Click here for trailer

Hopefully you’re some form of an existentialist. Preferably a pessimistic, yet mildly amused existentialist. If not, you should still give this film a shot, because it boils down to a way of seeing life: good, bad, or ugly, it is still lived. And in our living of this one life, how do we live? What is morality, and does it have any basis in a world terribly far from Eden? These questions are perennial. They have been asked for centuries, and I doubt that they will ever stop being asked. That is, so long as there are people around to ask them.  (And preferably asked in the form of a joke.)

The film follows two men and their trip to Bruges, Belgium. They are stuck together and must make the best of this Odd Couple relationship that they possess. In Bruges, they must wait, and wait they do. They anticipate a call from their boss, who will then tell them what to do next. All of this is suspicious, and I was keenly aware that it possessed a certain amount of similarity to a certain play by Harold Pinter. And indeed it does. Colin Ferrell and Brendan Gleeson, who play Ray and Ken respectively, give striking and layered performances, transforming into characters whose lives are as removed from their own as Ray is from where he wants to be: that is, anywhere but Bruges, and he’ll act like a 5-year-old until someone will let him leave.  What unfolds is a story full of ironic humor, existentialist morality, and the Camusian influence of a life that must be lived. If you don’t want all of the waxing philosophic, it’s a movie about two guys who wait to find out who they are supposed to kill next. They’re assassins, and they’re next job is in Bruges, a city Ray finds repulsive and Ken finds enigmatically beautiful in its storied history. Either way (or both), it’s a really well-made film and quite an enthralling story of suspense, relationships, and morals. Not to mention being intensely funny.

Though a very dark film, In Bruges is a hilarious movie that had me laughing hyseterically at times that probably should have had me crying or vomiting, maybe both.  Which brings up a good point.  This movie is full of oppositional situations, in which humor and gore find the same stage, in which fear and arousal both enter the mind.  There is a kind of tongue-in-cheek going on the whole time, which gives each scene an eerily similar tone of both horror and hilarity.  To those of you who have read or seen Martin McDonagh’s plays before, this will probably be no surprise, as In Bruges has a striking similarity to Pillowman.  In fact, the film seems to be the offspring of Pillowman and The Dumb Waiter by Pinter.  This may seem like a spoiler.  It isn’t.  Rest assured.

The directing of this film has a nice combination of both experienced texture and personal perspective, but not so much of either to be annyoing or distracting.  The script, for which it received an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay, is very, very good.  It’s a great story with equal amounts of perturbation and humor, but it may have borrowed a bit from a previous generation.  The aspect that sets this movie apart is the overt tone of morality that pervades the whole thing, the whole notion that an assassin can have a sense of right-and-wrong, that a group of people whose occupation involves the payed killing of other human beings can genuinely believe in ethics, is very real and poignant, and it gives the movie what it needs to separate itself for the aforementioned writers/writings.

If you don’t have a stomach for graphic violence (which are done extremely well), then this one should be skipped.  If you saw I <3 Huckabees and longed for something dark and violent and a penchant for anything with a hard edge, then this one surely should not be skipped.  In fact, this movie is actually quite good, with great acting performances from Ferrell, Gleeson, and Fiennes, gifted writing, a crafted narrative, and a genuinely fine-tuned balance between hilarity and insanity.  I don’t know if it will win, but it’s definitely worth watching.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

Click here for trailer

A horror film can be anything.  It doesn’t have to include any armed weapons, serial killers, rapists, or anything supernatural.  It may not even have to have the word Saw in the title, but that’s clearly open to debate.  Another kind of  horror film is any film that truly reveals the horror  of which humanity is capable.  Horror in the genuinely intimate sense of the term can be nothing more than the relationship between two people, the lies they share, the lives they invest and invade, and the notion that each person has within them the possibility of being utterly repulsive and worthy of being feared.  Horror.

Revolutionary Road is a movie about the Wheelers, a family of four, husband, wife, son, and daughter, who live on the street of the same name.  Frank Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio) works at Knox 500, a pre-computer computer company.  Before Apple and Microsoft and even IBM had really come onto the scene, in this film, the fictional Knox was the company.  It’s the mid-1950′s, so April Wheeler (Kate Winslet) is still a stay-at-home Mom, caring for her two young children. In what turns out to be a macabre tale of a marriage gone horribly wrong, we watch Frank and April attempt to maintain their own sanity amidst the realization that marraige, having children, jobs, travelling even, and life itself is not what they thought it was.  They have no delusions about the grandeur of the American Dream; in fact, they are planning a trip to France to escape the “hopeless emptiness” of that Dream.  Plans change, though.  Plans also explode.

The brilliant acting on the part of both DiCaprio and Winslet is utterly staggering, the kind of acting you expect to see only a few times in any great actor’s lifetime.  Winslet seemes to be getting used to these performances.  Her role in The Reader (also 2008) was a spectacular character whose part in World War II cost her a lifetime of freedom and security, and the promise of beautiful literacy slips away from her with each passing day.  The roles in these movies are very different, each with its own set of difficulties and triumphs.  Winslet plays them both completely honestly and devoid of hackneyed display or melodrama.  She pours herself into these roles, and the result can only be described as a tour de force, a whirlwind of brilliant acting and great Art.  Capital A.

Another aspect of her performance is that it doesn’t seem to detract from the others, only enhances them.  DiCaprio is equally as incredible in this one, and Michael Shannon’s subtle and nuanced performance adds to the movie another layer of enigmatic spiritual soul searching.  DiCaprio hasn’t played a role so challenging in quite some time, probably since The Aviator; his role in The Departed was also no doubt a great one, but this role has him revealing a side of himself that many actors never find, a place of honesty and emotional intensity.  When we see it, we know it is real and it moves us.  It is not our capacity for being moved, but actually being moved that separates the essentialy entertaining and the truly artful.  This movie is clearly the latter.

But it also entertains.  This two hour masterpiece felt like all of ten minutes.  The end achieved something in me that few movies do: I wanted it both to keep going and knew that it ended at just the right moment.  I have had the pleasure and joy of seeing many of the best movies of 2008 in a row now, and this one easily makes the list.  You may grieve with the roll of the credits, but I doubt you will regret it.

Rating: 4/4 Stars

Click here for trailer

Is there a point in life when we realize we’ve been wasting time?  How long does it take for someone who has spent a great portion of his or her life to realize that they were just acting busy?  And after those epiphanes strike home, what do you do?  In The Visitor, Richard Jenkins’s character Walter Vale, a professor at a school in Connecticut, discovers these things for himself, finding that a life worth living is a life spent in pursuit of meaningful relationships, with all of the baggage that may come with it.

Walter Vale is a professor who has been teaching the same course for two decades.  He has published three books, is working on the fourth one, and he has lived alone for some time now.  He is told he must present a paper at NYU that he co-authored, since the other autor can’t make it.  He relunctantly obliges and drives to New York City.  When he arrives, he finds a bit of a surprise in his apartment.  There isn’t a lot I can say, because I don’t want to spoil anything.  The surprise changes his life.  He finds himself in the middle of a new group of people, people who need him, people who see the world through different eyes.  He decides he to help, and it is that decision which changes the course of his life forever.

The film explores the reality between opposite worlds and how those worlds collide and conflate, forming something greater than the two of them on their own.  It asks big questions about morality and obligation, and it poses political questions about post-9/11 immigration laws in America.  The film is a character study of Walter Vale, an archetype of sorts, a man who represents a great number of people who walk and talk and eat and sleep and repeat the cycle, looking busy, making plans.  But are any of them living life?  What does it mean to live life?  What is a life worth living?

The Visitor is an exploration of all of these ideas.  The acting is fantastic from everyone involved, especially Richard Jenkins, whose character is subtle and nuanced, a man in whom the search for meaning and the anonymity of routine have waged war against one another.  It may have begun as a battle of wits, but it will end as a battle of the soul.  He is a quixotic man at heart, whose exterior has been ravaged by both tedium and tragedy.  The supporting cast is also superb.  The script is absolutely perfect, and the direction is vivid and insightful.

One of the most intriguing aspects of this movie is the interplay of title and story.  Who is The Visitor?  Which of the characters’ lives is closest to that of outsider, the one looking in, the individual who seeks to become part of the group?  In a way, it’s obvious.  In another way, though, it’s impossible to answer.  Each person is a visitor in his or her own way, and this film exemplifies and elucidates this theme brilliantly.  It’s a beautiful film, and one which everyone should see.  And I don’t think that’s opinion.  I think that’s a fact.

Rating: 3.5/4 Stars

Go back to the seventies in America, when the next wave of Civil Rights had just begun.  Transport yourself to the kitchen of Harvey Milk, where you will listen to his story, both haunting and revealing of a bygone epoch in American history, but one which still lingers and echoes today.  Or, you can let Gus Van Sant do all the work for you.  You will have Milk, one of the best films of 2008.

I expected this movie to fairly superficial, both in its humor and its take on relationships.  I also expected it to appeal mostly to single people.  And thirdly, I expected it to be mildly entertaining.  The first hour: I was right.  The next hour, though, is a different story, one which the first hour does nothing to help, considering I found it  bland, poorly written, and extremely…unfunny.  As if on cue, though, the writers decided to show up for the Second Act, because the laughs became more frequent and the story’s characters far more believable, with lives and problems and uncertainty.

You’ve probably never heard of the director, Ken Kwapis,  unless you pay attention to the credits to The Office (US), for which he directed 11 episodes, or Freaks and Geeks, or even The Bernie Mac Show.  The guy knows humor. For some reason, though, that first sixty minutes was like watching grass grow or paint dry or Fidel Castro get out of bed.  Mind-numbingly boring.  With a cast that includes Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore, Jennifer Connelly, Jennifer Anniston, Justin Long, and Bradley Cooper, he doesn’t have a lot of excuses either.  (And Ben Affleck’s in it, too.)  The performances are mostly pretty good; Connelly (Janine) is great; and Ginnifer Goodwin (Gigi) was wonderful to watch, both charming and subtle.

The film follows the lives and relationships of a handful of people whose lives all weave together unknowingly, reminiscent of Woody Allen.  Each character is in search of love, of romance, of the “spark,” but none of them seem to be able to find it.  To make matters worse, they don’t know how. The movie follows them not only searching for love itself then, but also searching for how love is defined in a post-modern, tech-savvy world.  Each of them seeks it in similar fashion, and most of them are rejected likewise.

What makes the movie worth watching is that it finds a way to explore the new truths of romance, which, of course, are the same truths they’ve always been, only they’ve been repackaged, and in some instances, are very difficult to distinguish as love at all.  What allows one to keep watching the film is its ability to remind, to gently nudge, to cajole one into thinking that love may be something worth finding after all, no matter how difficult.

That’s the somewhat kitschy part.  The other part is less sappy.  The movie has a few surprises, where we learn that love may not find everyone; that what we think is love sometimes isn’t; and that love may take a very long time to find, if we ever find it.  In other words, not surprises at all, but truths that we are afraid of, and for that reason this movie escapes a few cliches and Hugh Grant-isms that make most modern romantic comedies almost unbearable.  Okay, fine, unbearable.

With its laughs and its emotional truths, the movie turns out to actually be pretty good.  I didn’t love it.  But I came away with a sense that I had witnessed an exploration, at least, of something we all wish to explore.  The world of romance and love is difficult to navigate, and, though it is flawed, this movie (half of it, anyway) finds a way of portraying that, and of allowing us to enjoy the ride, too (okay, half of it).

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

God can only descend from the flies so many times in a polar bear outfit before one begins to question the quality of the story.  So, from the writer of such classics as Nutty Professor II: The Klumps, we see an attempt to produce a quality fantasy film to rival the Narnia films.  What we get, though, is another story, and one which will bring tears to most fantasy-loving eyes.

The movie begins with a narrator telling us the background for the story, what the golden compass really is, why it’s important, why the story itself is worth telling.  I bought it.  The graphics were good, the narration simple and unadorned, and the concept intriguing and fantastical, exactly what I wanted out of this movie.  But that’s where the simple, unadorned, intriguing, and fantastical elements seem to stop.  At least with any positively insightful, creative, or entertaining outcome.

For one thing, the quality of the writing (read ‘storytelling’) is unashamedly poor, and the acting doesn’t help.  The only really good acting this movie offers is from Daniel Craig and Sam Elliot – the former’s character is ostensibly large, but ends up having less than twenty minutes of screen time, which is a shame really, because no one else in the film seems to remember that they are actually in a film, and need to act accordingly.  Pun very much intended.  The only small exceptions would be Dakota Blue Richards, in her good moments, and the voice acting of the Ian McClan: Ian McKellan and Ian McShane.  I don’t even know how that happened.  To make matters worse, Nicole Kidman has gone from mediocre to dreadful.  Australia was a pathetic, self-absorbed style of acting, which is both inartistic and full of loathing, on both sides of the screen.

If that wasn’t bad enough, we realize that this story, however great it might be in novel form, has not translated well to the silver screen, or at least not nearly as well as all the other fantasy series that have made the same transition, such as Narnia (well, half of this series at least) or Harry Potter (they’re all good and seem to keep getting better, like the books).  A very large and daunting aspect of these films is their CG abilities, and this movie, for all it lacks, does not lack incredible CG.  The polar bears, the flying ship, everything looks very well constructed and verisimilitudinous.  The drawback is in the execution of the storytelling itself, which lays waste to the fantastic graphics’ ability to intrigue or entertain us.

Like a lot of movies, this one is not without its social commentary, and we hear it loud and clear.  The atheistic community wants everyone to know they don’t like religion and are in favor of free thought.  We get it.  The Magisterium is religion painted black and blue, so don’t miss it.  It is, in matter of fact, very difficult to miss it.  If you do, it was probably only because you were asleep or throwing up.  Both are acceptable responses to this film.

It has great CG, a handful of good acting (but mostly just mediocre or bad), laughable writing, overt social commentary, and God in a polar bear outfit.  What more could you ask for?  A good movie is one possible suggestion.  Philip Pullman did all he could, I imagine, and it was taken and ripped asunder by the filmmakers.  Skip this one.  And any that might attempt to follow suit.

Rating: 1.5/4 Stars

Woody Allen has done it again.  He has the ability to make one fall in love with his stories, his flawed characters, even his cinematographic choices.  Which is saying something, because even thinking the word “cinematographic” takes some degree of will power and endurance.  But if you’re willing to think along with Allen on this one, near the end perhaps of his storied career in filmmaking, you’re going to be glad you did, I think, because there is more to this one, as you might have guessed, than meets the eye.

Vicky and Cristina go to Barcelona for the summer, for different reasons, as we are told by the omniscient but disembodied narrator at the opening of the film, after Allen’s predictable opening credits, and this ethereal narrator stays with us, and with Woody, as he writes this film, giving him a reason to not use dialogue at all if he doesn’t want to, which, at times, seems like way too often.  It needs, and this is something not common to a Woody film, a little more self-awareness it seems sometimes, in order to understand the difference between telling a story and writing a Master Plots.  That being said, the narrator actually works fine for most of the movie, cutting out the fat, as it were, so that we the audience can enjoy the actual meat of the film, the characters’ important interactions, the ones that Woody really wants us to see, which all work quite well on a number of levels, since the acting is all around very good.

Vicky (Rebecca Hall) goes to Barcelona to get her Masters in Catalan Identity (let’s both admit we don’t know what that is), while Cristina (Scarlett Johannson again) goes to find wild, unorthodox love, and this after she has just made a 12-minute film on that very subject, which she describes as “a movie about how love is difficult to define.”  Poignant enough, since that seems to be what Vicky Cristina Barcelona is also about.  It doesn’t hit you too hard in the face, but it’s strong enough to make you question Woody’s venerable, if somewhat ulterior, motives.  They meet a man named Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem), a painter, whose previous marriage to Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz) apparently ended with one of them or both almost dying.  That’s all we’re told at the beginning.  As the movie progresses, the sexual tension builds between all three main characters, and, given that she’s engaged, Vicky tries to resist.  Cristina does not.  Whatever their initial intentions, they each find that sex and love and romance are tempting, euphoric, and above all necessary for the human race to enjoy what we can of this life that “has no meaning,” according to Juan Antonio, a recurrent theme in most of Woody’s films.

The thematic structure, built right in to the movie’s dialogue, narration, and plot devices, is apparent and obvious, that one does not know exactly what one is looking for until one finds it, that love is blind, and that the curious deviations from what some people call normalcy works for some while others find those same deviations maddening, if not at the same time wantonly concupiscent.   Woody loves to tell stories of flawed people, trying to figure out their own existence in the midst of love, deceit, and, many times, lots of sex.  And personally, I love to hear him tell it.  Woody himself said one time, “I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve it by not dying!”  I hope he achieves it one way or another, because he is a master story teller, and this movie, despite its minor flaws, is no different.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

If you were to take Mission Impossible (any of the three really) and make it a WWII movie, it would be Vaklyrie.  In fact, there are several times where I wasn’t sure if Tom Cruise, who plays the protagonist, was even totally convinced he wasn’t in MI:4: When Hitler Strikes Back.  Granted that Cruise is an idiot in everyday life (read, Scientology), one must see him as an actor in this one (though it may be difficult initially), and when you do that, you find that he isn’t as bad as you might have expected, and the movie’s plot, script, and supporting cast make for a very enjoyable film.

In Norse mythology, the Valkyrie choose those who will be taken to the afterlife, or, as the movie explains them, they choose who will die.  Either way, it’s a fitting title, for both the film and the military/political operation from whence the movie takes its name.  The movie is, of course, a story of one of the nearly 20 foiled assassination attempts on Hitler (David Bamber) during WWII.  It tells the tale of Stauffenberg (Cruise) and his accomplices in what turns out to be a very complex attempt to stake a military coup in Germany.  I won’t reveal anymore, but, just for the record, I think we both know how this one ended.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this movie, for me, besides the fascination with pretty much anything involving Hitler, is the supporting cast.  It features Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead, Love Actually), Terrence Stamp (Yes Man), Tom Wilkinson (everything you’ve ever seen, including Batman Begins and Michael Clayton).  It also has some notable B-list stars you’ll recognize from movies like Pirates of the Caribbean and My Super Ex-Girlfriend.  And one Shakespearean behemoth: Kenneth Branagh.  So even if you dislike the plot, much of the acting is very good.  Very good, indeed.

As far as a summary of my views on this one, I’ll just suffice it to say that it was 1) very enjoyable, and 2) not as bad as a film as I thought it was going to be.  The acting on Tom Cruise’s part is generally pretty good, and the plot, though pretty conventional, still had me on the edge of my seat for good bit.  I wish I had cared more about Stauffenberg’s family, but the movie just doesn’t lend itself to that subplot.  It just gives you a few tiny reminders of their existence, but never gives you any real substantial reason to think of them as important or worthy of your emotional energy.  And all things considered, it isn’t one of Bryan Singer’s (The Usual Suspects, X-Men, Superman Returns) best.  It’s probably better on the big screen, but I wouldn’t be too upset if you miss this one.  Good, but not great.  Enjoyable, but Downfall is a much better Hitler film.  Rent that one instead.

Rating: 2.5/4 Stars

There are many clearly warranted criticisms of this movie: an overly contrived plot, Jim Carrey playing a parody of himself, a somewhat sloppy dialogue at times.  But all this doesn’t keep Yes Man from its three-fold mission: to put butts in seats, to make people laugh, and to leave people with a somewhat inspirational message.  In that order.

Jim Carrey plays Carl Allen, a “No Man,” someone who basically gives a negative answer to everything that comes his way.  Until he meets Nick (John Michael Higgins), an old friend who has become a “Yes Man,” someone who gives a positive answer to pretty much any request he gets, after he goes to a Yes Conference with Terrence Bundley (Terrence Stamp).  He takes Carl along with him to the next one, where Carl makes a covenant with himself to do the same.  It transforms his life in all respects, and we are all along for the ride.

The problem with being along for the ride in this one is something I mentioned above, the contrived plot.  At many turns, there is something very forced that happens to propel the movie along.  There is no great conflict that Carl really encounters until very near the end of the movie, when something equally as contrived as the rest of the film happens to cause said conflict.  Granted, it’s a comedy, almost a farce in my opinion when you take into account all of the ridiculous plot elements, but it’s still wildly contrived – directed by the guy who did Bring It On, though, so what do you really expect (however, it was co-written by the director of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, so keep that in mind)?