Monday, March 30, 2009

Knowing

http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/knowing_airplane_crash_nicolas_cage_still.jpg
***1/2 Stars

Before I begin any sort of review or analysis on Knowing, the most important I can tell you is this: AVOID ANY SPOILERS BEFORE SEEING THE FILM. The best way to experience Knowing is not knowing anything beforehand. Let's try and point out the irony here shall we?

Alex Proyas's (Dark City, I, Robot) stylishly directed apocalyptic thriller is the first truly pleasant surprise of 2009. Nicholas Cage gives a solid Nicholas Cage like performance as John Koestler, a MIT professor who stumbles across a startlingly discovery...

In 1959, a student named Lucinda Embry of a Lexington, Massachusetts Elementary School, buried a sequence of numbers in the school's time capsule that could be a possible prediction of the future's cataclysmic events. Now, fifty years later (in the present day), John and his son Caleb are attending the ceremony to unveil that capsule. Caleb is handed the sequence in an envelope marked in his name. That following evening, John puts him to bed, pops open a liter of booze, and heads down to his study to analyze the sequence. He soon discovers that the order of the numbers match every global disaster of the past half century, in perfect sequence...

Too big to think about? Too preposterous to believe? Well, if you are judging the film on this premise and its mediocre theatrical trailer, then you are way off on where Knowing is going to take you. I am delighted to say that this film is a truly mind-blowing experience, one that pushes all the limits of the science-fiction genre.

I have discussed this film with several people, from elements regarding Cage's performance (alright, if you hate Cage as an actor than you might want to stay away) Proyas intense direction, and the controversial ending. Some enjoyed it, but most found it laughable due its overseriousness. While I admit that Knowing has some awkward moments and many under-written characters, the notion that it comes across as too serious doesn't sit well with me. When dealing with the potential horror of a global disaster and threats against your child's life, the term "overseriousness" should be deemed irrelevant. Are people mad that Knowing leaves audiences asking questions rather than receiving answers?

We live in a cause and effect society. People not only want answers to everything, people NEED answers to everything. Maybe that's why Knowing has been dubbed as a critical disappointment (although props to Roger Ebert for his usual honesty and personal beliefs in his four star review of the film). But ask John Koestler if receiving all the answers to the world was a good thing. He may tell you that knowing isn't everything...

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

I Love You, Man

-Jason Segal (left) and Paul Rudd (right) are the ultimate comedic duo in I Love You, Man.

***1/2 Stars

When it comes to grading Apatow flicks (although you'd never suspect that Apatow had nothing to do with this one unless you checked the end credits) I feel like sometimes I grade on a curve. And perhaps I Love You, Man really is only a three-star movie. But when it comes to these "Apatow" flicks, today's ultimate zeitgeist comedies, maybe grading on a curve is acceptable (especially in comparisons to other comedies being released today: Miss March, The Love Guru, any Jason Friedberg/Aaron Seltzer collaboration). I Love You, Man may have a sitcom like premise (a guy goes on man-dates to find a best friend/best man before his wedding) but the story never falls into formula and the jokes are rapid-fire.

According to the new Entertainment Weekly, Paul Rudd is "the most lovable movie star on the planet". At first, I felt that statement was a bit premature, but think about it. Who on the planet doesn't love Paul Rudd? The man's presence in any film has that instant feeling of comedic-gratification. After making a career on supporting and co-starring roles, Rudd steps into the spotlight with I Love You, Man, the most refreshing comedy of the new year.

Rudd plays Peter Klavin, a sweet and lovable man who rightfully deserves the dreamgirl he is engaged to. Rashida Jones plays the lucky woman Zooey, whose man's only problem is that he puts too much effort into his relationship causing him to lose any chance of long-term friendships. Every guy knows another guy like this. The one who ditches you to hang out with their girlfriend time after time again. Now the instant reaction for a guy is that he must be "whipped" by his girlfriend. Why else would he spend so much time with her? If it was up to him he would be acting like a jerk and making raunchy jokes with his buddies at lame poker game nights. Right? Wrong. It's 2009. Acting with this description is so 1997.

Alright, I admit. There are many cases where guys will ditch their friends for their girl too many times. That can be annoying and frustrating in the rules of friendship. But this is exactly why I Love You, Man is a strikingly relevant comedy, because it has the ability to swing this notion to more mature situations. Behind every raunchy joke and vulgar scenario are important topics being covered that should translate to any guy willing to admit the one thing we socially can't: You don't always have to act like "a guy" to prove that you are a guy.

After many failed attempts to find a buddy, Peter meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel) who appears to be the perfect guy-guy for any guy to hang out with (wow, how many times have I said guy in this review?). He is smart and witty, who mixes these qualities with sex jokes and pick-up lines. Over time, Peter tries to turn himself into a "guy" (there it is again) to fit in, but he doesn't realize that a true friendship forms between him and Sydney when he acts like himself, the person his fiance, family, and new best friend have grown to love. Who better to play that lovable person than "the most lovable movie star on the planet"? With a hilarious supporting cast (notably Jon Favreau, Jaime Pressly, Adam Samberg, and J.K Rollins) I Love You, Man is another worthy, Non-Judd Apatow addition to the Judd Apatow collection. You will love it, man.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Two Lovers

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Two_Lovers/two_lovers_movie_image_gwyneth_paltrow_and_joaquin_phoenix.jpg
***1/2 Stars

In a rather unorthodox way, I was hoping Two Lovers would be disappointing. I was wishing Joaquin Phoenix's performance would be sub-par and self-arrogant. But of course that was not the case. Two Lovers is actually one of Phoenix's strongest and most impressive performances ever. And that frustrates me because the man is apparently done with acting forever.

So with this Catch-22 situation, I had to gather my thoughts, reconnect them to the actors and their characters, and somehow understand why this film wasn't a wide release for all audiences to see. This is a truly great film that haunts anyone whose ever experienced the potential dark-side of love.

Phoenix plays Leonard Kraditor, a depressed and heartbroken man who moves back in with his parents after a recent breakup. An "aspiring photographer" (although ironically enough, it's one of those clear cases where aspiration is no where to be found), Leonard is unsure of where his life is leading him to. The opening scene, both beautifully shot and tragically acted, is a clear sign of Leonard's depression. He is casually walking on a boardwalk when out of nowhere, he throws himself off the side and into the water. He floats underwater for several moments. After realizing he is not ready to die, he swims back to the top, gets pulled out by a few kind-hearted on-lookers, and doesn't even have the curiosity to say thank you on his on terms. He then goes back to his parents' house, still soaked and still miserable.

When he gets home, his parents see him dripping with water. He quickly rushes into his room without any explanation. His mother Ruth (a perfectly subdued performance by Isabella Rossellini) turns to his father Reuben (Moni Moshonov) with instant concern. "I think he did it again," she says to him, with that mother-like tone. Director James Gray explains to us Leonard's entire past with only five minutes of running time. These are the strongest scenes in the film, but the acts that follow rarely let up.

The movie is called Two Lovers, so we know that eventually Leonard will have...two lovers. Played strongly by Gwyneth Paltrow and especially Vinessa Shaw (who has the least amount of screen time, yet steals every scene she is in) Leonard hobbles back and forth from his possible future wife Sandra (Shaw) and his lustful desires with Michelle (Paltrow). Two Lovers has a cat-and-mouse like ring to it, only without, you know, the characters having any real motivation to do anything.

And this surprised me in many ways. A 110-minute film about depressing people (minus Sandra) doing depressing things, in a depressing setting, leading to depressing conclusions. Painful right? Wrong. Somehow, the film kindles with spirit and sparks boundless charisma both on and off the screen. James Gray's strongest effort yet has Joaquin's most daring performance in a film that deserves to be recognized as more than just Phoenix's final on-screen appearance (you know, before he went all Eminem on us). Two Lovers will hit you where it hurts.

If you plan on seeing this film with a date, enter with caution. You won't leave Two Lovers with that feeling of sunshine and rainbows. In fact, I don't even remember this film having any scenes where the sun actually shines. I guess we now know what it feels like to live in Seattle.


Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Coraline

http://geekgirlchic.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/coraline.jpg
***1/2 Stars

One of the most imaginatively abstract animated films this side of The Nightmare Before Christmas is here. And wouldn't you know it, it is helmed by the very same director. Coraline is a wonderfully fresh and off-beat experience that pushes the boundaries of every tool it chooses to use. Henry Selick, I'm hoping from now on to see you more than a few times per decade.

Dakota Fanning is perfectly cast as the title character Coraline, a young girl living at the Pink Palace (a housing complex in the middle of nowhere) with her parents who forced her to move there and leave the town she grew up in. On the brink of insanity due to extreme boredom, Coraline ventures around her new home in search of an adventure. Well that, or just something to pass the time. She befriends a boy named Wybie Lovat (Robert Bailey Jr.) a strange young boy who lives with his grandmother and tells Coraline past legends of the Pink Palace and the inmates living among them. Wybie has a black cat who voyeuristically follows him around the complex. This cat has that all-knowing presence where it has the answers to everything, but not the strength to bring them into question on its own.

One day, Coraline tumbles upon a small door in her living room. Naturally, like any young spirit, she urges to venture through it. "What's behind this door?" is the universal force behind Coraline's imagination.

She opens the door and heads into another world. What is this world? At first glance, it looks like the Pink Palace. But this new world has a twist. It seems like this new world is everything Coraline dreams the Pink Palace should be. Her Mom and Dad are now very fun, becoming great cooks with happy spirits, and willing to do anything Coraline asks. What Coraline will fail to see is that this is all a trap, one that could keep her locked in this world forever. While it all sounds lovely at first, things turn for the worst. This new world demands all inhibitors to lose their souls and remain confined in the compounds of Coraline's "new mother" and her evil rules to live by.

There is no reason why Coraline shouldn't be nominated for Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars. Note to the Academy: Do not punish this film because of its release date! Coraline is rich with flavor, alive with excitement, and layered with the substance created by the work of a born artist. Henry Selick has an extremely gifted eye for the future in the maturity and bewilderment of animated motion pictures.

Catching up with Netflix

http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/behind-the-sun-DVDcover.jpg
**** Stars
(2001)
A beautifully shot film that unfolds as a metaphor of re-discovering both social and personal innocence.



http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Visitor_The/the_visitor_movie_poster.jpg
***1/2 Stars
(2008)
Richard Jenkins gives the performance of a lifetime in this small-gem of a film about a man who befriends two married illegal immigrants. The story tackles important themes surrounding America's "national security" (who honestly knows what that means anymore?) The plot unfolds with the message that racism has yet to be resolved and now is the time to look behind the curtain to discover the truth. Jenkins, you deserve you're nomination to the fullest.


http://www.filmcatcher.com/uploads/img/posts/cityofmen-poster-big.jpg
(2007)
*** Stars
Clearly inferior to its masterful predecessor (City of God), but still an interesting character study about life in the chaotic brutality of Rio De Janeiro.


http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/elite_squad_ver3.jpg
(2007)
*** Stars
The word "brutal" reeks throughout this powerful piece of cinema. It will shake you to your very core.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/da/Thebridge-poster.jpg/200px-Thebridge-poster.jpg
(2006)
***1/2 Stars
Easily one of the most devastating documentaries I have ever seen, The Bridge examines the Golden Gate Bridge as a tool for victims of depression to end their lives. During 2004, filmmaker Eric Steel interviews the friends and families of the victims, recalls on-lookers who witnessed the suicides first-hand, and captures actual footage of 19 unfortunate souls who are seen falling to their potential death. As a metaphorical crossing between life and death, The Bridge is an unforgettable experience, one so sad and powerful that it buries you deep inside an ocean of painful reflection.


http://thecia.com.au/reviews/m/images/man-on-wire-poster-1.jpg
(2008)
**** Stars
Poetically, this is one of the most beautiful and uplifting documentaries ever made. Man on Wire is a gift from cinematic heaven, the story about Philippe Petit who in 1974 tight-roped the World Trade Center towers in New York City. Reenacted and and retold wonderfully, this is THE film under the radar that you simply do not want to miss. (Man on Wire won the Academy Award for Best Documentary at this year's 81st Academy Awards.)

Friday, March 06, 2009

Watchmen

http://sector24.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/watchmen1-s.jpg
***1/2 Stars

To get to the point (because that's what needs to be said) Watchmen the movie is not the graphic novel. However, for a graphic novel that is almost impossible to adapt to film, Zack Snyder's Watchmen is the best you will get.

On that note, this is probably a three-star movie. But I have to give the extra half star because I don't see how this film could be any stronger (minus a few issues that only those who have read the novel would pick up on) when relating to the source material. For an almost three hour movie, Watchmen moves like a streak.

For those who are virgins to Watchmen, the one thing you should know before the film is this: It is not 300 or The Dark Knight. The only relevance it has to those two films is that it's directed by 300's Zack Snyder and it has superheroes. That's just the marketing campaign to sell tickets. What you should get out of Watchmen is a richly visual experience with some great performances and a wonderful addition to the advancement of graphic novels. On a rather personal taste, and others have agreed, the opening credits to the film is probably one of the best opening credit sequences I have ever seen. Introducing the characters and story to Bob Dylan's The Time's They Are A-Changin' is like dipping the formulaic layers of the film industry into hot lava and telling them to shove-it.

The plot is set in an alternate 1980's universe, where Nixon is in his fifth-term and America is at war with the Soviet Union. On the brink of World War III, The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a member of the Watchmen, is murdered. This begins a conspiracy that could spark the beginning of the end of the superheroes and the entire world. "Maybe someone's picking off costume heroes, so they'll be no one in the way to stop it," says Rorschach (the perfectly cast Jackie Earl Haley) the most heartbreaking character of the group. His sad state of living and disturbing past makes him question everyone around him, including people on his side.

The only superhero that has "real" or "actual" powers is Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), formerly Jon Osterman, who has the power to control or destroy the world in a matter of moments. He sees everything from an objective standpoint. This allows him to make decisions that will benefit those who can't see the big picture, but it blinds him from the importance of loyalty.

Even at a three hour runtime, Watchmen has a hard time exploring each character. That's why I believe Snyder chose to adapt the movie faithfully to the novel. And when I mean faithfully I mean FAITHFULLY. This is almost a frame-by-frame adaptation (minus the Tales of the Black Freighter and other minor details) of the graphic novel. Viewers will look at this two different ways: 1.) It is too faithful and none of the characters have the ability to breathe on their own and 2.) How is it possible to change a graphic novel that is unfilmable to begin with? Dark, complex, and visually unforgettable, Watchmen is a richly fulfilling web of layered substance that challenges its participants to ignore its narrative structure and enter a realm of unexplored chaos.

I can't say that I'm not a little disappointed. In the back of my mind, I was thinking the same as everyone else. I hoped for a Dark Knight like-experience (not the style, but the caliber) pumped on excessive amounts of steroids. In many ways it does deliver, but for those who have read the graphic novel, there are moments that feel like Zack Snyder's Watchmen is just the cliff-notes for those who aren't willing to dive into the book. While I understand this notion, I prefer, and will not choose to accept it.