Originally Reviewed – 12/8/2011

Writing reviews can be really difficult, especially when your opinion of a film flies in the face of your critical peers. The Tree of Life, the latest film from director Terrance Malik, won the Palme d’Or, has a respectable 84% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is almost assured a Best Picture nomination come February. So why didn’t I think it was all that? Why did I glance over to my brother thirty minutes in and mouth, “I can’t do another two hours of this”? Sure, I have my reasons but the real question is if you, the patient reader, should give this film a watch. The answer is a complex one, but let me try an experiment that should help you decide to spend 139 minutes of your life seeing this film.

Please read the following passage:

The morning glinted through the lowered slats of Bill’s Venetian blinds that bright Monday morning, horizontal lines right out of a 40’s film noir. It was a Monday, like the thousand before and the million to come, the beginning of a week drenched in opportunities lost and gained. Sitting on the edge of his queen size bed, Bill stares blankly at the ticking minutes of the dresser clock. Half dressed and already late, he struggles to pull a black sock over his left foot. Nothing. His mind knows he has to but his body refuses, a perpetual conflict of interest between duty and want. Two more minutes tick by and still he sits, bathed in the mid dawn daylight, unable to move. Inert. Motionless. The sounds of the morning rush leak through the window crack, the clock continues its steady march and the light grows brighter. Again Bill tries to pull the sock over his still sleeping foot and fails. Hands won’t move, muscles won’t tighten. The clock cries out a final digital squeal as the last tap of the snooze bar expires. Jerking to life, Bill tries one more time to secure the sock. Grip, pull and success! His socks are on, the day is in motion and, whether he likes it or not, Bill is officially dressed.

If you read the above passage and thought, “Wow, what an interesting depiction of getting dressed to go someplace he doesn’t want to go”, congratulations. You will love The Tree Of Life.

However, if you got halfway through it and said, “What a load of crap. He’s putting his socks on. Get to the point!”, congratulations. You will despise The Tree Of Life.

Of course, you could have said, “Sure it’s pretty and all, but he’s just putting a sock on. I see there’s some sort of subtext there but I could have done without the overdramatic writing”. If you did, congratulations. You, like me, will find the Tree of Life artistic yet pretentious, a frustrating mix of complex ideas rolled around in so much arthouse fluff, the message gets hopelessly lost.

The crux of the story lies in the recollections of Jack, a lost soul in the modern world who thinks back on his 1950’s childhood. Being a Midwestern boy was tough for young Jack. With a stoic yet stern father (Brad Pitt) and a mother teetering in her beliefs (Jessica Chastain), Jack found himself torn between duty and rebellion. Much of the film is told through the sepia toned reenactments of Jack’s childhood where we watch his growth from boy to confused adolescent and it’s in this middle part where we actually get some of the best stuff in the movie. Young Jack is played very well by first timer Hunter McCracken and you really get a sense of his internal struggle, a big theme in the film. Everybody is struggling with issues of faith, life and direction, creating a mood that’s unfocused yet tense enough to pull you through. Chastian is quite good as the mother but Pitt is his usual average self, playing the gruff disciplinarian as decently as one could expect. Sorry kids, but aside from Fight Club and maybe A River Runs Through It, Brad Pitt is not a good actor. His charm lies in his personality and when that gets muted, much like it does here, the whole experiences come off very blah. As for Sean Penn, who plays the older Jack, he says about five words and has about ten minutes of screen time. Enough said.

Luckily for filmgoers, the film isn’t so much about the acting as it about the spectacle, and this is where most of the derision lies. Make no mistake, Terrance Malik is an artist of the highest order. The main storyline is bookended with a complex series of esoteric flares, swaths and images, all designed to evoke an emotional response. These scenes are admittedly stunning to look at and, much like a living painting, conjures up powerful feelings and emotions. Too bad it simply doesn’t work. Many people have compared this film to 2001: A Space Odyssey and they’re not half wrong, especially considering the man who did the visual effects for that landmark film, Douglas Trumbull, came out of retirement to contribute to Tree of Life. While the look of the two movies may be similar, there is one glaring difference, a difference that makes 2001 a classic and Tree Of Life a missed opportunity.

In 2001, things happen.

In Kubrick’s film, the spacecraft dance whimsically to the Blue Danube. Why? Because they are orbiting a planet. The pod crawls out of the space dock to fix the radio dish. Yeah, it takes a mind numbingly long time to get there, but lo and behold! Something is occurring! The spaceship slowly lowers itself into the dock of the station. “For God’s sake, get there already”, I scream but at least, at the very minimum, the thing is landing. Eventually, the cursed spacecraft will hit the ground and we’ll move on. Malik’s error is that in midst of the light bending, mind warping madness, nothing is happening. No story is being told, no plot is being driven forward, no ideas are being exchanged. Instead, Malik expects us to conjure our own feelings from the ether and while that can work to a point, eventually you need to start telling us a story. Malik gets so wrapped up in his esoteric themes of worlds being born and destroyed, he forgets we’re not in his head and forgets to simply tell a tale. Yes, we start to get something going thirty minutes in but by then it’s too late. We’re already dazed and confused, high on a trip of light bursts and dinosaurs, we’re out of the movie, either stuck in our own heads or bored out of them. Shame to, as if he had just told the story, the film would have had the exact same impact.

Now, I’m sure I’m going to get my share of detractors on this review. Comments like, “You just didn’t get it” or “You’re too brainwashed by the Hollywood system” will come down the pike and that’s expected. Let me say again, Terrance Malik has a lot to say about the world and he does his best to do so in The Tree of Life. Faith, belief, and indecision are all powerful topics and they are all nicely touched upon in the main arc of the film. However, much like the crazy guy on the six train who babbles about how Jesus is a cat, Malik doesn’t know exactly how to synthesize his thoughts and instead takes us on an arduous journey through the surreal with diminishing returns. To answer my question from the beginning of the review, the one where I ask if you should see this or not, the answer is yes. If you are on this site, commenting on reviews, you are a film fan and every film fan should see this movie. There is some stunning cinematography, there are a couple of very good performances and the underlying story is a simple yet evocative one. Just be prepared to grit your teeth a bit at a director who reached for a question that exceeded his grasp, leaving a film that is just as annoying as it beautiful.

Score – 60%

Originally Reviewed – 12/5/2011

Whenever you bring up John Landis’ third film in mixed conversation, you’ll often get a dreamy gaze and a wry smile. Anybody who’s seen this 1978 comedy classic is immediately brought back to simpler times. Days of class schedules, wild parties and sleeping to noon usually comes to mind and even if you didn’t have that type of college experience, this film not only makes you wish you did, makes that debauchery seem more of a rite of passage than a waste of daddy’s money. In short, I’ve never met somebody who didn’t enjoy Animal House. One of the films that define the term “cult classic”, Animal House is a runaway train through the absurd, a juvenile take on college life through the eyes of the offenders. One of the originators of the “gross out comedy” genre, Landis’ tale of the drunken exploits of the Delta Chi fraternity is high on energy but low on story and character development, creating a fun yet slightly hollow look into early sixties college life.

Then again, this is Animal House were talking about. Rather than create a hard hitting look into early sixties college life, writers Harold Ramis, Douglas Kenney and Chris Miller instead penned a tale of heightened antics, punctuated with sight gags, slapstick and shameless nudity. Larry Kroger (Thomas Hulce) and Kent Dorfman (Stephen Furst) are freshmen at Faber College and after getting recruited by the self proclaimed “worst frat on campus”, find themselves in the midst of mayhem. The competing frats find them repulsive and the school board wants them expelled, all for their propensity for toga parties, pranks and excessive drinking habits. The film does a fine job creating a sense of community amongst the wild boys, allowing the audience to root for them, bad taste and shameful behavior be damned. Landis also does a nice job drawing up distinct dividing lines between the “good guys” and everybody else, all of which who want the party to end. There isn’t much grey in the storytelling, but in the case of Animal House that’s a good thing, allowing for some exceedingly humorous situations and storylines.

And with actors this funny, why get in their way. Featuring an ensemble cast of mostly unknown actors, Animal House has some standout performances. Tim Matheson is great as the frat’s Dou Juan, Donald Sutherland has a memorable turn as the pot smoking professor and Kevin Bacon, in his debut role, is totally believable as an opposing Greek. One of the most underrated performances, however, comes from John Vernon, who plays Dean Wormer. Wormer is the perfect foil to Delta Chi’s shenanigans, playing it straight yet for big laughs as he schemes to get the lads kicked off campus. The performance is a bit one noted but when that note is deadpan hilarity, it’s perfectly acceptable. And yes, the line, “No fun of ANY kind” is permanently burned into my filmgoing lexicon.

Of course, all these performances pale in comparison to the career making role of Bluto, played by the late, great John Belushi. Pulled by Landis from a regular gig at Saturday Night Live, Belushi has perfect physical comedic timing. The catalyst for the entire film, Animal House soars on the edge of his energy, propelling the movie to classic status. What the film doesn’t do well is give us more than a series of episodic scenes that are all funny in their own right but do not lend themselves to a cohesive story. The relationship between Boone and his more mature girlfriend doesn’t really work, the situations are beyond ludicrous and there is absolutely no character development to speak of. These issues aside, there’s not much else you can say about a movie that defines cringe comedy. Despite the less than perfect score, this a landmark comedic film filled with funny performances and larger than life situations. While I never personally experienced the type of college the Delta Chi boys did, I still remember that sense of boundless optimism, a feeling like the world was yours to conquer. Animal House captures that sentiment perfectly, creating a world of youthful energy and timeless friends. And yes, it’s still really damn funny.

Score – 85%

Originally Reviewed – 11/27/2011

Brutal honesty mixed with dark comedy has become the hallmark of director Alexander Payne. With films like About Schmidt and the Oscar nominated Sideways on his resume, Payne has become known for creating complex characters and putting them in strange yet often hilarious situations. With his latest film, The Descendants, Payne puts George Clooney and three young newcomers in a tropical paradise that provides a beautiful backdrop to a film that just may be the most emotionally gripping work he’s ever done. Fans fearful that this film fails to match the comic beats of his previous work have to little to worry about as Payne has become a master of balance, providing a nice dose of humor to go with the tragedy. The result is the best film he’s ever directed.

Clooney plays Matt King, real estate lawyer in his native Hawaii and absentee father of two children, Alexandra and Scottie, played by newcomers Shailene Woodley and Amara Miller. Clooney is wrapped up in a number of different issues: the sale of a premier piece of untouched Hawaiian beachfront that’s been in his family for generations, a life threatening accident that has left his wife in a coma and the sudden care of his two rebellious daughters. While this seems like more drama than a Lifetime movie special, Payne has an uncanny knowledge of human emotion, writing a screenplay that’s heavy handed but never overbearing. This is not a raucous comedy to be sure, but a well balanced one. I’ve often said comedy works best when it involves characters you care about and The Descendants does not disappoint in that respect.

On the acting front, Clooney has always been a very reliable actor and in the role of the daddy in tumult, he puts forth his best performance since 2009’s Up In The Air. Clooney creates a believable and complex character, fully channeling the pathos in the script. This is a tough role, even tougher than the one he played in Up In The Air and he hits his marks perfectly in what very well could be an Oscar nominated performance. The rest of the cast is equally wonderful, especially newcomers Woodley and Miller as Clooney’s children. Much like the kids in 2010’s The Kids Are Alright, the siblings are believable and engaging, propelling the film thorough the difficult subject matter.

The film is also benefited from a fantastic script and some fine direction from Mr. Payne. The setting of the movie provides some great juxtaposition between the toughness of the situation and the surrounding beauty. As somebody who has spent a good deal of time in Hawaii, I’m well aware of how revered tradition is to the native people and Payne elegantly captures this with the story point of the land sale. The film is full of nod and winks to the Hawaiian way of life and while many viewers may not catch these little nuggets, they were well received by a “haole” like me. The actors are also wonderfully directed, something that should be no surprise to those familiar with Payne’s previous work. The script is biting, sometimes shocking but always relatable, providing humor in the most dire of situations.

If you are really curious about what the central theme of the film is, all you need to do is look at the title. The children are dealing with being descendants of a wealthy yet absent father, the family is wrestling with being descendants of Hawaiian royalty and Clooney is swimming upstream against the pressures of keeping a crumbling family unit together. A complex yet fully entertaining film that hits all the right buttons, The Descendents should get more than a few looks for some awards come January. While I do think this movie will be pushed out by the influx of top contenders being released this month, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Golden Globe or two in the future for this well made film. One the most satisfying films I’ve seen all year, Payne continues his tradition of being a director of patience, empathy and wonderful storytelling.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 11/17/2011

Turning a book into a film is one of the trickiest tasks a filmmaker can tackle. The pitfalls are endless: you have to deal with the book’s ardent fans, while appealing to those who’ve never read it. A book can tell you what a character is thinking where a film has to show you visually. People spend much more time with novels, 8 hours on average, than they do watching a 2 hour film, creating a deeper connection with the story. Even the issue of, “that’s not what the lead looked like in the book” will cause nightmares for directors, simply because they can’t compile a cast that will match everybody’s imaginations. So, when director Bruce Robinson set out to make a film based on Hunter S Thompson’s second novel, The Rum Diary, I was skeptical at best. The only other Thompson book to make it to the screen was 1998’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and thanks to the near maniacal mind of director Terry Gilliam, became an instant cult classic. The Rum Diary, on the other hand, is a much more subdued affair and I was curious how Robinson would take on this unique challenge. The answer? Simply ignore the novel’s plot almost entirely and use choice elements from the book as a back drop to tell the origin story of a literary revolutionary. It’s a fine idea, one that I appreciate as a huge fan of the late novelist. Too bad the film itself is a poorly made mess.

For those who don’t know, The Rum Diary stars Johnny Depp as Paul Kemp, a rum soaked New York journalist who finds himself in 1960’s Puerto Rico working for a struggling newspaper. At the paper, Kemp meets the jaded editor Lotterman (Richard Jenkins), the habitually intoxicated Moberg (Giovanni Ribisi) and Bob Sala (Michael Rispoli), a fellow drinker/journalist who Kemp ends up staying with. Money is tight at the newspaper, so when a high powered land merchant by the name of Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart) offers Kemp a job writing brochure material for a fantastic new Puerto Rican hotel, Kemp jumps at the chance. Puerto Rico, however, is not without hypocrisy and as Kemp delves deeper into the good life of the island’s nouveau riche, he discovers just how full of s**t the whole place happens to be. Fans of the book, beware: while the plot has a passing resemblance to the novel, the similarities end at the synopsis. Literally 85% of the film is the invention of Mr. Robinson who reassigns character roles, makes up strange situations from thin air and removes entire characters from the screenplay. More on that later.

Playing the Thompson-esqe lead character, Depp’s reprisal of the role he played in Fear and Loathing is much more restrained this time around. While still a good performance, he doesn’t get the opportunity to come as unhinged as Gilliam allowed, so fans expecting Fear and Loathing Part 2 will be a bit disappointed. The rest of the cast ranges from welcome surprises to flat out awful. Both Jenkins and Rispoli do fine jobs in their respective roles, giving the film a much needed dose of comic timing while Eckhart is believable yet one noted as the opportunistic land baron. The only blemish in the cast is Amber Heard as Chenault, lover of Sanderson and object of affection for Kemp. While undeniably beautiful, Heard is woefully miscast in the role, a character changed dramatically for the film and not for the better. The result is a strangely plotted love triangle that never gets off the ground or generates any heat.

As a whole, the cast has their moments but much of the work is lost in bland pacing and boring direction. Robinson is a competent director but doesn’t have the visual imagination to inject the type of energy the source material requires. Sure that material is lacking in its own plot, but the scenes Robinson conjures up to make a cohesive story only detracts from the final product. From the cockfighting angle to an uncomfortable scene featuring a witch doctor to Depp’s ridiculous meeting of Chenault, nothing connects properly to the scenes straight from the novel. As a result, the film comes off disjointed and episodic. In fact, the best scenes in the movie are those pulled straight from the book, such as Sala and Kemp’s escape from the burger shop and Chenault’s Carnival dance. The rest of the film suffers from poor pacing and head scratching plot devices, making the end product a fitfully entertaining mixed bag.

All that said, I can’t be too hard on Robinson for the final product. The work of beat writers like Thompson, Kerouac and Ginsberg are often difficult, if impossible to bring to the screen. Not reliant on narrative, beat writing tells the story through the energy of the language. These authors were literary revolutionaries, casting aside traditional form and structure for a mad, freewheeling joyride, saying whatever they want, however they wanted. The Rum Diary is no different, making Robinson’s task an exceedingly difficult one and in the end, I greatly appreciate his efforts. This is the film version of The Rum Diary Thompson himself would have liked to see, a brash strike against commercialism and a triumphant cry for journalist honesty. Problem is, the film itself has so many holes, problems and pratfalls, I have to label it a disappointment, despite my respect for the director’s intentions. Not a good film, but not a miserable one either, The Rum Diary should be seen by those not familiar with the original novel. For those who are already fans, this adaptation is just going to annoy you.

Score – 50%

Originally Reviewed – 11/10/2011

Way back when, in the year 1999, a little known set of strange coincidences occurred. On January 10th of that year, a brand new show featuring small time character actors hit the HBO network, a channel mostly known for movies and not much else. The show centered on a New Jersey mafia don and his two families, the one that committed the crimes, and the other at home who benefited from the violence. The interesting point was that this particular boss visited a shrink, revealing a vulnerability that was unheard of in modern day mafia tales. Then, just three months later, Warner Brothers released a film starring Robert DeNiro and Billy Crystal about an anxiety ridden mob boss who learns to deal with his issues while keeping his crime family together. The show was the Sopranos, the film was Analyze This and while the movie doesn’t live up to the genre defining TV program, it’s still an amusing flick about wiseguys in therapy.

DeNiro plays Paul Vitti, a tough as nails mobster who, after the sudden slaying of his mentor, starts succumbing to anxiety attacks and uncontrollable weeping. Faced with a huge meeting with the most prominent men in the mafia world, Vitti turns to psychiatrist Ben Sobel for help. Naturally, Ben wants nothing to do with the famous gangster yet, after some strong instance from Vitti’s crew of flunkies, agrees to treat him. After all, Sobel is a doctor and Vitti is really a man in pain, despite his murderous tendencies. What happens next is a comedy of errors: Sobel just wants to get Vitti emotionally stable enough to deal with the meeting, Vitti considers Sobel an employee, demanding his assistance at the most inopportune times. While these moments come off contrived and manufactured, they do provide some decent laughs, especially when Vitti’s lackey interrupts the wedding of Sobel and his fiancé (Lisa Kudrow). The scenes are all setups to a running joke, but the joke is funny enough to pull the film along.

Despite these machinations, the film largely survives thanks to the odd couple chemistry between DeNiro and Crystal. Although DeNiro does his standard gangster shtick, Crystal shows the most range as the nebbish doctor, providing a very funny foil for DeNiro’s shenanigans. The pair makes the most of a script comprised of mafia clichés, creating a film that never takes itself too seriously, yet is aware its dealing with real people and real issues. The scene stealer of the film, however, has to be Joe Viterelli in the role of Jelly, Vitti’s right hand man. Jelly is hilarious in every scene he’s in, propelling the film from a middling comedy to a real rib cracker. On the other hand, Lisa Kudrow is woefully miscast in the role of Sobel’s beloved. While I do like Kudrow as a comedic actress, you can tell she was cast solely for her likeability, which makes the fact her character is so unlikable all the more jarring. The relationship between the two is downright co-dependent and detracts from the experience as a whole.

If you sit down to analyze this (pun regrettably intended), the combination of the heart stopping drama that was the Sopranos and the comedic farce that is Analyze This provides a full spectrum of the material that can be mined from the mafia psychoanalysis genre. Jarring but never shocking, the film earns itself a soft R rating with raunchy dialogue and ridiculous shooting scenes to go with the comedic center. Not a bad film but not a brilliant one either, Analyze This is a very passable diversion for those weaned into film by the Goodfellas and Casino’s of the world. Not the comedy classic of director Harold Ramis’ first film, Caddyshack, but the film is a very passable diversion for those looking for a little “howyoudoin” in their comedy.

Score – 70%

Originally Reviewed – 10/29/2011

What the difference between a prophet and a lunatic? The smelly guy who sits on the S train screaming about the end of the world sure looks crazy but what if he was really clairvoyant. As we move through our day to day routine, we hear things people are saying but through fear, arrogance or simple personal protection, we never let those scary notions sink in. But what if that wingnut is right? What if he sees something we don’t, tapped into an invisible stream meant to warn us of our end. How would we treat this screamer in the streets? How do we treat them now? This is the exact notion explored in Take Shelter, a smarty written film about one man’s premonitions and the effect it has on his friends, his community and his family.

Character actor Michael Shannon stars as Curtis, father of a financially strapped family living in working class Ohio. In the caring of his supportive wife (Jessica Chastain) and their deaf daughter (Tova Stewart), Curtis works as a construction manager, enjoying a life of hard work in a loving family. However, after having a series of visions and dreams of an impending apocalyptic storm, Curtis becomes obsessed with the protection of his family. In the role of Curtis, Shannon cements himself as an actor of depth and range. Shannon expresses a range of emotions in a startlingly stoic way, creating a character that is stern and fixed in his belief. All of Curtis’ actions are in defense of his family and it’s this love that helps the audience through the subsequent consequences. The town doesn’t take lightly to Curtis’ increasingly manic behavior and the question of how far will you go to protect your family, even when that very family has their doubts, comes into play. The result is a tense and at time exhilarating series of events that take place in a patient way, a real treat to watch.

In the role of his wife, Chastian continues her rise as one of the best actresses in Hollywood despite the character having little depth. The role of Samantha only exists to cement the family dynamic and while Chastain does a fine job with the responsibility, I would have liked a little more development from her character. In the end, this film is all Shannon and he pulls it off beautifully, all building up to a pivotal scene at a community dinner where the frustration of being seen as a psycho boils over in explosive fashion. Shannon does some remarkable work here and should be considered for a couple of awards this coming February.

All the good work by the cast would be in vain without a smartly written script and lovely direction from writer/director Jeff Nichols. Brimming with tension, the arc of Shannon’s mindset is full of suspense and intrigue. While the main portions of the film are filmed in a bland yet honest way, the real visual treats arrive when Curtis falls asleep. His dream worlds are frightening and filled with terror, bringing the audience to the edge of their seats. There are some heart stopping moments in Take Shelter and full marks need to be given to Nichols for balancing the stark realities of working class life with beautiful imagery. In the director’s chair, Nichols never betrays the a-ha ending, letting the audience decide for themselves on the mental state of Curtis. The result is a film that immediately absorbing and quietly powerful.

In the end, Take Shelter is a love story, not in a romantic sense but a personal one, a story of family trying to pull together in the hardest of moments. Curtis’ obsession pulls his loving family to the breaking point, and thanks to some excellent direction, we care every minute about the state of this small sampling of American life. Filled with lovely performances, gripping intensity and an underlying warmth that supports the mounting terror, Take Shelter is unabashed triumph. Maybe the yahoo on the S train isn’t a prophet but after watching the story of Curtis and his lovely family, I’ll at least lower the iPod a bit to hear exactly what he has to say. Not because I think he’s right but at least he cares enough to yell out loud in the first place.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 10/24/2011

Ever try to make a movie? Sure, not many of us have done it on a professional level before but we all make films of some sort. Be it a documentary about a family vacation or a record of some milestone birthday, we all incorporate movie making in our everyday lives. Some of us now even do a little iMovie editing and if you’re one of those people, you know how time consuming the process can be. American Movie, a prize winning documentary about the filmmaking aspirations of Wisconsin native Mark Borchardt, tell the story for the rest of us. Knee deep in the production of Northwestern, his latest low budget project, Mark runs out of a cash and in a last ditch attempt to fund his feature, he decides to finish his short film Coven. With the help of his scratch off addicted friend Mike Schank, Mark plunges head first into the world of independent filmmaking, creating a fascinating and hilarious doc about the drive needed to see your dreams through.

At first glance, Mark looks like a psycho. Long hair, thin build and a mouth that goes a mile a minute, Mark is pure energy. Sure he may not have the vision of a Spielberg, but he has the guts and in the documentary, that’s more than enough to keep the audience interested. Mark’s likability is infectious and within fifteen minutes, you can’t help but root for him, even when he’s borrowing money from his grandfather or pestering his mom to help with set design. The people in this Wisconsin town are rooted in reality and it’s a real treat to see Midwestern life so honest portrayed. The characters around Mark are all skeptical of Mark’s skill yet despite that worry, nobody dares to discount his heart. The filmmakers give the family space to genuinely interact and do a wonderful job of never mocking Mark or his cadre of crew members. That’s not to say the film isn’t brilliantly funny. American Movie is one of the most quotable films I’ve seen in quite some time, so if you ever want to score points with your film buff buddies, classic quips like, “sucking down peppermint schnapps and trying calling Morocco at 2 in the morning” and Mike’s feelings on the lottery will go a long way in doing so.

My one knock against the movie is that it does seem fairly padded, especially towards the end. Some critics have also derided the film for being exploitive, but I strongly disagree. Sure, at first we’re all laughing at Mike’s blank stare or Mark’s wild mannerisms but the film allows both characters to build, creating real people that are complex and interesting. With American Movie, director Chris Smith deftly captures not just the weirdness of Mark but the person inside, creating a film that’s balanced, engaging and at times, hilarious. Mark may never make his opus to 70’s horror but he’ll always have the drive, never wavering even when the world conspires against him. A film that’s just as inspiring as it is humorous, American Movie reminds us all that following our true passions is what makes life worth living, regardless of where that drive takes us.

Score – 90%

Originally Published – 10/17/2011

Oh Tony Kaye. Why are you so brilliant yet so strangely weird? Critics, audiences and even green men from Jupiter all agree that American History X is pretty damn amazing. A shocking yet brutally honest character study of white supremacists and the lives they impact, American History X plays out more like an even handed documentary than a fictional tale. Full of wonderful performances, fine storytelling and Kaye’s signature cinematography, the film is a technical and emotional marvel. So why did Kaye have a public feud with New Line over the final cut of the movie, a cut done without his supervision? How come Kaye took out full page ads in film trade papers condemning the film? Why did he request his name be replaced with Alan Smithee in the director credit? The reasons run deep and long yet the end result is the same: American History X is an unflinching look into people consumed by hate and the people their anger touches the most.

Telling the story of a Venice Beach family whose life is ripped at the seams by hate and bigotry, X centers around Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), a thoughtful yet angry young leader of a group of neo-Nazis. After being sent to Chino for the murder of an African American gang member trying to jack his car, Derek spends three years amongst the very people he grew to despise and learns some hard lessons in the process. Luckily the film isn’t all about jail time and sieg heils as much attention is paid to the affect Derek’s life of hatred has on his family, mostly through his impressionable young brother, Danny (Edward Furlong). Danny is following in his brother’s skinhead footsteps and, after a stunt at school sends him to brink of expulsion, is tasked with telling the story of his brother, his history of hate and the affect all of this has had on his young psyche. This inclusion of the family element is one of the film’s greatest successes, creating both the motivation for Derek’s world views and the ending result.

In fact, the element that makes the movie work is how much attention is paid to the back story of Derek, giving his mean spirited character a redeemable edge. This strange dichotomy puts the audience in an uncomfortable position, forcing us to face our own opinions of race relations head on. The film never apologizes for the actions of Derek, rather focusing on the events that led a brilliant yet impressionable youth down a path of self destructive bigotry. Kaye examines everything with a studious yet compassionate eye, never forgiving Derek for his vile ways but never truly condemning him either. To Kaye, Derek is a youth gone awry, led down a slippery slope by weak minded predators and we as an audience almost feel sorry for the Nazi, despite our natural distaste for the message he’s spewing.

All this would be for naught, however, without the brilliant work of the film’s main cast. Edward Norton dives head first into the tricky role of Derek, giving the character plenty of emotional gravitas for us to latch onto. Much like many of his type, his racism is borne from the pain of loss, namely the sudden slaying of his father, told wonderfully via a profanity laced TV interview filmed shortly after his death. Norton plays the role smartly, honestly and emotionally bare, giving one of the best performances of his career. The rest of the cast is wonderfully written and realized, with top marks going to Furlong in the role of Danny and Avery Brooks in the role of Dr. Sweeny, an African American principal who sees a glimmer of good in the eyes of both brothers. And of course, one can’t talk about a Tony Kaye film without mentioning the exquisite cinematography that’s become his trademark. Filming the past in sumptuous black and white and the present day in color, Kaye masterfully tells the story in his signature style. In fact, the black and white portions are so visually gripping, it almost makes the color look weak in comparison. Sure the movie has some uneven moments and the ending is so shocking, it seems tacked on but the piece as a whole balances pain, love and even a splash of humor effortlessly.

Race is a tough issue to tackle and with my recent review of this year’s The Help, it’s a subject that seems to be coming up a lot lately. Despite them both dealing with the subject of race, the two films tell entirely different stories in completely different ways. Where The Help took at a look at those beaten down by a broken system, American History X examines those doing the oppressing in an honest yet brutal fashion. More fable than film, American History X is a thought provoking and powerful piece of filmmaking that cements Edward Norton as one of our finest modern day actors and Tony Kaye as a director of daring and depth. The world needs more Tony Kaye movies and if only the studio hadn’t sparked a firefight with this eccentric yet genius artist, we just might have more of them.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed – 10/11/2011

Ever walk out of a theater and say to yourself, “What the heck did I just see”? More importantly, have you ever taken note of how you said it? Said one way, it could mean disgust after witnessing a convoluted mess and said another way, the sentence could tingle with fascination. Upon leaving the screening of the latest film by Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, that strange sensation crept over me coupled with some serious self doubt. Much like the townsperson who saw a naked Emperor when the rest of village agreed he was clothed, I looked around to see if anybody else had been a little duped by the rave reviews this film’s been getting. Best Director at Cannes, a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a ranking of 124 on IMDB’s Top 250, this film has been universally lauded. So why was I so bored while at the same time so dazzled? How could I be on the edge of my seat while simultaneously yawning and picking sleep crust out of my eyes? The answer is a tricky one, but in the end, Drive is a filmmaking mash-up of decades and genres that does so much right, the missteps that are made make the film that much more disappointing.

Before I even get into story, acting and the rest of it, let’s get one thing crystal clear. Ryan Gosling is the best actor currently working in Hollywood. Period. Playing a stunt driver by day, wheelman for the city’s undesirables by night, Gosling is simply mesmerizing in an undeniably difficult role. Opening with an expertly tense scene where Gosling plays a game of cops and robbers between himself, two thieves and the LAPD, the nature of the quietly intense Driver is instantly cemented. Coming off cool, calm and unflappable in the most intense pressure, Gosling’s Driver is consistently engaging and despite us not having a good reason to root for this anti-hero, we find ourselves doing so anyway. More on that later.

Unfortunately for the film, Gosling doesn’t go it alone as he starts to develop a relationship with his next door neighbor, Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her young son Benicia (Kaden Leos). Irene’s husband is in prison and when he’s released only to find himself dealing with old debts, Driver comes to the rescue. Add to the mix Driver’s crippled mentor Shannon (Bryan Cranston), the mafia entwined owner (Albert Brooks) and Ron Perlman as Brook’s right hand man, Drive is populated with a strong cast. The problem here is that none of these actors have very much to do. With the exception of Gosling, the cast meanders through the movie, aimlessly going through the motions as they coast from scene to scene. Mulligan is boring, Perlman is jarringly over the top and Brooks is just there. While many people have called these characters “intriguingly ambiguous”, their underlying motivations aren’t clear and as a result, we really don’t care what happens to any of them, really bad considering much of the film is spent with these periphery people.

Which brings me to my introductory question of, “why was on the edge of my seat yet strangely bored”? To answer this, let’s play a little game I like to call the “RedLetterMedia.com Challenge”. If you’ve seen Drive, please do this game before continuing the review and feel free to use this trick anytime you’re curious as to why a movie bored you death. For the characters in Drive, do the following: Describe each character in the movie WITHOUT saying what they look like, what they did or didn’t do in the plot or what their profession or role in the movie was. Describe the character to your friends like they aint never seen Drive.

Go ahead! Once again, I’ll wait.

Give up? While you should be able to come up with something for Gosling, I guarantee you won’t be able to do this for any of the other cast members. If you did, let me know in a comment below and if I can’t pick it apart, I’ll mail you a pizza roll.

This is the main reason why Drive is such a disappointment, especially considering there was so much I loved about it. As with Refn’s previous work in Bronson and Valhalla Rising, Driver is visually stunning. From the patient camerawork to the nerve tingling score to the interesting choices made in both setting and scenery, Refn is quickly becoming a master of filmmaking techniques. A wild mash-up of 80’s excess and 70’s grit, the film borrows the best of each decade, creating moments that are nail bitingly tense and amazing to look at. As an addition to the “art house” action genre, a style that was pioneered by the likes of Tarantino and DePalma, Refn succeeds in both pacing and tone. The difference between Refn and those other directors, however, is that Refn hasn’t matured as an artist yet. Just like when I saw his first film, Bronson, and had a very similar reaction, there is a brilliant filmmaker being born here. For me, Refn needs to have the courage to inject his characters with real life, real complexity and once he does that, he’ll be on the level of the great ones. Without that, his films will remain interesting proofs of concept, but nothing more.

A film buff’s action film or a blockbuster junkie’s indie, Drive ends up a disappointment despite doing almost everything right in the technical aspects of creating a stylish action/drama. Beautifully paced and carefully shot, the film falls apart every time one character is forced to interact with another. Without Gosling’s courageous performance, this movie would have been a disaster. With it, you get just enough to stick it out to the end, even if you find yourself inexplicably bored through much of the feature. Filled with romance that’s emotionally unexplained, bit performances that are shockingly over the top and characters that only serve as set pieces for the gorgeous cinematography, Drive is an empty shell of a movie. A beautiful, gripping and at times exciting shell, but a shell all the same.

Score – 60%

Originally Reviewed – 10/2/2011

When my brother and I get together, we talk flicks. Him being an aspiring film director, me an aspiring film critic, our conversations are interesting, detailed and rooted in shared experience. To be frank, we know our stuff. Last week, my brother and I met up to see Contagion and during out pre-movie dinner, our conversation turned to movies, specifically film number 11 in my Review My Collection series, American Beauty. During our conversation, I mentioned that some critics have soured on the movie over the years, saying the film is all snarky dialogue and unrealistic situations. For a little while there, I felt a little strange about loving this film as much as I do. Maybe my fond recollections of that bag floating in the wind were based on teenage ennui, not true filmmaking brilliance. Thanks to my discussion with my brother and my rewatching of the film for this review, my fears were unfounded. American Beauty is an excellent piece of modern cinema, one that provides the right mix of suburban malaise, sexual surrealism and shocking comedy that is, for lack of a better word, simply beautiful.

Opening with the soothing voiceover of our main protagonist, we met Lester (Kevin Spacey), a fourty-something magazine writer who is shambling through the ennui of American life. Walking through his days as if he’s comatose, Lester is surrounded by his materialistic wife (Annette Benning) and his brooding daughter (Thora Birch). However when Lester meets Ricky (Wes Bentley), an introverted yet intense young neighbor with an eye for Jane, he is shaken out of his doldrums to discover there is still life to be lived, even when you feel you’re on the downward slope. The feature film debut of British stage director Sam Mendes, American Beauty has a number of fascinating themes running through it. From the blandness of cookie cutter suburban life to recapturing old energy to discovering the wonder inherent in everyday things, Mendes allows the film to breathe in a way that’s quite extraordinary. While a near brilliant script by Alan Ball helps things, Mendes gives the movie life through excellent pacing and fantastic acting direction.

In fact, when discussing American Beauty, one would be remiss if they didn’t mention the amazing work of the ensemble cast. Sure, we all remember Kevin Spacey’s hilarious yet touching turn as Lester but the cast around him work equally well. Early in the production of the film, Mendes allowed for the cast to rehearse in costume on the actual sets, much like you would in a theater production, and the result is a natural chemistry between the players. Every nuance of the performances, from Mena Suvari’s turn as Jane’s self obsessed best friend to Chris Cooper as Ricky’s ex-Marine father, all capture a little piece of the American puzzle. While some of the characters border on parody, Mendes’ careful direction helps bring the oddities back to earth.

And the lauding could go on and on. While some critics have seen this movie as a enjoyable but vapid piece of Oscar bait, those reviewers should watch it again and, at the advice of the film’s trailer, “Look Closer”. Filled with moments of gut busting hilarity and heart welling emotion, all wrapped in a package that seems disarmingly familiar, American Beauty is a new century classic. In fact, when talking about this movie with my brother, he revealed that this film, along with Fight Club, made him want to peruse filmmaking as a career. Up until this point, he had no idea a movie could transcend simple entertainment and make you feel something so strongly, so simply. I imagine many people have felt this way about American Beauty and for that reason alone, it’s worth ignoring the naysayers. Watch this again for the nuance and if you haven’t seen it before, now’s the perfect time.

Score – 100%