Cinematic Arias

I want to hate Jason Reitman but I can’t.

Why do I want to hate him? Because I really want his career. I would have made those movies. Why can’t I hate him? Because he does his job really well.

Therefore, I don’t have anything bad to say about UP IN THE AIR. It’s very good. Go see it.

But there’s one thing about the ending that’s killing me.

[WARNING: SPOILER ALERT]

I don’t buy the ending. If Clooney has built his solitary life as a shark, why the hell does he decide to think of himself as a Labrador? And it wouldn’t happen during his big moment. It’d happen just before or just after. Plus I get how he’d fall for Vera but why the hell would he listen to Anna Kendrick’s advice? She’s clearly a selfish child so why would you listen to her? I didn’t buy that.

Still, I’m here venting so clearly the movie affected me but I think I’ve already explained that I’m particularly sensitive at this time.

As a footnote, I saw Jason speak last night along with his editor, cinematographer and composer and I was glad to hear him admit that does indeed rip off Alexander Payne.

Also, John August, I think you’re being modest. One big reason that group shined that bright was because you were moderating that panel. Can you imagine THE CHARLIE ROSE SHOW without Charlie Rose? Right, and I couldn’t imagine that group being that interesting without you. Take the compliment.

(geez, I’m feisty today)

First, allow me this digression; trust me, it’ll make sense.

Up until the credits rolled, I had the backstory all wrong. I thought this was a Paramount movie directed by Matthew Vaughn. I thought Paramount was desperate for a franchise and while Vaughn’s last Paramount outing died at the box-office they were happy to give him another shot with what seemed like a sure fire bet. Once I realized this was a Warners flick directed by Guy Ritchie, my feelings changed. I wasn’t rooting for this to win with quite the same enthusiasm.

This was a pretty good movie with too much of that Guy Ritchie slickness crammed down its throat. I just don’t agree with his choices. I don’t consider them thoughtful, just done for maximum style. There’s one particular moment where any sane person would want to see our lead’s reaction but instead we don’t. Why? Because Guy is intent on imposing his will and his wrong decisions on us.

On the plus side, the chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law is palpable which leads me to say something that pains me: they should have cut Rachel McAdams. No, wait, I like her, I really do! She’s charming and talented but she just doesn’t need to be in this movie.

Maybe Guy will settle down with the sequel, I rather liked ROCK N’ ROLLA, but the more I think about this flick, the less I like it.

Bummer.

Somewhere between THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and CLOVERFIELD lies this movie…

…and that’s not necessarily a bad place to be. Yes, many folk want to tear it down (sorta me too) but rather than unleashing my Schadenfreude let me give you my three simple tips for getting the most out of this movie going experience.

First, if you didn’t go opening night, don’t bother now, unless you go with a tremendously hot yet ridiculously cool girl that loves these kind of flicks (like my friend Karina, whom I saw this with). You need a proper audience, the kind that wants this movie to scare them. Go find a revival house or a second-run theater or wait until it comes out on DVD and find a sorority that’ll let you crash for the night.

Second, stop reading about it. No, really, just stop reading this post. Why not read one of my many other post under tags like The Complex, Last Night, Directing, Music, Dark Tony or Travel?

Third, believe. Buy into it. Like Mulder, you have to want to believe.

Me, I’d only done one of those three so I thought it was an interesting exercise in hype but this flick didn’t blow my mind. Mostly I saw the flaws, of which there are many, but that’s part of its charm.

Why do I end up on the outside of these things?  Apparently this might be the most divisive movie of the year.

I think I can understand why there’s such an uproar. This is an incredibly realistic film when it comes to what it feels like to be a little boy struggling with emotions that easily overwhelm, emotions that can’t be expressed rationally. That’s why we break shit, from toys to girls’ hearts. It’s all we know to do to express ourselves.

Is a young child going to learn any lesson from this? No. Will they mimic it and try to kill the family dog with a fork? Maybe, but if they do it’s because you’re a failure of a parent. Was I moved? No. Does the film meander? Yes. Is the plot razor thin? Yes. Will this film improve with time? Probably. Is Dave Eggers an overrated writer? You better believe it. Is Spike an underrated director? For sure. He’s gonna blow us away in the future. I know that doesn’t seem possible with three substantial films already under his belt but he’s only getting better at fashioning emotional resonant works that threaten to strike us at our core.

So why didn’t this win me over? I think it’s because I identified with Max but I didn’t get on his side. And the ending, it felt like a cop-out. I think there might have been a better ending out there and they could have worked harder to find it but instead the film just stopped. Maybe that ending will show up on the DVD. Maybe Warners was scared of that ending.  Only time will tell.

All that said, should you see this movie?

Absolutely.

Okay, I know THE ROAD doesn’t open until tomorrow but I saw it way back at The FIlmmaker Forum by Film Independent. I know I’m gonna incur much wrath for this but I have a one word review. Ready? Here we go…

Boring!

Before you jump on my back, know that I’m a huge Viggo fan (I convinced a friend to buy some of his art at an auction) and I liked John Hillcoat’s last film. Heck, I even met the DP who is classy and genuine and talented so I really, really wanted to say something nice but all I remember from seeing this film was thinking “I’d rather be watching CHILDREN OF MEN.”

Is a comedy still a comedy if it’s only happening in the main character’s head? What if we aren’t allowed in that character’s head? The answer, at least in regards to this film, is “no.”

This idiosyncratic flick from Steven Soderbergh does it’s damnedest to distance itself from you. On paper this should be a slam dunk. The individual elements, like the 70’s “Laugh-In” inspired score, Matt Damon’s performance, the supporting players, the period cinematography, are winning but when combined they leave a sour taste in the mouth.

My big question: why does Soderbergh want to keep us at a distance? Why aren’t we privy to Matt Damon’s POV. To what effect? What’s gained? I supposed there’s the surprise of learning that the comedy is in the character’s head but it’s a lame payoff. It’s a pity because so much thought and effort went into making this flick. Heck, Scott Bakula and Joel McHale are revelations but ultimately wasted.

Prior to seeing this, I felt terrible that Sony shutdown Soderbergh’s MONEYBALL but now I think maybe they did the right thing.

Note: I caught this at a brewpub theater in Portland that also serves cajun tater tots so my review may be skewed by salty deliciousness washed down by malted barley goodness.

This film, while sometimes hilarious, does not provoke the same level of gasps and guffaws as BROAT did and I’ve been pondering “why” for the last few days. Is it because we’re all in on the joke now? Is it because it’s easier to laugh and also feel bad laughing at a good-natured bumbling foreigner (an archetype since the silent film era) than a ranting homosexual diva? Is it simply because Borat is a better character than Bruno?

I’m not sure, I suspect all of the above, but it’s been interesting talking to folk about the film. Almost everyone I’ve met has seen BORAT and can quote a favorite scene. Of those folk, most have not seen BRUNO and when pressed to answer “why” almost all of them said “I don’t want to see that.” When I press them even further (ex-girlfriends will now be able to spot the Tony tenacity that gets to the bottom of things) it’s clear that the film’s flagrant depictions of homosexuality made them incredibly uncomfortable. As far as I can tell, seeing two guys kiss (or more, as is the case with this film) is just too much for a lot of folk.

I am no cultural or economic theorist but I think at the very least that explains the film 80% box-office drop in its second week of release. For now, I’ll leave it at that.

Vegas, oh the myriad of stupid things we have done inside your city limits. I’d share but there’s a suicide pact that prevents me from saying any more (and don’t even get me started on Reno). With this film, we have yet another ode to male folly in Sin City.

Does this film break any new ground? Nope. Is it funny? Yup. Why? Because it isn’t afraid to bare some of its fangs. In a Hollywood that plays everything well inside the safe zone, this movie doesn’t blink from exposing you to the infantile male id run rampant… yet it’s not nearly as profound as I just made it seem. Just sit back, have another shot of Patron and be sure to take a lot of dollar bills with ya.

DRAG ME TO HELL is pure schlock and I mean that as high praise.

Before Sam Raimi peddled the heroic with his SPIDER-MAN franchise, he tickled the grotesque with his three EVIL DEAD movies. With this film Raimi returns to those roots by crafting an equally hysterical and horrifying flick (BTW, I’m so tired of torture porn) that kicks off with a home foreclosure.

Quick tangent: while some reporters are all too keen to describe this film as a condemnation/commentary on the home foreclosure crisis, Raimi keeps insisting that the film is simply about unchecked greed and how it spoils the soul.

Allow me another tangent. Ellen Page was originally cast in the lead role but dropped out due to scheduling conflicts. While Alison Lohman does a fine job, I felt like the filmmakers could have gone in a different direction. Instead of casting an actresses that embodies innocence, why not someone a bit more impish, a bit more mischievous? I’m thinking of a Parker Posey type. This would have given the film’s moral stance (and it is a VERY moral film) stronger legs to stand on.

If you like your horror flicks with a side of cheese, then this is the perfect dish for you (although I wouldn’t see the movie on a full stomach).