Yearly Archives: 2011

Movie Review: The Ides of March

Leave a reply

I remember when I first started getting interested in politics. I was a junior in high school, and Barack Obama and John McCain were running for president. For the first time ever, I actually felt invested in the idea that someone might become president and change things for the better. Then I waited a few years and realized that nothing changes.

“The Ides of March,” the fourth film directed by George Clooney, is the perfect film for all of us cynics out there. Some might be turned off by the film’s dark tone, but it is the touch of realism that Hollywood fairy tales about politics so desperately needed.
At the beginning, the optimist will feel like Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), the young and ambitious junior campaign manager for presidential candidate Mike Morris (Clooney). Meyers is highly admired and sought after for his skills. It may be less because it is talented and more because he is clueless.
Morris, an obvious allusion to our current president, runs on a campaign of hope and change. His speaking ability and intelligence seem too good to be true. No candidate is good without a loyal team behind them.
Things are going well for the Morris campaign as they make their way through the Ohio primary. Morris looks like the candidate to beat, and Meyers get more and more acclaim from his peers. But after Stephen is approached by the rival candidate’s campaign manager (Paul Giamatti) things go down hill. This, topped with the discovery of a shocking scandal, throws the whole campaign into chaos.
“The Ides of March” made me think back to a quote from one of cinema’s shadiest politicians, Harvey Dent, in which he claims, “you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” The dehumanizing process of politics has been touched upon in movies time and time again, but in “The Ides of March,” there is no white knight, only a bunch that are stuck in the gray areas of life. As a viewer, you grow to like every character, and then you grow to hate them. By the end, none of them even look like good guys or bad guys anymore. This is a tale of the most twisted morality possible.
While Morris is the film’s central character, his physical presence is sparse throughout. He is like this film’s Gatsby, as our view on him is shaped more by the perceptions of others than by his actual presence. And when we do see him, Clooney plays him more as a blank slate who can easily be swayed in either direction. His views are called idealistic for a reason. By the time a campaign ends and an election starts, a candidate is no longer a reflection of their views but rather of everything they need to win.
Despite the importance of the candidate, Gosling ends up stealing the show as the naive Stephen Meyers. Gosling has been getting better by the movie, and this role should earn him his second Oscar nomination. He has developed a talent for playing characters with a kind and almost innocent outer shell, but with very dangerous tendencies. Here, the danger he holds is in in the naivety of his actions, including his fling with an intern (Evan Rachel Wood). By the end, when he his own voice has been reduced by the endless political commentary running through his headphones, he has officially become a victim of politics. That final expression is stoic yet screaming in inescapable pain.
Watching “The Ides of March,” I was reminded of the recent, equally pessimistic films such as “Michael Clayton” and “The Ghost Writer.” Something that “The Ides of March” has is the ability to make the trivial thrilling. A scene in which Morris’s senior campaign manager (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) steps into a car is so thrilling even though the camera remains stationary. We know something bad is going to happen, but we are denied seeing what exactly it will be. Clooney can make a situation go on for longer than it should, and make us want to keep watching it. Much of the movie is like a ticking time bomb that takes its time to go off, just to mess with its victims.
Clooney shows improvement as a director and unlike many actor-directors, he is not just directing for good performances and writing, but rather for the movie as a whole. He really cares about the consequences of where a camera is placed. The lighting emphasizes shadows. One of the most memorable shots in the movie is of Gosling, in silhouette, standing in front of a giant American flag. Behind this flag, a symbol of freedom, what keeps this country free and democratic is a shadowy, corrupt underworld of lies and false intentions.
In trying to make the small things meaningful, the writing turns dull, political jargon into a fast-paced function of the thriller itself. In “The Ides of March,” ideas and meetings are more action-packed than shootouts and car chases.
Republicans may swoon over the movie’s treatment of the Democratic Party, while Democrats will balk. But the great part about this movie is that it is an allegory not on political beliefs but rather on political corruption. At face value, this is a movie about the disappointments of Barack Obama. Deeper down, Morris is a politician who is more like John Edwards; on the outside, he is a friend of the people but truthfully, he is just fending for himself.
The movie takes its title from the day in which Julius Caesar, who’s power was increasing, was assassinated at the heads of the members of the Roman Senate. This accurately describe the heated relationship between Morris and Meyers, as well as the morally hazy intentions of every character in the movie. Nowadays, few people ask the right questions about our political system. “The Ides of March” is provocative enough to do just that.

The Black Swan Controversy: Why Unpaid Internships Need To Stay

Leave a reply

Anyone who has ever been in film school or just listened to an interview with a successful filmmaker knows that making it in the movie industry isn’t easy. Everyone starts off at the bottom and only those who work harder than everyone else will make it to the top.
Nowadays, a common start for many in the entertainment industry is to be an unpaid intern. Taking this position has both positive and negative connotations for ambitious twenty-somethings and college students. This issue hasn’t appeared in the news very much, until the recent “Black Swan” controversy. Two unpaid interns who worked for the film filed a lawsuit against Fox Searchlight Pictures, claiming the studio had them do work that could have been done by paid employees. They said that they weren’t given the educational experience that labor rules require in order to exempt employers from paying interns. Basically, they believe they were doing tasks anyone could have done and that Fox Searchlight did nothing to give them real on set experience.
Fox Searchlight fired back, claiming that the lawsuit is ‘meritless.’ They say the interns were hired by a different production company and that Fox Searchlight has “a proud history of supporting and fostering productive internships.” While this sounds more like the work of really vague PR as opposed to a truthful studio executive, this is not the point of this article. I am not looking to play a game of he said she said here, I would just like to discuss, and even defend, the larger issue at hand: how ethical the practice of hiring unpaid interns may or may not be.
From the start, hiring someone to do hours of work that someone should be making a good living off of seems wrong. It probably is. Believe it or not, getting into the film industry is more difficult than getting into most other professions. Being an intern is about getting your foot in the door in an industry where that door tends to close fast. Some production companies simply can’t afford to pay their interns a real salary, and those who are interning are volunteering their time.
But what about multi-billion dollar companies like 20th Century Fox and NBC? Surely they can afford to pay for the extra help. Banks, financial companies, and accounting firms pay their interns. Those of you going into entertainment who worry about how much you are going to make from the get-go should be slapped with a giant paddle that reads “starving artist.”
I am sure that everyone looking for a job in entertainment has dreams of winning Oscars and making millions doing what they love. However, unlike the financial world, which is about turning money into more money, this business is about turning art into money. This is harder than it looks; no matter what marketers tell you, no simple formula can guarantee the success of your movie. Out of the box thinking and persistence are only parts of it; the rest of what makes your success is entirely up to you.
This is all coming from someone who is currently trying to break through, and is just about below the bottom of the totem pole. This summer, I had my first unpaid internship in the entertainment industry, so I approach this issue from a very personal angle. There are many great things that happened while I was there, and many of them I am not legally allowed to disclose. But I can say this: it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, in the best and worst ways possible.
Yes, there was a lot of what many would call “bitch work” involved. I indeed had to carry eight coffees by myself through Midtown Manhattan. You’d be surprised how many ways a door can be opened without the use of one’s hands.
When doing errands like that, it’s best to think of them from the larger rather than smaller perspective. Anything you can do for those working above you will make their lives easier and allow them to do better work for those in charge. The tiniest, most mundane tasks ultimately have a chain reaction effect. On most days though, something would be done that directly related to the movies being produced.
Those companies who take on unpaid interns should educate them in some form, and make their time worthwhile. I do not know whether or not Fox Searchlight actually fulfilled these requirements, but I do know this: as an intern, you must educate yourself. This is easy to accomplish: all you have to do is look around. As a filmmaker, you are a born observer, so just listen to those phone calls being made, and those secret industry terms being thrown around.
The real lesson to be taken out of the fallacy of this whole ordeal is that it breaks a cardinal rule of joining this industry: don’t be picky. It’s not about which opportunity is going to pay you the most, its about which one is going to take you the most places.

Movie Review: 50/50

1 Reply

The famous cliché goes: “Laughter is the best medicine.” Humor has always been a way to cope with the inexplicable things that life throws our way. So in their first film together, director Jonathan Levine and writer Will Reiser did the right thing and madetheir cancer dramedy one about living rather than one about dying.


In “50/50,” Adam’s (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) life comes to a standstill after finding out he has a rare form of neural cancer. The needy and slightly neurotic Adam is the kind of person who avoids risk; he’s too afraid to even get his driver’s license. His fear of death paralyzes him, and his dependence on the people closest to him escalates. His go-to person is his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen), who is not opposed to using Adam’s cancer as a pickup line. There are also the three women in his life: his overbearing mother (Angelica Huston); his girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), who stays with Adam only because she feels obligated; and his young therapist (Anna Kendrick), who probably needs to sort out her own life before she can help others.


“50/50″ isn’t exactly a cancer comedy, or even a comedy about cancer. Rather, it is a comedy about how people deal with something so dire in their lives. It makes no attempts at a cheery tone and doesn’t settle for artificial characters or a soundtrack consisting of Top 40 hits. It is also a romantic comedy of sorts with its storyline of a successfultwentysomething vying for an unlikely love interest; he even has a goofy sidekick and a burdensome mother. But what distinguishes “50/50″ from the norm is that these characters feel drawn from real life and not from the typical Hollywood playbook. They function as actual, affecting parts of Adam’s life rather than caricatures put in simply for laughs.


The reason that “50/50″ feels so personal is because, through the film, Will Reiser has documented his real-life battle against cancer. Diagnosed six years ago, he has been in remission since then. Reiser bases his humor off of everyday awkward situations and pop culture references such as: “You smell like the cast of ‘The View.’” The jokes and observations laced in his script could only come from someone who came out of a situation this bad. The film doesn’t downplay the reality of such a grave situation, and the underlying current of fear and unpredictability feel all too real.


Because Reiser is writing about himself, he rightfully doesn’t pull a sympathy card with Adam. He is, like the other characters in the film, selfish and small-minded at times. Reiser’s unabashed honesty toward his own actions is reflected in Adam’s character and contributes to the sincerity of the movie.

As Adam, whose success as a radio producer comes to a halt following his cancer diagnosis, Gordon-Levitt does a pitch-perfect job of delivering some great deadpan humor and acting both self-assured and scared out of his mind. The scene in which he shaves his head, the film’s poster image, shows him bravely taking this act as a joke. In a later scene, he breaks down. The emotional outburst is more frightening than anything you’d see in a modern horror movie, perhaps because it feels absolutely right at that point in the movie.


In the supporting cast, Rogen shows how much he has matured as an actor. As the habitually loyal Kyle, who cares deeply despite his cynical outlook on life, he is the kind of friend we all wish we could have. Kendrick is another example of a cast member who is getting better and better by the film; no longer just the girl who had that really annoying crying scene in “Up in the Air.” Her character gives off an innocently funny vibe and radiates a warm presence.


Writing and acting tend to drive this kind of comedy, with the director usually taking the backseat. However, Jonathan Levine makes his presence known, and adds something to “50/50″ that few other comedy directors ever could. While someone like Judd Apatow might keep the camera totally still during a long conversation between a group of friends, Levine moves the camera around. The blurred vision of many shots makes these parts of the movie seem more like meditative talks as opposed to witty banter between friends. Reiser writes it like a comedy while Levine directs it like a drama.


In an interview with Movieline.com, Reiser remarked that when he found out that he had cancer, he and real-life good friend Rogen dealt with it through humor. He said it might have just stemmed from the immaturity of his age at the time. But making the absolute best out of a bad situation is a strength that few have. So in that sense, “50/50″ does what movies have the rare power to do: turn mortality into something both life-changing and life-affirming. If you didn’t think an F-bomb laden R-rated comedy could pack an emotional effect, then you just haven’t seen “50/50″ yet.

Check this review out here at The Daily Orange. It is also available in print form…because newspapers still exist.

And Five Years Later the Lord Said, "Let There Be More Arrested Development"

Leave a reply

Ever since “Arrested Development,” arguably the best sitcom ever put on television, was cancelled in 2006, speculation has been rampant on what will happen to The Bluths next. Creator Mitchell Hurwitz and cast members have hinted at a movie. However, the more they hyped it, the less likely it seemed to happen, and the more fans have been let down.

For the past five years, every time Jason Bateman has been asked about the movie and a soundbite such as “it’s happening” comes out of his mouth, bloggers and journalists alike have been quick to jump on it as evidence that the movie is on its way. But today, cast and crew released some news that actually seems a bit more tangible: ten new episodes of “Arrested Development” will air sometime next year. The movie will pick up where the last new episode left off. This news excited me so much that I accidentally spilled coffee all over my $6300 suit.
Each episode will supposedly focus on each character individually, and where they are in their lives since the show ended. I, for one, think this is a perfect idea, as the movie could now be about basically anything imaginable. It will also allow both the new episodes and the movie to take place in the present. What I hope is that the show keeps its mockumentary style, and that Ron Howard stays on as narrator.
All us loyal fans can do is hope this bit of news is true. If it is not, then the cast and crew of “Arrested Development” will be solidified as the smartest internet trolls of all time.
For any of you who aren’t a loyal fan of “Arrested Development” (and if you aren’t then for your own sake, start watching immediately), you may wonder why we haven’t moved on at this point. Well, it’s for good reason. Every episode of the show packed in so much wit and humor that repeated viewings are the only way to give this show any justice. However, three seasons of the Bluths simply isn’t enough. There can never be enough instances of Gob dancing like an idiot to “The Final Countdown,” Buster forgetting he has a hook for a hand, or Tobias taking the idea of a Freudian slip to the next level. What I’m trying to say is that no amount of “Arrested” puns could some up my excitement for the prospect of new episodes. But that won’t stop me. As the way-too-literal doctor from the show would say: everything is going to be “all right.” And by that I mean, he’s lost the use of his left hand.
See, Obama actually has gotten something accomplished while in office!

That One Shot: Goodfellas

Leave a reply

For me, the tracking shot has always been my favorite camera movement. In our current film culture, which values incessant quick cuts, there is something to be said about being able to keep the camera running for an extended period of time. It is a testament to this that tracking shots are usually the ones people remember, and the one type of shot people are always making lists about.

Ask anyone devoted to film what their favorite tracking shot of all time is, and you will get any number of answers. Some might point to the opening of “Touch of Evil” which shows us the planting and eventual explosion of a bomb in one breathless take. Others might point to the car chase sequence of “Children of Men,” which is so powerful because the camera never cuts away from the violence, and therefore the viewer never knows what’s going to happen next. However, I believe the best of them all is the famed Copacabana shot from “Goodfellas.”
This single shot is equal parts thrilling and entertaining to watch. For those of you who haven’t seen “Goodfellas” yet (and if you haven’t turn off your computer and go watch it right now), it is the true story of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), an Irish-Italian hoodlum who finds great success as a small time mobster in the 50s and 60s, but then loses it all after a string of misjudgments and bad decisions. The movie is split up into two acts: the first act is a glorification of a life of crime and taking the easy way out, and the second half is a condemnation of this exact lifestyle.
This shot takes place during the movie’s first act, in which Henry takes Karen (Lorraine Bracco) on their first date together at the Copacabana. It goes on for around three minutes, an impressive amount of time to go on without a single cut. The lingering camera gives off the vibe that an invisible third party is following Henry around and documenting his life. This third party may know the strife that lies ahead but for know, focuses on the glamour.
The shot starts off on the street, where Henry refuses to leave his car in a garage, because he so loathes the idea of having to wait for it. As the camera continues to follow Henry and Karen across the street, they cut through the long line waiting to get in and go approach an underground entrance. Once the doors swing open and they enter, Karen has officially entered the criminal underworld. And this is a hard place to ever come back from. If this scene represents a descent into hell, a selling of the soul, then Henry and Karen are like the honorary king and queen.
This scene represents what will be the apex of Henry’s mob career. At the Copacabana, he doesn’t have to wait for a table: the Copacabana brings the table to him. Once the tracking shot ends and Henry and Karen have entered the restaurant, the camera doesn’t stop there. Perhaps Scorsese felt that cutting this shot would have ruined this scene, which feels like a big encapsulation of a major moment. Most people’s greatest moment of success might be when they make a fortune or get to run their organization. For Henry, that greatest moment is when he gets to avoid waiting in line. It’s all part of Henry’s plan to be as far from an ordinary schmuck as possible.
What fascinates me most about this is not just what happens onscreen, but what must have happened behind the scenes as well. It is hard to even imagine how difficult this must have been for Scorsese, cinematographer Michael Ballhaus, and all of the actors and extras in the scene to shoot and coordinate. It feels like every last action had to be so carefully plotted out and that one false move could have ruined everything. Every movement of every chef and every waiter must have been coordinated to a T. However, there are still some tiny moments that make me believe that it went off the script a few times. When Henry bumps into a plate, his reaction seems too genuine to have ever been planned.
In that lies the beauty of “Goodfellas,” the reason that I (and most other viewers) watch the movie again and again: it is so obsessively crafted, yet so loose and free. We are not meant to simply watch the lives of these gangsters and their families, but become a part of it. It invites us into their lives in a way that even “The Godfather” couldn’t do. The viewer is probably smart enough to know the dangers of entering the mob. However, for this one moment, getting into the Copacabana with a front row seat of the show seems pretty damn well worth the risk.
Watch the scene, with some interesting commentary from cast and crew here.

They’ve Made a Huge Mistake: Eddie Murphy to Host Oscars

Leave a reply

As if the Academy Awards hadn’t already lost enough of my respect by passing over both “Inglourious Basterds” and “The Social Network” for Best Picture, AMPAS has officially chosen Eddie Murphy as their host this year.

This is not to say Eddie Murphy isn’t funny. After all, he did make it acceptable for a black man to play an old Jewish man in “Coming to America.” However, his comedy choices over the past decade or so have been incredibly questionable. I could bring up “Norbit,” but that’s too easy. Instead, I will remind you all of “Meet Dave,” a movie in which Eddie Murphy plays Eddie Murphy inside of a space ship that is also Eddie Murphy. That sounds less like a real movie and more like something Tracy Jordan would have starred in.
Hopefully, Eddie Murphy could use this opportunity as a big comeback. Or Academy members will use this as a future opportunity to actually find a comedian people still like. Stephen Colbert? Jimmy Fallon? Donald Glover? Any of these would have been good choices.
Perhaps Murphy can pull this off, and bring everyone back to the days when he was a live performer on “Saturday Night Live.” However, I highly doubt anything we see this year will be sadder than watching all of the charm being sucked out of James Franco and Anne Hathaway as occurred in last year’s ceremony.*
*Editor’s Note: Anne Hathaway is still the most beautiful woman ever to walk the face of this Earth.

Breaking Bad: TV Just Got Really Good

Leave a reply

During the first episode of “Breaking Bad,” Walter White tells his class of less-than-eager students that chemistry is not the study of chemicals, but rather the study of change. If chemistry is the study of change, then Walter is a study of how quickly a person can change. And his descent is more alarming than any chemical reaction you’ll ever experiment with.

“Breaking Bad” has been labeled the best drama on television by most people who have ever watched it. It lives up to that honor. Its distinctive style leaves an unforgettable mark.

Walter White, played with a ferociously calm zeal by Bryan Cranston, is a high school chemistry teacher in Albuquerque. As the show begins, life isn’t too great for Walt. He works a job well below his level of brilliance, and can barely support his pregnant wife Skyler (Anna Gunn) and his crippled son Walter Jr. (RJ Mitte).

Walt is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Realizing he may not be around much longer, he decides to find a way to leave money for his family. In an act of desperation, he teams up with Jesse (Aaron Paul), a junkie former student of his a heart of gold, in order to cook meth. Using his extensive knowledge of chemistry, Walt cooks up the best meth anyone north or south of the border has ever seen. He becomes rich, but he also enters a world far more dangerous than he ever could have imagined.

As I’ve said before, AMC has the potential to be the best network on television, if not for all of the f***ing bleeps. “Breaking Bad” achieves a cinematic level of storytelling. As the show unfolds, it feels more and more like everything was planned right from the start.

“Breaking Bad” seamlessly blurs the line between good and evil. The show’s title comes from a southern colloquialism describing a straight-edged person who has taken a turn for the worse. “Breaking Bad” might be a show about dangerous criminals and drug deals but it will always boil down to the devastating downward spiral of Walter and how his decisions lead to the deterioration of his relationship with his family, the only thing in the world he cares about.

As Walter, Cranston gives the best dramatic performance on television. He can convey a feeling simply by giving you a long, frightening glare. He makes Walter’s moral descent totally believable. In one episode, Walter’s family tries to give him an intervention. It is a prime example of both Cranston’s work and the show’s powerhouse writing. In addition, Paul surprises as Walt’s partner-in-crime. Sometimes, he seems dumb and emotionally empty. But then he does something like save a child from his meth addicted parents. In a show filled with morally hazy actions, this was one of the few things someone on “Breaking Bad” does that can actually be described as heroic.

“Breaking Bad” is a modern western in the spirit of “No Country for Old Men,” in which the characters inhabit the cowboy morale in a present day setting. It also seamlessly mixes in elements of a thriller, with many episodes echoing the atmospheric horror of “The Shining.” In short, creator Vince Gilligan is an auteur of television.

A single episode of “Breaking Bad” is kind of like a movie in itself. However, the format of television allows the story arcs and the characters to run even deeper than most movies ever do. “Breaking Bad,” along with shows like “Mad Men” and “Louie” has figured out what the filmmakers of the late 60s figured out: how to make the medium raw, original, and real. Television creators are starting to develop distinctive styles. “Breaking Bad” represents good television moving beyond the big four stations. And no matter what anyone will say, there is still a place in the world for stories as good as “Breaking Bad.”

Summer 2011: In Which Woody Allen Saves Hollywood

Leave a reply

Summer is the season that studios are supposed to provide audiences with movies that provide unforgettable entertainment. In the past, this season has given us “Jaws” and “Star Wars.” Gone are those great days. In the outside world, it was one of the hottest summers on records. In cinemas across the country, it was one of the most miserable.

The summer of 2011 was the summer in which 3D killed itself along with good storytelling, with few notable exceptions. Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris,” without even meaning to be, became everything that the summer movie should be: wise and whimsical escapism. It is the most memorable movie he has made in years, and one that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as “Annie Hall” and “Hannah and Her Sisters.”
Summer movies are all about creating a spectacle and the site of 1920s Paris is a spectacle, albeit one that didn’t cost $300 million to shoot.”Midnight in Paris” is Allen’s return to his anti-intellectualism roots. Some scenes are about as good as the Marshall McLuhan scene from “Annie Hall.” Plus, Owen Wilson is the most convincing Woody Allen stand-in to grace the screen thus far.
Before getting to the mediocre, it is necessary to acknowledge the good. Most of the best summer movies were definitely not saved for last. “Bridesmaids” was not the groundbreaking triumph in the women’s rights movement as some suggested, but simply a near-perfect comedy. “Bridesmaids” works because of its playful anti-romantic comedy feel that’s sometimes nasty but never really mean. In other words, it loves every single one of its characters. All of the dialogue and situations flow with the awkward and unforced feel of reality. One of the most underrated masters of awkward comedy (Paul Feig) got his moment in the sun. And the star and co-writer, Kristen Wiig, has gone from “Saturday Night Live” skit saver to bankable Hollywood actress. Sometimes, success in Hollywood can be well deserved.
Also at summer’s beginning was the superb “The Tree of Life.” It was a head scratcher, but more in the “2001: A Space Odyssey” sense. At this point in his career, Terrence Malick has earned the right to tell a story that jumps back and forth between the creation of the universe, 1950s Texas, and dinosaurs. Even in their shortest moments, those family scenes felt so real. It was never meant to create a complete portrait of their lives, but it is rather the story of how our memories, and our very existences, fit in to the universe as a whole. In the whole scheme of things, does it really matter how we live our lives? That is a question, along with many others that Malick raises, that countless people will explore for years to come.
The great thing about a film about “The Tree of Life” is that it didn’t pander to its audience in order to make something that they want. Sometimes, the best directors make different and difficult movies because sometimes, those are the movies we ought to be seeing more of. Unfortunately, some filmmakers don’t seem to realize that, and that plays a part in this mediocre summer. I didn’t see “Transformers 3″ or “Green Lantern” or “Thor,” so I can’t speak for any of those movies. However, I did see “Super 8.” While it was a highly entertaining and superbly made piece of 70s nostalgia throughout, its ending reversed all its progress. It is great that J.J. Abrams took his time on his film and didn’t reveal the monster instantaneously. However, its ending resolved every plot line too quickly and too easily and what should have been thrilling came out as dull.
“Horrible Bosses” also missed the mark just slightly. While its three leads (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudekis, Charlie Day) pulled off three of the best comedic performances I’ve seen in years, a certain part of the story involving a navigation system turned the film into a sellout. The characters get themselves into some pretty terrible situations thanks to their stupidity, but letting them off the hook that easily doesn’t seem fair to anyone. Despite that, Bateman can still deliver a punchline with flawless deadpan, and Day can seem innocently insane even when he’s not parading cats with mittens around.
In the end though, 2011 can be defined as “The Summer of Meh.” This is not the state of an angry reaction, but rather an uncaring one. I could talk about how terrible “Cowboys & Aliens” is but nothing about that movie really motivates me to. “Midnight in Paris” was the rare film that deserved to be seen by a wide audience and with a little patience, it was. “Terri” is probably going to go on my year end list, but it won’t be in a theater near you anytime ever.
This summer, movies lost their mojo. Hopefully, Hollywood will take this as a learn from their mistakes rather than ignore them, as they always do. Perhaps superhero movies and shoddy 3D are on the way out. While it is understandable that story doesn’t always get people in the theater, it should go without saying that the audience enjoy the product they are paying to see. Luckily, the fall and winter seasons look promising (“Moneyball” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” particularly). For now, just enjoy some of the fine programming cable television has had to offer this summer. For instance, have you watched “Breaking Bad” yet?
This is one of the funniest still images from a movie ever. Why isn’t this a meme yet?

Movie Review: The Devil’s Double

Leave a reply

The most frightening villains are not the ones who are imagined, nor the ones who are merely real, but the ones in which it frightens us that they actually existed. One of these people is Uday Hussein, the most infamous of Saddam’s two sons. Here is a man so frighteningly sadistic that even the man who is hired (or should I say, forced) to be his double can’t do it.

“The Devil’s Double” is the true story of the man who would be Hussein’s body double, Latif Yahia (Dominic Cooper), and how he eventually escaped with one of Uday’s women (Ludivine Sagnier). Yahia went to the same privileged school as Uday (Dominic Cooper, again), and the two were deemed lookalikes by their classmates. After Uday threatens to harm Latif’s family, Latif reluctantly accepts Uday’s offer. It is not the promise of getting everything he wants, but rather the need to save his family, that brings him into this dangerous world. This is the first hint that “The Devil’s Double” is not quite the Iraqi “Scarface” that the television spots make it out to be.
Latif realizes from the moment he is told about the job that being Uday’s double would require him to “extinguish himself.” This is easier said than done, because of the magnitude of change Latif would have to go to in order to transform himself into Uday. Latif is a selfless man from modest means who nearly died for his country. Uday has enough money for a collection of diamond-studded gold watches.
Uday spends his time rounding up as many women as possible, some of age and some not. He lusts, and never desires, any of these women. Collecting women seems less a need to fulfill sexual desire and more a need to show off his power. This comes to light during a horrifying bit when he steals the bride a friend of his had just married.
In a challenging bit that requires him to play two very different people, Cooper steals the show. Then again, there really isn’t anyone to steal the show from. He really steals it from himself. He portrays two very different people not just through the modulation of his voice. He is able to channel both good and evil through his eyes. When looking at Latiff, it is as if an angel exists through his pupils. Uday’s eyes convey someone who is constantly disgruntled and never satisfied with anything besides himself. There is an endless fire burning in his eyes.
“The Devil’s Double” never really bothers to explain or justify Uday’s insane antics. There is a lot to explain, but nothing to justify. As the movie shows, and since we are in the world of film that means what the movie shows is absolute truth, Uday lived a sheltered life. Since his father was Saddam, whatever he want, he got. He could get away with murder, literally.
There are many movies that use a decent person’s perspective in order to portray the mind and madness of a psychotic ruler. “The Last King of Scotland” did this most effectively. The problem in “The Devil’s Double” is that Latif’s story is interesting, but his character is not. Cooper as Uday totally overpowers Cooper as Latif.
“The Devil’s Double” never has a dull moment. It provides an enthralling story from the beginning and never slows down the endless adrenaline that flows through it. Maybe it runs on too much adrenaline, and it tries too hard to make its subject matter mainstream. In this day and age, casting no Iraqis and not allowing the characters to speak in their native tongue. Most of the actors are British and contrary to prior belief, British people and people from Muslim countries are not similar. However, it is a step up from the brown faces that mark the fatal flaw of “Lawrence of Arabia.”
Scenes such as the one where Uday cuts open a man’s stomach, and his organs and his organs are exposed rather graphically, lack clear vision and rely on the weakness of showing everything in order to shock. The beginning, which is devoid of dialogue, intertwined with real footage, and somewhat ambiguous (is that Uday? Or Latif?) is a completely different movie. Uday’s strange relationship with his mother is briefly alluded to, but never brought into fruition. The thoughts that Uday either learned his habits from his father, or was continually trying to anger him, come to mind throughout.
These problems undermine the flashes of brilliance throughout. The scene in which Saddam confronts his son over one of his worst offenses is chilling because of what could have happened.
The film’s weak ending, which comes a few minutes too soon, is a reminder that this is no probe of history but rather an escape action film. It eventually becomes a noteworthy film for its powerful central performance and the uncannily privileged world it brings the audience into. If ever there was a category for this film, “The Devil’s Double” would be called pop history.

Movie Review: The Guard

Leave a reply

Brendan Gleeson seems like an easy guy to underestimate. Yet, his snarl can be as furious as his slow yet subtle comic timing. It is this element of surprise that makes him such a vital, unforgettable part of “The Guard.”

In “The Guard,” Gleeson plays Sergeant Gerry Boyle, the only uncorrupt cop in a small Irish town where most of the residents speak Gaelic, pub visits are routine, and murder and drug rings usually aren’t recurrent. That is, until the day Gerry investigates a car crash that leads him to a huge shipment of cocaine into the country. The FBI comes to investigate, and Gerry is teamed up with the more traditional Wendall (Don Cheadle) to break up the drug ring. Wendall comes from a privileged midwestern African American family. Gerry gives off the notion that he’s never been within ten feet of a black person in his life. “I’m Irish. Racism is part of my culture,” Gerry quips. This certainly is not the immediate start of a beautiful friendship.
Make no mistake, “The Guard” is not some social commentary against racism. Ignorance is simply a part of its humor. It’s funny not just because Gerry has such a warped perception of other races, but because he can’t even get his racial stereotypes straight.
Yet, even in his meanest, most unaware moments, Gerry is never a detestable character in the slightest bit. In a position like he is in, his unenlightened views can only hide an immeasurable amount of brains.
“The Guard” works like most comedies today don’t by never dropping a joke. Every punchline, every small scene in a means of leading to another joke later on. You didn’t think those prostitutes were for nothing, did you?
“The Guard” is written and directed by John Michael McDonagh. He is the brother of Martin McDonagh, the theater and screenwriter who made “In Bruges” (which, probably not coincidently, Gleeson also starred in). John took some notes from his brother’s style and incorporates that same pitch black humor, self-awareness, and ambiguity that made “In Bruges” a modern classic. “The Guard” doesn’t exactly reach the life-pondering depth of “Bruges” but it nearly achieves the sly mystery of that film in its ending.
In their efforts, the two brothers have created what can be defined as the Irish lifestyle and humor. The lives of both cops and criminals revolve around the happening of the pub. This is their version of a coffeehouse. That is, a coffeehouse where people can drunkenly embarrass themselves as well as share ideas. Irish men also seem to come with preconceived perceptions of others, as well as street smarts. These traits may be defined both by the rural landscape in which they inhabit, and the unholy amount of Guinness and whiskey that they drink.
Like “Bruges,” “The Guard” ends up being both a fish-out-of-water and a buddy comedy. “The Guard” is a film that rewards those who wait and by the end their partnership isn’t just a means of solving this crime; it has involved into a full-fledged unorthodox friendship. Those are truly the best friends you can find in life: the ones that are nothing like you and yet in those differences, you find something you can hinge on to.
“The Guard” plays as a crime thriller comedy with a straight face almost the whole way through. Unlike say, “Hot Fuzz” this is not a giant sendup on the action movie genre. It seems more of a tribute to how hilarious it can be to step away from all PC boundaries. However, it does go meta for a moment, when a character suggests this story become a movie. Going meta is never a bad touch.
Despite being a comedy, “The Guard” does right in not going for the easy ending. I won’t say what it is, but all I will say is that you are not dumb if you can’t figure it out. Either way that it could go would make sense for completely different reasons. Either way it is definitely life affirming.
When they first meet, Wendall says to Gerry, “I can’t tell if you’re really fucking dumb, or really fucking smart.” Besides the hilarious racism, that’s what makes Gerry so memorable: perhaps he is a little bit of both.
I don’t normally impose upon my readers to see a movie. But this has been a particularly weak summer for movies. If “The Guard” is playing in a theater near you, you’d be really fucking dumb not see it.