Sunday, March 21, 2010

The Cleveland International Film Festival

The Cleveland International Film Festival.

Before you say anything, It does exist. It is not a made up festival or anything. The festival has for 34 years shown movies from around the world in all forms; short, full length, documentary, fictional, animated, and so forth.

For example today, on the 4th day of the festival I saw a french romantic comedy and a documentary on the history of film criticism. You can catch a plethora of films at the festival. You can see an Iranian film about guys wanting to lose weight who then train in sumo wrestling or a documentary about Allen Iverson. Variety - the spice of life.

I love talking about movies. I get into plenty of conversations about movies. I consistently hear people complain about the movies that are being made and shown in local theaters. Since many people out there do not know of or cannot make it to an art house cinema where foreign films or low budget movies are a regular occurrence, they are then stuck with the general milieu of Hollywood cinema at your near by megaplex. But countless amounts of people out there yearn for something more than some romantic comedy starring Hugh Grant as the awkward British guy or some over-hyped teen drama with countless minutes (which feels like hours) of intense yet unsatisfying staring.

What I am saying is... if you want more than what is available to you, then you have to seek it out or you can attend a festival in which there are dozens of options, easily packaged and available to you. Kind of like a buffet for movie lovers. If you cannot make it to Cleveland, fear not because most likely a film festival is closer to you than you think. There are countless amounts of festivals all over the world. In big cities, small cities, universities and even small local theaters organizing festivals ranging from genre festivals showing three nights of horror classics to international festivals displaying a world of cinema beyond your individual grasp.

I suggest going to the Cleveland International Film Festival. Supporting the arts never hurt anyone, plus you might be surprised by what you see or you might be surprised by what you like.

Friday, March 5, 2010

the Oscars - Why You Shouldn't Put Too Much Stock in Award Shows


Today, the 82nd Academy Awards will recognize certain individuals for acting, writing, directing and producing motion pictures. The awards ceremony also recognizes the make up artists, production designers, editors, sound technicians and so forth. I refuse to claim someone as a victor, not because you cannot judge art or some lame crap like that but because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences might be the worst at award acknowledgment in the history of cinema.

Since 1929, the Academy Awards have been very successful at kissing Hollywood ass. It is a giant party and promotional gala for the movie industry. As a child I bought into the notion that great movies are the movies that had won awards. Today, many people, not just children subscribe to the notion that success should be awarded, not simply by commercial or critical gains but by little golden statues that mean absolutely nothing.

Tell me... why should I recognize an award show in which a film noir, science fiction film, or an animated film have never won Best Picture? Tell me... why only 13 people of African American descent have ever won an Academy award for acting? There are have only been 4 people of Asian descent to win an acting award and 8 people of Latin or Hispanic descent to win. Way to go Anthony Quinn on winning twice. In case you don't want to do the math. The best actor/actress category has had 164 winners since 1927, while the supporting actor/actress awards have been given 146 times since 1936. So with 310 acting awards being awarded, only 8 percent of those awards have been given to minorities. That is not the only injustice because there is no explanation as to why only four woman ever been nominated for directing? Wait, there is more. Alfred Hitchcock never won an Academy Award. Peter O'Toole never won an Academy Award. Robert Altman never won, neither has Albert Finney, Deborah Kerr or Greta Garbo. Charlie Chaplin only one won Academy Award and that was for his score of the film Limelight (1952). Here are some more numbers for you; Only 8 foreign films have ever been nominated for Best Picture and none of them were victorious.

If you feel that those statistics are simply coincidence or just bad luck then try this argument. In another attempt to promote itself the American Film Institute (AFI) ranked the 100 greatest movies of all time in 1996. In any case, it was the 100 greatest American or English language films because there was not one foreign or foreign language film listed. Almost 70 years after the Academy awards were created the AFI list only honored 32 best picture winners. Many of the films on the list never won any Oscars. Those films included Taxi Driver, Psycho, Vertigo, Dr. Strangelove, and The Manchurian Candidate. If those films are a little too old for you then how about this; a revised list was done in 2007 in which The Shawshank Redemption was on the top 100 films of all time and that films also failed to win any Academy Awards.

Another example of the Academy's failure to recognize great films took place in 1941 when Citizen Kane failed to capture the awards for best picture and director. Since 1941, Citizen Kane is heralded as one of the best, if not the best film of all time. Citizen Kane is mentioned in every text or class that attempts to teach film. Citizen Kane is not just a great film because of its execution but because of the influence it has had on a variety of film personalities and cultures. Despite this influence it failed to capture the best picture award. The film that had won, How Green Was My Valley is not a bad film but is not celebrated on any level in comparison with Citizen Kane. The reasons for Citizens Kane's defeat is nothing short of shameful. Welles, who wrote, starred and directed the picture loosely based the film on media tycoon William Randolph Hearst. During the films release, Hearst threatened anyone's career if they applauded the film or voted for it in any award ceremonies.

The greatest problem with the Academy Awards is that they have convinced people that the films that have won awards aren't just good films but movies worth watching. How many times have you heard this, "Well I thought I should see it because it had won so many awards." Or this, "it has to be good, it won like 10 Oscars." The notion of what is and isn't Oscar worthy is absurd. The Oscars are not the only barometer for good or bad movies. Films that win Oscars are not necessarily good or even memorable. Sometimes the movies that win are the films that don't offend while others times the films that win just make a lot of money. Some of the most praised, studied and adored films of all time never won an Oscar. Some were denied because of politics, while others were denied because of popularity. No one knows exactly why certain films or actors, writers, and directors have been neglected by the voting committee. It is unsure why Charlie Chaplin had not won an Oscar until he was removed from the United States. Some thought he was a communist or that he hated Jews while others disapproved of his personal life. It is unclear why Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Many feel that Martin Scorsese had not won an Oscar for so long because his films were too violent. There were reports that Raging Bull was denied the Best Picture Award of 1980 because his film Taxi Driver had influenced the assassination attempt on President Reagan the day prior to the 1981 ceremony. Some reports suggest that the Academy did not want to appear as if they were promoting the violence in Scorsese's films.

So who makes up the voting committee? I guess, if anyone is to blame it should be those who vote? You might be happy to know that the voters are a bunch of movie people. The voters are actors, writers, directors, camera persons, technicians, stylists and musicians? Musicians? Really? I know there are a couple of categories for music but as much as I love Bruce Springsteen I am not sure if he is a solid voter for Best Picture. Bruce Springsteen is a voter, in case you wanted to know. Other voters include those in the public relations business. Oh yeah, public relations. The people who sell you stuff help decide which films deserve awards or not. The president of marketing for Universal Pictures is Eddie Egan and don't worry he has a vote. I wonder if he will be compelled to vote for Inglorious Bastards, which was produced by Universal or will he vote for what he thinks was the best picture.

Who wins and who is nominated does matter in other terms besides awards and recognition. In 2009, Hollywood.com reported that films see a bump in ticket sales when nominated for best picture. If that is true then what kind of bump do they get at the ticket office, rental box or sales counter when the film wins best picture? How can anyone trust these voters when so much money is at risk?

I don't want to get rid of the Oscars but I feel it is necessary to acknowledge that the Oscars do not determine greatness. It's a big party. People enjoy watching the glam of the red carpet. It's a spectacle. It's a method to promote the notion that Hollywood is still the place where dreams come true and if you are talented or popular enough you can win an award that is about 8 pounds symbolizing everything and nothing all at once.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Crazy Heart - Review


Jeff Bridges displays great talent while singing and performing great country music crafted by T-Bone Burnett. Crazy Heart is an adequate film about an alcoholic musician struggling to rediscover his gift for writing music.

Jeff Bridges is Bad Blake, a country musician at the end of his career playing bowling alleys and small town bars. Bad Blake is looking for one last moment in the sun but is unable to write a hit song or stop his drinking. At a tour stop he meets single mother Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and they connect over music and a romance blossoms. It is partly because of their romance that Bad Blake reaches out to his former protege Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) to perform some opening gigs and write some new songs. Until meeting Jean, Blake was unwilling to meet Sweet or even discuss the success of his protege while his career was coming undone.

The two fall in love, Blake becomes a hit with her son and the only thing standing in their way is Blake's drinking as Jean is afraid to make the same mistakes she has made in her past. Though it may be unclear what mistakes have been made, she is very weary of Blakes drinking. Then during a trip to see Bad Blake in Houston where Jean allows Blake to watch her son for an afternoon and due to his alcoholism (?) he loses the young boy at a mall. Jean is upset and decides to never see Blake again, understandably so. After feeling down and out, Blake calls up his friend Wayne (Robert Duvall - also one of the film's producers) and decides to go to rehab. Blake cleans up his act and starts writing hit country songs for Tommy Sweet but unfortunately never regains the love of the woman who brought him out of his drunken darkness.

So the film might read like a country song. Drunk country star finds love, his talent and peace through love. Crazy Heart isn't new ground. The Wrestler (2008) was one of the last films to portray a former star in their profession struggling with the end of their career and personal misdirection only to find some hope through romantic encounters with a younger woman. Crazy Heart is a more positive film than The Wrestler but both films have powerful performances by their stars. Crazy Heart might not be original, shocking or even that clever but it has a great performance by Bridges. The film is not completely removed from reality too. Many great country musicians of the past have resurrected their career in recent memory like Johnny Cash, Kris Kristofferson, and Loretta Lynn. Therefore it is not hard to believe that a country great can come from obscurity to reclaim the talent that made them great so long ago. It is also not hard to believe that there is a connection between drug abuse and country music; Willie Nelson, Steve Earle, Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings all have associations with drugs use and/or abuse.

Bridges knows that he has never received the same respect as other talented actors. Even though at times, in the eyes of this reviewer, Bridges has often over acted in many of his roles. Despite his lack of recognition he has still had many great performances throughout his 50 years of acting on television and the big screen. While many honor him in the Big Lebowski as the Dude, his performances in such films like the Last Picture Show, The Fabulous Baker Boys and The Fisher King should be used as reliable sources for his talent. He brings a great deal of subtly to this role without relying on gestures or breaks in his speech to define the character. He embodies the great southern charm that his character Blake is known to have. Bridges is also not bad singer, being able to bring T-Bone Burnett's music to life.

Crazy Heart spends a fair amount of time focussing on the issue of alcoholism. For the first part of the film it might be easy to dismiss Bad Blake's drinking as basic part of the music or country music culture. It becomes clear that his addiction is a problem when his drinking and driving causes a car accident. At the hospital he consults with the doctor and the doctor tells him that dismissing his problems with jokes and a devil may care attitude will only bring him closer to his death. After losing Jean's son and her affection, he goes into rehab. Alcohol and the problems of addiction play a large role in the film, as big as romance or the music itself. Other than Blakes constant drinking, Jean seems to have a past involving drinking, Blake's best friend who takes him to rehab owns a bar and knows the troubles of getting sober. At a gig with Sweet, Blake asks Tommy why he is drinking tea instead of whiskey. To deny the role that drinking/alcohol play in the film is to deny the central theme of recovery.


Despite powerful performances and good music there is nothing that stands out in this film. Plus everything in the film moves so quickly that nothing has a big impact. It takes a moment of screen time for Blake and Jean to fall in and out of love. It takes a moment of screen time for Blake to stop drinking, enter rehab and come out clean. It might be hard for the viewer to really appreciate the difficulty it can be for some to recover from substance addiction. A lot of things go unsaid like why Blake has such a difficult time going to work for Sweet. The storyline in which Blake tries to reconnect with the son he abandoned takes too much time and is underdeveloped.

Crazy Heart has great music and great performances but Bridges, Farrell and Duval. Taking place in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico with such beautiful landscapes, director Scott Cooper effortlessly connect the music with the open landscapes of the southwest. T-Bone Burnett's selection of covers and well crafter originals add to his legacy of making great movie soundtracks that include O Brother Where Art Thou and Walk the Line. With all that in mind, the film goes little to nowhere without Bridges.



The Book of Eli - Review




Denzel Washington in post-apocalyptic action adventure is (kind of) entertaining as long as you can suspend disbelief and ignore logic or reason.


The film is set in the not too distant future, in the wasteland that has become the United States. A traveler, Washington's Eli is walking west. Why? Because he carries a package and that must be delivered. The earth as we know it is no more. A war has destroyed landscapes, wild life and resources. Everything is in limited supply. Things are in such limited supply one can barter with KFC hand wipes.


Along the way Eli has to overcome traps and cannibals. He arrives at a town run by Carnegie (Gary Oldman) and his gang. In a time when few can read because of a war in which books were burned, Carnegie searches for one book that he can use to run his town and possibly the world? He is searching for the Bible. We come to learn that every Bible ever created has been burned except the one which is in the possession of Eli. Eli and Carnegie have some fights and shoot outs that are part western and part Mad Max. With divine guidance and strong convictions , Eli goes West to San Francisco where a small community is trying to rebuild society through intellectual thought and science. This group take the bible and with a newly constructed printing press they copy it along with other important pieces of literature and thought.


The Book of Eli is the first film directed by the Hughes brothers in almost 10 years. Albert and Allen Hughes have only made a few films since there breakout debut, Menace II Society in 1993. I am not really sure if this method helps them or hurts them. Eli has some decent action sequences, a downplayed performance by Washington and a positive religious message that is not offensive. The film is smart enough to suggest the power the bible and it's message can have while being used for good or evil. Unfortunately the film is not smart enough to build on it's backdrop, characters or plot lines.


For example, the film is set up on the principle that Eli has been walking with the Bible for 30 years trying to get west. It is 2905 miles from New York City to San Francisco. You understand that food or shelter is not easily accessible but with that amount of time to travel, Eli would only have to walk 1/3 of a mile per day to reach the west coast. With a questionable ending, one also wonders whether or not Eli is able to see? The viewer never really knows about the war that brought upon such destruction - nuclear war? You don't know why all books or sources of knowledge were burned - religious war? If so, who won? With limited resources and little to no civilization in sight, how are people still using motorcycles or cars? The list could go on.


If you are curious for information or come into this film questioning why things are they way they are then you will leave unsatisfied. If you can suspend disbelief long enough to ignore the giants wholes or gaps in the script then you might have a good time. Washington is relatively subdued as the traveler on a spiritual mission. He brings a certain humility to the character that makes his performance somewhat stand out. Oldman performance is a bit strange as it seems like he is trying to do his best impersonation of Jack Nicholson. At two hours long, it does get bogged down in the middle and addition of the Mila Kunis character Solara turns a somewhat predictable film into a more very predictable film. At least the Hughes brothers have enough class to resist the temptation to turn Kunis into a sex object. Sorry movie goers but there are no shower scenes, bikini shots or even any romantic twist between Washington and Kunis. Thank goodness. And even in post apocalyptic films there is still plenty of room for product placement.


The Book of Eli is bound to land itself on the "there is nothing else to watch on cable" guilty pleasures list. It's not horrible but it's not very good. It's a film with a religious theme that is not overtly offensive which can be a difficult trick to pass. A good idea that goes under the file - underdeveloped.


Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Tooth Fairy - Review




I freely admit that Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson is a guilty pleasure of mine in every sense of the word. As a male, I wish I had his physique. I wish I could have his athletic skill. I don't necessarily want his acting talent but I won't reject his success. Dwayne Johnson stars in Tooth Fairy as aging hockey player Derek Thompson. Derek Thompson is stuck in the minor leagues struggling with the fears of his crumbling career. He is also in a promising relationship that never seems to get off the ground due to his selfish atttitude. Through a twist of fate or magic or whatever he becomes a tooth fairy for a couple of weeks so he can learn that there is still magic in this world and the greatest fear in life is losing ones sense of wonder.

Tooth Fairy is part Santa Claus and part The Game Plan. There isn't anything really new in the story and all the plot twists are relatively predictable even for a PG rated audience. I guess the joy in this film comes from watching a rather large individual dress up in powder blue pajamas with fairy wings and then eventually covering his powder blue pajama fairy costume in hockey pads. Is it entertaining? I won't deny it - I chuckled. It helps that Stephen Merchant (co-creator of the hit show The Office) plays the tooth fairy case worker assigned to help the confused hockey player complete his assignments. Julie Andrews plays the fairy godmother and Billy Crystal has a goofy but delightful cameo as the gadget man for the tooth fairy agency. Oh and Ashley Judd is in the movie as the girlfriend with the the daughter who is told by Derek that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy and a son that is struggling through those early teen years. Again, nothing new here.... selfish egomaniac discovers that his own fears ruins the dreams of others, his heart is melted by the kindness of strangers and a family wanting to love him.

Dwayne Johnson is not a great actor but he is more flexible than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone ever were or could have been. He has the ability to deliver some fun lines and use more facial expressions that Harrison Ford has ever had. He is more charming than the bland and robotic Vin Diesel. He also has the size to pull of the silly sight gag of wearing a tutu. He plays everything pretty straight and like every one of his roles you rarely get the impression that he is playing the role rather than playing himself. I suppose that is why much of his roles are of an arrogant athlete. At the same time, the scenes between Johnson and Merchant are charming. Johnson holds his own, delivering clever jokes and bad puns back forth between the great comedic talent Merchant. Hopefully Merchant becomes the new Eric Idle or John Cleese, co-starring in a variety of films as the funny English guy. Merchant is really funny in his role as Tracy the case worker that desires to move up and become a real tooth fairy.

Tooth Fairy is certainly not a great movie but it has some moments that are pretty darn funny. It also has lengthy moments that can be completely ignored. I'd try not to ignore the moments with Merchant. I wonder if Dwayne Johnson will continue to make these films directed for children or if he will ever attempt a role that can actually challenge his ability as an actor. Tooth Fairy is directed at children but with that in mind there is very little physical humor and sight gags that would interest children or at least young children. Many of the lines delivered by Johnson, Merchant and even Crystal are sarcastic nuggets, banter or bad (but good) puns that I am unsure children would understand. I say this because at the age of 27 I still miss a good (but bad) pun from time to time.

Tooth Fairy might not be that good but it has 20 minutes of intentional humor in a 90 minute movie and that is a lot better than a lot of other so called comedies I have seen as of late. It might be hard to recommend the movie unless you like guilty pleasures or lack high expectations, enjoy the Rock or the notion of Dwayne Johnson playing hockey. It is a relatively funny concept. Carry on Mr. Johnson. Carry on.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Up In the Air - Review



Up In the Air is a film about a man who travels around the country laying off workers for a variety of companies. Clooney is Ryan Bingham. Bingham is the hired gun sent to companies to do their dirty work. He is not the guy who makes the million dollar deal at the last second or saves the company from corporate espionage. He fires people. On his spare time, he delivers motivational speeches directed to those struggling to become independent from the things that tie them down like a relationship, house or even a job.

The film starts off with Bingham firing workers. He comes back home to Omaha to discover that his job is being threatened by a young and idealistic new employee. Her idea is to stop sending Bingham and other agents out into the field to lay off workers but to stay in the office and do the dirty work over an internet connection and video feed. Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) is the young go getter that insists that this new transition in the company's procedure will not make Bingham's position obsolete. Bingham is weary of this new technique and believes his job requires a certain sensitivity not found on a computer screen. After a debate with his boss Bingham is ordered to show Natalie the ropes. They go on a cross country tour of firing company workers and along the way Bingham dishes out job mentoring along with travel tips and relationship advice.
On his travels he encounters Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) a female counterpart that is quick witted, sexually adventurous and as she puts it - Ryan Bingham but with a vagina. Alex and Ryan connect and eventually Bingham who once stood on the principle of solitude where things, objects, places and people do nothing but weigh you down is falling in love with Alex.

As Ryan bonds with Alex, he builds a friendship with his new coworker and reconnects with his two sisters over his baby sisters weddings ceremony. It seems a bit odd but other than difficulties of his profession, it is never understood why Clooney's character is so adamant about being alone. Quick to judge and easy to distance himself Bingham left home. Other than the harsh Wisconsin winter it is hard to understand why. His family seems like pleasant small town folk that dream of traveling the world but struggle financially to do anything let alone travel. If there is a more sinister wolf underneath sheep's clothing than I could not see it.

Eventually Clooney decides to give it all up for the woman he loves. He can no longer make lengthy public speeches about the trials of personal and intimate relationships. He suddenly wants to find himself attached. He has discovered, as he convinced his soon to be step brother not to leave his sister on their wedding day, everyone needs a co-pilot. Unfortunately the woman he chooses is married. A surprise that doesn't come off as shocking, unfounded but not shocking. The discovery of her marriage dashes a relatively clever film with a cliche twist. Bingham makes a decision to include someone in his life but that decision is ruined by her marriage thus his next decision to travel the globe with his 10 million air miles doesn't seem like a gradual evolution of thought but a reactionary one. How differently would the film have been if Bingham was simply rejected? Instead of her saying no because of her marriage, her simply saying no out of choice might have been a better parallel to his occupation and the fate of the workers he fires. Like Ryan, the viewer knows very little about Alex. Her marriage is a bit of a surprise but the film lacks any clues to merit this turn of events.
Director Jason Reitman does a fine job creating a methodical tempo for the film. With the repetition of scenes, sequences, and dialogue Clooney's Bingham character isn't a machine but a creature of habit. We see him travel, deliver motivational speeches, pack, and fire people with a consistency that doesn't get old but displays the success of his formula. The character had found success in this repetition but so does the film until the very end. As his life begins to change, Bingham changes his routine. It is meant to symbolize a changed man. A man slighlty unhinged. unfortunately the viewer is robbed of a key scene. At the end of the film, at a big motivational conference where Bingham has been invited to deliver his speech but cannot go through with it. He is in love and cannot deliver a speech about the profits of being content in being alone. He runs off the stage and is hit by the marriage of his lover. It is an unfortunate twist that the viewer doesn't get a chance to see Clooney deliver his motto for the third time. To see that speech for the third time would be a real chance to show the development of the character. It could have been that scene that everyone remembers. Why that speech doesn't exist is unfortunate. It would have been interesting to see if Clooney could dish out the goods. To see if he could deliver the same speech with the same impact but with different intentions and the opposite perspective would have been a sight to see.

Clooney has never been a great actor but he is perfectly cast in this role as Bingham. He is cheated out of the big impact scene that Hollywood films love to display. The scene where he saves his sister's marriage is cute and the scene in which he discusses his relationship with Alex over the phone lacks impact. He is perfectly cast because he is good looking enough to play the cavalier jet setting playboy. He has always come off as a charming guy and charming is something Bingham has to be to deliver the speeches and the pick me up motivational pep talks after laying off a half dozen people before lunch. He is lady killer and life coach. Clooney delivers his lines like slogans and the richness of his voice only adds fuel to the fire.


One also has to admire Reitman as he does not shy away from making a man whose job is to fire people the hero of his film, in this economy. It takes a certain amount of guts to make a film in which he tries to stir sympathy for characters that do and do not feel bad about firing people. I am not sure if his attempts at sympathy work but it certainly takes a certain amount of balls to film it. Rietman is crafty enough to never plea for Bingham to receive any amount sympathy but allows Natalie to garner some as her innocence seems lost. Sympathy doesn't come to those who have lost their job, at least not until one is actually fired via video conference. It is only when one person is fired through Internet communication that we feel sorry for the nameless company staffer and it is a sympathy that seems to come from how he is being fired rather than the firing itself. It is a hard message to sell. It is not exactly the Dr. Frankenstein or his monster story line. The viewer never gets the perspective of the company letting the workers go and Reitman again shows a certain objectivity by never making any of the companies the villain. I repeat, It is a hard argument to sell. It is argument that is never fully developed or convincing but that does not deminish the attempt or the cojones Reitman must have to relay the message.

Another thing to possibly examine is the portrayal of women in the film. Natalie is innocent and emotionally ruined by the news of her boyfriend leaving her. She also quits the company after word that one of the people she let go committed suicide. An act that leaves little to no impression on Bingham. She quits and pursues the career that she always wanted without the "typical" female pursuits of house, husband and family that caused her to abandon her original plans. While interviewing for her new position it seems unlikely that the position would have been filled with out the help of Ryan. The appropriately named Alex is the only other female of note and there is an interesting role reversal between her and Ryan. In some ways, at least stereotypically, she is more the dominant male figure compared to Ryan. She is sexually adventurous, commits a secretive affair and does not get emotionally attached to Ryan's plea for love. One might wonder who truly is the emotionally detached one of the two. It is also a woman that kills herself after being fired. It is so hard to see any positive female character in this film but the very same could be said for the men and the main character.

Up In the Air is a clever film that suffers from the occasional bout of stupidity. It is a movie that seems obsessed with debating youth and immaturity against adulthood and responsibility. The movie constantly refers to these two sides as Bingham lives his lifestyle. Is he a child for living the way he lives? Is he avoiding responsibility? Is he one step ahead of the game? Is he not mature for being able to separate his personal life with his professional one? With all this said, there is a great philosophical argument to be made about his alone man on an island routine but that argument is never made. It becomes a little frustrating that none of the characters as smart as they are never speak of anything else but what it means to be an adult.


Another lapse in judgement is the montage of workers who share their feelings about losing their job and the role their family or loved ones have played in helping them cope. It seems odd that Reitman would throw this scene in at the very end of the film. It seems like an obvious statement. The statement being that it is hard to live life alone and through the rough times, good friends and family can do a lot to help. The scene involving the recently laid off is not needed unless the director feels that the central message of the film is not clear or lost upon his audience. Reitman either doesn't believe his argument is sound or believes that the audience is too stupid to simply get it. It is a lapse in judgement to add this scene. Reitman comes off as not trusting his audience. If he desperately wanted to include their stories then it would have been better suited for the ending credits.

Up In the Air has a cheap plot twist in the end, an underdeveloped argument about being an adult, characters that lack back story, and failures in the editing room. With all that said, it is not a bad movie. Reitman somehow manages to make cram enough postcard imagery into a film about traveling along with enough humor and romantic intrigue to keep the film afloat. Clooney is good but is robbed of any moment to make it a great performance. Reitman is proving to be a skilled director and his ability to create humor out of despair and difficult situations is welcomed. Reitman who has also directed Thank You For Smoking and Juno seems perfectly fine with making movies about outcasts, rejects and loners. Bingham is a little bit of all those things. He is an outcast in his profession, rejected by the one he loves and in the end, ultimately alone.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

It's Complicated - Review



Meyers first success was What Women Want with Mel Gibson as a marketing executive struggling to save his job and relationship with his daughter. Through a stroke of luck, magic or mystery he is able to hear the inner thoughts of the female sex. Something's Gotta Give stars Diane Keaton's as a play write struggling through a block and her daughters relationship for an older man as well her own feelings for that older man, played by Jack Nicholas. Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet are best friends trying to deal with heart ache while getting away from their normal lives in The Holiday. With her latest release It's Complicated, Meryl Streep tries to find closure to her divorce and uncover the passion within that has been lacking for so long. In some way or another, her films tend to focus on the lead characters discovering the beauty and passion of female sexuality. This discovery of the female sexuality does not exclude Mel Gibson in What Women Want. Meyers writes a lot about women. Her films are often about the struggles, emotional, physical and social women face within the family, at work, in public and private. Despite being about women it is hard to for me to imagine that her films appeal to all women. All of her female characters are above the age of 35 with high profile professions and upper class lifestyles.

Blue collar doesn't really exist in the written world of Nancy Meyers. Most of her films take place in the glam of Hollywood or New York City or where those characters vacation. The good thing is that Meyers is able to write the characters with enough charm and humility that they seem endearing. Meyers films speak out for middle to upper class white people and that is a community dying for representation. Despite being a criticism, Meyers does deserve some praise for writing films for middle aged women, especially when Hollywood is a boys club and where many women have seen their work load diminish after the age of 40.

The real problem with It's Complicated is Nancy Meyers direction. She is a stronger writer than she is a director. That really is not saying much. She should explore the Woody Allen mode of directing. Allen relied on quality actors to deliver his unique dialogue. He would use a consistent of amount of medium-long shots and let his actors perform as if they were on stage. Unfortunately Meyers and her editor ruin much of her dialogue by over cutting the footage. Instead of just turning the camera on and letting her actors roam free with her dialogue, Meyers constantly cuts from actor to actor seemingly in between each line or transition of dialogue. The problem with this over editing is that much of the conversations in each scene never really flow and the some of the jokes lose their impact. It is unfortunate with talented actors like Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin along with a talented comedian like Steve Martin that she doesn't let them loose. This over editing does nothing but make natural acting seem more scripted.

Another fault of the film or of the people who make previews for films is that all the best moments are ruined by the preview. With that said, there weren't that many funny moments if most are spoiled in the preview. Their is a sequence where Streep and Martin get high while on their first date. It is funny but it feels like something we have seen plenty of times in goofier or raunchier comedies. Thank goodness John Krasinski, playing Streeps step-son supplies some comedic relief during the pot smoking sequence. Unfortunately it seems that much of Krasinski's comic talents are wasted and forced. As if his casting was a throw in to appeal to a younger audience that could care less about mid-50's romance.

It's Complicated is a comedy that is mildly entertaining but after the first view a second is hardly necessary. Meryl Streep proves that she can do anything, act any role and make even bland characters appealing. Streep is truly in a class of her own no matter how much she tries to downplay her talents.