Films I Watched - January, 2010
Submitted by lbangs on Mon, 01/04/2010 - 10:13
- 1/1 - Up in the Air (2009) - Jason Reitman flies high, topping his previous Juno success with this very grown-up look at the burden of relationships and the potential hollowness of a life without them. George Clooney fits perfectly into the role of zipless professional terminator Ryan Bingham, flying across the country firing employees employers cannot face. He is that breezy type completely at ease in motion but anxious when settled for any amount of time, as smooth as honey with people but quills all at end at the thought of anything deeper than an acquaintance. The directing captures the allure of this regimented freedom with a lusty verve, and yet can shift gears into a slower mode without a hitch or bump. The cast is perfect, the characters contrast and compliment with an agile effortlessness only seen in the best of screenplays, and the tone slinks through obstacle courses without a hitch. In some ways, this is a more mature Thank You for Smoking, but it also is a more assured and layered affair, one smart enough to know when to wow and when to allow for letdowns. Consider it a career best for an already impressive director and probably the very best of an incredibly disappointing movie year. ****
- 1/3 - The Road (2009) - Being too faithful to a novel can lead to a film not very faithful to a novel at all. Director Hillcoat captures the stark imagery of Cormac McCarthy’s fantastic book, and he fits in most of the important events, but that approach proves a poor way to adapt this tale. Where much of the book’s beginning uses small incidents and internal musings to capture the utter desolation of hard life on a dead planet, the movie has nothing to establish that desperation or bleakness. Without the heavy doom of the setting fully settling on the viewer, the movie has no chance achieving the weighty power the narrative needs. Viggo Mortensen gives another good performance as the father with only his son for a reason to carry on in a world where civilization was the first causality of a planet-destroying catastrophe, but it isn’t enough to pull you into the film for it all to work. Impressive instead of emotionally rewarding, this captures the book literally but loses all. **
- 1/7 - Wendy and Lucy (2008) - It is a rather stripped-down story, one wise enough to have a matching stripped-down running time, but there is a power in the bare narrative and the naturalistic acting of Michelle Williams. The story involves a homeless young woman and her dog, and the focus never strays from this simple plot. Dialogue is sparse, but director Kelly Reichardt manages to keep your attention by letting Williams dominate the lens. This proves a very wise decision, as she is growing into one of the best, under-appreciated actresses on the film scene. ***
- 1/8 - Nine (2009) - Well, it is a musical remake of one of my ten favorite films by a director I've never considered more than an uninspired creative leech, but let's leave all that aside and judge the film for what it is. It is a mess, one structured with the cliche of letting each character cut from the narrative for a solo and dance extravaganza away from the main plot. This paves the road to mixed results. Kate Hudson's scenes add nothing to the film, and Hudson adds nothing to them, giving the distinct impression that nobody bothered to tell her what she is doing here. Nicole Kidman's acting is fine, but she is weighed down with one of the worse songs in a film full of mediocre tunes. As a nice surprise, Fergie fares better than most, nailing her song and giving it all the gusto it requires. Best, however, is Marion Cotillard, who will knock any silly American who believes her Oscar was a fluke back into the last century. Her acting hits every note, and her singing wrings real emotion out of a film more obsessed with flash and pow. In the center is Daniel Day-Lewis and his typically great performance. The costumes are great, and the cinematography may be the best I've seen from 2009. All this isn't really hurt too much by Rob Marshall xeroxed style, at least not until the horribly botched ending. He still knows how to move that camera and hit those cuts without having a clue why he should do either. This isn't a particularly bad film, but there are too many flaws and weak spots for it to prove a good one either. ** 1/2
- 1/9 - The Blind Side (2009) - For the first hour, this film almost works. Eventually, it just doesn't have the guts to be the film it wants to be. It turns into the type of story where a bad football player is instantly turned into a star by a single speech, where all a character has to do to face down a group of gang members is to announce she's packing a pistol in her purse. The scenes in the ghetto are far too clean, especially for a year that also gave us Precious. The football scenes are far too simplistic and dull, especially compared to those in, say, television's Friday Night Lights. For all its flaws, some scenes still manage to touch the emotions, but most of these unfortunately happen early on. The cast is fine, and Sandra Bullock is good in a somewhat rare dramatic role. She would deserve the Oscar nod she'll no doubt get if she could drop the stock gestures aimed at the camera and dig a little deeper into the character, finding some nuances to make her a little more real and a little less generic. The same could be said about the movie as a whole, though. A little more effort to be the convincing drama it wanted to be rather than the fantasy it ends up being, and this could've been good. **
- 1/9 - Invictus (2009) - There are several stories twisting about here, and Tony Peckham's script does an impressively good job weaving them together into a pretty powerful movie. The screenplay isn't perfect, especially when it goes far to far in making Nelson Mandela a nearly perfect human, but this is a minor hitch in a great achievement. The acting is fantastic, the directing is the effective, nearly-invisible work you expect from Clint Eastwood's best efforts, and the two-hour-plus running time moves rather briskly. Especially impressive is how the movie tells the audience just enough about rugby, a sport with which most of the viewers are unfamiliar, to hook everybody into the drama of the matches. The sports scenes are very good, but this is much more than a rugby movie; in fact, most of the game play is tucked away near the end. This is a complex, layered look at a country and its leader trying to rebuild after a legacy of hate and institutional racism. It is lofty, noble goal, one bold enough to encompass a large group of characters and motivations, but goal the movie achieves with generosity and grace. (Terrible contemporary songs, though...) *** 1/2
- 1/10 - The Young Victoria (2009) - Jean-Marc Vallée does a stunning job directing this look at the early life of Queen Victoria, especially focusing on her relationship with Albert. There is a wit and richness to the direction all too often lacking in the often too-obvious script but found in full force in the deep performances of the cast. It is an impressive line up of actors for such a small film, and it delivers. Leading the film is a great turn by Emily Blunt, one that certainly deserves an Oscar nomination. She seems to embody the often enigmatic princess thoroughly, giving the historical figure full-blooded life and a thoroughly human heart. It is true that great direction and acting can at times overcome a somewhat weak script. Avatar is not that case this year; this is. *** 1/2
- 1/10 - It's Complicated (2009) - This film is so much fun at times, it is a shame it has too many weak spots keeping it from greatness. There are some clever situations in the cards, but the three leads are the real strength here. Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, and Steve Martin provide the manic fun the film needs to sell the laughs, and they score. The screenplay is little more than middle-age female wish fulfillment, but that has its place and is certainly a nice change of pace from the teenage boy wish fulfillment that takes up most of the cinema space nowadays. The kids are mere plot points, Lake Bell is nearly never allowed to be more than an object of scorn, and John Krasinski's role is incredibly awkward. As charming as he is, his part seems suddenly expanded when the producers realized they managed to cast him. As a result, his presence seems pretty forced and ill at ease, even as the actor himself is a pleasant as ever. There are some major issues in play here, and a more ambitious screenplay with a little teeth could have pulled it all together to be one of the major comedies of our time. Instead, this is an incredibly shallow film dodging any real depth and aiming at a pretty narrow audience. This sanitary hesitancy keeps this from being a great comedy. It does, however, manage to pull out the laughs, and let's face it - that's all a good comedy really needs to do. ***
- 1/12 - The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009) - This film is a sloppy mess, but not nearly the mess you would expect from a movie where the lead actor died halfway through filming. What's more important than problems such as a botched ending is how much fun scenes such as the Pythonesque dancing policemen are to behold. Yes, this is Terry Gilliam being Terry Gilliam, supported by a kooky cast in tune with the director's barely-harnessed lunacy. Heath Ledger (and his three stand-ins, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell) are great, but unknown Andrew Garfield manages to top the whole lot with some perfect acting. Tom Waits as the devil is an inspired bit of casting, and Lily Cole simply ravishes the screen. Your eyes will thank you for this bracing bath of lush images and wild visuals, and for most of the running time, the audience is given just enough sense to make all the sound and fury irresistible. There are too many narrative problems for this to be a great film, but even with those, it still is undeniably great fun. ***
- 1/13 - Youth in Revolt (2009) - This very light comedy wafts along on a few clever ideas and some nice touches of humor (unfortunately, many of these are featured in the trailer). Michael Cera is a hoot as both the nerdy young man and his ultra-cool, blasé French alter ego. Portia Doubleday is quite good as the fresh, confident Francophile he falls for. Yes, this is another one of those romantic comedies about kids, but this isn’t a gross-out movie, and the script displays some surprising intelligence. Watching these teen comedies, I rarely find myself relating so closely to the teen...girl. I think that is a compliment of sorts. ***
- 1/16 - A Single Man (2009) - Despite a deliciously showy, assured direction from Tom Ford, Colin Firth dominates this film. His subtle work as a buttoned-down gay professor struggling with the loss of his life love is a career-best for the actor, refusing the obvious temptation to ham it up yet drawing the viewer in with eyes that can express the deepest sorrow. Just watch that scene where he receives the phone call about his lover's death. It is a fantastic performance, one that combines with that deliberate direction to lift this simple film into a terribly touching, highly effective work of art. The supporting cast is all fine, and that soundtrack matches the mood and carries the viewer along, aptly echoing the emotional strings of the late Bernard Herrmann. It seems if you want to make a great movie, you could do a lot worse than tackle a tale from Christopher Isherwood. *** 1/2
- 1/19 - Sherlock Holmes (2009) - The new old guard of film critics loves to hate Guy Ritchie, repeating the some tired phrases their predecessors threw at Scorsese and tossing in a few ex-Mr. Madonna jokes to boot. Those noses pointed so directly at the ceiling, the attached eyes missed that Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels was one of the more exciting films of the 90s. Nobody can defend every film the director has made, and I’m only going to make a half-hearted attempt to point out Sherlock Holmes is a flawed yet fun film, miles away from the best James Bond or Indiana Jones entries, but certainly a much better film than, say, Avatar or either Transformer flick. At times, especially near the beginning, the rapid-fire editing gets the best of a good action scene, but this film really belongs to the buddy duo of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. Their easy banter is a witty delight, providing enough juice to make up for the severely underdeveloped (if beautiful) female characters. The script is far smarter than most, even if the explanations blaze by too quickly for many viewers to sort them out. Yes, Holmes’ powers of observations snap under the strain of incredulity, but hey, you don’t tug on Superman’s cape. This doesn’t reinvent the genre, playing out exactly as you’d expect from a mix of 007 and Raiders of Lost Ark set in 1890s England. To point out a few anachronisms or to expect fidelity to the source tales is to be petty and to miss the point of a breezy movie aimed to amuse. It isn’t perfect, but you have likely spent two far worse hours watching a film recently. ***
- 1/22 - Julie & Julia (2009) - Darn that Fred Zinnemann! If he hadn’t already made a (good) film named Julia back in 1977, maybe this film could have kept the title simple and the focus on Julia Child and her alone! No, instead, we get an incredibly lame story involving a whiny woman in the past decade who pretty much has little meltdowns every night and spends hours pretending to type inane questions while staring through misty eyes at a computer monitor. When Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci (Mrs. and Mr. Child) are on the screen, this film is often a hoot. That fun story does not wrap around the stupid story well at all, though, and as a result, the movie is a lost cause surrounding a few good performances. * 1/2
- 1/23 - The Private Lives of Pippa Lee (2009) Robin Wright Penn is Pippa, a woman married to a much-older publisher. She seems to be admired by all and understood by none. After her husband suffers a series of heart attacks, the couple moves from New York City to a Connecticut retirement community. That event leads to a series of events and revelations that begin to pry apart her cool armor and prods her to examine her life seriously. Flashbacks tell her unexpected past as the film trudges ahead into her future. Rebecca Miller wrote and directed this examination of a unknown woman, and even though a few secrets are dark, Miller never strays far from a humor that blackens with the film. Some of the symbolism is a little too obvious, and teenage boys won’t be interested in the background of a woman in her forties, but the acting, directing, and story are strong enough to make this low-budget film pay some rich dividends. ***
Author Comments:
All ratings are on a four-star system.
Mannnn, I surprised myself when I was actually enjoying Up in the Air, and then it just lost me in the last twenty minutes or so, I haven't been able to put my finger on why. It's a well-cast, entertaining film but for some reason those final minutes moved like molasses.
I'm glad you liked Wendy and Lucy, I rarely hear people talking about it. It's a grounded, clarified look at cause and effect that never loses its focus. It's not just about a homeless young woman and her dog, I don't think, it's as much an examination of the social conditions that put her in such a position, and in turn an indictment of the system.
I'm glad you also enjoyed Up in the Air! I've heard from a number of people who didn't care for the last twenty minutes or so. I thought they worked well with the movie. Hmmmmm...
I don't know if I'd go quite as far as you do with thte broader themes of Wendy and Lucy. I think the story is pretty much about the woman and her dog, although all the social issues you brought up do indeed linger around the edges of the film. They may be part of the skin holding the movie together, but I don't think they were part of the vital heart. Of course, we all see these things differently, so...
So many good films, eh?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Wow, dead-on Nine review. I think mine will end up being quite similar. My main reaction to the film was how annoying it is that every filmed musical these days feels the need to cut away from the action to some heightened, stagy, dreamlike setting for its musical numbers. Musicals used to incorporate the songs into the main action and people accepted that, and it often made for more coherent, less uneven films. I completely agree with you about Kate Hudson, Fergie, and Marion Cotillard, although I think I loved Penelope almost as much as Marion. I may have been a little less impressed with Daniel Day-Lewis than you though; I found him a bit one-note.
Anyway, great review!
Thank you!
I thought Lewis did a good job with an under-written role. I was a little frustrated with how flighty and empty the character was. I know they wanted him to be a cryptic stand-in for all artists, but I don't think that choice worked for a film that seemed to aim for a lusty verve. We don't tend to buy lust unless an actual person embodies the desire, I think...
Disappointing.
The good news is that I caught five films at the theater this weekend (reviews pending), but I managed to see the two worst ones at the start! :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I had a similar reaction to Julie and Julia, although I don't think I had quite as much venom for it as you did. I feel like the basic concept of showing Julia Child when she too was just a younger woman trying to find her footing, contrasted with someone inspired by her, was a good basic premise, but the writing in the Julie component was just poor. Ironically, a movie called Julia DID hit theaters last year, although maybe Fred Zinnemann's film only put the kibosh on Meryl Streep movies titled Julia. Isn't it a shame that the two Best Actress frontrunners are in such lameass films? If only Gabby Sidibe could come from behind...
I found the film incredibly frustrating. It would settle into a nice groove only to be interrupted by the incredibly dumb story of Julie. Ugh!
I noticed that other film when I was checking my memory for the date of the first movie (good thing, as I was off a year). I haven't seen that one, though, and I was hoping to contrast with a good film, so I stuck with the older one I could vouch for. The things we do for bad jokes... :)
I would not cry if Gabby or Emily Blunt could feel a little Oscar love, although Streep was awfully good in such a bad movie...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
She definitely was. I just prefer it when the winner is not just a deserving performance but also a movie I can rally behind. And Streep is always good, and often in much better movies.
Hey, any chance you might play this game? It's innocent but fun.
I'd score so poorly, it would just be pathetic.
I bet if there was a game limited to films seen in the theater, though, I could smoke! :)
Thanks, though...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Fair enough.