name fighters in an effort to get noticed so he can make real strides in the boxing world. His trainer is his troubled brother Dicky, played by Christian Bale. Dicky is also a former boxer, whose career highlight was knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a 1979 fight, but who let his personal struggles with crack addiction ended his career. Micky's manager is his mother Alice, played by Melissa Leo, who is the matriarch from hell, and a barely competent boxing manager.

Micky meets Charlene, played by Amy Adams, a local bartender that encourages and challenges him to be a better boxer and rise above his family problems. Most of the movie centers around this family dynamic. Micky struggles with balancing trying to train seriously for his fights with his loyalty to his brother, who taught him all his in ring moves. He further struggles balancing his newfound love and devotion with Charlene with finding how to properly involve his unreliable family in his boxing life. We watch the depths of Dicky's addiction, from disappearing for hours at a time when he is supposed to be training Micky, to going to jail for a stretch for impersonating the police in a money-making scheme. We watch Alice expertly manipulate her children so that she can continue to benefit financially from Micky's boxing career. Truly a messed up family dynamic.

During the middle of all of this family drama are some nicely shot boxing sequences. Director David O. Russell (who made one of my 50 all time favorite movies, Three Kings, coincidentally starring Wahlberg) expertly handles the actual fight sequences to feel authentic and realistic, which is unlike a lot of other films of this genre which stylize these kinds of fight sequences (such as Million Dollar Baby, for example); the boxing matches felt like they were out of an ESPN 30 for 30 documentary. The boxing is grounded in realism. And Wahlberg looks like a true boxer, with his body giving the physical nuances you expect from a professional. Beyond the ring, Russell really embeds us into this world and the Lowell, MA area. We become part of the community that Micky is fighting for, which makes us root for him throughout, particularly his climactic fight for the title.

The acting is top notch. The true standout of the movie is Bale, who totally encapsulates the well meaning but drug addicted Dicky. I think that in lesser hands this role could have easily been overracted, wooden, and archetypal, but Bale has the creative chops to flesh the character into someone we want to care about despite his struggles. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor, and he could win. I also enjoyed Leo as the mother of mindgames (pun intended). Another Oscar contender, she will make you thankful that she is not your mother. Wahlberg and Adams are also solid, as usual, but, they just fall into Bale and Leo's shadows. To use boxing as an analogy, Wahlberg and Adams are stuck up against the ropes while Bale and Leo dance around the ring - which would you find more interesting to watch?

The Fighter is not in the same category as other legendary boxing movies (Raging Bull, Rocky, Million Dollar Baby), but I think it settles nicely into that second tier, with films like Cinderella Man or The Hurricane. I think what sets this film apart from the others is how grounded in realism it is (it is after all based on a true story), the de-stylizing of the fight scenes, and the interesting family focus that it has. I think most fans of boxing and sports movies will enjoy it. Only time will tell if The Fighter gets a shot at the title with the heavyweights of the genre.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (HPDH1) is the 7th film in the HP series and the first part of the epic finale. It is based on the massively popular book series that was finished in 2007.

Prior to this film, my only experience with HP had been the 6 previous movies. For me, they were all about on equal footing. They all gave you fairly interesting characters, solid visuals, some funny moments, and an intriguing overarching story with Harry vs Voldemort, with each individual installment offering its own interesting plot. I didn't fall all over myself in love with them, but I enjoyed my time with them.

This summer thanks to the suggestion of a friend I decided to read the books. I enjoyed them all very much and not only did it remind me of all the important plot points I had forgotten over nine years, but it filled in lots of story elements left out of the movies.

As I've said in numerous previous posts, I don't like to compare films with their literary sources beyond whether or not the motion picture encapsulated the spirit of the written word. It should be commonly accepted amongst all society that the book will be better than the movie with almost no exception (I can only think of 2 - The Green Mile and The Lord of the Rings). So I won't do any comparisons here. What I will say is that for me, HDHP1 does capture a bit of the spirit of the book, even though I think that spirit is a bit hollow. I thought the first half of the book was a bit meandering and unfocused; this book took me the longest to read because I had a hard time really getting fully invested in the first half, and I think that is because that's what Harry was going through (in the book, Harry and Ron's big fight is around this entire concept). I think that if the book had been just a bit more focused, it would've made for a more focused movie. Alas, twas not to be.

HPDH1 does what it is supposed to do: it gets a bunch of the exposition about why Harry, Ron, and Hermoine are on their quest out of the way, it sets up what many characters are going to need to do for the final chapter, and it also puts Harry and Voldemort in a collision course for their inevitable showdown. While I thought the place where they decided to end the story, with Voldemort finally acquiring the Elder Wand, was a curious choice, as I thought the book presented lots of other more suitable stopping points, I think hindsight may show more insight into the filmmaker's thinking.

Anybody with no previous knowledge of HP will be hopelessly and utterly lost. The filmmakers have wisely decided that anyone interested in HPDH1 is already a fan and, at a minimum, seen the previous 6 movies, so they jump right in with the story and keep it moving. I appreciate that, as some studios try to re-establish certain characters or ideas in the hopes of orienting new audience members. This keeps the story moving forward. While at times it did feel like the filmmakers were trying to check off all the events in the plot like it was a "to-do list," the film, for the most part, kept rolling forward.

Honestly, there's not much more to say. If you love HP and you were excited about HPDH1, you should be satisfied, as the movie did everything it was supposed to; yes, some character points or plot events from the book were modified or combined, but nothing that was detrimental or mangled the storytelling. If you have no interest in HP, you probably aren't even reading this. Here's hoping HPDH2 is a magical finish.

Tron: Legacy

Tron: Legacy (TL) is the long awaited and anticipated follow up to the cult, sci-fi, nerd fave Tron, released in 1982. The original Tron was a visual and technical achievement for its time, which is one of the reasons it holds such a hallowed place in the hearts of geeks everywhere. The plot? Eh, not as forward thinking as its visuals, but that is no matter for fans. The iconic images of the cycle race, the pi-looking space ships, the evil orange vs heroic blue color palette have cycled through the minds of its fandom for almost 3 decades.

Unfortunately for Disney, the original Tron was a box office disaster. It was such a flop that Disney has barely released it on any home video format; in fact, when I logged on to Netflix to grab the original again in anticipation of TL, I couldn't find it as they didn't have it (which is highly unusual for them). Disney basically buried the original in its coveted vault and spoke little of it again, getting what I like to call the Song of the South treatment.

(Which probably leads you to the following question: Alan, what do you mean the Song of the South treatment? Well, here's a random aside/film history lesson for all you inquiring minds: Song of the South was a 1946 Disney movie that combined live action with animation. The movie, which if I remember correctly - it's been almost 7 years since I've seen it - was set in an older time (late 1800s?) and was about an African American man named Uncle Remus, who was kind of a caretaker of a young Caucasian boy whose parents were separating. He would cheer up the boy by telling him stories of Br'er Rabbit, who would consistently outwit the dumb Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear. If this sounds familiar it is cause this movie was the inspiration for the ride Splash Mountain at Walt Disney World; this movie is also where the song Zipadee Do Dah came from. What's that you say? What's the big deal? Here's the thing: since the movie is set in the South during what I believe is a older time, the Br'er Rabbit stories and many of the scenes involving Uncle Remus are really bad racial stereotypes of African Americans. The movie was heavily protested when it was released, with the NAACP calling for a total boycott from the African American community, was heavily protested the first time it was released on video, and was heavily protested when Disney considered re-releasing it in 2007. Heck, people heavily protested the opening of Splash Mountain because of its association with the movie. Because of this, Disney rarely speaks of or references this film ever because of the public animosity towards it. So if you ever hear me refer to something as getting the Song of the South treatment, it means that the studio basically acts like the movie never happened. Glad you asked)

Because Tron got the Song of the South treatment, I was surprised that Disney decided to make a sequel, but I knew that they could make a good movie. And when I saw the trailers, I was jazzed.

With good reason. The film is a visual wonder, offering tons of quality special effects that bring you right into the world of TL. Unlike its predecessor, there aren't that many games played in TL, but they do re-create the classics: the pong-like disc throw and the motorcycle race. In each of these games the advancements in technology make it possible to ramp up the action and suspense. The blue and orange glow from their suits is wonderful, and the look of all the spaceships and locales is stunning. I was very impressed with the overall look of the film.

The plot? Well, it is not rocket science, but it's not a quick explanation either. Rather than try to detail the entire thing, I'll hit the high notes: Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) disappears in 1989. 20 years later, Flynn's friend Alan gets a page from Kevin's old office. Alan tells Kevin's son Sam about it. Sam goes exploring and boom - he's in the Grid. He finds his dad with the help of Quorra. Dad explains that he created a program, Clu (which looks like a 35 year old Jeff Bridges), who has taken over the grid and is trying to get Kevin's master key disc and jump into the portal that Sam opened to take over the world. Kevin, Sam, and Quorra have to stop Clu and beat him to the portal. Believe me, that is the heavily edited version of the storyline.

As kind of ludicrous as the plot is, it does its job. The plot serves as a facilitator for the filmmakers to bring the audience into TL's world and let it feast on the visuals; for me, this was no different than what Avatar did, although that film's visuals were much better. If you can be ok with the film visuals taking center stage over the plot or characters, you'll be fine - otherwise you'll be bored.

There is one thing, visuals and special effects related, that I do have a bone to pick with. The filmmakers used cutting edge technology to make Clu look like a young Jeff Bridges. The problem is that they use it to try to get a "performance" out of him. In my estimation, no matter how much technology advances, no matter how close we get to capturing human faces, no matter how great computers are, they will never, ever be able to duplicate the subtlety, the nuances, the indescribable "it" that actual human performances give. Every time I looked at Clu I was simply reminded I was looking at something manufactured. While that's probably partly the point, it is a little bothersome. I'm sure that crafting "CGI performances" will be a growing trend in the movie business; I'm just not sure I'll ever believe it.

I also need to give some quick dap to the music. Daft Punk does an amazing job of creating music that has a definite 80s feel but is still somewhat rooted in modern techno. It was unsettling, intoxicating, and somewhat hypnotic, and I mean all that in a good way. It was like they were the snake charmer and we were the snakes, moving along to their harmony. It absolutely enhanced TL's presentation. For me, that is one of the hallmarks of great movie music - if I'm able to notice it, it is almost always great.

TL is a solid movie, but I think that it will be a polarizing film. I said to the friend I saw it with that TL is what Tron would've been had our technology existed in 1982. I don't think he liked it as much as I did, and he replied, "I'm not sure that would be a good thing." That is for you to decide. Game on.

Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader (CNVDT) is the 3rd movie installment of the popular book franchise, following Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (CNLWW) and Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (CNPC). In the last decade, ever since The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Twilight found success at the box office, Hollywood has rushed to adapt numerous book series for youngsters into a family movie-going experience, and the Narnia book series has been no exception, turning in 3 installments in the last 5 years.

I am a fan of the Narnia books, with CNLWW being mandatory reading in 5th grade. It was such a delightful experience that I chose to read the rest of the series on my own. Some I enjoyed immensely - CNLWW, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle stand out; others, not so much - CNPC and CNVCT's book versions weren't necessarily my cup of tea. Sadly for me (or maybe fortunately, depending on how you look at it), my memory of the literary stories is not solid. I don't remember all the subtle details and plot points from the books, and I don't have the time (nor frankly the inclination) to re-read them just to watch the films. And I have seen the movie versions of CNLWW and CNPC only once, so any narrative threads weaved from those films to CNVDT were most likely lost on me.

Honestly, I went into CNVDT with fairly low expectations. One reason was my aforementioned lack of enthusiasm for the source book. Best as I can recall it, the book wasn't heavy on action or worried about the main "plot", but more focused on the epic voyage that Lucy, Peter, and Eustace take with Caspian on the Dawn Treader. This made me wonder how they could craft an interesting, engaging plot when the book didn't exactly ooze it. The other source of my trepidation was CNPC. While I enjoyed CNLWW, as I believe they were pretty faithful to the novel that I loved, CNPC departed greatly from its source. Besides being visually unimaginative, it was also long and boring, with a meandering plot that was unfocused. Wasn't going to Narnia supposed to be fun? Weren't you supposed to be transported to a wonderful magical place? Not in the Narnia of CNPC. In a conversation I had with a friend about the film series, he rightly pointed out that in CNPC Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy had to re-learn all of the lessons from CNLWW because they either couldn't remember them or the White Witch magically wiped their memories. I'll let you decide which happened.

And I wasn't the only disenchanted fan - CNPC bombed out at the box office. While some of its demise was due to moving its release to the overly cluttered summer season, it was also the distinct drop in quality that kept fans away (with good reason). And I think that was the main feeling I had throughout CNVDT - the filmmakers realized that they needed to win fans back to the movie series, so they focused the film on the essential plot elements without much deviation for some of the whimsy and charm that make up the book.

And what is the plot you ask? In this installment, Lucy, Edmund, and their irritating cousin Eustace magically get taken back to Narnia, where they immediately hookup with (now King) Caspian on the Dawn Treader. He's on his way to find the missing 7 Lords of Narnia so that they can head to an island of Aslan's where they will all present their magical swords so they can undo the evil on another island, or something to that effect, as they never stop long enough to fully explain the importance behind ending this evil or the island or anything. But it gives us a reason to be there and that's what's important I guess. And at just under two hours, this is a greatly focused, somewhat distilled version of the CNVDT book plot, which again, is to be expected as the movie series is trying to win back fans.

You say you want interesting character development? Sorry homeslice, you won't find that in CNVDT. The only characters that they "develop" is Lucy, Edmund, and Eustace - I use quotes because their development is so basic and quick that it's hardly development at all. Lucy is jealous of her older sister Susan's beauty, Edmund believes himself a leader and is still haunted by the White Witch, and Eustace just doesn't know how to be anything but a douche. Each go through their "journey" to realize that they can become better people at the end, which, no surprise, they do.

There were lots of deviations from the book (too many to list them all), but only one really bothered me: the return (again) of the White Witch. Why is she still here? Why do they keep bringing her back? I know that Edmund as a character needs to grow, but why do they have to keep using the White Witch? Do they not have any better ideas? Does Tilda Swinton need the money? I just don't get it. None of the other changes were so egregious that it significantly bothered me, (they mostly combined events or used shortcuts to keep the movie moving), but it still irks me that CNVDT's filmmakers have to do it in the first place. I know that screen time is precious and you can't literally adapt the novel into a movie as that's impractical, but you can make the movie while keeping the spirit of the book. That's what the film adaptations of the franchises mentioned in the first paragraph do so effectively, and it's why they're so popular. Any modifications, deviations, or new creative choices are done so with the spirit of the source material in mind. They actually attempt to honor the source material. It seems like the filmmakers of CNVDT were so desperate to get back a viable paying fanbase that they changed things for simplicity and audience accessibility rather than the spirit of the Narnia novels.

Which brings me back to my first and overarching point with CNVDT. Everything that is done, everything that you see, and everything that you experience is designed to win you back. It essentially says "we know we screwed up with CNPC, but look, we can turn this around and make a solid film franchise of this series - just stick with us and keep coming to the theatre." I think at times Hollywood forgets that the reason we loved the books in the first place is because authors like C.S. Lewis knew how to craft a story with interesting characters and engaging plots. Too bad they don't.

I enjoyed CNVDT better than CNPC as it was at least easier to sit through, but it's still not nearly as good as CNLWW was. We'll see if the filmmakers efforts to turn the film franchise around literally and figuratively pay off - if they don't, we may not see any more Narnia films, which would be a shame, because if they could just capture the spirit of the books, they wouldn't struggle to make money; fans like me would be lining up to see them. Which isn't to say I won't see Chronicles of Narnia: The Silver Chair if they ever make it, but I might need Aslan to roar at the filmmakers before they do.

Unstoppable

Denzel Washington is the acting equivalent of Tim Duncan: he is probably the most underrated star at what he does even though everyone acknowledges how great he is, even from an "all time" historical perspective; he is paradoxical in that way. What I mean by that is that he is always great. No matter what the movie is about, no matter what the character he plays, he so rarely has a bad outing anymore, you almost forget that he is one of the greatest actors of all time. Same thing with Tim Duncan. No matter what's going on with his team or what he is doing on the court, people forget he is one of the greatest players in NBA history (btw, Denzel would love that corollary as he is an avid NBA fan).

Unstoppable is no exception. Denzel turns in another great performance as Frank, the engineer on a railroad train who, along with Chris Pine's Will, the train's conductor, decide to catch up with and stop an unmanned train operating under its own power, guided by the railroad company supervisor Connie, played by Rosario Dawson. Denzel is effortless as Frank. We immediately embrace him as this character - an older, wiser, experienced man who has spent his life doing what he does, staying where he is at, and then is expected to teach Will the ropes even though he doesn't really like the rookie and questions his advancement on the rails. Denzel could've very easily let this character be a broad, by-the-numbers template of a character, but with a bit of subtlety, charm, and grace (and just a dash of that killer Denzel smile), he elevates the character, and by extension, the movie. That's the genius of guys like Denzel and Tim - they are able to make even the most mundane, basic jobs great, even when those jobs are actually more complex than the surface would indicate.

Chris Pine and Rosario Dawson also do a good job, although Chris's performance was the least noteworthy. I actually thought the 2nd best performance of the movie belonged to Kevin Dunn, who played the infuriating railroad executive. Just like in Transformers, he has a knack of making whatever screen time he is given memorable, which is a great gift of character actors like him (I'll give that same praise to Ethan Suplee, who is in this movie as the baffoon railroad employee that lets the train get away, but not for this movie. Check out his work in the sublime TV show My Name is Earl).

The one thing about Unstoppable I will give it credit for is that it is a fairly unique idea for a movie in that there are not a whole lot of action films set on railroads, particularly in the 21st century. Despite the unusual setting, the film does a good job of ratcheting up the tension and building to some pretty suspenseful moments, although the end of the film - how the train finally stops - is somewhat of a letdown. But that is a minor quibble.

Tony Scott has shown himself to be a good filmmaker and has a good rapport with Denzel - this is their 5th movie together. I enjoyed this film, and once they stop making movies together, Unstoppable will probably be among my favorite of their collaborations, with Man on Fire. Their synergy seems to be, well . . .

Nope, I'm not gonna say it. You know what I mean.

Quick Entry: Chloe and Waiting for Superman

Yet another quick entry hits my blog and this time it is not because I saw Chloe and Waiting for Superman (WFS) ages ago (I actually saw them this past week), but because I only have a few thoughts on each and I figured trying to expand them into separate, expanded blog entries would be foolish.

If you're not familiar with each, here's my quick synopsis of both:

Chloe is about a woman named Catherine, played by Julianne Moore, who suspects her husband of cheating, so she hires a young woman named Chloe, played by Amanda Seyfried, to tempt her husband and report back to her. Slowly but surely Chloe draws Catherine into her web and threatens to destroy her family. I will say that part of my thoughts contain spoilers, so SPOILER ALERT.

WFS is a documentary film about the deficiencies in K-12 public education in the US, and it also illuminates what are the factors that contribute to successful, sustained learning in a classroom.

Here's my notes on each:

Chloe:

• I like the three principal actors of this film, Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, and Liam Neeson, I just don't like them in Chloe. They all seem to be going through the motions and it makes me feel like they were only there to get a paycheck. The effort from these three was lackluster, particularly from Moore. I was disappointed by that, even if they did have mediocre material to work with.
• I saw the big plot twist, which is when Catherine finds out Chloe was lying about the entire affair with David, about 20 minutes into the movie. That makes getting interested in the remaining 75 minutes very difficult, which is why the lackluster effort by the actors was even more apparent and disappointing. I can tolerate a blasé plot if the acting is solid, and it just wasn't here.
• My biggest problem with the movie was that I didn't understand why Catherine chose to see if her husband was cheating in this way. There was very little groundwork done with her character that made it believable that she would do this. That's shoddy screenwriting right there.
• The one scene that explains why Catherine and David have a strained relationship with their son is deleted. I know this because I watched the deleted scenes and saw the one where he explains why. I cannot fathom why this was cut, as it is a pretty HUGE character development point. Just unexplainable.
• I have enjoyed a few of Atom Egoyan's films (most notably The Sweet Hereafter and Exotica) but this one was terrible. I hope he rebounds with his next film.

WFS:

• I should start by saying I'm biased: my mom is a 4th grade teacher in a public school. This film made me appreciate that much more the hard work and passion she has for the students she teaches and the idealism she has for education. I love her so much and am super proud of her.
• Man, public school is screwed up! That's what I thought first when I left the theatre. WFS does a phenomenal job of clearly and easily laying out the problems with public education, how those problems arose, and what are some steps we can do to fix them. You can't ask for a better formula from a documentary.
• This film packs an emotional punch. You feel sad, shocked, and appalled when they outline the problems with public education (many of the people I saw the movie with cried at some point); you feel invested in the futures of the kids they profile, you feel optimistic when you learn about KIPP schools, and you may, as I did, feel inspired that we can do better for our kids when the credits roll.
• I think this is one of those films that everybody should see. I don't usually say that because with most movies I recognize there will be something that will not connect with everyone, but I think that this is one of those movies that everyone can learn from - even the teachers unions. One of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

So there you have it. Skip Chloe and track down WFS. If you'll excuse me, I need to go call my mom.

Quick Entry: I Love You, Man and The Informant

In the interest of full disclosure I considered not posting on the movies I Love You, Man (ILYM) and The Informant (TI) as I saw them almost 2 months ago, but the whole point of this blog is for me to write at least a little something about the movies I see, so here I go.

Why did I not write about them earlier? Honestly, I don't know. Sometimes I have no strong feelings about a movie one way or the other, and that would be the best way to sum up my feelings about both ILYM and TI. They were fine viewing experiences, but nothing that made me want to write a blog entry immediately.

And so with that, here are some quick notes about each movie, as best I can remember:

ILYM:

• Jason Segel is good, but Paul Rudd is great. I think in comedy, and most comedians will back me up on this, that in any comedy team it is exponentially harder to play the straight man. Playing the goof ball is easy in that you can do crazy, outlandish stuff and it seem appropriate. As the straight man, you have to be just silly enough for the goofball to bounce off of and just smooth enough to make the comedy work. Rudd has proven over and over again (Think The 40 Year Old Virgin) that he is a master at this, and he does it again in this film.
• I'm a Rashida Jones fan and wish she got more leading roles and wasn't on the God-awful Parks and Recreation.
• I like that comedies like the aforementioned Virgin and this movie treat its audience like adults and talk like I do with my friends. How refreshing that they didn't edit it to get a PG-13 rating and suck all the originality of it.
• The first hour is pretty good, but the last 45 minutes or so are a bit lackluster. But the first hour makes it worth it.

TI:

• This is a REALLY quirky movie and has a very specific sense of humor, so be warned in advanced that this definitely won't be everybody's cup of tea. It wasn't mine, and I like to think I'm pretty quirky. I just got continually frustrated by the film's narrative approach, particularly the voiceover, to the point that at about halfway through I was just marking time til the film was over. One of my least favorite Steven Soderbergh and Matt Damon movies that I've seen.
• I applaud Damon's effort, but this character is not very likable, particularly when you get to the last half hour when what's really going on is fully revealed. I won't spoil it, but he is not going to be winning any popularity contests. The only reason I even remotely liked him is because Damon works overtime to make him at least slightly sympathetic.
• The visual look that Soderbergh gives the movie is very sepia-toned, which I'm not sure I would've done with this film, but I will give him credit in that it definitely sets the mood and tone for TI, as it is a slight period piece. The sepia-toned choice makes me think he was trying too hard to be a "filmmaker" and wasn't focused on telling an interesting story. Lately in his film I've been thinking that he needs to get out of his own way. I don't know how else to say it.

That's all I got. Don't judge.

The Karate Kid (2010)

The new Karate Kid (KK), based off the 1984 film of the same name, is part of the continuing trend in Hollywood to remake classic films and TV shows. The main impetus behind this trend is almost purely economical: people that cherish the 84 classic KK (and really, who doesn't cherish that flick) will be likely to lineup for the remake. A film with a built-in audience is more likely to make $$$.

And it works. The new KK is the perfect example, as it made box office gold when released earlier this year.

The difficulty for any film that is a remake of a previous film or TV show, especially one that holds a reverential place in the collective American heart is that since you're familiar with the source material, you go in with certain expectations of how the film should make you feel. You also can't help but compare the remake with the original. It's inevitable.

For me, the new one just doesn't stack up to the original. Now before you start saying "but Alan, you grew up with the 84 KK; of course you're biased," hear me out. I actually have reasons for why I'm not a fan of this one.

My first and biggest issue with this movie is that it is not karate they use - it's kung fu. Now some may think this is no big deal, but the name of the dang movie is The Karate Kid. Why would there not be karate in it??? It makes it feel like the filmmakers are just capitalizing off the franchise's name (which they are, as I stated earlier), which is just unfortunate. The Karate Kid, yet there's no karate. I shake my head.

My second major issue with KK is the length. At 2 hours and 15 minutes, this film is about 20-25 minutes too long. I find it ironic that a film that has Jackie Chan's Han trying to teach Jaden Smith's Dre about focus has surprisingly little focus throughout. There is a lot of extra material in this movie that has nothing to do with the central focus of the movie - Dre preparing for the kung fu tournament while learning how to deal with the issues in his life. It almost seems like the filmmakers decided that since they were filming this in China they should also teach us about Chinese culture. I'm not opposed to learning about Chinese culture, but that's not why I'm watching this film. I want to watch Dre mature.

(Random Aside: on the DVD on which I watched KK, hardly any of the Mandarin was translated via subtitles into English. I don't know if this was intentional by the filmmakers to make us feel lost and confused like Dre or a flaw in my DVD copy. If it was intentional, then the filmmakers were successful in sucking all the dramatic tension out of some crucial scenes, like when Han visits Cheng's dojo, because I couldn't understand what they were saying, which was supremely annoying. If it was a flaw in my DVD copy, then ignore this paragraph)

And KK's dragging pace kills any momentum it tries to build while heading for the climatic tournament. In the 84 KK, the film's pace, like a drum cadence, keeps getting slowly but progressively faster until you hit the end and are on the edge of your seat for the tournament. In this one, the constant detours prevent us from getting that feeling. There are a few moments during Dre's training that make you think "yeah, we're getting to it now". Nope. We follow up those scenes with Dre going with Mei Ying for an afternoon on the town, and then to see her audition, and then to see her dad so he'll let her watch him in the tournament. Major Buzzkill reporting for duty.

My last issue is something I heard a reviewer from the now gone film review TV show At the Movies say as a point of contention with KK. The ages of the main folks in the 84 KK save Mr. Miyagi were high schoolers, which means somewhat adultish. In this film, they're all 12-13 middle schoolers. There's something odd and unsettling about watching kids of that age beat each other up, and while I like Jaden Smith, it is just a little icky to watch him kiss a girl, no matter how sweetly the film handles it.

There are some good points in this movie. Jaden Smith is engaging and charismatic - you can see a lot of his dad in his acting. Jackie Chan is solid stepping into the Mr. Miyagi role of Han, and I always love Taraji P. Henson. But even with their solid performances, you can't help but feel they're not quite as good as their 84 counterparts, and some of the scenes they harken to (hang the jacket evokes wax on, wax off and Jackie Chan does a variation of the strange Mr. Miyagi-is-drunk scene) don't pack the same emotional punch as its predecessor.

Ultimately, if you want the emotional strength, courage, wit, charm, and inspiration that KK is supposed to have, watch the original (the 84 KK is ranked on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 most inspirational movies. Check it out for that reason alone). This KK feels like what it is - a slick, updated, inferior "update".

The Proposal

I'll be honest - I wasn't totally excited about watching this film.

Not because of the cast. In fact, I like all of them a lot - Sandra Bullock is reliably good, Ryan Reynolds, while not my favorite, usually does strong work, Mary Steenburgen is always a sweetheart, Craig T. Nelson, whom I enjoy, and Betty White, who, let's face it, is Betty White. The only cast member I had concerns with is Malin Ackerman, because she's been in a lot of junk (Watchmen, The Heartbreak Kid, Couples Retreat).

My trepidation with the film is the fact it is a romantic comedy. Me and the rom com genre have big beef.

Why you ask? Because it is soooo predictable. Every rom com follows this basic formula: boy and girl meet; boy and girl have attraction but for some reason (girl or boy already taken, boy and girl pretend they don't like each other, boy or girl's family won't "allow" their forbidden love) they spend the next hour to hour and 15 minutes fighting/apart/unhappy/longing for each other before ten minutes before the end one of them realizes "oh snap, we should be together" and they do. Big smooch followed by the credits.

Sound familiar? I know. Exactly. And that's why I generally avoid romantic comedies. All predictably the same. Hence my hesitation with The Proposal.

But I thought I'd give it a shot. Honestly, I had nothing else to do with my day and there were no other On Demand movies to watch.

And I'll admit it - I was pleasantly surprised. There were some moments of genuine humor, mostly revolving around Sandra Bullock's character being a foreigner in Alaska. Sandra Bullock genuinely shines as a cold hearted boss, and Ryan Reynolds does a great job as her foil. And Betty White is Betty White.

It's a cute hour and forty five minutes. I expect that if you like the romantic comedy genre, there won't be any surprises and you'll get the requisite warm-fuzzy feeling you expect by the end. There was nothing about The Proposal that was memorable, but there was also nothing objectionable, which, for me, is a huge compliment. If you're not a rom com person and you've got nothing else going on, this isn't a waste of your time.

Inception

Well, it looks like the summer movie season is complete.

I say that because all the movies I've been waiting for this summer have been released. Usually, I can identify at least 6 or 7 movies during the summer that I am legit excited about. This year? At the start of the summer, there were only 3 movies that made me think, "I need to see that." The list? Toy Story 3, Iron Man 2, and Inception. How sad is it that I'm really not enthused about any more movies this summer?

TS3 & IM2 hopefully require no explanation for my anticipation. If you know me, Inception shouldn't either. I am a big fan of Christopher Nolan, Inception's writer and director. You might've heard of some of his last few films: Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight. If you haven't seen any one of these movies, stop, go seek them out, and watch them. They are legen - wait for it - dary! (Shout out to How I Met Your Mother, which I've been netflixing lately; they use that phrase a lot. You can thank HIMYM and crappy summer offerings for my lack of more frequent movie posts.)

So when you tell me that Nolan is doing his first original work since his early film Following and is working with a few staples of his previous hits (some of this film's stars include Michael Caine, Ken Wantanabe, and Cilian Murphy), sign me up. I'm there.

And the film delivers on so many levels. The acting is absolutely top notch. Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, the aforementioned Murphy and Caine and Wantanabe . . . it was practically impossible to mess up with that cast; most are Oscar winners or nominees. The visuals are really strong and help bring the fake yet real world to life. I also appreciated the film's score. It added to the drama.

The plot . . . well, I really can't get into the plot too much. Essentially, DiCaprio plays Cobb, a man who can use your dreams to access information in your mind. To say much more would ruin some of the film's core surprises, so I won't do that.

What I will say is that when I finished it reminded me of two things. First, the dream argument, which anyone who has studied philosophy should be able with reasonable recollection to recount. The dream argument has been philosophized by the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, all of whom beg the question, "how do I know that when I am awake I'm not dreaming and that when I'm dreaming I'm not really awake? Which then is my reality?" Philosophy 101 baby!

The second thing I thought of was how I felt after this film like I did after watching the first Matrix movie for the first time. It was like, "I think I know what happened, but I'm not sure; I'll have to watch it again. And even if I thought I knew, it would be darn near impossible to explain it to anyone else." Suffice it to say that you just need to see it and judge it for yourself.

Inception requires its audience to be mentally engaged throughout, so if you're one of those people that goes to the movies to be entertained without having to do any thinking, which is fine, then skip this one or wait for DVD. While I appreciate every once in a while watching a movie that does not require any of my brain fuel to be burned, I appreciate that much more a film that requires me to keep my thinking cap on the whole time. Why you may ask. Because the mind-numbing films severely outnumber the thought-provoking ones.

Inception solidifies Nolan as one of the best filmmakers out there right now. And it only makes me more excited for Nolan's future projects, the next of which will be his third entry into the Batman mythology. My mind eagerly awaits.

Toy Story 3

One of my all time favorite movies, animated or otherwise, is Toy Story. I love the premise: toys that come to life when their owner leaves the room. The head toy, Woody, feels threatened when his kid Andy gets a hot new toy, Buzz. Over the course of the movie Woody helps Buzz realize that their main purpose is to be available for Andy, and they become as close as brothers by the end. That movie has an indescribable quality about it. Whether it is the fantastic plot, wit, humor, charm, or pure joy, Disney and Pixar captured absolute magic. It is hard to imagine that one movie could perfectly encapsulate such a full gamut of emotions. It totally revolutionized movies, animated or otherwise.

I was nervous when they made Toy Story 2. The first TS was a classic. Sequels hardly ever work as well as the original. Hollywood tends to forget what made the original great and try to "improve" the sequel. Why? I don't know. But it angers me. And that's why I was worried about TS2. How could they possibly capture the magic a 2nd time? No way right?

Wrong. They nailed it. The 2nd film explores what happens when toys feel abandoned by their owners. Woody is stolen by an evil toymaker who wants to sell him as part of a vintage set to a foreign museum. Buzz and the gang save him and remind him about his ultimate purpose: to bring joy to Andy. The magic and the genius returned: it was funny, exciting, endearing. TS2 was almost as good as the first - like how the Godfather Part II is almost as good as the Godfather. I breathed a big sigh of relief.

So naturally when I heard Toy Story 3 was being released, it was a bittersweet feeling. While I was pumped to be revisiting the world of Woody, Buzz, and the rest of the gang, I had that same previous anxiety about a sequel. But I have more trust in Pixar than any other movie studio working today. They haven't had a misfire yet and there's only one film in their canon I didn't really enjoy (Ratatouille. I just didn't enjoy it). So I walked in with cautious enthusiasm.

Boy, was I once again blown away. TS3 continues the magic started 15 years ago. In this adventure, Andy is grown and off to college. As before, the gang is worried about being abandoned and not played with. Through a series of mishaps, they end up at a daycare, which is both a blessing and a curse: a blessing because they are never outgrown and kids always want to play with them, but a curse because they never make a deeper connection with one kid.

When the toys arrive at the daycare, Woody immediately decides it's time to go back to Andy, but the rest of the group decides to stay. When they do, it appears like they've arrived at Shangri-La. Barbie finally meets Ken, and the crew meet Lotso, the leader of the daycare toys. He welcomes them and puts them in the infant room, where the toys get roughhoused. But when they ask for reassignments to the main room, where kids play with toys in a civilized manner, Lotso shows his mean streak and shows them that the daycare is like Shawshank.

Meanwhile Woody gets picked up by one of the daycare girls. When he spends the night at their house, he learns the true nature of the daycare and decides to go back and help them. He reunites with the rest of the toys and they make a break for it. At the end of the day, the gang gets back to Andy, and Andy decides to give them to the little girl who took Woody home with her. They all get a chance to love another kid.

There is so much to like in TS3 it's hard to know where to start, so I'll go with my favorites. My favorite part is when Buzz accidentally gets flipped into Spanish mode. Everything about that whole sequence is funny. I also appreciated the commentary they filmmakers make about the ruthlessness of toddler playtime. Barbie and Ken's relationship, particularly when she ties him up and uses his fashion obsession to torture him is great. I was touched when Woody, Buzz, and all the rest of the toys band together in the face of certain incineration. And Buzz's tango with Jessie during the end credits is fantastic.

TS3 solidifies for me that Pixar is the New York Yankees of animation studios. They cannot be beat. They continue to pump out films that stimulate both kids and adults on a deep emotional level. I think TS3 continues the Toy Story legacy. I'll be happy to add this film to my toybox when it comes out on DVD.