pointblank Movie Reviews

DVD REVIEWS - The Ides of March

2012-02-14T20:52:00.001-08:00

The pressure of trying to run a successful political campaign is undeniable. We can deduce this simply from watching the effort put in by candidates on their campaign trail, hopping from location to location, speaking and debating until you either accept defeat or you emerge victorious. To make matters worse, these politicians and their staff members constantly find themselves under attack by those who do not want to see them succeed. Faced with this adversity, the atmosphere of a campaign quickly turns into a BAMN situation. The only goal? Win, by any means necessary.

And that is the view that The Ides of March, presents to moviegoers. To win, to climb ahead, to do whatever it takes to come out on top. That certainly is the mantra of Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), the press secretary for the Pennsylviania State Governor and presidential candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney). He believes in what Gov. Morris stands for as a candidate, but more importantly, he believes in himself. He doesn't look forward to one day seeing Gov. Morris in the White House, but instead basking in the reflected glory that would ultimately land him a job on Pennsylvania Ave.

Those that Meyers encounters during the Ohio Primary, including Morris' campaign manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) as well as Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), campaign manager for the rival Democratic candidate are all seasoned veterans. As such, they have a more realistic grasp of the political world. Zara believes that there is nothing more important than loyalty and Duffy shows a prowess to manipulate others for the benefit of his campaign. These men outwardly display the fatigue of countless political campaigns and demonstrate that they will do whatever they have to to ensure the success of their candidate.

The tension created by the primary leads the players looking for any form of release. For Meyers, it means having sexual encounters with a gorgeous young intern Molly Stearn (Evan Rachael Wood), leading her to confide in Meyers a secret that could bring his dreams crashing down around him. As the story presses on and Meyers faces wave after wave of adversity, his eager and idealistic mindset erodes to expose a dark, amoral core which is hellbent on his own success. Herein lies the most important question the film poses to its audience: is it possible for a politician to emerge victorious from a campaign without compromising their original ideals and beliefs?

The all-star cast, which also includes Marisa Tomei and Jeffrey Wright, displays that the strength of the film is in the acting, with Gosling leading the charge with another stunning performance. And while corruption, blackmailing, and extortion in the world of politics are by no means revolutionary viewpoints, The Ides of March still does a fantastic job portraying how the immense pressure of a political campaign can expose people for who they really are.

DVD REVIEWS - Drive

2012-02-13T21:00:00.001-08:00

Ryan Gosling's character is known only as, "The Driver," which is fitting, because that's all he does. Whether it is earning a living as a Hollywood stuntman or moonlighting as a getaway driver for hire, he does one thing and he does it extremely well. The Driver stirs up memories of Clint Eastwood's The Man with No Name. To the audience, he has no past, no family, and no emotions, or so we think.

The film is set in Los Angeles, although with the opening credits and the soundtrack, it feels like we are watching an old rerun of Miami Vice. Driver lives next door to Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son Benicio (Kaden Leos). When The Driver is introduced to his neighbors, we begin to see a glimmer of emotion and an eventually motivator for the rest of the storyline. A week later, Irene's husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac) returns home from prison and finds his wife and son warmed up to this quiet stranger. However, instead of succumbing to jealously, Standard senses that The Driver is a professional and comes to him with a need for a wheelman. The ensuing heist puts both Irene and Benicio in danger, leading The Driver to reveal his deep-seeded emotions and loyalties.

Drive, is teeming with influence from classic film noir pieces. The anticipation and tenseness that the audience experiences comes from the fact the emotions and feelings aren't out in the open, but rather hidden in the shadows. The Driver embodies these noir traits, only to have them amplified by the juxtaposition of the characters surrounding him, who bring backgrounds into the story. Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman play influential men in the world of organized crime in Los Angeles and steal the show every time they set foot in a scene. Bryan Cranston also helps to bring life to the world of The Driver, as his mentor in the world of automobiles.

On the surface, Drive may seem like another film along the vein of The Fast and the Furious: another action movie jam packed with car chases and predictable story lines. But this film places emphasis on writing, dialogue, and storytelling, leading us to care not only about the enigmatic protagonist, but also about the reason and outcome of the car chases. We aren't content to sit back and be overwhelmed by special effects and CGI. Instead, we hang on the edge of our seats, following the hero through his exploits and waiting for him to ride, or rather drive, off into the sunset.

The Fighter

2011-02-01T07:52:00.000-08:00

Audiences want nothing more than to identify with the protagonist of a film. But when Mickey Ward gets ignored by his mother, girlfriend, older half-brother, and seven-loudmouthed sisters, the viewer simply follows suit and does the same.

David O. Russell's The Fighter tells the true story of boxer Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg) who spends his entire career in the shadow of his older brother Dickie Eklund (Christian Bale), the proclaimed "pride of Lowell, Massachusetts." The height of Eklund's career came from a 10 round bout in which he knocked over Sugar Ray Leonard. However, Dickie fell hard and became addicted to crack to become the character in this story: a failed version of what Mickey hopes to become.

Mickey is subjected to a series of bad losses, thanks in part to the "management" of both his brother and mother (Melissa Leo), who see Mickey fighting as a way to supply cash for the family while Dickie bides his time for his supposed comeback. Then Mickey falls for a sexy and tough bartender by the name of Charlene (Amy Adams). This new girlfriend helps to be the voice of the audience, yelling at Mickey to shed the unneeded baggage that is brought on by his current entourage.

The story may be about the fighting career of Mickey Ward, but that certainly doesn't seem that Mickey is the one making the decisions. When he goes into an obviously mismatched bout, his family persuades him to follow through despite the inevitable defeat. When Mickey receives the opportunity to train in Las Vegas professionally, Charlene all but forces him to take the offer. Even when the film reaches the inevitable showdown of Girlfriend v. Family, Mickey simply says, "I'll go with both," because it pleases everybody. Mickey Ward allows himself to be pushed into decisions by those around him and because of that, it is hard to take him seriously.

The real shining light of the film is from the supporting cast, which is evident from the Oscar nominations received by this ensemble. Christian Bale, who has been bolstering his résumé with characters like Batman and John Conner, underwent the transformation of a career. His portrayal of the crack-addled Dickie was perfect and is Oscar-worthy. Both Leo and Adams locked in stellar performances as well, representing the two sides of Mickey's feelings and straining to help give a one-dimensional character a little more depth.

The fight scenes were filmed from the view of a spectator, ringside and at home on television. However, since it is Mickey's career that the film revolves around, the viewer will find it hard to become drawn into the fights since there is no emotional involvement with the fighter himself. Of course, there is the expectation of Mickey to win. But without the connection to the fighter that feeling of exaltation that should be there is replaced with nothing more than a banal ending to the movie.

Black Swan

2011-01-17T10:54:00.000-08:00

Black Swan is not your typical dance movie. The audience in not presented with the beauty and grace of a ballerina as she performs on stage. Instead, director Darren Aronofsky thrusts the viewer into the tormented psychosis of the dancer as she loses herself, and her mind, as she transforms into her character.

To understand the storyline of Black Swan, it is imperative to be familiar with the classic Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky ballet Swan Lake. The premise is simple enough; a beautiful girl is transformed into a swan and only true love's kiss will set her free. But her lustful and jealous sister, the Black Swan, swoops in and seduces the prince who would have broken the spell for the White Swan. The White Swan, seized with grief, tragically ends her own life and ultimately finds freedom in her death.

The plot for Black Swan parallels that of the classic ballet. Beautiful Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) has been selected as the new prima ballerina for her company after the incumbant Beth (Winona Ryder) had been gracefully forced out due to age. Nina is regarded as the most technically sound dancer within the company and is regarded as the perfect dancer to represent the White Swan. But the company director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) needs the lead to play both the White and the Black Swans. Nina simply dances with precision, not emotion, and needs to lose herself in order to portray the Black Swan. This proves easier said than done, thanks to the tumultuous relationship between Nina and her mother (Barbara Hershey). A former dancer herself, Ms. Sayers shielded her daughter from every distraction in order to essentially create a perfect ballerina.

The film is predictable, as most dance films tend to be. Tension between Nina and Thomas gives way to the arrival of a new dancer, Lily (Mila Kunis), making the threat of replacement all too real. Lily embodies everything that Nina is not, which adds to the imminent crisis building inside the head of the White Swan. The rivalry between the two dancers morphs into a twisted friendship of sorts, which aides Nina in abandoning the oppression laid upon her by her mother. As Lily represents the anti-Nina, their relationship opens the door for Nina to get in touch with her dark side and transform into the Black Swan.

Black Swan displays flashes of Aronofsky's previous work The Wrester, in which the main character immerses themselves in the perfection of their craft so recklessly that their lives ultimately end in ruin. As with The Wrestler, Aronofsky's over-the-shoulder, shaky camera work is able to put the audience inside a tormented psyche to truly experience what the characters are experiencing. The audience is also subjected to a dance along the line that separates reality from the subconscious so that when the film is reaching its climax, the line is so blurred that it becomes difficult to deduce what the truth is.

As with many classical ballet's, Black Swan, is summed up in a dramatic third act. The juxtaposition of dreams and reality, as well as the parallels between the film and the ballet, conclude in one dynamic whirlwind of passion. Much like the White Swan, Nina finds herself trapped within a prison, desperately fighting to free herself. Tragically, it is suggested that there is only one way to escape, one way to become free, one way to reach ultimate perfection. It would be unwise to question exactly what happens. To do so would simply blur the line between dream and reality even further.

Crazy Heart

2010-03-16T17:09:00.001-07:00

As a movie goer, it is an extreme pleasure to witness a character that I can believe in. Someone with whom I can identify with while sharing in their experiences, both good and bad. Jeff Bridges is able to do so in Crazy Heart with his seemingly effortless portrayal of Bad Blake, an aging country music star who has long since seen his glory days pass him by. Instead of playing for thousands, he instead entertains his faithful followers by performing in bowling alleys and shabby piano bars.

Blake is an alcoholic and smokes too much. He tours around in an outdated Chevy Suburban and has been married five different times. He is every single country music cliche rolled into one, and yet Blake makes it seem that he is the source of those cliches. Bridges portrayal of Bad Blake makes us believe that these events actually happened to him. He can only sit idly by as Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell), the young kid who once learned and toured with him is now making it big and when he does try to secure the love of Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal), his alcoholism drives a wedge between to two that neither party can overcome. Jeff Bridges has taken every country song ever written and breathed live into them to create Bad Blake.

It is only fitting, then, that the soundtrack is comprised of Jeff Bridges singing original country songs written by T-Bone Burnett and the late Stephen Bruton. Bridges' voice, with it's gritty quality and subtle agony, is able to remind us of Blake's history every time he steps up to a microphone all while keeping the singer's pride intact as he performs at a bowling alley.

The preservation of pride in the midst of less-than-ideal situations is what keeps Blake from becoming too much of a cliche. Yes, bad things have happened to him, but he will never do the public a favor by letting them know that. In many ways, Bridges' performance in this movie closely resembles the performance of Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler a year ago. And it's true - I haven't cared about another character like I did for Randy "The Ram" Robinson until Bad Blake came along. Both men are desperately trying to salvage their lives after making mistakes time and time again and in doing so, we are reminded that it is the character of a person, not the previous mistakes made by that person, which is so endearing.

Crazy Heart is a film about a country music singer and it flows like a 2 hour country song. There are no gimmicks, no illusions. The performances from Farrell, Gyllenhaal, and Robert Duvall, who plays Bad's longtime friend, all help to detail who Bad Blake really is, despite his flaws. And Jeff Bridges, who has already established himself as a tremendously talented actor, simply added another notch to his belt without showing any effort exerted at all. If only all actors could be so lucky.

Shutter Island

2010-03-08T14:22:00.001-08:00

Is is no secret that Martin Scorsese is a master storyteller. One only needs to look at his directing repertoire to come to this conclusion. Such is the case with Shutter Island. Here, Scorsese teams up once again with Leonardo DiCaprio to tell the story of U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels who, with his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), is sent to Shutter Island, which houses a government facility for mentally unstable criminals., to investigate the disappearance of an inmate. Once on the island, events begin to unfold mysteriously and Daniels begins to believe that there is something more to this scenario than what meets the eye.

What makes this story so compelling is the element of the supernatural and the unstable psychosis. Scorsese is extremely careful in what he displays to the audience so that by the time the credits roll, he knows that the audience isn't exactly sure what to believe. The story begins simply enough, but then Teddy is informed by Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) that the woman who disappeared did so as if she evaporated through the walls. Other encounters between Teddy and the inhabitants of the island lead him to believe that there a shady undercurrent to this case.

Shutter Island is portrayed with a Hitchcock-esque style of suspense. There is always the sense that something quite large is happening right under our nose and yet no one, audience and on-screen characters alike, is able to quite figure out what it is. And even when the ending is finally spelled out and a conclusion is drawn together, Scorsese still leave the door ajar for other possibilities. Along with the ever-present suspense is the film-noir style that DiCaprio evokes with his portrayal of Daniels. Yes, Dr. Cawley seems to exude mystery and menace every time he is on screen, but it is the obvious baggage that Teddy Daniels is carrying which makes him equally hard to trust. Shutter Island seems to draw out post-traumatic memories of World War II for Teddy and it all that the audience can do to determine why this is.

Scorsese and DiCaprio prove once again that this is a tandem that is not to be trifled with. Some movie goers may disapprove of the disjointed nature of the film, not to mention the way the ending will blindside viewers. And yet, this is exactly what Scorsese has in mind. While the audience members ask question after question, trying to piece together the events unfolding before them, Teddy find himself doing the exact same thing. And believe me, the ending of this film will blindside no one more than Teddy Daniels himself.

DVD REVIEWS - The Hurt Locker

2010-01-20T14:04:00.000-08:00

Every now and then, a movie slips by me completely unnoticed. I attribute this to my location, where the local theaters would rather show Did You Hear About The Morgans? for three weeks instead of bringing in something other than another romantic comedy that deserves more screen time. I am then forced to wait for the film to hit the DVD stands before I can see it for the first time, let alone review it. So I have determined not to let the local theaters dictate which movies I can review based on what they are showing and present to you the first installment of “DVD REVIEWS.”

“War is a drug.” From the opening quote by Chris Hedges, the audience is aware that they are not attending their typical war film. Then again, the war in Iraq isn’t a typical war and in many ways, it is a war of uncertainty. U.S. soldiers experience difficulties distinguishing enemies from the rest of the civilians and for Staff Sgt. William James (in an Oscar worthy performance by Jeremy Renner), whose main objective is to diffuse bombs, it seems that everything can be a potential IED. And yet, despite the fact that his job could literally kill him as it did to his predecessor, James approaches a bomb with an unbelievable air of confidence as if he enjoys the pressure brought on by the pressure of the situation.

James’ confidence borders on cockiness and doesn’t sit well with the members of his support squad, including Sgt. J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie). Sanborn follows the rules and procedures to a ‘T’ and he and his men are charged with protecting James as he focuses solely on diffusing the IED. Naturally, because he and his men are worried about potential enemy fire, Sanborn wants to do things by the book so that they can get in, get out, and live to see another day. Sanborn and his crew do no take kindly to James’ seemingly unnecessary risks and view his overconfidence as hazardous, not only to those around him but to James as well.

James does take risks in which the term “bold” would simply be an understatement. Walking straight into a bomb site without first examining the situation or disconnecting radio contact with Sanborn during a diffusing seem crazy as opposed to brave. And yet, he focuses so intently on the task at hand that even though he is extremely reckless, he still is able to perform his job with the precision of a heart surgeon. James is fully aware of the fact that these bombs need to be diffused and no one can do it better than he can and when he is at work, exhilaration and focus consume him and put him in a place where nothing else matters.

This juxtaposition of confidence in the face of a live IED builds an intense amount of suspense, proving that director Kathryn Bigelow knows exactly what she is doing. She makes the audience fear for the wellbeing of SSgt. James while anticipating one false move that will result in his demise. The tension created from every bomb diffusion is simply remarkable. What is amazing is the simplicity of the situation that generates such an intense reaction from the viewer. The hero is in danger and we fear for his life. Alfred Hitchcock, the master of suspense, said that a bomb under a table that explodes creates shock, whereas a bomb under a table that goes unnoticed while the people at the table play cards creates suspense. Such it the case with The Hurt Locker, only this time, the bomb is under the ground, in a car, or strapped to an innocent citizen.

The Hurt Locker has been deemed as one the defining movies of the decade. After finally witnessing it firsthand, that statement is not too far off in its assumption. Bigelow creates a level of suspense that hasn’t been touched since the films of Hitchcock and also masterfully combines that suspense with the story of an ambiguous man who seems to believe that the only way to live his life is to risk it every single day.

The Book of Eli

2010-01-18T13:12:00.001-08:00

When thinking of a post-apocalyptic world, images that are presented in John Hillcoat’s The Road come to mind: hopeless desolation in which one must struggle valiantly simply to survive. Such is not the case in The Hughes brothers’ blockbuster The Book Of Eli, which contains certain elements that are traditionally associated with films depicting the Wild West.

Denzel Washington plays a man who, thanks to the movie title and a K-Mart employee name badge seen later in the film, the audience knows as Eli. He is shown making his way west for some unknown destination. It is later revealed that in his possession is a book that contains great power and can be the salvation of humankind. Thanks to the tagline, “Religion is Power,” it is pretty obvious what book Eli is carrying. On his journey, Eli crosses paths Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who is scouring the barren landscape trying to find this particular book, because he believes that this book will allow him to expand his rule over what remains of the country.

The remainder of the plot can be predicted, mainly because the outline of this story in its entirety has been used time and time again. The hero and girl are holed up while the bad guys have “got the place surrounded.” Through some miraculous feat, the hero and girl escape with their lives and continue on their quest while the bad guys are shown that crime doesn’t pay. Overused? Yes. But that doesn’t take after from its cinematic value, which comes through in this film.

The Book of Eli is an extremely fun movie to watch, mainly due to the fact that Washington and Oldman are simply phenomenal actors who excel playing the protagonist and antagonist, respectfully. Adding to this is an exceptional performance by Mila Kunis who plays Solara: the damsel in distress turned hero. These casting selections seem to be window dressing, disguising several flaws that are ignored because they make the movie more entertaining.

Flaws in a movie do not always equate to a poor quality film. Looming plot holes, such as the mysterious source for the large cache of weapons and ammunition or why it has taken Eli 30 years to walk across the country, simply don’t matter because without them, the entertainment value is diminished significantly. The fact of the matter is that even though there is no explanation why there is a stash of military weapons hidden in a couch, the audience simply doesn’t care.

The Book of Eli, while not the greatest movies of the year, is well worth the price of admission. Denzel’s performance alone makes the movie enjoyable which, of course, is nothing new and the Hughes brothers throw in a huge twist at the end that will leave the viewer stunned. Above all else, the film breaks up the monotony of destruction and despair that has monopolized the post-apocalypse theme by simply injecting a tiny amount of adrenaline and excitement. Yes, it is flawed in its presentation, but because of the value that comes from these lapses, it is easy to argue that the film is flawed to perfection.

The Road

2010-01-07T16:11:00.000-08:00

Being familiar with the novel The Road by Cormac McCarthy, it is an understandable train of thought to think that filmmakers would struggle in recreating the image that is created through the author’s prose. Indeed, the film version is devout a certain emotional quality to it, but that doesn’t take away from the overall product to the point of running the film.

The story of The Road is one that is very familiar with audiences, mainly due to the fact that the tale of a post-apocalyptic world has been rehashed several times over throughout the last several years. We focus on a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) trying to escape the harshness of their former home and reach the assumed safety of the southern seashore, avoiding highway robbers and cannibals in the process. There is no explanation for this recent destruction and instead focusing one’s attention to the future safety of the duo as they make their way through the desolation.

Director John Hillcoat is able to beautifully capture a certain part of McCarthy’s writing in portraying the destroyed landscape around the man and they boy. The way that McCarthy described the desolate setting was in a beautiful hopelessness and Hillcoat was able to translate this paradox onto the screen in a successful manner. Despite the lack of wildlife, vegetation, or even clean, ash-free air, the wide-angle shots of the surrounding devastation are awe-inspiring and at the same time give off the impression that all hope is lost.

The biggest difference between the film and its source material were the characters. Hillcoat was able to avoid exerting any extra effort to make the man and boy heartwarming in any way, and yet the way that they were portrayed created an immensely larger amount of emotion than perhaps McCarthy had intended. In the novel, the dialogue between the man and boy was succinct and to the point. There was a slight hint of deep affection within the interactions between the two, but just like the events leading to the apocalypse, McCarthy diverts attention from this deep connection and forces the reader to accept that it is present without any reassurance. Hillcoat does, at times, present the man as McCarthy had intended especially when dealing with his interactions with the old traveler (Robert Duvall) or the potential thief (Michael Kenneth Williams). Ultimately, however, Hillcoat and Mortensen simply portray a watered down version of the main character, not giving him anywhere near the amount of depth or power that he had in the novel.

McCarthy is, without a doubt, one of the most difficult writers to film. His prose is rivaled by only a few, which must have proven a challenge for the director, producer, and actors alike. And while the film isn’t able to capture the power and emotion that McCarthy instills in his novel, I don’t believe that they could have done any better than their final result. The film and the novel are both extremely powerful and moving and are perfect counterparts to one another: the novel hits the reader with the emotion that McCarthy intends with his beautiful and deep writing and the film is able to visualize the beautiful and hopeless desolation. And, if nothing else, the film will give readers a greater appreciation of a fantastic piece of literary work.

Avatar

2010-01-06T10:06:00.000-08:00

Despite being a frequent moviegoer, I have never walked out of a movie thinking, “This will change how films are made from now on.” That streak was broken after seeing James Cameron’s latest monster, Avatar. Cameron’s excellent use of CGI effects along with live action acting combined with the amazing 3D effects simply blew me away, exceeding every expectation that I had going into the film, which is something that Cameron has proven time and time again that he is fully capable of doing.

Set in the year 2154, a resource-depleted planet Earth sends representatives to Pandora, a small planet rich in a mineral that earth desperately needs. Certain humans are selected to control avatars of the native species, the Na’vi. These avatars are controlled neurotically while the human remains in a trance like state. This is an appealing characteristic for the main hero, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), who is a paraplegic filling the role of his deceased, genetically identical twin for whom an avatar was specifically created. These avatars are then used study the native species up close and venture out into the Pandorian world, since the atmosphere is not breathable. Multiple references can be found within the storyline to movies such as Dances With Wolves and the Disney film Pocahontas (the Na’vi can be interestingly compared to the Native American Indians in more than one way), while Cameron is also inviting the audience to compare the film to contemporary politics: armed forces moving in on an area in order to forcibly obtain precious resources. However, while it is clear that Cameron doesn’t hide his opinions, he also doesn’t make these “morals” overpower the rest of the movie.

Avatar incorporated groundbreaking technology in the special effects department at a time when it seems as if things can’t get much better. Pandora is largely composed through CGI and the Na’vi were created through motion capturing techniques but both the planet and the species were created so convincingly that the audience begins to forget that they are fictitious. Cameron’s creation of Pandora was especially breathtaking with the exquisite landscape in which even the tiniest detail was not left forgotten and the bioluminescence of the entire planet made you believe that not only was Pandora real, but that it was a life entity functioning entirely on its own. All in all, considering the CGI regurgitation that has been produced as of late, it is extremely refreshing to have computer-generated images that convincingly lead us to believe that they are reality.

Cameron’s last theatrical monster, Titanic, broke the 3-hour mark in regards to length, but it did so in a way that didn’t make it seem like it was too long. Such is the case with Avatar. Running at 162 minutes, it certainly doesn’t feel too long, mainly due to the fact that there is so much for the audience to take in, even after the amazing special effects. There are the standard human storylines, of course, but because the Na’vi are created in such a convincing way, their individual stories become important as well. Add in the planet that is its own life force and a war in which the human supporters of the Na’vi help by joining the resistance and the end result is an audience that is asking for more after the credits begin to roll. Adding to all this is a phenomenal cast including the lovely Zoë Saldana as the Na’vi princess Neytiri, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez, Stephan Lang, and Joel David Moore.

What people will be talking about long after these storylines fade from memory, however, is the groundbreaking usage of 3-D film technology. So often, 3-D movies were thought of as a gimmick and were used, more often than not, as attractions at a theme park. Cameron’s handling of 3-D changes this whole mindset. Simply put, the usage of 3-D in Avatar is to enhance the overall product and not once is it used simply because it is there. It was nice to have a 3-D movie in which the fourth wall wasn’t intentionally violated over and over and over again. The 3-D technology was carefully implemented in this film and because of this it worked to perfection. And if this is the way that 3-D movies will be handled in the future, many exciting things are in store for moviegoers.

Angels and Demons

2009-05-28T19:47:00.000-07:00

It is a nasty double-edged sword that is walked when converting a story from novel to film. On one side, you have the daunting task of fitting an enormous amount of material in a small window of time; on the other side, you have an audience full of people who have enjoyed the original novel and expect the same story in theatrical form. This can prove to be a perilous task, and director Ron Howard dropped the ball with Angels and Demons, just as he did with his earlier rendition of The Da Vinci Code. Characters were omitted, roles were swapped and stacked on top of one another, and certain parts of the storyline seemed to be simply forgotten.

Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is back at it, trying to foil a secret, anti-Christian organization trying to force the heart of Christianity to its knees. As it turns out, the current pope has just died suddenly, four members of the college of cardinals, who so happen to be the favorites to take over, have been kidnapped, and a vile of highly unstable anti-matter has been stolen from CERN laboratories in Geneva and has been hidden somewhere inside the Vatican. All of these actions have been claimed by a group calling themselves The Illuminati; a secret society that has long hated the Catholic Church because of it's past persecutions of Galileo and other scientists of his time. Langdon, along with Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) who was deeply involved in the anti-matter research at CERN, has roughly five hours to not only find the explosive, but also to try and figure out an Illuminati scavenger hunt so that he can prevent the murder of the kidnapped cardinals.

Seems like a lot? Throw in the fact that although a cardinal is supposed to be murdered every hour on the hour starting at 8 pm, Langdon spends 5 minutes solving the clue leading to the next location and then the next 45-50 minutes struggling with a highly uncooperative commander of the Swiss Guard, the guardians of Vatican city, and then has to race across Rome in ten minutes. Everything happens so fast that the audience has a hard enough time trying to keep up, let alone wonder how Robert Langdon is able to figure everything out so quickly.

And yet, even though things are happening at breakneck speeds, the young Camerlengo (Ewan McGregor) who is serving as pope in his wake has time to give a long-winded speech on the history of the Catholic Church and also to exhume the departed pontiff to discover evidence of poisoning. The time line just doesn't seem to mesh at a consistent rate, which is just another factor that leads to a distracting movie experience. Add on top of this a rapid explanation of not only advanced physics and chemical engineering, but also the complicated political rituals of the Catholic Church, and what you have is one shell-shocked audience, one that gives up on trying to keep up with the storyline and allows themselves to simply let the movie drag them along to the end.

One plus of the movie is that unlike its predecessor, Angels and Demon did not provoke the ire of the Catholic Church. In fact, the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said it is a "harmless entertainment which hardly affects the genius and mystery of Christianity." And it not only portrays the current Catholic Church in a positive light, but it also provokes an interesting contrast between faith and agnosticism. Robert Langdon has a fascinating conversation in which the Camerlengo asks him if he believes in God to which Langdon replies that the existence of God is beyond his mind to determine. When asked about his heart, the professor replies that his heart is not worthy. Agnostics and believers alike can find truth in that statement.

Followers of the book will be able to enjoy the film, mainly because the novel is able to take the time and use the detail needed with the complex aspects of the story, not to mention keep the time line more consistent. And the movie is phenomenal when concerning theatrical elements. The production value is superb and Tom Hanks is an actor that really can do no wrong at this point. Overall, it is an entertaining film. But just like with The Da Vinci Code, the storyline of Angels and Demons seemed to be nothing more than an afterthought, sloppily thrown together at the last second.

Star Trek

2009-05-12T13:57:00.000-07:00

I seemed to have somehow bypassed the whole Star Trek phase. I have missed the original series with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy (due to the fact that I wasn't born) and was too involved with cartoons and Nickelodeon to be concerned with The Next Generation. However, I have always yearned to experience Captain James T. Kirk yell, "Beam me up, Scotty!" and see Spock be the unemotional voice of reason in times of peril. Director J.J. Abrams must have read my mind, along with the minds of other wanna-be and current trekkies alike and came up with a brand new rendition of the U.S.S. Enterprise and its crew.

It doesn't take a die-hard fan to know that the Star Trek franchise is one that has been recycled over and over, which is something that concerned me with the new remake. Would this movie be able to break new ground with these familiar characters, or would it be nothing more than a nostalgic flashback that simply regurgitated old material? The surprising result was a combination of the two. Familiar elements were used, but this was done so in a way that seemed new and invigorating.

The film takes its audience back to before James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) even set foot on the U.S.S. Enterprise, utilizing all of the same characters from the original series, only at a much earlier time in their lives. The crew responds to a distress call and finds themselves up against time-traveling Romulans, led by their captain Nero (Eric Bana). The inclusion of the time travel element in film always raises a red flag because so much can go wrong and make everything a chaotic mess. However, the concept works perfectly and helps to create fun aspects of the movie, such as the young Spock (Zachary Quinto) meeting his future self, played by none other than Leonard Nimoy himself.

The production value was absolutely amazing and was able to make the audience forget that this movie is based on defying reality. Black holes are not gateways to other dimensions and times. The accuracy of warp speed is obviously debatable. How is it possible that Scotty (Simon Pegg) can transport three different people from two separate places to one location and yet Kirk and Hikaru Sulu (John Cho) are forced to parachute onto the Romulan drill in order to destroy it? But the fun and excitement comes from suspending that disbelief and embracing the fiction of the sci-fi genre. And of course, having Dr. Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban) shouting, "Dammit man, I'm a doctor, not a physicist!" makes things enjoyable as well. The rest of the crew was filled out perfectly, with Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana) as the communications expert and Spock's secret love, and Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin) ironically heading up the communications of the ship with his extremely thick Russian accent.

The thing that I was excited for the most was the doors that were opened for the franchise. This movie was a simple re-energized version of the original series, full of catch phrases and familiarities. But now that the new, younger characters have been established, perhaps the next movie will test the personalities of the crew instead of simply re-establishing them. Regardless, the Star Trek remake was a fun and exciting experience with an excellent cast that would entertain the entire spectrum of Star Trek fans.

I Love You, Man

2009-04-02T10:11:00.000-07:00

Heading into my umpteenth Judd Apatowesque film, I assumed that I knew what to expect: a fun, lighthearted story that hits a major obstacle that leaves the main character brokenhearted, only for everything to be conveniently fixed 15 minutes before the end of the show. Oh, and throw in as much raunchy and crude material as possible. And yes, these movies are starting to lose their appeal. But every time a new one appears, I feel myself being inexplicably drawn to the theater.

Fortunately, I Love You, Man was a little more lighthearted and not as crude, making it more enjoyable than a bunch of sex-innuendo. Friendless Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) is pressed hard by his wife-to-be to find a 'BFF' to serve as his best man. However, Klaven's complete social ineptness makes every man-date a complete disaster, including a drinking game gone completely wrong. But after meeting Sydney Fife (Jason Segal), things seem to take a turn for the best. Several terrible nickname attempts and Rush jam sessions later, Klaven seems to have found his best man. But when Klaven's fiancée Zooey (Rashida Jones) feels neglected from all the time the two guys spend together, it becomes a choice between two different partnerships. Moviegoers shouldn't fret, however, because it's quite obvious where the plot is going.

Rudd and Segal work terrific together. Despite a cookie cutter storyline, these two are so talented that they are able to remain hilarious and human at the same time. Segal seems to brighten up the screen no matter what he does. His portrayal of Sydney Fife depicts everything a guy would love to have in a friend, if not themselves. Rudd uses impeccable timing to make himself incredibly awkward, much to the delight of the audience. The best moments revolve around him trying unbelievably hard to appear loose and casual. Adding in a brilliant supporting cast doesn't hurt either. J.K. Simmons, Jane Curtin, and Andy Samberg make up Klaven's family and Jon Favreau and Jamie Pressly serve as a scene stealing couple from hell.

Overall, this movie is simply funny, regardless of the predictable plot line. Yes, it does have its share of stupid gross-out jokes, which is a staple of any movie in this genre. But more importantly, the movie produces comedy in a wholesome way, in its observations, dialogue and physical behavior. Rudd and Segal were able to make their audience laugh from beginning to end, which is what comedies are for. It is the bromance to end all bromances. As Klaven said of having Fife as his best friend, "it's sweet, sweet hanging." The same goes for this movie.

Taken

2009-03-09T11:54:00.000-07:00

As I watched the movie Taken, I found myself trying to shake the overwhelming sense of déjá vu. How many times have we seen a former CIA operative single-handedly take down a large and extremely immoral organization simply by brute force. And all along the way, the audience is forced to watch extremely unbelievable feats that even the most skilled agents could not pull off and then is expected to accept them as plausible.

Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is at odds when his daughter pleads to for his permission for a European vacation with her good friend. In a "sort of retirement" Mills is trying to reconnect with his 17 year old daughter and it seems that signing off on this trip would be the best place to start. But he doubts this decision. After all that he has seen during his time spent in Afghanistan (and apparently everywhere else), Mills doesn't believe that a trip like this would be safe for two young girls. Of course, he is right and the two girls manage to get themselves kidnapped within the first several hours of their trip. Mills' daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) manages to get one call off to her father before she is taken away. From this garbled conversation, which Mills recorded and sent to one of his CIA buddies, not only was it "possible" to determine the dialect of the kidnappers, but also the name of the head kidnapper, what they are going to do with the girls after the kidnapping, and how long before these girls will never be found again. Yawn.

After making it over to France, Mills is able to pick up on the trail of the kidnappers, using Sherlockesque intellect, and kill several of them at a time á la Jason Bourne. If only real life CIA agents had these skills, we would never have to worry about finding a missing terrorist again. However, despite the ridiculousness of the film itself, it actually is a very well made ridiculous film. Liam Neeson is able to emit an anger so focused that I found myself worried for whoever found themselves in his path. And every action scene was so fast paced that I found myself on the edge of my seat, excited for what was going to happen next, even though I realized later that I already knew.

Absurd storyline aside, Liam Neeson's performance is what makes this movie, which is something that this skilled actor is able to do - bringing credibility to where you least expect it. Excluding Neeson, however, and I found myself watching a Bourne-less Jason Bourne action flick, or perhaps the latest Jason Stathem movie in which the lead character has only 24 hours to live unless he finds the villains who stole his heart. If only I had realized the irony of the Crank 2 preview that played before my feature film.

The Wrestler

2009-02-23T23:44:00.000-08:00

The critics of wrestling write off the profession, claiming that it is fake and scripted and therefore doesn't have any merit whatsoever. And while it is true that professional wrestling matches are scripted, this fact does not mask the toll that the profession takes on those that partake, both physically and mentally.

The Wrestler tells the story of Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Mickey Rourke) 20 years after his glory days, hanging on to what used to be with his battered hands and the use of a hypodermic needle. Outside the ring, his only possessions are a trailer home he can barely afford, a fledgling romance with a stripper (Marissa Tomei), and a failing relationship with his daughter that he cannot mend. However, when the shot of a comeback comes along, hope glimmers in his personal life as well.

Rourke is able to, through his moving, 'Contender'-like performance, capture the humanity and the anguish of The Ram and magically captivate his audience. Right beside him, Tomei plays the exact same character in a different costume and is able to match Rourke step for step in her own stunning performance. Both are dealing with aging within their profession, both are dealing with their own separate child issues, and both are looking for companionship. It is amazing to see these two on screen with one another.

Adding to the overall experience is the fabulous directing by Darren Aronofsky. The constant over-the-shoulder shots of The Ram bring to mind the wrestler's walk from the dressing to the ring to face his next battle. However, these walks aren't to the ring, but rather to another area of Robinson's post-wrestling life where he must face a new battle, whether that be starting a new job as a deli clerk or trying to get let into his trailer after being locked out for not paying his rent on time. Aronofsky's directing, teamed with Rourke's acting, is able to capture the tormenting struggle of adjusting to a new life outside the ring.

This is definitely not your typical "feel-good" film. The potential for happy endings is rare to find and just when you think that things are going to end up all right, the tide changes just as fast as it does in the ring. Sadness and anguish dominate this movie, but they do so in a way that simply grabs hold on an audience and doesn't let go. I cared for The Ram as much as have with any other character and The Wrestler, with all of its individual elements, is simply amazing in telling his touching tale of grief, heartache, and loneliness.

Being that the Academy Awards are over, my film hindsight is perfect. And even though I have yet to see Milk, and that Sean Penn probably did do a phenomenal job to earn him the Oscar, The Wrestler deserved to be nominated for best picture, and the night should have belonged to Mickey Rourke. His performance, along with that of Marissa Tomei, was absolutely breathtaking in a film that is arguably the best of 2008.

Liveblogging the 2009 Oscars

2009-02-21T18:43:00.000-08:00

Here is my first attempt at liveblogging. Hopefully everything goes smoothly. If you wish, submit comments and join in with the liveblogging. And here is my NY Times Oscar ballot.

2009 Oscars

Gran Torino

2009-02-21T18:10:00.000-08:00

Gran Torino tells the story of an aging Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) who is forced to confront his tainted past after the death of his wife and the influx of the Hmong community into his neighborhood. Kowalski is a mean, Pabst Blue Ribbon chugging racist who wants nothing to do with his new neighbors, or anyone else for that matter. It's obvious that Kowalski carries around a tremendous amount of emotional baggage, and it appears that repressing those thoughts is a full time job.

Kowalski slings racial slurs so often that the cultural shock wears off within the first half hour of the movie, making these offensive remarks more and more comical as the film progresses. But as he becomes more and more involved with the neighboring Hmong family, the more he realizes that he has more in common with the "gooks" than with his own remaining family. It is for this reason why he helps the shy and quiet neighbor Thao (Bee Vang) to get a job and help him to "become a man." Or why he rescues Thao's older sister (Ahney Her) from a harassing gang of black thugs. But even as he shows his softer side, Walt maintains his reputation by calling his friends "zipper head" and "dragon lady." But these slurs have nearly evolved into simple terms of endearment.

Gran Torino tells the story of the opening of minds to the different people around you. But because you see it through the eyes of a once cantankerous old man, the story is lifted to a whole new level. Walt does not make excuses for the way he views different races and he refers to them through the use of slurs throughout the entirety of the film. But because he doesn't apologize for who he is and of the continued usage of racial insults, when he does come to the realization of his common humanity with his neighbors, it makes it seem real and not something scripted to leave the audience with a sappy feel-good story.

Eastwood shows off his versatility once again, directing himself in his own movie, and doing one hell of a job. He even receives a singing credit for the song that plays during the end credits and it is truly a real shame that this movie didn't receive any attention from the Academy. Regardless, through his traditional toughness, Clint is able to touch the heart of his audience with a fabulous film, one racial slur at a time.

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-02-17T00:25:00.000-08:00

Destiny and fate are themes that are commonly used throughout many films from every genre. But it can be argued that these films have never captivated an audience as much as this film is able to.

Told in a series of flashbacks, Slumdog Millionaire is the story of Jamal Malik, an orphan boy who grew up in the slums of India with his brother. The movie opens with Jamal being interrogated after being accused of cheating on the Indian version of the game show "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" It seems that it is hard to believe that a boy from the slums could not make it all the way to the final question on his knowledge alone. But Malik insists that he knew all the answers and by watching his recorded performance, explains how each question he received was specifically tied to a memory from his turmoil filled childhood.

Throughout these flashbacks, there is a juxtaposition between the glitz and glamour of the game show and the world that Jamal grew up in, and some of the horrific things that a third world orphan may encounter. The horrific shots of an impoverished India border on unbelievable, with kids living in garbage dumps and outhouses that are simply a hole that opens up into the marsh below. Contrasted against the flashy game show set makes these images even more unreal. But from these slums rises a hero that anyone can cheer for. Using only his wits, Jamal is able to survive trial after trial to find himself not only staring a fortune in the face, but the love of his life as well. Not bad for someone who was probably expected never to make it out of the slums in the first place.

Every aspect of this film is tremendous, from the brilliant acting of young Dev Patel and the rest of the cast, to the seamless editing of a beautiful story. And while director Danny Boyle flirts with the line of pushing the envelope too far in order to depict the harsh realities of a chai wallah slumdog, it does not take away from this fantastic rags-to-riches love story. In short, it is a phenomenal film that lives up to all of its hype, and then surprises its audience by surpassing it ten-fold. And come Oscar night, Slumdog will not stop at meeting, and exceeding, everyone's expectations.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-06T13:26:00.000-08:00

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was a movie that, through its wonderfully beautiful storytelling, left me more than slightly confused. It tells the story of a man (Brad Pitt) who was born as an 80 year old and physically aged backwards. He has the unfortunate task of watching all those around him who resemble him physically whither and die while he does just the opposite. And while it was clear that the overall theme was to show that there are certain things that can simply transcend time and to live life to the fullest, I couldn't help but be overcome with an overwhelming sense of isolation and loneliness.

The short story, originally written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, was intended to be a comic farce. Instead, it was presented as a romantic fantasy, which was where the confusion started. As a 70-something old man, Button falls in love with a beautiful little girl, Daisy, who matches his age mentally. As time progress, Benjamin gets younger and Daisy gets older and, in doing so, their paths cross several times. It isn't until Daisy reaches adulthood (Cate Blanchett) that this love is acted upon. Being a hopeless romantic, I first viewed this as the high point of the entire movie. But during the lovemaking scene, I couldn't help but wonder if the two were thinking of each other as when they first met, as a young girl and an old man. The thought was a little unsettling, to say the least.

The longer The Curious Case of Benjamin Button went on, the more I started to realize that while trying to create a sense of timeless romance, the film gave me nothing but sadness. Every relationship that Button has is fleeting and futile, due to his circumstances. All around him, his loved ones are passing away and he is forced to watch not only this, but also see himself as seemingly exempt from this process. And it is this that makes the romance between Button and Daisy extremely hard to believe.

This movie will undoubtedly get Oscar attention. The film itself is well made and the acting, along with Tilda Swinton, Taraji P. Henson, and Elias Koteas, is simply superb and it wouldn't be surprising if Brad Pitt walked away with the best actor. But it was the storytelling that helped make this film. The screenplay shares the same author with Forrest Gump in Eric Roth and it is evident that he uses similar outlines. But even good storytelling couldn't mask the feeling of isolation that the movie left as it finished, making this a film that is incredibly easy to admire, but difficult to love. But maybe that's the way it's supposed to be.

Doubt

2009-01-04T23:14:00.000-08:00

I cannot recall a movie that centered around one simple emotion and yet was able to address so many different controversial topics and do so with amazing success. Set in 1964, when there was much confusion and hesitation with the changing times, Doubt addresses, but never resolves, issues of race, authority, religion, and morality.

St. Nicolas is a Catholic school in the Bronx and is headed by Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) who is, from my Lutheran point of view, the typical Catholic nun. Strict, hard to please, and quick to discipline, nothing stands in her way. Until the appointment of the new priest, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who, with his unorthodox approach to Catholicism, has found himself in an undeclared war with the strict Sister. However due to Catholic hierarchy, she finds herself powerless to do anything.

Father Flynn, with his cigarette smoking, long fingernails, and fondness for sugar, is set against the nuns, especially Sister Aloysius, who seems hell bent on removing any trace of the modern world from her school, including ballpoint pens, hair barrettes, and "Frosty the Snowman," claiming it is merely a song celebrating witchcraft. Similarity, the innocent Sister James (Amy Adams), who finds herself under the command of Aloysius, displays a knowledge of the outside world as it is observed through her bedroom window.

The central situation revolves around one particular student at the school, who happens to be the only African-American pupil in enrollment by the name of Donald Miller (Joseph Foster III). Father Flynn takes an apparent interest in the boy, which is assumed to be simply because of his isolated and unique situation. However, when Sister James notices that Flynn summons the boy to the rectory alone. This is deemed inappropriate and upon the mentioning of this event to the principal, Aloysius decides that now is the time to take action against this progressive cancer that has taken hold of her school.

However, despite the introduction of this sketchy situation, the movie isn't about the possible sexual abuse of a student. Rather, it is about the title word, Doubt, in a world of certainty. Oblivious to the fact that she has no solid evidence to support her claim, Aloysius is certain that Flynn is guilty. So certain, in fact, that she ignores the alibi of the priest, as well as the changing of opinion of Sister James in believing that she was mistaken in her suspicions. Flynn, on the other hand, knows that a scandal will tarnish him for life and is just as determined to prove his innocence.

Thrown into the mix is Donald's mother (Viola Davis), who is confronted with the situation during a private meeting with Aloysius. However, her biggest fear is that her son will be expelled, not the other events that Aloysius is certain of. What is remarkable is that in this short 10-minute scene, Davis is able to stand toe to toe with one of the greatest actresses of this generation and it is this confrontation that generates terrifying power.

Doubt. Not only the title of the opening sermon in the film, as well as the title of the film itself, but it is also the basis of the entire movie. During the 1960's, doubt was entering the church, as well as the United States, especially after the assassination of President Kennedy. This doubt in the church is what fueled the confrontation between Flynn and Aloysius, between old and new, traditional and progressive, certainty and dubiousness. And when all is said and done, and the audience is still left doubting, there isn't a feeling of annoyance from being deprived of a concrete ending. Rather, one is left to sit in quiet contemplation, trying to remove all doubt for themselves.