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.

Crazy Heart

I am not a big fan of country music. I'm trying my best to get into it (Kenny Chesney and Rascal Flats are pretty good), but there's just something about it that prevents me from getting into it and I don't know why. I've heard a wide range of country artists and groups and it is nearly impossible for me to really like them. I continue to try.

I say this because my only trepidation about watching the Oscar-winning film Crazy Heart (CH) was that it focuses on a country singer. I was worried that no matter how much I may have enjoyed the acting performances or the story, I wouldn't really love the movie because of the focus on country music.

Well color me tickled, was I wrong.

I really liked CH, and I really enjoyed its music. Produced by T Bone Burnett, the mastermind behind the music of O Brother, Where Art Thou?, CH showcases some amazing country tunes, including the Oscar-winning "The Weary Kind". I found my foot tapping and my head bobbing along with the audiences inside the movie. The music is the soul of this movie, and it is really exceptional. The film at points almost plays like a concert movie, complete with audience shots and interesting stage camera shots, and the music was so good that it made me wish I was there. What a pleasant surprise.

But please make no mistake about it, the heart of CH (no pun intended) is Jeff Bridges. He is outstanding as Bad Blake, the past-his-prime country singer that the movie focuses on. His performance alone takes this movie from pretty good to great in the same way that Jamie Foxx's performance in Ray elevates that movie a couple notches. I completely agree with the Academy's decision to award him the Oscar for Best Actor. And this isn't just a lifetime achievement Oscar win for him either - this is probably the best performance of his career. He earned his Oscar.

In my note on Facebook, I wrote that I would've given the Oscar to George Clooney for Up in the Air. I must now recant that pick after seeing this performance. Here's why: Up in the Air would still be a good movie with another actor other than George Clooney as the lead (I think Edward Norton also could've done a great job) because the writing in that movie is so strong - Clooney's performance didn't enhance that film. That's not true with CH. Without Jeff Bridges, this movie is rudimentary and cliche. It could've and probably would've fallen into the usual music biopic traps, but Bridges' performance makes this film different. Using a sports analogy, Jeff Bridges was the male acting MVP. He deserved the trophy.

That's not to say that Bridges is the only strong performance in CH. Maggie Gyllenhaal did a great job as Blake's love interest Jean, deserving of her Oscar nod. She brings a lot of warmth to the movie as a single mom who loves her son and Bad Blake, in that order. And Colin Farrell as country music superstar Tommy Sweet was a nice surprise. He reminds you that when you don't worry about his off-screen antics he is a fine actor. And props to both him and Bridges for doing their own vocal work in the movie. Couldn't have asked for more from this cast.

The story of CH following Bad Blake in the twilight of his career is really interesting and, as I mentioned, avoids a lot of the music biopic cliches. It has lots of heart and charm. The movie progressively makes you more invested in Blake and his struggle to succeed in both his personal and professional lives. You follow Blake all the way to the bottom and then accompany him as he climbs out of the holes he digs himself in. Not only do you cheer for him, you want to cheer for him. For me, that is the essence of the movies at their best.

I think CH is the American equivalent of Once, another fabulous music movie; great music centered around a very touching and somewhat tragic love story that rewards anyone who watches it and goes by way too fast (seek out the Irish film Once; it is so worth your time). At the end I almost wanted to put on my boots, don my cowboy hat, and giddy up to my local honky tonk for a rowdy good time.

Almost.