RVANews

Wrath of the Titans: the Titan is wroth

Ross Catrow — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:00:29 +0000

So I saw Wrath of the Titans. THAT’S RIGHT.

Listen, it was slim pickings this week as all the real movies took some time off to let Hungermania die down. The choices boiled down to Wrath of the Titans and October Baby. And while I certainly think that any movie about an “abortion survivor” is sure to blow up in the comments, I really had no desire to suffer through two hours of film dedicated to the subject. So instead, I gladly sat through whatever it was Wrath of the Titans was about--in 3D!

Wrath picks up, according to Wikipedia, ten years after the conclusion of Clash--which I somehow failed to see. The series follows Perseus (Sam Worthington, Avatar), son of Zeus, as he flits about Greece getting involved in all sorts of god-related trouble. In Wrath, he’s retired from adventuring to a small village where he spends his time fishing with his son and pretending his father isn’t the god of lightning.

All is going swimmingly until Zeus (Liam Neeson, Darkman) shows up lamenting his loss of power ever since humankind gave up on the whole “praying to the gods” thing. Zeus warns Perseus that with the god’s power waning there won’t be much left to protect the puny mortals from The Terror That’s Bound in Tartarus (aka the Titan Cronus¹). Perseus basically says GTFO to the guy (Zeus, you don’t talk to Cronus like that), but guess what! One of those puny mortals in need of protecting is Perseus’s own son! All it takes is one lousy Chimera attack for Perseus to change his tune, and the adventure to save humanity is afoot!

And oh, what an adventure it is!

Just kidding. The adventure is kind of whatever. Perseus picks up a couple of unlikely adventurepals, Andromeda (Rosamund Pike, Pride & Prejudice) and Agenor (Tobby Kebbell, War Horse), who are both pretty wooden. Agenor has a little bit of potential as he’s got something about him that’s generally likeable, but the script never gives him an opportunity to use it. Andromeda doesn’t do much, but there is one really great shot of her hollering, Braveheart style, at the advancing armies of Cronus. Also Ralph Fiennes plays Hades.

The surprising star of the movie is actually Cronus, a gargantuan animated lavaman who spends most of the movie slumped over in a corner of Tartarus slurping up Zeus’s lifeblood. But man, when Cronus gets to moving it is really something to behold. Guys, it’s a privilege to live in a time when the special effects are good enough that I just accept that, sure, a giant lavaman really could explode out of a volcano and end humanity. Also of special note are the two-torsoed demon soldier guys, who, despite having only two torsos, have six arms.

I guess massive CGI shots are expensive? They must be, because why wouldn’t you just make an entire movie called “Cronus exploding out of shit”? First he’d explode out of a volcano and demolish a sleepy hillside town, then he’d explode out of open-air mall and set a food court ablaze, and then he’d explode out of Florida and sink it into the ocean. It’d make for a fantastic movie. What’s the point of cluttering up the film with plot and characters when all I really want to see is lavamen and demon guys?

And if I’m dropping the extra three fifty to see a movie in the third dimension I want stuff FLYING INTO MY FACE CONSTANTLY. For a movie about stabbing shit with swords, Wrath was sorely lacking in the Protruding From the Screen department. Again, seems like something that would be fairly simple for a movie like this: if it’s pointy or moving it should be headed towards my face.

— ∮∮∮ —

Why you should see this movie

I’m not sure! I guess, like, you are relatively wealthy and have nothing better to do? Or maybe your father was a lavaman, and your father’s father was a lavaman, and his father before that.

Why you should stay home

Do you like good movies and saving money? Then boom! staying home from this movie is definitely for you.

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

Watching this movie really made me want to get back² into the Greek mythology scene. Edith Hamilton for life! ↩
That’s right, I said back. ↩

Ho there, reader of RSS feeds! Do you ever want to support RVANews in a real and tangible way? Or at least pay a small penance for reading ad-free content? If so, support us on Patreon for a couple bucks a month!

The Hunger Games: may cause mass weeping

Ross Catrow — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:00:55 +0000

One of my things, and I have many things, is that I like to get to a theatre super early so I can pick out where I want to sit¹ in a stress-free environment. Usually forty-five minutes does the trick; sometimes the theatre isn't even ready at that point. This past Friday, nearly an hour before showtime, the line for The Hunger Games was several dozen people deep. Some of those people were wearing homemade puffy-paint adorned Hunger Games T-shirts.

It wasn't just fanatical teenagers who had queued up to see the most anticipated movie, thus far, of of the year. Like Twilight, and Harry Potter before that, The Hunger Games has inspired and excited people of every demographic.² And thank goodness, because do we really want The Next Generation to be inspired by Bella and Edward?

In Twilight, Bella is continually the damsel in distress. She just can't make up her mind whether she wants to date the thin, sparkly guy who has almost killed her several times, or the warm, ripply guy who has almost killed her several times. She makes bad life choices. Katniss from The Hunger Games, on the other hand, wears pants (a good life choice!).³ She’s the one that does the saving. And while she does have two boys vying for her attention, her priorities are: saving her family, friends, and the world.

But quality is the real difference between these two stories. Twilight (going back to the movies now) is poorly made and churned out to bring in the inevitable millions of dollars its fans will pay. The Hunger Games is actually a good movie that’s well made and brilliantly casted (Stanley Tucci!!!). Sure the movie pulled down the third best opening weekend ever (behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and The Dark Knight), but that’s not necessarily a function of quality. Twilight proved that: New Moon and Eclipse hold two of the top-five daily box office records. So yeah, I get pretty excited when I see a trillion teenagers, parents, and weird old dudes queued up an hour early to see a movie that is actually good.

And woo boy, I was not the only excited one in the theatre. The whole place was alive with EMOTIONS throughout the entire showing. It was great! I love catching a superpopular film on opening night and sharing an experience with my fellow man. There was laughing (at Gale, poor poor Gale), gasping (at Peeta), and sobbing (at everything else). On the latter: maybe this is something parents of teenage girls experience on the regular, but communal weeping was new for me. I imagine it’s challenging for teens to ingest (for the second time if they’ve read the book) something so emotional and well crafted, when their day-to-day state of being is basically “OH MY GOD WHY DO I FEEL THIS WAY.”

But there is something disturbing in all the sobbing (which my wife deemed one-upmanship among girls) and the Team Peeta / Team Gale shirts. Because...isn’t this kind of what The Hunger Games is trying to warn us about? The horror of kids murdering each other, glitzed up and covered over in the trappings of reality TV and manufactured story lines? Like, if you think the gist of the message is “will Katniss end up with Peeta or Gale” you just might be doing it wrong.

But I’m not going to get too caught up in that, because it’s simply great to see so many people so excited about something that is so good. There’s lots of culture out there to consume, and the vast majority of it is crap.

So The Hunger Games: it’s pretty good, turns out! The thing is brilliantly cast; everyone in it is incredible from Jennifer Lawrence, to Stanley Tucci, to Donald Sutherland, to Woody Harrelson, to LENNY KRAVITZ.⁴ And don’t forget Elizabeth Banks! I mean there are a ton of quality actors in this film. Kravitz and Tucci are especially wonderful and feel plucked from the pages as if the characters were written for them specifically.

What the movie does miss, however, is Katniss’s internal monologue. A significant portion of the book takes place inside of her mind as she works through her changing relationships with friends and enemies. How does that get translated to film? Usually poorly. But hey, when you’ve got the author of the book (Suzanne Collins) co-writing the screenplay, things tend to work out in your favor.⁵

Both Hunger Games virgins and diehard fans alike will be glad that ol’ Collins is at the writing helm. There are plenty of inside jokes (Buttercup the cat) and allusions to deeper parts of the story to keep even contributors to The Hunger Games Wiki satisfied. But Collins also does an excellent job of paring down a fairly complicated story into 142 minutes that anyone, even the two dozen people out there who haven’t read the book, can appreciate. But just know, if you haven’t read the book, there’s a lot you are missing.

— ∮∮∮ —

Why you should see this movie

You have named your firstborn Katniss Everdeen (regardless of gender). You’ve got a teen lying around the house somewhere and want to expose them to a good movie based on good intellectual property. You love cautionary tales about a dystopian future (who doesn’t!).

Why you should stay home

Do you get motion sickness? Director Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit) went a bit overboard with the reality-style jigglecam. It was enough to give me a headache, and I thought Cloverfield was sweet (but also headache inducing). Another great reason to skip this movie is if you haven’t read the book(s). It’s totally worth it and will take you all of two days, so find the nearest teenager, make them sob uncontrollably (should be easy), and filch that trilogy right out of their tiny grubby hands!

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

First row behind the bar, dead center. ↩
I'm going to talk some shit on Twilight in the next couple of paragraphs, but I want to go on record as having read all the Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games books. Sure the Twilight books are mostly fluff, but I read them in a second and had a good time doing it. ↩
You don't know how happy I was to see Katniss work her way through several survival scenarios wearing boots and pants--you know, what you'd actually wear to survive. There was every opportunity to dress her up in a pair of spandex pants and a low cut top--one that slowly disintegrated as the movie wore on. GOOD ON YOU, The Hunger Games. ↩
How awesome is Lenny Kravitz? SO AWESOME. ↩
Another incredible book/movie combo is The Princess Bride. William Goldman wrote both! If you haven’t read the book, get on top of it! ↩

21 Jump Street: adorably adolescent

Ross Catrow — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:00:46 +0000

I mostly like to decide which movie to review by heading over to Rotten Tomatoes, picking the highest rated movie that’s opening, getting disappointed because Richmond won’t be showing that movie for a couple months, and then finally settling on the third or fourth next highest rated film. This week, the choices were seriously slim. Here are the current ratings¹ of the top grossing films: 86%, 57%, 54%, 51%, 45%, 42%, 29%, 26%, 0%.² Color me holy shit when I saw that the only movie receiving an overall favorable rating rating was 21 Jump Street!

I must admit, I know nothing about the original 1980s 21 Jump Street which, over the course of 103 episodes, erected the careers of both Johnny Depp and the Fox Network. But the premise is simple: young-looking cops would go into high schools as undercover teenagers and, over the course of an hour, teach the audience a Very Important Moral Lesson. 21 Jump Street the movie is just like that but with dick jokes instead of moral lessons.

Seven years ago, way back in 2005 when Eminem was still kind of a thing, Morton Schmidt (Jonah Hill) was your typical nerdy fat kid³ and Greg Jenko (Channing Tatum) was a rippling athlete with a superbad haircut and not so much in the smarts department. You know, high school on the regular.⁴ Time passes, and for whatever reason, both Schmidt and Jenko decide to become police officers...and best buds!

Listen: it doesn’t really matter why or how these two archetypal enemies become fast friends. The film is a vehicle for hilarious dick jokes, and the backstory just stands in the way of their inevitable onslaught.

The two pals are involved in a series of (hilarious) screwups and are (hilariously) sent to a special undercover unit, captained by Ice Cube, located down on Jump Street. From there they are assigned new, high-school identities and tasked with infiltrating a drug ring and bringing down the supplier. But 21 Jump Street goes DOUBLE fish out of water, when on the first day of their assignment Schmidt and Jenko mix up their new identities. Up is down! Left is right!

But, really, it doesn’t much matter because Schmidt fits right in with the school’s popular crowd. Because high school has changed a lot since Jenko ruled the hallways onestrapping his Jansport, punchin’ nerds. It’s cool to care about stuff now! You gotta reduce, reuse, recycle, man! Drama kids rock! And so forth! From here it gets fairly predictable (until it gets totally unpredictable) as the nerd reigns supreme and the once popular is relegated to the science lab.

21 Jump Street’s dialogue is a quickly paced tapestry of incredibly crude and adolescent humor⁵ that really exposes the comedic tenderloins of the Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum duo. We all knew, going in, that we could expect it from Hill, but Tatum’s fledgling interactions with the lower rung of high school society were super funny and pleasantly surprising.

You’re not going to see anything new or groundbreaking coming out of 21 Jump Street, but you will laugh a ton, hurry home, and tell a bunch of dick jokes to your wife.⁶

— ∮∮∮ —

Why you should see this movie

You love laughing. There are only a handful of throwaway jokes in the entire movie, which is saying something as there are about a trillion jokes. If you loved Superbad, you will love 21 Jump Street. I love leaving a theatre and feeling like I spent the entire time laughing. Pacing! It’s important!

Why you should stay home

Crass, offensive humor offends you. Like I said, there are lots and lots (and lots) of puerile jokes. I wouldn’t want to watch this movie with my parents or my three-year-old son.

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

Instead of doing mostly meaningless star ratings, Rotten Tomatoes gives you the percentage of positive reviews from a bunch of critics. It’s usually a reasonable indicator of what’s not going to totally suck. ↩
Now, it’s still early, with only 47 reviews, but currently A Thousand Words has a zero percent! Eddie Murphy, remember Dream Girls? Can we do more of that? ↩
It’s a shame that Jonah Hill has lost about a trillion pounds and looks great but still gets cast as the fat kid. ↩
When can we stop demonizing kids who are good at sports? ↩
Dick jokes. ↩
Your mileage may vary. ↩

John Carter: A man walks into a Barsoom

Susan Howson — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:00:27 +0000

The premise is simple. Oh, no it's not. It's the craziest thing you've ever thought of. Southern gent and embittered former soldier John Carter finds a cave with a bald guy in it and suddenly finds himself embarking on a series of interplanetary adventures with red and green people and a devastating weapon made out of some sort of terrible light. Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs's A Princess of Mars, the film riffs on what folks a hundred years ago thought about other planets.

Why would you replace a title that sounds so fantastically interesting with one of the least astonishing names in the English language? The answer lies therein, my friend! Captain John Carter is a regular guy--as decorated officers of the Confederate Army go--so it's extra jarring when he finds himself on Mars.

And, hey, the Martians he meets don't find his name boring. They think he's entirely exotic, what with his ability to defy gravity, his dainty white skin, and his performance in Friday Night Lights. He immediately runs into trouble, beginning a complicated relationship with the Green Martian Thark tribe. They're kind of primitive and warlike, yet the type of warriors that live in tents and hatch (adorable) babies in caves but shoot their enemies with sophisticated space guns.

The Tharks are bystanders, casually watching the Red Martians, who are humanoid, destroy themselves in a civil war that...what!? A civil war? Why, John Carter is familiar with those! Instead of blue and gray, we have red uniforms and blue uniforms, and don't get down on yourself if you have trouble figuring out which color is good and which color is bad for awhile. It will be made clear to you, just like much of the rest of the plot that at the outset is so surprisingly difficult to follow that you will wonder if you are, indeed, suddenly very drunk.¹

For John Carter is no run-of-the-mill action adventure flick. The planet of Barsoom (that's Mars to us ignorant Earthmen with our endless oceans and show-offy green plants) has a complicated history, mythology, and social structure. I haven't read the novel², but it must be fairly complex. At any rate, the film seems to touch on environmental, religious, and political issues of our current day, hitting the ground running and not slowing down until the very end.

I keep trying to figure out why I automatically assumed John Carter would be a train sure to wreck as soon as it left the station. I guess a trailer full of ships and explosions and CGI creatures and shirtless guys doesn't inspire confidence in this day and age. It's simply too easy to put together a movie that's visually amazing. Or, more accurately, we're no longer easy to visually amaze. So we see an ad for a film like this and we barely pay attention to it. It's a shame, because the script is smart enough, the acting is good enough³, the pacing is clever enough, and the story is more than engaging. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the best science fiction movie ever made, but it certainly operates on more planes than, say, Avatar⁴.

— ∮∮∮ —

Why you should see this movie

You've been hankering for a good sci-fi epic to sink your teeth into. John Carter has some quaint "this was concepted in 1917" moments, if you're sensitive to them, but it's a really neat story overall. Oh, and Richmond has a cameo. Sorta.

Why you should stay home

You can't get over the fact that Carter's body only seems to feel the effects of Barsoom's lower gravity levels by becoming lighter and stronger, instead of, say, asphyxiated. But it's a movie about instantaneous interplanetary travel. I suggest you take a deep breath of Earth's plentiful oxygen and relax.

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

The key to success is remembering that McNulty is bad, which, understandably, is difficult for a lot of people to do. ↩
Yet. ↩
Lynn Collins! Why aren't you in more things? ↩
Zero planes. ↩

The Artist: everything you ever wanted to know

Susan Howson — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:00:33 +0000

This year's Academy Awards have come and gone, but if you live in a city that gets most awesome movies late, if ever, you'll get a chance to relive the glory for the next couple of months. As you may have heard, silent film The Artist won about a trillion awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, and Most Adorable Acceptance Speeches.

"A silent film!" you exclaim. "What on earth? How will I hear all the explosions?"

The Artist HAS no explosions! It has no violence, no sex, no genocide, no swearing (and if it did, we wouldn't know). In fact, it's the first movie to win Best Picture that hasn't been rated R since 2004.

What The Artist DOES have is a lot of tap dancing. Tap dancing and an incredible attention to detail that pays homage to the, you guessed it, silent films of the early 20th century. Director Michel Hazanavicius took every possible measure to produce a film that looks, feels, and sounds (?) like one from the Twenties. He uses the same aspect ratio, applies filters and such, undercranks so as to get that slightly sped-up effect, it's all there. Except where he wants it not to be. Hazanavicius plays with sound in a way that could have gotten gimmicky but ends up 100% rewarding. There are some really cool "We're not in Kansas anymore" moments, and it ends up being just as memorable and exciting.

The major difference, of course, between this film and its predecessors is the subject matter. Hollywood's hottest silent film star, George Valentin, is handsome, charming, and constantly accompanied by a really cute dog. A triple threat for moviegoers then and now. He's played by Jean Dujardin, who not only has a killer smile but wears slicked back hair and tuxes like it's no big deal. Valentin is a pretty good dude and does what he can to help Peppy Miller, a, uh, peppy aspiring actress who just happens to be dang sexy. George and Peppy (played by Bérénice Bejo) are continually drawn to each other in cute ways that involve dancing, but the tide of cinema is turning, and the the studio drops George's films in favor of the new "talkies." Peppy, however, fits right into the talkie culture, and tables turn.

So we have a silent film about the advent of non-silent film. And just like with the really well-made films of that era, you begin to forget that you're even watching people speak instead of listening to them. Now THAT is great acting.¹

I should mention that The Artist is a French film, in that it has French writers, directors, actors, and producers, but it was filmed in LA with a number of notable American actors as well (James Cromwell, John Goodman). This French-film-in-American-context situation is reflected in the film itself, although to explain more would spoil things for you.² In fact, everything about everything is reflected in the film itself, and I'm not trying to be confusing. It's meta, but in a pleasant, easy-to-figure-out way. The Artist is a celebration that does enough interesting and unexpected things (and includes enough tap dancing) to make it an innovation in and of itself.

— ∮∮∮ —

Why you should see this movie

You like film history and you like smiles. Or if you like really cute dogs. Or if you like smiling at dogs.

Why you should stay at home

You're blind or deaf. There's a lot going on here with sights vs. sounds, and you'll need both of those senses IN ABUNDANCE. You might also want to stay home if you prefer explosions. It will also be an excellent film to see at The Byrd on a Saturday night in all the Mighty Wulitzer glory. Meta.

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

Speaking of great acting, it's important to note that both Dujardin and Bejo didn't know how to tap dance before they began filming this movie. What did YOU learn last year? ↩
Natalie Portman didn't seem to mind spoiling anything during her presentation of Dujardin's Best Actor award. DO NOT GOOGLE IT. ↩

The Secret World of Arrietty: girls can have adventures too

Ross Catrow — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:00:37 +0000

Well, Mellisa McCarthy didn't win the Actress in a Supporting Role Oscar for her work in Bridesmaids, and the film didn't win Best Original Screenplay either. Color me superbummed. Finally an uproariously funny movie written by and starring hilarious women, but it gets passed over for Midnight in Paris! Disbelief! It's Important and Good (and unfortunately, rare) to tell these stories with female protagonists whose problems aren't conveniently solved by the male love interest. So listen Hollywood! You should recognize these movies as Important and Good with your contrived¹ awards system!

While Bridesmaids isn't geared towards kids (even though the poop jokes would absolutely kill them), there are some great stories out there which are appropriate for younger folk featuring interesting, smart, dangerous, and powerful characters who happen to be women. The greatest of all of these is probably Avatar: the Last Airbender,² a Nickelodeon masterwork about some kids with super powers getting together to save the world.³ Half of the unlikely heroes are girls, and the show's scariest, most demented villain is a girl. The Hunger Games, which hits theatres March 23rd (so there's still time to read the books!), fits this bill too and was one of those books that I was sad to finish because it was so good.

Because I love these sorts of things, I'm always game to watch movies like The Secret World of Arrietty--even when it means waiting in line with a gaggle of tweens who are really--and, it turns out, rightfully--excited about Arrietty and her secret world.

I had never heard of the The Borrowers, but I'm assured they're a set of charming English novels by Mary Norton, written in the 1950s. The Borrowers are tiny people who live hidden away in our (aka Human Beans') homes and "borrow" items we might not necessarily miss: needles, tissues, sugar cubes, etc. The film adaption, which was just released last week in the US, is neither new nor English, but a 2010 Japanese animated feature from Studio Ghibli. You might think you've never heard of Studio Ghibli, BUT YOU WOULD BE WRONG. They're responsible for just about every popular anime that has gone mainstream in the States: Ponyo, Howl's Moving Castle, Spirited Away, and Princess Mononoke. I love the style of Studio Ghibli's animation--it's somehow simultaneously childish and revolting. While it can be heebie-jeebie inducing, Arrietty has toned down the barf/nightmare factor to acceptable levels.

Arrietty, has just turned 14 and is finally old enough to start borrowing. On her first borrowing adventure with her father (Will Arnett) Arrietty is spotted by one of the Human Beans. This is a Big Deal and usually cause for uprooting the household and finding another, safer place for the Borrowers to live (you can't trust those Beans). Her mother (Amy Poehler) is not happy.

Pairing Amy Poehler and Will Arnett⁴ as Arrietty's mismatched parents was a stroke of genius. While Arnett spends most of the movie grumbling monosyllables, Poehler squawks at him, Arrietty, or really anyone/thing that happens to be nearby. In a movie with few words, their dynamic is fun to watch.

And Arrietty is such a fantastic female lead! She's thoughtful, bright, stubborn, and brave--all the things you'd want out of a teenage daughter. When she finds a push pin, her first official borrow, she quickly appropriates it for a tiny sword. She doesn't always listen to her mother and father, but she's quick to realize when she's made a mistake or in over her head. Just like Avatar and The Hunger Games, Arrietty is a great story told about a character who happens to be female--and who also isn't afraid to sword fight a rat.

— ∮∮∮ —

Why you should see this movie

If you're a Studio Ghibli fanatic, this one is a no-brainer. If you're always on the lookout for movies to watch with your offspring that don't relegate women to nurses, teachers, or nagging monsters you should probably check this one out. Also: if you are a tweener OR you like kitties...I'm just saying.

Why you should stay at home

Normally, in this section I list stylistic choices made by the movie that are totally legit reasons to not like something. Well, "the movie was animated" is not one of those things. You can't dislike movies just because they are animated (or black and white), sorry! I guess if you have a cold, cold heart and hate fun, you might want to stay home. I GUESS. Oh! One totally acceptable reason to skip this movie: THERE ARE SPIDER CRICKETS. No joke! Terrifying!

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

Evidence: without seeing a majority of the nominees I missed only one of my Oscar picks. ↩
If you saw the feature film, please delete it from your memory banks. I don't know what that detritus was that M. Night Shyamalan shat up onto the screen, but it wasn't my precious Avatar. ↩
You know, exactly what I wanted Chronicle to be. ↩
I'm pretty excited for when Will Arnett replaces Morgan Freeman as the default movie-narrator-voice guy. ↩

The 84th Academy Awards: RVANews picks

RVANews staff — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:30:50 +0000

By Susan Howson & Ross Catrow

The 84th edition of the Oscars are this Sunday, and we've done our best to give you the info you need to dominate your office Oscar pool. Well, that's not completely true. Between the two of us, we some how managed to totally sleep on The Artist, which is probably going to sweep the whole shebang. So, other than that tiny oversight, read on and get excited for Sunday!

— ∮∮∮ —

Moneyball

(Best Picture, Actor in a Leading Role, Actor in a Supporting Role, Adapted Screenplay)

My personal favorite! Look, you don't have to be a baseball fan to be blown away by the writing, directing, and acting in this film. Every minute is fascinating in an unlikely way, and it's the first Brad Pitt film I've seen in which I forgot I was watching Brad Pitt. I bet he'll win Best Actor, but as it's not nominated for Directing, it won't win Best Picture (no matter how much I wish it). There's a method to these things. --Susan Howson

It's not a Sports Movie! I know, I know, it's got ball right there in the title, what gives! I'll tell you what gives: Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill turned out to be a fantastic onscreen duo. Who would have thought!? And even though Moneyball sounds like a boring true story about baseball (because it is--true, not boring) it's still super compelling and worth a spot in your Netflix queue. --Ross Catrow

— ∮∮∮ —

The Help

(Best Picture, Actress in a Leading Role, Actress in a Supporting Role)

A good picture of race relations in the South never gets old. The book was decent and the movie was maybe even a little better, but I didn't find anything brilliant about either. That said, it was solidly built and prettily shot, and the acting was first rate. I'd be surprised if Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer both won in their categories, but I'm almost positive at least one will. --SH

This is not the best movie made in 2011, but it is easily the movie with the best acting: a third of all the women nominated for acting are from The Help. It's a good thing about the acting too, because the story dances around and over some of the uglier effects of racism in the South to leaving you with a feel-good ending. In my heart of hearts, I wish Jessica Chastain would win for her quirky roll, but "quirky" rarely beats "oppressed by racism," as far as awards go. --RC

— ∮∮∮ —

Albert Nobbs

(Actress in a Leading Role, Actress in a Supporting Role)

Everyone was all a twitter about Glenn Close's role in Albert Nobbs. She plays a woman who finds safety and security in passing as a man in a society none too friendly to women. The thing is, Janet McTeer outshines her in almost every scene. Actress in a Supporting Role is a real Sophie's Choice for me, I want both McTeer and McCarthy to win! --RC

— ∮∮∮ —

Bridesmaids

(Original Screenplay, Actress in a Supporting Role)

Best movie of 2011. I am crossing my fingers that enough other people agreed and this comedy will win both of its awards. Melissa McCarthy forever! --SH

This really was the best movie of 2011. I tried to think of a film that I've seen since Black Swan that was truly fantastic, and the only one that stood out was Bridesmaids. I'm breaking out in a rashy fit of LOLs just thinking about it. --RC

— ∮∮∮ —

Midnight in Paris

(Directing, Best Picture, Original Screenplay)

Owen Wilson steps in where Woody Allen is (finally) too old to, which is such a genius casting choice that I'm not sure why ol' Woodz didn't think of it earlier. This adorable film is about nostalgia and letting it get the best of us, but it also is its own love letter to Paris. It's Allen in his quirky, loving mood, which is a treat to watch but probably won't take home many awards. --SH

— ∮∮∮ —

Set in Paris during the 1920s and featuring about a trillion cameos by famous people playing other famous people, this movie is charming and quirky. Just like Adrien Brody playing Salvador Dali (which was totally awesome)! Intellectuals and psuedo-intellectuals alike are going to love the pants off of this movie, but who knows why it's nominated for best picture. --RC

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

(Actor in a Leading Role, Adapted Screenplay)

Did you ever wonder if a man could be nominated for Actor in a Leading Role yet say nary a word? Well turns out, yes! Gary Oldman, everyone's favorite commissioner Gordon, really doesn't say a lot in this film, but he sure acts a lot. --RC

— ∮∮∮ —

The Tree of Life

(Best Picture, Directing)

Overblown, pretentious BS. The fact that the screenplay and acting didn't get any love is telling, I think. I'd be surprised if it won either of its categories, as it's not accessible enough to make trillions of dollars in DVD sales. --SH

— ∮∮∮ —

A Better Life

(Actor in a Leading Role)

Immigration laws clearly blow, this film says, and it does a decent job of convincing you as much (applying a liberal dose of pity in the process). Demian Bichir's Carlos, the illegal alien with a heart of gold, is endearing, and not just because he looks exactly like the Mexican version of Luke from Gilmore Girls. He won't win, but his performance will most likely nail him a bunch of good roles in the future. --SH

— ∮∮∮ —

Beginners

(Actor in a Supporting Role)

There's nothing not to like about Beginners, except maybe that there's nothing not to like. Everything is wonderful and touching and nothing conflicts with anything else. I'm OK with that once in awhile. Christopher Plummer is great, and I'd love to see him take home the Oscar. In fact, I think he could do just that. --SH

Christopher Plummer plays an aging, dying gay man who's decided to come out of the closet and live life the way he always wanted. It's charming, endearing, and lovely. Unfortunately he doesn't turn purple, but he is gay. It's an awards toss up. --RC

— ∮∮∮ —

Ides of March

(Adapted Screenplay)

I just made up a word, and that word is "Goslicious." I was surprised that darling Ryan didn't get a nomination for Ides of March, in which he plays a political campaigner whose faith in the system begins to crumble. The other nominees in the category are stronger, but I was happy to see it nominated. --SH

I just made up a word, and that word is "Cloontasm." I wasn't surprised at all that George Clooney was nominated in not one, but two categories this year. I mean, he wrote, directed, and costarred in this uberdepressing political tale. CLOONTASM. --RC

— ∮∮∮ —

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

(Actress in a Leading Role)

An American remake of a perfectly fine Swedish movie? Sure, I guess? Rooney Mara does an admirable job, but is she playing the character in the books or the one defined by Swedish actress Noomi Rapace? Plus: Viola Davis. --RC

— ∮∮∮ —

Margin Call

(Original Screenplay)

Remember all the way back to 2007/8 when the economy tanked because of a bunch of jerks who probably would be played by Jeremy Irons if ever a movie were made of the situation? Well guess what? They did! And he/they was! If you want feel really terrible about "America" sit down and watch The Ides of March followed by Margin Call. A timely topic, but it's got no chance against the other, stronger nominees in this category. --RC

— ∮∮∮ —

Warrior

(Best Actor in a Supporting Role)

A tired old sports movie in knockoff designer clothing. Handheld cameras and jerky editing (as well as a really, really silly split screen montage) attempt to mask a soulless, manipulative script about two brothers in a mixed martial arts tournament. Every punch is predictable. Nick Nolte, nominated for his portrayal as their alcoholic father, gets really drunk in one scene. Zzzz. --SH

Nick Nolte is nominated not because he gets really drunk in one scene, but because he gets really drunk and turns purple. In the rest of his scenes he's either a wise and recovering alcoholic, or a weeping pathetic coward--it's kind of disorienting. Plus, to answer why a mediocre fighter can make it all the way to The Finals, we are repeatedly told "anything can happen in an MMA fight." Sure. I mean guys, it's a Sports Movie. Treat it as such. --RC

— ∮∮∮ —

The Picks

Best Picture

The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Actor in a Leading Role

Demian Bechir - A Better Life
George Clooney - The Descendants
Jean Dujardin - The Artist
Gary Oldman - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt - Moneyball

Actress in a Leading Role

Glenn Close - Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis - The Help
Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams - My Week with Marilyn

Actor in a Supporting Role

Kenneth Branagh - My Week with Marilyn
Jonah Hill - Moneyball
Nick Nolte - Warrior
Christopher Plummer - Beginners
Max von Sydow - Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Actress in a Supporting Role

Berenice Bejo - The Artist
Jessica Chastain - The Help
Melissa McCarthy - Bridesmaids
Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer - The Help

Directing

Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
Alexander Payne- The Descendants
Martin Scorsese - Hugo
Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris
Terrence Malick - The Tree of Life

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

The Descendants
Hugo
The Ides of March
Moneyball
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Writing (Original Screenplay)

The Artist
Bridesmaids
Margin Call
Midnight in Paris
A Separation

Chronicle: don’t EVER give teenagers superpowers

Ross Catrow — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:00:42 +0000

It had been almost two months since I'd seen a movie that didn't involve rape, sex, crossdressing, or British people, so I decided it was time for a change and set out to see Chronicle. I went in not knowing much about the film other than Vince from Friday Night Lights was in it, and it had something to do with teens + superpowers = hijinks / lessons learned. I like to keep my finger on the superhero pulse just in case something really incredible comes out that I can add to the running list of awesome movies my three-year-old son should see at some point in his life. Speaking of, here's some tangentially related thoughts:

I was almost the only one in the theatre for the Saturday 11:15am showing (which is one of my dreams), but at 11:10am¹ in walked a crowd of people including a couple of adult-accompanied tweens/teens. No big deal, because Chronicle is rated PG-13, and I'm a big proponent of letting kids consume culture at their own pace, not an arbitrary government-decided-upon pace.

However, the trailers before the movie were super awkward. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Friends with Kids is an appropriate trailer to show before something like Chronicle.² It's important for parents to vet the movies their kids watch, but how are parents supposed to vet the trailers, or even know which trailers are running? It's not that the Friends with Kids trailer is emotionally scarring, it was just completely and totally unexpected.

UNLIKE THE PLOT OF CHRONICLE.

It's a story we've all heard before: three high school kids (the abused, mistreated geek; the uberpopular, athletic class president; and the good looking, sophomoric philosophy guy(?)) out partying at a rave fall into a hole and after a brief encounter with a crystalline entity, discover they can move things with their mind. They become unlikely friends, and as their powers grow so do the stakes.

The first half of the movie is filled with a lot of exactly what you'd expect from teenage boys who suddenly develop telekinesis. They use their newly found powers to hit each other in the face with baseballs, attempt stupid life threatening stunts, and impress girls (in various telekinetic ways). They also smoke a lot of weed, maybe? It's not clear because it's never shown on screen, but the film implies that, post-superpowers, the trio are constantly baked.

The great thing about telekinesis is that its the most mutable of super powers. Sure you can toss things about--lego, rocks, or even cars. But if you toss yourself around, suddenly you're flying. And for the defensive, if you can stop objects from touching you you've got a force field. Chronicle does a great job of walking you through the natural evolution of a super ability, from cute tricks to horrible displays of power.

And that's the second half of the movie (which is about forty times better than the first half).

This is Josh Trank's directorial debut and he's only 26! TWENTY SIX. MIND BLOWN. What (did you do | have you done) by the time you (were | will be) 26? Whatever it was, it probably wasn't as cool as "direct a movie currently sporting a 86% on Rotten Tomatoes." Trank doesn't do anything (well, almost) to distract you from the movie, which means he's probably a guy to keep an eye on. The cast is solid, as anyone who has seen Friday Night Lights knows, and he does a good job at getting them to realistically replicate teenagers. Which is maybe a problem--turns out teenagers are really annoying.

However, he has extended the Blair Witch gimmick to its, hopefully, logical conclusion: all of the shots in the movie are taken from in-movie cameras.³ The mistreated geek (played by Dane DeHaan, who, incidentally, looks just like a Gilbert Grape-era Leonardo DiCaprio) is "videotaping everything," and one of the random love interests has a "video blog." Throw a little floating, telekinesis-controlled camera work into the mix and you've got solo scenes that are still in the documentary style. The whole thing is pretty much whatever until the climactic finale, when the set of available cameras extends to news cameras, helicopter cameras, and store security cameras. Then, the effect is actually pretty cool.

Every time one of these "teens have a crazy and possibly supernatural adventure" movies comes out I get really excited. I want to be able to grab my family, rush off to the movie theatre, and be ensorcelled for the next two hours. Then I want to spend the next three days excitedly talking it over.

Really, in all of our hearts, we just want to watch The Goonies⁴ over and over.

— ∮∮∮ —

Why you should see this movie

If you have any interest in superheros, teens, or teens with superheros then you'll probably enjoy the flick. It works well, albeit predictably, as a origin story. Also: VINCE FROM FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS.

Why you should stay at home

Let's face it: teenagers are annoying, specifically male teenagers. This is an entire movie about teenage boys who are suddenly given GREAT POWER. There's a good bit of violence and language, so if you're planning on taking your tween, be aware.

Plus, if you're hoping that it's going to leave you with that warm, Goonies feeling, you're going to be disappointed.

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

HOW DO PEOPLE LIVE LIKE THIS. ↩
A trailer for the new Three Stooges movie also ran, featuring a hot nun in a soaking wet bathing suit. ↩
Hence, "chronicle." ↩
Super 8 was pretty close, but the last movie that made me feel like this was the original Pirates of the Caribbean. ↩

Shame: the least sexy sex movie ever

Ross Catrow — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:00:36 +0000

What's the last NC-17 movie you saw? The one that I remember actually making its way into Richmond theatres was 1995's Kids--which, looking back, seems fairly tame compared to some of the R-rated movies I've seen in the last decade. That was 17 years ago, so when I found out that Movieland was showing Steve McQueen's¹ NC-17-rated Shame, I was pretty excited. This is a rare occurrence, people! It was my duty to review this film. Duty I say!

But guys, it's is an NC-17-rated movie called Shame about sex. As you can probably hilariously imagine, this lead to lots of meta-shame during my movie going experience. Buying one ticket² to an NC-17 movie on a Friday night, when the theatre is filled with couples and teenagers, makes you feel--guess what--shameful! For whatever reason! Not only that, but Movieland has stashed this film in Theatre 10, which is adjacent to the concessions, giving everyone a good long look at the sketchy guy getting his ID checked before heading in (alone) to the sex movie.

Anyway. Shame follows Brandon Sullivan (Michael Fassbender), a man who has an irresistible, all-consuming, and constant compulsion for sex/orgasms. While Fassbender is quite the looker, nothing about his sexual encounters (and they are many and varied) is attractive. This movie is not hott. Sure, he looks like a successful young dude, but it's all a micro-thin veneer hiding his terrible sexmonster. Sullivan floats through his life distracted until the next time he can call a prostitute, pick up a random woman at a bar, or sadly masturbate in the bathroom stall at work. He manages to keep it all together, keep all the balls in the air, until Sissy (Carey Mulligan) shows up. From there, the veneer begins to crack, and Sullivan's life--I guess you could call it a life--begins to fall apart.

Fassbender absolutely kills it in this movie. He's basically playing sex-addict Batman, and he does it really freaking well. By day he's a mild mannered, even-keeled philanderer, but by night he's an emotional addict that's constantly hounded by his addiction. There's a scene towards the end of the movie where Sullivan is having sex with two prostitutes. The camera pans to his face and zooms in as he climaxes...and it's terrifying. His face is distorted and disgusted, expressing the frustrations and shame from the film's previous 90 minutes, as he succumbs--yet again--to his compulsion. It's intense, way intense. That scene, while easily the most NC-17est part of the movie, might be worth the price of admission.

Carey Mulligan (who's slated to play Daisy in the upcoming The Great Gatsby movie!!) is no slouch either. Sissy and Sullivan's relationship is complicated, filled with tension, and at times violent; it's a relationship that's played out in few words but lots of excruciating moments. And honestly, sometimes they're (purposefully, I'd guess) too dang awkward. At one point Sissy, who's mostly transient but has landed a gig singing at a bar, does a slowjazzy rendition of Sinatra's "New York, New York"--the entire thing.³ It's several, painful minutes long.

But this, these awkward and overly long scenes, is one of McQueen's things. His 2008 film, Hunger (also starring Fassbender), features a single shot of a man sweeping a loooooong hallway for what seems like an eternity and another single shot--17-minutes long--of a conversation between two men. It's something that defines his style and might be off-putting (or distracting, like it is for me) to some.

So. The big question: why did Shame get the NC-17 kiss of death?

Well, it is a movie about a guy who simply cannot stop having sex, so you can imagine there are quite a few sex scenes. There's lots of female full frontal and lots of Fassbender's ding-a-ling flopping about. There's the aforementioned threesome with prostitutes, and at one point Sullivan describes some sex acts in an explicit fashion.

The people in charge of rating films say that the NC-17 rating is for "some explicit sexual content." The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, on the other hand, is rated R for "brutal violent content including rape and torture, strong sexuality, graphic nudity, and language." Seriously? I mean come on! No one will ever convince me that Michael Fassbender's penis is worse for people under eighteen to see than the absolutely awful rape scene in Dragon Tattoo. For whatever reason, we're totally cool with blood, guts, rape, torture, and violence towards women, but throw a wang in the works and it is just too much.⁴

— ∮∮∮ —

Why you should see this movie

Do you love (painfully) slow and methodical movies like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy? Do you love Steve McQueen? Do you love schadenfreude? DO YOU LOVE (100% unappealing) BOOBS AND WEENZ?

Why you should stay at home

The aforementioned boobs and weenz are blatant, plentiful, and totally unavoidable. If that's not your cup of tea, avoid. Also, Shame's pacing is slow, especially in the first half. I happen to think this works to the movie's favor, but would totally accept it if that wasn't your scene.

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

Unfortunately, it's not that Steve McQueen. ↩
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I swear after I bought my ticket the cashier said "I hope you enjoy your movie..." in a way that made me want to respond "Oh. No. Like, I've got to see this for work? I work at a place? And I have to watch this! Seriously!" ↩
You can watch a short clip of the scene here. No doubt the song is beautiful, but it goes on forever. While writing this review, I wonder if there is something going on with this facial close up and Sullivan's later in the movie. If only I were smarter! ↩
There is an entire movie on this topic. ↩

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy: it’s not about a soldier/spy

Ross Catrow — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:00:33 +0000

Thus far into my tenure as the pro tem RVANews movie reviewer I've seen two spy movies, and I don't think they could be any more different. Mission: Impossible--Ghost Protocol featured a mystifingly athletic Tom Cruise with rippling abs tearing around the world stopping the Russians from doing what Russians do best: exploding the earth with nuclear weapons. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, on the other hand, is about a handful of old dudes doing the real work of spies: talking, reading, and sometimes walking around quietly. If you go into this one expecting a film about a soldier/spy named Tinker Tailor blowing stuff up¹ (guilty!) you'll probably be pretty bummed.

Instead, what you get with TTSS is a film about the hunt for a Soviet mole who's infiltrated the very tiptop of the British Secret Intelligence Service (aka MI6) orgchart. Gary Oldman plays George Smiley, the recently retired #2 over at MI6, who's been brought back in to ferret out the mole's identity. Smiley and his appointed helperguy, Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), follow a twisted and complicated trail of interviews, documents, and discoveries to unmask one of Britain's top intelligence dudes² as the mole. It sounds fairly straightforward, but it's not.

TTSS is a story about the stories behind a story, a story about slowly and methodically gathering information. It was adapted from a book written by a spy, and then compressed into 127 minutes. TTSS is not your daddy's spy movie,³ and you really need to pay attention or you're going to be totally lost. The people sitting behind⁴ me were totally lost. I was taking notes, and I was lost. Honestly, most people are going to be totally lost.

But, guys, I think this might be OK!

At the helm of this flick is Swedish director Tomas Alfredson, best know for Let the Right One In--one of my all-time favorite vampire movies. What made that particular movie so successful was not gallons of blood and dozens of heart-stopping moments, but a pervasive--and incredibly creepy/nordic⁵--tone. It's a lot like that Seurat painting from Ferris Beuller: moment-to-moment there may not be a whole lot going on but taken as a whole it's a fantastic experience. TTSS is a lot like that.

A good portion of the plot is advanced silently with meaningful looks between any of the too-numerous-to-track characters or with short, clipped sentences couched heavily in British spytalk. Heck, Gary Oldman doesn't even speak until fifteen minutes into the movie! This leaves you, moment-to-moment, confused. But like I said, it doesn't really matter. At the end of the film, Alferdson has left you confident that George Smiley did a bunch of clever spywork, and the nefarious double agent is sufficiently nefarious. Ebert⁶ puts it well:

I have every confidence that in this film, every piece of information is there and flawlessly meshes, but I can't say so for sure, perhaps because I don't have a mind suitable for espionage.

And, it's not just Alferdson doing all the heavy lifting either. The cast is chock full of talented Brits (and one Irishman): Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Ciarán Hinds, John Hurt (of chestburster fame), Toby Jones, Gary Oldman, and Mark Strong. That massive list of main characters should give you an idea of how complex the plot can get at times. But each scene, especially the ensemble bits that take place inside a soundproof box at MI6 high command, is weighty with some serious (although mostly silent) acting. And let's be honest, one look from Colin Firth is enough to convey one thousand dreamy words.

And really, all of these furtive looks and subtle messages just serve to heighten the tension when the action takes place (and there is some) or the disemboweled bodies turn up (and there is one).

— ∮∮∮ —

Why you should see this movie

It really is a beautiful movie to watch. The costumes⁷ and colors are awesome, and a lot of the shots are just plain nice to look at. The pacing is slow, but intentional. And I was still thinking about who double crossed whom the next day--which is always a good sign.

Why you should stay home

If you saw the preview and thought, "I love Mission: Impossible!" you will be disappointed. If you have no desire (and this is totally legit) to watch a movie that forces you to pay serious attention to every small detail, you should probably check out what's new on Watch Instantly⁸. If you hate old dudes, you may also want to skip it--just saying.

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

That movie would be called Tinker Tailor: solider/spy. See, punctuation is important. ↩
Since these dudes are spies, they all have cute (and titular) codenames like "Tinker," "Tailor," and "Soldier." ↩
For my dad, specifically, that movie would be Goldfinger. ↩
These jokers thought it'd be a super cool idea to discuss the plot of the movie FIVE MINUTES BEFORE IT STARTED. Spoiler alert! ↩
Synonyms. ↩
Be careful about clicking over to ol' Roger Ebert's site. He tends to go pretty deep into the plot and gives no rats' asses about spolier alerts. ↩
How much do I wish I could wear a blue three-piece suit and have no one ask me "what's the occasion?" ↩
True Grit! ↩

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Sweden’s Dän Brøwn

Ross Catrow — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:54:10 +0000

Even though I'm a couple weeks late on this, I decided to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because 1) I've seen the Swedish version, and 2) the only other options were a movie about a horse who most likely dies in a weep-inducing fashion or We Bought a Zoo!

So, off I went to the movies by myself. I've only ever seen two movies in the theatre solo: Eyes Wide Shut and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Both times I've felt pretty awkward, but not as awkward as I would have felt taking someone there on a first date.¹

Dragon Tattoo is the first part of Swedish author Stieg Larsson's Millennium series (a trilogy).² The series follows Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara)--a goth computer security expert in her early/mid twenties--and Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig)--a middle-aged investigative journalist--as they solve mysteries and endure some heinous violence.

The movie starts with Blomkvist losing a libel trial to one of Sweden's rich and powerful business tycoons. His future with both the magazine he works for and the boss he sleeps with is thrown into question. Meanwhile, Lisbeth Salander is hired by Henrik Vanger--the patriarch of one of Sweden's oldest families--to conduct an indepth, less-than-legal background check on Blomkvist. She's on call with a security firm as a "hacker"--which you know because she uses Terminal.app on her MacBook. She even writes some SQL!³

As Blomkvist awaits his prison term, he gets a call from Vanger's lawyer offering him a job to investigate the 40-year-old disappearance of Henrik's favorite niece, Harriet. The Vanger family has plenty of secrets to go around and about half of them involve aging Nazis, so of course Blomkvist accepts the job, requests Salander as a research assistant, and the mystery's afoot!

Now don't get me wrong, I love a good mystery as much as the next guy who read The Da Vinci Code in two days, but we 're not talking about The Usual Suspects here. Dragon Tattoo comes replete with (predictable) twists, forensic science, and casual sex between investigators.⁴ Craig's Blomkvist is bookish and grumpy--which sounds about right for an investigative journalist, but the problem is James Bond and his abs don't really do a convincing "bookish." The Swedish version nailed it by casting Michael Nyqvist--who's just a normal looking dude.

You might remember Rooney Mara as the girl in The Social Network who dumped Mark Zuckerberg not because he was a nerd, but because he was an asshole. She's already been nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance in Dragon Tattoo, and I'm thinking she'll get Oscar nom'd too. Mara does a good job playing Larsson's Lisbeth, but he's written a pretty one dimensional and wooden character. She doesn't do much other than smoke, ignore questions, and solve mysteries. She also gets raped.

I think the excruciating, awful, gut-wrenching rape scene is one of the reasons this movie has an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes while The Da Vinci Code has a 25%. I also think it's one of the reasons Mara will be nominated for an Oscar, and rightfully so. But take out that scene and you're left with an American remake of a Swedish mystery movie without any of the cool Scandinavian vibe. Not only that, but what does it say when we are so excited about such explicit violence towards women? And most disturbing, at least to me, is that Salander gets revenge on her rapist by raping him. In my book, this is not a victory.⁵ But, Lisbeth moves on, shrugs off the whole experience, and goes about woodenly solving mysteries. The only clue we have that she's been affected at all is a bad dream here and there, or her reluctance to be touched (sometimes).

However, the best part of Dragon Tattoo is easily Trent Reznor. Dude has discovered a serious talent for scoring films, and I hope he keeps it up. Reznor, and collaborator Atticus Ross, won the original score Oscar last year for The Social Network, and they should be nominated again this year. Their cover of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" with vocals by Karen O (of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs) is awesome, but opens the movie paired with a totally weird non-sequitur of a title sequence. But whatever, the song rocks.

So, should you go see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? Honestly, I'd recommend the Swedish version over its American counterpart. Sure, you'll miss out on Trent Reznor, but you could just buy the soundtrack. What you're really missing in the American version, and what the Swedish version does so well, is subtlety.

An example: in the Swedish film, after Lisbeth is violently raped she staggers home, her insides wrecked. It's painfully obvious to the audience what's happened and why she can no longer sit down. In the American version, before her rapist begins he says, "Oh, I forgot to ask, do you like anal sex?" Why would you breakup a fast paced and emotional scene to insert, what is tantamount to, a joke? We don't need to be told that's what's happening, we can see it. Also that line changes the character from a normal guy that I could encounter in my day-to-day, to a more nefarious villain--which is less scary. There are other examples of this type of thing⁶ scattered throughout the film, and each one makes things more obvious, less creepy, and more...American, I guess?

Save your dollars on this one, folks, and instead, feed it to the Redbox.

— ∮∮∮ —

Footnotes

Luckily, my new role as temporary movie reviewer will hopefully balance out my awkward vs. nonawkward solo movie stat. ↩
These books are insanely popular. In 2008 Larsson was the second-best selling author in THE ENTIRE WORLD. ↩
SELECT * FROM BlomkvistFiles WHERE interesting = 1. But seriously, there was a LEFT JOIN in there, so you know it's legit. ↩
A smarter reviewer than I could make a great Sherlock Holmes joke here. ↩
There are lots and lots of people with lots and lots of thoughts on this if you want to spend some time reading. ↩
One involves Enya ↩

Mission: Impossible–Ghost Protocol, A mission none too shabby

Ross Catrow — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:39:48 +0000

First: I’m not Susan Howson. Our preeminent movie reviewer is off carefreely cavorting with her new child while on maternity leave; this leaves me in charge*. For the foreseeable future, I will try to fill her knowledgeable shoes and fill your minds with insightful reviews.

Second: I have seen Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol.

— ∮∮∮ —

Ghost Protocol is, something like, the fourth installment of the Mission: Impossible series, which began a long time ago in 1996. Back then Tom Cruise was busily starring in every megasuccessful movie cranked out over the previous ten years**. When I first heard that he was starring in a new M:I movie (which, honestly, was yesterday), I thought for sure that Cruise had graduated from his role as Ethan Hunt, secret agent extraordinaire, to a more Obi-Wan-esque role: that of elder and teacher to a new, younger Padawan. In my mind, this young agent was played by Ryan Gosling.

But, no way Jose. Tom is back as the incredibly brilliant, athletic, and deadly*** Ethan Hunt, and the world has, once again, gotten itself into some trouble. ONLY THIS TIME IT’S ~~PERSONAL~~ NUCLEAR. The plot is best summed up with this line from the trailer:

“A bomb just blew up the Kremlin, the blame points to your team.”

Guys, remember the good ol’ days when the world’s worst enemies, out of all the enemies, were the ruskies? A time when Patrick Swazye and the Wolverines could inspire hope, and thin Alec Baldwin did some stuff on a submarine? It was a simple time, when the threat of nuclear war with the Russians was so clear and so evil that a trillion awesome movies were made. But, all good things must come to the end, so the Cold War petered out, and we’re left with “terrorists” as the next global bad guy. This made for sucky movies (except for the The Hurt Locker, which was awesome).

M:I-GP said to itself, “If we’re not at actual war with Russia, let’s gin up a situation where we’d have the threat of war with Russia!” And so, Cruise and gang--a nerdy technologist played by Simon Pegg, an angry agent seeking revenge played by Paula Patton, and a suspiciously handsome and well-built analyst played by Jeremy Renner (from The Hurt Locker!)--race around the globe trying to stop World War III. It was nice to see the Russians up to their old tricks again.

Director Brad Bird (The Incredibles, The Iron Giant), in his live-action directorial debut, delivers exactly what you’d expect and want in an action-packed spy film: exotic locales, improbable stunts, and futuristic gadgets. In fact, this might be the best James Bond movie I’ve seen in a long time. At some point, the Bond franchise went full smolder--especially the Daniel Craig films****. But with Simon Pegg providing the comic relief and a less-than-smoldery Cruise as the action star, M:I-GP feels really well balanced. Plus, Renner has enough smolder to go around.

While he’s not the most tortured of characters, Cruise still--somehow--has that boyish charm thing he’s been riding since Risky Business back in 1983. And, lo, you will feel no ill will towards this 50-year-old man as he leaps tall buildings in a single bound and smashes his face/body on anything in its path. But somehow, despite his rippling abs and youthful grin, Cruise spends way too much screen time running after an old, fat Russian dude--but never seems to catch him. Maybe the old, fat Russian is an allegory for Tom’s former success? Ooo, burn!

In the end, this movie is exactly what it sets out to be, and that, I think, is exactly pretty OK!

— ∮∮∮ —

* Unfortunately.
** This is his filmography from 1986-1996: Top Gun, The Color of Money, Cocktail, Rain Man, Born on the Fourth of July, Days of Thunder, Far and Away, A Few Good Men, The Firm, Interview with a Vampire, Mission: Impossible, Jerry Maguire. It goes down pretty quickly from there, but dang! That’s a crazy list of hits.
*** Words that describe the actual Tom Cruise.
**** Quantum of Solace might get a pass, though. Daniel Craig had this to say in a recent interview: “On Quantum, we were fucked. We had the bare bones of a script and then there was a writers’ strike and there was nothing we could do. We couldn’t employ a writer to finish it. I say to myself, ‘Never again’, but who knows? There was me trying to rewrite scenes – and a writer I am not.”

Susan Year Itch: Scrooges and Grinches

Susan Howson — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:13:24 +0000

I listen to the radio a lot on the off chance that I’ll hear a David Bowie song that I already have ready access to. As an unintended result, I am very familiar with local radio ads, which are probably the bleakest in the world, particularly around the holidays. Most of them go something like this:

VO: “You’re depressed, you’re lethargic, you’re stressed to da max. It must be the holidays!”

Lady who in my mind’s eye looks a lot like Cathy from the comic strip of the same name: “I just have to give people stuff and make my house look pretty, and I have all these frigging delicious things to eat! Life is the worst!”

VO: “Well, at [INSERT PLACE OF BUSINESS], we’ve made the holidays just barely bearable for you by giving you a one-stop shop for all of your [INSERT UNNECESSARY INDUSTRY] needs. You can just close your eyes and leave everything to us while you pretend really hard that it’s January and you never have to do fun things ever again.”

And it works! Because the holidays have become a time to indulge your inner Scrooge and let a stream of complaints issue forth from your mouth, whence the seasonal goodwill used to flow. Hollywood is run by geniuses, and it knows exactly how to capitalize on every mood we have. So there’s a whole sub-sub-genre of movies that center around grumps and Grinches--but the kicker is, they are always, always, brought around to realize the True Meaning of Christmas (which usually involves somebody helping out someone less fortunate while snow begins to fall).

Ladies and gentlemen and Cathy comics of the world, we need these movies. We need to watch them over and over again in order to get outside of our dumb stresses and petty miseries. Think about it: It’s the time of year when everything looks, smells, and tastes nice, and people give each other presents. In other words, woe is not us.

The following list of films will help you really grok what the Spirit of Christmas Present has to say, helping you rise above your imaginary list of grievances. I recommend spiked hot chocolate and a blanket to accompany you on your journey.

Scrooged

Guys, Bill Murray. Who’s more grouchy-lovable? I remember I wasn’t allowed to see this in the theater because my mom felt it was too “mean-spirited.” My sister went, though, and she turned out mostly OK! Because, as my mom didn’t quite understand, you discover the meaning of Christmas or whatever when you watch Scrooged. Mean spirits get pwned!

Mood-enhancement: At the very least, laughing will help you feel a lot less stressed out.

A Charlie Brown Christmas

Christmastime is here. Happiness and cheer. Fun for all that children call their favorite time of year. Yeah, somehow when the Charlie Brown kids sing that song, it’s not too convincing. But with a little hand-waving, a lot of dancing with noses in the air, and one long, somewhat uncomfortable Linus speech, CB’s spirits are as improved as his tiny Christmas tree.

Mood-enhancement: Treat yourself to a repeat viewing of this holiday classic and remember happy childhood times when Short Pump barely existed.

The Ref

Denis Leary takes the worst possible hostages this Christmas. A bickering couple (Kevin Spacey and Judy Davis) makes his heart shrink by two sizes, but the holiday spirit pervades, and the criminal helps his victims make up and make out, saving Christmas once and for all.

Mood-enhancement: What a relief that it’s not 1994 anymore, am I right?

Hook

Peter (Robin Williams, of course) is a workaholic who for some reason doesn’t remember much about a childhood spent flying around in tights. The good news is: he rediscovers how wonderful life can be, thanks to his old band of Lost Boys. The bad news is: he also rediscovers the tights. Oh, and there’s a scary pirate out for revenge. But then he gets back to the real world, and it’s Christmas!

Mood-enhancement: We will never have such a complicated problem to explain to our spouses.

The Year Without a Santa Claus

The single best Christmas movie (besides Die Hard), The Year Without a Santa Claus has so many grouches in it, it’s not even funny. Only it is actually super funny. Heat Miser! Snow Miser! Santa himself! THE ENTIRE SOUTH, NAY, THE WORLD! Nobody likes Christmas anymore in this 1974 Christmas special, and two elves have to somehow restore the spirit before...something or other happens. It’s not clear. Anyway, there’s great songs and weird moments, and it is impossible to have a bad attitude when you have Heat Miser’s song stuck in your head.

Mood-enhancement: This user review from Netflix: “I love Christmas movies and this one is really good every kid needs to see weather you believe in Santa or not.” Catch the spirit, y’all.

— ∮∮∮ —

And with that, I leave you until sometime in 2012. I’m off to give birth to a kid who absolutely will not mind having antlers and Santa hats shoved on its head as soon as it makes an appearance. In the meantime, as Oscar season approaches, stay tuned for Ross’s take on films.

The Muppets: still got it

Susan Howson — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:00:45 +0000

The reason for the enduring popularity of Jim Henson’s Muppets is a no-brainer--they’re cleverly written, they’re cutely designed, and we watched them cavort around on both the small and large screens when we were kids.* They’re basically screaming for Jason Segel to bring them back to us in the burst of nostalgia that is the new film, The Muppets.

And what a job he did! Everything you’ve heard about the film is true. It has the exact same feel as a Muppet movie from days of yore (although the last one was as recent as 1999--not quite a 25 year hiatus or anything, but still...it’s been awhile), incorporating scads of cameos, absurd humor, and classic musical montages. As usual, a couple of sympathetic humans, in this case Gary (Segel) and Mary (Amy Adams), help the Muppet gang defeat an evil stereotype of an enemy. This time, that villain is an oil tycoon named Tex Richman, somewhat awkwardly played by Chris Cooper, and he intends to demolish the old Muppet studio for the oil underneath it. According to their contract, the Muppets have a finite amount of time to raise a finite amount of money to save it, and, my dears, we have the plot.

But the movie is purposefully and self-referentially simplistic like that, constantly mentioning its own plot points as such. As it points out, this plot is just a vehicle for whip-smart jokes, and we might as well call a spade a spade. While that goofball attitude is fairly refreshing, it doesn’t change the fact that the plot is kinda boring. I found myself becoming impatient for the things we knew were going to happen, although there’s certainly an argument to be made for sitting back and just enjoying the comedy.

That said, I could have used less of both Segel and Adams, whose wide-eyed characters didn’t serve too much of a purpose--apart from a couple of truly hilarious Segel scenes (the “Muppet of a Man” song is pure genius). And since we’re here to see Piggy knock over Kermit and Animal bang on the drums, their relationship wasn’t all that compelling.

It would be silly to list all the scenes that werecompelling, though, because there were seriously about a billion, all hilariously written and performed. They easily outshine any of the draggy parts, and, honestly, there’s a barbershop quartet scene that I could watch over and over again and still find hysterical.

So, no complaints about this film, really. It’s just a general celebration of all things Muppet.

* Personally, I was a little young for The Muppet Show, but enjoyed the movies and was a religious Sesame Street fan for years. Oh, and I watched the crap out of Muppet Babies, of course.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1: A study in efficiency

Susan Howson — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:13:27 +0000

I almost began with a disclaimer that would have gone something like this:

I am not TRULY qualified to give an educated opinion on anything Twilight, having not read any of the books or seen any of the previous movies.

But I’m rethinking that position. I’ve got ears, eyes, and the Internet. I think I’ve got a sense of what it’s all about: A pale, sparkly guy gives an underappreciated teenage girl the attention she deserves, without deflowering her. Later, a werewolf will have abs.

If there are some subtleties I’m missing, and I’m not saying there are, they certainly don’t seem to come into play during Breaking Dawn.

In fact, the whole film seems to be based on such a flimsy plot structure that the “filmmakers,” led by director Bill Condon were forced to spend an inordinate amount of celluloid stalling for time wherever they can. Jacob walks grumpily up several flights of stairs. Bella searches her face in the mirror for signs that she is finally ready for marriage/sex/demon-babies. Edward and Bella play riveting games of chess instead of doing it (all that passion the trailers promised us is relegated to about four seconds, sorry). And, best of all, venom shoots through animated blood vessels, coating them in undead brilliance, until even the toddler someone brought into our theater was clearly aware that Change Is Happening Within This Person.

But these little interludes are beside the point, I know. The main action is this:

Warning, the following plot summary contains facts that will spoil this film for anyone who has not seen a film before.

Bella and Edward get ready to get married, hooray! (Jacob runs somewhere, moodily).
Edward reveals to her that he’s killed people before. She gets over it in about a millisecond, which is touching.
Bella and Edward get married, hooray! (Jacob runs in, then out).
Mr. and Mrs. Cullen arrive at their honeymoon destination, a sweet house off the coast of Rio, where a bedroom awaits.
Mrs. Cullen is very, very nervous about that bedroom.
Newlyweds do what newlyweds do, and in the process, Bella gets some bruises.
Mr. Cullen, who is TOO POWERFUL in the sack, is so ashamed, he refuses her a repeat performance in a montage that involves hiking, waterfalls, and awkward lingerie temptations.
Bella throws up, is pregnant. Edward packs worriedly at vampire speed as Bella lovingly strokes her abdomen.
Back home, the other vampires stand around looking pale in a house from Dwell magazine, wondering what to do about the rapidly growing Bella.
Werewolves run around.
Edward does some Yahoo searches (we’re not really sure what his search terms are) and comes up with some disturbing Dante-esque images of devil children.
Jacob hangs out.
A child is born!
...With disastrous consequences??

OK, it’s not much of a narrative, true, but people have done more with less. Not so here: Breaking Dawn feels like a staged reading at a high school with Kristen Stewart doing a passable imitation of an awkward teen--probably because she’s not capable of much else. Everything from the CGI wolves to the paleface makeup is phoned in (you’d think they could at least lightly swab the vampires’ necks with that white stuff), and every single shot is predictable, down to the final, dramatic reveal.

But then, after I’d apologized profusely to my husband for dragging him along (although, to be honest, I’m pretty sure he enjoyed doing impressions throughout of vampires-as-white-faced-lipsticked-mimes), I came to a realization. Why not make a crappy movie? Think about it! Every die-hard Twilight fan is going to see this film and the sure-to-be crappy one after it*, no matter what. So why spend the time and, more importantly, the money to hire decent actors or cultivate the talent of the ones you’ve got (I find Robert Pattinson both repulsive and wooden, but perhaps he hasn’t been given a chance to really, er, sparkle?)? Why have dazzling special effects? Why do anything except the bare minimum to get something into theaters that costs $10 a ticket and will break box office records no matter what it looks like? It’s pure Hollywood brilliance. The most ardent fans will buy all the merchandise and band together for repeat viewings, and the lukewarm fans will forgive it with a, “I liked it for what it was,” while quietly looking forward to Part 2. Hollywood doesn’t care about everyone else. Breaking Dawn is not for them.

So my advice is this: if you’re going to see this film, you already know who you are. Good luck, and bring a caffeinated beverage.

*And that’s OK, I guess. The overwhelmingly saccharine message seems to be, “Be super, super careful about who you have sex with, because you could have a demon baby in mere weeks,” and that’s not necessarily a bad thing to tell young people.

The Ides of March: Politics with that special Clooney touch

Susan Howson — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:13:13 +0000

The coming election year makes me feel sick at heart. I don’t look forward to all the mudslinging and the griping and the soundbites and the bumper-sticker-puns-that-don’t-mean-anything. In fact, I sort of wish I could just pretend like it’s not happening at all and focus instead on my much less draining Netflix queue. I know that’s sooooo civically irresponsible and that I should be seriously ashamed of myself, but as political reporter Ida Horowicz (played by Marisa Tomei) says in The Ides of March, will the outcome actually affect my day-to-day life?

George Clooney’s new political drama asks this and more of an America that, like me, is weary of an election before it’s even begun. Is any one candidate ever perfect? How much of all of it is just marketing that’s carefully calculated by teams of professionals whose sole job is to turn the tide of an election by selling their human product to the masses. But then what? What do those campaigners do? Do they have lives beyond that? Does any of this actually mean anything?

Governor Mike Morris (played by Cloonz) is an obvious Obama figure, complete with posters that are almost laughably identical to Shepard Fairey’s iconic 2008 pieces. Weathered campaigner Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is doing what he’s been hired to do, but his direct report, RYAN GOSLING...sorry, hrm, Stephen Meyers (played by just some run-of-the-mill dude whose name I can barely recall) has some real emotions about his chosen candidate. He thinks Morris is the real deal, the guy that can really make a change. He’s impressed with his integrity, his unwillingness to make deals, his refreshing and honest candor with the people. When the other Democratic candidate’s campaign manager tries to poach Stephen, he refuses. He likes his guy, and there he’ll stay.

Stephen isn’t exactly wide-eyed and naive. He’s worked on a ton of campaigns, he assures us, but the Governor is unlike any politician he’s ever seen. Combined with a couple of episodes that prove Morris’s stand-up-guy-ness, Stephen’s zeal has us pretty much convinced. So it’s a huge blow to both of us when Morris turns out to be less than perfect.

Slowly, things start to crumble for Stephen, as he struggles with betrayal, disillusionment, and fear all at once. The extra-adorable Gosling does something genius with his face over the course of the film’s scant 101 minutes. By the end, you realize you’ve seen him go from staunch loyalist to stonefaced force of nature without ever seeing him totally lose his shit. It’s just something he does with his eyes, and I know this because I stare intently at them much of the time.

Call me crazy, but I feel Cloonz was miscast as the can-do, change-agent that is Morris. I’m surprised at myself. I thought that when the inevitable happens and he actually runs for our real-life president one day, I’d be first at the polls. But playing a candidate who’s supposed to be America’s Savior just didn’t work for him. He’s too sardonic, too cynical. Sure, he’s charming. He practically invented charm. But he just doesn’t have any of Obama’s earnestness. It was difficult and disappointing to imagine Clooney’s Morris doing the Bad Thing that he did, but it would be downright shocking to find Obama in the same boat.

I was fascinated by The Ides of March and how it so directly reinforced my desire to pretend like next year isn’t happening. The film doesn’t offer a solution to America’s political disfunction or even really surprise with any big exposés of the campaign process, but it does challenge some of us to reconsider dividing everything into simple, elegant reds and blues.

Drive: This is not your average car chase

Susan Howson — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:00:55 +0000

Drive was so good, I almost don’t want to talk about it. Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn combined the story arc and graphics of a seedy 80’s action flick with the careful shot-by-beautifully-constructed-shot feel of a 2011 thinkpiece. Add a liberal sprinkling of tension and hire one of Hollywood’s most promising actors, and you’ve got yourself a supremely watchable -- if a little gory -- film that makes boring, overblown, CGI-laden flicks even less acceptable.

Nobody drives a car into a helicopter in Drive; the car chases are simple, suspenseful, and almost elegant. They should be, because that’s all the unnamed main character does: drive. His life revolves around driving. He’s a stunt driver, a getaway driver, he drives people home if their cars stop working, he works on cars so that they’ll drive better...when his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) asks him what he does, he answers with just that. “I drive.”

The driver doesn’t seem discontented with his life, but he doesn’t seem happy, either. In fact, he just sort of exists, playing a bit part in other people’s plots (both real and fictional). It’s Irene who brings out the initial hints of bashful emotion in him, and he avoids it at first, probably not knowing how to be anything but a nameless, rootless driver.

Irene’s got a son, and that son has a dad. The driver’s loyalty to Irene is so steady, he agrees to help the dad out of a tight and dangerous situation. Things don’t go so well, and some scenes of very off-putting violence follow that are bound to turn off some viewers. There are some less-than-classy things going on in LA, and Drive makes the point that it doesn’t have to be a slick, sexy diamond heist that drastically changes lives. Small-time producer Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks) and Nino (Ron Perlman)* get things done however they can, no matter how much ugliness is involved, and the driver, who finds himself tangled up in their game, just makes the moves that will get him out of it as quickly as possible.

Or does he? We have a few indications that the driver doesn’t half mind pummeling baddies into a bloody pulp, and sometimes it seems that he downright enjoys it. Used so often as a pawn in other people’s lives, it feels sometimes like he’s acting on super-violent autopilot. It makes you wonder what sort of life he’s led up until this moment that would cause him to make such efficient work of a murder.

Though they never say much to each other, Irene and the driver’s emotions almost visibly start to become a knotted-up mess in contrast to the pure, almost glowing, affection they instantly felt for each other when they met. And I do mean “glowing,” Refn uses light all over the place, to highlight happiness, to shade trouble, and to enhance tension. It’s all very Noir, and without it, or any of its other engine parts, Drive wouldn’t be nearly as compelling a ride.

*Some may remember him from Hellboy, but I choose to dreamily think back on the excellent and weird TV series, Beauty and the Beast.

Contagion: Cover your mouth, please

Susan Howson — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:27:31 +0000

I have washed my hands so many times since I saw Steven Soderbergh’s new film, Contagion, but I’m not sure it’ll do me any good. Because, as the movie indicates, the panic that results from a worldwide epidemic is not only inevitable, it’s just as scary as the virus itself.

And Contagion gives us a pretty realistic looking picture of what life will be like in the (completely possible) event of a massive outbreak. Ads may call the film a “thriller,” but the feel is more like that of Soderbergh’s 2001 hit, Traffic, only more realistic and less glamorous. Instead of a distinct hero that heartwarmingly maneuvers his family through these troubled times, we have a number of protagonists all over the world playing a variety of roles that will surely be vital during an actual fast-moving viral epidemic. The script plops us directly into their world without the benefit of a lot of background information, so that we’re forced to pay really close attention.

It’s not too hard to stay super focused, though, because the reality on the screen is changing so quickly that it’s impossible to look away. And that reality looks disturbingly like ours. We don’t get any of that subtle, back-of-our-mind, “Oh, this is just Hollywood,” reassurance, because these people look pretty regular*, as do their boring conference rooms, normal cars, hospital rooms, and their various Main Streets, USA. Ever wonder where the line would be drawn between average Joes standing around in an orderly fashion and frantic renegades shoving over pregnant ladies to get their dose of the “cure”? Well, it happens fast, and it happens in every community. Turns out, when there aren’t enough resources to go around and people have to protect their families, everyone just becomes an asshole.

My biggest takeaway from Contagion is that anarchy is humanity's most terrifying state. With no hospitals, no law enforcement, and no end in sight, we’re basically dealing with the prequel to The Road. And we all know how awesome everyone is to each other in that scenario.** Fear spreads more quickly than a virus does, and, Soderbergh seems to say, you can’t trust anyone when their loved ones are at stake.

Jude Law’s character is best described as “conspiracy theorist/Internet sage,” but it’s not completely clear in whose interest he’s acting. The most likely motivation for most of his irritable deeds is that he just enjoys being able to spout off his daily pageview count. Kate Winslet is an epidemiologist who’s sent out to ground zero in Minnesota to get emergency procedures moving, and Jennifer Ehle is a doctor trying to make sense of it all. Both report to Laurence Fishburne, who handles this sort of thing for a living at the CDC in Atlanta. The World Health Organization has Marion Cotillard in Hong Kong, where the virus may have originated, but back home, Matt Damon is attempting to grieve over his dead wife and stepson while he keeps his teenage daughter alive. Sound like a lot of storylines? It is, but really they’re all pawns of the virus itself. The resulting trajectory is just one giant plot with that has a bunch of major players, even if they never meet each other.

I’m guessing that Contagion will certainly be nominated for several Oscars, but even if it’s not, it’s a must-see -- if only so you’ll be convinced to start stockpiling water and guns. I’m only half-kidding around, here. After I saw Contagion, I spent the rest of my day trying to process what just happened, and my dreams that night were not pleasant. And all the scarier because they seem so likely to come true.

— ∮∮∮ —

*Exception, Marion Cotillard. She will never look regular.
**Never seen or read this cheerful tale of Cormac McCarthy’s? Here’s a preview: in a post-apocalyptic society, you’re basically going to have to live in crippling fear that your path will cross with another human -- any other human.

They’re going baaaaaaaack!

Susan Howson — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 20:35:02 +0000

You know that Staples ad that they’ve been playing since the beginning of time, the one with the dad prancing around the store, loading his cart with supplies as his children trudge somberly behind him to the tune of “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year?” I always loved it. It’s funny, it’s surprising, and it implies that parents really and truly hate spending time with their kids. What’s not to love?

I’m with the trudgers. I’ve been out of school for ages and ages, and I still dread the end of summer. Yes, I know it signals the end of the cruel heat and humidity and the beginning of apple pies and foliage, but to me, it will always mean, “The days are going to get short, and you’re about to have a lot of work to do.”

Movies have exploited this remembered anxiety for years. High school, the most stressful of stressors, has been the subject of many a film for decades. Who can’t relate to the nervewracking experience of walking into a new school on the first day? Particularly a school full of hormonal, socially inexperienced jerks who don’t have to worry about making rent yet so they focus their attention on making you miserable.

I consulted a friend of mine who watches high school movies like it’s his job. He gave me an extensive list of cheerful peppy teen films, all of which we know already. Can’t Hardly Wait, Bring It On, that kind of thing. And while those certainly have their place, I wanted to round up a list of those films that hinged on the desperate uncertainty of the first day of school.

Think of it this way, rewatching these is bound to help you appreciate your adult life.

— ∮∮∮ —

Grease (1978)

Oh Sandy, you never imagined that the normal, sweet Danny Zuko you met during the most romantic summer of your life would become Joe Cooler Than Thou during the school year, did you? Well, get used to it, princess, because that dude is into fixing cars and bragging about what he did during his hot summer nights. Day 1 of your new school is a rude awakening for you to experience and a timeless delight for us to watch.

— ∮∮∮ —

Rebel Without a Cause (1955)

Sorry, Jim, but your serious emotional plight and its growing resonance with teenagers in your day has been overshadowed since this film’s release by the iconic image of you hanging around in a jacket and looking pretty hot. Day 1 is a struggle that runs deeper than navigating your new school’s cliques, and we’re right there with you as you try hard to be a regular kid. The funny thing is, you hang out in fairly preppy blazer more than you do a leather jacket, and contemporary audiences will be surprised to see that you aren’t leaning against walls, being all superior. In fact, you’re pretty much awkward during the whole thing, but we love you anyway.

— ∮∮∮ —

Footloose (1984)

I don’t even know quite what to do with you, Ren. You show up in a small country town and blow their equilibrium to smithereens by instilling in the local teens a love of...dancing. Sure, that kind of thing sort of makes sense in today’s film world, as dance-off movies are popular and fun (do you look forward to catching your remake next month?), but seeing you blow off steam in 1984 by rage-dacing in a warehouse is both startling and hilarious. Day 1 showed your new school just what it was messing with: an arrogant asshole with fancy, fancy feet. I’m surprised you didn’t get beaten to a pulp.

— ∮∮∮ —

Veronica Mars (2004) (tv)

Don’t get on my case, Veronica, I’m aware that you’re not a movie (yet). But your show’s so good that it oughtta be. You weren’t new to your school on Day 1, but a whole lot has changed since last year. Over the summer, you transformed from homecoming queen material to wisecracking loner with way better hair, and you had your reasons. Really, really good ones. It’s time to bring those rich jerks down.

— ∮∮∮ —

Mean Girls (2004)

Cady, you’re not on an African safari anymore. Day 1 at your new suburban school has you playing with the most vicious big cats you’ll ever meet, and boy oh boy are they ready to sink their teeth into you. Popularity queen Regina is a terrifying villain, and, frankly, your naivete makes you easy prey. We’re rooting for you because your plight is so realistic, but we have our doubts. We all had our Reginas. It’s nature’s way.

— ∮∮∮ —

So good luck during this school year, kids. Don’t forget to create one or two scenarios in which you’re likely to be bullied for being a witty oddball. If all your high school stories are about fitting in perfectly, no one will ever take you seriously as an adult.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: Look, it’s August, OK?

Susan Howson — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:00:27 +0000

I’ve never seen a Planet of the Apes movie. It’s never occurred to me to do so, just like it’s never occurred to me to try on camouflage cargo pants. But this blog post not only captivated my attention (you had me at “deemphasize James Franco”), it convinced me that maybe these monkeys were worth checking out.

About twenty animal-cruelty-induced anxiety attacks later, I walked out of Rise of the Planet of the Apes wondering whether I was disappointed or impressed. If it hadn’t been for the article, I would have had the lowest of all possible expectations. But instead, the post made me feel that I was in for an Iron Man-esque surprise treat.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes came in squarely in the middle. As it was a prequel, I may have unintentionally ignored some of the more subtle nuances that would make a Charlton Heston fan squeal with delight.* One thing I couldn’t predict, though, was whether or not the earlier/later (damn prequel confusion) movies would encourage sympathy for the apes or what. Because this movie was pro-ape all the way. Certainly, there were some chimps that were crappier than others, but we fall in love with the main monkey, Caesar, the minute that Will (James Franco) saves him from the evil genetic testing lab. Will’s come up with a sexily packaged “cure” for Alzheimers that not only slows the disease, it actually makes the patient smarter. Caesar quickly begins to show that his ridiculously smart noodle has received the benefits of the drug genetically through his mother. He’s super close to being human, and guess what, it starts to feel pretty lame to be an almost-human who’s being walked around on a leash.

But Will’s not really to blame for what happens next. I won’t go into spoilery details, but let’s just say that Caesar ends up in a shelter managed by Brian Cox (delivering one of the only decent humanoid performances in the film) and his despicable son, Draco Malfoy.**

Let’s take a minute and discuss WTF happened to James Franco. Is he being bad on purpose? He’s so good-looking that it’s tempting to chalk it up to one of his goofy performance art experiments, but it pains me that he gets paid all these millions to churn out these puzzlingly awful characters. We know you can be good, James. We’ve seen it before, and it’s time to earn your keep around here.

Here’s where it all starts to make you feel feelings. Andy Serkis, the guy behind Caesar, does whatever it is he does to turn a pile of pixels into something that feels authentic beyond its obviously computer-animated skin. The combination of “Where are you going, Daddy? Why can’t we go home?” and “Why is this bad man hurting me?” in Caesar’s face and motions nearly sent me into some sort of maternal panic. I kept thinking of every pet I’ve ever had and every child I have ever cared about, and my heart rate grew to such a rapid pace that I was a little surprised I didn’t spontaneously combust in the middle of the theater, leaving some lucky moviegoer with a free iPhone and a purse full of ticket stubs.***

Luckily, resentment began to take over, so I was spared combustion via empathy. Resentment takes over within Caesar, too, and he starts to put that big brain to use, setting in motion a chain of events that I just have a strange premonition will lead to a dirty Charlton Heston rattling chains around. Most scenes that involved the apes were worth watching, even at the risk of heart failure, but the boring human parts were so bad as to negate them all.

Almost. My heart still does things when I think about sad-eyed monkeys and vengeful gorillas, but without the writing and support to back it up, this is no Wall-E. It’s just Rise of the Planet of the Apes: the movie I can’t believe I was persuaded to see, when really, I knew better.

— ∮∮∮ —

*Although I’m not sure there was anything too subtle about this film at all. Space references, virus stuff -- I figured out what was going on pretty quickly.

** Will he ever learn!?!

*** Mothers and mothers-to-be, take note. I’m currently growing one of those babies you’re always going on about, and I don’t think that it helped the panic attack situation. I’d avoid this movie and watch Victorian miniseries on Netflix instead.

Crazy, Stupid, Love: Be better than you thought you could be.

Susan Howson — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:36:23 +0000

Sometimes a few days lapse between when I see a movie and when I delight you all with my heartwarming analysis of it. That’s often because I need a couple of days to decide how I really feel,* but this practice turns around and bites me when I spend that time thinking increasingly of a descriptive word like “cute.”

Or “Ryan Gosling.”

Or “abs.”

Pretty soon, that one memory has crowded out all of the rest of the film’s details and I’m stuck trying to recreate my initial thoughts. I even bought a special film journal to help me flesh out my gut reaction, but there it lies on my coffee table, as clean and unspoilt as the mind of a newborn babe.

But with Crazy, Stupid, Love, I’m thinking that first-impression journal entry would have been just as one-track as my current line of thinking. Because this comedy is simply, utterly, knock-down, drag-out adorable.

But there are more adjectives I can think of to throw out about this film-- ones that can help us all look past that odd second comma in the title to appreciate a movie for being sweet, poignant, thought-provoking, funny, surprising, and well-done.

It goes like this. Cal (Steve Carell) and his wife, Emily (Julianne Moore), are getting a divorce. Emily’s going through a midlife crisis, but she can hardly be construed as the villain, as her doubts and fears are pretty respectful. Cal falls in with Jacob (Ryan Gosling), a smooth womanizer with a freakishly hot torso and the (correct) attitude that how you dress says something about you. And what he wants Cal’s wardrobe to say about him is that he’s “better than the Gap.”

The whole damn movie is better than its mass-produced Gap-equivalents. Time is given to each of the many characters’ personal struggle, but not so much that it feels slow (although it is quite long), and it never falls into the trap of purchasing cheap laughs with slapstick or PMS jokes. Instead, it’s elegant -- reminiscent of Barefoot in the Park or Kramer vs. Kramer, only maybe not quite so sophisticated. It is by the writer of Fred Claus, after all.

The highlights are two montages of both of the film’s strong male characters learning things about themselves--Cal how to dress like he doesn’t hate himself (the first step in not hating yourself) and Jacob how to connect with another human being (namely Anna, his lady love interest, played by Emma Stone). Correction, the climax of the film might be even better. It’s extremely fun and contained some plot points that I personally didn’t predict. (And I always predict.)

And that’s how Crazy, Stupid, Love, with its stupid comma, keeps it all from becoming too saccharine-- it’s still fun and feels fresh. Like Beginners, the subject of my last review, this film’s characters truly mean well, making them more genuine-feeling than a cardboard cutout of a villain, bent on breaking up the family. This film, too, focuses on finding connections and hanging onto them, connections that mean more than just sex. Even if it’s super-hot sex with Ryan Gosling.

To that end, the film shies away from any really gratuitous sex scenes, but it still entices, and not just because of the torso shots. Give Crazy, Stupid, Love a try. Be better than the Gap. It’s worth it.

*Well, at any rate, it’s clearly not in order to have more time to think up creative, engaging openers.

Beginners: The beginnings of something great.

Susan Howson — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:54:30 +0000

One thing that people always spit indignantly at film lovers (particularly critics) is, “Oh, you just want everything to be an art film!” Untrue, my people! Real film lovers respect every genre, they just want a movie to stand out within its niche. In fact, one of the strongest types of skepticism I feel is the kind that crops up when you’re walking into a theater to see an indie film, fully familiar with its quirky trailer, trying to ignore the sinking feeling you have that the director has fallen into the trap that is so alluring to filmmakers (or writers or musicians or chefs or what have you) of any genre: following a formula that has already been proven to be successful.

We’ll call it, just for ease of identification, the “Garden State Effect.” And for me, Mike Mills’s Beginners trailer sent up some red flags. Maybe it was the cute Jack Russell looking quizzically at a sighing Ewan McGregor and the hints that we’d have to suffer through yet another slog through a thirty-something’s failed relationship memories. Or maybe it was just the fact that I wasn’t wowed by his last hit, Thumbsucker.

I love when trailers don’t do a movie justice!

Beginners turns up its nose at self-pity. Oliver (McGregor), a 38-year-old artist who has just lost his father to cancer, feels lost in a whole lot of ways. He’s lonely, he misses both of his parents, and he wishes he could be more like his dad (played amazingly by Christopher Plummer), who came out of the closet at 75 and took life by the horns for his last remaining years. He meets Anna (Mélanie Laurent) at a costume party, and throughout the evening, they remove various parts of their disguises as they get to know each other better. It’s all very cute.

It’s both difficult and pleasant to figure out the conflict in this movie. Oliver’s present (that is, his growing relationship with Anna) is intercut with his memories of his father’s last years as well as a few of his own childhood. Throughout both of these timelines, I kept expecting some major blowups. Fights, tears, screaming, dramatic glimpses of a doomed couple and fatherly forgiveness.

But the best thing about Beginners is that everyone loves everyone else a whole frigging lot. Oliver’s dad not only calmly and believably intones that he loved Oliver’s mother very much, but he is also interested in exploring the side of himself that he never allowed himself to acknowledge during their 40-plus year marriage. Using his father’s energy, even as a sick man, and his realistic acceptance of his new boyfriend’s shortcomings as an example, Oliver becomes a beginner himself. Where his father was beginning to understand how to be a gay dude, Oliver is beginning to change his attitude about happiness.

Just thinking about it makes me a little misty. And not just because the film is so sweet and real, but because Mills managed to write and direct it in a way that feels fresh and hopeful, not just for other folks dealing with grief and fear...but for those with far less important worries about moviedom in general.

It’s going to sound crazy, but Beginners reminded me a lot of Bridesmaids. Both are great examples of excelling within a genre, and both, albeit in completely different ways, utterly reject wallowing in favor of accepting and enjoying life. Maybe this is 2011 giving pointed looks to some of the sad sack films of the Aughts, a thought made even more curious when you consider that the action of Beginners takes place in 2003.* I didn’t think it was a work of breathtaking genius, but if this type of film is headed in this type of genuine, graceful, and humorous** direction, I”m behind it 100%.

*Though they did have some missteps, in that neither McGregor or Laurent were particularly costumed in a 2003 way. I remember those days, as I’m sure you do too, and I think we can both agree that maybe they did us a service.

**Forgot to mention the talking dog, did I?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 and the Intensity of a Midnight Experience

Susan Howson — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:12:23 +0000

It’s technically possible that you were unaware that the final chapter of the enormously popular Harry Potter films was released last Friday. You might be off saving lives in third world countries or stuck in debt ceiling negotiations or something else important and impactful. But for the rest of us, it’s a hot topic of conversation, whether or not you’re into the Hogwarts Crew. If you’re on Twitter, you probably witnessed an emotional surge of tweets bemoaning the end of an era that’s been quite important to some, followed by the predictable aftershocks of “I couldn’t care less” tweets.*

With or without your support, J.K. Rowling’s adorable cash cow has managed to break every record in the book. Kids are back into reading, movies are imaginative again, everyone’s making money all over the place, what’s not to love?

Hundreds of muggles came out for Movieland’s midnight screening of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, as they did at other movie theaters all over the world. I was there, letting it all sink in. Various Snapes, Sexy Hermiones, and even some stag patronuses (you have some Christmas reindeer antlers, you figure...why not?) -- everyone was there, being all stoked/teary-eyed in the face of their pet series’s grand culmination. General Manager Sean McIntosh told me that they’d sold out all of the 12 theaters they had at their disposal, two in 3D, and that the complex had never seen anything like it. I myself wanted more of a chance to observe the gleeful horde, but Movieland was quite efficient in their crowd-management, and their giant sorting hat put us all into our respective theaters lickety-split.

Having been woefully behind in our HP studies, my moviegoing companion and I had devoted the evening prior to catching ourselves up via a combination of Wikipedia and DVD. I’d read the books several years before, but couldn’t remember much about the last couple massive tomes besides a snake and a lot of kissing.

Turns out, guys, those movies got really good over the years! They, like the books on which they’re based, become more complicated and less cutesy the older Harry gets. He’s a teen now, and he’s moody, but he’s also more aware of the world around him...and better able to handle the challenges it presents. You’ll absolutely need to watch at least the last film (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1) to grok what’s going on in this one, but it’s worth it. The David Yates-directed dual-installment films are well done, to say the least. I think the reason the middle few failed to grab my attention was that as the books got steadily thicker, the films stayed the same length. As a result, the middle movies felt rushed and some of the best details were dropped.

With the luxury of four-plus hours of screentime to devote to the last book, the HP franchise was able to give some of the most enthusiastic fans since Beatlemania the details they deserve. So Harry finally takes on Voldemort with no horcruxes left unturned...or unmentioned.

Things take their natural turn, reaching several satisfying conclusions and delighting my fellow moviegoers intensely. I’ve figured out that the best way to see a movie is to go to a midnight screening, even if you don’t feel too strongly about the film itself. Emotions are higher, everyone’s more excited**...it’s like seeing a live show, and you get to hear fan behind you whispering things like, “Yo, they ain’t shown HAGRID yet!” Even their apologetic laughter during the awkward epilogue was cute. I doubt even the most die-hard fan could find too many excuses for how comical mid-thirties Harry looked. Put 21-year-olds in blazers and trench coats and they look just like us, I guess.

All in all, I recommend the entire series. There’s nothing exactly like Harry Potter, and even if you were long past childhood when that first one hit the bookstores, I bet you’ll find something about it that you like.

*You might remember these from “the Oscars,” “the Super Bowl,” “Lost,” “anything anyone’s excited about,” and, most recently, the “Women’s World Cup.” A curious cultural phenomenon that exists purely to make other people feel bad about themselves, as far as I can tell.

**Although I will say, if you want to see some excited 19 year olds, show them a new Twilight trailer that features that werewolf dude’s abs. Poor Daniel Radcliffe didn’t get nearly as much gasping applause when he took his shirt off. C’est la vie, Harry. Ginny Weasley likes you just the way you are.

Tweets from Last Night: Harry Potter

RVANews staff — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:03:03 +0000

Last night thousands of Richmonders header out to the movies to watch the final Harry Potter movie. Turns out there's not a whole lot to do while standing in line other than tweet! Check out some of the better tweets from last night's spectacle.

Horrible Bosses: We demand, Hollywood supplies

Susan Howson — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:03:21 +0000

Horrible Bosses is a clear attempt to capitalize on the success of The Hangover. That is, a group of adult men (played by Jason Sudeikis, Jason Bateman, and Charlie Day) have a talent for ruining everything they touch while they fumble around town in a near-constant state of sexual panic. The themes are what you think they are, there’s no point going into that, so it’s the jokes that need to be reviewed, right? They’re mildly funny and occasionally actually funny, all delivered with much better comic timing than were those of the same ilk in The Hangover. You’ll see critics calling it a “raunchfest,” which always surprises me, as I didn’t find anything too shocking about the usual litany of dick jokes.*

Well, that’s not quite true, I did find it quite shocking that sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual violence were vehicles for jokes that produced uncontrollable giggles from the teenage dudes behind me.** Charlie Day’s character, Dale, who has clearly never seen Disclosure and therefore doesn’t know that you can win lawsuits about this kind of thing, has the misfortune of having a sexual predator for a boss. His friends don’t really see the problem, because this sexual predator is a hot lady (Jennifer Aniston, an actress whose considerable talent has been wasted on dippy romantic comedies due to so much tabloid exposure that she can’t be taken seriously anymore). “But I’m engaged!” Dale protests, and his friends reluctantly agree that this is somewhat of a stumbling block. She’s then earmarked for destruction, of course, as are the bosses of the other two (Kevin Spacey and Colin Farrell, who both do a pretty impressive job of being evil assholes).

But, the world being what it is, white dudes need help from black ones on certain topics, like crime. Jamie Foxx meets the trio of idiots at “the most dangerous bar in town” (populated by black dudes, many with -- and now’s a good time to cover children’s eyes if they’re reading -- tattoos) and exploits their palpable racist terror to give them some sound advice: “Something or other.”

While the jokes are better than their counterparts in The (Golden-Globe-winning) (!!!) Hangover, according to yours truly, they’re still largely forgettable. As in, I can’t remember them. And recalling those late 90s/early Aughts comedies (see footnotes) has sent me down a rabbit hole of nostalgia. Was it just because those were my own teenage years that I thought Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller flicks were so much funnier? I still remember lines from Billy Madison and Zoolander, but I can’t tell you one memorable moment from a movie I saw last night?

— ∮∮∮ —

It’s naive to think that those movies weren’t also based on a formula that was chosen because of its ability to make money. And I’d like to think that even though films like Horrible Bosses dwell on the same irritating things that everything else in the massively popular genre does, I can still give credit where its due (good directing and acting all around, folks, with the exception of Charlie Day, who abused his high-pitched panic thing far too often). There’s just good, clever comedy,*** and then there’s this movie. And that’s the end of that.

*I interpret this to mean that I’m either younger and more desensitized to grossout stuff, or because I haven’t forgotten Freddy Got Fingered, American Pie, or even There’s Something About Mary. Ahh, the turn of the last century! When we didn’t shy away from a liberal use of bodily fluids!

**They relapsed into these giggles when one got so excited about a joke that he kicked me a bunch in the back of the head in his knee-slapping delight, at which point I said to him, “Dude, you kicked me a bunch in the back of the head,” and the giggles increased. Fellas! Take a note from your older compatriots and use that opportunity to say, “Oh, man, I’m SO sorry!” like a regular person. I’d demand a Richmond Proper about teenagers in general, but I guess they don’t have the wrinkle in their brain yet that allows them to actively seek self-improvement. Who knows how many I kicked a bunch in the back of the head during my own formative years!

***”But where can I see these good, clever comedies?” you ask. My friend, we are in a sad situation here in RVA. My options for new movies that would still be new when this review was published were as follows: Larry Crowne, Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon, Bad Teacher, and the above snoozefest. If you’ll hearken back to the excitement surrounding Movieland’s grand opening, we were promised a steady stream of independent films. Yes, it’s summer, and the options are slightly slimmer, but I’d venture a guess that this goal has dropped off somewhat. And is it their fault? Probably not. We don’t go see enough of them. Theaters book what will make them money, and we want to see Transformers in 3D. And we were all so worried about Westhampton’s imminent demise! So my answer to you is this: go see what you can, rent the rest, and take full advantage of the movie selection in larger cities when you’re there.

The Tree of Life: Bring a book.

Susan Howson — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:48:35 +0000

If you follow the various dramas of film criticism, which I don’t recommend, you’re probably already aware that The Tree of Life, the darling of Cannes, is causing some consternation. Critics everywhere rave over Terrence Malick’s latest achievement, applauding his courage and skill at evoking powerful feelings while tackling overwhelmingly huge questions like, “Where is God? What does He think about us? How did we get here? Where are we on his priority list when there are rings around Jupiter to consider?” A beautiful rendition of heavy stuff, as experienced through the eyes of a child.

The majority of the public just wanted the damn thing to end, and this time, I’m siding with them.

As a good friend of mine says (often and with feeling), “I don't care how beautiful it is, if your film can’t keep me interested, you fail as a storyteller.” It’s no question that Malick, set decorator Jeanette Scott, cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, and everybody else involved with The Tree of Life took great pride in their work. The film is stunning – consisting of quick, unsettling shots that are about half the time linked together and focus mainly on a family living in the South in the 1960s (intercut with really thrilling --- I say that without sarcasm --- shots of natural wonders on our planet and beyond). At first, I completely reveled in what I thought was pure genius. What a smart way to put human beings in perspective, said I to myself, as I compared the relatively insignificant trials of one family with “footage” of various evolutionary developments that must have taken millions of years. Whispered voices asked the tough questions, and I contentedly considered their answers while I gazed at an erupting volcano.

Twenty thousand hours later, I’m still looking at volcanoes and thinking of those same questions, but I’m just not making any progress. The whispered voices continue their inquiries but not loudly enough to drown out the more insistent voices in my head that are telling me to run far, far away.

If The Tree of Life had been a short film, then great. Lots of thumbs up and whatnot. But it was two and a half hours of the same thing --- the same feelings, the same comparisons, the same beautiful devices over and over again. The essential human truth that I had been ready to discover right alongside the filmmakers, I now cared about not at all.

The critics whose “get the hell out of there!” voices also overpowered their “why, look, a pretty, thoughtful film!” voices agree that The Tree of Life is heavy-handed. And it seems difficult to imagine, doesn’t it? A film consisting of montage-like sequences during which very little is explained --- how can that be heavy-handed? It’s the voices, I think. We get what they’re asking pretty quickly, but they just keep on going. And that nature footage…would five minutes of it have sufficed? Then there are seemingly endless series of vignettes in which the mother (Jessica Chastain) continues to be perfect while the father (Brad Pitt) continues to be a jerk. More volcanoes, some hammerhead sharks, then back to summer in the South when your dad yells at you for slamming the door. Poignant...until it’s put on repeat.

While we certainly need careful filmmakers with an eye for detail and a vision that extends beyond blowing up aliens, a good film need not be one that tortures its audience. All that resentment, fatigue, and frustration that you as a filmmaker are building within your viewers will really start to crowd out whatever other feelings you’re attempting to access.* And that’s something a truly talented artist won’t ignore.

*Unless, wait, those WERE the feelings I was supposed to be feeling…in which case, ignore this entire thing. Brilliant job, The Tree of Life!

America: Worst Case Scenario

Susan Howson — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:00:38 +0000

Every year I try to recommend a list of movies that will make you stop and think hard about the good aspects of being an American.* That’s partly because it is demanded of me by editors and partly because I really do feel strongly that America is greater than the sum of our last few questionable decades. Sure, we have embarrassing wingnuts who give us a bad name around the world, but our Constitution has long been a template for other countries who want to explode class hierarchy.

But when a global emergency threatens to wipe out mankind as we know it, will our ironclad Constitution protect us from lasers and/or large, speeding molten rock? Nope, that’s when we’ll send in an elite team (one that almost certainly includes Will Smith) and show the world just why they’re keeping us around. Or at least, that’s what summer blockbusters year after year would have you believe.

The following are movies in which regular men (ahem) save America (and, we assume, the rest of the world, although we don’t waste valuable filmmaking time dwelling on that part) to the delight of a terrified Commander In Chief, grateful public, and usually a girl back home. Watch these patriotic classics again for a boost of explosiony pride. Bombs! We got ‘em!

Deep Impact

Mimi Leder, 1998

Disaster: Enormous asteroid, ensuing tsunamis, panic
Enduring American trait: Family values
President: Morgan Freeman
Solution: Explosions
Statue of Liberty: Toast!

What if an asteroid was about to destroy the world? (Or at least our part of it). What if emergency tunnels were your only hope to survive but you couldn’t get in unless you were young and special? What if you watched this movie in high school and wept uncontrollably, causing one of the most embarrassing moments of your life? Elijah Wood, Tia Leone, Robert Duvall, and a host of others star in this film about making peace with your family before we all die horrible deaths. Luckily, a team of American astronauts sacrifices themselves to blow the asteroid into bits that will just kill off parts of the world while leaving the U.S. Capitol largely intact (phew!). We know this because a calm President Morgan Freeman reassures the survivors in front of the famously American building that, no matter what, we SHALL rebuild!

Armageddon

Michael Bay, 1998

Disaster: Enormous asteroid, panic
Enduring American trait: Grizzliness
President: Stanley Anderson
Solution: Explosions
Statue of Liberty: Busted! (Assumed, it’s never explicitly shown, but the Empire State Building does get its ass kicked)

What if an asteroid was about to destroy the world? What if your movie was the same plot as Deep Impact?? Disney won this round by casting Bruce Willis as the tough, deep-sea oil driller who runs a team of guys with THE EXACT SKILLS NECESSARY to go blow up an asteroid. To keep things emotional, his teammate, Ben Affleck, has the hots for his daughter! So you see, they must succeed! They do, with some sad casualties, and the President is relieved and grateful. It was only 13 years later that we learned that deep-sea oil drilling is actually a lot more likely to cause an extinction event. But don’t think about that, think about how a bunch of blue collar, slow-motion-walking American dudes saved our valiant nation and some other countries.

Independence Day

Roland Emmerich, 1996

Disaster: Alien invaders
Enduring American trait: Saying “Aw, HELL no!” in the face of danger
President: Bill Pullman
Solution: Explosions
Statue of Liberty: Lasered!

The only thing worse than asteroids is aliens, because those bug-eyed bastards are determined to destroy you! Why? Who knows! Everyone has to be as militaristic as we are, I suppose. In the 90s classic Independence Day, President Bill Pullman is wigging out during Earth’s Latest Catastrophe. Fortunately for him, Will Smith has a lot of cinematic experience with this kind of thing, and he’s not afraid to figure out the alien game before beating them at it. Cue fireworks, and...you’re welcome, rest of the world.

Cloverfield

J.J. Abrams, 2008

Disaster: Alien monster lashes out
Enduring American trait: The overwhelming necessity to effing film everything
President: Not sure!
Solution: Abandoning all hope
Statue of Liberty: Decapitated!

OK, so Cloverfield’s America doesn’t exactly save the world, but Lady Liberty’s dramatic death was just too good not to include. Abrams’s much-hyped nod to about a thousand earlier movies can be characterized as having even fewer layers than Independence Day, which is as traumatic a thing as I can think of. In addition, it adds an uncute vertigo aspect, which caused this moviegoer to have to leave the theater early. Wikipedia caught me up on the very few scenes I missed and gave me the information necessary to conclude that this film is one of the few that is a product of an actual genius...and by that I mean whoever was in charge of its mysterious marketing campaign.

Mars Attacks!

Tim Burton, 1998

Disaster: Super cute aliens
Enduring American trait: Exploiting weaknesses
President: Jack Nicholson
Solution: Making fun of other movies
Statue of Liberty: I can’t remember, but I know Congress is pwned mercilessly.

Wash it all down with your reward, Tim Burton’s hilarious Mars Attacks! Lukas Haas, Natalie Portman, and Jack Nicholson all delight in this quirkfest about average Americans saving the day. Playing off all of the above ideas (even if they had yet to be released), Burton makes it ridiculous and keeps it ridiculous. Because there’s no need to get all serious about aliens. They just look so...un-American.

* Well, last year I wrote my own, but you get the drift.

Super 8: A Time Machine of the Highest Order

Susan Howson — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:59:18 +0000

Remember going to the movies in your weird little turtleneck and corduroy pants, seeing that big AMBLIN ENTERTAINMENT logo pop up, and thinking, “This is the apex of excitement.” Only you probably didn’t say anything at all, you probably just looked up at the screen with shining eyes, absently shoving popcorn into your mouth, and letting E.T. mesmerize you.

Super 8 so effectively brings you back to that moment that it’s a little disconcerting. But in a good way -- a way that you hadn’t predicted. Sure, other movies take place in the 70s and 80s (this one is in 1979), but this movie makes you feel as if you yourself are somewhere between those decades, and not just because of film quality or anything like that. It’s because the filmmaking itself is so similar to that which we all loved, the kind where a bunch of adolescent boys (the fat kid, the nerd, the skinny guy with big ears) stumble upon something far too adult for them to handle. Yet, through their amazing kid faculties (the kind we kids absolutely KNEW we all had), they put together more pieces of the mystery than the adults can and end up playing a big role in what happens next. Through it all, their blissfully naive, pubescent dialogue crops up at the unlikeliest of moments, keeping both us and our parents snickering in our puffy jackets.

J.J. Abrams of “Lost” fame wrote and directed Super 8, and like “Lost,” the unusual circumstance around which the action of the film centers comes with so much build-up, that by the time you know the full story, you can’t help but be a little disappointed. Therein lies the single but impossible to ignore flaw in an otherwise truly superb film: fabulous script, killer directing, amazing costuming, scenery, and props...just not a particularly mind-blowing story.

The rest of it, though, is brilliant. Abrams clearly immersed himself in everything Spielberg (well, early Spielberg anyway) before presenting the man himself with a script worthy of E.T.’s accolades. The simple yet proven plot arc was the solid backbone of many of the movies of the 80s, a decade chock full of elegant filmmaking. Super 8 adheres to the formula beautifully, so it’s that much more unnerving to see 2011 special effects when you feel firmly planted in 1983.

But what happens in this singular caper? Well, nothing short of four or five 13-year-olds trying to make a zombie movie on Super 8 film, when a seriously intense train wreck unleashes a mysterious and destructive creature on their small town. Joe, adorably played by Joel Courtney, wrestles with some real-deal family, friendship, romance, and monster issues with admirable aplomb. Meanwhile, the hilariously irrelevant chatter of his pack of friends keep everyone in stitches. There is simply nothing as awkward as a teenage boy, and the Spielberg/Abrams combo captures it with an authenticity that we’d all but forgotten.* And it’s absolutely time to bring it back.

*See preview of Abduction.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Not Really)

Susan Howson — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:00:20 +0000

As always, it’s a dark day for me when Johnny Depp can’t save a movie, especially when that movie is backed by a trilogy of well-made romps that range from pretty great to seriously great. But Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the fourth installment of a series that had already reached a comfortable stopping point, is not entirely unlike one of its own nautical zombies: a reanimated corpse that sluggishly resembles the original, only without any of its vim and/or vigor.

My sister, who has been my fellow unashamed POTC fan since the first iteration came out eight years ago (gasp), leaned over to me during the opening credits and asked, “Quick, does anyone even remember what happened in the last one?” Nope! In my memory, it was just a convoluted yet still enjoyable tangle of dreadlocks, cutlasses, and Orlando Blooms. Luckily, On Stranger Tides doesn’t ask you to recall a single moment from any of the previous films (except for a few “Believe me, I’m PRETTY familiar with danger,” type of lines that the main characters keep saying to make us laugh knowingly). Capt. Jack Sparrow finds himself on a quest to discover the Fountain of Youth, along with the semi-supernatural Captain Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and his seaworthy daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz), who happens to be one of Jack’s jilted lovers. Unluckily for all, both the Spanish and the English are also after the Fountain, with the typically clueless English navy getting a wooden leg-up on the competition with the help of their new captain, a “reformed” Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush).

Well, the rest is....what it is. Obstacles present themselves (for instance, you have to have a mermaid’s tear to activate the Fountain’s waters, duh), and Sparrow gets himself into lots of scrapes. The whip-smart script and genius timing was what carried the last three films (particularly the first), but in this one, the waters are a little diluted. A lot diluted, actually. The special effects are decent,* the action scenes entertaining, and the jokes smile-inducing, but nothing went out of its way to surprise, delight, or intrigue (besides an adorable cameo during the opening chapter).

In fact, even JD’s Sparrow was a little subdued, or perhaps he needs a frustrated Keira Knightley or a noble Orlando Bloom to really help him reach his former eccentric heights. Those two are missing, sadly, and though Cruz storms around admirably, her character is one-dimensional and just plain uninteresting. Blackbeard, however, has the makings of an interesting fellow, but we don’t linger long enough with him to get a sense of who he is and why he’s so diabolical.**

Pirates of the Caribbean: Heave Ho or Whatever is not a bad movie, just a forgettable one. And, up against its sometimes-brilliant predecessors, its sail never feels fully unfurled. Although, for a movie based on a Disney ride, maybe our expectations are just a little too high.

Don’t worry, JD, we’ll always have the DVDs. It’s still, for the most part, a pirate’s life for me.

* I have to say, I did not expect vampiric mermaids to scare me as much as they did.
** The Wikipedia article, though, is very enlightening, especially that fancy shmancy picture.

Bridesmaids: This is happening.

Susan Howson — Wed, 18 May 2011 16:00:35 +0000

Frankly, Bridesmaids shocked me, but only because it was the best comedy I've seen in years. Folks, I simply dare you to watch this film, then re-watch that damn Hangover movie again. THEN come back and talk to me about a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted comedy.

The joint child of Kristen Wiig and fellow writer Annie Mumolo, Bridesmaids breaks ground in the way that Tina Fey's Mean Girls did way back when. These women aren't writing scripts carefully designed to follow a story arc proven to make the most money from other women. These aren't chick flicks. These are whip-smart comedies with characters that are relatable beyond one thin personality trait, who interact with their friends in ways that are flawed sometimes but painfully (and often hilariously) realistic. And best of all, these are women who don't treat men as bumbling idiots who are only good for one thing (usually fixing stuff), and the movie's happiness doesn't depend on the right coupling. Instead, it stems from accepting something that Megan, the best character in the whole film (and brilliantly played by Melissa McCarthy*) says...you are the problem, and you are also the solution.

See, Annie (played by Wiig herself) has a best pal named Lillian (Maya Rudolph). When Lillian gets engaged and Annie's in the maid-of-honor hotseat, everyone's strengths and weaknesses are thrust to the forefront. Lillian falls into the nearly impossible to avoid wedding trap: no matter how cool of a bride you are, it's hard to resist the wedding industry's pitch that this next six months, two years, however long it takes for you to plan that dang event...this time is all about you. For vulnerable Annie, who's used to wallowing in what she feels is bad luck, it's not a great time to take on the wrangling of four very different bridesmaids while her support system of a best friend is distracted by tulle and flowers. Throw Lillian's newest friend, the affluent, elegant, and charming Helen (Rose Byrne) into the mix, and Annie's fragile psyche doesn't have a prayer.

Her insecurity is so crippling that she can't even recognize true friends in the other women she meets or the men she dates. Everyone thinks they're better than her, every friendly date is just pitying her, and nobody cares that she's on a downward spiral. Sounds like a bummer, I know, but I haven't gotten to the part where I talk about how every single minute of Bridesmaids is packed with seriously funny jokes (of both the witty and fart variety), physical humor (of both the arriving awkwardly on a horse and throwing up on someone else's head variety), and probably improvised exchanges between Wiig and various other cast members. These bits go on for ages but never get dull, due to the comic talent that's put Wiig at the forefront of SNL for the last however many years.

It's hard to see Wiig staying with NBC for much longer, after the success this movie will undoubtedly have. Director Paul Feig, of beloved Freaks and Geeks fame, clearly made a wise decision to linger on Wiig and McCarthy's very different performances, letting their momentum steer the picture. (When you get to the scene of the plane ride to Vegas, you'll know exactly what I mean.) It's their boat, he's just helping to hoist the sail.

Wiig, Mumolo, and Tina Fey aren't the only talented female screenwriters out there, of course. It's a matter of changing the precedent to allow raunchy comedies to be the domain of both genders.

But now that I think about it, my advice to the moviegoer is to ignore everything I've just said and instead just allow yourself to enjoy watching a skinny, awkward lady destroy the frilliest bridal shower ever imagined. Because really, whether you want to muse on the pleasant implications or not, all you need to know is that Bridesmaids is, simply, the best comedy since Mean Girls. And I'm thrilled to predict that it won't hold the title for long.

* You may remember Melissa as the completely adorable Sookie in Gilmore Girls. If so, you are in for...a treat? I think?

Due Date: So it's come to this

RVANews

Wrath of the Titans: the Titan is wroth

Why you should see this movie

Why you should stay home

Footnotes

The Hunger Games: may cause mass weeping

Why you should see this movie

Why you should stay home

Footnotes

21 Jump Street: adorably adolescent

Why you should see this movie

Why you should stay home

Footnotes

John Carter: A man walks into a Barsoom

Why you should see this movie

Why you should stay home

Footnotes

The Artist: everything you ever wanted to know

Why you should see this movie

Why you should stay at home

Footnotes

The Secret World of Arrietty: girls can have adventures too

Why you should see this movie

Why you should stay at home

Footnotes

The 84th Academy Awards: RVANews picks

Moneyball

The Help

Midnight in Paris

A Better Life

Margin Call

Warrior

The Picks

Best Picture

Actor in a Leading Role

Actress in a Leading Role

Actor in a Supporting Role

Actress in a Supporting Role

Directing

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

Writing (Original Screenplay)

Chronicle: don’t EVER give teenagers superpowers

Why you should see this movie

Why you should stay at home

Footnotes

Shame: the least sexy sex movie ever

Why you should see this movie

Why you should stay at home

Footnotes

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy: it’s not about a soldier/spy

Why you should see this movie

Why you should stay home

Footnotes

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Sweden’s Dän Brøwn

Footnotes

Mission: Impossible–Ghost Protocol, A mission none too shabby

Susan Year Itch: Scrooges and Grinches

The Muppets: still got it

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1: A study in efficiency

The Ides of March: Politics with that special Clooney touch

Drive: This is not your average car chase

Contagion: Cover your mouth, please

They’re going baaaaaaaack!

Grease (1978)

Rebel Without a Cause (1955)

Footloose (1984)

Veronica Mars (2004) (tv)

Mean Girls (2004)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: Look, it’s August, OK?

Crazy, Stupid, Love: Be better than you thought you could be.

Beginners: The beginnings of something great.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 and the Intensity of a Midnight Experience

Tweets from Last Night: Harry Potter

Horrible Bosses: We demand, Hollywood supplies

The Tree of Life: Bring a book.

America: Worst Case Scenario

Super 8: A Time Machine of the Highest Order

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Not Really)

Bridesmaids: This is happening.

Related