Yearly Archives: 2011

Movie Review: Days of Heaven

Leave a reply

Watching a Terrence Malick film is like taking a stroll through nature. Or in the case of “Days of Heaven,” harvesting it, burning it, and possibly getting killed by it.

“Days of Heaven,” Malick’s second feature, is yet another example of how he brings the natural world to life through film. “Days of Heaven” achieves this on an even grander scale than his previous feature, “Badlands.”
Like his other films, “Days of Heaven” moves at a slow and steady pace, with many often baffling moments. “Days of Heaven” begins in a place that can be described as the opposite of heaven, a steel-mill in early 20th century Chicago. The factory looks more like a third world country than the American Dream. After Bill (Richard Gere), a hard-working but hot-tempered worker at the mill accidentally kills his cruel boss, he flees the city with his girlfriend Abby (Brooke Adams) and his sister for the promise of a better life in the wheat fields of Texas.
No matter how beautiful the sky looks in Texas at sunset, life in the country proves to be difficult, as the wealthy, unnamed farm owner (Sam Shepard) treats his workers like slaves. Bill convinces Abby to marry their boss in order to get a claim to his fortune. Like any get-rich-quick scheme, it ends with more blood and tears than dollars and cents.
“Days of Heaven” is one cinematic story where the story barely matters as you watch it. On a first viewing, the story moves quickly and is hard to follow. That’s partly Malick’s way of telling a story and also because the story is told through the voiceover of a young girl, therefore giving the perspective of a confused child during some very dark events.
While watching “Days of Heaven,” I was convinced that I wasn’t watching a linear story, but instead a detailed tour of the Texas Panhandle. Nestor Almendros received what was probably the most deserving Best Cinematography Oscar ever for his work on this film. The film is shot mostly during the time of day that he describes as the “magic hour,” which is the period of time between sunset and nightfall. During this time, the sky is an almost magical shade of light red. Maybe it shows the false, magical hopefulness of the prosperity of living off of the land. It is also a heavenly presence in the film, something Malick brings into everything he makes.
Under Almendros’s photographic skills, the monotonous colors of the prairie look so vividly alive. As the stalks of wheat sway in the wind, almost in unison, it looks almost as if the fields are instead an ocean. In this film, the landscape is not the background, but rather the life that breaths through it. Some shots seem almost too good to be true. For example, how was a flower growing able to be shot in time lapse, without today’s digital technology? That question will just have to remain a part of the magical mysteries of cinema.
It is intentional, unsurprising, and ironic that the most humane living creatures in “Days of Heaven” are the natural elements of earth and the non-human creatures that inhabit it. The ducks, horses, bison, and many other animals that wander the ranch seem more in touch with the world than the humans there.
As for the people, they are all animalistic and motivated by greed. Bill, who is supposed to be the film’s hero, has none of the qualities of the typical hero. A hero is motivated by a desire to do good and protect those other than themselves. Bill, on the other hand, is just looking out for his own well being. Even the woman he loves is just a tool to make him more powerful.
Like most of the other men Malick portrays in his films, Bill has an underlying aggressive nature, one that usually leads to violence. Unlike Kit Kruthers from “Badlands,” this violent instinct is not a sadistic one but rather one of self-defense. Bill has more in common with the ill-tempered father from “The Tree of Life.”
Malick is purposely a very secretive director. He doesn’t want his personality getting in the way of the messages of his films. If a film is an auteur’s way of expressing himself, Malick does that through “Days of Heaven.” Malick studied philosophy at Harvard, and the actions of the characters in “Days of Heaven” probably don’t represent his moral compass but more a Hobbes like view on man: humans are violent by nature and only act in their best interest.

Of all of the films ever made about the American struggle for prosperity, this is one of the finest. “Days of Heaven” is about both our dependence on the land, and our subsequent betrayal of it. That’s why when the locusts come and black out the sky, it feels partly like nature’s revenge but more like Manifest Destiny biting back.
The downfall of most films is that their characters talk too much and have nothing good to say. Unless you’re as good of a writer as Quentin Tarantino or Woody Allen, embracing silence is a key to success. In “Days of Heaven,” Malick lets the images, along with the sweeping score by Ennio Morricone, do all of the talking. This is what makes “Days of Heaven” more than just a typical Hollywood epic. When you’re trying to tell the story of a country and its inhabitants, sometimes the best way to do so is to just observe. That way you see its beauty, and its horror, exactly as it was intended to be seen.
If You Liked This Movie, You’ll Also Like: Badlands, The Tree of Life, Barry Lyndon, There Will Be Blood, 2001: A Space Odyssey, No Country for Old Men, Once Upon a Time in the West

Movie Review: The Tree of Life

Leave a reply

Unless you love, your life will flash by.

Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” is the most highly ambitious film to come out of this year, many past years, and many years in the future. It comes from what must have been years of obsessive thought about both life and film. Only someone this in love with the craft, and with nature, could make this film, and somehow make it masterful.

“The Tree of Life” begins in a small Texas town in the 1950s, in what must be loosely based off of Malick’s own upbringing. Brad Pitt plays the tough patriarch of a family of three boys. Pitt, who is never given a first name, continually fights his wife (Jessica Chastain) over the best way to raise their family.

Throughout the film, they explore loss of innocence and the possible meaning of life. Usually, trying to find the meaning of life is a cheap storytelling technique. But if you’re as good of a filmmaker as Malick is, the answer doesn’t come in one sentence. The film takes us from Texas to the cosmos to the creation of the life, and back again. Somewhere in between, an older version of one of the sons (Sean Penn), comes back to explore it all. The sum of “The Tree of Life” is nearly impossible to explain. After one viewing, any interpretation could be right.

Malick’s latest is a reminder of his films from the past: it takes its precious time, and it is very quiet. “The Tree of Life” is reminiscent of a brief time when films told entire stories through images. Malick’s story, which covers basically the entirety of existence in just two and a half hours, manages to be the cinematic sequel to “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Like “2001,” “The Tree of Life” is nothing short of a cinematic opera.

Malick, while echoing Kubrick, also does something that few filmmakers have done this well: capture the flawed beauty of nature. Light shining on a bed, tall grass being ruffled by human hands, and flies buzzing around a lake at dusk have never looked this stunning. He captures both the sights and sounds of the natural world to a perfectionist degree. This is naturalistic filmmaking at its finest. Through a camera lens, he encapsulates Thoreauvian philosophy.

As a critic, it is important to try and avoid overanalyzing. However, for a film like “The Tree of Life,” overanalyzing is crucial. Through his film, Malick is trying to find more than just the meaning of life, because life doesn’t have just one meaning. “The Tree of Life” is about what is out there, and what brings us all together.

Some might call Malick’s film a religious one. While religion seems to be a big factor, I would say that the film straddles the line between spirituality and atheism. It asks these essential questions: when it comes to dealing with the biggest questions in life, who (or what) do we turn to? Do we look to nature, the possibility of God, or our friends and family? No choice we make is a decent or right one, unless it is done out of some form of love.

“The Tree of Life” is not a film that offers easy answers. Within a half hour, many people in the audience had walked out, something I haven’t witnessed since “A Serious Man.” After “The Tree of Life” ended, one woman remarked that the film was reminiscent of a bunch of Windows screen savers. A friend of mine compared it to the greatest “South Park” episode ever.

While both of these interpretations are funny, they do not do Malick’s film justice. The cinematography is the result of years of careful work, not stealing. Meanwhile, overanalyzing is the act of finding meaning in the meaningless. Malick surely had some deeper purpose in trying to discover how life exists and thrives.

“The Tree of Life” is hard to be in love with the first time around, but I feel a need to recommend it. I can’t get over the brilliant way in which Malick speeds up, and then slows down, the story at just the right moments. Many films made nowadays try to think up and balance big ideas, but few are ever this meditative.

Movie Review: Midnight in Paris

Leave a reply

“Midnight in Paris,” Woody Allen’s fantastic new film, begins with an overly long, yet beautifully crafted montage of Paris. The introduction gives off the impression that Allen doesn’t even want to make a movie, he just wants to sit back and see what the streets of Paris have to offer. And that is exactly what he does.

For over a decade, the Woody Allen we once knew has seemed pretty lost. He tried to find himself by leaving New York and exploring Europe. Even with the successes that has brought (“Match Point,” “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”), he just hasn’t been able to equal the success of his early days. However, “Midnight in Paris” shows that everyone’s favorite neurotic Jew has not only rediscovered his voice, but figured out how to turn it into perfect comedic cinema.
“Midnight in Paris” details hack screenwriter Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) as they venture through Paris. While Inez focuses on their wedding and future, Gil focuses on his first novel, and his dream of living in Paris in the 1920s. While trying to find inspiration for his work, Gil finds something totally unexpected in Paris after midnight. What he finds is a mystery that would feel almost like a crime to reveal.
I wouldn’t call “Midnight in Paris” Allen’s big comeback, because he’s had so many comebacks over the years. When you make as many films as he does, there are bound to be misses. Yet, this is his first film in a long time that feels informative, free, and most importantly, fun. Sometimes, you don’t have to sell your soul and buy a ticket for “Fast Five” in order to have fun at the movies.
“Midnight in Paris” is a mixture of everything Allen is great at. In the film, he is given a chance to mock the pretentious intellectuals of the world as he slips subtle literary references into the story. Its combined slapstick and whimsical tone made me think of “Sleeper.” Its light and fast mood also evoked the great comedies of the era Gil wished he could have lived in.
Wilson, meanwhile, is the best Allen reincarnation there could possibly be. He perfectly takes on Allen’s wisecracking, neurotic New Yorker-type personality. He delivers every line with the right amount of anxiety. The rest of the ensemble is utilized well. It would be easy for someone who is writing about themselves to only focus on the character based off of themselves, yet Allen never forgets that there are many people involved in Gil’s life. Most notably is Michael Sheen as the way-too-sophisticated-for-his-own-good Paul and Kurt Fuller as Gil’s always furious father-in-law. McAdams is also an always enjoyable screen presence even when she’s being a cold and unsupportive girlfriend.
Oh yeah, and that writing. Comedy is one of the most intelligent forms of writing, yet few ever do it right. Only Allen can be so funny and so observant. After all, the greatest observations about life are the funniest ones.
Whether he be in New York, London, Barcelona, or Paris, setting is an essential part of every Allen story. Even with such strong characters, location is always key to the story. It usually sets the mood, whether that be uptight, mysterious, or free-spirited. In “Midnight in Paris,” Paris might as well be the center of the entire universe. It exudes both light and life, it is the center of creation. Just as he knows his beloved New York so much, Allen acts as if he’d lived in Paris for centuries, nailing the culture down right.
As I continue to write this review, I am debating going deeper into the plot. It would be great for further discussion, yet I feel like I’d be ruining something. In a world where it’s usually movies never keep their best parts unspoiled, “Midnight in Paris” offers plenty of surprises that are best to see for yourself. In one short film, the excitement of many years of culture, the beauty of a city, and the over-analyzing complexities of being a writer are captured. Most importantly, this film is just so full of joy. It is the very reason why escapism was created. And that is why it is my favorite film so far this year.

Movie Review: Super 8

1 Reply

Steven Spielberg has always said that as a child, he would make his model train crash and film it. Decades later, somebody decided to crash a train on film, and they did it just the way Spielberg would have done it.

“Super 8,” named after the film format, is a cinephile’s paradise. It’s a tribute to the great sci-fi, monster, and buddy movies of the past. Think “E.T.” meets “Jaws” meets “Stand by Me” and “The Goonies.” Only a director this in touch with films past could make this movie. Luckily, J.J. Abrams is that guy.
“Super 8″ is a little different than you might expect. For one, it’s not the explosion-a-minute summer blockbuster that has clogged American movie theaters for the past decade or so. It is first and foremost a story. It takes place in the late 1970s in a small Ohio town where a group of kids are trying to make a zombie film. While filming, they witness a terrible train crash. After the train crashes, a series of mysterious events sweep the town, likely prompted by something strange onboard that train.
“Super 8″ made me feel nostalgic for an era I didn’t even grow up in. Additionally, this is the first summer blockbuster I have seen in ages that actually had an enjoyable screenplay. Even “Inception” wasn’t this well written. It has snappy dialogue and endearing characters. The best part about it though, is that it has a heart. Rarely does a mainstream action movie come along that actually cares about what happens to its characters, rather than just what happens if they blown up.
The story of “Super 8″ goes into some very dark territory, exploring death’s effect on children, the effects of bad parenting, and the meaning of love and friendship at such a young age. Like Spielberg, family is an important bond between the characters of an Abrams film. The fact that this film focuses on these issues rather than just plot is something worth celebrating.
The special effects, action, and the monster itself are nothing revolutionary, but that’s not a bad thing. The train sequence is one of the best I’ve seen, just ranking somewhat below the train explosion from “Lawrence of Arabia.” Abrams films it the way he filmed the plane crash in the very first episode of “Lost”: it’s not the crash itself, but the aftermath that is so frightening and exhilarating. Watching how the characters deal with the wreckage is like an ultimate test of their will to survive.
While this film contains the many strong suits of a Spielberg film, it also contains some of his weaknesses. Like “War of the Worlds” and some other Spielberg pictures of recent years, “Super 8″ resorts to over-sentimentality in its ending. Worst of all though, its ending feels rushed, rather than earned. All of this buildup ultimately leads to something uninspiring and unoriginal. Based on how good the rest of the story was, I think Abrams was capable of something better than this. Even “Cloverfield” had a better ending.
The ending of “Super 8″ certainly has some effect on how I perceive the entire movie, yet the film as a whole is hard to hate. It is just so lovingly crafted, only someone who has ever devoted their entire life to film could ever have made a movie like this. It never treats its audience as if it is dumb; it challenges the viewer, and makes them wait for the action.
When the plot is boiled down, it is not about some awesome superhero trying to save the world from robots or aliens, it is simply about a bunch of kids trying to make a movie, and how their movie was disturbed by the presence of a monster. Sometimes, the problems of childhood are much more interesting than the issues of adults.

Movie Review: The Hangover Part II

Leave a reply

If not for the presence of Zach Galifianakis, a monkey might have been the best part of “The Hangover Part II.” That tends to happen when good comedies are given sequels: monkeys tend to take over.

“The Hangover Part II” is exactly what I expected. Even though that means a lot of funny moments, it is also a big disappointment. Having a film meet meager expectations is a decent thing, yet having a film exceed them is really something special. What “The Hangover Part II” unfortunately assumes is that if a formula worked once, it will work again and again.
As with before, a bachelor party goes terribly wrong, and someone important goes missing. This time though, replace Las Vegas with Bangkok, and fill in Stu’s (Ed Helms) wedding. Then replace missing Doug (Justin Bartha) with Teddy (Mason Lee), the son of Stu’s father-in law, who already hates Stu to begin with. Also replace a missing tooth, baby, and tiger with an accidental face tattoo, a shaved head, and a monkey with shady moral standing. The stakes are bigger, and the city is more dangerous.
A common rule I’ve learned about writing is that what we don’t see is always more powerful than what we see. For some reason, “The Hangover” saga can’t seem to pick up on this important lesson. In comedies, what we don’t see is funnier than what we do see. “The Hangover Part II” never bothers to leave anything up to the audience’s interpretation. Gross out comedy is coming to a point where the only way to gross out the audience is to show them everything. “Animal House” didn’t have to actually show Flounder throwing up on Dean Wormer’s desk, and yet its hard not to laugh every time.
I believe this over emphasis on gross out humor results from both an over reliance on shock value and excuses to not write a stronger screenplay. The original “Hangover” doesn’t have the best writing for a comedy, and it certainly doesn’t have the best developed characters, but it worked. The story fits together, the mystery makes sense, and the laughs are earned. The sequel puts more emphasis on shocking the audience rather than making them laugh.
One over-the-top element of the film that works best is Galifianakis’s performance. He is given more screen time than in the original and is therefore given more time to make the character even more bizarre than he was before. All of the characters from the first film are used well here, yet many new side characters are eventually forgotten. They are treated as plot devices rather than as actual characters.
I cannot tell whether “The Hangover 2″ fails as a comedy or whether it just somehow succeeds at self-awareness. The beginning of the movie is similar enough to the original that it almost seems like parody; director Todd Phillips seems smart enough to understand how unoriginal the whole film is. However, at some point it leaves self-awareness behind and becomes a very unaware Hollywood sequel.
This review cannot end without acknowledging the scenes of hilarity that do exist. Besides most of the lines that come out of Galifianikis’s mouth, the monkey makes for a surprisingly great addition to the crew. And to Ken Jeong, your willingness to bare everything qualifies as some form of bravery. I will not even bother to analyze the funniest scenes further, as the best comedy can never be analyzed.
Another redeeming feature is the film’s decision to locate the story in Bangkok. The seedy, rapidly expanding city is the perfect place to set a sprawling mystery involving a missing person.
With all of the quibbles to be had about “The Hangover Part II,” what can’t be forgotten is that the homegrown feel from the first film is now gone. “The Hangover Part II” is a pop comedy. The series is a blockbuster with blockbuster expectations now. If you are looking for a great summer comedy that won’t be forgotten soon after leaving the theater, see “Bridesmaids.” If you just want something mindless and entertaining to escape reality for a short period, go to “The Hangover Part II.” Just don’t expect the repeat viewings that made the original such a sensation.

Movie Review: Bridesmaids

Leave a reply

In most of the reviews for “Bridesmaids,” there seems to be a common consensus that this is the movie that proves that women can succeed in comedy. Well, that is wrong, considering the ongoing success of Tina Fey and plenty of other female comedians who have been working for years.

Nevertheless, “Bridesmaids” quite impressively breaks down the gender barrier between male gross-out comedy and female rom-com and creates, well, a gross-com. Or maybe a rom-out? You think of a better name.
The great thing about “Bridesmaids” is that, despite its nearly all female cast, it can connect to a variety of crowds. Kristen Wiig stars in that role she’s become known for: that awkward girl who moves her body too much and never says the right thing. Her character, Annie, has been assigned to the task of being maid of honor at her best friend’s (Maya Rudolph) wedding. Any attempts Annie makes at planning the wedding are sabotaged by Helen (Rose Byrne), a bridesmaid who is a little too good at planning fancy events. This turns into a jealousy fest that doesn’t spur a bride war, but rather a way for a lot of people to realize how screwed up they all are.
Everytime “Bridesmaids” headed down the usual rom-com path, it always took another turn that managed to prove me wrong. That’s because the film isn’t a rom-com, it’s a usual Apatow film that replaces men with women. While the film was advertised as the female “Hangover,” I would say the story is closer to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” or “Knocked Up,” minus the weed. That is to say, Wiig is just as much of a sorry slacker as Jason Segel and Seth Rogen were in those movies. However, Wiig’s Annie proves to be even more pathetic than either of them ever were, even at their lowest points.
I think what helps the comedy mixture work best is the fact that the female writers (Wiig and Annie Mumolo) are paired with a male director (Feig). This team works well in other ways. Both the writers and the director know how to make awkwardness funny, and the director is also especially good at stepping aside and letting good writing and acting speak for itself.
Let’s discuss the writing: it is the main factor of why “Bridesmaids” has clicked so much with audiences. Unlike most mainstream comedy seen today, none of the jokes, dialogue, or situations feel forced. Most of them feel like they could have been improvised. Even the visual gags feel real. One visual gag I kept thinking about involves Wiig getting stuck on top of a gate after a morning walk of shame gone awry. Perhaps it is the character’s reaction that truly makes it work; it just feels like the way anyone would act in that situation. Feig is great at getting “real reactions” out of people (just watch “Freaks and Geeks” already, please).
That scene is just one of many examples of Wiig’s fantastic performance in the film. It is not surprising that a backlash has been forming against her recently. Unfortunately, the backlash makes some sense: she was basically pulling the same shtick in every single one of her performances. Here, she is playing that same uncomfortable, twitchy faced oddball she always plays. However, in “Bridesmaids,” she actually feels like a real person.
Wiig has matured as an actress, giving us a multi-faced character who changes throughout the course of the film. It might be fun to watch Wiig play with her hair and do her whole Penelope routine, but a little change every once in a while is never a bad thing.
Some of the other acting highlights of the film include Jon Hamm, who shows as always that he can play comedic sleaze as well as he can play dramatic sleaze. A few newcomers make a big impact on the film. Irish comedian Chris O’Dowd is perfectly deadpan and very sweet as Annie’s love interest.
The most notable scene stealer, however, is Melissa McCarthy as the slobbish bridesmaid with a heart of gold. McCarthy delivers hilarious (and very weird) dialogue at a pace that you have to try and keep up with. She establishes this with the very first lines she delivers. She is also the most riotous and disgusting part of the movie’s soon to be famous, ultimate gross-out scene. Oh yeah, about that scene; I will try and keep it mostly secret, but what I will say is that it will one day end up in the pantheon of comedy’s funniest poop/puke scenes. The fact that it is able to combine both and make it not just shocking, but actually funny, is an accomplishment worth celebrating.
The only real problem with “Bridesmaids” is one that is common with Apatow helmed comedies: running time. Sure, the story flows smoothly and all the jokes are funny, but some jokes run on just a little too long. Some of the improvised bits definitely could have been cut down and been saved for a future blooper reel. Also, the ending seems a bit too formulaic. However, a little twist in the end credits puts an end to that.
Despite this, “Bridesmaids” is a special movie that, after over two hours, won me over. “Bridesmaids” is a testament to the fact that female comedy should be left to female writers because men don’t know anything about women, and women don’t know anything about men; that’s just life.
Most importantly though, “Bridesmaids” shows that the difference between a good and a truly memorable comedy is to have likable characters who have flaws and, in the end, are able to redeem themselves. That’s not just great comedy, that’s great writing.
I predict in the near future that this image of Jon Hamm will become a meme. Make it happen, internet.

An Open Letter for Everyone Involved in The Hangover Part II (a.k.a. Don’t Make this Suck)

Leave a reply

Dear Cast and Crew of The Hangover Part II,

As I have stated on this blog before, I am a devoted fan of “The Hangover.” I still stuck by it, even when people pointed out the glitches in the plot, and others accused it of not being funny. I stuck by it, and even mentioned it as one of my favorite films of 2009. I was surprised by how well this film did in theaters, and I know you are, too. Because “The Hangover” did so well, Hollywood has decided to do what it does for any movie that does well: give it a sequel. Even though this sequel is very unnecessary, make it count. However, by the looks of the trailer, I am afraid that that just may not be the case.
Yes, I have watched the trailer for “The Hangover Part II.” I will say this briefly because so many others have already stated this more eloquently than I have: it is exactly the same as the first film, beat by beat. Changing the location and replacing a baby with a monkey doesn’t mean that the plot will be any different. Here is the plot of both films as I see it: Zach Galifianakis does something ridiculous, everyone blacks out, Ed Helms wakes up with something weird on his face, they lose someone important, and then they search for clues. This formula works for both films.
All of this worries me a lot because all of the actors involved, and the director at helm, seem above the typical Hollywood game. That is what the first film showed. It had a unique gross out hilarity, great characters, and a good, unpredictable mystery behind it. That formula worked great once, so why redo it? Whenever a great comedy is given a sequel, it typically is the exact same plot with a few minor tweaks. This ruins the authenticity of the original. Just look at what happened to the “Austin Powers” series. Comedy sequels such as “Wayne’s World 2″ and “Get Him to the Greek” are re-watchable because they took the characters we already liked and put them into new situations.
One thing I hope the trailer represents, is false advertising. Perhaps the reason you have decided to make your film seem like the original is to get the support of all of the first film’s fans so they will come back and see the sequel. Maybe the plot is actually much more different than the trailer leads on. Or perhaps the story is tounge-and-cheek; perhaps you’ve decided to make fun of how unoriginal and formulaic Hollywood sequels have become. The recent Entertainment Weekly article I read about your film suggests you guys put a lot of effort into it. So unless you are lying (which I highly doubt), then at least I know that “The Hangover Part II” isn’t just everyone phoning it in for a paycheck. As Galifianakis said, he already did that for “G-Force.”
Even if “The Hangover Part II” proves to be extremely similar to its predecessor, I still feel like it’ll be funny. As long as these people are involved, humor should follow. However, there is more humor to be found in a new joke than an old one. The whole wolf pack thing can get old when people tell you it over and over again.
Also, it is interesting that you decided to include the phrase “Part II” in your title rather than just call your movie “The Hangover 2.” Believe it or not, the word “Part” and having roman numerals actually mean a lot. You are suggesting that this isn’t just some sequel, but rather a second part. Like “The Godfather” and “Star Wars,” you suggest with that title that this sequel was made not to make more money, but to further advance a certain story. So, I hope the purpose of this film isn’t just to bank off of the success of the first one, but rather to advance further into this gang’s maturity and show their friendship develop even deeper.
Please, everyone involved in “The Hangover Part II,” prove my fears (and those of many others) wrong.
Sincerely,
The Reel Deal
P.S. On my Humor Scale: Drug Dealing Monkey > Misplaced Baby. So yes, I do have hope.

Movie Review: Source Code

Leave a reply

Whenever humankind finally finds a time machine, they will not go back in time to see what the past was like. They will probably just use it to make their own lives better. Or perhaps one good person will use it to make the world better.


Time travel might not be the best phrase to put in with “Source Code,” but it’s the most relatable one I could come up with. Maybe it’s time travel, mixed with a little mind travel. That is the most I can give away, without spoiling it. Even with its small flaws, “Source Code” is by far one of the most satisfying mainstream thrillers playing in theaters.

“Source Code” is the second feature length film by Duncan Jones, who made quite a debut with 2009′s “Moon.” “Source Code” represents the same independent principles he set up with “Moon,” but geared toward a wider audience. Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a soldier who has unwittingly been sent back on a train in order to diffuse a bomb onboard. While attempting to stop a terrorist attack, he discovers some terrible secrets about himself, and forms an unlikely love (Michelle Monaghan).


“Source Code” asked much more from me intellectually than I was expecting. Then again, maybe that was my fault for second guessing the director of “Moon.” I do not use this to speak negatively of “Source Code” though: a film like this is a relief in a world that gives us films such as “Fast Five.” It employs the classic “government agency with a mind-altering device” sci-fi premise mixed with a 21st century thriller about defeating terrorism.

If only I could’ve seen “Source Code” before I wrote my last philosophy paper, maybe I wouldn’t have bombed it. “Source Code” takes a philosophical approach to its almost time travel story. I say “almost” because there’s a few reservations behind the “time travel” in the film that I can’t really talk about here. Its rules feel a little bit like “Lost.” Basically, this film shows some interesting potential for Jones: he is another great mind for the sci-fi, likely to do similar changes to the genre that Abrams also amazingly pulled off.

Back to the philosophy though. If one were to ever find a way to revisit the past, “Source Code” asks all the right questions about it. Can you change major outcomes in the past, or will the same event happen no matter what you do? Is it possible for one body to be in two separate places at once, living two separate lives?


As both detective and emotionally damaged soldier, Gyllenhaal is compelling and convincing when slipping into either role. Jones knows how to point a camera just as well as his father (David Bowie) could play a guitar.

It is one thing to direct multiple different scenes in a movie, but to direct the same thing multiple times and make each time different is a gift. I loved how at the beginning, a shot of a train whizzing through a pleasant rustic scene is marked by a horrifying score and later on that same shot is given a much more pleasant background sound as the audience understands better what is about to happen. It is the director’s duty to guide the audience’s emotions, and through his wise choices, Jones does just that.



“Source Code” is also contains a strong screenplay by Ben Ripley. His dialogue is both entertaining and realistic, and the film flows so smoothly from one scene to another, even when jumping between the past and the present. The only real problem with it is that it suffers from Multiple Ending Disorder. This is when the film seems to end at least three to four times. I found at least one point where the film could’ve ended, and that final shot would have made it even stronger. Closure is always a good thing, but too much closure is unnecessary.

Even in this post bin Laden world, “Source Code” remains a huge standout among the films released in recent years chronicling the War on Terror. However, it really impresses most in its psychological and philosophical aspects. Mainly though, its just a great mystery, thriller, summer blockbuster that happened to be released in April.

If You Liked this Movie, You’ll also Like: Moon, Minority Report, Memento, The Sixth Sense, Blade Runner

There was a lot from “Source Code” that I unfortunately could not discuss in this review. Perhaps another, more thorough analysis will come.

Movie Review: Roger & Me

Leave a reply

I will admit that when I first started watching “Roger & Me,” I had no intention of writing a review of it. After all, it is a film I’m watching for a class in order to write an essay about it. However, maybe somewhere around the bunny murder scene, I felt there was just no way I couldn’t review it.


“Roger & Me” is the first film Michael Moore ever made. It’s also his most personal, and it might just be his best. It’s before he became extremely fixated at his own image and was focused more on actually trying to commit an act of social justice through film.

“Roger & Me” focuses on Moore’s hometown of Flint, Michigan. The town was once the prosperous center of America’s auto industry until General Motors CEO Roger Smith decided to shut down Flint’s plant and move all of those jobs overseas. The town soon became one of the poorest in America and suffered from problems such as homelessness, eviction, and violent crime. Moore’s main goal was to track Smith town and have him spend a day with Flint’s laid off auto workers. Of course, Smith doesn’t budge, and the film because something much more interesting: a documentary about trying to get an interview, and a look at the dangerous effects of globalization.

Michael Moore is one of the most polarizing filmmakers working today. Many have accused him of twisting reality in order to make his point in “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Some accusations are true, and others are highly politicized. The great thing about “Roger & Me” is that Moore never really takes any overt political standpoint. He is simply telling a human story from the perspective of someone who has actually been effected by the issue at hand. As someone who grew up in Flint, Moore must’ve realized he had an obligation to tell this story and tell it right. He certainly did just that.

The story of “Roger & Me” doesn’t get old thanks to Moore’s entertaining and energetic approach to such depressing subject matter. Moore’s emerging sarcastic voice is present here, as well as his pop culture prowess. Moore is always making connections and finding interesting new ways to make his enemies look ridiculous.

All joking aside, Moore crafts a vision of American poverty that’s something like a modern version of “The Grapes of Wrath.” The images of the now abandoned downtown Flint are a haunting vision of the American Dream gone wrong. Even more disturbing are scenes of a sheriff evicting people from their homes on Christmas and a woman who has to make her living off killing rabbits. Moore has no shame in showing us what she does in graphic detail.

“Roger & Me” remains startlingly relevant to this day. Two decades later, the film’s message on how globalization endangers American jobs still sticks. With Detroit’s continued problems due to the decline of car manufacturing in the city, it makes you wonder why people didn’t actually pay attention to the fall of Flint.

Had Moore gotten his interview with Roger Smith, the film would’ve been powerful, yet not as strong. It’s funny how Moore was able to get more accomplished by not completing his goal. But seriously, what could Smith had said that would’ve made GM look any better or worse? By not getting this interview, Moore made the entire company look both heartless and out of touch. With “Roger & Me,” Moore shows that the most powerful documentaries are the ones that let the subjects embarrass themselves.

Movie Review: Your Highness

Leave a reply

Wait just a minute. Am I watching the latest comedy by David Gordon Green, or a new installment of “Lord of the Rings”? No, this is just “Your Highness,” the latest film from the budding comedic mind of David Gordon Green and his usual comedic team. Seeing as this is his latest stoner comedy, and he is also the director of “Pineapple Express,” I have just one question: where is the weed? More on that in a bit.

I could explain the whole story of “Your Highness,” but you’ll enjoy it better if you just think about the concept, and not every little plot detail. “Your Highness” takes place in some medieval kingdom where everyone’s accents are a little bit British, and a little bit Elvish. The king has two sons: the strong, noble Fabious (James Franco), and the constantly lazy, always stoned Thadeous (Danny McBride), who has yet to enter into the real world. Then one day, Thadeous is called on a mission to save his brother’s bride (Zooey Deschanel), and on their mission, they also meet Natalie Portman.
Maybe this sounds weird for a film that has a joke about a minotaur erection, but “Your Highness” could have had Shakespearian potential to it. Now, I am not saying it could have been as intelligent or witty as anything Shakespeare ever wrote, but I just believe the people behind it could have made a satire that is a little more, well, sophisticated. Seriously, after a while, a certain amount of gay jokes can become tiresome.
By saying this, I hope I’m not just sounding like some humorless, stuck-up film critic because honestly, a lot of this movie is very funny. People often dismiss jokes concerning bodily functions as dumb humor. Yet, if you do something funny with a gross joke, rather than just let it sit there, it becomes legitimately funny.
However, the problem with “Your Highness” is that those are really the only jokes the movie has. I expected much more from the team that made the smartest stoner comedy I’ve ever seen: “Pineapple Express.” In “Pineapple Express,” humor was found in the action, characters, and the concept itself. This is such a funny and original concept and yet, not enough of the ridiculousness of it was put to good use. While McBride is an excellent comedic actor, he just might not be as strong of a writer as Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg are.
All of the actors in the film do their best, yet none of them can really reach their full potentials because of the writing. James Franco plays the role pretty much exactly as you’d expect him to. While McBride does great work in supporting roles, he is becoming a much better comedic leading man. His role here is pretty similar to his role as Kenny Powers in “Eastbound and Down”: a cocky, spoiled burnout with a lot of bad habits. Meanwhile, Natalie Portman, while a great screen presence as always, could have had a bit more comedy in her role. They basically wrote her as the straight-faced woman warrior, when I wish her performance was a little more like this.

The main problem with “Your Highness” is that it’s too timid to create humor in the unexpected. A lot of it seems forced, and not enough of it seems loose and free flowing. Therefore, it doesn’t feel like a true stoner comedy. When you’re trying to mix humor with dragons and knights, you shouldn’t be afraid to embrace the weirdness of your subject. Just think about the ending of “Role Models,” or the entirety of “Paul.” “Your Highness” never finds that proper balance between paying tribute and making fun of the subject it satirizes.


Also, the idea of this being a stoner comedy is more of a marketing ploy than an actual truth. That illegal plant that makes you giggle a lot is barely a presence in the film.

Am I maybe not getting “Your Highness”? Could another viewing change my opinion of the film? It took a while for critics and the general public to fully understand “Pineapple Express.” However, when I watched “Pineapple Express” for the first time, I realized there was just too much hidden in it for it to be fully appreciated after just one viewing. Unfortunately, I don’t feel that same attachment with “Your Highness.”