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%

Originally Reviewed on 9/2/2012

When the phrase “Oscar nominated actor” comes up, Russell Crowe isn’t the first name that springs to mind.  But in a three year span from 1999 to 2001, the New Zealand born actor was the most decorated performer in Hollywood.  The Insider gave him his first Oscar nomination for Best Actor, the new millennium saw him win the award for his starring role in Gladiator and one year later, he completed the nomination trifecta with his brilliant portrayal of mathematician John Nash in Ron Howard’s A Beautiful Mind.  While many critics derided the film for its lack of historical accuracy, the fine acting, excellent script and heart-wrenching story makes it a success on nearly every level.

The film centers around the sorta-true life story of mathematician John Nash.  The script follows Nash as he progresses from an eccentric Princeton graduate student searching for an original idea to his work with the government cracking codes.  He’s got a girl, a gig and limitless potential.  All seems well in the life of the genius until the world he believes to be true comes crashing down around him.  If I seem hesitant to do a plot synopsis, there’s good reason for that.  Much of the film’s tension lies in a mid movie reveal that turns the entire story on its head.  Suffice to say, this is a film that must be watched twice if only to capture the little hints and nods to the second act twist.  Much of the film’s success lies in its ability to surprise, a rarity in the usual staid biopic genre.

But the movie isn’t all shocking reveals and plot twists.  The core of the experience lies in the very realistic love story between Nash and his wife Alicia (Jennifer Connelly).  Taking home a well deserved Best Actress Oscar for the role, Connelly is brilliant as the romantic interest.  Rather than hot passion, Connelly’s character serves as Nash’s support system through the tough times in his life.  The film is a bit of a brain bender and the choice to soften the experience with a genuine love story is a smart and effective one.

Naturally, when doing a film of this nature the toughest task goes to the lead.  The line between parody and impersonation is a fine tightrope.  Teeter either way and the film falls apart.  Russell Crowe avoids this by balancing the mannerisms of the real John Nash with some strong character work, allowing him to absolutely disappear in the role.  The Oscar winning makeup certainly helps in creating the illusion but it would just be fancy latex without the great acting by Crowe.  The rest of the cast perfectly complements the principals, including fine work by Paul Bettany as Nash’s friend Charles and the always reliable Ed Harris as Department of Defense agent William Parcher.

The main detraction most reviewers found with this movie in the large historical inaccuracies between the real life John Nash and the fictitious character.  Remember all that talk about the realistic love story and his Fascism defeating code cracking?  Fictitious.  Biopics generally pride themselves in presenting their subjects in a realistic light, but A Beautiful Mind takes great liberties with the true story of John Nash.  While purists may find these revisions almost offensive, I found the film conveyed the nature of his struggles in a visual and artful way, even if the specifics are largely manufactured.  Think of it as sacrificing accuracy for the greater emotional good.  If you want to learn about the real John Nash, rent the excellent PBS documentary A Beautiful Madness.

While many of the film’s elements were invented to enhance the drama, the drama itself is excellent and well worth a watch.  The movie theater is where I go to get swept away and in that respect, A Beautiful Mind does just that.  Combining a fantastic ensemble cast, some amazing effects and more surprises than one would expect from a “standard biopic”, Ron Howard’s portrait of a burdened genius stirs the soul with a powerful yet hopeful message of triumph in the face of adversity.  Winner of four Academy awards including Best Picture, A Beautiful Mind may not be 100% accurate in its storytelling but it captures the spirit of an inspirational person better than any biopic could ever hope for.

Score – 90%

Originally Written on 9/10/2011

Rock and roll doesn’t die.  It just grows older and hopefully, grows up.

Of the many messages in Cameron Crowe’s near epic loss of innocence story we know as the great Almost Famous, the above rings the truest.  The first I heard of this film was its amazing soundtrack, a CD on everyday rotation in my ex-girlfriend’s Honda Civic.  With classic tunes like Simon and Garfunkel’s “America”, Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” and the quintessential “Every Picture Tells A Story” from Rod Stewart, the arc of the film is mirrored closely in the music that surrounds it.  Largely a coming of age story, not only for aspiring rock journalist, William Miller but for everybody involved in this tale, Almost Famous is a breezy yet poignant film full of excellent performances, glib laughter and heartfelt fun.

The center of this movie revolves around the aforementioned Mr. Miller, a 15 year old music fan who, thanks to some handy plot contrivances, is tasked by Rolling Stone to write an expose on the rock band Stillwater.  Fronted by the egotistical yet insecure Jeff (Jason Lee in a role he was born to play) and backed by the guitar virtuoso, Russell (Billy Crudup), Stillwater is a band on the rise and while they’re mistrustful of the young writer at first, they quickly warm to his sweet down home mannerisms, taking the boy on the road to experience the rock and roll life first hand.  The ensemble cast that fills the wild, weird and sometimes sad world Will finds himself in is unilaterally fantastic.  From Kate Hudson as Penny, a groupie and on / off lover of Russell to the scene stealing Frances McDormand as Will’s doting mother to Phillip Seymour Hoffman as famed rock critic Lester Bangs, the cast works seamlessly together, creating a vibe that’s fun, inviting and emotionally involving, despite the leaps of faith the film takes to make it all work.

That’s not say writer / director Cameron Crowe did a poor job.  Quite the opposite, Crowe makes some smart decisions in making sure everybody in the film learns a thing or two by the time the final frame flickers.  Rock flicks can sometimes be over-glamorous or under-honest but Almost Famous manages to highlight both the reckless fun and emotional strain that comes with spending months on end with an entourage of band members, musical and otherwise.  The result is a film that’s enlightening while staying entertaining, the obvious product of Crowe’s own experience writing rock columns and hanging with people who on stage seem larger than life but in the real world, have the same fears and worries as the rest of us.  Sure, Crowe uses a fair amount of plot devices, script feints and a third act deus ex machina that’s fairly ridiculous yet critical to the final bend in the story arc, but those manipulations are forgivable thanks to a well written script and the fantastic cast performing it.

Almost Famous is one of those films that, like the burgeoning rock stars of its focus, is easy to deride as pure escapist entertainment, simply because it’s fun and it knows it.  However, if you peel back the curtain and spend a few minutes looking at the journey these fascinating characters undergo in the space of two hours, the film takes on a new shape, one of personal discovery, understanding and revelation.  Sure, these characters smoke, screw, drink and rage but in the end, when all is said and done, these people and this movie are there for the love of the music.  Cameron Crowe captures this emotional power and delivers a well balanced, smartly written and completely enjoyable film.  A movie that, when all is said and done, celebrates the passion required to make this type of music, Almost Famous deserves a spot among some the finest films made in the early twenty-first century and is an absolute must see not only for the music but for an examination of the turning points that define these unique characters.  Remember, rock and roll may never die but thanks to Cameron Crowe and Almost Famous, it can age rather gracefully.

***NOTE: The version I watched was the newly released “Bootleg Edition” Blue Ray which adds a whopping 30 minutes of footage to an already two hour movie.  While the extra footage doesn’t detract from the film in any way, in my opinion it doesn’t add anything either.  While I can’t in good faith knock points off of the score for the decision of the filmmakers to include this footage, I wish there was a way to skip this material as this version definitely feels over-long compared to original I remember.  Just a quick note to those who see this extended version and wonder why I don’t mention its bloated length in the main review.***

Score – 90%

Originally Written on 8/27/2011

How’s this for a sticky wicket?  Stuck in my New York City apartment in the path of Hurricane Irene, realizing I have an entire weekend of homebound drudgery ahead of me, what better way to carve away the boredom than fire off a few reviews.  Having write ups of The Help, The Hedgehog and the continuation of my Review My Collection saga to get through, what better way to make lemonade out of windswept lemons than get some work done.  Too bad Rotten Tomatoes’ messaging system has decided to respect the state of emergency and not work.  Grrrr….

So, to those of you who run into it, here my latest installment of Review My Collection, the surprisingly wonderful Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, the first studio backed film of Martin Scorsese’s career and a little known jewel in the director’s legendary collection of films.

The film’s namesake is played, in an Oscar winning role, by the great Ellen Burstyn.  We first meet Alice trying to hold herself together in dysfunctional family made up of her abusive husband and her smart aleck son Tommy, brilliantly played by Alfred Lutter.  Alice does her best to keep her emotions and dreams of professional singing in check for the sake of her family but when an unexpected event casts her and her son on a road trip to her childhood home of Monterey, they both learn quite a lot about life, love and the nature of the importance of family.  While I know it can be a somewhat clichéd saying at this point, Burstyn is absolutely brilliant in the lead role,  providing a much needed comic edge to go with some of the high drama of the script.  Her connection with young Tommy is palpable and drives the movie forward, creating an us against the world sense of unity while at the same time never glossing over the natural stress of moving on after a tragedy.

Naturally both mother and son come across some interesting characters in their travels to California, al of which do a great job filling out the world Alice and Tommy find themselves in.  Frequent Scorsese collaborator Harvey Keitel appears as an explosive piano bar patron, Harry Northup as a creepy bartender and the deliciously crass Diane Ladd shines as Flo, a fellow waitress at a Tucson breakfast café.  In this small town restaurant, Alice meets David, a neighboring rancher who instantly takes a liking to Alice.  This chance encounter sets up the second half of the film and while some of the moments lend themselves to overdramatization, the likeability of both Burstyn and Kris Kristofferson as the kindly cowpoke more than make up for any uneven emotional overtones.  Kristofferson plays the part with gentility and charm mixed with a humanity that permeates some of the more intense moments of the second act.  Throughout it all Scorsese directs the film with an even hand.  Although this was only his third film, after Who’s Knocking On My Door and the seminal Mean Streets, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore features many of Scorsese’s filmmaking trademarks and represents a filmmaker who’s brave enough to let his actors live on screen while providing his own personal flourishes.  The result is a film that is distinctly Scorsese without being aware it is.

A film that most Scorsese fans have probably looked past in favor of more popular experiences, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is an unexpected delight, filled with moving performances, excellent direction and a story that balances humor and drama with an even hand.  Buoyed by a virtuoso performance by Ellen Burstyn and kept at that height thanks to some natural chemistry with both the young Alfred Lutter and Kris Kristofferson,  the film firmly cements the reality of loss and the natural healing that happens after.  A fine film for a windswept afternoon, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore should be required viewing for not just Scorsese fans but for anybody who enjoys a well balanced dramedy featuring fantastic acting.  Now, if only Rotten Tomatoes would let me send this to the world, I’d be in perfect shape.

Score – 90%

Originally Reviewed on 8/9/2011

One strange Christmas, approximately five years ago, my brother scraped together some cash from his part time supermarket job and bought me a present that would keep on giving.  The gift contained a DVD box set entitled “The Martin Scorsese Collection” and like many discount collections of this ilk, packaged two well known films with three obscurities.  While I was thrilled that I now owned a better transfer of Goodfellas and was euphoric it threw in the slightly better Mean Streets, the other three films were complete mysteries to me at the time.  Even though one of those movies, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, was surprisingly good, the other two remained encased in shrink wrap, forgotten and forlorn in favor of the more popular movies therein.  Unwatched and collecting dust, the final two films in the collection became footnotes in my movie-going mind, usurped by more modern Scorsese classics.  The first of these films is Who’s That Knocking On My Door and the second, unearthed exclusively for this Review My Collection series, is the dark comedy After Hours, a barely satisfying footnote in the storied career of the master filmmaker.

Griffin Dune stars as Paul Hackett, an Upper East Side computer consultant who leads a staid existence: he consults Bronson Pinchot on how to use a mid 80’s computer terminal, reads Henry Miller and lives in an orderly New York apartment.  However, after meeting a quirky but fascinating girl in a New York diner and calling her that evening, Hackett kicks off a series of events that takes him through a very strange night in the City That Never Sleeps.  From the first frame, one thing is readily apparent: After Hours is clearly a Martin Scorsese joint.  The film is peppered with Scorsese’s signature cinematography, full of quick pans, jolting zooms and meticulous pacing, all hallmarks of a director at the height of his craft.  Nobody can deny Scorsese’s aptitude behind the camera and After Hours highlights that ability in spades.  Yet another love letter to the city that Scorsese called home, After Hours serves as a time capsule to a New York that simply doesn’t exist anymore, highlighting all the madcap grittiness, weirdness and danger of that place and time.  As a current resident of Manhattan, I often wonder how it would have been living here two decades ago and the best Scorsese movies give me a little taste of the New York gone by.

Unfortunately for the film, nostalgia and film techniques can only go so far without a competent story to keep it afloat and this is where After Hours takes a turn for the bad.  Labeled a “dark comedy”, the movie heaps on the satire without ever winking, creating an experience that’s more unsettling than humorous.  Just like the guy you knew in college that thought Holocaust jokes were funny, After Hours wants to be darkly comic without having an inkling of what the term actually means.  People get robbed, talk blandly about rape experiences and attempt suicide, all played for a chuckle that just isn’t there.  It’s not that the performances are bad: Dune plays the hapless fella just trying to get home with sincerity, Rosanna Arquette is at her weirdly comic best as the diner girl and bit parts from Catherine O’Hara, Teri Garr and even Cheech and Chong serve their comedic purpose.  Problem is, the comedy just isn’t there.  Although Scorsese was able to find that comedic balance in his previous film, The King Of Comedy, that movie had the strength of a more interesting story, likable characters and, oh yeah, some guy named Robert DeNiro.  After Hours, on the other hand, features a cast of misfits and degenerates, all trying way too hard for your cautious laughter.  Sure the movie has its moments, but just as you think Hackett is about to come across a person somewhat normal, the shtick ramps back up, hurling you headlong into the next out of place encounter. The tale is scattershot and for the most part humorless.

After Hours, in a word, just isn’t funny.  Perhaps this was considered a biting farce in 1985, which would explain the mind boggling 92% Fresh rating it currently holds on Rotten Tomatoes, but to me it just fell flat on nearly every level.  Well constructed and decently directed, After Hours fails at its primary goal of providing some cringe inducing laughs in the midst of a wild New York night.  Although I’ll always love viewing NYC through the eyes of a master, good technique only goes so far.  Even though the movie doesn’t provide much in the way of laughter, it’s still worth a watch for the hardcore Scorsese fan, featuring some top notch camerawork and direction.  Now all I have to do is give my brother a ring and let him know I finally watched his gift from all those years ago.  And, oh yeah, I’m saving that final box set installment for Review My Collection #197.

Score – 60%

Originally Reviewed on 8/3/2011

While I know I’ve been asking a lot of questions in my reviews as of late, allow me the latitude to ask one more.

Ever “self narrate”?

You know, self narrate.  Take the events going on in your day to day life and do a mental narration?  Kind of like a self imposed voice over for your daily what nots.  Makes life more interesting, doesn’t it.  Well, here’s another question.  Ever exaggerate these mental monologues?  Maybe you put yourself in more interesting places, surrounded by more interesting people, getting yourself in more compelling situations.  Ever conjure a more fascinating you?

If not, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine, Being John Malkovich) certainly did.  In the process of adapting a rambling book called the Orchid Thief, Kaufman not only inserted himself in his movie, he documented his internal struggling in doing so, highlighting fears, ambitions, self doubt and finally creative breakthrough.  The result of this experiment is Adaptation, one of the strangest and most compelling filmgoing experiences from the last ten years.

Directed once again by Spike Jonze, Adaptation is the story of its writer, Charlie Kaufman, an all of sudden hit of Hollywood who, despite his success, lacks self esteem in nearly every aspect of his life.  From the women he fantasizes about to his personal appearance to the screenplay he needs to adapt, Kaufman is man without a direction, ambling his way through the chic world of late nineties Hollywood.  Kaufman, in inserting himself into the movie, forces himself to really examine what he is who is and who he wants to be, a task that could have self serving and boring but is brought to life by the fantastic direction of Spike Jonze.  Jonze seems to have a knack for pulling of Kaufman’s oddball stories and does so with flair and imagination.

Of all the tricks in Jonze’s arsenal, the most compelling one is the creation of the Kaufman character himself.  Nicholas Cage plays both Kaufman and in a feat of camera trickery, his live-in brother Donald.  Donald is an aspiring screenwriter who not only mirrors the type of fun, outgoing person Kaufman secretly wants to be, personifies everything he feels is wrong with the Hollywood machine.  The result is a playful and near genius wink to the system that brought him fame.  Cage is fantastic in both roles, disappearing into both characters seamlessly.  If you’ve ever doubted Cage’s skills as an actor, Adaptation will set you the right way.

Luckily, Cage has some help as the rest of the ensemble cast is just as fantastic.  From Meryl Streep as the author of the book to Chris Cooper as the wild child horticulturalist (in an Oscar winning performance) to Cara Seymour as Kaufman’s love interest, this is a perfectly chosen cast.  Despite the best efforts of everybody involved, it’s the brief turn of famed character actor Brian Cox as screenwriting lecturer Robert McKee that not only steals the show but serves as the catalyst for the films eventual downfall.  Two thirds of the way through the movie, Kaufman goes to one of McKee’s seminars in a fit of desperation and learns about of all of the teacher’s “don’ts of screenwriting”, which include lack of voiceover, avoiding acts of God, etc.  While the class proves inspirational for the writer, Kaufman goes ahead and peppers the final third of the film with exactly the type of devices McKee warns about.  While I’m sure this was done as a wink to the “know-it-all film teachers”, the third act suffers greatly for it, coming off contrived, clichéd and bland in comparison to the brilliant two thirds.  Luckily, the audience is invested enough with the characters to excuse these flaws in the narrative and while the film ends on a pleasing note, I would have loved to see the story play itself out without the almost corny plot twists of the final frame.

Despite my criticisms, Adaptation is a triumph and a success on almost every level.  Brimming with originality, self depreciating humor and a startling insight to the pressures of creativity, Kaufman and Jonze have created a lasting film experience that should be seen by anybody who has ever dreamed up a heightened reality for themselves or simply just dreamed.  In another writer or directors hands, this could have been a pretentious mess but thanks to some extremely smart decisions, Adaptation isn’t just an interesting experiment, it’s a wholly realized success.  And if you’re one of those people who’ve never done that self narration I mentioned in the opening paragraph, give it a shot sometime.  If Charlie Kaufman was able to conjure up Adaptation by doing just that, imagine what’s brimming in your own self conscious.

Score – 90%

Originally Written on 7/01/2011

Ahhh, good old Ace.  When this movie first hit theaters in 1994, I was a freshman in high school, 80% of the country didn’t have internet in their home and Jim Carrey was a budding Canadian sketch comedian.  In his first starring film role, Carrey plays Ace Ventura, a borderline psychotic pet detective on the hunt for the missing mascot of the Miami Dolphins.  The film, derided by most critics as being silly and sophomoric, gained a ravenous following, myself included.  Once my dad brought home a used copy of the movie on VHS, however, is when my fandom reached all time high.  I can remember many a homeroom, reciting the lines, doing the rubber mouthed impersonation and making my teachers cringe with annoyance.  The movie was more than a cult classic, and it, along with The Mask released in the same year, made Jim Carrey a household name.  But how does it hold up today, more than fifteen years later?  In my humble opinion, pretty damn good.

After watching it for the first time in what seems like forever, I’m reminded of how much thought went into what people generally characterize as a stupid comedy.  Carrey is at his zany best in this role and while his performance doesn’t lend itself to subtlety, the over the top nature of Ace is quite entertaining.  Despite the film being primarily made up of one liners and grimaces, there are moments of real acting where a present day viewer can see the Jim Carrey that wowed us in The Truman Show, Eternal Sunshine and I Love You Phillip Morris.  Carrey has some real chops and while this film isn’t the best showcase of his acting skills, it’s a fine display of why he got popular in the first place.  The rest of the cast does a fine job filling out the spaces, including Courtney Cox in an early role as a Dolphin executive, Tone Loc as Ace’s cop buddy and Sean Young as the police chief out to prove Ventura wrong.

One of the more interesting aspects of the movie, however, isn’t in the one liners but in the minutia that makes the experience still funny all these years later.  The heart of Pet Detective is a well written whodunit involving a missing dolphin, a murder and a kidnapping, weaving many clues to the eventual nemesis throughout the film.  If you haven’t seen it a while, check it out again and see if you can’t find all the hints and clues scattered throughout.  Every time I’ve seen it, I’ve picked up on new nuggets in the movie and while I can pretty much recite most of the lines verbatim, it’s this very well written story that keeps me coming back for more.  While the ending twist is fairly ridiculous, it completely works within the world of the film and gives the comedy a nice ground to work off of.  It also helps that the character of Ace is genuinely likable and rarely annoying even when he’s bumbling around, causing mayhem.

To be fair, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective will never go down as one of the greatest comedies of all time, nor should it.  The film is an above average comedic mystery that, thanks to a career making performance by Jim Carrey and very good story, has etched itself into the minds and heart of film fans everywhere.  While many of the movie’s elements may seem dated by modern standards, it’s still a hoot to watch, even if nobody is doing the impersonation anymore.  An adolescent classic of mine, it was nice revisiting a world where people talk out of their butts, make laces out cookies and win the day despite being lovably insane.  While not on the level of classic, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective is pretty damn good and yes, still pretty damn funny.

Score – 80%

Originally Written on 6/25/2011

If you’ve been following my reviews with any frequency, you know how I feel about director Zach Snyder.  I don’t like him, he doesn’t care and I prefer to keep it that way.  My main issue with him is that his only motivation for filmmaking is to make things that look “cool”.  If you don’t believe me, I recommend listening to the commentary of Watchmen.  Why did you choose this shot?  Because it looks cool.  Why did a woman in pigtails backflip over a semi?  Because that looked awesome.  In fact, you’ll never hear him talk about character development, plot points or getting the audience emotionally involved in any way.  So why does this review not only have a fresh rating but lives on the second level of my DVD shelf?  Because, when all is said and done, it’s pretty damn cool.

300 is the story of King Leonidas, head ass kicker and king of the Spartan people.  When a massive Persian army approaches to sack his republic, Leonidas goes against his countries laws and takes three hundred brave soldiers to the Hot Gates, a small valley where the Persian army will be sandwiched into bite size pieces for his men to destroy.  There’s also a story of governmental corruption, greed and love sandwiched in there, but all audiences really are there to see is star Gerard Butler’s intimidating computer aided abdominals and people’s heads being lanced off in slow motion.  Cornball story aside, Butler and company do an admirable job with the silly story and cliché riddled dialogue, looking as though they are generally enjoying the over the top nature of it all.  The battles themselves unfold in video game fashion: first the easily beatable peons, then the archer stage, then the giant beasts, etc, etc.  Luckily for us, the battles are generally enjoyable, especially on a big screen with a nice surround sound system.  The fighting is all you really come here to see but it’s nice that Snyder allowed us a few moments to catch our breath, even if those moments are trite and mostly pointless.

300 is what it is, a fairly enjoyable popcorn flick that eschews historical accuracy for computer aided wizardry and pushes aside character development in favor of slow motion limb slicing.  While he does make an attempt to create a world we care about, our only attachment to the people and places involved is an archetypical one.  Every character in the film fits a precise mold: the Spartan represent freedom from oppression, the Persians represent slavery and Sparta itself is a place where people don’t back down.  As a result, the film is easy to follow and easy to like, leaving us open to marvel at the carnage, even if a game of Solitaire would be more intellectually challenging.  A pure, unapologetic popcorn movie, 300 succeeds at the meager task presented to it: just kick a whole bunch of ass, give us the barest of stories to latch onto and our imaginations will take care of the rest.  While it’s not high cinema, it is campy, bloody fun.  And yes, Mr. Snyder, I’ll concede.  It’s pretty damn cool.

Score – 60%

Originally Written on 6/14/2011

Sixteen years ago, in the basement of my parent’s house, I had my first run in with the Stanley Kubrick classic 2001: A Space Odyssey.  My dad, being a pretty big science fiction fan, told me this was one of those must see films and for the most part, he was right.  The stunning visuals, deliberate pacing and one of the most cunningly evil antagonists in movie history enthralled my growing pre-teen mind.  The thought of my 486 Packard Bell computer becoming self aware or playing chess with my microwave was a chilling idea for my 14 year old brain.  Despite my amazement, one thing bugged me when the final view of the obelisk in alignment faded from the screen: what did it all mean?  Asking my dad was no help.  Sure he had read the book and had said something about the Star Child being a metaphor for the next era of man or some claptrap but I remember distinctly nodding my heads in agreement while wondering what the hell he was talking about.  Since then, I’ve seen it numerous times and while I get the jist of the film much more than I did when I was fourteen, I still can’t help but feel I’m left with too many questions at the end, despite my mind, one again, being blown.  Challenging, beautiful and sometimes exasperating, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a landmark movie that poses tough questions with no easy answers, forcing the viewer to interpret the events in their way, leading them to their own conclusions.

Released in 1968, a full year before American astronauts would land on the moon, 2001: A Space Odyssey was Kubrick’s follow up to the wildly controversial yet wonderful Dr. Strangelove.  This wide sweeping story of man’s evolution from ape to intelligent human to something beyond was met with critical damnation upon its initial release.  Many theaters stopped running it due to poor critical support and the studio was ready to pull the movie completely due to languishing box office receipts.  Despite this impending doom, the film, after a short period of middling success, finally found its audience.  Largely made up of younger people, eager to experience the mind bending head trip of the star gate scene, new audiences ate up the revolutionary special effects, deliberate pacing and other worldly vision of a director at the peak of his filmmaking prowess.  Science fiction would never be the same.

Now, seen over forty years after its initial release, 2001 still holds much of its initial magic while at the same time becoming rather dated with age.  This dichotomy is evident within the first ten minutes of the feature, where we are treated to six minutes of a black screen, peppered with noises, sounds and an overture gets immediately followed by stunning views of a pre-man world.  This mixture of brilliant photography and head scratching surrealism is what makes 2001 a joy and a chore to get through.  For example, just as you get sucked into the story of pre man creatures discovering humanity through violence, the film bogs down, showing long takes of spacecraft floating poetically to the Blue Danube.  Right when you start learning about the lack of communication from the outpost and start wondering about the mysterious object, the film grinds to a halt, forcing you to sit through a painfully slow ten minute space travel sequence.  In 2001, it’s the best of times and the worst of times.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that these criticisms need to be graded on a forty year curve.  Take the original viewing audience, for example.  Back in the late sixties, nobody had seen space like the one Kubrick and author Arthur C. Clarke had imagined.  The floating anti-gravity and the way everything in space seems to dance with the soundtrack was wondrous to an audience raised on Buck Rogers television serials.  Now consider the source of this review.  Being a newly crowned thirty-something living in Manhattan, I’m surrounded by constant motion: my route home is dependant on walk signs, I’ll transfer from subway to subway to shave minutes off my time and I walk at a pace so brisk, I should be auditioning for a Nike commercial.  Sure, I relish and seek out slower moments in my free time, but in the end, my time is a precious commodity that I have little latitude to waste.  The struggle for me is that even though I appreciate the artistry and beauty of the filmmaking of 2001, the effect has diminished some, removing much of the tension that must have been felt by the original audiences.  Although the film really hits its stride when HAL is introduced ninety minutes in, even that experience is marred by long pod trips to fix antennas and brilliant yet tedious shots of astronauts walking in concentric circles.  The film has a distinct ebb and flow to it and your enjoyment of the movie will depend largely on how much you throw yourself into the deliberate pacing.  2001 can either be hypnotic or mind numbing, all depending on your personal preferences, your point of view or how many Red Bulls you knocked down before the screening.

Despite my less than perfect score, 2001 is a defining experience in the world of science fiction and film at large.  A sweeping epic of impressive imagination and scale, Kubrick reaches out to the far reaches of space with only a handful of facts and returns wielding only more questions.  Minimalist yet epic, complex yet simple, disarmingly patient while at the same intensely vibrant, 2001 is a film that should be experienced by everybody at least once.  While much of the film plods along at a glacial pace, the acting is very average and some of it just screams of pretentious mumbo jumbo, it’s hard to put down a film that is the obvious result of indescribable genius.  Kubrick had a lot to say about time, space and the nature of man and while the way he presented it may not jive with my modern day sensibilities, it is impossible to deny the artistry behind it all.

Score – 85%