Half-Assed Movie Reviews

April 30, 2009:  Three Monkeys

This was a very yellow movie.  Obviously deliberately desaturated, it’s one of the things that sticks with me as I revisit it in my mind, although I don’t know how relevant that is.  Three Monkeys is the story of a Turkish family, a husband and wife and their adult son, and how the family deals with the father taking the rap for an incident involving a prominent politician in return for a handsome payoff.  The husband is away for a year in jail.

I was really struck with this film at the time, and it’s been useful to digest it for a while.  I saw it with two friends, one of whom really liked it (as did I), and one of whom hated it.  We all discussed it afterwards, and figured out some of the reasons why we might be so divided on this.  Three of these are: 1) the motivation of the characters; 2) the style of fighting among characters; 3) the pacing.

The motivation of the characters may not have been clear, but this wasn’t really important to me.  It seemed to me that the plot is about a series of events spinning out of control without any real avenue for the characters to change their paths, although they try to do so.  I was happy for the movie to be about that, rather than being about the people in particular.  The way things are brought around full circle at the end suggested exactly that to me – people learn the way things are done, and then do them that way, without necessarily a lot of consideration for whether that way makes sense.  The cycle continues.

We’re all used to dramatic conventions with people yelling at each other for the purpose of exposition as well as for making scenes more “dramatic”.  In Three Monkeys, this family, repressed by their culture and their difficult family history and their personalities, do a lot of quiet brooding and fighting in silence.  This style hits home with me and actually seems more genuine since it’s something I understand, and I think the friend who didn’t like the movie felt the opposite way about this, as it didn’t ring true for him.

The pacing of the film is also fairly slow and deliberate, with the above-mentioned fights often chewing up a fair bit of screen time without a whole lot getting done.  Again, this rings true for me as the way things can be in reality, though it’s an undeniable break from convention.  I will certainly admit that the novelty factor of this break from conventional pacing was one of the things I liked, and the friend who didn’t like this film spends a lot of time watching similar films at festivals and finds it tiresome.

There was one scene with the film running in reverse showing a bead of sweat moving up someone’s body rather than down.  We all agreed that the purpose of this was unknown, and it didn’t really seem to add anything other than pretentiousness, whether it was supposed to represent a reversal of time, or something like that.  Another noteworthy point was that there was nudity in the film, which I found surprising for a Turkish/muslim effort.  I don’t know whether that’s typical or whether it was controversial, so I may be missing an important statement and not know about it.

So, I would recommend this film, but not everyone would, and I might not even particularly like to sit through it too many times.  Take from that what you will.

Deliberate art-house fare, be warned.

April 26, 2009:  State of Play

State of Play is what you might call a crackling little story about journalists and politicians, and what happens when people’s secrets come out.  It’s an entirely serviceable film, if nothing remarkable, which makes me want to see the six-hour British miniseries from which it was adapted.

I can’t help but enjoy watching Russell Crowe work, because you can tell that even though he has kind of a gruff personality in real life, he’s totally an actor and immerses himself in any part he plays.  From his Oscar-winning turn in Gladiator, to his turncoat tobacco executive in The Insider, the mentally ill professor in A Beautiful Mind, and even going back to his psychotic robot SID 6.7 in Virtuosity many years ago, we see that he can inhabit whatever role he’s given, and doesn’t mind giving up the conceits and good looks of fame for a part.  Playing a grizzled old-school print journalist here isn’t exactly a stretch, but as I say, it’s fun to watch.

The story concerns a politician (played by a passable but somewhat young-for-the-role Ben Affleck) who becomes involved in a scandal involving a woman who has been killed, and how the little-known long-ago/long-time friendship between Affleck and Crowe force both of them to consider whether their allegiances are more strongly aimed towards their careers or their often-strained relationship.  Affleck’s wife (it’s good to see Robin Wright Penn on screen – I haven’t seen her in much lately) figures strongly in this, and a catalyst for the action is the young web reporter (Rachel McAdams) who works for the newspaper who is assigned to look into the story.  Jason Bateman also shows up in a brief supporting role, a break from type for him but not as over-the-top as I’d been led to expect.

I’m kind of conflicted about this movie.  I certainly can’t recommend it as anything special, but it’s good entertainment.  Ben Affleck is credible as a congressman even if, approaching 40, he can still pass easily enough for 20-something.  Helen Mirren brings some weight to the proceedings as the newspaper editor.  The traditional plot progression towards a romantic link between Crowe and McAdams is wisely avoided.  The overall thrust of the plot is solid.  But at the same time, the movie doesn’t break from convention at all.  In fact, it’s almost disturbing how it clings to the tried and true plot devices and cliches, when there’s clearly so much more potential.  I imagine the contrast with the miniseries will be fascinating.

See the miniseries and then judge.

April 13, 2009:  I Love You, Man

Wow, I really need to catch up on my reviews, because it feels like forever since I saw this movie.  But it feels like that in a good way, in that I’m thinking that it’s almost time to revisit it again.  I Love You, Man has a level of emotional and social honesty only rarely attempted in comedies, with success even more rarely achieved.  Knocked Up was an example of such a film, with some typically unspoken honesty about relationships between men and women, coincidentally also involving Paul Rudd.  I Love You, Man isn’t quite on the same level, but explores similar territory between male friends.

So, what’s the story here?  Judd Apatow regular supporting player Paul Rudd plays a guy (Peter) who is engaged to be married to the love of his life, Zooey (played by The Office’s Rashida Jones, daughter of Quincy Jones and probably deserving of more big-screen time, even though I’m not entirely convinced of her acting range).  In preparing for the wedding, Peter realizes that he needs to choose a best man, and comes to the sudden realization that he has no male friends.  They all just sort of faded away over the years, and while Peter is certainly sociable, and gets along famously with Zooey’s friends, it seems that he doesn’t do stuff with any other people.

So Peter needs to find a male friend.  Cue the “man dating” medley, as he desperately tries to come up with someone to be his best man.  This sequence is not overplayed, is totally at home in this movie, and doesn’t even stray too far into homophobic territory as this kind of thing so easily can.  Fortunately (and not through the online personals), Peter meets Sydney, an apparently cool and popular man-child who lives on his own near the L.A. beaches.  They click immediately, and start to hang out a lot, and Peter rediscovers his long-dormant passion for playing rock music as he and Sydney bond over their shared love of the Canadian band Rush (who make an appearance in the film in a concert setting).  This all causes tension as Zooey realizes that Peter is swinging too far towards the other extreme, and there’s a question about whether the wedding will still happen, and Peter and Sydney “break up”, and all the usual stuff.  A bit formulaic, but that’s to be expected.  We eventually learn a lot more about Sydney and where he’s coming from, which explains a lot.

Director/co-writer John Hamburg is associated with Ben Stiller projects from years past, including Zoolander and the “Meet the Parents” film and its sequels, which are solid comedies if a bit lazy.  I Love You, Man gets stuck in some Stilleresque cringe comedy at times, with Rudd and his silly fake nicknames, and the male-bonding take on the classic “leaving an awkward phone message after meeting someone for the first time” scene, done more or less perfectly by Jon Favreau in Swingers (Favreau also appears in this film) and never matched since.  I seriously think that trimming these few things would make this a much better film, because it would clearly remove the slapstick tone and leave us in the “absurdity plus some reality” mode which seems to connect with viewers.

Rudd and Segel have good chemistry, which is the key requirement for this film.  Jon Favreau has a few funny lines but is mostly wasted in a bit part as the husband of one of Zooey’s friends, who absolutely hates Peter and won’t invite him to his poker games.  The rest of the film is pretty lean, and of course there’s some kind of happy ending, as expected.

Another movie that’s honest about relationships.

April 7, 2009:  Adventureland

Why do people lie to each other for dramatic purposes in movies?

This is how I wanted to open my review, but I don’t think it’s entirely fair to Adventureland to lump it in with the cookie-cutter teen angst movies which rely on this device in order to generate early-third-act conflict between teenagers before they realize they are perfect for each other and live happily ever after.  Adventureland brings us realistic portrayals of teenagers in love and in lust, and I’d certainly recommend it as a low-key entry in the genre, but it hung me way out on a ledge for too long far too many times to really ring true when it finally did come through with the right resolutions.

Adventureland is a semi-autobiographical film from writer/director Greg Mottola, set in 1987 and chronicling the lives of the teens working at a summer carnival in Pittsburgh.  Mottola is more than loosely tied to the Judd Apatow universe, having directed the Apatow-produced Superbad a couple of years ago.  The usual crowd is mostly absent here, aside from Martin Starr being more heavily featured than usual, and Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig in typically off-the-wall supporting roles.  The main character, James, is played by the relatively unknown Jesse Eisenberg.  His love interest Em played by the considerably better known Kristin Stewart who hit it big with Twilight last year, and Ryan Reynolds steals the show as the wildcatting park maintenance handyman.  James is working at the carnival due to recent financial troubles in his family but is still hoping to make it to school in New York City.  Em’s mother is dead and she has a severely dysfunctional relationship with her father and stepmother.  James and Em like each other, but do they have the same destiny?  Read other reviews for spoilers if you like.

Period details seemed impressive, from what I could see of it, since the theatre I was in was apparently running the only remaining carbon-arc projector still in commercial use in the world (it was dark!).  We’re seeing more and more movies set in that late-1980s period, and it’s surreal for me to see, since it’s the first period I’ve actually lived through enough to recognize and reminisce when I see it recreated on screen.  Kristin Stewart looks a bit sickly but oddly appealing.  I think that’s just the way she looks, although it does speak well for her future in vampire movies.  Despite being a pseudo-comedy, this is a more serious than usual role for Ryan Reynolds, and it’s good to see him get the chance to stretch himself a bit.  His indelibly smarmy turn in Waiting… is burned into my psyche, but I definitely see the potential in him as long as he doesn’t get mired too often in crap like The Proposal with Sandra Bullock, except to pay the bills, which I understand every star needs to do.

Period teen dramedy, a cut above.

March 29, 2009:  Vanishing Point (1997)

I’ve been a Vanishing Point (1971) fan for nearly 20 years now.  I watched this 1997 TV remake of the film on the same night as the original.  I had not seen this before.  As a Half-Assed movie reviewer of 80+ movies now, this is the first time I find myself reviewing a made-for-TV movie, and I deliberated for a while about whether or not I would count TV movies for my reviews.  I decided that there were several I’ve been meaning to revisit (And the Band Played On, Barbarians at the Gate), ones I’d like to bring to the attention of my readers (Dead Solid Perfect, An American Christmas Carol – yeah, yeah, I know), and the clincher, if I ever come across Killdozer (1974) again, I will NEED to write about that.  So, TV movies are in.

This was part of the so-called “Action Pack” series of syndicated made-for-TV movies in the late 1990s, rehashing old concepts and remaking old movies for cheap and easy TV ratings.  It seems to me that it’s actually a good idea (keep in mind this predates the current tedium of any and every previous concept being made into a movie – for heaven’s sake, someone just bought the movie rights for Bazooka Joe bubble gum), but the execution of this example is just horrendous.

Interestingly, we have a pre-stardom Viggo Mortensen as Kowalski, several years before Lord of the Rings catapulted him to the A-list.  Unfortunately, he’s now Jimmy Kowalski, so the mysterious character from the original, driving through people’s lives, with no first name as a symbol of the fact that nobody knows him, is now a sympathetic everyman.  Further cementing this descent is the fact that the purposeless crazy drive through multiple states now has a specific and understandable reason – so that Jimmy can get to his wife back home who has unexpectedly gone into labour, with Mom’s and baby’s health at risk.  If he had stopped for 3 minutes to think, and maybe not been so belligerent from the moment he found this out, maybe he could have been in a police escort instead of a police chase.

But no, instead we’ve got a comical chase movie with setups that make no sense, a sheriff who decides (after a cop car is totaled) to continue pursuit in his own 1968 Dodge Charger (which is then totaled), an FBI guy hell-bent on catching Kowalski because of some half-baked unproven federal charge from years ago, and a climax which either doesn’t make sense or isn’t properly explained.  This is an absurd approach to a movie, even a TV movie, and with the added “bonus” of Jason Priestley as the DJ with a psychic link to Kowalski, keeping him informed along the way over the radio waves.

Don’t bother with the updated Vanishing Point.  The original isn’t for everyone but is a classic worth looking at.  This one isn’t for anyone.

TV movie travesty insults the original.