Trance

"Trance" is the new film from Danny Boyle.  This made it an instant must-see in my book.  Boyle is one of those directors who always seems to be trying something new.  I like that.  Even when I don't connect to one of his films, his work still proves to be interesting.

Boyle tends to alternate between small movies and big movies.  When I say "big" and "small," I'm referring to the push from the studios.  I tend to prefer his smaller films.  While advertisers usually push his "big" movies ("Trainspotting," "Slumdog Millionaire," "28 Days Later," and "127 Hours"), I would recommend folks seek out Boyle's "small" movies.  "Shallow Grave" and "Millions" are underwatched gems, and "Sunshine"is a fairly large budget but not enthusiastically marketed film.

"Trance" is very similar to "Sunshine" in that regard.   If you said you'd never heard of "Trance," I wouldn't be at all surprised.

"Trance" deals with a two subjects that give most filmmakers fits: amnesia and hypnosis.  Much like time travel plots, there looms the possibility of glaring plot holes that can take the audience out of the movie.  At the very least, the audience could be left horribly confused.  Neither one seems to be an issue in "Trance." 

Let's get into this plot.  Simon works at an auction house.  A robbery occurs (of which he is an accomplice).  Simon hides the stolen painting but due to a head injury, he cannot remember where it is.  His fellow criminals utilize the services of a hypnotherapist to help him recover his memory.  Double crosses, triple crosses, and uncertain realities ensue.

After the crazy camerawork of "Slumdog Millionaire" and "127 Hours," it is so refreshing to see Danny Boyle return to a simpler way of filming.  That is not to say that the cinematography is not inventive.  Plenty of techniques Boyle tried in previous films (sometimes poorly or to excess), are put to work here.  But every shot shot feels very appropriate.  The camerawork is impressive but never distractingly flashy.  It is a case of Boyle allowing the image, not the technique, to be the focus. 

As far as performances, no one really stands out.  That doesn't mean the actors are bad.  Actually, everyone is great.  James McAvoy is always good.  Vincent Cassel is excellent.  But for him, excellent is average.  Rosario Dawson comes closest to turning in a stand out performance.  However, the film is so plot driven that character is kinda pushed back.  Boyle did right to cast actors who could impart some humanity to the characters amidst the twists and turns of the plot.

"Trance" is a very sexual movie.  Maybe that's why it didn't get the studio support that a Danny Boyle film usually warrants.  For some reason, Hollywood has problems with sex but not with violence. Don't worry though, "Trance" has plenty of violence too.  

I was really happy with "Trance."  In the end, there is a rather long scene of exposition to ensure that the audience is clear on all the hypnosis/amnesia mumbo-jumbo.  It's a little awkward but necessary.  That sequence is at least driven by interesting camerawork and editing.  I would recommend "Trance" over the last few films Boyle has released.  Don't expect your friends and family to have watched it.  Just be the cool kid who watched that weird hypnosis movie that Danny Boyle made between his ho-hum Oscar bait.

8 out of 10

Summer with Monika

This is the single greatest film I have ever seen on the topic of young love.  Bergman captures the passion and irrationality of youth flawlessly.  But he also captures the sudden fall that occurs when the physical attraction fizzles out and all that's left are two people who don't even know each other.  That kind of thing might just result in the end of a relationship, but these are teenagers.

 

The young couple in question decide to run away from home together. After a summer of living alone and having sex, they start to drift apart.  Then the girl realizes that she's pregnant.  They don't even like each other at this point.  But out of stubbornness and spite (against the world/parents/each other), they decide to get married.  Thus ends the movie. 

 

How many marriages mirror this movie?  I don't even want to know.  At least today people get divorced.  Back when this movie was made/takes place, people were in it for life.  A life of misery.  That's what hormones and puppy love lead to!

 

"Summer with Monika" is actually a phenomenal movie.  It feels real.  But that's true of all the Ingmar Bergman films I've seen.  Even when the subject is strange or unnatural, his direction just feels natural and right.  Some of that is owed to his actors.  The kids in "Monika" are top notch.  They are so much more than just two horny teens.  They bring their pasts and their futures into the performances and every line and action becomes something greater.

 

I highly recommend "Summer with Monika."  Especially as a summer movie.  You'll get caught up in the romantic notion of taking a boat into the wild to fornicate free from responsibility.  And you'll be crushed by the weight of reality.  Despite the downer ending, I get the impression that Bergman may have felt that one amazing summer may be worth a life of misery. 

 

8.5 out of 10

Auntie Mame

If someone asked you to recommend a "feel-good" movie, I don't think you could do much better than to sit them down with "Auntie Mame."  I've seen this movie 6 or 7 times and it never fails to grab a fistful of my heartstrings and yank the hell out of them. 

 

"Auntie Mame" is based on a book which was adapted to the stage.  In the 70s, "Auntie Mame" would become a Broadway musical and then a musical film.  This first movie was nominated for 6 Academy Awards (it lost Best Picture to "Gigi").  Despite all this, I don't know many people familiar with this movie.  And that's a shame.

 

"Auntie Mame" is about a wealthy woman who spends her days nursing hangovers and her nights partying with bohemian types.  One day, she is charged with being the caretaker to her recently orphaned nephew, Patrick.  She exposes the boy to her world of weird (but nice) people until she is forced to send Patrick away to a snooty boarding school.  The Depression bankrupts Mame and she begins to lose her influence over Patrick.  She rebuilds her life and comes head-to-head with the conservative lifestyle that Patrick has been embracing.

 

"Auntie Mame" is ultimately an extremely humorous portrayal of the virtues of liberal privilege over conservative privilege.  Regardless of your political affiliations, you'd have to be a stick in the mud to not enjoy Mame's antics and rapid fire dialogue.  I watched it with my mom and she didn't even pick up on the political aspect even though they explicitly talk about it in the movie.  Mame and her friends are just good people and you want to see them get the better of the rude, mean people.  

 

Rosalind Russell is fantastic as Mame.  It's not a naturalistic performance by any stretch.  She's gloriously over the top and constantly mugging.  But it works so well to establish Mame as a larger than life character.  Everyone else is just good enough. But to be fair to the other actors, it's hard to steal any spotlight from Russell.

 

I love, love, love "Auntie Mame."  It is one of my favorite 50s movies.  The color photography is gorgeous.  The jokes still hold up 55 years later.  If your feeling like an escape from the "gritty realism" so prevalent in modern films, give in to Technicolor fantasy.  Check out "Auntie Mame."

 

9 out of 10

Bullet to the Head

There seems to be a push in Hollywood (sparked by the success of "The Expendables") to make action movies with an 80s flair.  The problem is that modern action movies rely on CGI, seizure inducing editing, and chaotic camerawork.  80s movies used stuntmen, judicious editing, and tripods.  So how can you ensure that your 80s-style action picture stays gloriously 80s?  Well, you can cast Sylvester Stallone.  But just watch "The Expendables" and see that no matter how many 80s action icons you cast, the picture will be a digitized, shaky mess (but oh so much fun).  The real solution is to hire one of the masters of 80s action awesomeness to direct.  Enter Walter Hill.

If you or your dad grew up in the 80s, the odds are several of your favorite action movies of that time are directed by Walter Hill.  Hill started in the 70s with a trio of films: "Hard Times" with Charles Bronson, "The Driver," and "The Warriors."  Those movies alone would solidify anyone as one of the greats.  If your son is a late bloomer, show him any one of those flicks this weekend and it'll kick start puberty.  Show him all three and you'll end up sending a lumberjack to middle school on Monday.

Hill was not satisfied with the awesomeness of his 70s movies.  He would enter the 80s with "The Long Riders" and continue to bless us with "48 Hours," "Streets of Fire," "Brewster's Millions" (not action but still great), and "Red Heat."  His 90s output was iffy and he seemed to slow down and focus on television.  So why did I bring all this up?  Because Walter Hill is back!  And it is glorious!

I will say that "Bullet to the Head" is not a great movie.  But it is an exceptionally fun movie.  What more can you ask for?  In a world where so many action movies are huge spectacles and the stakes are to save the world or a city or an economy or something huge, it's nice to see a movie where the scale is limited to two men and the stakes are their lives.  That's it.  No need to destroy whole buildings.  No nigh omnipotent/omnipresent uber-villian.  "Bullet to the Head" is a movie where mean, muscular men meet in warehouses to shoot each other and when the bullets run out they punch each.  To death.

"Bullet to the Head" is about an assassin who must team up with a cop to stay alive while being hunted by mercenaries.  There's nothing fancy going on.  Stallone plays his role (the assassin) as an old man for once.  He's a badass old man, but he's still an old man.  There's a moment when the assumption is made that he's in a relationship with a woman in her 20s.  That's how Stallone movies have been forever.  The action hero has a hot, young girl.  But here he explains with disgust that that's his daughter.  It's a nice recognition of his age (Stallone is 67, can you believe it?!).

The cop is played by Sung Kang who is probably best known for his participation in the "Fast and Furious" franchise.  He's fine in this movies but he's not given much to do.  He's constantly on his phone which annoys Stallone's character (he's playing an old man and old people hate technology).  But his real job in the movie is to sit there and absorb casual racism.  The intent seems to be to further establish Stallone as an out-of-touch old man.  If you're a fan of the good natured, racist ribbing in "Gran Torino," you'll find yourself grinning at all the Asian stereotypes.  In the end, Kang's character ends up being a master martial artist thus making him an Asian stereotype.  But at least it's a good stereotype, I guess.

Jason Momoa plays the leader of the mercenaries.  Even after the horror that is "Conan," I was still willing to give Momoa a chance.  And he did not disappoint.  The man is made for old school action.  He's so monstrous and menacing that I was certain the good guys would lose.  Momoa is the standout actor in "Bullet in the Head" (although I was super giddy to see Christian Slater).

Other than awkward racism, the other oddities in "Bullet in the Head" are as follows:

1) Sung Kang plays a guy named Taylor Kwan and Jason Momoa plays a guy named Keegan.  I'm sorry to any dudes named Taylor or Keegan, but these are not the kind of names you give awesome action heroes.  Maybe I'm stuck in the past like old man Stallone.  But every time someone called out "Taylor!" or spoke fearfully about a man named Keegan, I groaned.

2) The product placement.  Had I known about this, I would have purchased the items showcased in the movies.  Because they're both booze.  Don't miss out like I did.  Miller Lite and Bulleit Bourbon (get it?) are constantly demanded by the characters.  Being that this is a pretty dumb movie, a few Miller/Bulleit boilermakers can only serve to make it more enjoyable.

3) This movie is prudish about nudity, right up until it revels in nudity.  A couple ladies are set up to get very naked, but instead some almost Austin Powers-esque, strategically placed nudity blockers start popping up.  And then you are expected to be satisfied because they film a very in-your-face butt shot.  But when the movie deals with actresses who don't have speaking parts, the boobs come flying out.  It feels very out of place.  I'm cool with nudity-free movies, but don't flip-flop like that.  It makes the scenes where things are covered up comical.

That about covers it.  "Bullet to the Head" is a movie for old school action fans.  I usually hope for my action movies to be a bit smarter.  But when they are as thoroughly entertaining as this, I can't really complain.  Watch it with your dad.  He'll love you more for it.  And don't forget the Miller Lite.

6 out of 10

42

What is it about baseball movies that they are almost always fantastic?  Baseball movies are perfectly suited to drama.  Well, the batting is.  Pitching can be pretty good, but fielding is boring.  That's why no good baseball movie focuses on defense (do you hear me "Angels in the Outfield?" We want angels at the plate!).  One man against the world who must (through hard work, innate talent, and sheer will) overcome the odds and come out on top.  This also the American Dream.  Americans are not team players.  Team movies lack drama.  Sorry football movies.

 

"42" is a great baseball movie.  It manages to expand past batting to base stealing.  The base stealing is riveting because it maintains drama.  The pitchers are all portrayed as hateful racists and Jackie Robinson's base stealing is played not as man vs. world but as hero vs. villain.  This movie has it all!

 

But why are the pitchers racist?  Well in case you are really out of the loop both historically and cinematically, "42" is about Jackie Robinson.  Robinson was the first black athlete to play in Major League Baseball.  He broke the color barrier in professional sports and paved the way for non-white American athletes to play at the elite level.

 

So if "42" is a great baseball movie, is it a great race movie?  I say yes.  Many (most?) American movies dealing with race have the problem of focusing on white people.  It can come off rather condescending that racial issues are portrayed as a problem that white people have to fight for black people.  While "42" has plenty of white characters in it (remember that the whole point is that Robinson is the only black player), the focus of the film is Robinson and how racism affects him and how he overcomes it.  It is even presented that Robinson was brought onto the Brooklyn Dodgers not to make a statement, but as a publicity stunt to boost black attendance.  White people are not fighting Robinson's fight.  Robinson is the fighter.  And it is incredibly refreshing.

 

There are great performances all around in "42."  Chadwick Boseman is a phenomenal Jackie Robinson.  He is stoic and proud.  This quietude serves to make his outbursts of rage and frustration that much more powerful.  But the show stealer is Harrison Ford as Dodgers owner Branch Rickey.  It's so nice to see Ford actually care about a performance.  He's been grumpily shuffling through the last few roles he's had and I was frankly sick out it.  In "42," he gives an Oscar caliber performance. 

 

But the real stars of "42," the ones who make the whole thing work so well, are writer/director Brian Helgeland and composer Mark Isham.  Helgeland may not always direct the best movies but I always find his scripts to be pretty solid.  "42" is one of his best.  The direction is nothing to get excited about.  No flashy camerawork.  No weird editing.  Nothing to distract the audience from the story unfolding on screen.  And that's admirable.  The script is filled with diverse characters, not just racists and not racists.  There's just as much internal turmoil to balance out the external turmoil.  The script has plenty of comic relief to help take the edge off of the seriousness but it never undermines the subject matter (do you hear me "The Help?").  And the serious moments are driven by Mark Isham's rousing score.  The music is pure audience manipulation in best way.  The one-two punch of Helgeland and Isham make this a truly must-see movie.

 

"42" never falls into the studio trap of being a "black movie" or a "mainstream movie."  There are no "white movies" which implies a certain racism on Hollywood's part (are black people not mainstream?).  "42" is much like Robinson himself.  It defies color.  It is a movie for everyone.  And I would never claim that racism in America is gone or even in sports (google "racism in soccer"), but it's nice to see how far things have come and mindboggling to imagine what it once was like.  I think "42" is one of those movies that we'll all be watching decades from now.  It's a perfect blend of history, Americana, and great storytelling.  It's great cinema.

 

9 out of 10

Evil Dead

Let's get one thing out of the way.  I love the shit out of the original "Evil Dead" series.  They are movies that I hold immensely dear to my heart.  There are few movies I have watched more than the "The Evil Dead."  The idea of remaking that film was terrifying.  It seems as if all my favorite classic horror films have been remade so poorly that the real horror is in watching the gross incompetence on the part of the filmmakers.

So "Evil Dead" is just another terrible remake the studios crapped out to exploit the previous films' popularity?  Actually, no.  In fact, it's kinda great.

 

"Evil Dead" by no means rivals the low budget, campy brilliance of "The Evil Dead," but it's not trying to.  It is a movie that takes the concept (and plenty of fan service elements) and plugs it into the framework of the modern, gore-crazy, post-"Saw" horror film.

 

The plot remains virtually the same, which is incredible after "The Cabin in the Woods" so magnificently deconstructed this exact premise.  A group of friends go to an old cabin in the woods.  In this version, they are taking a friend to get her off drugs.  One guy finds a book that is sealed in black plastic and wrapped in barbed wire, which has a warning on every page not to read it.  So he reads it.  Aloud.  Demonic possession ensues and people are horrifically murdered. 

 

The drug-kicking element was pretty interesting, right up to when the movie completely abandons it.  So much could've been done with it.  It could've been played off that the initial demon shenanigans are withdrawal hallucinations (this is done slightly).  It could've been an extra dramatic element that a girl has to fight her possessed friends while kicking heroin (I think, but they never say).  Or demonic possession could've been a cool, horror metaphor for drug addiction.  Nothing is done with the drug plotline, but the endless bloody assault that "Evil Dead" becomes makes you quickly forget that a plot even exists.

 

That's what "Evil Dead" has to offer and nothing else.  The actors are serviceable.  No one gives a standout performance.  They all look like they wandered off of the CW just to be slaughtered.  But oh, what a glorious slaughter it is!  The kills on display in "Evil Dead" are excellent.  They are gruesome and filmed in such a way as to make you squirm in discomfort.  As the movie ramps up, the blood and viscera spray and splatter with such gleeful abandon that I couldn't help but laugh out loud.

 

Needless to say, this is not a movie for the squeamish.  It is a movie for folks who enjoy a couple hours of crazy, excessive violence.  I'll stick with the original "Evil Dead" series as they are one of the great cinematic trilogies.  But I will be revisiting the remake when the inevitable "Unrated Director's Cut" comes out probably around Halloween ("Evil Dead" was originally given an NC-17 for violence and was edited down to make an R rating). 

 

7 out of 10

Spring Breakers

I love divisive films.  Even if I fall on the side of disliking the film, I still love the debates.  "Spring Breakers" has already divided critics, and I can't wait to talk this movie out with the home video crowd.  How did I feel about "Spring Breakers?"

It's awesome!

 

Where to begin with this movie?  Let's get the plot out of the way.  Four college girls rob a restaurant to get the money to head to Florida for spring break.  There they meet a rapper and small-time criminal who leads them on a crime spree.  And they party a lot too.

 

My favorite thing about "Spring Breakers" is how hyper-stylized it is.  Nothing is presented traditionally.  The cinematography is blown out and gritty at times but glossy neon at others.  Shots are riddled with double exposures.  The sound is all over the place and constant.  There is not a quiet moment in "Spring Breakers."

 

This hyper-stylized filmmaking is not normal for director Harmony Korine.  I believe it is all intended as a subversion.  Not just of the subject but of the film itself.  When the music is pumping, the scene is in dream-like slow motion.  When the music is quiet, the scene is manic.  The dialogue is often repeated in soft, whispered voice-over.  But the stylization is, sadly, not very original.  The double exposure camera work is taken directly from the final films of Tony Scott (especially "Man on Fire" and "Domino").  The black light photography is taken from Hype Williams' "Belly" (which you should go watch right now).  The manic camerawork and sensuous slow mo are lifted from the world of music videos.  The very music video style that Hype Williams helped pioneer.  And whispered voice over is a staple of artsy indie movies.  While the style may be derivative, at least it's derivative of some of my favorite movies.

 

The casting of "Spring Breakers" caused a bit of hoopla prior to it hitting theaters.  This is because of the presence of Disney Channel starlets Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens.  It's a brilliant bit of stunt casting.  Having them playing criminal, hard partying, highly sexual characters carries with it a strong shock value and much needed publicity.  And they're great!  Really.  All four girls (rounded out with Ashley Benson and the director's wife, Rachel Korine) are fantastic.  But they all pale next to the powerhouse performance from James Franco.  His portrayal of low-rent rapper/gansta, Alien (he's not of this earf, y'all), is reason enough to watch this movie.  His gansta glee is infectious and his dialogue is endlessly quotable.

 

Now, "Spring Breakers" is not all perfect.  When I was watching it, I was under the impression that it was supposed to be a criticism of the hedonism of America and its youth in particular.  That's what Korine said it was about in interviews.  But "Spring Breakers" falls into the same catch-22 as war movies.  Almost all war movies are intended to be anti-war.  But in making a movie entertaining, war is invariably glorified.  Hedonism is captured beautifully in this movie.  Florida becomes Sodom and Gomorrah.  It's Caligula's court.  And it seems freakin' awesome.  It's had to make partying with your friends seem awful.

 

Despite all the good "Spring Breakers" has going for it, there are going to be plenty of folks who hate it.  It's highly (and sometimes awkwardly) sexual without actually involving sex.  It glorifies (unintentionally) drug use and crime.  The directorial style is crazy.  Nothing much happens story-wise.  Much like Zach Snyder's "300," if the slow motion scenes were shown at normal speed, the movie would be 40 minutes long.

 

I don't think Harmony Korine can make a truly mainstream movie.  It's not who he is.  I would highly recommend his "Gummo" or "Kids" or "Julien Donkey Boy," and half the people who watch them would hate them.  If you trust me and watch "Spring Breakers" and can't stand it, I would completely understand.  It's a movie wherein your enjoyment of it is really a matter of personal taste.  It's either your kind of movie or not.  There's only one way to find out.  Watch it.  And I hope you like it as much as I do.  Spring break forever!

 

8.5 out of 10

 

Admission

There's not much to say about "Admission."  It's a good movie.  But it's an enjoyable, ultimately forgettable piece of cinema fluff.

The plot involves a Princeton admissions officer who meets a kid who may be the child she gave up for adoption.  She has to juggle her job, potential child, and budding romance with the head of an experimental high school.

 

"Admission" is a comedy but it doesn't really elicit any laughs.  Instead, you'll maybe chuckle or smile.  This is not a bad thing.  I can appreciate a movie that just makes me feel good, especially when so many movies make me want to punch myself in the face.

The lead actors are on auto-pilot.  Tina Fey is doing her Tina Fey thing.  She's a socially inept woman who chose her job over kids and is troubled by it.  But in a funny way.  It's all she ever does, but she does it so well.  Paul Rudd is goofy and smart alecky.  There's nothing new here but it works for the movie.  Lily Tomlin, however, is awesome.  She's Tina Fey's crazy, feminist mother, and she's the funniest part of the whole movie.

If you want to feel nice for 100 minutes, give "Admission" a try.  It's a sweet, kinda funny flick.  And it's not overly focused on romance or sappiness.  Even the most disagreeable husband or boyfriend might find himself enjoying it.

7 out of 10

Five Fingers of Death

 Brace yourself, because the "5 Fingers of Death" will kick your ass!

 

This is THE martial arts movie that started the Kung Fu craze in America.  Before Warner Bros. put this out, martial arts flicks were shown only in Chinatown to Chinese audiences.  "5 Fingers of  Death" (sometimes called "King Boxer") showed the rest of us how awesome watching dudes punch and kick each other could be.

 

It's a story of honor.  But y'know what?  Like most Kung Fu movies, the story doesn't matter.  What matters are the fights.  And they are freakin' awesome!  Nothing fancy here.  Minimal wirework.  No dance-like choreography.  Just dudes beating the shit out of each other.  Blood flows (tame by today's standards but in 1973 this was intense) and sometimes sprays wildly.

 

Director Chang Ho Cheng came to China from Korea and changed the face of martial arts.  His camera and editing is incredible kinetic.  The action is constantly in your face.  Kung Fu movies would duplicate his style for the next 20 years.  Filmmakers today could take a lesson from Chang Ho Cheng.  The man could put together some incredible action.

 

But the ultimate badassery in "5 Fingers of Death" is star, Lo Lieh.  He embodies that certain quiet intensity that great Kung Fu heroes seem to require (there are exceptions).  When he starts honing his Iron Palm, you know things are going to get crazy awesome.  Which is insane considering that the movie is already crazy awesome!

 

I watch a ton of martial arts movies and "5 Fingers of Death" is one I return to often (I still watch my VHS copy sometimes because I love the dubbing).  I actually watched this movie the other day and two hours after it was over, I watched it again with the audio commentary on.  Check it out.  It's one of the absolute best action flicks ever!  And keep an eye (and ear) open for all the stuff Quentin Tarantino borrowed for "Kill Bill."

 

9 out of 10

 

Thief

This movie is so 80s!  Just look at that poster.  It's like a Max Headroom silhouette. 

 

"Thief" is the second film from director Michael Mann (his first movie was made for TV so if you call this his first, I won't fault you).  Already, Mann is showing his love of criminals and hyper-masculinity. 

 

James Caan plays a thief who gets caught up working for a big time criminal.  He takes "one last job" and everything goes well except that he does not receive his money.  Much blood is spilt.

 

"Thief" is based on a novel written by an honest-to-goodness jewel thief.  As much as the other stylistic elements of Michael Mann, his obsessive eye for detail begins to show.  I get the feeling that Mann learned everything there is to know about heists and their execution.  "Thief" feels practically educational at times.

 

It's not a particularly deep film but it is exceptionally entertaining.  This is one of those "guy movies."  Most wives and girlfriends won't share an appreciation of it.  This is a movie about men who are more badass than most other men fantasize of being. 

 

The score by Tangerine Dream is incredible (but they always are).  It just drives home how supremely 80s this movie is.  It's dated in the best possible way.  So if you're a guy (or super cool lady) who's in the mood to watch badass men steal shit to the sounds of intense synthesizer music, then "Thief" is completely for you.  You'll be a cooler person after you watch it.

 

8 out of 10

Dead Man Down

This movie made me happy.  It's not any great masterwork.  It's a pretty generic action/crime movie.  Most of the plot points are formulaic and predictable.  But "Dead Man Down" has plenty of awesome going for it that helps it stand apart from the pack.

The story involves a mob hit man and his relationship with a disfigured (but not really), young woman.  He tries to juggle his feelings for the girl and getting revenge for his family's death.  We've seen a bajillion movies that fall under this same basic plot.  But the performances and direction in "Dead Man Down" are what make it so enjoyable.

 

Colin Farrell is great when given a role with something to do.  This is one of those roles.  Farrell plays a man who is in constant turmoil over his conflicting emotions.  Yet, he is also a guy who doesn't talk much.  As such, he is required to give a performance of silences.  It's not an easy thing and Farrell nails it.

 

Next up is Noomi Rapace, who is even better in her role.  She plays a woman who was disfigured in a car accident and the left side of her face reconstructed.  Rapace has shown in just a handful of movies that she is one of our great actresses and this another wonderful showing from her.  She is shy and hurt and angry all at once.  Her character's intense emotion shifts never feel out of place.  Rapace is really the standout performance in "Dead Man Down."

 

Dominic Cooper's role is pretty minimal, but his natural charm help to make him likeable with very little screen time.  He's supposed to be the best friend and usually that would require plenty of setup.  But he makes the most of his time and keeps an important (albeit clichéd) final plot point from coming off forced.

 

Terrence Howard plays his role as a crime boss quietly.  He speaks with such a gentleness and determination that his menace is felt in the last act.  But he is also quite good at being scared without coming off as weak in front of his men.  

 

Also making small appearances are F. Murray Abraham and Isabelle Huppert.  Abraham is not given much to do, but I just like seeing him on screen.  Huppert plays Rapace's mother and provides some much needed comic relief.

 

The action is excellently done.  The final showdown is awesome.  But as much as this is definitely a revenge movie, the real great parts are the budding romance between Farrell and Rapace.  They are so broken and so awkward around people that their flirtation is extremely sweet.  The dual forces of mobsters shooting each other and lonely people falling in love make "Dead Man Down" a great date movie.  It has stuff for guys and gals.

 

If there is any complaint to be had, it's Rapace's makeup.  Even after reconstructive surgery, the neighborhood kids still call her a monster.  But the makeup is just a couple of minor scars.  Noomi Rapace is still gorgeous!  It was really hard to swallow at times.  I understand that if she was too disfigured, the audience might be distracted from the story by her face.  But they could've just uglied her up a little bit.

 

"Dead Man Down" gets a huge recommendation.  I loved every bit of it.  It's not perfect and may actually be too short.  But it's a great way to spend a couple hours on the couch.

 

8 out of 10



The Host

What do you get when you team up Academy Award nominated writer/director Andrew Niccol, Academy Award Nominee Saoirse Ronan, and Academy Award winner William Hurt?  A somewhat watchable movie.  To say I went into "The Host" with low expectations is an understatement.  What I received was a film that is sometimes actually enjoyable (really!).

 

Because of the involvement of Stephanie Meyer, "The Host" tends to be brushed off as sci-fi "Twilight."  While that is kinda accurate, "The Host" handles that material about as well as anyone could hope for.  This is a movie about glowing, jellyfish aliens who inhabit the bodies of humans.  One girl's will to return to the boy she loves and her little brother keeps her from being completely overtaken.  So, she is trapped inside her own head and leads her alien-infested body back to the uninfected rebels.  The alien in her then falls in love with a different boy.  Cue awkward love triangle.

 

That's a hard plot to make well especially when the target audience is 12-14 year old girls.  As such, "The Host" has a weird obsession with kissing.  Adults watching this will be baffled by the way these characters view a kiss as the culmination of passion.  Again, this is a movie for very young girls.  What adults know about love and what pre-teens know about love differ greatly.  So if you're watching this with your kid, prepare to groan your way through a whole lot of almost making out.  But if you are the kid, prepare yourself for the heroine to kiss TWO TOTALLY HOT GUYS!!!

 

"The Host" is really just a checklist of bad romantic clichés.  It's hugely predictable, which is not really a bad thing.  I just don't want anyone thinking they'll be surprised or thrilled by this movie.  The dialogue is awful.  This kinda shocked me as Andrew Niccol's strongest suit is his writing.  Instead, we are treated to "sweet nothings" so dreadful, they'd make a romance novelist throw up.

 

But it's not all bad.  Niccol is not just a competent director.  He's got a great eye.  His art director and location scouts provide him with plenty of fodder for beautiful camerawork.  Some of his shots are far better than this movie deserves.  Saoirse Ronan does pretty well in a role that consists entirely of talking to herself and smooching dudes (but her Lousiana accent is awful).  William Hurt gives a good performance.  Diane Kruger is fairly good too.

 

One final thing that bothers me about the movie.  The aliens are the best thing that ever happened to humanity.  Seriously.  They are peaceful.  They do not lie or cheat or steal.  They do not kill.  They create a utopia where every person has food/shelter/medicine, and these stupid humans are fighting that.  Why?  Because they don't want to be aliens?  They want to continue to be brutal and violent?  Because they really are.  The rebels are everything that the aliens claim we are.  Some sort of reason should've been given to justify the human rebellion.  As it stands, they just want to be alien-free for the sake of being alien-free.  I kept hoping all the rebels would get caught and assimilated.

 

On the whole, you could do far worse than "The Host."  Especially if you have to watch movies your 13 year old daughter likes.  You may even find yourself liking some of it.  Just be sure to stretch your eyes before pressing "play."  You're going to be rolling them a lot, and I'd hate for anyone to get hurt.

 

5 out of 10

Man of Steel

If there are three things I always want more of Superman, Amy Adams, and Michael Shannon would be pretty close to the top of that list.  So why is "Man of Steel" breaking my heart?  Because it's not very good.  But it's not a bad movie either. 

 

I should note that this movie was tough to watch on two fronts: as a movie nerd and as a comic book nerd.  Superman comics are my favorite.  I love all things Superman.  My home is littered with Superman artifacts.  I've read the "The Essential Superman Encyclopedia" cover to cover three times.  So, it takes a lot for me to watch "Man of Steel" as a movie.  The vast majority of people who go to this movie will not have ever read a comic book, let alone a Superman one.  I needed to disassociate myself from the comic book part of my brain.  So, I will be making all my arguments on a purely cinematic platform.

 

It pains me to even have a list of grievances with "Man of Steel."  But I have no one to blame but myself.  You would think I would've learned my lesson after "Superman Returns" and "Smallville."  I'm in an abusive relationship with Superman.  He keeps beating me, but I keep coming back for more.  And telling everyone how much I love him.  I need help.

 

1) Buy a tripod!  I don't mind some handheld camerawork, but the shots in "Man of Steel" are awful.  The frame is constantly moving.  I several quiet, dramatic scenes the camera is bouncing around like mad.  I swear that the cameraman stumbles a few times during the film, and they just kept those takes.  "Man of Steel" had a production budget of $225 million.  A tripod for a 35mm movie camera costs less than $2000.  Or if you really need that camera moving, a Steadicam rig can also be picked up for less than $2000.  Am I to believe that they couldn't find $4000 somewhere?  I'm sure the shaky camerawork is an artistic choice.  More gritty and realistic or something.  But I think it's really done to distract you from the more awful aspects of the movie.

 

2) Why is Lois Lane even in this movie?  Way to go, "Man of Steel."  You made be wish Amy Adams wasn't in a movie.  It's not that Adams is bad as Lois Lane.  The problem is: she has no reason to be there.  She's just there to have the movie explained to her.  You know what else works?  How about they SHOW us the movie instead of just telling it to a pointless character?  That sounds like it would make a much better movie. (SPOILERS AHEAD!) Screenwriter David Goyer constantly tries to justify her presence but it is always idiotic.  We first meet her at an Arctic dig site containing an old Kryptonian spaceship.  So, OK, a reporter shows up.  That makes sense.  But the ship flies away and no one believes her.  So why have her ever show up?  To have the ship explained to her.  But the ship could've been explained by a scientist to a military officer.  Boom.  No need for Lois.  Then General Zod demands that she come aboard his ship.  Why?  So he can explain to her why the evil Kryptonians breath different air.  But Zod could just explain that to Superman since Superman has never encountered Kryptonian atmosphere.  Boom.  No need for Lois.  But while she's on the ship, the ghost/hologram/whatever of Superman's dad tells her how to defeat the evil Kryptonians.  Actually, he tells her the plan and instructs her to tell Superman.  But he could've just told Superman.  Superman's in the other room.  Boom.  No need for Lois.  So, Lois tells Superman and Superman tells her to tell the head military scientist (why is this so complicated?).  She tells the scientist and goes along in the plane with the Air Force guys to defeat the bad guys.  But the scientist and Air Force now know what to do.  Why take her, a civilian reporter, along?  All this shit, in addition to being lazy exposition, serves to constantly put Lois in danger.  That way Superman can keep saving her.  It's just awful.

 

3)  Superman's chest hair.  It's shallow but it bothered me that Superman's chest hair is sticking up out of the collar of his costume.  No way the collar couldn't be raised or Henry Cavill's chest hair shaved or plucked? 

 

4)  Superman is the worst thing to ever happen to modern man.  Seriously.  Sure, he's protecting us from Zod. (SPOILERS AGAIN!) But he destroys everything around him doing it.  And there is no way that much destruction does not include human casualties.  Can it be said that those thousands of deaths that Superman contributed to were in service of the greater good?  That if he didn't destroy all of Smallville and huge chucks of Metropolis, then Zod would've killed everyone?  So it was worth it, right?  Well, that's the same argument that Zod gives to justify his actions.  Basically, Superman is Zod with a smile.  Or the desolation of Metropolis can be chalked up to Superman being a new hero.  He didn't know that he should get Zod out of the city so as to reduce damage and loss of life.  He'll do better next time, right?  That's a REALLY hard lesson learned.  Plus, I didn't pay nine bucks to watch Superman be a fuck up.

 

5)  Everyone knows who Superman is.  Seriously.  I've had to tolerate FOUR Spiderman movies where the hero keeps taking his mask off in public, and Superman has managed in one movie to surpass that terrible "identity keeping."  Lois figures it out in two seconds.  Every citizen of Smallville knows.  Hopefully for Clark Kent, all those people died when he razed Smallville to the ground.

 

6) Superman lives long enough to become the villain. (SPOILERS!!!) It's one movie in and Superman has given in to every impulse that his father said would make him a bad man.  And he is still praised as a hero.  Clark spends the whole movie resisting hurting people who really deserve it, because that would be an abuse of power.  But he meets some folks that can take a punch and he goes flippin' ballistic!  It's actually scary.  In an instant, Superman goes from dimples and puppy eyes to a screaming maniac who smashes people in the face relentlessly.  All his principles go out the window.  The culmination of this is when he kills Zod.  Superman kills Zod with his bare hands.  He's spent the last hour causing the deaths of thousands.  But when Zod threatens four civilians, Superman breaks his neck.  Hell, Zod was in a headlock at the time.  Sure, he's using his laser eyes to try to kill some random people.  But if Superman had the strength to break Zod's super strong, Kryptonian spinal cord, then surely he's strong enough to just turn Zod's head away.  Nope.  Murder it is.  But it's OK, because Superman is really upset about it.

 

7)  Superman declares himself above the law.  This shit actually happens.  It could've gone up in #6 I guess, but it was so shocking that I had to address it separately. (MORE SPOILERS!!!) At the end, Superman crashes a U.S. military spy drone in front of a general.  He proceeds to tell the general to stop spying on him and that he's here to help mankind.  And the military better be on board for that.  OK Mr. General, just because the threat is implied and delivered with a smile doesn't mean you should take that lightly.  I hope the General goes back to the base and tells the President, the Pentagon, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to start an Anti-Superman protocol.  A super-powered alien has just declared himself the benevolent dictator of Earth.  Some form of protection is needed in case the benevolence fades away.  It's obvious he's still into wanton destruction.  He could've just as easily taken that drone down with zero damage to it.  Instead, he throws it to the ground in front of a car full of people.  Thank goodness that no shrapnel flew out of it and killed anyone.

 

I really wanted to like this movie more.  Michael Shannon is great.  Henry Cavill is an excellent Superman (the writing of the character is not his fault).  But all the characters are flat.  Superman is the only character who grows or changes.  And he becomes a goddamn monster!  "Man of Steel" isn't terrible.  I left the theater so stoked about it, but time has given me clarity.  I can't stop poring over the grotesque problems of the movie.  Most of the issues I have can be attributed to the script.  If you're looking for a loud action movie, you could do better but you could do much worse.  But this Superman fan did not get much out of "Man of Steel."  I'd like to see it again to see if I can enjoy it knowing its problems, but I have a sinking feeling that it'll hurt even worse.  Maybe this is my punishment for my brief flirtation with Batman a few years ago.

 

6 out of 10

 

Upside Down

I liked "Upside Down" but it required a lot from me to do so.  I never even heard of this movie until I looked at an upcoming DVD calendar.  When I looked into it, I found I had overlooked a film starring Kirsten Dunst and a dude you'll recognize from a couple of other movies. 

 

"Upside Down" had a budget of $50 million and only saw an extremely limited theatrical release.  I wondered why it was not released all over the U.S.  The trailer is incredible!  I really wanted to see this movie.  And even if it sucked, I'm sure that Hollywood has spent more on a worse movie and still put it out there to recoup some money.  After watching "Upside Down," I am still confused as to why it never saw a proper release.  But not as confused as I was trying to figure out what the hell was happening on my TV while watching it.

 

To put it mildly, "Upside Down" makes no sense at all.  The premise is that there are two planets that are practically touching.  Each planet has its own gravity.  One planet is very poor.  One is very rich.  The rich planet exploits the poor one.  It is against the law for one planet's citizens to go to the other planet.  A young man from "Down" climbs a huge mountain, the peak of which is mirrored by an "Up" peak.  He meets an "Up" girl.  They fall in love.  They cannot be together.  The rest is standard star-crossed lover stuff.  All this exposition is delivered in an excruciatingly slow voice-over by lead actor Jim Sturgess.  Sturgess is a British actor, and I have long suspected that he can't do an American accent very well.  He always ends up sounding like he's poorly imitating someone from New York City.  It's painful.

 

Now, there are rules for this odd planetary setup:

1. All matter is pulled by the gravity of the world that it comes from, and not the other.
2. An object's weight can be offset by matter from the opposite world (inverse matter).
3. After some time in contact, matter in contact with inverse matter burns.

 

These rules sound like they would make for interesting scenarios throughout the movie.  Beyond the legal boundaries to the love story, they literally can't be together.  So, how will the filmmakers get our lovebirds together?  By completely discarding the rules, of course!  This was endlessly frustrating for me.  I have an extremely strong suspension of disbelief.  I will accept whatever premise a movie throws at me.  I will accept the rules of that cinematic world.  But I need the premise and rules to stay constant. 

 

Rule #3 was the worst.  If matter from "Down" burns after a few hours on "Up" (and vice versa), then people themselves burn too.  People are matter.  People's clothes are matter.  Everything is matter.  There comes a point where I thought that the rule should've been metal from the other planet burns.  Because that's seems to be the only thing burning in the movie.  I was willing to just accept that the script should have said "metal" instead of "matter."  But then one planet's metal starts being stable on the other planet and the lead character's shoes catch on fire (not metal shoes!).  It's just bad writing.

 

If you can overlook the awful screenplay that this movie is based on, then you'll find yourself watching one of the coolest looking movies you're liable to see in awhile.  The visuals are astounding.  This was made as a 3D movie, and I'm sad I didn't get to be endlessly frustrated with it in theaters. 

 

Dunst and Sturgess are pretty good.  They don't have much to work with but they make the romance convincing.  "Upside Down" is essentially a fairy tale, sci-fi, Romeo & Juliet story.  Because it is so heavily rooted in the fantastical, it's hard to get angry about its problems.  It turned out to be an ultimately enjoyable ride.

 

Note: If you're one of those people who see any inconsistency in a movie and freak out about "plot holes" (whether they are or not), "Upside Down" may give you a stroke.

 

6 out of 10

The Call

This is a hard one.  I didn't hate "The Call," but I didn't necessarily like it.  I guess I'll get into what I didn't like and then I'll say something nice at the end.  That works for me.

 

1) WWE Productions?!  That's not exactly a good thing but it's even weirder when there are no wrestlers in it.  I would've preferred to see Triple H as the 911 call operator with PTSD.

 

2) The script is terrible.  Everyone in this movie sounds stupid.  Whenever a character opened their mouth, I worried for their safety.  I wouldn't trust these people with a phone let alone another person's life.

 

3) SPOILER ALERT? MAYBE? Look, I don't know if this is a spoiler because they telegraph it in the movie.  Plus the script is stupid and clichéd.  So, the movie starts with Halle Berry being the operator during a murder.  She basically helps the killer find the girl.  This gives her PTSD.  Months later, she takes over a random call and lo and behold it's another girl being attacked by the same killer!  The odds of that are so insanely small, that it hurts my head to think about it.  Why not just have her deal with a new situation and have her overcome her personal demons?  Are the filmmakers implying that she would not be personally invested in saving this girl's life if the assailant hadn't ruined her life?  That is far more disturbing and interesting than anything else in "The Call."

 

4)  The camera work is bad.  We alternate from extreme close ups that make no sense to what must be the work of an epileptic cameraman.  The close ups were the most frustrating.  Shaky, incomprehensible camerawork, while it sucks, has been around long enough to make me just groan in disgust.  The close up work is so bizarre that I have a hard time with it.  The first time I noticed it is when Abigail Breslin is describing her kidnapper.  Here's what happens:

Berry: What color is the car?

Breslin: Red.

Cut to extreme close up of side mirror which is red, I guess.  But why the side mirror as representative of the car?  Maybe that was just a weird choice.

Berry: What does he look like?  White, Black, Asian?

Breslin: White.

Cut to extreme close up of the back of kidnapper's head which is the back of a white dude's head.  But why the back of his head?  That makes sense if she described hair color.

Berry: How old is he?  30s, 40s?

Breslin: 30s, maybe.  Mid-30s.

Cut to extreme close up of kidnapper's knuckles which are the knuckles of a mid-30s white male.  Wait, what?!  His knuckles?

Breslin: And he has sunglasses.

Cut to extreme close up of kidnapper's sunglasses. 

No other close up will make sense for the rest of the movie.  There are lots of fast close ups of noses during the "action" scenes.  I don't know why.  We may never know.

 

5) ANOTHER SPOILER-ISH THING!! At the end, Halle Berry knows where the killer is.  So like a well-trained, professional 911 operator, she informs the police.  The police arrest the culprit and he is tried for his crimes.  Ha!  Psych!  She goes unarmed to the killer and murders him!  Which leads me to believe that we don't really need the police.  What we need are a few dedicated 911 operators to answer the phone and dole out justice.  I guess the cops could still give out traffic tickets and play charity basketball games against firefighters, but let's leave the crime fighting to the professionals.

 

That's the broad strokes of it.  I could nitpick a million things about "The Call," but that it true of most films.  Now, it should be said that I didn't hate or even dislike this movie.  I chuckled at its idiocy which can be fun.  It's run-of-the-mill which is fine for zoning out on the couch for a while.  It's not a bad movie, per se.  It just has so much bad stuff in it.  If the story sounds good to you, I say watch it.  It won't hurt.  You may even find yourself liking it.

 

5.5 out of 10

Simply fantastic!  That's pretty much all that needs to be said about "No."  I can't possibly encourage folks to watch this enough.

 

"No" is one of last year's Academy Award nominees for Best Foreign Film.  It's a Chilean film about a man who heads a marketing campaign to get his countrymen to vote the dictator Augusto Pinochet out of office.  The marketing team takes the position of "No, to Pinochet" ("no" being an inherently negative word) and Pinochet's history of brutality and oppression, and they turn it into a campaign of positivity.  They turn away from the dreary world they live in and focus on the optimism of what a Chile without Pinochet could be.

 

Looking at "No" through the lens of the past few elections, this movie becomes a look at what politics could and should be.  Who needs all the mud slinging and negativity?  Why not focus on the glorious future ahead?

 

Gael Garcia Bernal is fantastic (of course) in his role.  He has a way with emoting.  You feel everything right along with him, which is impressive considering the way "No" is filmed.

 

"No" is made to look as if it was filmed on Betamax.  And then watching that Betamax on broadcast television.  In Latin America.  In the 80s.  That kinda sounds awful when I describe it, but it creates an incredibly immersive experience.  The technique is flawless.  The image is square.  The camera is handheld.  The detail is soft and the colors are slightly separated like the red, cyan, yellow separation in an old color TV.  The English subtitles are even black outlined yellow letters (the preferred coloring in South America.  North America prefers black outlined white letters).  It all comes together to create an incredible documentary feel to the movie.  As a bonus, it's a movie that will look way better on your TV than it would in theaters.

 

This is by far the best movie I've seen in awhile.  Please, please, please go check this out.  I already want to watch it again.

 

9 out of 10