Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

In the interest of complete objectivity, I am not, what most people would call, a Trekie. For me, the TV series is a complete and total mystery; hell, I’ve never seen that damn Tribbles episode people rave about. That being said, some of my fondest memories revolve around the Star Trek films and those memories always involved my dad. There he would be, after a long day (and sometimes evening) of work, sitting in the basement in his rocking chair with his bowl of ice cream watching Kirk and company gallivant across the cosmos. He loved Star Trek and it was something we always watched together.

When my dad passed away 11 years ago next week, my fascination with Star Trek ended with him. Gone were the days of popping in that well worn VHS of Star Trek IV just to watch Scotty say, “Hello Computer” while creating transparent aluminum, watching the floating Klingon bodies of VI or laughing at the hammy awfulness of Star Trek V. The decision wasn’t a conscious one but somehow it didn’t seem right to watch them without him.

Maybe it was for that reason, among others, that I cringed when the rumors of a Star Trek reboot started circulating. Never mind the fact I’ve never been a big fact of franchise regurgitation, part of me wanted to the series to stay dead, stay intact, stay the way I remembered it. Typically, I’m not the sentimental type but when it comes to Shatner and company, I make a small exception.

Luckily for me, the hype and accolades were well worth it. Star Trek is a finely acted, well balanced and wonderfully written reboot of a classic film franchise. Director JJ Abrhams has expertly woven a tale that provides just enough homage without being sappy, edge of your seat action that never seems forced and a story that does just enough to stay out of its own way. The result is classic Star Trek for a new generation.

One of the brightest parts of the film was the excellent casting decisions. The entire cast was extremely well utilized and balanced. Not only did they all look like the younger versions of the classic crew, they all perfectly balanced the mannerisms of the originals while still creating identities of their own. The only sore thumb was Eric Bana as the main villain, Nero, in that I felt his main direction was, “Be more sinister”. This didn’t detract from the film one bit, however, as the real beauty of the film was that not once did I think any of the cast members was doing an impression or a caricature of an original, and that in itself is a brilliant feat of directing and writing.

On the writing front, this is also one of the best screenplays released this past summer, despite the slightly silly storyline. The time travel angle was just muted just enough to stay out of the way of character development, which was the film’s main strength. While I could have done without the Ohura / Spock side story, the dialogue and character interactions were where the script really shined; the dialogue was crisp and the interplay between the cast members provided the emotional grounding the film needed to counteract the intense action.

And MAN, was the action intense! Everything from the hand to hand combat to the epic space battles had my home theater screaming and me grinning. To all those who are Blue Ray heads, this film is damn near reference level for showing off your system, making this a mandatory Blue Ray purchase for just that reason alone.

When the final credits started to roll, and the crew did their final “roll call” if you will, I felt a surge in my heart. This felt like the original series with a nice shiny coat of paint on it, a tribute to the past without being parody. Even without the charm of the original, this film could easily stand on it’s own and probably does for fans who never heard Khan scream, “KIRK!!”, never saw Sulu pilot a Klingon Bird of Prey and never watched Spock’s skin melt as he said goodbye to Captain Kirk for what was supposed to be the final time. Star Trek is easily in my top 5 best films released this summer and is a much watch for fans old and young alike.

One last thing. When the credits were rolling and I was getting my senses back, I felt a calm serenity that’s not like me when a movie is over. The critic in me usually starts the analysis; what I liked, what I didn’t, etc. This time though, there was none of that. Just a thought and a smile. When the film started I thought, “Hope you enjoy this dad”. Something tells me he most certainly did.

Score – 100%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

Steven Soderbergh has become one of those directors who can pretty much make whatever he wants. For every Ocean’s movie or Erin Brockovich, there is a “Girlfriend Experience” or a “The Good German”…something small and independent that you can tell he really loves. The Informant falls nicely between these two extremes as it feels like a pet project that actually got released nationwide and ends up as an entertaining and surprising film.

Matt Damon plays biochemist Mark Whitacre, who is the highest ranking executive to ever blow the whistle on a major corporation’s dirty dealings. In this case, the dirty dealing is competitive price fixing and Damon is excellent as the executive turned FBI informer. Damon’s character is self assured and confident even as the mess he’s gotten himself into deepens to unexpected and absurd levels. Despite involving the FBI, taping secret meetings and literally building a case against the company paying him a fortune, Whitacre never feels he’s wrong or his place at the company in jeopardy. Damon plays this wonderfully in the way he interacts with co-workers, FBI agents and even his family…he sees himself as a white knight of corporate justice and the results are fantastic.

As many critics (including Crasher) have mentioned, the funniest aspect of the film is his random internal monologues that pop up throughout the film. One minute he’s meeting with the FBI guys and they next minute, he’s off thinking about the poison content of butterflies or why polar bears hide their noses. Yeah, it’s that random and it’s freaking hilarious.

The rest of the cast around him does a fine job of creating a world for Damon to do his thing, but this film is all about Whitacre, which unfortunately leads to some of the films downside. While the Whitacre character is great, the rest of the film is surprisingly flat and uninteresting. Considering the company he works for specializes in making high fructose corn syrup, this isn’t all that shocking but it would have been nice to see a little more color in the world Whitacre inhabits. Luckily for the film, Whitacre is a strong enough character to move the story along, but things do tend to lag at certain moments. Also, I have no idea who green lighted the music in this film, but it was a mistake. Much of Whitacre’s interactions is framed by silly music that doesn’t feel right…it’s almost as if the filmmakers wanted to artificially heighten the comedy aspects when the film isn’t all THAT funny to begin with.

This leads me to one final word of warning to those who are interested in this film due to the trailers. This is NOT a straight up comedy as advertised in the previews. While the humor that’s in it is dry at best, the film is much more interesting than it is funny, and parts of it are actually rather sad. To me, this is a blessing in disguise as I walked in expecting to laugh and ended up getting intrigued. Not a bad trade off at all but it’s not what’s being advertised on the commercials.

When all is said and done, The Informant is a thoughtful, at times funny and ultimately very entertaining look into corporate greed and personal struggle. The film isn’t perfect, but Matt Damon’s performance is strong enough to pull you through the layers of complexity that inevitably get piled on while managing to give you a few laughs along the way.

Score – 80%

Originally Written – 2/8/2010

Call me lazy, crazy or all of the above, but I have a terrible habit of watching Oscar winning movies 2 years too late. Maybe I just can’t get out to the theater when all the buzz is churning up, maybe it’s the 70+ movies currently sitting in my Netflix queue or maybe I’m just a curmudgeonly hermit who prefers his big screen TV to sitting with actual human beings. Perhaps we’ll never know.

What I do know is, I’ve been waiting forever to see 2007’s Best Picture winner with a degree of trepidation. Could it possibly be as good as everybody said it is? The Coen Brothers rarely disappoint with the obvious classics like Raising Arizona, The Big Lebwoski and Fargo being among some of my favorite flicks but they’ve had some stinkers…The Ladykillers anybody?

Luckily for me, I had nothing to fear. No Country For old Men is easily the best Coen Brothers I’ve ever seen, and more than deserved its Best Picture Oscar.

On the surface, the plot is simple enough. Guy finds a briefcase full of drug money, drug guys hire psychopath to track it down. End of story. The real beauty of this film is not the synopsis rather the layers and layers of subtext woven into it. In comparison, it makes Fargo look like a Saturday morning cartoon. Suffice to say, this film demands a few viewings so you can really get a feel for the weight of the material.

No Country perfectly leverages everything that makes the Coen Brothers virtuoso filmmakers. The casting is perfect, the quirky humor is there in the perfect amount, the cinematography is spot on and the acting is uniformly brilliant, so much so that no one character ever outshines the other.

Speaking of acting, every cast member in No Country is perfectly utilized. While much ado was made of Javier Bardem’s Oscar winning role (deservedly so), the real surprise is Tommy Lee Jones as the humble town sheriff. In the atypical “cop after the bad guy” role, Jones perfectly portrays a man who’s caught up in a whirlwind he’s not prepared for nor fully understands. Quietly confident, yet internally aware he’s up against a force of destruction nobody can stop, he never breaks stride, even as he stays three steps behind the carnage. Without the Jones character, No Country is nothing more than a great character study of a psychopathic killer. With it, the film emotionally ties together.

The other characters in the film all work together to create a sense of balanced simplicity that simply can’t comprehend the coldly calculating killer that’s ripping their world apart. The Coen Brothers have always had a love for the simple folk that make up the fabric of America and No Country is no exception. It’s this dichotomy between good hearted “All American” people and the evil genius walking among them that gives the film its emotional grounding. You truly feel for every victim not because they never saw it coming, but because they never would’ve thought that kind of evil was possible in the first place.

In the end, my favorite aspect of the film has to be the overall tension that every scene is soaked in. While this point has undoubtedly been discussed to death within film circles, the feeling of quiet simple dread makes every moment pulse with anticipation. If you get nothing else from this film, this skill of creating tension out of sometimes ordinary situations is unnerving and exhilarating all at the same time. Only M Night Shamalyan does it as well and it’s as close to modern day Hitchcock as it gets.

While the ending could leave viewers who missed the subtexts a little cold, No Country is an instant classic, full of wrought tension and memorable characters, that’s molded into cinematic perfection. No Country For Old Men defines the term “pitch perfect” filmmaking in that it glides along at its own snails pace and sucks you in with every deliberate step.

Score – 100%

Originally Written – 2/8/2010

If there’s any sort of certainty in the world, the fact that Quentin Tarantino loves himself some genres should be one of them. From the Lee Marvin-esqe tough guy films like Reservoir Dogs to the 70’s blackpoilation genre shown in Jackie Brown to the kung fu epic Kill Bill, Tarantino has always made homage films about the movies he grew up with.

At first look, Inglorious Basterds looks like more of the same; a group of underground Jewish soldiers stationed deep within German occupied France whose sole mission is to kill as many Nazis as humanly possible. While the premise screams as homage to the classic World War II films of the 40’s and 50’s, the result is anything but. For the first time in his career, Tarantino wrote a story, set it in a time period and let it run from there. Sure there are nods and winks to the genre in question, but IB feels like his freshest idea since Pulp Fiction. The result is his best film since Jackie Brown.

Inglorious Basterds, at its core, is classic Tarantino in every sense, especially when it comes to the dialogue. Tarantino is known for developing characters through the way they speak and IB does not disappoint, serving up heaps of long winded dialogue at crucial points in the film. There are moments when the film drags a bit due to this, but the pacing is so well done, most viewers will just roll along with it. As a huge Tarantino fan, I look forward to the long monologues and IB gave me all I needed and more.

IB is also one of the best cast movies this summer, with an eclectic yet very enjoyable cast headlined by Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz (who won a Best Actor Award at Cannes this year for this role). While Brad Pitt is hilarious as the American leader of the Basterds, Waltz easily steals the show as SS enforcer Hans Landa. The opening scene in particular is especially brilliant and perfectly sets the tone for the film. Cameos by Michael Myers, Julie Dreyfus and BJ Novak round out the excellent ensemble cast, as well as some old “Tarantino favorites” that I won’t spoil for you. Let’s just say, if you’re a fan, you’ll cheer when you see / hear them.

While everything else from the direction to the sound is top notch, the film isn’t perfect. In my opinion, Eli Roth was very average as the “The Bear Jew”, a fun character that could have been done much better by another actor. Also, the decision to introduce the other members of the Basterds just to have them literally forgotten about halfway through the film was a surprising omission. It almost felt as though the film had a lot cut from it, surprising considering it’s already lengthy at over 2 and a half hours.

That aside, Inglorious is a true return to form for Tarantino, serving up a wonderfully surprising story backed with excellent acting, thrilling moments and an overall feeling of tension unlike anything he’s ever done. Tarantino has achieved something I always dreamed he would. He didn’t just make a movie honoring classic World War II films…he simply went ahead and created a classic World War II film.

Score – 90%

Originally Written – 2/8/2010

As I said in my Public Enemies review, expectations are a funny thing. When I saw the original teaser for D-9 (the one with the alien interview and the pixelated mouth), I literally laughed out loud. I thought to myself, “Gee, another Independence Day…greeeeaat”. Then the second trailer came out without the pixelation and the alien saying, “We just want to go home”. It was at that moment when the film finally started to appeal to me. Maybe this wasn’t going to be another alien invasion knock off. Maybe this could be something interesting. Maybe things will just blow up and make happy. Then I actually went out and saw the thing and have only this conclusion:

District 9 is one of the best science fiction movies I’ve seen…ever.

Maybe I’m still in shock from seeing it not 24 hours ago, but I struggle to even call this film science fiction…it feels almost like science non-fiction but in reality it’s a “sci fi action/drama”. Filmed half as a documentary, half as an action movie, D-9 is one of those rare films that literally has it all…jaw dropping effects, graphic violence, wonderfully realized characters, a touching love story…if this sounds like last year’s Slumdog Millionaire, you’re not too far off. Just strip out the Bollywood aspects and insert alien refugees struggling to survive in a South African ghetto, and you can make some comparisons.

For me, one of the most unexpected yet amazing aspects of the film was the aliens themselves. In most movies of this genre, the alien is the creepy insect who comes to destroy mankind or is simply setup as the big reveal. They are rarely fleshed out and developed as true characters. This is not the case in District 9. Let’s just say when the CGI alien out acts the human male lead (who was excellent in his own right), you know you have something special. Not since ET has an alien character been as fully fleshed out they are in D-9.

But don’t think this is a family film with adorable creatures and bags full of Resse’s Pieces. This is an intense adult oriented film with some serious “gross out” parts. If you read the synopsis, you’ll see the human interest centers around alien weaponry and when these things go off, they don’t disappoint. Action is always made better when it involves characters you care about, and D-9 tows that line perfectly. The action is visceral and at the same time, oddly beautiful.

Combine that with an fascinating sub-plot involving govenrnmental greed and corruption, pitch perfect direction and cinematography that drops you right into the fray, you have a great film. D-9 combines the risk, ideas and spirit of independent film with the deep pockets of big budget Hollywood and it’s a marriage made in cinema heaven. District 9 is a rare achievement and should receive the type of Oscar attention Dark Knight received last year….it probably wont, but it really should.

Highly recommended!

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 2/8/2010

In Bruges is the first feature film by Oscar winning director and acclaimed Irish playright Martin McDonagh starring Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes. The film centers around two hitmen who are hiding out in the quaint Belgium town of Bruges after a tough job. While in Bruges they muse about their line of work, life, death and midgets…yes, midgets.

This is one of those movies where you don’t know whether to laugh out loud or be revolted as the line is towed between those two extremes expertly. While the movie has it’s quiet introspective moments, the film is also shockingly violent, especially in the third act and bitterly, almost offenisvely, funny. It’s this balance of raw comedy, violence and human experience that gives the film it’s charm and depth.

As for the leads, Gleeson is great as the elder hitman providing a nice straight man to Colin Farrell’s “wild boy” character. Gleeson appreicates the charm and history of Bruges while Farrell wants to either leave or party. It’s a father/son relationship that never feels forced and gives the film it’s emotional grounding.

Be aware, this is a English movie about Irish hitmen in Belgium, so the accents can be tough if you’re not used to it. If the accents in Snatch didn’t give you a problem, you should be fine for In Bruges. Also, the film does lag in spots, especially in the quiet scenes where you really have to strain to hear what they’re saying. I had my surround system up LOUD and I was still having a hard time.

That aside, In Bruges is a fun and thoughtful trip into the morality of murderers full of “Snatch-esqe” humor and non sequiturs, shocking violence and truly touching moments. If you dig Guy Ritchie films, you will more than dig this.

Score – 80%

Originally Reviewed – 2/5/2010

Few documentaries polarize people as much as Grey Gardens…it’s either a fascinating look into co-dependency and delusion or it’s the shameful exploitation of crazy people. If you don’t know the back story, the film centers around the real life interactions of Big and Little Edith Bouvier Beale, the aunt and cousin respectively of Jackie O, who as we all know was the wife of JFK. After Big Edith’s husband leaves and her sons leave one by one, Big Edith does eveything in her power to keep Little Edith in the house and under her wing. Since the East Hampton estate is now vacant except for the pair and the two have lived a life of leaisure (neither of them have even seen a mop, much less used one), the house quickly fails into decay and infestation. Finally, after threat of eviction from the town, Jackie O steps in an fixes up the house to the best of her ability.

Whew…

The documentary begins two years after the attempted eviction with both Little and Big Edith still living under the same roof. The documentary itself is as bare bones as it gets with directors Albert and David Maysles (famous for the Rolling Stones documentary, Gimme Shelter), basically setting up the camera and filming two crazy people interact in a dilapidated house. For the patient viewer, however, you get an in depth look at people living with mental illness and get a strong appreciation for a loving relationship between two very sick people. Remember, this was made way before the mentally ill became an A&E sideshow with shows like Intervention and Obsessed, so this was groundbreaking stuff in 1975.

The film isn’t perfect however. The directors make very little attempt to tell the back story, hence my long winded first paragraph. and the film’s impact is hampered by that. If you know nothing of these two people before seeing the film, all you get is a series of home movies involving an overbearing mother and her doting daughter.

That being said, my recommendation for those unfamiliar with the back story would be to see the recently released HBO film of the same name before seeing the original. The HBO movie, starring Drew Barrymore and Jessica Lange, tells the story leading up to the original and you get a much better sense of how the family actually got this point. Be forewarned that the HBO film also recreates scenes of the original with Barrymore and Lange playing Big and Little Edith (very well, I might add), so there are spoliers.

All in all, it’s a fascinating film about love in the most unhealthy of relationships and is worth seeing for anyone who’s a fan of documentary style film.

Score – 90%