Observe and Report

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:32:29 -0400

Grade: C-

I apologize for how long it look me to write this review but I’m glad I took the extra time to fully digest Observe and Report and gain some perspective on the experience. If you asked me what I thought of the movie immediately after exiting the theater I may have graded it in the ‘B’ range. I laughed quite a bit throughout, which is usually the mark of a successful comedy. But if you ask me right now, what was funny about it or recite one of the jokes, I’d be hard pressed to give you an answer.

It is that type of easy, forgettable humor that composes the majority of the script. And while on the surface it appears to be another stoner comedy, Jody Hill secretly wants to do more... he just can’t quite pull the trigger. And whenever he attempts to blend genres or insert a moment of personal drama, it comes across as jarring (at best).

Rogen stars as a mall security guard attempting to catch a flasher who has been tormenting women in the parking lot. He is also contending with a series of robberies, a police detective encroaching on his turf, a love interest played by (Anna Faris and his own mental stability.

When Rogen is swearing profusely and beating up skateboarders, the movie works. It’s fast, fun and has a killer soundtrack. When he is wrestling with his bi-polar disorder, tending to his alcoholic mother and being psychologically evaluated, the movie subverts the audience’s expectations but not in a good way. It’s in a horribly awkward, “Is this supposed to be funny? Can I laugh? How long will this scene last?” way.

If done properly, these thematic elements might have elevated Observe and Report above the typical fare. As is, they make it wholly unrewatchable. (I love prefixes almost as much as making up words.)

BOTTOM LINE: Instantly forgettable comedy mixed with misplaced drama make this Seth Rogen vehicle a nonstarter.

Duplicity

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:12:20 -0400

Grade: A-

Tony Gilroy wrote and directed this spy comedy about two former espionage experts attempting to pull off a major con job in the private sector. Gilroy’s name may sound familiar because his directorial debut, Michael Clayton, garnered rave reviews and more than a couple Oscar nominations. Clayton was easily one of my favorite films of 2007 and Duplicity is now one of my favorite films of 2009.

Gilroy once again focuses his story on the cutthroat world of business and corporate moguls. In this case, the always fantastic Paul Giamatti and Clayton veteran Tom Wilkinson run rival corporations in the home pharmaceutical industry (think Johnson & Johnson). Meanwhile, stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen play former spies (of the C.I.A. and MI6 respectively) with a complicated past who now find themselves reunited working counterintelligence for the companies.

Going too into depth summarizing the story would ruin the experience so I’ll leave it at that. Sufficed to say, Gilroy’s writing is as sharp as ever and the constantly twisting and turning story proves both smart and rewarding. Another part of the film’s success is its editing. Pieces of the present are intersected with moments from the past, blending together seamlessly like chapters in a novel. It’s not linear and that is to the film’s advantage. Gilroy tells us exactly what he wants us to know, when he wants us to know it. Trying to put the puzzle together keeps the film constantly engaging.

Owen gives a fantastic performance in a role that, just like the film itself, is smart, charming and always entertaining. Roberts is no slouch either but she does feel more dispensable. She could have been replaced with someone a little younger, with a little more charisma and the movie would have been better served.

But as is, the film just works. When it is firing on all cylinders it is devilishly clever and thoroughly absorbing. By the end I found myself completely caught up in the action and on the edge of my seat waiting to see if my predictions were accurate. Now that’s a feeling every good thriller should evoke.

BOTTOM LINE: Pure enjoyment for the crime and/or spy movie buffs out there.

Knowing

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:10:04 -0400

Grade: C

Remember the movie Signs? M. Night Shyamalan took a global nightmare and depicted it from the perspective of one family on a farm in Pennsylvania. But more than that, the film is a conversation between Mel Gibson’s character and God. He once was a priest who has since lost faith after his wife’s passing and the supernatural events in the film lead him back to the belief that there are no coincidences.

I bring it for two reasons. 1. I love that movie and will find any excuse to talk about it. 2. Nicolas Cage’s new film Knowing is undeniably a knockoff of it. Knowing attempts to rework the same concepts that succeeded in Signs but portray them on a larger scale. How does it stack up? Well, I’d give it higher marks in the visuals category but the content isn't quite there.

Nicolas Cage plays an MIT professor who, like Gibson, is a single parent after the passing of his wife. When his son is given a letter that has been kept in a school time capsule for fifty years, Cage winds up examining it. The letter is nothing more than a double-sided page filled with numbers. But Nicolas Cages looks at it with a very confused, thinking-to-himself-the-way-Nicolas-Cage-always-does expression and he spots a pattern. The numbers are dates of disasters followed by the number of people killed during them. And the last three dates listed have yet to occur... cue orchestra swell.

Some more discovers are made about the document I won't spoil here and the film goes on to investigate both the past of the little girl who wrote it and Cage’s rocky relationship with his father... who just so happens to be a Pastor. None of these emotional touches ring true and the story goes from bad to worse when a mysterious blond man begins stalking Cage’s son.

The basic ‘End of the World’ plot and how knowing about future disasters might affect someone is solid enough material for a feature film. But Instead of sticking to its strengths, Knowing bites off more than of can chew by adding a nagging B-plot that provides little more than eye rolls and sighs. The visceral impact of the exceptional disaster scenes make every lull in the action feel that much more stale.

From a technical standpoint the visuals are top notch, but the accompanying sound mix needs work. I know big scenes require big sound but pushing my ears to the verge of bleeding is unacceptable.

In the end Knowing is your typical disaster movie with a twist of sci-fi. It sure can pack a punch but its successes are leveled out by its over-the-top plot twists and mediocre performances.

BOTTOM LINE: With the exception of its impressive disaster set pieces, Knowing falls into the all too familiar category of ‘good but not great.’

Watchmen

Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:14:55 -0500

Grade: B+

Right off the bat I’ll tell you: I did in fact read the graphic novel on which this film is based.

Movies adapted from another source material, be it a book, play, or in this case, graphic novel, always make my life hell when it comes to writing a review. One the one hand, if I’m familiar with the source material, I generally am thrilled with how the film brings it to life and am thankful I read the original because of the extra insight it provides. If I’m not familiar with what a film is based on, and I don’t understand it, I generally rail against it and go on a tirade claiming the film should be a stand-alone product and shame on the filmmakers. In this case, I side with the former (as expected).

Director Zack Snyder walks a fine line in his retelling of the most celebrated graphic novel of all time. He takes a very rich novel (once called, ‘unfilmable’) and translates it, almost frame by frame, to the screen in a manner that is sure to satisfy fans, while simultaneously welcoming newcomers. Screenwriters David Hayter and Alex Tse did a fantastic job parsing down such a dense piece of literature and leaving not only the necessities, but most of the colorful details as well.

The story revolves around an alternate 1985 in which Richard Nixon is still president after repealing term limits and real people dress up in costumes to fight crime. The costumed hero phenomenon began in the fifties, and continued until Nixon outlawed vigilantism and heroes with the Keane Act. Now, former heroes are coping with living in a world that not only doesn’t want them, but one that is on the verge of nuclear annihilation that they can’t do anything about it. Meanwhile, one man caught in a scientific experiment actually is a truly super superhero but has become detached from humans and their silly emotions.

In a way, capturing the soul and nuance of a graphic novel and accurately translating it to the screen is a wonderful cinematic achievement... as well as one of the film’s pitfalls. The comic already feels so alive on its own, with each brilliant illustration drawing you further and further into the story, that simply slapping that on a screen feels almost redundant. Having read the comic only a few months ago and with it still lingering in my mind, I couldn’t help but feel a bit of “been there done that” during the film.

While it’s impossible for me to put myself in the shoes of someone who hasn’t read the book and then watched the film, I imagine it’s a bit more exciting and fresher than my experience was. However, I’m also guessing that the first two acts and their numerous flashbacks would leave a newcomer struggling to connect the dots and get it all straight before the finale.

Graphic novel aside, the film itself is truly a sight to behold. It is dripping with style much like Snyder’s pervious work 300. He puts his signature look and vision to more mature use here... for the most part. He regrettably includes yet another unnecessarily elongated sex scene and some gratuitous nudity that serves only to distract and cause the audience to snicker instead of focus on the content of the scene.*

Those minor qualms aside, visually the film is constantly stunning. One thing Snyder has down pat is atmosphere and the ability to immerse. You will lose yourself during this 2.5+ hour ordeal and you won’t mind one bit. It is thoroughly entertaining with plenty of exquisitely executed action sequences peppered throughout.

Holding Watchmen back from being the masterpiece everyone hoped it would be are the performances. Billy Crudup plays a realistically detached Dr. Manhattan and Jackie Earle Haley stands head and shoulders above everyone else, as he inhabits the character of Rorschach. On the other hand, Patrick Wilson is a merely serviceable Nite Owl and Malin Akerman struggles to keep up while playing the Silk Spectre. She is out of her league and it shows. The only performance worse is that of her character’s mother, portrayed by Carla Gugino. A film this big in scope requires an ensemble cast up for the job and this one doesn’t quite make the cut.

I also question some of Snyder’s music choices. I understand most of the songs he chose were taken directly from their references within the source material, but seeing a song title mentioned on the page is different from having a beautiful scene squashed by the overly loud opening notes of Hendrix’s ‘All Along The Watchtower.’ And I think we need to pass some kind of legislation banning the use of ‘Sound of Silence’ in a feature film ever again. That song has met its quota.

In the end my gripes with the film are nothing given its enormity and the amount of things it does right. Does it bring Watchmen to the big screen faithfully? Yes. Is it accessible for anyone to watch and enjoy? Yes. Is the action second to none? Yes. Does the transitive property hold true that because it’s the best graphic novel of all time, Watchmen is also the best graphic novel-based movie of all time? I wouldn’t go that far just yet.

BOTTOM LINE: A fantastic rendition of a phenomenal graphic novel that is worthy of your attention, even though it’s not the be all end all of comic book movies as Warner Bros. may have hoped.

*I understand it’s more “realistic” to keep Dr. Manhattan nude, but during scenes in which he is shot close up he magically has black underwear... why not just put those on him all the time? It would at least be consistent.*

The Wrestler

Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:51:30 -0500

Grade: A

Every once in a while a human-interest story comes along that sticks with you. Whether it’s something you see on 60 Minutes or hear on This American Life or catch on the nightly news. The kind of story that lodges itself in your memory and you find yourself reciting it to others frequently whenever a related subject is discussed. Most of the time, this occurs because it’s so heart-wrenching that you just can’t let it go.

Darren Aronofsky’s masterpiece, The Wrestler, is such a story.

The Wrestler focuses on Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson, an old wrestler who was a celebrity during his prime in the 80’s. Now he’s still wrestling but he’s stuck doing smaller gigs and ‘Legends of Wrestling’ autograph sessions. In addition to his combat in the ring, he’s constantly battling injuries, poverty and loneliness. With his daughter wanting nothing to do with him, The Ram is left with but one friend: a stripper named Cassidy.

Aronofsky tells the tale of The Ram with such grace, fluidity and truth that all documentary makers should take notice. He regularly uses behind the back tracking shots in order to put us in the shoes of his subject. But what makes it work aren’t just his stylistic choices, but his casting ones.

Mickey Rourke has taken Hollywood by storm with his performance of The Ram and with good reason. He has won every acting award handed out so far this year and if the Academy has any good sense or judgment (which is never a safe bet) he’ll take home the Oscar later this month. He is simply mesmerizing in this film, and frankly, he has to be. I noticed a grand total of maybe a minute and a half in this film where he is not on screen.

But it’s the authenticity of the film that makes it a classic. It perfectly encapsulates not only the details of the sport of wrestler but of life itself. The drama is so lifelike and the characters are so believable that I found myself completely absorbed by it. I can still remember with detail almost every single scene after just one viewing. That’s how much it spoke to me.

I know at this point I’m just gushing but The Wrestler really was a seminal moment in my movie watching career and I needed to express it. Now go experience it for yourself!

***Quick warning, this movie is not for the squeamish. Wrestling may be fake and the outcomes predetermined, but the damage inflicted on the human body (especially during a hardcore match) is very real.***

BOTTOM LINE: The fact that this film isn’t nominated for ‘Best Picture’ is criminal. A must-see.