Thursday, April 23, 2009

State of Play

***1/2 Stars

State of Play is an excitingly taut and intelligent thriller. Russell Crowe leads an all-star cast in Kevin Macdonald's journalistic take on the corruption and scandals of the present day. Crowe plays Cal McAffrey, an old-school Washington Globe reporter on the brink of unveiling a breaking news story involving his old college roommate, Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) and his romantic involvement with a young intern. After the intern's apparent "suicide" at a metro station, Collins is thrown into the center of the media's attention, being labeled as the it-scandal of the moment, but things extend much deeper than what is scene from the public's eye.

Enter Cal McAffrey. McAffrey, along side Della Frye (Rachel McAdams) a young and eager Internet blogger, enter the underground workings of the judicial and legal conspiracies in an attempt to untangle a story that, quoting McAffrey "is as big and as connected as they get."

The movie is a fascinating account of the world of journalism and governmental corruption. Think All the President's Men meets 24. If you know me at all, that statement alone clearly shows my enthusiastic bias towards State of Play's elements and themes. Macdonald is the right director for this material (he directed Forrest Whitaker to Oscar gold in The Last King of Scotland) along with its perfect cast. Helen Mirren is wonderfully edgy and refreshingly funny as Cameron Lynne, McAffrey's boss and head of the newspaper. I thoroughly loved every scene that takes place inside the Globe's office. Again, there's that bias I've been telling you about. And you know what? I take absolute pride in it.

As each scene progresses, we are infinitely layered with the politics and human emotions behind what we of the public see as concrete fact. The movie brings into question a philosophical statement that I find truly compelling. With everything so insanely connected, people tend to forget that people, not machines, create all the media, propaganda, governmental scandals, possible national security threats, etc. of the present day. Sometimes when I watch the news, it is so hard to distinguish if truth is even a present ideal at all (and note to Fox News, your "Fair and Balanced" tagline is total crap and you sadly know it) and I think under this notion, State of Play knows exactly what it’s doing. It doesn't give away any real payoff because a real payoff is only a mere luxury the media world simply cannot afford.

Although the ending is a bit of a cop-out and perhaps a bit too twisty, it only comes after an expertly crafted and tightly climatic movie. I just put the original BBC series on Netflix and am anxiously awaiting its arrival.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Duplicity

**1/2 Stars

In a season that usually consists of trashy, throwaway flicks, Tony Gilroy's playfully tricky spy-thriller Duplicity should be placed at much higher standards. Moreover, although I thoroughly respected the film’s fine craftsmanship, I can't say that I wasn’t a tad disappointed. This is Gilroy’s follow-up to Oscar-nominated Michael Clayton, and Duplicity has the same weirdly induced incoherency as Clayton did. It’s not a matter of bad filmmaking by any means, but rather Gilroy pushing the envelope so much that the payoff feels rather forced.

What’s frustratingly invigorating about Duplicity is the fact that it has so much talent inside of it. Julia Roberts gives her sexiest and most relaxed performance in years as Claire Stenwick, a CIA spy who falls for MI6 spy Ray Koval (the always solid Clive Owen). The two compete undercover for high level businesses and their two enemy employers. Industry giants Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson) and Dick Garsil (Paul Giamatti) begin a fierce competition for control of a formula for a product that could potentially bring an unprecedented fortune to their companies. As Claire and Ray’s love begins to grow, so does their risk of getting caught, in a game they conspire to have enough money for one simple purpose: to retire rich and spend the rest of their days lounging in luxurious locations.

Sounds like it’s worth the risks don’t you think? If you’re in Ray and Claire’s position, absolutely. And I found it refreshing that this was the only real thing at stake. Gilroy has a real knack for wit inside his complex web of cat-and-mouse like espionage. An audience doesn’t want to see Julia Roberts and Clive Owen threatened with death, but rather an exciting ride filled with risky fun. Inside the dense and rather depressing corporate world Gilroy has realistically created, the fun is always mentioned, but it comes-and-goes in uneven measures.

ESPECIALLY when Roberts and Owen are separated for extended periods of time. If you’re going to have two of the sexiest stars in Hollywood who have dynamite chemistry, why on earth would you limit their screen time together for a few more pointless plot twists? When Duplicity takes a step back, relaxes, and lets its two stars have fun together, everything clicks. The first 90 minutes or so are great, but the last 30 or so takes a rather dreary turn into twists that Gilroy has a tough time taming.

I think Gilroy is a better writer than he is director. Maybe that’s preaching to the choir considering his credentials (most notably the Jason Bourne trilogy), but that’s just how I feel at this point in his career. With Duplicity, he certainly still keeps his art-credibility, but I’m hoping for a much stronger effort in his next feature.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Observe and Report

**1/2 Stars

To answer the first question on everyone's mind, Observe and Report is not the sloppy seconds of Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Although I would not denounce the argument that Observe and Report is the NC-17 version of Paul Blart: Mall Cop directed by Martin Scorsese.

Writer and director Jody Hill (My Foot Fist Way) has crafted a highly lucrative and disturbingly upfront portrait of the bottom of the barrel vision of these United States. In a post-9/11 world, we are run-amok with Hollywood films bashing the politics of America (Rendition, Lions for Lambs, Body of Lies, W., The Kingdom, any Michael Moore film) but no film has taken a shot at it with a comedy until now. And while I can't say Observe and Report is your typical run-of-the-mill comedy, it is fully aware of its dramatic limitations and ability to push the envelope without losing credibility. Unfortunately, the strength of this execution also brings out its inevitable weaknesses.

Seth Rogen dives headfirst into his character Ronnie Barnhardt, a bipolar sociopath who has a mission to protect the Forrest Ridge Mall from anyone who threatens it. When a creepy older man begins to constantly flash people throughout the mall property, Ronnie is compelled to intervene. His dream girl Brandi (Anna Faris) is a victim of the flasher and now Ronnie wants revenge.

Revenge on what you ask? Well, it’s hard to say exactly. Observe and Report is an extremely appropriate title for this one-note feature because this is just 86-minutes of shocking footage that contains random acts of terror set at a typical American mall. In today’s world, this can be a brilliant concept for a comedy, but the film makes one big mistake: it’s really not that funny.

And maybe I’m seeing it the wrong way, but I can honestly say that this film is too well made for its screenplay. It’s when Jody Hill stops trying so hard that Observe and Report works best. The funniest segment of the film comes from when Ronnie and his partner Dennis (a surprisingly hilarious Michael Pena) decide to take drugs and patrol the area under the influence. The over-the-top brutality mixed in with its lampooned montage like style is quite possibly one of the most outspoken statements about law enforcement abuse of the decade. Sadly, it’s trapped inside a hit-and-miss film.

A comedy really has to pound in the humor, but Jody Hill decides to pound in vulgarity instead. Why not have more fun with the mall’s customers? Does every single character in this movie have to be so rotten? If they are so be it. That’s completely fine. But all the potential magic is lost the second rotten characters are forced into rotten situations instead of the other way around. Perhaps this is why that one scene worked so well.

The cast is terrific. Rogen and Faris seem very comfortable with each other, which is probably necessary in order to pull off such crude material. For example, after a drunken dinner, Brandi and Ronnie head to the bedroom for some awkwardly induced intercourse. Brandi appears unconscious in parts and puking in others while Ronnie continues to enjoy himself. The feminist group WomenAndHollywood is making the case that this scene is an act of rape. New York Magazine is defending it, claiming that Ronnie stops when he thinks she is passed out and that he is desperate to find love. While I can’t agree with either one’s arguments, the fact that this scene overshadows the rest of the film’s horrific violence proves just how much this country is screwed up in the head. Hmm, maybe that’s what Jody Hill was going for; letting us know that violence is a secondary concern regardless of an unlawful and immoral execution that leads to someone’s death. If that is the case, then God help us all.


Thursday, April 09, 2009

Monsters vs Aliens

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0903/monsters_aliens_0323.jpg

** Stars


In 2009, almost all the animated features getting wide-releases in theaters will be in 3-D. It's the latest marketing strategy for Hollywood to get people back to the movie theater. In what I suspect to be the first of many, DreamWork's Monsters vs. Aliens (the second most expensive animated film of all time behind Wall-E) is a victim of 3-D dependence. In other words, rather than using the 3-D technology as an asset to the story, the film relies on it as a disguise for its excruciatingly formulaic screenplay.


On a rather personal rant from me to DreamWorks, come on! You can't think of a better idea than a monster vs. alien story? Were you this desperate for a hit that you decided to create a film based off the safest and most overdone premise in Hollywood? If you want to use this idea so be it, but when you make overdone references to famous Science Fiction films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and have your characters actually say lines like "Once again, a UFO has landed in America, the only country UFOs ever seem to land in" as your big punchline to fall back on, it is clear that you're not trying very hard.


Sure, there's nothing wrong with spoofing a genre. DreamWorks did that very well with Shrek and even Shrek 2 (I'm pretending the third one doesn't exist) but with those films you took those references and spun it a certain way making it your own. In Monsters vs. Aliens (with the exception of Seth Rogen's sensational character) everything feels too stale for my film-loving pallet.


The story begins with Susan (Reese Witherspoon) on her wedding day. Her fiancé, the local celebrity weatherman Derek (Paul Rudd), is all she ever wants in life. Everything seems to going to plan, until a random twist of fate turns Susan's world upside down that allows the screenwriters to create an excuse to begin a conflict. The twist? A meteorite crash lands on Susan's head. The igneous rock formation is filled with Quantonium, an element that gives Susan the extraordinary side effect to blow up to the size of a skyscraper. She is instantly named a "monster" by the government and is sent to a classified military base for isolation. She is put in an enormous room with four other "monsters" to remain confined until the plot needs her again.


Hugh Laurie appropriately voices a brilliant cockroach named Dr. Cockroach (Wow, I wonder how long it look to name this character) who can devise almost any scientific tool using the most simplistic elements (like garbage or antennas, you know, geeky stuff). His distinctive personality trait? An evil laugh. Again, that must have required some serious research.


Will Arnett is very solid as the voice of The Missing Link, the go-to-monster when it comes time to kick some serious alien, uh, tentacles. How strange that The Missing Link reminded me of a friendlier “Comedian,” the ruthless bad-boy superhero from Watchmen. It's a fitting character to have in a story like this, but he is a lost nuance in a story that won't let him come to life.


Monsters vs. Aliens is almost worth the price of admission to witness Seth Rogen voice B.O.B, a gelatinous brainless goo that ironically adds the film's only breath of fresh air. He is a wonderful supporting character who deserves his own film. Rogen riffs off the other actors with zest, intelligent wit, and necessary lightheartedness.


There are several scenes that get very weird, especially during a scene that feels like an exercise in gender reversal. Two lovebirds drive in an old school convertible to a remote location to park for a good old fashion 1950's-like snuggle fest. Apparently when you're using a concept like monsters vs. aliens you're also allowed to suspend ages of time and condense everything together. Note to the screenwriters, just because your concept has been used throughout different decades doesn't mean you can collapse the continuum of time for your own formatting advantage.


As the plot lingers on, the four monsters are called into action when an alien attack threatens earth's survival. Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson) is the evil leader of the alien race. Actually, to be politically correct, he is the evil leader of himself. His alien race is made up of millions of duplicated Galaxhars. This alien comes off as a really creepy loner who seems to want to destroy a civilization so he can do anything he wants with, uh, "himselves".


Although visually inventive and wonderfully rendered, Monsters vs. Aliens fails to live up to its promise. I hope this new zeitgeist era of 3-D animation doesn't cloud the minds of its innovators. One of the great benefits of animation is its ability to create abstract and imaginative world’s live-action films can't, but that's no excuse to leave storytelling lagging behind.

Friday, April 03, 2009

Adventureland

adventureland.jpg image by bestmovies2009
***1/2 Stars

The plot revolves around James Brennan (The Squid and the Whale’s Jesse Eisenberg) an intelligent high school graduate who is forced to take a summer job at Adventureland, a painfully awful theme park that internally pleads for uniqueness, but externally slaps you in the face with its proudly displayed lameness. Seriously, this place truly is one of those jobs you look back at and wonder how you weren’t on suicide watch during your employment.

Alright fine, I’m being dramatic. But I’ve done jobs like this. And if you were one of the lucky few who avoided it, we survivors aren’t joking. Jobs like this can really bring out the Christopher McCandless in all of us.

Eisenberg is a caricature of the adolescent years (in this case, he represents the 1980’s). He is saving money at his lame job for an education that allows him to call his job temporary, or part-time. Note to colleges, universities, and higher-education facilities alike, this is what happens (and still to this day) to many, if not all teenagers. And I’m sure that you will respond with a “we’ve all done it” like response, but I’m sure most you haven’t. After four years of college (and I’m not alone here) I will be paying off a tuition that equals Adventureland’s opening weekend per-screen average fifty times over. Before I even declare my career and begin my “adult” life (am I an adult yet? Or do I have to wait until I’m ALLOWED to get into nightclubs and bars?) I’ll be in the same debt as an unfortunate homeowner on the brink of foreclosure. Guess what the tuition at the University of Massachusetts Lowell back in the late 1970’s was?

$100.

Want to know what its increase in tuition was the year after?

$150.

Today, that’s how much the average used Social Psychology book is.

Like I said, I know I’m being dramatic. But a funny thing happened to me when I was experiencing Adventureland. I didn’t see it as another one-line extravaganza like I was expecting, but rather an imprint in the genre of adolescent moments in time. American Graffiti defined the ‘60’s, Dazed and Confused the ‘70’s, Adventureland the 80’s, American Pie the 90’s, and Superbad the 2000’s. I thank Adventureland for filling the gap.

At this very moment in time, I don’t think I sympathize for any up-and-coming Hollywood actress more than Kristen Stewart. The beautiful and talented young woman has been labeled as the “it” actress of the moment where her Twilight fame has clouded her rather distinguished resume, especially for a nineteen year old. Here in Adventureland (which was filmed before Twilight) she steals an already impressive show (including Ryan Reynolds, Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig) in a story of adolescence and the highlights of its unavoidable blandness.

Director Greg Mottola (Superbad) is a natural at recreating nostalgic occurrences. There is so much realism in this coming of age comedy that we tend to forget that it is in fact, a comedy. It reminds us that people make mistakes. Sorry for all those company’s who search Facebook to see if anyone has “incriminating information” on their profile, but it’s true. The only difference nowadays is that my generation can be arrested for walking home under the influence (for the official definition, click here). Your punishment was to leave your car on the side of the road and walk home.

Talk about a land of adventure. It just depends on when you were born.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

In the Company of Men

http://thefilmnest.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/in-the-company-of-men-main.jpg
***1/2 Stars

Erupting with interpersonal depravity, soaked with the obscurity of its villainous male leads, and painfully upfront with personal lives without written consent, In the Company of Men is a cultural study of humanistic evil without the physical appearance of its socially-accepted representative.

Writer and director Neil LaBute unleashes a remarkably disturbing exercise into three characters that are forced to embody the origins of the film’s screenplay: “Let’s hurt somebody” he mentions in an interview about his directorial debut, claiming that this line of dialogue was used in creating the story. “I was attracted to the notion of premeditated agony inflicted on someone. I believe that you can kill characters only once, but you can hurt them every day.”

Labute explores this notion of hurt within the simplicity of In the Company of Men’s setting: airport terminals, office buildings, hotel rooms, and bathroom stalls (pretty much any standard location for corporate workers in the business world). The story surrounds two typical businessmen who may seem completely formulaic from an outside perspective, but both kindle with alarming personalities. Chad (a brutally evil Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy) are victims of the commonly induced male frustration known as heartbreak. The audience is told that both have been dumped by their girlfriends and are ready for some payback. The very first line of dialogue in the film is spoken by Chad (who meets Howard one night in an airport terminal.) “So how do you feel?” he asks Howard, referring to the loss of his marriage. As Chad’s game evolves, this quote is the final nail on the coffin in the matter of unveiling the gender expectations of relationships in culture-at-large.

When the two dive in with their plans to “hurt” Christine (played by Stacy Edwards) we are graced with Labute’s strong stand against playing reaction with reaction. Because Labute avoids the lazy route of monotonic viciousness towards Christine (he actually uses her physical handicap to her advantage), a much deeper and longer lasting impact suffices. We are left with an endless pattern of manipulation and cruelty that sends a message to the ways genders are expected to play in cultural and social situations. The message? That there is no specific expectation set-and-stone anywhere that justifies the acts of anyone. LaBute, in his interview, states that “The film gives a punch at the end that some people are taken aback by: the expectation is to make him or her feel that the world is not right. We live in a 'cause and effect’ world."

So rather than Chad, Howard, or Christine being the chess players moving the pieces, they are merely ponds of a system, one that breaks the rules for its own personal gain and ultimately leaves its occupants blind to the necessities of human morality. How can we have any hope for these characters when we know all three are doomed from the start?

Maybe that is why Labute leaves it all up to the dialogue. Sadly, In the Company of Men, though onslaught with its auteur-like ferocity, displays the endless everyday situations that should never be defined as “everyday situations.” They are in fact as surreal as they get. The film is disguised as truth, where if one falls for its trick, they may use the actions of Chad as a justification for their own behavior. And for most of the time, in the world of these characters, the greatest cruelty lies in both the simple and complex tool of communication.

In perhaps the most unsettling scene in the film, Chad, playing with his executive privileges, forces a young intern to take off his pants and convince him that he has “the balls” to tackle a management training program. The fact that these characters are reduced to the literal translation of one of their gender-ridden metaphors for strength is quite possibly one of the lowest moralities of human nature ever displayed on film. Trapped inside this inhospitable environment, the only rationalization for these characters and their actions seem to lie in the bizarre and pointless obsession with job security.

While picking out seeds of truth, LaBute’s efforts cross a rather cruel irony. The actions taken by every character in every scene of In the Company of Men have no progression towards the maturity of emotional growth, but the uncanny performances of Eckhart, Malloy, and Edwards remind us that these incidents may be occurring at any given place at any given time. Therefore, while we are merely witnessing caricatures in society who reek of standardized kitsch, LaBute leaves us whimpering with questions and ignoring the presence of answers all together. In today’s society, that description of people may deem plausible. The Chads of this world are out there somewhere. You may have known one. I know I have.

To label Chad and Howard’s decision to begin this rather unorthodox love triangle as evil is a bit premature, but the actions taken throughout the narrative (including Christine’s decision to date both of them at the same time) both disgust and baffle my senses. I will never permit anyone’s behavior if their initial intention is lined under the notion “Let’s hurt somebody” to get to the self-absorbed assertion of “So, how does it feel?” In the journey between the two, we are left with an endless cycle of expectations that are profoundly mistaken when in the company of such an absolute evil. In the Company of Men hits you were it hurts and never lets up. It will shake you to a core you didn’t even know you had.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Catching up with Netflix: Rachel Getting Married

***1/2 Stars

Anne Hathaway holds nothing back in Jonathan Demme's family drama Rachel Getting Married, playing Kym, the in-rehab sister of the bride-to-be Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt). Kym returns home for the ceremony while clearly still in the detoxification process from years of alcohol and drug abuse. This is proven the second she gets to the house, as her entire family changes their vibe from on track to on alert during her presence. Kym spends almost the entire time making remarks she shouldn't say, creating tension when she should relax, and putting all of her skeletons in-the-closet on the table for several go-for-broke discussions. Rachel Getting Married shoots a bullet in your heart and shakes you uncontrollably. Hathaway is a knockout, well deserved of her Oscar nomination in what I expect to be the first of many more to come.