Good Movies You Should See

The Real Starting Point

2008-03-05T09:42:00.000-08:00

Phew.

So far, I've pretty much just gone through the last year recapping movies I thought were good. Now I get to do the format I wanted in the beginning, which is comment on movies/movie happenin'/movie industry as I see them/it. Which is much, much better as it's just not a list of reviews.

Thoughts on 2007: Once (AKA the best film of the year)

2008-03-04T14:58:00.001-08:00

That's right. Best film of the year: Once.

Walking into the film I had heard some nice things, but that was mostly about the music. What unfolded was nothing short of a small miracle, which counts as a definite miracle in film terms. Admittedly, there's no way to accurately describe this movie, as it's not really a sum of its parts.

For starters, it was shot on video for 100,000 dollars in Ireland, and thus features practically none of the technical capabilities that almost every Hollywood film takes for granted. That's never been something I've especially cared about, but it makes the beautiful moments in the film all the more remarkable. And Once has too many beautiful moments to count. Not beautiful shots mind you. Just quietly beautiful moments. The kind that exist between two people trying making a connection.

Don't misinterpret that. This ain't no cheesefest. God no. Far from it. I've seen so many movies that deal with "two lonely souls" trying to make a connection, but those are always movie moments, and movie lines in movie worlds. It's the real ones that get me. There's no way to describe them. They're the kind of moments that make your heart swell up. There isn't even a hint of their construction. The kind that radically alter to your disposition (they seem so incredibly rare this day in age and the only thing that I can think of like it is most of the events of "The Wire" and that's a tv show). And like life, Once plays out a series of moments captured with an incredible poignancy....

God. The more I write about the more I don't like what I'm saying about it.

So I'll make it simple: this might be the most beautiful film I've ever seen. And yes, the second it finished I went out and bought the soundtrack at the record store across the street.

Recommendation: Highest possible. For everybody no matter what kind of movies you like.

Thoughts on 2007: No Country For Old Men

2008-03-04T14:54:00.000-08:00

Enough has been said elsewhere, but I'll add one thought. I can't remember the last time I was actually happy with a "best picture" winner... oh yeah... last year with The Depahted... I meant before that... yeah that's right The Silence of the Lambs. You feelin' me.

Thoughts on 2007: There Will Be Blood

2008-03-04T12:06:00.000-08:00

In 1999, Magnolia was my favorite movie ever. That was almost 10 years ago and it actually feels like it. When I go back and watch the film, it's certainly not the same. Maybe my tastes have changed and I've matured, but I am constantly aware that there was something deeply profound about that experience at time. It was perfect for that very moment, when I was a high school kid looking for a kind of new look at the world. Sure, I had seen Boogie Nights a few years earlier and liked it, but i didn't "get it" the way I did just a few years after. For In 1999, I worshipped PT Anderson and thought he the next coming of Aslan.

Now in 2008, I'm a borderline adult. My tastes are more muted. I like sharp and economical screenwriting. It's kind of the perennial neo-classical vs. romantic literary comparison and I find myself more like the prior. Before this year, PTA defintely kept his streak as a romantic (how else does one explain Punch Drunk Love). After those four wonderfully personal films, he set off to make an period Oil epic based on an Upton Sinclair book with Daniel Day Lewis. Yikes. Had PTA grown up too?

In short? Yes... but he's still punk at heart. And the results are fascinating.

There Will Be Blood manages to be both exacting and loosely constructed at the same moment. It's rife with singular focused moments of detail in a wide rolling sea. It's also an uncompromising character study. A lot has alredy been said in that regard, but I just wish to speak briefly on the matter of the film's ending . [ENTERING SPOILER WORLD] When we have that final jump forward in time and see the summation of the life pursuits of Daniel Plainview, we get just that. Once during the film, he speaks of his desire to get away from people and ends up doing that very thing. He secludes himself within a mansion with only butlers and therefore goes batshit insane. He has completely severed his emotional connection with his son and goes so far as to tell him that he never loved him. A lot of people took this as a final statement fact and that bothered me quite frankly. Daniel clearly loved H.W. in that crotchety old school dad way and while there was definitely some self-serving stuff in there (the "this does me good" line), it was still a genuine thing. The problem stems from the fact that Daniel doesn't especially like the feeling. He doesn't know what to do. Love and conscience corrupt his ambition. So Daniel sets himself on a quest to rid himself of the things that dilute the purity of his ambition. And with that ending, he succeeds... or to put it in his words "I'm finshed" [END SPOILER STUFF!]

The other thing I wanted to mention is something I find to be unique of PTA. In many of his films, a character repeats a line over and over again, only every time the line has different meanings. For There Will Be Blood, the baptism scene is out-and-out lesson messner-ism. It's a fascinating scene and the one I couldn't wait to see again.

A tremendous film. Some people might find it boring, but that's okay. I don't think this is a flick for everyone.

Oh yeah and that Daniel Day guy was pretty good too.

Recommendation: Must see. I feel like an old friend has just done something grand. This was also my brother's favorite film of the year whatever that means.

Thoughts on 2007: JUNO

2008-03-04T11:26:00.000-08:00

In retrospect, it was critical I saw this flick a month before it's release. It was before the hooplah and the over-love and backlash, and I didn't know much about it. All I had heard was that Fox Searchlight was marketing it as "this year's Little Miss Sunshine!" Guhhhh. Nothing could lower my expectations more given my unfathomable utter hate for that celluloid barf bag (I dare not even give it the dignity of "movie")

The comparisons aren't totally unfounded. To put it simply, Juno contains everything I pretty much hate about most independent comedies... but there was a catch: I loved it anyway. Who knows, maybe I loved it not in spite of these qualities but because it was the first time these qualities had a kind of real life-resonance. It's true, people in high school liked to be weird. I was the idiot who wore dumb colored glasses. So yes people, Juno has a hamburger phone and carries around a pipe. And usually these are precisely the kinds of details that often drive me nuts cause the filmmaker is ostentatiously trying to cram them in for the audience's perceived enjoyment (or they're trying to copy Wes Anderson and doing a shitty job). Luckily, the quirky details are just there for Juno herself. It's a movie about a girl who tries to be quirky in her life and suddenly has to deal with a crushing reality. It's that kind of understanding that makes a colossal difference.

Jason Reitman deserves most of the credit. Sure Ellen Page could nail the lines with veracity, but Reitman actually captures an even tone of this sucker and it could have been all over the proverbial map. I recently went back and read the screenplay and let's just say, it didn't sound 1/40 as good on the page as it did in the movie. Bravo to the next of kin. He seems to get it and this is a huge step forward for him after his satirical debut. Much like that other pregnancy comedy I loved this year, Juno's got a kind of honesty underneath the bubble gum pop tongue twister speak (my friend Puddy put it best "just so you're aware, a film with the line "Honest to blog?" just won an Oscar for writing) there's a carefully textured emotion and even psychology. That's right, Juno's actually got some character study going on. Sure, it's nothing compared to the magnum opus of Daniel Plainview (what could be?) but it's there. And that matters bunches.

Recommendation: High. So to everyone of the blacklashers out there why don't you ditch the tude dude, and get with the macgruff grammar train. Remember, it's okay to like stuff.

And here's a good review by someone who's less cynical then me:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/REVIEWS/712130303

Thoughts on 2007: Knocked Up

2008-03-03T09:55:00.000-08:00

I'm an unapologetic Apatow Fan. Not that I would have anything to apologize for, dammit.

I feel like a lot's happened since Knocked Up was released. A lot of my commentary about the rise of Apatow now seems defunct, but that's okay. Simply put, the dude makes a kind of comedy's I really like/appreciate/relate to. Freaks and Geeks. Undeclared. The 40 Year Old Virgin. All stuff with the same sensibility. Their "raunch" comes less from the frat world, or teens sneaking around trying to see girls in their underwear, and more from guys dishing forth the most (bad?) language. And it's great. It's believable. And best of all it's relatable. There isn't too much of a science to it. It's honest, it's crude, it's reference-y without ever seeming too clever (the key to nailing a reference is simple people, either give the actor a moment like they had to think of it or deliver the line with a kind of "real life performance"... you know, the way anyone does in reality.

Anyway, oh yeah, my point! Not that I had one. Apatow's work succeeds by seeming human and Knocked Up was the most human feature to date. We haven't seen a repeat of Freaks and Geeks quality yet, but that's okay. And I won't lessen the value of Knocked Up by saying it's "surprisingly sweet" or something of that ilk. Because I found it surprisingly poignant. That's a pretty lofty word to describe a movie that talks about pubic hair getting on poop, but fuck it... I'm calling this duck a duck. I've seen a ton of those comedic pregnancy movies and I didn't like any of them (that I can remember right now). Yet I connected with this one. Why? Sure, I was a total sucker for the ending pics of the cast and crew with they' babies. It tugged at my heart and here were all these people. None of them were ready for parenthood, least of all probably Judd Apatow. But that's okay. Parenthood is acknowledging your lack of preparation. That means you care and are already leagues ahead of other parents. This movie gets that. It also has the courage to admit your going to shit yourself in front of total strangers.

Honesty! It's where it's at!

Recommendation: Extremely High. VERY FUNNY.

Thoughts on 2007: Hot Fuzz

2008-02-26T16:00:00.000-08:00

I liked Shaun of the Dead. But I loved Hot Fuzz.

For most people it's other way around. Sure I like zombie movies and all, who doesn't? But being a child of the late 80's and 90's made me part of that special generation who were slathered up with high-cost action movie nonsense. And it was kinda fun. I'm glad to see that Edgar Wright thinks so too. He took that love of the high octane action movie and transported it into his sleepy little home town. It's the kind of thing every little kid imagined, walking down their suburban street fighting off bad guys with two guns blazing. It's a fun idea and and Wright pulls it off with the kind of seriousness needed to make it work. It's a tiny wonder in that way. What's more is that the film works as many genres. It's a tense murder-in-the-manor mystery, it's an out-and-out comedy, it's a satire, it's a horror piece, it's an turbo-charged thrill ride, it's a hyphen-laden-description, and it's bloody as all hell... It just so happens to be all those things at once. It doesn't genre hop, it genre blends. It's all stirred into one delicious goo of pulp movie that earns it's originality from it's devotion to it's subjects. Counting their work on Spaced it would seem that Pegg, Frost, and Wright are on a muthaf'in roll. Can't wait for more.

Oh yeah, and it has the best Jump kick ever.

And oh yeah yeah, don't miss a great cameo (look at her eyes)

Recommendtion: DAMN SKIPPY. [turns screaming and fires gun into the air]

Thoughts on 2007: Black Book (Zwartboek)

2008-02-26T14:40:00.000-08:00

I've always really liked Paul Verhoeven. His earlier dutch career was marked with blisteringly vibrant films highlighted by Turkish Delight and Soldier of Orange. His style showed off a unique combination of frank sexuality, violence, and a thorough examination of moral ambiguity. But what made those films so engaging was his ability to ingrain these themes within his constantly compelling narratives. He tried his luck in Hollywood and thrived with wonderfully weird science fiction films like Robocop (hyperviolent!), Total Recall (grotesque!) and the most underrated film ever in Starship Troopers (satire-iffic!). He even threw in a couple way-more-fun-then-they- should-be sex thrillers with Basic Instinct and Showgirls. Then his experience with Hollowman nearly ruined his career and left him so bitter he said "fuck this shit." and went back to Holland.

His negative experiences apparently strengthened Verhoeven's resolve to commit to making truly interesting films again. The resulting Black Book is a resounding affirmation of that commitment.

Blackbook is many things: it's a WWII film, an action/suspense film, a relationship film, and it's a great mystery too. These elements combine seamlessly into a singular story with an inspired by real-events basis. Holland has always been an interesting part of the World War II. It represents the pinnacle of the great plunder of Europe, as it was an epicenter of wealth, tiny but densely populated, and relatively unarmed. It was really a hodgepodge of cultures and values, which became even more critical and divisive with the ensuing invasion. Thus, the spoils of war and profits establish themselves as the core subject here: who is benefiting and what does that say about man's values?

A great way to put the accomplishment of Black Book in perspective is to compare its thematic elements with Verhoeven's earlier work Soldier of Orange. They both explore the exact same themes only S.O.O. does it through the use of epic scope and an ensemble of characters (this character is the patriot, this character is traitor, etc). But in Black Book every character has different kinds of loyalties that are meshed into one story and fits consistently into the development of our heroine's arc. It's pretty remarkable and a sign or great storytelling.

Still, Black Book is undeniably a powerful Holocaust film. I feel odd talking about it like it's a genre, because I don't think that is an appropriate way to critique it. The Holocaust never deserves to be lowered to the status of "genre", but certainly deserves the regard of "subject". The aforementioned power comes from the way we get lost in this intricate WWII suspense film, and then really have the compelling moment come at the very end when we see that it's secretly been a Holocaust film all along. Trust me this isn't giving anything away, it's more abstract that that. See… CAUTION, THEMATIC SPOILER: After an entire life spent showing her resolve Rachel/Ellis finally breaks down asks, "When will it ever end?" A few scenes later we get a stark reminder that it never really has. END SPOILER.

Thoughts on 2007: Michael Clayton

2008-02-13T15:45:00.000-08:00

I admit that I probably overvalue Michael Clayton. This is the result of years of actually trying to write screenplays, where the thing you really start to appreciate is true professionalism. This was a smart movie. It had great economical rhythm, a balance of character, an introverted seriousness, a visceral score and use of sound, an honest to goodness acting performance from George Clooney, a complete reinvigoration of tired genre, even some lofty aspirations, and a touch of the divine introspective. It's a rare feat and something I truly appreciate after years of figuring out how hard it is to write a compelling mainstream flick... It's hard.

So ignoring all those technical and sound reasons that I just lathered over, I'm going to just mention the two things that I felt elevated the film above that "normal movie" stuff. First off we have what I lovingly refer to as the opening "asshole" speech. Not an "opening asshole" but a speech at the opening referring to birth out of an asshole. It's a symbolic gesture representing the entire legal paradigm and comes out of the mouth of a bi-polar Tom Wilkinson. I don't think many movies would start off with such a raucous statement, but Tony Gilroy and co. understood the intrinsic value of doing so. You don't hide your ambition in a movie, especially when your ambition is your strength. That's the exact attitude that makes PT Anderson such a good artist. And luckily Gilroy knew when to employ that tactic. Second, they take a legal drama and drop a hint of the collective unconscious in there. It's not labored, it's not even the point, but it is a point and it saves a characters life. Maybe it's even what spurs on a climactic decision. Either way, I loved it's inclusion.

Recommendation: Very High. The rest of the movies I still have to review for 2007 are what I would consider "Favorites" of the year. And never will you find such a convincing argument against fighting the tide of corporate domination than this, that really isn't trying to make a point of anything... and maybe thus succeeds.

Thoughts on 2007: Zodiac

2008-02-13T15:40:00.000-08:00

I'd argue this film isn't a film. It's more of a document, a piece of journalism, or a true non-fiction film without being a documentary.

And it also happens to be absolutely riveting.

My knowledge on the subject of the Zodiac murders was spotty at best, but still, unlike Hollywoodland, I found the "unsolved" nature of the crime to give the film a kind of immediacy, as it was not confined by the shackles of inevitability.

I recommend this film highly to anyone looking for an alternative to the traditional format, yet told with impeccable perfection.

Thoughts on 2007: The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford

2008-02-13T15:21:00.001-08:00

This is a perfect example of a movie that makes a 100% commitment. It's hauntingly beautiful, has complicated and breathtaking performances, and has long stretches of sparse storytelling. That last thing may be what does it in for some people. It seems people's tolerance for sparseness is exceptionally low these days. Plus nobody saw this movie.

That's what we call "a shame". Brad Pitt does his best work here since... um... help me out. 12 Monkeys? Fight Club? Patch Boomhauer on King of the Hill? Either way. His Jesse James is a rather interesting creation. Most notably, he's so incredibly self aware. Of his own past, demons, violence, perception in society. It's utterly fascinating. Paul Schneider shines as the charismatic pretty boy of the gang. Sam Rockwell and Sam Shepard do more of their ever dependable work.

But on to the revelation... Casey Affleck. The dude has had a hell of a year. Oceans 13 was fun pretty much solely because of him. He supposed rocks the boat in Gone Baby Gone. But most of all, there is this. He got a nod for his work here and it was very well deserved. He's incredible. The character is immediate. Vibrant. He exhibits slow transformations with a single scene. Ultimately, he makes our titular "coward" an empathetic tragedy.

There's so much to talk about... I just had to say some bits and scraps. I can't wait to see what else director Andrew Dominik will do.

Thoughts on 2007: The Lookout

2008-01-30T14:38:00.001-08:00

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

2008-01-30T14:06:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-30T09:36:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-29T19:01:00.001-08:00

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

2008-01-29T18:58:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-29T18:48:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-29T18:23:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-29T18:07:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-01-29T17:44:00.000-08:00

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.