Thoughts on 2007: The Lookout

Raise your hand if you didn't see this movie? Pretty much everyone? Okay.

To qualify my positive response to The Lookout, I have to first state my substantial appreciation for well scripted, economical movies. What does that mean? That's kind of it's own essay, but it essentially means a film that 1) constantly moves forward with narrative and character and 2) refrains from unnecessary diversions. That kind of sounds vague, but I know it when I see it damnit. This film was sharp and focused. Between The Lookout and Brick, Joseph Gordon Levitt is becoming a damn serious actor and he deserves it (though supposedly he's Cobra Commander in the new GIJoe movie... what the fuck?). Jeff Daniels is keeping his streak of excellent, spot on, and highly entertaining work. Isla Fisher did a whole bunch with a well written, though smart The most surprising aspect of the film? Of all people, the impossibly dashing and austere Matthew Goode played the central thug who suckers our protagonist into the bank heist. I'm convinced this performance is what got him Ozymandias in WATCHMEN (Note: I know the roles aren't similar at all, I'm talking about depth here).

While most films have become obsessed with their own gimmick (IE premise). This has been especially true of independent movies which totally sucks. The Lookout takes it's gimmick bound premise, a memory challenged accident victim participating in a robbery, and grounds it in reality. By bringing character to the forefront that premise becomes mere background and a surprisingly sensible one at that. Hence the honest result.

Recommendation: High.

Thougths on 2007: Eastern Promises, etc

Eastern Promises: This one has aged well in my head for me... that is all.

Ratatouille: Watched it again recently. Even better the 2nd time. Plus I love to cook haute cuisine so. Yeah. I loved it. See it.

Grindhouse: I have no idea if I could ever watch this film again. Maybe Deathproof. But i went to opening night at Graumann's Chinese and it was a nuts environment. I'd kind of like to remember it like that.

Superbad: A great year for comedies. This would have been the best one of the year in any other year. I loved this movie. That's how good the other comedies were. Best quote: "Samesies!"

Thoughts on 2007: The Darjeeling Limited

Wes Anderson is appreciated in cycles. To explain: I believe that most people's favorite Anderson film is the first one they saw. This is understandable because it is one's first exposure to a wonderfully personal filmmaker who constructs vibrant, striking pictures. Most people of my generation haven't seen anything like it (though his influences are clear in historical and/or international context). Objectively speaking, his best film has to be Rushmore. It certinaly is the "tightest" in terms of narrative, but as I said I'm probably biased because that also my first WES-perience! I went back and saw Bottle Rocket which was probably funnier, but also clunkier. When the The Royal Tenenbaums came out, it captured the same essence but it was strung a little thin. By the time I got to The Life Aquatic I was kind of tired of Wes Anderson. His ouvre was becoming intensely similar, but it was moving in some kind of direction... I'm pretty sure he had no idea where though.

Enter The Darjeeling Limited. Perhaps it was because I expected so little from this new Anderson feature, or perhaps it was because I sorted out my disappointment of The Life Aquatic, but I really responded to this film. Yes, it was more of the same. Yet, not more of the same. Near the beginning of the movie, Wes frees himself from narrative constraint by having Owen Wilson's character literally tell us that their wanderings will be aimless. With that simple acknowledgment, I was on board. And that probably made all the difference. I back in a positive spin for the Wes Anderson cycle. Now let's just hope he attempts something truly different.

Note: One thing many of my co-horts agree with is that we all responded most favorably to Adrien Brody in the film. Perhaps it's because we've already seen what his cast of a regulars do in the Wes-iverse, and the newest players seem the most interesting. I think Brody is starting to slip into an area of underrated-ness. I always find his performances stunningly appropriate and fleshed out (especially something like King Kong).

Recommendation: Yes. But where are you in the cycle?

Thoughts on 2007: Atonement

Well this one is getting a lot of awards attention. I don't get it. I mean it's a beautiful period piece and that is usually award pay-dirt, but I have yet to meet anyone who loves this film. Everyone has the same reaction, "something was off about it" or "the ending didn't connect with me even though I knew I should have a certain reaction." Don't worry Atonement can be easily explained.

It's simple. This is a 50 minute film with an 110 minute ending. I don't know how the book handled it but the first sequence of the film was brilliant and intensely gripping. Everything after that is merely fallout. Nothing develops. A few things merely "happen". Our beloved characters languish on and on in painful reaction to the turning point at the end of the first sequence. Thus after 110 of dreamy fallout sequences we are left unaffected now matter how much we connected with our characters before. It's kind of a shame really.

Also the Dunkirk tracking shot might go down in personal history as the most unnecessary and over indulgent shot I've ever seen. Sure It's achingly beautiful, but it's completely superfluous. Whatever point Joe Wright made with it, he made 30 seconds into it.

Thoughts on 2007: The Simpsons Movie

It was 90 minute B+/A- episode of the Simpsons. As an avid fan of the show for the first 11 seasons I can say that nothing may ever come close to the genius of the show's 4th season which contained nothing but A/A+ episodes. Just incredible. Only The Wire could maybe compete with that kind of sustained quality.

Thoughts on 2007: Margot at the Wedding

I'm not going to launch to much into this one because it's far enough post-release and will probably save that for the release of Noah Baumbach's next film. There's certainly a good deal to talk about. I more just want to say that this film is one those that I have a middling to lukewarm reaction to and then find myself defending it more and more when someone criticizes it... often unfairly.

The major reason for dislike seems to be Margot herself. She's intensely unlikable to a good deal of people (who I imagine all had wonderful, supportive mothers). I'm one of those people and that was my instinctual reaction as well. But let's iterate that that does not make her unrealistic, which is what lots of people seem to be doing. I saw Margot as a fascinating puzzle of a person.

Maybe they just don't like Nicole Kidman.
... or Jack Black's ass.

Recommendation: test yourself. love it or hate it it will be a good experience for you.

Thoughts on 2007: Beowulf

Beowulf! THE FUTURE OF MOVIES! ... not so much. With the hindsight of a few months it didn't exactly set the world on fire. I did happen to like it however. It was a surprisingly good adaptation/interpretation/what have you and come on! It featured CGI nudity! "Just look at the detail of Beowulf golden butt" was one of the better comments I've overheard in a theater. Grendel was also pretty gross. The 3D gimmick worked reasonably well, but completely blew me away with the dragon sequence. I think my favorite part might have been that it was given the 2nd lowest score ever for "christian values" on some website. May I remind you the movie was PG 13.

Recommendation: it's months after release and this was 3D event movie. Unless you go the jones for beowulf or naked CGI Tony Hopkins.

Thoughts on 2007: National Treasure 2

The way I classified the first film was simple: everything about it was just barely good enough to be considered good. Speaking in blockbuster terms, it had a good story, good pacing, good acting, good good good. Thus it proved extremely likable. It's the equivalent of your favorite non-bowel offensive junk food. It goes down easy and stays that way. I imagine stayed away from it for so long because it was a Bruckheimer, Disney, da vinci/indy rip off and it starred Nicholas Cage's hair. I finally came around under a good recommendation from trusted sources. I watched it and it was fun. So I ended up finally getting a chance to see the sequel National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets and Other Artifacts Hidden in Remarkably Famous Landmarks this weekend. More of the same only you notice a few more glaring plot holes and wasted energy. Once again nothing particularly stood out as groan inducingly awful and nothing really bothered me. I just get the intense feeling the writers wrote a section and forgot about it later on. You know, lots of moving from point A to B without re-involving what came before. Plus I'm pretty sure Ed Harris had the most confusing character motivations I've ever seen. That's usually why bad guys get the "bad guy" tag and stick with it.

I imagine I'll see National Treasure 3 as well.

Recommendation: Unless your unable of experience joy, see the first, see the second, see the rest... hell, just give Disney your money.

No Real Starter Statements...

I love movies. They are my profession, my education and pretty much the focus of my day. There's no grand statement I can make that will explain my approach to the medium. Time and scope will hopefully make that more evident in some way. At least I hope.

Thank you kindly.