In the Company of Men

***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.

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.

Knowing

***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...

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.

Two Lovers

***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.

Coraline

***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

**** Stars
(2001)

A beautifully shot film that unfolds as a metaphor of re-discovering both social and personal innocence.




***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.



(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.



(2007)
*** Stars
The word "brutal" reeks throughout this powerful piece of cinema. It will shake you to your very core.



(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.



(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.)

Watchmen

***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.

He's Just Not That Into You

**1/2 Stars

He's Just Not That Into You had the potential to explore the interpersonal workings of characters that struggle with the frustration of finding love in an unbiased and nonsexist way. Instead, it forces its male characters into situations that exploits them as helpless bystanders to the inevitable notion of the female. That is, without any apparent question, "Women are always right".

I think I'm a pretty realistic guy. I understand that men, in the world of dating and relationships, can be pretty cruel to women. I understand that this film, based on the book by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccilo, uses the female as the sympathetic gender. In some cases, that is very true. However, when making a film with such a huge ensemble cast and every male character either A.) comes to their senses and realizes that every woman they're involved with has been right all along, therefore finally achieving happiness or B.) doesn't come to their senses and realize that every woman they're involved with has been right along, therefore becoming utterly alone, it's kind of obvious that the movie is not sending a mixed message. I can only imagine the even more sexist comments had a woman directed this picture.

What saves the film is the outstanding cast. Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connolly, Justin Long, Bradley Cooper, Kevin Connelly, Drew Barrymore, Scarlett Johansson, and Ginnifer Goodwin ad wonders to a formulaic script. Out of all those names, Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long steal the show. Their plot line is the sweetest, the funniest, and the most innocent. The rest are rather unpleasant and standard. Relationships are a tricky business, and those involved, especially us guys, apparently have very little say in the maturity of it. But listen up men, make sure you go see this with your woman before she sees it with her friends. Girls? They talk. To each other. A lot...

Taken

** Stars

Taken is one of those films that both baffles and shakes my senses at the same time. A plot so ridiculous and improbable that it not only breaks the rules of reality, but fails to mention them all together. If all you want out of Taken is 93 minutes of Liam Neeson kicking the absolute piss out of human beings, then your guilty pleasure is fulfilled.

As much as I enjoyed Neeson letting loose, I must say that I found the actions of every character in the film rather unsettling. The story is about two innocent girls (one being Neeson's daughter) who are kidnapped just moments after arriving in Paris for vacation. I don't even know if kidnapped is even the right word for this situation, so we'll go with the title: they were TAKEN. Sold off for prostitution, drugged to the point of unconsciousness, and threatened to be erased off the face of the earth. Enter the innocent girl's father, who takes matters into his own hands. While on the phone with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace), she tells him that people are coming to get her. Liam, knowing exactly what to do, tells her to give him as many details as possible before she is TAKEN (just picture the movie preview guy's voice everytime I write this). Kim climbs under a bed and hides from the bad guys. After moments of silent suspense, she is pulled from under the bed and TAKEN. Now Liam is pissed...

"I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you. "

Liam hops into his car, gets on a plane, and prepares himself for a vengeful journey through the country of Europe. Better put, Europe better prepare itself for Liam Neeson.

That's all all you need to know. There's nothing else to analyze about this film rather than commenting on the ridiculousness of Liam Neeson's karate-chopping, gun-slinging, pile-driving, speed-racing, torture-inducing, Holocaust-surviving, Qui-Gon Jinn persuading, trained Batman like set of special skills put into action. It doesn't even matter that you know his character's name, because you are not watching a character, you are watching LIAM NEESON.

At the theater I went to, people were laughing, cheering, and rooting all the way through. I admit that I was right along side with them, but there is no way anyone can say that TAKEN has a legitimately well crafted story. Then again, those people won't be flocking to see TAKEN anyways. You'll never be bored with this film, but your logic will suffer.

Defiance

***1/2 Stars

Defiance is a fantastic film, one that reaps the benefits of historical accuracy to the advantage of professional filmmaking. Since The Last Samurai, Edward Zwick has become a misunderstood and unappreciated director. How this film received mixed reviews is beyond me.

The first thirty minutes of Defiance is a masterpiece. It introduces the Bielski brothers, a Jewish family whose parents were killed by the driving Nazi regime during World War II. Following moments of revenge and emotional lapses, the brothers are forced into the Belarusian Forests, where they join Russian resistance fighters and endeavor to build a village in order to protect themselves and thousands of other Jewish survivors. Tuvia (Daniel Craig in top form) the eldes of the brothers, Zus (an electrifying Liev Schreiber), and Asael (Jamie Bell) use their strong bond for one another to push their survival towards a distant and optimistic end.

Zwick never takes us out of the woods and keeps with the survivors on the ground. Now this doesn't mean the film itself is flat by any means. We are trapped with the characters on a level of isolation, trying to break the surrounding sense of evil. The Nazi's come from the outside in, viciously attacking the Jew's without warning. You will feel for ever death and weep for every loss. Defiance translates to the screen as a story of community and entangled loyalty that has echoed throughout world history.

The film demands your attention to the details of cultural interactions as humans face the verge of unprecedented extinction. It flirts with Hollywood antics (the final battle scene feels a bit staged) but it never reduces itself to formula. Zwick pushes entertainment into an incredible story, creating a film of continuous praise that it has yet to receive.

Gran Torino

*** Stars

Clint Eastwood has picked the perfect role for his final acting performance. Playing Walt Kowalski, he nostalgically gives homage to all his past roles. This is what Dirty Harry would be like if he retired in a modern American suburb.

While Eastwood's showcase is a complete success, it also brings out the failures of Gran Torino too. The film is all Eastwood and nothing more. All supporting performances are mostly weak and the subplots tend to linger. This is really just a film to celebrate Eastwood's remarkable career.

With that, I am saddened that Eastwood missed out on a Best Actor nomination for his performance as Walt. It's as strong of a portrayal that he's ever given. And hell, the man is pushing 80 years old and I know he can still kick my ass. Along with yours.

Walt is a racist old fart who spends his days fixing things and drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon. After the passing of his wife, Walt is alone in a neighborhood that's no longer his. He is surrounded by other ethnicity's, one's that he has, to put nicely, never been particularly fond of. Let's just say I learned a lot of new curse words from this film.

He soon befriends his young Asian neighbor, Thao, who tries to steal Walt's Gran Torino for a gang initiation act. He puts him to work (not by choice, Thao's sister insists) to fix things around his house. Throughout their relationship, Walt begins to realize that times have changed and he is nearing his end.

Gran Torino is a study of cultural differences and the maturity of modern society. The rise of gangs around this neighborhood is an eerie image of a forceful flood of violence venting into their unwanted territories.

I very much liked Gran Torino. I liked it's ability to stay grounded inside an isolated area, I adore Eastwood's performance, and I even liked Walt's philosophical conversations with a young priest. It's too bad though that I didn't love this movie. Was it because of my high expeectations? Probably. But come on, I can't think of anything less when it comes to one of the greatest icons in film history.

The Wrestler

**** Stars

The Wrestler is the best film of 2008.

I thought Revolutionary Road was a lock for the #1 spot, and although its equally worthy, The Wrestler is something we have never seen before. Not only does it have the greatest performance of the year (the comeback of Mickey Rourke) but it is also one of the most emotionally involving character studies I have ever seen. This is proof that director Darren Aronofsky (one of my favorite directors, obviously) has the ability to shift from flashy visuals to character substance without any signs of uncertainty. The Fountain was the best film of 2006 and The Wrestler is the best film of 2008. Darren, you amaze me.

This is the portrait of Randy "The Ram" Robinson (real name Robin Ramzinski), a fictitious professional wrestler nearing the end of his career. When he has a heart attack after a brutal match, he is forced to retire. Through this, Randy begins to question his existence and reclaim what he lost during his years as a bad father and mediocre friend. He asks himself how after all his ups and downs, he finds himself living alone in a trailer park. Wrestling is the only thing he knows and the only place (the ring) he can truly live. The most brutal parts of this film are not the violent matches, but the emotional journey back to a life he cannot control.

Marisa Tomei is fantastic as Cassidy, a stripper and Randy's only true friend. As the two interact, we learn that there is more to Cassidy than just a stripper looking for money. Both of these characters are real humans dealing with real life issues and Aronofsky displays them as the utmost, down-to-earth characters you will see all year. Not one scene is wasted or faltered, which allows viewers to forget that they are watching a movie. Even the low budget of this film gives authenticity to the actors in it.

Rourke does more than just emotional acting here. Before principal photography, Rourke trained for four months to learn how to wrestle and embody the stamina a wrestler faces during every match. Every move he makes in that ring is an astonishing feat in physical acting. Combining physicality and emotional brutality, Rourke has a lock for an Oscar nomination and if everything goes the way it should, his first Oscar win.

When Randy says this line to his daughter he abandoned years prior (played wonderfully by Evan Rachel Wood): "I'm an old broken down piece of meat and I deserve to be all alone, I just don't want you to hate me," I immediately knew that Mickey Rourke as Randy "The Ram" Robinson was giving the performance of the year, his career, and a lifetime. The Wrestler is an odyssey, one that stands the test of time in every person that has gone through the pain of being unable to rediscover the nostalgic memories that we all desire once again.

Revolutionary Road

**** Stars

Revolutionary Road is everything I could have hoped for and more. Every scene is electric, every line is heartbreaking, and every action is carried by another that leads its leading couple down a path of self-destruction. Revolutionary Road is a timeless American film that digs deep into your personal life without your written consent.

Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet play Frank and April Wheeler, a married couple living in 1950's suburb without any sign of escape. Escape from what you ask? Well I can't vouch for the Wheeler's because I didn't live through the 50's, but from an outside perspective, the Wheeler's are living one of my biggest nightmares. They have retired from life, from living, and from feeling any kind of wondrous spontaneity. They have also lost the moment that made them realize they were meant for each other.

Director Sam Mendes, who in my mind is becoming a very underrated director (he is not a one-hit wonder with American Beauty) has crafted a brilliant character study. Frank works in the city for ten hours a day at a job he can't stand. April is a housewife and retired actress raising two kids and going insane in the process. After almost losing it all in a fight after one of April's abysmal plays, they decide to risk everything and attempt to move to Paris. Paris represents the escape and wonderment from a reality that's breathing way too heavily down the couple's neck. Once they get there, April will work for the government as a secretary and Frank will try and find himself. It's the perfect plan and perfect future, until things get in the way. April gets pregnant again and that bright and shining escape dims away into an everlasting darkness.

The film evolves as a trainwreck, but it's never a film that is hard to watch because every shot and scene is so perfectly executed. Not for one second does this feel like Titanic 2. I was really afraid that people were going to view this as Jack and Rose together after the honeymoon stage ended, but it hasn't. And I am so glad! This is one the greatest films of the decade.

And I stand by that statement. Even though The Wrestler is my #1 film of the year, this one is equally worthy. It has been one hell of a season for movies, and Revolutionary Road is a monumental aspect of it. Winslet and Dicaprio are mesmerizing and Michael Shannon deserves a best supporting actor nomination for his role as a mentally unstable son in the Wheeler's neighborhood. But what if he is the only one who gets life? Ponder that while watching the film.

I am sad because this film probably won't receive a best picture nomination, but maybe that's how it should be. Revolutionary Road never takes the stage, it haunts you behind a curtain that is forever waiting to be opened.

Marley and Me/Yes Man

The Christmas season is one of the biggest times for movies. The two biggest commercially are Marley and Me and Yes Man, each with signs of success but where one outweighs the other. Yes Man is a very mild success only (and I mean only) because of Jim Carrey and Marley and Me is a special treat for canine lovers and moviegoers alike. Those who flock to these movies will be those specifically looking for what they crave. For Yes Man, it's a reminder of old school Jim Carrey. For Marley and Me, it's a tearjerker packaged in wrapping paper with a big red bow shinning ever so brightly. In a last minute choice, I'd take the lovable canine labeled as the world's worst dog. It's a uniquely cute story that fits perfectly for the holiday season. Families: You've been briefed.

Marley and Me: *** Stars
Yes Man: **1/2 Stars

Valkyrie

**** Stars

I've put up with it for years, but now with Valkyrie, this needs to be said to all the Tom Cruise haters out there: STOP.

Stop hating Tom Cruise the actor just because Tom Cruise the person is crazy. Stop hating Tom Cruise the actor because it's the cool thing to do. Stop hating Tom Cruise the actor for thinking that he plays the same role in every movie. Stop hating Tom Cruise the actor because in fact, he hasn't made a bad movie in over a decade and a half. With Valkyrie, Tom Cruise the actor is in top form in one of the best films of the year. 

Tom Cruise is fantastically structured in Bryan Singer's intensifying World War II Nazi Thriller. Playing the infamous man who attempted to kill Hitler, Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, Cruise plays him with conviction and maturity. However, what ads wonders to the film is the supporting cast behind the star, including Bill Nighy, Kenneth Branagh, and Tom Wilkinson. Even though none speak in a German accent (in fact some are British), they are still fantastic performances. I mean they have to be right? When they are completely convincing as Nazis speaking in the completely wrong accents?

Director Bryan Singer has crafted one of the most taut and tightly built films of the year. The first twenty minutes is electrifying. A small attempt to kill Hitler is acted out by two Germans by putting an explosive in a liquor case that will be shipped on the same plane as Hitler will travel on. After the device fails to go off, the two are forced to retrieve the liquor case back from the plane while all the while the explosive could still be set off. I was on the edge of my seat throughout this scene, and after that, the entire film.

This is the most underrated film of the year. I will leave asking you this question: If Tom Cruise wasn't the star, would you like the movie? If you have to think about it for second, so be it, but just think about that question, and then judge the film objectively. 

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

**** Stars

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is an experiment of time and a celebration of movies. It explores the territories of love through poetic curiosity. At nearly three hours, this is an epic throwback to classic filmmaking with a pinch of new school antics. You do not want to miss this one.

Brad Pitt gives a perfectly subtle performance in a film that analyzes life in a natural process. Life is not always fast-paced and director David Fincher respects this aspect while still entertaining the absolute hell out of the audience. Pitt plays the title character who is born old and slowly progresses into a younger and younger person. In the middle, he falls in love with Daisy (Cate Blanchett) and the two share a nostalgic love affair that lasts as long as possible given Benjamin's condition. Through time, he becomes a baby. This is all I will say about the plot of this movie. 

Why? Because the film is an exercise of realism sprinkled into a fantasy world with an unrestricted imagination. It's a story of a person's life with no focus on any particular event. It would be like describing the plot to one's life. Why would I want to ruin its wondrous unpredictability?

What you can take from The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a reason to keep an imagination fresh and down to earth. Just because someone ages backwards does not mean they are any less human. I know it sounds insane and incoherent, but this film does such an outstanding job of keeping this lyrical fantasy realistic to the emotions of human morality. It's funny, touching, tragic, brilliantly directed, and alive with the flowing melody of humanistic livelihood. 

Casey's Films

Great news. I have just completed my first semester at Emerson College. It was a great first semester, as I learned a lot of new information on film technology and writing. I have completed a few projects here the I would like to share:



FLEDGLING LURE: A suspenseful six-minute drama surrounding two friends caught up in their poorly-executed kidnapping of an innocent girl. The stakes are raised when one friend begins to question the morality of their actions. With little time remaining from being discovered, the two friends suffer from the consequences of not thinking before they act. Fledgling, meaning beginner in activity, defines the personalities of the two friends as they are lured into unknown territories of criminal existence. Written by: Hunter Miles
Edited by: Nick Keating
Produced and Directed by: Casey LaMarca, Hunter Miiles, and Nick Keating

Starring:
Casey LaMarca as John
Thomas Haggerty as Tom
Hunter Miles as The Cop
Natalie Krebs as Tina

A Chaotic Melody: This is a one minute musical image of a city under chaotic circumstances while also having the potential to be something beautiful. A city can be a wondrous place, but themes of crime and darkness can cloud someone's mind.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

** Stars

Keanu Reeves returns to the genre that made him famous. We didn't ask for an encore.

Keanu Reeves, I feel bad for you. I don't know why but for some reason I do. You seem to be a nice guy who shows up on set ready to work. But why do you fail to capture human emotions on screen? I know this time around you're playing an alien, but you still haven't convinced me that you're a movie star. The Matrix and Speed are two of my favorite blockbusters and you succeeded in those films, but I think now is the time for someone to say this to you: Either try something different, or stop making movies.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is not a good film. It sucks, actually. And I hate to see Jennifer Connelly stuck inside a film that won't even let her breathe the way she wants to. The movie is a sequence of paralyzed frames that capture some astounding visuals, but avoid any chance of exploring the abstract.

The movie is based off the 1951 original film. Reeves plays Klaatu, an alien who captures a human body to explore Earth's chances of saving his species. He's here to save the Earth. Not humans.

That's actually a really interesting concept to explore in our day and age. There are moments where we see chances of great debate. However, the film becomes preachy the second Klaatu is captured and held for question by the government. It's a way of telling us that our government cares more about National Security than exploring the unknown. I love the idea, but the execution feels extremely elementary.

The government is represented by the Secretary of Defense played by Kathy Bates, who looks completely and utterly bored. When Klaatu escapes custody with the help of Dr. Helen Benson (Connelly), the two begin to find a way to stop the attack that seems to be dooming the world. Jaden Smith plays Helen's stepson Jacob, who loses all the respect that I gave him for The Pursuit of Happyness. The kid is really freaking annoying. Although I admit that his character has little structure to follow anyways. Whatever, don't really care at this point.

I'll admit that the film is visually spectacular, the first twenty minutes is exciting and attention-grabbing, and the idea of remaking the original seemed very timely. Sadly, this instantly forgettable remake is reduced to the level of cinema that critics and audiences are forced to sit through time and time again.

Frost/Nixon

**** Stars

"I'm saying that when the President does something that means it's not illegal." -Richard Nixon

The powerful words from the once-powerful man hint at the questionable motives behind the most powerful job in the world. What could be timelier than that?

Frost/Nixon is one of the most exciting films of the year and not one bullet has to fly on screen to earn it. Ron Howard has always been a wonderful filmmaker and to see him give us one of his best movies in years is a true gift of mature cinema. The story is simple and complex, funny and sad, and important without preaching a side of political preference.

When Richard Nixon resigned from office in 1974, he hid in the shadows from the media for three years. In 1977, the ex-President and most wanted man in America (even though he was pardoned from Gerald Ford) finally broke his silence and agreed to sit down and discuss the years that defined his legacy. He chose David Frost (a fantastic Michael Sheen) as his medium to the public. Frost, known for his playboy antics, thought this would be the perfect ratings boost he needed to secure himself as a media sensation. Nixon felt that someone who lacked political bite would be the perfect prey for him to gain back his popularity from the entire world. Is this David vs. Goliath or what?

The first hour of Frost/Nixon is a funny historical lesson in the eyes of journalism. The transition from David Frost the entertainer to David Frost the journalist is an outstanding feat that deserves a bonafide celebration. Ron Howard seems to be having a blast behind the camera on this film because everything on screen feels so natural. Plus he has over four or five actors from his previous films (mainly Apollo 13). On that note, it's great to see Kevin Bacon back in a role that suits his strong acting persona.

I am proud to note that I am rambling on the praise of this film. And now I shall continue.

Frank Langella as Nixon, like Josh Brolin as George W. Bush, is more than just an impression. He embodies the character as a man of substance. Of course Nixon was one of the worst (if not the worst) Presidents in American history, but the film focuses on Nixon as a human being. After all, he is one just like the rest of us.

And people forget to remember that. With so much information in history books and media stories covering him as a figure larger than life, Nixon is still a human, one who expresses the sheer emotions of a depressed man at the end of his regretful road. When the interviews finally take place in the final hour of the film, audiences will be on the edge of their seats waiting to hear the words he should have said the minute those men broke into the infamous hotel. Frost/Nixon's reenactment of this is an absolutely thrilling engagement of American history and one of the year's best films.