REVIEW: Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer

16 06 2011

With the chaotic Anthony Weiner scandal finally ending in his resignation (but hopefully not putting those hilarious sexual puns to rest), it seems like as good a time as ever to discuss “Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer,” Alex Gibney’s fascinating documentary of another New York politician driven out of office by the revelation of personal vice.  The prolific documentarian delivers an enthralling chronicle of Spitzer’s career, from his heights as Attorney General to the humiliating admission that he had been involved in a prostitution ring.  Gibney provides a multilateral view of it all, leaving no stone unturned and showing how Spitzer was digging his own grave while constructing his doomed political colossus.

In case anyone is unfamiliar with Spitzer from any context other than his CNN show or the embarrassing final press conferences with his wife standing steadfastly behind him, Gibney’s portrait brings everyone up to speed with his career.  Beginning from his tenure as Attorney General of the state of New York, Spitzer was deeply committed to delivering justice.  Given the state, his jurisdiction included Wall Street, and anyone who rattles the cages there is bound to piss off some powerful people.  While his dynamic regulation earned him praise from the press, with some hailing him as “the future first Jewish president,” there were men behind the scenes looking for ways to bring about his demise.

Ultimately, they didn’t have to resort to Mafia techniques to see the realization of their dream; Spitzer handed it to them on a silver platter.  Behind the successful, married, and unflappable façade he constructed was a man seeking for something more.  Unfortunately, he found that something in a high-priced prostitute known as Ashley Dupre.  It only took a little bit of dirt searching to find this secret, and as they say, the rest is history.

Gibney gets interviews from all the high-profile figures in the saga, from the pissed-off powerbrokers to the pragmatic prostitutes.  But unlike most documentaries, “Client 9” boasts having first person commentary from the two main characters in the story – Spitzer himself and Ashley Dupre, played by an actress to protect herself.  The hired hand does a great job of bringing her story to life, but it’s Spitzer that draws us in and never lets us go.  We can see how tough it is for him to admit to his mistakes and relive the painful events that brought down his life.

Watching Spitzer’s admissions with such raw humanity makes “Client 9” essential viewing in spite of Gibney’s inconsistencies.  The nearly two hour movie flip-flops between various tones, including a History Channel special, a tale of political intrigue reminiscent of the fifth season of “24,” a thriller, and an exposé of the prostitution industry.  But in spite of its shortcomings, Gibney’s film draws some important conclusions about what leads men in power to slip up, and Anthony Weiner is just further proof that what he has to say is still extremely relevant.  B / 





REVIEW: It’s Kind of a Funny Story

15 06 2011

Any good movie fan instantly associates insane asylums with “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest,” Milos Forman’s classic that is one of only three films ever to score Oscar’s Big Five (Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay).  It’s a ridiculously unfair standard for any movie to be measured against, so naturally, when a movie like “It’s Kind of a Funny Story” comes along that treads similar waters, it can’t help but disappoint coming straight out of the gate.  The dramedy just exacerbates the disparity by dealing with the thin line between sanity and insanity in a noticeably more juvenile manner.

The movie piddles around in the messed-up mind of narrator Craig Gilner (Keir Gilchrist), a suicidal teenager who checks himself into a psychiatric hospital after failing to execute a plan to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge.  As we find out, he’s just a little misunderstood, buckling under the pressure of being a teenager in the modern world.  And since I’m eighteen and heading off to college, I should totally understand and relate, right?  Wrong.  Craig is hardly a sympathetic character, and Gilchrist portrays him so awkwardly that it’s really hard to care about anything that happens to him.

Thankfully, directors Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden – who have fallen far from their 2006 debut feature “Half Nelson” – don’t saddle us with only watching Craig deal with his demons for the whole movie.  They stock the nuthouse with other mildly amusing characters, primarily Zach Galifianakis as fellow patient Bobby.  He brings a few laughs but mainly makes you wonder whether Alan from “The Hangover” belongs in an institution since he’s not all that different from his character here.  There’s also some corny, schmaltzy romance between Craig and Noelle, played by Emma Roberts, which doesn’t work at all since the two have zero chemistry.  It’s hard to believe this movie came from an esteemed novel, so do yourself a favor and watch the aforementioned acclaimed movie based on an acclaimed novel.  C / 





REVIEW: The Girl Who Played With Fire

14 06 2011

In retrospect, all my complaints about “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” were nothing compared to the ones I can lodge against its sequel, “The Girl Who Played With Fire.”  This adaptation of Steig Larsson’s incredibly intricate and suspenseful novel ultimately amounts to little more than a visualization of his major plot points.  As a reader of the trilogy, this was disappointing but acceptable.  However, as a watcher and reviewer of movies, this was a sloppy movie severely lacking in many significant areas.

For one, basic acting technique.  Generally, when trying to convey emotions and the importance of events, actors create stakes that then register with the audience and goad them toward the appropriate response to what’s taking place on screen.  Meryl Streep creates stakes; Al Pacino creates stakes; even Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart create stakes.  Yet no one in “The Girl Who Played With Fire” seems to be interested in creating stakes, though, making the movie a muddled mess where the characters just seem to wander from event to event without any idea of their importance.  I can’t even imagine how hard this movie must be to watch for someone not familiar with Larsson’s far superior book.

The movie makes the same mistake as its predecessor in cutting out all subplot to focus on Salander (Noomi Rapace) and Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist).  This time around, it’s a fatal move as the supporting characters are so crucial to the storyline as Blomkvist searches for answers to a series of murders that seem to have Salander’s name written all over it.  In addition, Nyqvist’s total lack of emotion makes his carrying the movie simply unbearable.  I know it’s cliched to say “the book is so much better, read it before you see the movie,” so I won’t say that.  Read the book instead of seeing the movie.  C+ / 





REVIEW: Buried

13 06 2011

2010 saw the release of two cinematic interpretations of claustrophobia: “127 Hours” and “Buried.”  However, the trapped protagonist marks the films’ diverging point.  While Danny Boyle’s film is a buoyant celebration of life and the triumph of man’s will over the harsh conditions of nature, Rodrigo Cortés’ film takes place in a coffin underground, a setting which sets the bleak tone for the thriller that so badly begs to be seen as Hitchockian.

Equipped with nothing more than a Zippo lighter and a cellphone that somehow manages to get service underground in Iraq (he must not have AT&T, which can’t get me reception in my own house), American truck driver Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) must find a way to get himself saved.  He only has a finite amount of time to do this, or the oxygen will run out – and he will die.  Paul has no recollection of how he managed to get himself in this position, but he must be smart and look forward to get himself out of the position.

There are no cinematic tricks hiding in the sleeves of “Buried;” it’s just straight up 90 minutes of Ryan Reynolds stuck in a box acting the hell out of his character.  Fearful, confused, alone, worried, woebegone – he runs the whole gamut of emotions in a small space and in very little time.  It’s an impressive performance that adds a humanity to the movie that feels as palpable as the sweat dripping down his forehead.

Cortés does a great job of complementing Reynolds’ intensity by craftily manipulating the tools he has.  The movie’s cinematography, editing, and score are all impeccable and keep the suspense taut.  I had my doubts that anyone could make a movie like “Buried,”truly just as straightforward as a man in a coffin, even work, but Cortés executes and makes it a great thriller.  While I’d choose to be trapped with “127 Hours” over this in a heartbeat, I definitely can’t diminish the efficacy of this equally improbable success.  B+ / 





REVIEW: Super 8

12 06 2011

I’m not exactly a romantic or a nostalgic, but I have to admit that I sure wish summer movies looked a lot more like they did back in the ’80s.  There are very few visionaries who take on blockbuster entertainment anymore, and save Christopher Nolan, you really can’t sell a movie on a director like you could with fearless masters like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.  Few movies nowadays can produce the same wide-eyed wonder as classics like “Star Wars” and “E.T.” (in my mind, “Inception” is this generation’s equivalent).

But J.J. Abrams, the man who made us want to get “Lost” and made “Star Trek” cool again, is definitely trying to bring back some of that Spielbergian magic (and thus put his name on the poster) with “Super 8,” a movie that feels like it would have been a great way to spend $3 on a hot summer day in 1982.  It’s the kind of movie that a studio lets a director make after they deliver a big franchise hit, a true passion project that proves difficult to market because it has to be sold on Abrams’ name and story.  Using his suspense techniques from “Lost,” the character development of “Star Trek,” and the all-powerful weapon that is nostalgia, Abrams crafts a blast-from-the-past sci-fi movie that brings some substance and style back to a genre that has gone too long without it.

In fact, “Super 8” may be the first neo-Spielbergian movie as Abrams grew up on the director’s early classics and is now using his maturity and filmmaking bravura to pay homage and honor to his style.  Yet while imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, Abrams doesn’t just stick to Spielberg’s conventions like white on rice.  Rather, he expands upon them and takes them further to make his story appeal to a new generation of moviegoers while also maintaing the timeless appeal that made Spielberg’s movies so enchanting.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger

11 06 2011

With Woody Allen and his latest film, “Midnight in Paris,” very much the toast of the town, I figured now would be as good a time as ever to burst his balloon because the input of one 18-year-old blogger can really induce a neurotic panic attack in the famed director. I’m sorry to say that Woody doesn’t always make them like that; in fact, they usually turn out much more like “You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger,” a redundant statement of the director’s worldview that lacks the pop and charisma of his earlier work.

Allen’s annual entry into his cinematic canon, circa 2010, features a vintage cynicism and defeatism that stifles the possibility of any charm his impressive ensemble could endow the movie.  It shapes its grim worldview around this little Shakespearean nugget of wisdom: “[Life] … is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”  That really puts you in a jaunty, comedic mood, doesn’t it?

The movie takes shape around a group of interconnected Londoners dealing with issues of love and faith in transitory phases of life, all of which begins with the divorce of Alfie and Helena, played respectively by Anthony Hopkins and Gemma Jones.  She can’t get over it and begins seeing a fortune teller in distress while he quickly hits the scene and gets engaged to a prostitute, portrayed beautifully by the very funny Lucy Punch.  This puts an added strain on the marriage of their art-dealing daughter Sally (Naomi Watts) and her failed author of a husband Roy (Josh Brolin), tempting them to begin affairs with exotic people they see on a regular basis.  For her, it’s her boss Greg (Antonio Banderas).  For him, it’s the new Indian beauty (Freida Pinto of “Slumdog Millionaire” fame) that moved in across the street … who just happens to be engaged.

But remember, it all signifies nothing, right?  There is no point!  It’s all just a meaningless charade and a stupid exercise of emotions before we inevitably meet our mortal doom?  If you answered yes to both of those questions, perhaps you are better off saving the 90 minutes of your life that would be spent watching “You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger” and using them to find the beauty in life.  Because it does exist, just not in this movie.  C / 





F.I.L.M. of the Week (June 10, 2011)

10 06 2011

With “True Grit” now available to watch at home, I figure the celebration shouldn’t be just of the Western genre but of the Coen Brothers in general!  I haven’t made it through their entire filmography – don’t shoot me when I say I haven’t seen “Blood Simple” or “Barton Fink” – but I have found a gem among their movies that deserves more attention and laud.  I present “The Man Who Wasn’t There,” a quintessential example of the film noir style but still a flawless example of the Coens’ own unique filmmaking conventions.  (And for the record, I think it’s much more deserving of a Best Picture nomination than “A Serious Man.”)

Billy Bob Thornton, complete with his low and thick Southern drawl, plays the solemn and stern Californian barber Ed Crane, completely unremarkable in just about every way.  He feels emasculated and numb to the world around him, somewhat because he couldn’t serve in World War II due to his flat feet and also because he senses his wife Doris (Frances McDormand) is having an affair with her boss Dave (James Gandolfini).  Yet the game changes a shady salesman shows up with a proposition that could make Ed a very rich man.  What ensues is a crazy, unforeseeable chain of events that pushes Ed to the brink … and he still manages to stay stolid.

“The Man Who Wasn’t There” could easily be labeled a textbook for the conventions of neo-noir, just as “Double Indemnity” could be the textbook for the original school of noir filmmaking.  The lighting and the sets really shift our moods to darkness, and the crisp, clean cinematography of Roger Deakins makes the film’s look simply irresistible.  But any fan of the Coens know that they can’t just stick to outlines or formulas, usually blending in elements of dark comedy and nihilism with any genre they tackle.  Their take on film noir is just sublime, and any fan of the directors will certainly love watching a movie that feels straight out of the 1950s but has their signature spin.





REVIEW: X-Men: First Class

9 06 2011

I’m not quite sure how “X-Men: First Class” fits in to the universe created by the other 4 films (like “Superman Returns“), or if it’s supposed to create a whole new universe in itself (like “Batman Begins” or “Star Trek”).  This confusion makes it hard to write about the summer superhero tentpole movie.  However, rather than worry myself with such fanboy concerns, I’ll review it like I chose to watch it: as a fun, entertaining reintroduction to the mutants that provides some interesting background on their origins (as well as shining some light on the REAL events of the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Matthew Vaughn makes it easy to forget your worries about the movie’s place in the series by keeping a smooth pace through a script that balances big explosions with character development.  It’s like a two hour pilot that introduces you to a fantastic ensemble while also fleshing out the conflict between its two biggest stars.  He’s no Christopher Nolan behind the camera, but he’s certainly much better than Michael Bay or whoever made the horrific “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” (which I still think was just an excuse for Hugh Jackman to prance around naked on camera).

Vaughn also makes some very savvy casting decisions; rather than filling out the large cast with marquee names or falling stars, he casts up-and-coming stars who make up for what they lack in marketability with their impressive acting chops.  James McAvoy (“The Last Station“) and Michael Fassbender (“Inglorious Basterds“), Xavier and Magneto respectively, are two incredibly reputable actors who bring drama and dynamism to the roles that Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen made campy and stale. Oscar nominee Jennifer Lawrence (“Winter’s Bone“) brings soul and heart to Mystique, two things Rebecca Romjin did not endow her character since she was too busy being sexy.  Nicholas Hoult (“A Single Man“) is a warm-hearted and lovable big-footed scientist.  January Jones provides some nice eye candy for those who might miss Halle Berry, although she will always be Betty Draper of “Mad Men” for me, while fans of Rose Byrne (“Bridesmaids,” “Get Him to the Greek“) will also rejoice to see her featured as mutant protector Moira MacTaggert.

It’s like he’s trying to have the 25 year reunion of this cast be on the cover of “People” with the title LOOK HOW FAR THEY’VE COME in big bold letters (while Lindsay Lohan is arrested for the 30th time in the sidebar).  Vaughn uses these superheroes to create superstars, many of which will be touting above-title billing after this movie.  His choice not to overload with actors who we already associate with other roles makes us more drawn in to the characters and less distracted by the people portraying them.

Read the rest of this entry »





Classics Corner: “High Noon”

7 06 2011

After the Coen Brothers made the Western cool again with their remake of “True Grit,” I decided it was about time I brushed up on some classics of the fabled American genre.  And, unsurprisingly, I was reminded of why so many of them bear the label classic – because they actually are timeless, with lessons and ideas that can apply to any generation of moviewatchers.  From what I saw, the best of the bunch has to be “High Noon,” a movie that in time could join my all-time favorites.

The premise is simple (and very unlike most movies the genre); the set-up, short and sweet.  Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is the retiring marshal of the town of Hadleyville, and at noon, three criminals will return to his town with the intent to kill him for putting them away.  The townspeople encourage him to hurry out in the hope that his departure will keep them out of harm’s way.  But Kane sees it as his problem to solve, and he stays put to face the imminent challenge.

Kane then goes through the town, looking for citizens willing to help him stop the criminals.  While everyone wants to keep their town safe and on principle want to give aid, ultimately no one will pick up their gun and defend their town.  As the high noon shadow falls over the town, it is Kane alone who must stand and fight for the lives of the people he no longer has to protect.

Just like “Modern Times,” the subject of last month’s Classics Corner column, “High Noon” is such an incredibly rewarding movie to watch because it captures a moment in time and then uses that moment to highlight some universally timeless truths about the human condition.  When analyzed against the backdrop of 1952, the year it was released, the allegory is very clear.  The people of Hadleyville are representative of another western community beginning with the letter H, Hollywood, who were afraid to stand up for themselves and their basic rights when Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee were sanctioning an era of blacklisting in the industry.

Looking back in hindsight, it’s easy to see that McCarthyism is a stain on our history and anyone in 2011 would stand up to such violations of civil rights.  But with McCarthy at the height of his power at the time of the movie’s release, it was certainly easier said than done.  Kane embodies the spirit of the times – a man who wants to protect the livelihood of his fellow townspeople but cannot get them to stop cowering in fear.  As the saying goes, freedom doesn’t come free, and Kane is the only one who seems to understand that.

But Kane is more than just the unspoken thoughts of screenwriters in 1952; however, in the moment, the heated political debates surrounding McCarthyism and blacklisting clouded people’s view of it.  Kane is not a sheriff embodying the liberal ideas of the time – and in case you are narrow-minded enough to be fooled, this was a favorite movie of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan.  He is a man driven by duty even when it isn’t necessary.  He is a protector of liberty even when he stands alone.  He puts his life on the line even when the people he protects have left him out to dry.

More than just a vision of 1952, Sheriff Will Kane is the paradigm of American citizenship and virtue, a champion of the blessings of democracy willing to make sacrifices to ensure its efficacy.  Such uprightness is what all of us should aspire to achieve, be we American or of any other nationality (the Polish democratic group Solidarity used Kane as a powerful image in the country’s first free elections).  And when the movie comes to a halt, I like to imagine that if Kane had a last line, he’d reiterate the words of the great Benjamin Franklin: “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”





REVIEW: Midnight in Paris

6 06 2011

For devoted Woody Allen fans like myself, who will watch anything the insanely prolific writer/director puts his name on, watching him make virtually the same neurotic film over and over again is bearable.  For such fans, it’s a joy to watch Allen (or some other poor schmuck of a surrogate when he’s too old to play himself) bumble through life clinging on to his defeatist worldview.  For others, though, the filmmaker’s consistent nervous babbling has lost its charm and have thus tuned out Allen’s faithful annual output.

However, Allen has done something miraculous with his latest film, “Midnight in Paris.”  He has made a movie that satisfies both camps with wit, charm, and creativity.  It still has that burst of zany energy that the Allen faithful adore but tones down the nihilism so that the disenchanted or neophyte Allen fans can focus on the film’s ideas and not on their querulous complaints.  In other words, it’s a movie made to be seen outside the director’s normal niche audience but can still win that crowd over with its warmth and ingenuity.

Not to mention that many fans and foes alike have also been looking forward to Allen making a movie like “Midnight in Paris” for many years.  At 75, Allen is entering his sixth decade of filmmaking and has shown little indication of budging from the tenants of his philosophy, rarely subjecting them to challenges, criticism, or reproach.  But as he enters what are sure to be the twilight years of his film career, Allen hints in his latest film at a level of maturity we rarely see from the director.  He puts his views under a microscope in “Midnight in Paris” and analyzes their practicality in the modern world, ultimately producing some very interesting and unexpected conclusions.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Kung Fu Panda 2

5 06 2011

Is it so wrong that I love “Kung Fu Panda 2” in spite of all of its unoriginality and lack of creativity?  Is it so terrible that I’m totally won over by an overweight panda who can do kung fu as well as he can eat?  Is it so strange that a village of adorable pigs and bunnies makes me feel like I’m five years old again?

While the sequel is hardly as entertaining and funny as the original “Kung Fu Panda,” Po and the rest of the Furious Five are still a joy to watch.  The movie still possesses that charm that made me watch the first installment countless times on HBO while eating dinner, and it proves once again to be infectious as it melts down whatever barriers are hardening your heart.  It’s also a movie that’s easy on the eyes with appealing action and fun graphics, evincing the slow closing of the gap between Pixar and everyone else with a computer.

This “Kung Fu Panda” is all about daddy issues as the movie’s two storylines both deal with characters coming to grips with decisions made by their parents.  The evil peacock Shen (voiced by the always creepy Gary Oldman) orders a genocide of pandas to prevent the fulfilling of a prophecy that one would defeat him, thus leaving his parents with no choice but to exile him.  When Shen returns to power, the Dragon Warrior Po (Jack Black) starts to question where he really came from.  His goose father, Mr. Ping, has few answers, so Po is largely on his own.  However, his kung fu companions, known as the Furious Five (and featuring the voices of Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, Jackie Chan, Lucy Liu, and David Cross) have big issues that they have to deal with, namely Shen’s reappearance which threatens to dismantle the art of kung fu.  But as their journey progresses, Po finds that the questions about his parents may relate to Shen’s avarice and malice in shocking ways.

That summary probably makes the plot sound more glorious and intricate than it actually unfolds in the movie.  On the other hand, sometimes glory isn’t found in the story (despite the majority of my reviews saying just the opposite).  Sometimes it’s just the rush of joy that can be found in juvenility that makes something fun.  Sometimes we can have a perfectly gratifying experience just looking at a cute and cuddly panda cub playing in a bucket of radishes.  Sometimes it’s nice to be reminded of what it’s like to be a kid watching a movie again.  B+ / 





REVIEW: Biutiful

4 06 2011

Some people would call “Biutiful” a terribly depressing movie, but I don’t think that’s entirely accurate.  Sure, Javier Bardem’s Uxbal endures a great deal of pain and suffers immensely; however, in order for a movie to be depressing, it needs to make you feel depressed.  And as far as I’m concerned, it’s impossible to feel anything while watching “Biutiful”.

Alejando González Iñárritu’s film numbs more than just your butt with its two-and-a-half hour runtime (and manages to feel a lot longer); it numbs your soul with its bleakness and complete lack of sentimentality.  You’re much more likely to die of boredom while watching it than feel depressed.  I don’t have a problem with melancholy movies, but I want to be moved and filled with emotion.  By the time “Biutiful” was over, I found myself wondering if I had the ability to feel at all.

Iñárritu’s script is surely the kind that needs to make a massive appeal to pathos in order to make its grim plot watchable.  Uxbal is struck with terminal cancer, which is horrible even for people who are at peace with their life.  He isn’t.  Heavily involved in the Barcelona underworld with very unethical practices and struggling to be a father to his children and a husband to his bipolar wife, there’s a lot of unfinished business he has to attend to before he can buy the farm.

It’s a truly wrenching experience that only a sadist would undergo after reading this review; if you like dental surgery without novocaine, then this might be the best movie you’ll ever see!  It’s not even worth it to see another Oscar nominated performance by Javier Bardem – just go watch “No Country for Old Men” again.  An interminable movie about a man with a terminal illness makes for a brutal irony and an even more brutal watch.  D





F.I.L.M. of the Week (June 3, 2011)

3 06 2011

If “X-Men: First Class” becomes as big of a hit as the critics think it should be (it currently stands at 87% on Rotten Tomatoes), then you will most definitely want to be familiar with the name Michael Fassbender.  As Magneto, he will get mainstream recognition.  However, if you really want to sound like a film connoisseur, drop this in a conversation: “Oh, he was fine in ‘X-Men,’ but I really liked his earlier work in independent film.”

I’ve already covered one of Fassbender’s independent efforts, “Hunger,” which is a grueling experience ultimately made worthwhile and watchable by his incredibly committed performance.  However, a much more stomachable way to get acquainted with his lesser-known films to watch my pick for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” Andrea Arnold’s “Fish Tank.”  It’s a rich, deep movie that is a real treat to dig into.

Newcomer Katie Jarvis stars as Mia, a troubled teen growing up in Britain’s public housing with her much younger sister Tyler and her alcoholic single mother who pays her virtually no attention.  She longs for independence, for attention, and ultimately for escape.  Mia finds the latter in hip-hop dancing, which she only does in isolation.

But things change some when her mother brings home Connor (Fassbender), a charming Irishman who actually shows interest in her.  He manages to get Mia to put aside her loathing of family outings to go the countryside and encourages her to pursue her passion in dancing.  Their relationship becomes the focal point of the film, and its ups and downs will forever change Mia and her outlook on life.

Powerful performances from Fassbender and Jarvis make “Fish Tank” more than just your average teen angst movie; they make it relevant, personal, and authentic.  The latter is especially true for Jarvis, who was cast in the movie with no professional experience after a casting director saw her arguing with a boyfriend in a train station.  But it’s Arnold who makes the movie artful and resonant through her combination of solid writing and directing.  The film is packed with symbols, motifs, and ideas that float around in your head for days and make “Fish Tank” a movie you won’t soon forget.

(By the way, if you are wondering where on earth you can find this independent gem, look no further than Netflix instant streaming.)





REVIEW: Thor

2 06 2011

In 2002’s incredibly self-aware “Urinetown: The Musical,” the characters Officer Lockstock and Little Sally discuss things that can kill a show.  They first discuss titles, which can often sour first impressions of the show.  But the one thing that they can agree on is that nothing kills a show like too much exposition.  No one wants to be bogged down in details to set up the story; Americans are impatient, and they just want to get straight to the rising action.

The same goes for cinema.  Unless your name is Christopher Nolan and your movie is so intricate that it needs a manual, exposition is something that no moviegoer wants to sit through for extended periods of time.  It’s a necessary evil at times, but most filmmakers have gotten clever enough to knock it out in no time at all, some even by the time the opening credits are over.

“Thor,” however, is exposition taken to excess.  In fact, I’d even submit that the entire movie is just exposition for the upcoming Avengers movie.  The script adheres to none of the basic storytelling conventions, instead choosing to through information and explosions at us.  The former is to prepare us for the ultimate marketing event that will be “The Avengers;” the latter, to keep us mildly entertained so maybe we won’t realize their attempt to cash in on an extended exposition.

If you think I’m kidding, the plot can essentially be boiled down to this: Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is exiled from Asgard to Earth by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) for being a little too violent, and as Odin ails, Thor’s evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) ascends to the throne and does evil and selfish things.  While on Earth, Thor finds Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist studying the cosmos, and eventually gets his trademark hammer about halfway through the movie.  Thor is soon visited by friends from Asgard who are disillusioned with Loki, and a small-scale battle ensues as Loki then tries to destroy Thor and eliminate his opposition.

There’s just nothing going on that’s special in “Thor.”  Nothing merits two hours of my time or $10 from my wallet.  It’s a stagnant, slow-moving superhero movie that doesn’t deserve to be called “super.”  Heck, not even some good quality Natalie Portman gazing made it worthwhile.  It’s just a dull starter to the summer that really makes you scared for the onslaught still left to come.

I’m sure that some people will think me hypocritical for berating the lack of storytelling formula in “Thor” while decrying other movies that follow their genre’s basic outline rigidly.  But it’s not that “Thor” lacks formula; rather, it’s that “Thor” lacks substance.  It’s like Kenneth Branagh decided to adapt the film not from the comics, but from the character’s Wikipedia page.  While information may be power, it certainly isn’t entertainment.  C / 





REVIEW: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2010)

1 06 2011

After seeing the awesome new trailer for David Fincher’s English-language adaptation of Steig Larsson’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (which simply has to be watched – because what else do you have to do between now and Christmas?), I decided it was finally time for me to bite the bullet and watch the Swedish version that had been sitting atop my Netflix queue for nearly a year.  The length (146 minutes) and language daunted me, especially as my main block of free time came at the time of day when I would be least capable of reading subtitles: right as I would be about to fall asleep.

But, as David Fincher’s teaser trailers always seem to do exceedingly well, I felt completely drawn into the world on the screen, and I suddenly felt an irrepressible urge to immerse myself into Larsson’s Millenium trilogy.  It was certainly nice to get a visualization of the story, yet just like countless adaptations before it, it doesn’t hold a candle to Larsson’s novel.  Watching anything related to the book is a great pleasure; however, the film doesn’t adequately capture all the nuances and the subtleties that separate “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” from your average cerebral thriller.

The stories of journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) investigating the 40-year-old unsolved case of the disappearance of Harriet Vanger and the various activities of cryptically mysterious hacker Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) are presented in a very boiled-down manner that stays largely true to Larsson’s plotline.  Only a few minor details are altered, which will nag only the devoted and detailed readers (like myself).

Yet other than the two main characters, few other figures from Larsson’s novel get a decent screen treatment.  The Vanger family, such an interesting mix full of wild cards, is largely excised from the film, shorting those who didn’t read the book first.  Obviously, the large volume had to be cut, but the filmmakers made a big mistake taking the Vangers out.  While they may complicate matters, their presence makes us feel like Mikael – confounded and unsure of everyone’s true nature.

The movie does have one saving grace, and her name is Noomi Rapace.  She ventures to the dark side and really inhabits Salander, a multi-dimensional character that puzzles everyone if played right.  Flirting the border between mentally ill and justifiably angry with a world that has pushed her into a dark corner, Rapace’s Salander is a true marvel.  Even though we are never entirely sure of Salander’s intentions, we can see that Rapace is sure through just glancing into her eyes and seeing a clutter of emotions competing for prevalence.  Other than Rapace, the cast is dull and unexciting, especially Nyqvist.  Had someone put a cardboard standout in place of Nyqvist and had the caterer read his lines off-camera, we would have seen a performance of the same emotional caliber.

So while this “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a satisfying adaptation for now, I’m counting down the days until I can see what happens when a true artistic visionary like David Fincher gets his hands on the story.  If the trailer is indicative of the entire movie, I think we will be seeing Fincher having more fun than ever … and that’s reason to get excited for the feel-bad movie of Christmas.  B /