REVIEW: Exit Through the Gift Shop

14 12 2010

I have no idea what on earth “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is supposed to be, and I realize I’m not the first person to say that.  It’s been puzzling viewers willing to wade through its quirky documentary style for months now, and I’m just now joining the fray.  Is it real or is it some sort of prank/hoax?  A part of me says who knows; another, who cares.  It’s a darn entertaining movie even if I can’t get a read on what the heck it is.

Perhaps it’s only so perplexing because the documentarian, Banksy, was so intimately involved in the storyline itself that we can’t be sure how partial or impartial he is being.  Because Banksy, a god among the cult of street art, is underground, his face can never be seen nor can his true voice be heard without a muffler.  Obviously his identity is a big unknown, but the bigger question is his role in the movie itself.  It’s hard to distinguish between Banksy the director and Banksy the person/character, largely because he’s such an obscure and emotionless figure.

The persona of the mysterious Banksy looms large over the story that ultimately isn’t about him.  “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is, at least on the surface, about Thierry Guetta, now known as Mr. Brainwash.  The movie chronicles his meteoric rise to street art superstardom, all the way from his obscure beginnings as a shopkeeper in Los Angeles.  Thierry carried a camera with him everywhere, filming practically everything.  He became fascinated with the underground world of street art in 1999, and from that moment on, he became dedicated to making a documentary about it.

But this isn’t a documentary about a man making a documentary; Banksy isn’t a revolutionary figure in modern art because he choose simple subjects.  Thierry’s journey is a very strange one, filled with as many twists and turns as a labyrinth.  All of a sudden, he morphs from street art’s biggest fan into a street artist himself, opening a massively-hyped exhibition in Los Angeles without building a name through small projects at all.  The transition is strange, and it’s clear that Banksy and some of the street artists hold him in contempt for hypocritically popularizing their craft.  This only makes the lens that much more muddled, and you have to wonder where reality stops and where fiction takes over.

Maybe “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is Banksy’s attempt to make a piece of street art using the cinematic form.  If that’s the case, it works for me.  The movie is complicated yet simple, over-the-top yet understated, mysterious and obvious, and overall a curious work of art that could easily be discarded as garbage or graffiti by those unwilling to look past the spray paint.  B+ / 


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Please Give

12 12 2010

Thanks to Best Picture winners like “Million Dollar Baby,” “Crash,” and “Slumdog Millionaire,” today’s moviegoers are accustomed to thinking that movies that tackle issues have to be massive, sprawling dramas with big implications.  Euthanasia, racism, and poverty are big social issues facing the world today, and these movies have tackled them in such a big, brassy way that most audiences think that movies with such relevant themes have to be this way.

Yet on the comedic flip-side of the coin, there is Nicole Holofcener, who writes movies about issues just as important but with the scope of your average person.  Her latest feature, “Please Give,” explores money, greed, and guilt in today’s society as it affects four people in different but profound ways.  Full of wit and humor, the movie is delightfully pertinent to just about anyone in 2010 as it probes for answers to questions we often find ourselves asking everyday.

There’s nothing monumental about Holofcener’s latest study of money and society, but she builds the narrative from characters who are interesting and compelling down to their core.  Upper class New York couple Kate (Catherine Keener) and Alex (Oliver Platt) run a furniture business, managing to stay on top of competition by purchasing antiques from the children of the elderly who don’t know the true value of the pieces.  With some of their profits, they have managed to buy an adjacent apartment, now just waiting for the elderly inhabitant to pass away.

Yet with all the spoils of money, Kate can’t help but feel torn by guilt.  She sees the homelessness in the city and feels obliged to help in some way, but she also has a family to provide for, including a daughter who will stop at nothing until she gets a pair of designer jeans.  She also starts to wonder if she and Alex’s predatory purchasing is morally acceptable.  As a result, she tries to reform her life for what she thinks is the better of those less fortunate.  However, she finds that even with the best of intentions, sometimes helping others doesn’t help them – or yourself – as much as hoped.

Holofcener raises a lot of interesting questions with “Please Give” about the nature of charity in today’s culture, and her exploration doesn’t yield many answers.  The situations she lays out aren’t exactly comforting for those who think they are being helpful to the community.  But simply by raising these questions, she leads her audience to a self-examination, precisely what movies dealing with important societal issues should do.  B+ / 


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (December 10, 2010)

10 12 2010

With the release of David O. Russell and Mark Wahlberg’s collaboration “The Fighter” today (albeit in only four theaters), I thought today would be as good a time as ever to feature the duo’s first movie together, “Three Kings,” in the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” column.  The poster and topic may make it seem like your average war movie, but Russell’s knack for style and substance both in his script and direction elevate it to one of the most unconventional and exciting entries in the genre.

Iraq, 1991.  Operation Desert Storm is over, but four soldiers who see little action feel a little unfulfilled.  They wonder what they actually accomplished during the mission since they were so uninvolved.  Boredom, curiosity, and intrigue combine to bring together a group of four unlikely people together on a strange mission.

The burnt out Major Archie Gates (George Clooney) leads family man Troy Barlow (Mark Wahlberg), dumb redneck Conrad Vig (Spike Jonze), and hard-as-nails Chief Elgin (Ice Cube) on a search for Kuwaiti bullion they think is hidden in Saddam’s bunkers.  Following a map they found in a prisoner’s butt and their unbounded desires to strike it rich, they traverse through dangerous territories in Iraq waving the banner of freedom as a Kevlar vest for their journey.  However, what they find amounts to a whole lot more than gold.

“Three Kings” is not just about an expedition for gold; it’s about what happens when humanity gets in the way of things.  Along the way, the four soldiers encounter a number of situations with two choices: helping themselves or helping innocent Iraqi citizens.  Gates and company find it harder and harder to choose in self-interest despite getting closer and closer to the gold.  Russell’s movie is a powerful testament to the kindness of the human soul and how it can remain intact even during war.

Clooney, Wahlberg, Ice Cube, and the hysterical Jonze are all fantastic in helping the movie to shine, but “Three Kings” is David O. Russell’s movie, and he knocks it out of the park.  His script is a strange mix of comedy, drama, and action, but it never fails to satisfy, often on multiple levels at once.  Behind the camera, he toys with several experimental techniques to produce one of the most eccentric-looking war movies I’ve ever seen.  He provides a very different sort of artistry for the genre, and it’s a fantastic retrospective statement on our time in Iraq (before our second entry) that packs one heck of a punch.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Solitary Man

9 12 2010

Michael Douglas, like most skilled actors, can deliver good performances in his sleep, but these types of actors are only exciting to watch when they try something different or really put in the work to elevate their performance.  In “Solitary Man,” it seemed to me like Douglas was sleepwalking through the entire movie.

It’s really a shame because this could have been a great role for him.  Fascinating performances often arise when actors take parts that reflect where they are in life, particularly at milestone ages.  From child to teen, from youth to adulthood, from young to middle-aged, and for Douglas, from middle-aged to the age of mortality.  The theme of confronting old age is particularly eerie to watch now given Douglas’ fight with cancer.

Yet while all the components are there, something just doesn’t add up.  I wouldn’t attribute it all to Douglas; the film’s plot is pretty weak and the self-examination severely underdeveloped.  This is such a rich topic, but the movie only brushes the surface.  Douglas’ Ben Kalmen struggles with a lot of things: his loneliness, his infidelity, his fall from grace in business, his desire to stay young, among others.

The psychological struggle is all provided by Douglas, not at all by the script.  Nowhere is there a great line for us to chew on or a particularly interesting plot development to leave us reeling.  There’s just predictable old plot gimmicks that run for 90 minutes, which hardly feels adequate for Douglas to give the character much depth.

He gets no help from an impressively cast ensemble including the likes of Susan Sarandon, Jenna Fischer, Jesse Eisenberg, and Mary-Louise Parker.  The writers don’t bother to give any sort of depth to these supporting actors; they might as well have just abandoned names altogether and called the characters “aging ex-wife,” “young new girlfriend,” and “beautiful daughter.”  There’s so much “Solitary Man” could have been, but not even Michael Douglas can save it from becoming an entirely forgettable snooze.  C / 


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Just Wright

8 12 2010

Guys, don’t let the basketball fool you.  “Just Wright” is as much of a sports movie as “Forrest Gump” is.  If you take a gander at the poster, look at Common’s right hand (the one on top of Queen Latifah’s hand) for a better of indicator of what the movie is really like.  Substitute it for a microphone and Katherine Heigl/Gerard Butler and you’re right back in “The Ugly Truth.”

Now here comes the part of the review when I throw out words like cliched, formulaic, and predictable to warn you that if you’ve seen a romantic comedy in the past decade, you’ve seen “Just Wright.”  The only counter to all these negative adjectives is, of course, if the charms of the leading man and lady can overcome the familiarity.

While I could just heap on the insults on “Just Wright,” I just don’t have the heart to bash Queen Latifah.  She’s just seems so warm and friendly that it would feel like a low-blow to really go after her and tear her up.  We all know she can do better, and for the most part, she selects roles pretty well.  This is just a misstep.  As the physical therapist who can’t help but fall for the basketball player she’s rehabilitating, the story is just so uninspired that it can’t get you to care enough to be involved.

It’s not her fault that this movie wound up as bad as it did.  Common is a pretty pathetic actor, and Paula Patton just can’t do much with her confused character.  Queen Latifah is actually a nice presence in the movie, endowing it with some of her charisma and personality that’s hard to resist.  She’s like a juicy burger enveloped by a moldy bun, which wouldn’t taste quite as unpleasant if we hadn’t been fed nothing but burgers by the romantic comedy restaurant.  C- / 


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Letters to Juliet

7 12 2010

The Italian countryside has got to be the single most beautiful place in the world.  Apologies to Amanda Seyfried, but “Letters to Juliet” is a romance (not even comedy) that doesn’t deserve to feature the gorgeous country in its background.  Given the quality of the script, the disillusioned lover played by Seyfried should be traversing back alleys to find the long lost love of Claire (the graceful, ageless beauty Vanessa Redgrave).

Shakespeare’s well-known tragedy “Romeo & Juliet” gets a fairy-tale romantic twist here as Sophie (Seyfried) ventures to Verona for her pre-wedding honeymoon with her all-too-occupied fiancé (Gael Garcia Bernal).  A journalist, she discovers the secret behind the letters left for the fictional Juliet in the wall of her house.  They are answered by the “secretaries of Juliet,” yet one letter manages to stay lodged behind a rock.  Sophie takes it upon herself to answer it personally, finding Claire and her well-groomed grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan).  Believing her love is still out there, they embark on a journey to find her Romeo.

From then on, all originality goes out the window and formula takes over.  Charlie and Sophie have the typical romantic arc: hate turns to not hate, and somehow not hating someone means you are in love!  If love in real life was like it is in romantic comedies nowadays, what a depressing world it would be.

Poor Claire for having to put up with their sudden infatuation in denial, and poor Vanessa Redgrave for having her name on this movie.  While it’s certainly darling that she got to make a movie that had echoes of her own life, no Academy Award winner deserves to star in something like this.  Apart from Redgrave, I struggle to find much good to say about this movie.  Italy and Amanda Seyfried look good, perhaps?  Or maybe that I would have really liked this movie if it was the first romantic comedy I had ever seen?

As Taylor Swift’s song goes, “It’s a love story, baby just say yes.”  When it comes to “Letters for Juliet,” maybe you should say no (unintentionally another Taylor Swift quote).  C- / 


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

6 12 2010

C.S. Lewis’ Narnia book series has been a favorite of Christians for years.  They jumped for joy when Disney and Walden Media adapted “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe,” producing an audience hit that barely concealed its allegory for Christ.  Then came “Prince Caspian,” which was a purely Disney movie that deserves to be scoffed at.  The final kiss at the end between Susan and Caspian, the obligatory Disney kiss that was nowhere to be found in Lewis’ work, was an absolutely appalling end to a movie that strayed so far from its roots no thanks to the encouragement of the studio.

But after “Prince Caspian” took in a disappointing sum, Disney dropped the series and left Walden Media to find a new distributor if they wanted the books to be adapted.  After some searching, the group partnered with 20th Century Fox to present “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.”

It’s amazing to see the difference a studio can make.  Fox and Walden’s Narnia is a reason for Christians everywhere to rejoice as it lays its foundation firmly back in the faith that has made Lewis’ books beloved for generations.  The movie gets its message across clearly but still leaves room for thought and pondering, all while providing great action and entertainment.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 7 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

SAVE YOURSELF from “Tron”

5 12 2010

Disney has invested quite a bit of money into promoting “Tron: Legacy” – $150 million, to be exact.  I’ve been watching as they’ve hyped this movie for the past three years with a fair bit of skepticism.  I’ve wondered why they need such a massive push for a big-budget visual effects spectacle for quite some time, so over the fall, I decided to look for answer in “Tron,” its 28-year-old predecessor.

I found one pretty good reason to promote “Tron: Legacy” so excessively: the original “Tron” is TERRIBLE!  And not even terrible in the sense that you can step back and laugh at it; it’s just terrible!

Sure, the visual effects are obscenely outdated, and that’s reason for a few giggles.  It’s also dated by kids playing games at an arcade.  I mean, who does THAT anymore?  I guess you could say that watching “Tron” certainly gives you an appreciation for the flawless integration of FX into movies, and it sure makes you want to bow at the feet of “Avatar” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.”

With its extensive use of computer graphics for visual spectacle, “Tron” is considered by many to be a pioneering film in technological development and a window into the future.  Well, I can tell you know from a 2010 perspective that the future came and left “Tron” in the dust a very long time ago.  Plenty of movies have done similar things, and watching “Tron” is like sending a telegram when you could just send a text message: that’s to say extremely antiquated and a futile waste of time.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s something very cool and novel about seeing how things were done in the past and seeing our progress.  But it’s brutal when that movie doesn’t have any value other than its depreciation to offer.  “Tron” has a completely incoherent plot that baffled moviegoers back in 1982 because it dealt so much with the unfamiliar computers.  The filmmakers claimed that it was misunderstood back when the movie came out largely to cover the movie’s lackluster box office receipts.  (To be fair, there was also a little science-fiction movie called “E.T.” dominating the market at the same time.)

Yet even now, in a generation of overexposure to computers, the movie still doesn’t make sense!  All I could discern from that plot was that Jeff Bridges’ Kevin Flynn invented the TRON program, his intellectual property was stolen, and he beams himself inside the program to prove his creation.  From then on, it’s a total mess of seemingly unconnected events inside the computer that have little going for them other than the retro ’80s appeal.

The movie has managed to become a cult hit over the years, and I’m a little flabbergasted that people actually love this movie.  I don’t see anything other than effects that are funny for a few minutes, and then when the novelty wears off, we are left with nothing but a snooze of a movie with a strange plot.

So I’m honestly shocked that Disney would throw so much behind “Tron: Legacy” when the original is so pathetic.  I think they know it and are starting to fret that people like me would see the 1982 movie; according to a report in The Los Angeles Times, the DVD of the original is pretty hard to find since Disney is hardly releasing any new copies to meet the demand.  Most studios release some new edition of a predecessor when a sequel comes out, and a special edition of “Tron” is nowhere to be seen.

“Tron: Legacy” is being built as the cinematic equivalent of Wall Street’s “too big to fail” companies.  The commonly held theory is that if enough money is poured into a production, moviegoers will recognize the investment and go see it on blind faith.  While the fanboy hype is high on this release, reality may be setting in that this might not have been such a smart move (which I could have told you the second I finished the original).  According to The Hollywood Reporter, tracking indicates an opening weekend of a low $35 million, which would mean the movie would probably only net about $150-$175 million in the United States.

Given that the film will cost the studio $320 million by December 17, these numbers would be catastrophic for Disney.  Just as when the “too big to fail” firms sunk led to change on Wall Street, /Film reports that if “Tron: Legacy” were to bomb, the impact on Hollywood could be enormous.  My prediction is that if the sequel is anything like the 1982 “Tron,” the road to failure has already been paved.


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews, Save Yourself!

REVIEW: Love & Other Drugs

4 12 2010

There’s an interesting commentary on the pharmaceutical industry at the heart of “Love & Other Drugs,” a prevalent enough part of the story to make it into the title.  But it’s the love part of the name that takes control of the movie and ultimately devalues the larger and more relevant message.  Like a pimple, the romance grows and grows until it virtually envelops the face.

Granted, this is an incredibly attractive pimple.  The film’s historical background in dealing with Viagra gives it free reign to go crazy on the sexuality, and director Edward Zwick runs with the opportunity.  It’s practically soft-core porn starring two young, attractive stars in Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal.  But the movie is more than just two constantly and completely naked stars on a bed; it develops the emotional out of the physical.

The nudity isn’t meant to titillate so much as it is to be honest.  It removes the sheets of pretense from the bedfellows, Jamie the womanizing Viagra salesman (Gyllenhaal) and his latest squeeze Maggie, a passionate but insecure lover affected by stage 1 Parkinson’s (Hathaway), and leaves their character naked.  The two nudities complement each other beautifully, and these are two fascinating portraits of people trying to figure out where their lives are heading.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (December 3, 2010)

3 12 2010

With the smash hit “Inception” hitting shelves next week, I thought now would be as good a time as ever to revisit a little-known movie of its star, Leonardo DiCaprio.  I’ve featured virtually every supporting cast member in the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” column before, and it’s time for the Academy Award-nominated DiCaprio to join their ranks.

(For the sake of reference and shameless promotion, I’ll list the other stars and their criminally underseen gems: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s, “The Lookout,”  Tom Hardy’s “Bronson,” Ellen Page’s “Hard Candy,” Marion Cotillard’s “La Vie en Rose,” Cillian Murphy’s “Sunshine,” Michael Caine’s, “Children of Men,” and director Christopher Nolan’s “Following.”  Ken Watanabe … perhaps coming soon?)

So for Leo’s entry, I submit “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?”  This is one of his early movies, four years before “Titanic” superstardom, and at 19, he shows the same mastery of acting as he does in the psychologically tormented characters that he played in 2010.  Here, his Arnie suffers a different mental affectation: a developmental disability that was supposed to take his life at the age of 10.

Eight years later, his care is left largely in the hands of older brother Gilbert Grape, played by a younger, red-haired Johnny Depp.  Gilbert struggles with his circumstances: he’s frustrated living in the small town of Endora, Iowa, where nothing seems to happen.  He’s tired of being stuck in a job at the down-home town grocery store, preventing him from using the modern supermarket that has opened nearby.  He’s fed up with his family whose apathy leaves him with all the responsibilities since his obese mother is practically immobile, his father has deserted the family, and his siblings are caught up in their own little worlds.

But when the yearly exodus of trailers comes through the town, Gilbert is offered some relief from his dreary existence by the prospect of romance with Becky (the ever-so-’90s Juliette Lewis).  Her presence shakes up his life, making him more hesitant to add sensuality to his grocery delivery for the maritally frustrated Betty Carver (Mary Steenburgen).  But there are more profound changes that happens in Gilbert and his life, and director Lasse Hallstrom unravels the Grape family saga with such sensitivity that it’s irresistible and profoundly satisfying to watch.

There’s so much emotional depth endowed to this character that isn’t externalized by Depp, and 10 years before his first Oscar nomination, anyone who saw this movie could have seen it coming.  But the real star of “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” is DiCaprio, who surrenders to the character to the extent that it’s possible to forget who you’re watching.  To think that this is the same actor who wowed us in “The Departed” and “Inception” becomes hard to believe as we watch his overwhelming physicality draws our eyes to him for the entirety of the movie’s two hours.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: MacGruber

2 12 2010

There’s a great scene in “MacGruber” where Kristen Wiig really finds her comedic element.  Forced to masquerade as the titular tacky, mulleted ’80s mock-action hero, she futzes around awkwardly in a coffee shop and tries to explain to the cashier what’s going on.  It’s reminiscent of some of her golden work on “Saturday Night Live,” where she can turn just about any character into a hilarious one.

But alas, that is one scene, and this one moment of laughter is nowhere near enough to redeem the other 90 minutes of “MacGruber” that are void of it.  Honestly, whoever let this movie pass needs to be locked in a room with a bomb and left to defuse it with nothing.  These sketches have been trite filler for “SNL” for three years, and the only laughs they garner are uneasy ones.  Not to mention it’s a movie centered around Will Forte, who is often so pathetic that it becomes painful to watch.

Throwing Ryan Phillipe into the mix to give the movie’s acting corps some legitimacy outside of 30 Rock just makes things worse.  Trying to take the movie seriously, Reese Witherspoon’s frosty-curled ex-husband just looks like a buffoon.  It’s not difficult to understand that there’s nothing serious about this movie; “MacGruber” is a ridiculous, farcical send-up of the ridiculous 1980s action movies.  There’s no shame in presenting a movie in this style – provided that the satire is done well.  In this case, it feels like the movie was written on the back of cue cards for yet another uninspired “What’s Up With That?” sketch.

There are movies that beg you not to be taken seriously, and then there are those that beg you not to take the craft of cinema seriously.  “MacGruber” is the latter of the two, trying to fly on the flimsy premise that a sketch that can barely sustain two minutes on TV could make an entertaining movie that’s 45 times bigger.  Perhaps Lorne Michaels will come up with a more clever way to make money off this movie in the future: take “MacGruber” off the case and slap on the title “The Worst of Will Forte.”  D / 


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Classics Corner: “Rebel Without a Cause”

30 11 2010

There’s an immediate resonance for any teenager who watches “Rebel Without a Cause” as youth rebellion feels eerily reminiscent to anyone experiencing it no matter how dated the story.  Sure, certain rituals have become obsolete and various practices have become laughably obscure.  The entire nature of being a teenager has changed dramatically even over the past decade, not to mention 55 years.  But the very fact that this movie can communicate its message in spite of the generational disparity really does stand substantiate the case that “Rebel Without a Cause” is a classic.

The movie looks at the nonconformity emerging among the youth in the 1950s, a topic of much controversy at the time.  For those whose history is a little rusty, this was the time of great American post-war optimism.  This was the era of the American Dream, and no matter what “Death of a Salesman” tells us, they bought into it.  When we look back at this decade, most of us think of the “Happy Days” paradigm.

So when a movie dared to explore the culture of youth rebellion, naturally it got people talking.  No one wanted their child to be “that kid,” the one stirring up the trouble, and the mindset of the time was that these types of influences were only prevalent among a lower class of people.  But the three troubled souls of “Rebel Without a Cause” all come from affluent, well-to-do families, making the social statement that much more powerful back in the 1950s.

James Dean plays the titular rebel, Jim Stark, in the second of the three major screen roles he completed before his death at age 24 in a car accident.  I had always associated Dean with the 1950s as a sort of mystical counterculture figure running against the cookie-cutter American image, and he certainly still has a large cult following from teens today.  It’s a lot easier to be rebellious in this modern time with so many forums open for dissent, but back in Dean’s time, there wasn’t much of a place for it, and this has made him all the more powerful a symbol.

I watched the movie to make Dean more than an image in my mind; I wanted to see what skills he possessed that have allowed him to become one of cinema’s most enduring figures.  He delivers, packing a performance full of internal conflict that ultimately manifests itself in shocking ways.  It’s particularly interesting to watch him struggle with the adult authorities who simply don’t understand him.

I found some striking parallels in the story to “Spring Awakening,” the play banned in Germany for nearly a century due to the inappropriateness of youth going unhinged.  In the musical adaptation, all adults are played by one male and one female, and this could certainly work for “Rebel Without a Cause” (not necessarily the musical) because all of the movie’s adults are aloof and lacking in any sort of understanding of the new generation of youth.  All form a brick wall of intolerance, and darned if Dean’s Stark can’t pound that wall down with his fists.

Stark also makes ties with two other teens living on the outskirts of decorum: a friendship with Plato (Sal Mineo), a virtually orphaned loner who is probably a closeted homosexual, and hints at romance with Judy (Natalie Wood), a girl struggling to make her transition to womanhood in the eyes of her family.  On one fateful night, together they form a kinship outside of the narrow-mindedness of their adult and teenage oppressors.  Since it is a melodrama, there may not be as much character development as there could be, yet their journeys are each so distinct and telling of the new directions of society that you can’t help but be glued to every exciting minute of it.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Due Date

29 11 2010

The straight man-fat man road trip routine has been done before (see “Planes, Trains & Automobiles”), but just because John Hughes milked that cow first doesn’t mean he milked it dry.  There’s still plenty of humor left in the sub-genre, and “Due Date” manages to find quite a bit of it.  With Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis in great comic form, director Todd Phillips of “The Hangover” fame makes a movie that really delivers in the laugh department.

All plausibility is thrown out the window as Peter (Downey) makes an all-too-difficult return voyage home to Los Angeles for the birth of his child.  Each step of the way is only made more challenging by aspiring actor Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis), a magnet for disaster with no filter blocking thoughts from words.  As they traverse across America with a coffee can of his father’s ashes and his carry-on sized pooch Sonny, Ethan’s ineptitude makes sure Peter won’t arrive prematurely for the due date of his wife (Michelle Monaghan).

The situations are fairly well-crafted, ranging from a grumpy Western Union employee played by the always hilarious Danny McBride to Jamie Foxx as a smooth-talking Texan football player.  There are also plenty of conflicts with national security from the TSA to Border Patrol to keep things interesting too.

But what saves “Due Date” from being average and raises it to the level of decent entertainment is the talent of its stars Downey and Galifianakis.  They inject the movie with their hilariously polar opposite personalities, and their sheer presence is enough to garner multiple outrageous bursts of laughter.  Galifianakis particularly lights up the screen with his dynamite energy, and he shows that his ability to spin little lines into comedic gold is not limited to the character Alan in “The Hangover.”  With him in full gear, there’s no shortage of laughs here.  Cheap, sure, but nonetheless, laughs.  B / 


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

REVIEW: Black Swan

27 11 2010

At 18, I’m probably a little young to be using the phrase “they don’t make ’em like this anymore,” but I can’t help but have it come to mind when talking about “Black Swan.”  Simply put, Darren Aronofsky’s brilliant directorial artistry has culminated in a stunning masterpiece that is unmatched in vision or ambition by anything that cinema has churned out in a long time.

It’s so bold and daring that to call it wowing simply doesn’t do the experience justice.  Aronofsky weaves together the beauty of ballet with the terror of psychological meltdown with such nimble grace that it leaves you reeling long after leaving the theater.

There’s really no one else but Aronofsky who could pull off a big, brassy movie like this.  He’s simply the best visual filmmaker out there.  As if his first two movies, “Pi” and “Requiem for a Dream,” weren’t powerful enough, “Black Swan” is Aronofsky in full bloom, showing absolute command of all cinematic vocabulary.  There is no boundary too sacred or stiff for him to toy with, and he doesn’t so much push them as he does eradicate them.  Thus, “Black Swan” isn’t just a victory for Aronofsky and the rest of the crew; it’s a victory for the craft of filmmaking as we know it.

The film is chalked full of imagery, symbolism, and visual motifs that jump off the frame and into your lap.  It’s so clear that Aronofsky is intimately involved in sculpting every frame and every moment down to the colors of the room.  His presence is terrifyingly arresting, and it feels like he himself is reaching out to grab your heart and pump it at a million beats per minute.  The racing begins in the first scene and doesn’t let up even when the credits roll.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 8 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

F.I.L.M. of the Week (November 26, 2010)

26 11 2010

It’s Black Friday!  While my shopping today was limited to Amazon.com, there’s something more to celebrate … IT’S CHRISTMAS TIME!  (Officially, at least!)

What better way to celebrate than by watching a Christmas movie?  May I propose “Love Actually,” my pick for this week’s “F.I.L.M.”  It gets you in the holiday spirit like no other with its abundant tales of all sorts of different loves in the Christmas season.  This isn’t a traditional Christmas movie in the tradition of “Elf” or “The Santa Clause,” but the holiday plays such an integral role in the storyline that it’s hard to call it anything else.  It reminds you of the joys of the Christmas season so well that it’s become a sort of traditional holiday kick-off for my family.

Platonic love, impossible love, irresponsible love, mourning love, familial love, interlingual love, desperate love – you name it, this movie offers it.  Some might call it overambitious or cluttered, but I think Richard Curtis’ script is an enormously satisfying blend of love that makes flawless connections between its characters.  He packs the movie full of humor and heart, tied with a bow of such irresistible charm that you’ll wish every gift under the Christmas tree could provide such joy.

All your favorite Brits (and Laura Linney) are feeling the bliss and pain of love in overdrive with all the madness surrounding the holidays catches them.  The perpetually single Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) is undeniably attracted to one of the women working for him (Martine McCutcheon), which makes for a difficult situation.  The clumsy writer Jamie (Colin Firth) finds himself falling for his Portuguese housekeeper while working France, despite the fact that neither can speak the same language.

Sarah (Linney) is madly in love with her co-worker Karl (Rodrigo Santoro) but can never work up the courage to say anything.  Daniel (Liam Neeson) is mourning the death of his long-suffering wife while trying to help his young stepson get noticed by his crush.  Karen (Emma Thompson) is trying to put on a happy face for her family while her husband (Alan Rickman) isn’t being entirely honest about his affairs.

And playing behind it all, there’s washed-up and rehabbed rock star Billy Mack (Bill Nighy) trying to reclaim his former glory by shamelessly converting an old song into Christmas jam, “Christmas Is All Around.”  He’s a hilariously self-depracating mess, making ill-advised remarks like, “Kids, don’t buy drugs; become a celebrity and they’ll give them to you for FREE!”  Nighy delivers one of those divine, once-in-a-decade comedic performances, and he absolutely steals the movie.

I didn’t even touch on about half of the storylines in the story, not to mention the subplots.  There’s just so much there for everyone in “Love Actually” that it’s practically irresistible.  While you might not click with one storyline, there are a dozen others that you are bound to love!  Like the poster says, it’s the “ultimate romantic comedy,” and you’ll be amazed at how entertaining and fun Richard Curtis and his army of British actors can make the dying genre.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

« Previous Entries Next Entries »