The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker is without a doubt, the best movie of the year so far (and that means something since we are at the half-way point). Now before you think I'm just hyping this as a masterpiece and that doesn't mean anything because I'm just a lonely blogger on a little known review site, then know this- The Hurt Locker has achieved universal acclaim (not almost universal acclaim, but just 'plain-and-simple' universal acclaim). The film opened up at many festivals and was greeted with enthusiastic response from the crowds, often receiving prolonged applause when the credits rolled. The film is a definite contender to secure a nomination for Best Picture, Best Director (Kathryn Bigalow), Best Original Screenplay (Mark Boal), and Best Actor for Jeremy Renner. This is also the first film about the Iraq War that is flawless. Vietnam and WWII both have their share of perfect films, but films about the Iraq War have been met with skepticism mainly because of the filmmaker's political agendas. The Hurt Locker is not a liberal film or a conservative film, it is quite simply about war and the men who fight it. 

War is depicted as a drug, and for Staff Sergeant William James, there is greater thrill then using a drug like war. Jeremy Renner plays James like a down-to-earth man who views Iraq as his war. James is a bomb-defusing specialist and Anthony Mackie plays his partner. The partner's job is to look out for Will while he goes to investigate the bomb scare, but more often then not, Renner's character decides to take an unorthodox approach. In one scene, James takes off his gear and says, "If I'm going to die, I'm going to die comfortably." William James is a hothead and he frightens his entire platoon (that includes David Morse, Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, and Brian Geraghty) to death. Yet as much as Will gets off on the thrill of battle, he still loves his family (Evangeline Lilly plays the wife) and can barely balance the idea of returning to them while somewhere else on the same planet as he is, there is a bomb to be defused and thrills to be found. In fact, in one scene, James puts his bomb gear on in his bunk while safely back at base, and he just begins to cry.

This film is vivid, brave, responsible, and action-packed. I refuse to go into any more detail at the expense of ruining one of the artfully true experiences of the year. All I ask is for you to please go see this movie as it approaches a wide release. The enjoyment and emotion to be found in this film is just as potent as the "drug" of war.

Transformers 2

To explain how I feel, I have to mention that I went into this movie with a limited set of expectations. I thought to myself, "I'm going to be watching a Michael Bay movie, so let me think of this like.... a Michael Bay movie." I already knew it was going to be bad. I knew Revenge of the Fallen would mostly be explosions with characters screaming "BITCH" and "SHIT" and "FIRE." It's a shame that when it comes to certain directors, I first rate the film as 'good' or 'bad' and if it were bad (i.e.) then I determine if it is a 'good-bad' movie or a 'bad-bad' movie. As you'll eventually see, I did the same with Public Enemies (the reason I found myself critical of the movie was because I was evaluating it as a 'good' movie but when it comes to Michael Mann, I have to then think of "how good"). If I'm not making any sense then I apologize, I did just sit through Transformers: Corny Subtitle, a film with a very loopy plot and made with horrible production values albeit the CGI.

As I speak at this very moment, the film is raking in millions at the box office because the inner child in all of us wants to escape to a land of "coolness." Consider this our generation's Godzilla, everything is just too damn "cool" that no one bothers to evaluate the movie past the gigantic eye-popping special effects that attempt to remove you from the world you know. Transformers 2 achieves this for two very long hours and because the action scenes are so audacious, it makes the more quiet moments feel that much more prolonged. Of course I'm mincing my words, because this film did not make me as angry as I expected it to. Yes the acting is horrible, the story is horrible, and there is no development with anyone or anything. As poor of an execution in filmmaking this movie is, I can't help but not care. It's great that guys like Roger Ebert and co. are calling out Mr. Bay for polluting the market, but there really isn't a response to this film of his that I wouldn't have given the others, except for maybe The Rock because that at least had Sean Connery (this film does at least have Megan Fox... but I like her for different reasons). Instead this film has an Autobot named Jetfire with an aluminum beard. Oh, and if this is an advanced robotic alien race from the stars, why do the two mentally deficient robots speak jive?

Whatever Works

In my opinion, Woody Allen has had three distinctive periods in his filmmaking career where he wrote certain kinds of stories. He started off writing zanier comedies such as Bananas and Sleeper. He then started to make romance a central part of his story and this led to a series of romantic comedies such as Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters. The romance then became very depressing or serious which led to films such as Match Point (see Interiors for an earlier example). Whatever Works feels like a time-warp that goes backwards through those films. The protagonist is a man named Boris (Larry David) who fails at, well pretty much everything that has to do with life. When his marriage fails he even attempts suicide, and he messes up that just as well. While recovering from his depression, Boris (who has adopted the Woody Allen role as the "awkward jewish guy") then attempts to hit on a young rich girl (Evan Rachel Wood),who is more of a happy person (filling the Diane Keaton/Louise Lasser/Mia Farrow role of Allen's films).  The relationship moves between an awkward age gap with sexual tension to more of a friendship, so does this sound like any Woody Allen film you know?

I'd imagine that if this film came around the time of Annie Hall in 1977, it would've been a success. Boris even talks to the audience while he is complaining but this schtick has already been going on in Woody Allen films for the longest time. In short, everything old is not new again. The jokes are all recycled or too simple to bother being funny, and half the time you are wondering when Wood will drop her Southern accent or will David's character get it together and realize he is dating someone young enough to be his granddaughter. There is also nothing remotely "New York" about this movie, especially considering that this is Allen's return to the locale after four years in Europe. Overall, this is a very annoying film with a few good supporting performances (mainly from Ed Begley Jr. and Patricia Clarkson as Wood's parents), but the only other good thing about Whatever Works is that it reminds you of when Allen used to be really good at comedy.

Year One

I hate it when comedies try to be "big." I'm just a fan of the more down to Earth stuff as I really wish that people would stop making stuff like You Don't Mess With The Zohan and stuff like The Love Guru and stuff like Year One. Terry Gilliam and co. were able to pull it off in Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Mel Brooks did it again with History of the World Part I, but that was a time when stuff as provocative as the 40 Year Old Virgin couldn't get made so people would have to laugh at what would be deemed as the utmost ridiculous concepts for today's film industry. Year One's gags also fall way too far on the immature side of things even if a concept is amusing (like having David Cross and Paul Rudd as Cain and Abel, but apparentl in this time period, rocks don't bloodily bash your brains in). Maybe a thirteen year old will be amused but this doesn't even seem to be a satire about any part of society, instead we have a shameful attempt at humor that is only a thin notch above Dance Flick and Land of the Lost, where silliness runs wild over humorous substance. 

The comedy pairing of talented actors Jack Black and Michael Cera also falls much flatter then I expected just from the previews. Black's caveman is wild as if he drank too much caffeine while Cera is more calm and witty towards the last second of a moment once Black has shut up. The two personalities contrast so greatly that nothing they say or do together holds any prolonged interest. The supporting players are pretty interesting, especially Oliver Platt as a tribe leader and Hank Azaria as Abraham, but Harold Ramis (director of some of my least and most favorite films) throws in way too many other characters for any of them to leave a laughable lasting impression on anyone. 

I always feel bad for movies like this. There are a lot of very talented people here working out of sync and although it could be worse (on the level of a Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer film...) when I know how far concepts like these have been elevated in the past, one can't help but look upon Year One in shame. Films like these are have gone the way of previous decades but I never was a big Flintstones fan anyway.

Moon

I enjoy a brooding tone in my science-fiction films. Throw in an actor known for playing brooding characters, and you have a movie environment that I can get into. Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell, an employee of a mining company who works on a space station that is based on Earth's moon. He is the only man up there and only gets to speak to his family every so often but at least he is accompanied by the ship's computer Gerty, (voiced by Kevin Spacey) that functions as the Hal of this trip (just take away the "evil" factor). This whole film pretty much functions as a performance piece for Rockwell, and he certainly delivers. Similar to Will Smith in I Am Legend, Rockwell is well aware that it is completely up to him to add as much emotion into his performance as possible because there aren't any other actors on board the ship with him to pick up the slack. 

However when another person shows up on the moon, and it turns out to be another Sam Bell, our Sam Bell isn't sure if he has been cloned or if he is going crazy. Similar to how Danny Boyle's Sunshine suddenly developed into the cliches of a slasher film, Moon goes from a more hardened realistic science-fiction and instead crosses into the more unreal for the reality that this film has set up for itself. Rockwell works well with the double role (and once again, it speaks to his underrated talent as an actor that he can pull off such interaction when he is the only actor on the set). However, Rockwell does go at times from a morose and saddened man to that sparkling energy that you will often find in his characters which is partly misplaced amongst the dark and sterile look of the space station. The film still has enough creativity placed in all of its aspects to hold your attention, despite boiling down to a performance piece. This film was the debut feature for director Duncan Jones and for such an audacious project, he handles it all with grace and one can't help but wonder what further heights he will launch to given more time.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Tony Scott's update of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 features what is essentially a hostage taker's worst nightmare. Ryder (John Travolta) is not like the Robert Shaw character from the original 1970's film. He will shoot the hostage if you mess with him. There is only one instance where he spares a life at the last second and it is at the expense of another, that being the career of Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) who admits to a crime to save a life. When Ryder does execute a few hostages, he doesn't pull any punches as he fires several extra rounds into their already lifeless bodies. This sense of danger keeps the film constantly on edge with Travolta playing Ryder like a loose trigger and Garber is seemingly the only man who can anchor him.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 was surprisingly entertaining, and Tony Scott both contributes and detracts from the quality of the piece as a hole. It's his eye for action and the ability to set up multiple points of view on a single instance that (while still letting us know about the characters, but part of that is thanks owed to screenwriters Brian Hedgeland and David Koepp) makes this more than just a mindless two hour thrill. Then again, Scott's visual style isn't always suited to certain moments as we get random camera swoops through the streets of city buildings and brief character interactions from what is usually two random cops (kind of like how George Lucas will just focus in on an alien in Star Wars just for the sake of seeing an alien). Despite the "get-in, get-out" style of camera work and the ruthlessness of Travolta's character, the plot of the film has been adjusted for more modern times. Ryder now has a lot more convincing motivations and Garber is much more tortured as opposed to wry Walter Matthau. Similar to the films of Michael Mann, we get a glimpse at what is really behind these characters so we can all get to know them but we are still kept at arm's length as not to be too attached to anyone in particular. 

The supporting cast is also second to none. John Turturro, James Gandolfini, Luis Guzman, and Michael Rispoli all work together to give us this authentic feeling of a day of terror in New York City. Finally, the film is so quick-thinking and chaotic that you do feel the energy from it all rattling around in you, if you are relaxed enough. Sit back and enjoy the violence, just don't take it all too seriously, especially in a post-9/11 world. This is entertainment, pure and simple.

Tetro

I can't help but briefly state my view on Francis Ford Coppola's career, and I'm aware that it is an opinion that is quite common. Mr. Coppola went from being one the most innovative minds of his generation (creating classics like The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, The Conversation, and Apocalypse Now) before going crazy with money and making whatever project fell into his lap (Jack?). Since he returned to filmmaking in 2007 with Youth Without Youth, after a decade of absence, he has still decided to adopt an independent sensibility of shooting a film on impulse. The result is something that clearly seems to be missing the care that he put into his past work. Or so that is the conclusion I can reach after watching Tetro. 

This black-and-white film features bad-boy Vincent Gallo as Tetro, a writer who has cut himself off from the rest of his family due to some secrets that Coppola tries to set on the grand scale of a tragedy. Well, outside of this turning into a holocaust film (which it doesn't), the deep dark secrets are not enough to warrant the awkwardness that the lead character exhibits toward not only his family but his friends. Coppola tries to make nothing short of an opera out of this tale and yet for all of the emotion and visually pleasing aesthetics, the story of Tetro and his family doesn't really deserve this large of a canvas. 

The bright side is that a young actor seems to have found his break-out. Alden Ehrenreich has a certain echo of Leonardo DiCaprio from his Titanic days in his role as Tetro's younger brother. Past that, if you saw the trailer and thought this looked like a student film, well it appears that Coppola has gone back to the stereotypical film school; dark and moody tales that are really quite amateur when this is a filmmaker who can clearly delve deeper into the human psyche.