Movie List 2012: 11.) The Hunger Games

[Note:  yeah, I’m back.  I apologize for taking so long to get to these entries.   Life has once again gotten in the way of doing what I begrudgingly somewhat enjoy.  Oh, that and not having a pass.  But not having a pass is no excuse for not writing about the movies I did see.  Even if there weren’t as many.  So yes, here’s the beginning of my attempt to get back on track.  Going forward, until I’m caught up, I’ll make a note of when I actually saw the movies being written about.  This is more for my benefit than anything else.   But then again isn’t this all?  Originally viewed:  May 20, 2012]

The Hunger Games

Cast:  Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss Everdeen), Liam Hemsworth (Gale Hawthorne),  Josh Hutcherson (Peeta Mellark), Stanley Tucci (Caesar Flickerman), Elizabeth Banks (Effie Trinket), Donald Sutherland (President Snow), and Woody Harrelson (Haymitch Abernathy).  Written by Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, and Billy Ray.  Directed by Garry Ross.

This isn’t for me.   That’s the first thing I needed to remember when I went to see The Hunger Games.  Oh, I’m sure that director Gary Ross and crew hoped I’d like it, but, as a 30 year old male, I wasn’t their target audience.  This, of course, doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t have an opinion.  It just means that it doesn’t matter as much to the folks behind the film as those coming from the young adult crowd to which this was catered.  And that’s one of the biggest points that people seem to be missing in this age of Twilight and Harry Potter.  These flicks weren’t made with the sensibilities of older folks in mind.  That some of them can transcend their audience to more universal appeal is awesome, but perhaps the expectations need to be tempered a bit.  Oh, and the backlash.  But that’s a subject for different blog.

I guess what I’m saying is that I was fully prepared for The Hunger Games to be all hype and no substance.  That so many adults seemed to enjoy it meant only that it was better than folks expected.  Sure, it could blow Twilight away, but does that mean that it’s good, or merely that because it’s better- significantly so- than Twilight, it appears to be good.   Again, all hype, little substance.  Well, at least in my mind, The Hunger Games was a genuinely good film.

By now, the plot must be known to virtually anyone with a pulse.  Set in a dystopian future (because bright futures make for crap films), The Hunger Games tells the tale of a group of young people (teens really)sentenced to participate in a battle royal to the death- both as an ongoing punishment for crimes against the ruling authority, and for the viewing pleasure of a bloodthirsty, reality TV obsessed populace.  It’s all fun and games… especially when kids kill each other for sport.  Ah yes, a movie ripe for moralizing.   One of the young combatants, the noble Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence- who continues to astound as an actress), has volunteered to participate in this madness so that her much younger and much less resourceful sister will be spared from the competition.  This is, of course, Katniss’s story.  Well actually, in literal terms, it is the story of that year’s games; from the time of the selections right up to the last battle- which may not actually have been waged between the young tributes.  During this process, training is completed, relationships are forged, a love triangle is established and battles are lost and won.   Anyone who is remotely familiar with the story knows who survives the carnage. 

And yet, despite these conventions and the story’s being inherently anticlimactic (to a degree), I really did find myself riveted by The Hunger Games.  I’d chalk this up to two triumphs mainly.  The first were the performances.  I can’t recall any that weren’t awesome.  And three went above that level.  Jennifer Lawrence is fast becoming one of the most incredible talents in Hollywood.  I haven’t seen all her work, but of what I have seen, there isn’t a misfire in the bunch.  Including The Hunger Games.  Woody Harrelson  as Haymitch Abernathy, Katniss’s district’s mentor, pulls off his usual difficult dance of understated crazy.  But then, you’d have to be a little bit crazy to survive the games, wouldn’t you?   And Stanley Tucci oozes sleazy charisma as the games’ master of ceremonies, Caesar Flickerman.  Each one of these performances rose just a bit above the rest of the solid cast.

The other major triumph of the filmmakers, and this is not to be understated, was how completely the created the world of The Hunger Games.  They truly seemed to capture the essence of this horrible world, and they did so seamlessly, wholly, and utterly believably.  (To put it awkwardly).  It felt… for lack of a better word… real.  Too often in movies, entire worlds seem to be conjured solely for the purpose of the story.  And yes while this is always true, the best films make you feel as though you are passing through the setting, that there was a history before you came along, and things will continue to happen after you’ve passed on through.  Too many movies make it feel as though the world your viewing will vanish as soon as the end credits roll.  I know this is hard to explain, but the world of The Hunger Games was just so fully realized it’s easy to imagine it was real… or could be real.  It didn’t seem like a plot device.  And that makes for a completely engrossing film.

This isn’t to say that The Hunger Games was perfect.  It wasn’t.  At times, the character development, relationship development, and plot felt rushed (as often happens when filmmakers err on the side of staying true to the book, rather than the organic pace of the movie), and some characters were far too one-dimensional or conventional (the bad guys had little subtlety- you knew they were “bad”, but in a world like this, shouldn’t there be some blurring of the lines?  Shouldn’t there be more nuance?  Or are they afraid we’d root for the wrong tributes?)  But on the whole, I would say that this genuinely was a really good movie- not just good for its genre.  Worth the hype?  I don’t know.  But entertaining as all get out and well-made.  And really, that’s all you hope for anyway, right?

Grade: A- 

New to Me 2012: 1.) The Help

The Help

I barely squeezed this one in before the Oscars on Sunday... that way, I was able to form all sorts of opinions I then kept to myself...

Roll Call:  Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jessica Chastain, Allison Janney, and Sissy Spacek.  Tate Taylor and Kathryn Stockett, writers.  Tate Taylor, director.

What's It About:  The Help tells the story of pseudo-society girl Skeeter Phelan's (Emma Stone- awesome as usual, but a bit underrated compared to her cast mates) efforts to write a tell-all book from the perspective of African-American servants in 1960s Jackson, Mississippi.

What About It:  Depending on who you talk or listen to, this is either an insightful, period piece that digs deep into an essential American problem...or it's a sugary, stereotype-reinforcing flick designed to show that African-Americans could never have made it above their lot as house servants and such without the help of the white savior.  Ok, so maybe those aren't the only two descriptions out there, but they are two of the ones asserted most vociferously... even if boiling the movie down as such is a bit ridiculous.  The truth- in all likelihood- is somewhere in the middle.  Was it fluffy?  Yeah...in spots.  Did it perpetuate stereotypes?  Well... that depends.  I'd say no-insofar as if you're telling this specific story then these folks aren't stereotypes, they're characters.  I'd also argue that this is an instance where the white savior motif is only true to those who didn't see the movie... or at least didn't see it with an open mind.  Sure, Skeeter was white... and she was necessary to document the "Help's" (as servants are known in the movie) tales (let's not forget where and when we are here), but Skeeter wasn't inventing the stories.  She needed the servants to stick their necks on the line, open up, and call it how they'd seen it.  Skeeter needed the Help as much as they needed her.  And, I'd also point out, the African American characters were the ones given the better sense of dimension to their characters.  Most of the white society girls come off as one-note plot devices.  Played to great effect, but still.  Most of the white characters are given unspoken labels: "she's the  _____ one."  The only white characters to escape this are Skeeter and Jessica Chastain's flighty Celia Foote- and even then, only at times. Again, though, it plays well in the film.  I just wish that all the characters were as richly developed as Viola Davis's Aibileen Clark and Octavia Spencer's Minny Jackson.  Aibileen and Minny are the meat of the movie, everyone else is just dressing.  (Though both Emma Stone and Jessica Chastain were fantastic.  So was Bryce Dallas Howard and Allison Janney for that matter- it's more just that their characters were so shallow that it was hard to notice how spot on they were).

Clearly this was the Viola Davis-Octavia Spencer show (it's actually damn shame Viola Davis didn't win the Best Actress Oscar- it's not that Meryle Streep was bad; she was great in what had to be a daunting role in The Iron Lady- it's just that Davis crushed it here.  I didn't think anyone would be able to top Michelle Williams from My Week With Marilyn but Davis damn near made me forget that role.  She was amazing).  And take that to heart.  I'm not going to go so far as to say that they are the only reason to watch the movie- it's actually a well-done... and... nice...flick.  But Davis and Spencer are definitely worth the price of admission.  Every time the story wanted them to break out the caricature, Davis and Spencer resisted.  I'm sure that to some, these two did represent stereotypes.  Soulful (Davis) and Sassy (Spencer).  I'd just urge anyone who thought that way to look closer.  They both refused to let Aibileen and Minny become anything short of multifaceted and complex human beings... you know, like real people.  (I suppose, as a white male, this may be one of those cases where my opinion doesn't matter all that much... but...hell... this is my blog and these are my two cents... just calling them how I see them.  For better or worse).  I guess I could sum it up as this: if you like the feeling of getting to know your movie characters, you'll like what you see here with Davis and Spencer.  They brought their characters to life.  It was great to see.

The Bottom Line:  I'd venture to say that if you like a movie that's able to evoke a time and place pretty darn well while also bringing richly developed characters to life, you'll probably like The Help.  Is it perfect?  No.  Does it simplify and... fluff--ify a real complex issue?  Yes.  But... well... in a sense... so what?  It was entertaining, superbly acted, and just heavy enough to keep it grounded- even amidst the fluff.  It may not change your life...but who said it needed to?  It's just a movie.  And a pretty darn good one at that.

Grade: A

Movie List 2012: 10.) Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Gotta hurry up and get this in before the Oscars... for some odd reason.  It's not like it matters...

Roll Call: Tom Hanks, Thomas Horn, Sandra Bullock, John Goodman, Max Von Sydow, Viola Davis, and Jeffrey Wright.  Eric Roth and Jonathan Safran Foer, writers.  Stephen Daldry, director.

What's It About: A young boy's (Thomas Horn) quest to find the lock (and healing) that fits the mysterious key left behind by his father (Tom Hanks) who perished in the 9/11 attacks in New York City.

What About It:  I have to say that this isn't one I was in a hurry to see.  It had all the trappings of a sentimentally overloaded sludge of a movie- the sort of movie whose end goal would seem to be to manufacture a river of tears from the audience.  And given the subject matter here, I'd find that a bit repulsive.  And, actually, the first reviews were not kind.  Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close?  More like, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close to Exploitation- to paraphrase one critic.  (Don't remember which one).  So, with all that expressed, I wasn't exactly going to rush out and see it.  But then, a few people I know saw it and several of them liked it a lot.  Add to that that it was nominated for Best Picture and Max Von Sydow was nominated for Best Supporting Actor (by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences- to completely insult your intelligence) and I pretty much had to see it- later/sooner rather than later/later (I mean the thing's been out since Christmas and I just saw it on President's Day).

I have to say, I'm glad I saw it.  I'm not sure it's one that I ever would have gotten around to on video considering how few I do see at home (though, still without a pass, that may change).  And I think the fact that I saw it here on Long Island added something to the viewing experience.  The theater was relatively packed for a movie that has been out for so long, and I just got the sense that to these people (and make no mistake, I have yet to talk to someone who didn't know someone directly or indirectly- though closely indirectly- who wasn't affected in a personal manner by the attacks) this movie meant something.  I think a majority of the folks who dealt with the tragedy on such a close level are still grappling with the healing and I suspect that a number of New Yorkers who saw the movie- or read the novel and then saw the movie- were hoping to experience some level of healing right along side Oskar (Thomas Horn).  I know, I know.  I typically don't buy such prone-to-BS notions.  But, I have to say, sitting in that theater as the movie was playing I did sense something different in that crowd.  All I can say, again, is that it seemed to mean something for them to see the movie.  And I doubt many of them saw it as exploitation... though honestly to a degree it was.  As would any motion picture about any tragic event would be.  These aren't not-for-profit groups putting the movies out.

So I guess I have to raise a question I rarely consider when it comes to movies (mostly because I see a movie's primary purpose being to entertain, then perhaps I consider it art, then finally an effective means of delivering a message or anything along those lines).  But given what this event- 9/11-meant to people.  Given it's effects on all Americans and New Yorkers in particular (not to diminish what happened in Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania), was it worth it to bring this all up in such clear focus for the sake of a movie?  Clearly, the filmmakers were playing with some pretty painful wounds.  Don't think so?  Just the sight of the ominous black plume of smoke rising from the World Trade Center towers was enough to bring a good number of the audience to tears.  And it only increased as the the movie's main characters were put through what so many people experienced on such a horrific level a decade ago.  So, was it worth to bring this all up so vividly?  I'm not so sure it was.  But for practical purposes, I suppose I'll have to leave it as a more rhetorical question.  I'm not the right person to answer that question.  I imagine I have a much different view of  the events of 9/11 than most New Yorkers.  I assume most of the country does (with the exception again of those folks in Washington D.C. and anyone who lost someone on any of the doomed flights).  I watched the day's events unfold on TV- and I didn't watch them live.  I was a student at Marquette University.  And, with an 8AM class, I was sitting in the classroom as the planes were crashing.  They let us out of class early and by the time I made it back to my dorm room, I had a pretty firm grasp on what was going on.  I then, with my roommate, proceeded to watch and rewatch the morning's horrific events for several hours straight.  Later, we both went to Ultimate Frisbee practice.  And it was a relief to be able to put that out of our minds for a few hours.  I doubt anyone in New York or Washington D.C. had such a luxury.  But that's the thing with many of us.  9/11 was TV, a TV event.  I don't mean to be a heartless, soulless individual but, it's true.  I can't picture the events of that morning without seeing them reflected through a TV screen.  We shut the TV off and walked away.  New Yorkers didn't have that option.  New Yorkers were hit hard.  And hit in real time.  Sorry for the tangent.  I just wanted to underscore my doubt over whether I can answer the question I raised before.  Clearly, I can't.  And I haven't been able to find anyone who could.  Not that I've tried too hard, though.  Prior to seeing the movie, I thought it was going to be awful.

And awful it wasn't.  Just on the basics and merits of it being a movie it wasn't awful (as opposed to being a meaningful tool for collective healing that is).  That doesn't mean I was in love with it though.  Some of what I think about it is going to make me seem as heartless and soulless as my previous paragraph.  But I felt what I felt...so to get on with it I'll mention that Thomas Horn gives one hell of a performance as a kid with some pretty serious emotional/development issues to begin with who then gets tossed into this brutal chaos.  It's rare to see a child actor be able to disappear so well into a role.  And Horn does it with what seems to be ease.  That said, I couldn't help but think the character came off less as having emotional issues and more as a spoiled brat or to be even baser a little shit.  If the filmmakers hadn't gone to such lengths to explain that- while they won't put an exact label to it- the kid's got issues that are clearly out of his control- starting with overwhelming anxiety- I would have found the whole thing deplorable.  The things Oskar says, the way he treats people, and how little grasp his parents have over what he does... something just seems out of whack with it.  That said, I have had very little experience with kids who have any level of developmental or emotional problems so I will admit that I may be wrong or off here.  But it just seems as though the filmmakers could have gone in a bit of a different direction.  Did Oskar have to be so... mouthy?  I don't know, but it was particularly irksome when it played for laughs- perhaps more than director Stephen Daldry and company would have liked.  I should mention, though, that after a while I was able to just put those feelings in my back pocket and let the movie play out with only the occasional wince.  And it became much easier to watch.

Aside from that and the story's relative implausibility  and tendency to turn many of its background characters into caricatures (Oskar's search for the missing lock has him attempting to talk to every New Yorker with the surname of Black- many of the folks he meets show up on screen as overly quirky characters- in every sense of the word.  It got to be a bit annoying...), there really wasn't much to complain about here.  The story, despite the enormous potential pitfalls it was built around turned out to be compelling and surprisingly not overburdened by grasps at heartstrings.  The acting was rock solid as well.  I've already mentioned Horn's near-miraculous performance.  Beyond him, Tom Hanks as Oskar's deceased father (seen in flashback) and Sandra Bullock as Oskar's grieving mother do what they do best- play convincing and interesting everyday people.  (Extraordinary ordinary folks).  Viola Davis, Jeffrey Wright, and John Goodman all help the film along as well.  Of course, besides Horn, the real gem of the movie is Max Von Sydow as the mysterious, mute "Renter" (a name given to him because he rents a room in Oskar's grandmother's apartment).  With a mischievous twinkle in his eye and an incredible ability to portray a host of emotions without saying a word, Von Sydow became- for me- a reason to stay engaged with the movie.  I don't think it's coincidence that I was able to enjoy the movie more once "The Renter" appeared.  He somehow managed to add a dash of humanity to the little brat (I'm sorry, but it's true... to a degree) at the story's center.  (And by no means do I think the filmmakers envisioned Oskar as a brat- nor do I think the character was supposed to be inherently bratty- or at least to that level.  But he came off as a little shit.  That's all there is to it.  It's unfortunate.)  On the whole, given everything it has going for it, I couldn't help but be impressed by the effort here.  It could have turned out much differently.  I'm glad it didn't.

The Bottom Line:  It's absolutely shocking that Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close managed- at least in my mind- to avoid coming off as anything other that sheer exploitation (at the worst) or treacly crap (at the best).  Somehow it avoids giving off an aura of contrived sentimentality and as it hit its stride, it became a watchable and- beyond that- compelling movie.  Kudos there.  In lesser hands, this movie could easily have been a travesty (and I don't use that term lightly).  But Daldry and company did the best they could with some tricky subject matter.  Is the payoff for dredging up such horrific memories in such vivid detail worth it?  That's not for me to say.   What I can say is that this definitely was a pretty darn good- if not great- effort.

Grade: B+

Movie List 2012: 9.) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo


Roll Call: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgard, Steven Berkoff, Robin Wright.  Steven Zaillan and Stieg Larsson, writers.  David Fincher, director.

What's It About:  Based on the Swedish international best-selling novel by the same name, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo tells the tale of disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist's (Daniel Craig) efforts to solve a 40-year-old murder mystery.  He is aided in his search by social outcast and hacker extraordinaire, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara).

What About It:  It'd be impossible to judge the movie without considering how well it sticks to the book it's based upon.  For fans of the novel, it was just about the perfect mix of murder mystery and social commentary.  Sure, not everything depicted therein was particularly sunny (though I think that suggestions that Larsson was a sick SOB who delighted on the mental imagery of the tortures he ran his female lead character through is- at the very least- nonsense), but the book was a taut page-turner.  Could the movie achieve a similar cinematic triumph?

In a word: Yes.  The movie did a decent enough job of staying true to the novel.  All the elements of the compelling murder mystery- including the ability to keep the mystery unsolved for the viewer until very late in the game- show up on screen.  Director David Fincher and company were also able to bring the intense, unique persona of Lisbeth Salander to the screen wonderfully.  I can't think of many more compelling movie characters- certainly not any female characters- than Salander (whom Mara plays with all the right intensity and emotional detachment.  She absolutely disappears into this complex character... it's fascinating to see).  Is Salander a role model?  Perhaps not.  But she does play the game of life by her own rules and even if those rules are maddening at times, you can't help but respect her inability to be driven down by a society that refuses to let her be herself.  (Salander- due to past "deviant" behavior- is made a ward of the state... a situation that turns from unfair and inconvenient to horrific throughout the course of the movie).  Mara's personification of Lisbeth- I would imagine- is Salander how Steig Larsson wanted us to see her.  It's absolutely riveting.  Had a tough time taking my eyes off her... and I imagine most fans of the book will have a similarly difficult time looking away- despite all that happens.  Mara just draws you in that completely.

So, given that the fast-paced murder mystery thriller, and the singular character of Lisbeth Salander are more than sufficiently recreated on screen, it'd be safe to say that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a home run, right?  Well... yes... and no.  True, the basic elements of the novel are presented, but Fincher, Zaillon, and company did change several key details from the book.  Normally, I understand that these types of decisions need to be made.  To include every component of a 400-plus page book is to commit to making a four and a half hour movie... minimum.  Still, one of the best things about Larsson's novel was how richly and deeply realized his characters were.   You get the sense of coming to know virtually everyone who appears in the story.  Given the number of characters in the story, this is no mean feat.  Unfortunately, some of the details left out in the film serve to diminish this character development.  For example, Lisbeth's relationships with her mother, Dragan Armansky, and Holger Palmgren are all either de-emphasized, or eliminated completely.  So while I think that the filmmakers did an excellent job of bringing Lisbeth to life, I don't think they brought the fully-realized version of Salander to the story.  And that's a bit of a shame since she's the real motor that makes the story go.  Blomkvist, Erika Berger (Robin Wright), and many of the Vangers (the family for whom... and of whom?... Blomkvist is investigating) suffer the same fate.  Again, I understand that difficult decisions needed to be made, but I wonder if there were other possible cuts- editing that wouldn't have taken such a toll on character development.  Like.. say...maybe cutting out the gratuitous and overly long opening credit animated sequence.  Just a thought.

I also have to wonder if folks who didn't read the book would have struggled with the movie.  I definitely benefited from having read the novel in advance.  At times, the movie comes off as a bit of a parade of characters- some of which are given little in the way of introduction.  Also, several scenes seem to have been casually dropped in by Fincher and crew- almost as though they hoped the majority of the audience had read the book so they could make the connection.  For those of us who had, no problem, it all made sense.  For those who didn't...?  Well, let's just say that I heard some confused murmuring coming from folks in the audience who evidently hadn't read the book or had forgotten a few details of the book... or, I suppose had read the book and were a little lost nonetheless.  My sense, though, was that  the folks who were constantly questioning their companions were folks who had little prior familiarity with the story.  And I should mention that there weren't many such murmurers.

I really have no frame of reference for reviewing the movie from the vantage of not having prior familiarity with the story.  I also have a tough time believing that if you paid close enough attention, it wouldn't all make sense in the end, one way or the other (a herculean feat for some movie-watchers, I know).  For me, not only did it all make perfect sense, it proved to be as engrossing and incredibly interesting as the novel.  Well maybe not as compelling, but darn close.  As far as crime/murder mystery thrillers go, you won't find too many better... at least in terms of recent efforts.

The Bottom Line:  Despite its drawbacks, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.  I had been meaning to see the original Swedish version of the story prior to seeing Fincher's American take.  My thought had been that I didn't want my mind clouded by this remake when I was viewing the original.  It usually ends up that the original version of foreign movies are edgier, truer, and often, just plain better than their American counterparts (or perhaps I should say, respected critics lead me to believe the aforementioned is true... I rarely see foreign originals.. I'd say it's a personal failing... but for the few I have seen, I tend to agree with the respected critics).  All that said, I'd have a tough time believing the Swedes could have pulled the story off any better (though, I suppose I could be wrong).  I'm not saying that Fincher's version will definitely be a better effort, what I am saying is that if the Swedish version manages to even come close to the American, I'd be extremely happy (and if it does manage to exceed it... well... wow).

Grade: A 

Movie List 2012: 8.) The Artist

The Artist


Still without a pass but I owe it to my reader to keep on trucking... especially when it comes to watching and reviewing the Oscar Best Picture front-runner...

Roll Call: Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell, Penelope Ann Miller, and Uggie the dog.  Michel Hazanavicius, writer and director.

What's It About:  The simultaneous struggle of silent film superstar George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) and meteoric rise of budding starlet Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) as talkies begin to overtake silent films in Hollywood.  And yes, of course, the movie itself is a mostly silent film.

What About It:   What about it?  How about the fact that it is the odds-on favorite to capture the Oscar for Best Picture?  Though, that really doesn't reveal much about the film, does it?  Just, I suppose, that a lot of people expect it to win best picture.  But should it?  Well, it wouldn't be the worst film to do so, but, at the same time, I can think of better films this year.  So... should it win?  Probably not.  At least in my mind.

Ok, with that out of the way... let me say this: it's a hell of a charming movie.  Maybe not the most charming movie I've ever seen, but it won me over pretty easily.  I'm not sure if it's the premise or the style or what, but I enjoyed watching the movie.  Now, that being said, I can't say I was blown away by it.  It didn't feel as fresh as- say- Slumdog Millionaire did a few years ago, but it was thoroughly enjoyable.  And I suppose that's a credit to Michel Hazanavicius as much as anyone.  The whole silent movie routine could easily have come off as a gimmick or a stunt, but somehow Hazanavicius manages to make it work.  The fact that it's a nearly silent movie seems right and natural for the story; it never felt forced or out of place.  (And in the few times the film does incorporate sound- other than the lively soundtrack- its use is pretty ingenious.)  I guess that was my biggest fear in going to see the movie; I was afraid that the whole silent movie gig would essentially devolve into a heavy-handed, "look how clever we are", attention-gobbling stunt.  But, it just didn't end up there.  In fact that angle probably made it a more enjoyable and charming movie on the whole.  So, well played Monsieur Hazanavicius.

I imagine, though, that the whole silent film trick was pretty darn risky.  Without the right cast, it could have flopped... big time.  Fortunately, Hazanavicius and crew hit a home run when filling out their casting card.  Jean Dujardin seems tailor-made for the role of George Valentin with his dashing, Golden-Age of Hollywood good looks and sly expression.  Likewise, Berenice Bejo was an absolute gem as the plucky sweetheart in the making Peppy Miller.  I imagine it would be incredibly hard not to fall in love with her performance here.  Both Dujardin and Bejo prove to be pros at the silent-film game.  Both present performances rich with subtle and evocative expression; the tilt of the head or flash of an eye saying so much more than words could. The real gem of the cast- outside, of course, of Uggie the Jack Russell Terrier- however, was John Goodman.  I suppose this shouldn't be much of a surprise now that I think of it- Goodman has, it would seem, always been an incredibly expressive actor (particularly in The Big Lebowski).  But here, in my mind, he steals many of the scenes he's in.  I really could sense the vibe Goodman was supposed to give off:  a big shot studio boss with a heart of partial gold and enough slime around the edges that you feel as though you need to wash up after hanging around with him... even if you did enjoy it.  And all that was revealed through facial and body expression.  Expertly at that, I might add.  Actually, in truth, I can't think of a single actor who fell flat in the face of the unique demands brought on by this type of movie.  Does that mean that a silent flick is easier to act than a talkie?  Probably not.  In this case, I think it means that the casting folks did their job extremely well.

And yet, despite everything The Artist has going for it, I can't help but feel a little let down by it.  I liked the movie a great deal, but I guess I was just expecting to be blown away by it... and I wasn't.  This may- in part- be because one of the prevailing criticisms of the film actually rang truer than I had hoped.  I was sure that the increasing number of critics and casual viewers calling the film fluff, slight, or thin was just a case of natural front-runner backlash gaining momentum.  It seems like every early Best Picture candidate through the years has to fight off a wave of pre-ceremony backlash designed to either create artificial suspense and intrigue or to knock a the favorite out of pole-position.  Wasn't The King's Speech knocked around a bit last year for being too "typically Oscar"?  (Or something to that effect).  This year, there seems to be a number of folks carrying on about how The Artist is a nice movie, but it has about as much depth as a piece of paper.  I had hoped that this criticism was off the mark.  And while I think it isn't as thin as many suggest, I do have to admit that the story does lack any substantial depth.  It is a very much on-the-surface movie.  It just is what it is.  George Valetin is on the top of the world, the dawn of sound kicks in forcing the ever-prideful actor out of the spotlight and into despair, and then with a little help from his friends, George seeks a comeback.  Meanwhile, Peppy Miller goes from complete unknown to Hollywood megawatt star and, all the while finds herself falling for the increasingly downtrodden George.  The story goes from point A to point B to point C and that's it.  It finds its path and sticks to it.  Or so it seems.  I actually see some subtle points being made about the ruthlessness of the early Hollywood studio system and the price and cost of pride.  But the movie almost seems to make observations on these themes by accident.  Squint really hard and you might see deeper meaning.  Still, it's not enough for me to write off the mounting criticism.  Which is unfortunate because it really is a nice movie.  A really nice, enjoyable, fluffy movie.

The Bottom Line:  So, I guess this all begs a question: does a movie need to dig deeper to be good?  Can't it just present a really simple, really cool story in a unique and- above all- expert way?  Well, yeah, I suppose there's nothing wrong with a nice but fluff-laden movie.  It's just that in the case of The Artist it could have been better if it had just dug a little deeper.  Just a little.  The performances are there, the charm is there, the look and feel are there.  So what's missing?  Depth?  Well, maybe.  But all that means is that it isn't among the best of the best.  But because it does what it does so damn well, it's hard to think of it as anything other than a really good movie.

Grade: A-

Movie List 2012: 7.) Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace... in 3D


Yeah... ok... so I've actually already seen this some years ago... but not in the theater... not in 3D... and I've never written about it.  So deal.

Roll Call: Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Jake Llyod, Ahmed Best, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Frank Oz, Samuel L. Jackson, Sophia Coppola, Keira Knightley (ok, so not all those folks are "stars" but just figured I'd point out they they were in it).  Written (for better or worse) and directed by George Lucas.

What's It About: It's the beast that restarted it all.  Basically the movie's sole purpose is to establish the world of Star Wars... that is the new world of Star Wars... which is actually the world that predated (in the story) the old world of Star Wars from the originally released trilogy. ... wait... what?  In terms of plot, Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman) is trying to save Naboo- through peaceful channels- from the blockade and more nefarious actions of the evil Trade Federation.  A couple of Jedi Knights (Liam Neeson's Qui-Gon Jinn and Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan Kenobi) lend aid, especially as the shit (read: Sith) hits the fan.  Oh, and there's also pod-racing.  Just cuz.

What About It:  Well, there's no way to avoid it.  When one thinks about Episode I one can't help but think about the one and only Jar Jar Binks- possibly the worst movie character ever conceived (or so the fanboys would have us believe... sadly, I don't think their far off).  And, well, it's true Jar Jar Binks is a stain on the movie.  He's horribly annoying and distracting.  Once he stumbles on screen, the movie never had a chance.  I originally thought it was so awful, that it killed my will to see the other two movies of the "new" trilogy... and I still haven't gotten around to checking them out.  In a way, though, I was actually happy that George Lucas wanted to put an addition on Skywalker Ranch.  It gave me the opportunity to re-watch the movie with- perhaps- a better, more experienced and distanced perspective.  I haven't watched any of the original Star Wars movies in quite some time, and I wasn't overly eager to see what Episode I had to offer, having already had that experience.  So maybe a fresh look (in mind-numbingly gratuitous 3D no less!) would help me better get a handle on the movie's actual merits.. if it had any.

In short, it still kinda stunk.  And Binks was as annoying and distracting as ever... if not more so given his extra dimensionality here.  The rest of the story, however, wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was on first viewing.  It wasn't original-trilogy good either, though.  But- again- what really drags it down is the inclusion of Jar Jar Binks (and to a lesser extent all the Gungans).  So just what made Binks (Ahmed Best, who should- according to George Lucas [as pointed out in an Entertainment Weekly article]- be regarded as a pioneer for giving one of the first motion-capture performances ever) so blasted annoying?  Or rather why did he torpedo this movie?  Actually, there are several reasons why Binks was such an awful character and why that fact shoved the movie onto the trash heap.  Here are a few:

1.) Binks was aggressively slap-sticky in a movie series that had previously proven to have some degree of subtlety, nuance, and nimbleness- if also still bordering on melodrama from time to time.  The EW article pointed out that Binks was hardly the first misstep for Lucas and company when it came to the Star Wars films.  Apparently both C-3PO and the Ewoks were also ridiculous additions to the Star Wars canon.  And, yeah, while these both might have been silly and perhaps ultimately goofy additions to the story line, they were never quite as aggressively ridiculous as Binks proved to be.  C-3PO was an annoying chatterbox and the Ewoks were present solely to exploit a cute/kiddie angle, but I didn't see either as being in-your-face.  Binks is in-your-face throughout the entire movie.  He's constantly tripping over himself, making life miserable for the other characters, screwing things up, or succeeding only through blind, but dumb, luck.  On top of that, he's a whiny, wussy bastard that had no right surviving the establishment of the series' mythology.  The only thing missing from this trite and grating performance was somebody inadvertently smashing his Gungan gonads (preferably with a Star Wars-esque football of some kind) and him keeling over while screeching in an alien soprano.  All that said, his pratfalls and slapstick schtick seemed to delight the ample number of kiddies in the audience.  But is that enough to justify this mess of a character?  Was Lucas really trying to set the background for the entire space opera or was he trying to convert Star Wars into a run-of-the-mill (albeit with awesome special effects) kiddie flick?  Actually with the inclusion of a pint-sized Anakin (Jake Lloyd in his second-to-last performance...ever.) and somewhat meaningless (outside of its inherent appeal to kiddies) pod-racing sequence, it would seem that making a kids' flick was really Lucas's goal.  But come on, George, kids probably would have dug the cool space-y-ness of the flick and all the awesome lightsaber dueling without the inclusion of Binks and his cornucopia of pratfalls.  I mean, really, let's juxtapose the grace and all-out badassery of a two-on-one lightsaber battle with Binks' falling all over himself, inadvertently offing a number of Federation battle droids.  Come.  On.  How'd these two sequences end up in the same movie?  Or  perhaps the better question is why?  I understand if George wanted to make a movie his young kids could enjoy, but if his young kids like that kind of crap shouldn't they just tune into America's Funniest Home Videos?  Then the more sophisticated audience wouldn't have to suffer for their delights.

2.)  That bloody language.  It just adds to the ridiculousness of Binks.  "Mee-sah this"  and "Me-sah that."  Whiny.  Ugh.  And here's the bit that's really frustrating:  it didn't need to be this way.  It actually smacks of laziness or lack of creativity that Lucas chose to create a language based on some bastardization of English... or, perhaps more accurately... pigeon-English.  Lucas had created a number of other languages built around funky noises, beeps, growls, and the like.  Why would the Gungans have developed this crappy Enligh-esque language?  I could even forgive it if the Gungans used the "English-esque" language only to communicate with their humanoid acquaintances.  After all, it could easily be understood if the Gungans developed a language based on that which their Naboo neighbors speak to communicate with said neighbors.  Happens all the time.  But why in the world would they communicate with each other through that same awful speak.  Couldn't Lucas have come up with some other grunts or whatnot and have that serve as the basis of Gungan communication?  Yeah, easily.  And perhaps he should have.

3.) Binks seems like the antithesis of Star Wars.  What other character even resembles Binks's over-the-top-ness in anyway?  The closest may be when Yoda wasn't revealed to be Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back.  And even then he's a ways off of what Binks represents. All that said, this is actually the stickiest argument.  Binks really only actually seems like the antithesis of Star Wars to us.  And in reality, we don't count.  As my brother-in-law, Jason (who saw the movie with me), pointed out, "it's his movie, and obviously he can do what he wants with it."  So true.  It is his movie.  He created the Star Wars universe.  He designed the Star Wars feel.  Is it really up to us to determine what does or does not belong in the Star Wars story?  Some may argue that Lucas loses some of his proprietary rights once he puts the movie on public display.  The audience then adopts it and it becomes as much theirs as his.  This is actually a bit ridiculous.  We may be able to determine what ultimately feels right for the story, but we can't truthfully make determinations on what does or does not belong in the tale.  That's Lucas's job.  But, that doesn't mean we have to like it.  And here, it's plain to see that most folks didn't like Binks's inclusion, and that his inclusion made the movie feel less like a traditional Star Wars movie based on the standard established by episodes four, five, and six.  Debating whether or not Binks was an authentic Star Wars character is actually rather pointless.  He was- in the minds of many fans, including myself- an annoying and gratuitous persona that served only to degrade the quality of the movie.  You win some... you lose some, and Lucas lost big here.

In the end, Jar Jar Binks wasn't the only reason why The Phantom Menace came off as a lesser film.  For some reason, this particular effort kind of came off as a showcase displaying all that Lucas and his crack team of special effects mad scientists could create.  You want some funky aliens?  Yep.  Here you go.  Awesome pod-racing sequences?  We can do that.  Sweeping, amazing-looking battle scenes?  We got that covered.  I never had the feeling that Lucas had been using the original trilogy as a means of showing off, and perhaps I'm being too harsh in this assessment here.  But it just seemed showy.  I don't know.  Maybe the original trilogy would have seemed showy too had I been old enough to have experienced the three movies in their time.  Instead, the special effects came off as cool, but, perhaps a bit quaint- though still amazing and integral to the story.  And they felt more real to boot.  I think one of the biggest mistakes Lucas made was when he started to digitally add creatures here and there to later releases of episodes four, five, and six.  Incredibly (or not) it was actually the CGI images that stuck out and somehow looked less real.  And The Phantom Menace suffers in much the same way.  Sure Chewie looked- to a degree- like a guy in a walking shag-carpeted costume in the original trilogy (because he was)... but he was there.  Not so with the winged, barter-happy alien from Episode I.  It looks as though Neeson's Qui-Gon Jinn is talking to a point on the wall- as though he sees right through his adversary.  Han Solo always looked like he was bantering with Chewbacca.  A subtle difference, but an appreciated one.

Of course, all that would seem to amount to nit-picking at best, and at worst being frustrated with Lucas for not limiting himself only to outdated and undoubtedly much more expensive technology to pull his movie off.  This would seem like an especially specious dig considering how apparently new the technology Lucas was using was.  But, I can't help but think that this hindered the movie in some small way.  Even if that makes me a hair-splitting prick.

When you mix in the fact that the story revolved around a one-note adrenaline-junkie kid, the somewhat laborious and explanation-heavy plot (kind of a necessity with movies that are more or less solely created to establish a series... see Batman Begins... though I would say that The Phantom Menace tries too hard to explain many things... things that perhaps would have been better off left as a bit of a mystery), the forced nature of the burgeoning "love" story between Anakin Skywalker and Queen Amidala (Lucas and company plant the seeds... and it seems wrong), and some of the more outlandish revelations included here (thinking mostly of the fact that it turns out that Anakin Skywalker created C-3PO... seems ridiculous.  Darth Vader created 3PO...kind of creates a hmmm... oh... ugh situation...in my mind) and you're left with a movie that might have struggled a bit without the inclusion of Jar Jar Binks.  Was it as horrible as I originally thought it was?  No, and I probably shouldn't have written off the next two installments either.  Unfortunately, it wasn't everything that it could have been... and perhaps worse as a huge Star Wars fan... it wasn't everything that I hoped it would be.

The Bottom Line:  I know I went on about how we really don't have the right to say whether something is or is not worthy of the Star Wars universe.  If George Lucas says it's so, then, it's so.  Still, I really do have a tough time believing that this was the movie Lucas dreamed up when he plotted out the entire Star Wars saga so many years ago.  To that end, it's hard to view Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace as anything other than a massive disappointment.  Would it have been as disappointing or negatively viewed without the lofty expectations produced by Episodes Four, Five, and Six?  Who knows, but that's a bit irrelevant.  The fact is, as it stands (damn you to hell, Jar Jar Binks) it just wasn't a great movie.

Grade: C+

Movie List 2012: 6.) The Iron Lady

The Iron Lady

Yeah, so, I haven't had to pay to see a movie in a theater since... oh... 2008 or so.  And so, I decided I'm going to break that spell with...The Iron Lady?  Yep. It's Oscar season, and The Iron Lady snagged a nom for Meryl Streep's performance therein.  At least it was a fairly cheap ticket.

Roll Call: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Alexandra Roach, Olivia Colman, and Harry Lloyd.  Abi Morgan, writer.  Phyllida Lloyd, director.

What's It About?  The life and times of one Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep), the UK's first female prime minister, its longest serving prime minister in the 20th Century (1979-1990).

What About It?  Let me get this out of the way right off the bat:  Meryl Streep was incredible in the movie.  Seeing the previews, I could only think that her performance was more going to resemble Leonardo Di Caprio's in J. Edgar, an imitation of a historical persona, rather than a portrayal.  Not so.  Streep disappeared into the role and helped bring Thatcher to life.  I know I've said that Streep could have a nasty bout of diarrhea on set and Oscar voters would nominate her for her "splendid" performance.  That may or may not be true.  (We do know that she's not likely to win for such a role, even if she is nominated).  It is true, however, that she earned her nomination here.  She was fantastic... and... as it happens... one of the only reasons (Jim Broadbent's performance as Thatcher's husband Denis being the only other) to see the movie.  I mean, other than Streep and Broadbent, the movie kind of stunk.

Well, maybe stunk isn't the right word.  It certainly wasn't all that it could have been.  I mean, if you like just-the-surface-and-nothing-else biopics, then by all means, eat this up; you'll love the hell out of it.  Me?  Nope, I need the filmmakers to dig deeper.  And here, they just wouldn't.  Ok, yes, hypocrisy alert.  For anyone paying attention (and I don't know who might... I probably could have just left it alone and been a flip-flopping hero), I've often said that you shouldn't attend movies to get a history lesson.  Movies are entertainment, not necessarily education.  Filmmakers are going to add details, downplay other details, and tweak a "true" story to maximize drama or tell the story they want to tell.  It happens.  And I have no problem with that.  I just want to be entertained.  But really, what's so entertaining about telling the life story of someone who should be somewhat compelling by unveiling a tale based on broad and simplistic generalizations that serve to boil this complicated (as most people are) individual into a series of one-note songs?  Not much.  What I gleaned from The Iron Lady:  Thatcher was motivated to become the leader of her party and later country because a.) she was inspired by her father, b.) thought her humble roots mattered, and c.) thought that women were being treated unfairly.  I also learned that Thatcher was a stubborn ass who treated people who didn't agree with her unkindly, and she more or less abandoned her family for a life in public office (I can't decide whether this was an intended lesson or not).  I was also led to believe that Thatcher was an incredible Prime Minister who overcame a lot of contention to bring her country back to greatness.  She might have been controversial too... but the film blames her stubborn nature- and to a degree- back-stabbing former supporters for her fall from grace.  Actually, we don't get to see much in the way of Thatcher's policies or ideologies... other than I'm right, you're wrong.  She hated labor-unions, thought even the poor should pay their fair share, and seemed to revel- or at the very least encourage- police to stomp the skulls of young protesters.  Oh, and often, where ever she went, said young protesters liked to smack her car's windows.  She was also plagued by the IRA.

What does all this amount to?  Veneer.  Facade.  The surface.  We don't get Abi Morgan or Phyllida Lloyd's stab at why or why it mattered (the infamous so what? question).  Everything just happens in the movie.  One event after the other.  Each designed, it would seem, to show off Streep's tremendous acting chops (nice to see, but still...).  One moment, Young Thatcher is vying for a seat in Parliament and losing, the next, she's won, the next, she decides to run for party leader, the next, the IRA is terrorizing her administration.  Anything deeper than just the "facts" and you're going to have to drawn your own conclusions.  But Kiernan- you pompous hack- aren't you always saying that you want to be shown what matters, not told when it comes to movies?  Indeed I am.  But- at least in my mind- Morgan, Lloyd, and company didn't really even try to show us anything deeper.  They just sort of slyly mentioned a few moments- almost as though they realized, "Hey, if we don't at least put this in to some degree, people are going to hammer us.  So why don't we have a news reporter casually mention that she harbored a few controversial opnions, etc."  And there you have it.  Bases covered.  Only... come on, folks!  Try to get into Thatcher's head.. a little bit.  At least Eastwood tried with Hoover.  This is all shiny surface.  Give me a break.

Beyond all that, I also need to mention that this was one of the most depressing movies I had seen in a while.  The story unfolds by having a present-day Thatcher, struggling with dementia, barely a shell of who she once was, recall all the details of her life in flashback as various modern-day reminders pop into her life.  As a story-telling device, it works pretty well, even if it is depressing watching a diminished person struggling to deal with their diminished-ness and straining to retain a sense of their relevancy.  I'm not going to deduct points because it's depressing.  That actually would sort of drive home the point that we should appreciate who and what we have while we're still fit to appreciate it.  No day should be taken for granted.  That said, it does bring up an interesting- and in this case, I believe- unintended consequence of such a set up.  If it's modern-day and dementia ridden Thatcher driving the story- how much are we to believe her account of what happened.  This is actually an issue that Eastwood (in perhaps his best move of that movie) brings front and center in J. Edgar.  In that instance, it was actually megalomaniac Hoover dictating his memoirs.  Hoover was in complete control of what he was saying- he was willfully distorting the past to make himself look greater... and he's eventually called on it.  Here, Thatcher is remembering things.  But how trustworthy is her memory.  Again, I don't think the film wants us to start thinking these things... and to that point... I believe I've read ("Do some research, you hack!"- you all seemed to say) that folks suffering from dementia have a much better grasp on their pasts than on their here and nows.  So perhaps Lloyd and company figure it was worth glossing over.  But to me, it makes for an interesting dynamic.  One that I probably would have missed, if the movie was- you know- more interesting in and of itself.  But... there you have it. (My favorite Ebert-written review ending... I know, I know.. I'm a hack).

Grade: C+  (the plus is for Streep hitting a home run).

Notes and Opinions 2012: 1.) Top 10

The Top 10 of 2011
All right, kiddies, it's that time of year again... time for Kiernan's Top (and bottom) 10 of 2011! And the crowd. goes. wild.  As with last year, this list reflects movies I saw in 2011 in the theater, not necessarily movies released in 2011.  And, for good measure, I'll also list my top movie seen out of the theater... and the flip side, the worst.  So, without further ado, here are my top and bottom ten (in descending order) of 2011.

Top 10

Honorable Mention:  Cedar Rapids
- Just got cut off the list, but I did enjoy the hell out of it.

10.) Hugo
- I don't give a rat's ass that it was a kids' movie.  It was beautifully shot, entertaining, and told a great story.  Good enough for 10 no matter what genre it was.

9.) My Week With Marilyn
- Utterly charming.  And with a world-class performance from Michelle Williams to boot.

8.) Super 8
- Just got swept up in it.  I might end up a JJ Abrams fan yet.

7.) The Ides of March
- Gripping, absolutely gripping.  Plus it featured an acting clinic given by Drs. Clooney, Gosling, and Hoffman.

6.) The Fighter
- Yeah, maybe we've seen this type of story before, but have we seen it done this well before?  Let me answer that rhetorical question with another: have other versions of this type of story had Christian Bale in peak form?  No, no they have not.

5.) 50/50
- Not just funny.  Touching, earnest, full of heart.  Another worthy showcase for Joseph Gordon Levitt's talent.

4.) The King's Speech
- I know there's a natural backlash because it's a typical Oscar bait movie that, indeed, won the Oscar for Best Picture.  But let's not get carried away overlooking this gem.

3.) Blue Valentine
- It was absolutely criminal that this didn't snag a Best Picture nomination.  Not only should it have been nominated (in my mind), it also should have won.  Easily.  Few movies stick with me more than this one did.

2.) The Descendants
- It hit all the right notes.  Shailene Woodley was fantastic.  And Clooney was again at the top of his game.  This was a movie that showed you more than it told you- to great effect.

1.) Drive
- Holy. Shit.  What a movie.  One of the freshest I can remember seeing in a long time.  Gosling was haunting and mesmerizing.  Albert Brooks and Bryan Cranston were fantastic.  The movie grabbed me...and still hasn't let go.

So, there you have it.  The cream of the crop according to me.  For what that's worth...

Ah, but where there are transcendent films, there are shitfests designed- it would seem- to make the great look greater.  Here are my bottom 10.

The Bottom 10

10.) The Hangover, Part II
- It was clever the first time.  Not so much on the second go around.

9.) In Time
-Hokey.  Forced.  Bad.

8.) Green Lantern
- Movies like the Dark Knight and Watchmen made it unacceptable to just through some superhuman dude on screen with a shit-ton of CGI.  Green Lantern just further proves that point.

7.) Immortals
- It's almost as though the whole movie was cobbled together from stock sword and sandal footage.

6.) Bad Teacher
- Yeah... bad movie too.  Shallow and crass.  Why have you forsaken me, Jason Segel?

5.) Abduction
- In case you were wondering what would happen if John Singleton turned directing duties over to a pack of 10-14 year olds.

4.) Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- Yeah, I'm as surprised as anyone that this isn't the worst movie I saw in 2011.  It wasn't for a lack of effort on its part though.

3.) Jack and Jill
- Whoa.  The surprises just keep chugging along.  Sandler barely missed the dreaded twofer on my shit-list.  Just Go With It was the 11th worst movie I saw in 2011.  (Justin Timberlake wasn't so lucky... but on the flip side, Ryan Gosling was featured in three of my top 10 movies, George Clooney and Michelle Williams in two each.  Which proves, when you got it, you got it... and when you don't... you're either Justin Timberlake or Adam Sandler.  Hey, at least Timberlake had a memorable turn in The Social Network.  What do you have, Sandler?  Other than a career arc that is plummeting faster than anyone else's... this side of De Niro... zing.)

2.) Larry Crowne
- For the better part of the year, I was certain this would end as the worst movie I saw last year.  Dead certain.  Instead, it will have to settle for the number 2 spot...along with being an irreparable stain on Tom Hanks' and Julia Roberts' otherwise solid careers.

1.) New Year's Eve
- As you can tell, I've seen quite a few horrid movies over the course of last year.  But only one movie killed my desire to write this blog for over a month.  I'm just lucky it didn't entirely kill my will to see movies.  It tried, though, oh how it tried.  On a related note, I think it's about time for Garry Marshall to hang 'em up.  (Please don't dig up skeletons in my closet so I'll have to write a good review for your next feature... what is it... Memorial Day?...Mr. Marshall... I only call 'em as I see 'em)

So, while I never like to tell folks what to see and what not to see (unless asked) I would-perhaps- recommend holding off on these 10 until... I dunno... some manner of an apocalyptic event has wiped out nearly all the other movies on the planet.  That is... unless you like being disappointed, disgusted, or just generally pissed off.  In that case, these are right up your alley... you miserable ass.

Here's an unwanted bonus for you, the best and worst movies I saw out of the theater last year.

The Best 
Winter's Bone
- A star is born in Jennifer Lawrence

Honorable Mention: Shaun of the Dead
- It, too, received an A+ grade. Just a hair below Winter's Bone on my list.  And yes, it is kind of sad...and a bit shocking... that I hadn't seen it until last year.  Shame on me.

The Worst
Your Highness
- Not only was this movie downright awful, it also cost an exorbitant amount of money to see it.  My family and I rented it in a hotel room after mistakenly thinking it was part of the bargain order offerings.  It wasn't.  So not only did it kill a chunk of my soul, it cost (my mom) something like $7.  The gift that kept on taking.  Hard to remember a more costly mistake last year.

So, that'll do it.  If anyone would like to share their best and worst of 2011, I'd love to see it.  Otherwise, as always (ok... I never actually have said it before...but I've thought it...often), thanks for reading.


One More Thing

In case you were curious, here's how my grades broke down for last year (includes movies seen both in and out of the theater)

A+: 9
A: 7
A-: 8

B+: 11
B: 6
B-: 2

C+: 0
C: 4
C-: 4

D+: 1
D: 5
D-: 1

F+: 2
F: 3
F-: 0

Not sure that it means anything (other than maybe demonstrating that I'm not that critical), but there you have it.

Movie List 2012: 5.) Searching For Sugar Man

Searching for Sugar Man

Sadly, this is my final Sundance screening write-up.  It was fun while it lasted...

What's it About: Searching for Sugar Man was the World Cinema Documentary category's audience award winner here at the festival.  Tonight's screening was actually a "Best of the Fest" screening for Utah residents.  Fun... for free.  The documentary follows two South Africans as they search to uncover the story behind Rodriguez, the Mexican-American singer (from Detroit) who became one of the most popular musicians among South Africans.

What About it:  I hate doing this, but... umm... SPOILER ALERT.  I hate giving away too much of the plot or background of a movie.  But it'd be almost impossible for me to write about it without giving away massive amounts of the story... and what a story it is.  Here's the deal about Rodriguez (that'd be his stage name... and surname.  His full name is Sixto Rodriguez):  He was a Detroit musician (a kind of neo-Bob Dylan Mexican-American folk singer) who released two albums in the early 1970s that would have flopped if only they would have been a bit more successful (what I'm trying to say is that they were beyond flops...).  He was cut from his label before he finished making his third album.  In America, he was a non-entity.  In Apartheid South Africa, however, his music was beyond popular.  The circumstances of how his music found its way to South Africa was a bit murky, but supposedly it was attributed to an American girl who brought the music to her South African boyfriend and from there it took off and eventually became something of a soundtrack to the white anti-Apartheid movement.  South Africans couldn't get enough of his music... the only problem: by all accounts, Rodriguez- despondent over his inability to make it in the music business- killed himself on stage during one performance.  His legacy was the voice of a movement.. and yet he never had a clue of his impact.

And South Africans never had a clue that Americans largely didn't know who he was.  By chance, one South African (forgive me, I didn't catch his name) ran into an American who was looking to get her hands on a Rodriguez record, complaining about how she couldn't find one anywhere in the States.  The South African was stunned.  How was it that an American had to travel to South Africa in order to purchase a record by an artists who was- in his mind and the minds of many of his countrymen- bigger than Elvis?  This inspired him to investigate just who this enigmatic folk singer was and what were the details behind his untimely demise.  He was later joined by another South African- a journalist- and worked diligently to get to the bottom of the Rodriguez mystery.

And... what did they find?  Rodriguez was very much alive and working- as he pretty much always had- as a manual laborer in Detroit.  (He more or less only moonlighted as a musician... the cost of not making it big).    From there, they tracked Rodriguez down, learned his story, and brought him to South Africa to perform in a series of sold out concerts.

Taken from the vantage of the South Africans (and director Malik Bendjelloul talked to a number of them beyond the two principal investigators) it was an incredible story.  This larger-than-life mysterious persona who had meant so much to so many and was assumed dead was still alive.  It would be as though someone tracked down a very much alive John Lennon... only if John Lennon was completely disregarded in the UK and was working in a pig rendering plant.  (To this point, Bendjelloul interviewed a number of Rodriguez's manual laborer co-workers and many of them didn't even know he had put out two albums and was essentially a folk hero to a number of South Africans.)  And despite an inherent lack of resonance, the story portrayed in the documentary was absolutely incredible.

It's just a shame that the movie itself was less impressive...

And by that, I don't mean it wasn't entertaining. It was.  It's just that Bendjelloul and company's exuberance didn't match their skills as filmmakers.  The pacing of the doc was off.  It seemed to take forever for them to provide the basic background and set-up for the story.  Then, in turn, the investigation and discovery stories seemed incredibly rushed... to the point where these elements actually felt a bit slight.  Beyond that, Bendjelloul had a frustrating tendency to raise intriguing questions only to let them linger and eventually remain unanswered.  Among them:  what exactly happened to all the money Rodriguez should have made selling approximately 500,000 albums in South Africa?  And why was it reported that Rodriguez had killed himself on stage?  How did this story get started?  And what did Rodriguez himself actually think of it?  These were all either raised directly or hinted at but never did Bendjelloul seem to even attempt to come to an outright answer.  Instead,he focused on the basics of the incredible story- the long lost folk hero had come back to life!  (He also spent a great deal of time providing a profile of exactly who Rodriguez is-no problem there... turns out Rodriguez is a really interesting cat).  I feel like they missed an opportunity to delve deeper into the story, to provide a more complete picture.  Instead, we were left with an admittedly cool story, a rushed narrative, and an introduction to a really interesting character.  Pretty cool... but a bit... I don't know shallow?  No..not entirely... maybe.... incomplete.  Yes.  Incomplete.  There were definitely some details- intriguing details- that seemed to be missing.

The Bottom Line:  Again, even if it technically was a bit sloppy, Searching for Sugar Man did unveil a really, really awesome story.  It also included some genuinely chill-inducing moments, like when Rodriguez walks out on stage during his first visit to South Africa in 1998.  Hmm.  1998.  The search and discovery actually took place nearly 15 years ago.  Kind of begs the question of why the story is just being told now...and unfortunately that is just one of many that is  left unanswered by the end of the film.  Was it a nice film? Yes, sure.  And it's easy to see why audiences fell for it.  It wasn't just feel-good, it was feel-great.    An interesting documentary? Easily.  But was it a great movie on the whole?  No.  Good maybe. But not great... not that there's anything wrong with that...

Grade: B


One More Thing:  Searching for Sugar Man was preceded by a short film whose sole purpose was to thank the small army of volunteers who made Sundance possible.  I don't really have much to say about it... other than that it was- on the whole- a better production than Song of the Spindle.  And more meaningful.  Yep.  Just thought I'd share...

Movie List 2012: 4.) Chasing Ice

Chasing Ice

Sundance film number four.

This was actually a bit of a pleasant surprise.  Courtney and I ended up exchanging our tickets for a movie we weren't really all that excited to see for a roll of the dice, netting TBA tickets for Sunday night at 6PM.  The idea is that they slot award winners into various times and venues throughout the day on Sunday.  You buy your ticket for a venue and a time and hope you get something you're interested in seeing.  Courtney and I were hoping to hit a home run by snagging tickets to a movie we badly wanted to see but couldn't score tickets to.  Well, that dice roll backfired- to a degree- when we discovered on Saturday night that we were holding tickets to Chasing Ice.  On the downside, it wasn't one we were hoping to see... actually we had pretty much ignored documentaries in general when sifting through the list of movie offerings.  On the upside, Chasing Ice did win the Outstanding Cinematography award for U.S. documentaries.  We were pretty much guaranteed a gorgeous looking film.  But I have to admit, I was a bit surprised by how great a film it actually was.

Roll Call: Photographer James Balog.  Jeff Orlowski, director.

What's It About: In short: climate change.  In a slightly longer and better way of putting it: how climate change effects glaciers and what that change means.  Nature photographer James Balog embarked on a five-year (and counting) project to photograph climate change via its effect on glaciers around the world.  Balog was interesting in providing images to accompany the projections, stats, and figures that dominate the current climate change discussion.  He succeeded to both a gorgeous and terrifying effect.

What About It:  Let me start off by saying that it definitely lived up to its award.  Holy shit did it look incredible.  At times, it was hard to believe the images on screen were merely scenes captured in nature.  I had never seen anything like it.  Glacial landscapes in and of themselves are absolutely compelling, but as seen through the incredible photography of Balog and the camera work of Orlowski it took on another incredible dimension.  Like I said, I've never seen anything like it, and it'd be hard to top that level of beauty and majesty... particularly when you're talking about ice.

This, however, isn't merely an art display.  Balog and company are documenting the change for a reason.  Balog- through his Exteme Ice Survey project- was hoping to show the tangible effect of climate change.  Balog set roughly 25 cameras up at different glaciers in Alaska, Montana, Greenland, and Iceland.  After a few initial stumbles, Balog and company perfected the technology- which had to withstand some of the most extreme weather conditions in the world- to the point where they were able to document every day in the life of these glaciers for three to four solid years.  Through the use of time lapse photography, Orlowski unveils the gorgeous and chilling fruits of Balog's considerable labor.  Anyone who wants to deny that climate change is a real problem will have a tough time explaining why these glaciers are retreating in three to four years at a rate that eclipses their total erosion from the past 100 years.  To watch these mammoth forms recede so quickly and simply right in front of my eyes was incredible (even, again, if it looked spectacular)- and eye-opening.  Balog doesn't hammer home the implications of these massive glaciers melting away in to the sea- opting only to mention that unless meaningful change happens, the resulting rise in sea-levels worldwide will end up displacing roughly 130 million people in his daughters' lifetimes.  It's hard to argue with these notions when you can actually see the incredible amount of water rushing off the melting glaciers into the sea and you can see the huge chunks off ice breaking off to melt away in the distant oceans.  The proof is in the photographic/videographic pudding.

Beyond displaying the insights of this extremely ambitious project, Orlowski also wisely casts an eye on Balog himself.  The photographer proves to be an interesting subject in and of himself.  He provides insights on how and why he takes his photos and openly allows a glimpse of what it would take to be a photographer of his caliber snapping the types of photos he captures.  (To give an idea: very, very few people are cut out for this kind of work).  Balog actually comes to the project from an interesting place as well.  He didn't initially see himself as an advocate for climate action; he viewed himself more as an interested nature photographer, a passive observer.  He simply was curious to see what was happening with these glaciers.  Was climate change a real concern?  He was hoping to capture some manner of evidence that something was or wasn't happening with the ice- though he had some idea that the rise in temperatures was having an effect on the glacial landscapes, he was genuinely surprised by the dramatic extent of this change.  Even after years of working on the EIS project, Balog admits that the devastation that is happening to the glaciers is incredible from a photographer's stand point, but horrifying from the average human vantage.  While the results of his work may leave some room for debating the cause of the climate change, his documentations provides no opportunity to question whether the climate is having a detrimental effect on the world.  He lays it all out there.  And, again, it's scary.

I suppose some folks could argue that the beauty and scale of Balog's photographs and Orlowski's video footage actually have a negative effect on the finished documentary.  After all, documentaries are meant to make a point and the overpowering and truly magnificent images could- I suppose- serve to overwhelm and, indeed, swallow the point the movie is trying to make.  This is, of course, a ridiculous claim.  Having experts with the eye for finding the right image can only enhance the arguments they are making.  Climate change and its effect is dramatic business and Balog and Orlowski capture both the beauty and the grimness of this drama perfectly.  Why should such documentation be clinical or simple?  The imagery captures your attention; you want to know what is behind it the change, you want to understand why its happening.  The images just keep steadily guiding the narrative.

Bottom Line:  It was a fantastic movie, plain and simple.  Balog and Orlowski's work is nothing short of breathtaking and they manage to move beyond the petty arguments and semantics that bog down climate debate and show tangible effects.  In some ways, I'd argue that this is the perfect companion to An Inconvenient Truth.  Where Al Gore argued with projections, statistics, and computer models- in an illuminating and informative way-, Balog and Orlowski trade in emotion and imagery.  Taken together, the two films should serve as all the rallying cry we need to begin to earnestly tackle this issue.  Unfortunately, I worry that the only way people are going to be moved by the movie is to move to the exit afterward while talking about how scary everything they just saw is.  Viewing, after all, is a passive event, doing something about it requires action, and action requires some deep-seeded inspiration.  I do have to mention that both Orlowski and Balog were available for Q&A following the screening.  The question of what types of things can average people do was brought up.  Orlowski proved to be incredibly eloquent in his reply.  He didn't urge everyone to buy less bottled water or invest in a hybrid car.  He simply suggested the following three ways you could help: let your Congress people know that this is an issue that concerns you, spread the word about what you saw and try to convert one skeptic, and, of course, give a donation to their cause so they can continue to prove the type of evidence seen in the movie and work on convincing the powers that be to commit to impactful discussions.  Simple and potentially effective.  It's a start.  So, I guess I'll do my part and urge you all to give the film a chance.  Come for the excellent and beautiful imagery, stay for the opportunity to learn.  It's a winning proposition.  Just like the film.

Grade: A


One More Thing:  Chasing Ice was preceded by a short film entitled Song of the Spindle.  Allow me to give you a thumbnail sketch of the film.  A roughly sketched dude and whale have a conversation about their similarities and differences.  You learn all about whales and a few things about the human species as well.  The end result is that the whale suggests that the human world would be a better place if humans sang more.  Yep.  It was cute... and absolutely- in my mind- dumb, heavy-handed, unrealistic (the observations made therein, that is... obviously I'm not going to be questioning the realism of animated humans and whales conversing), and kind of a waste of time.  But... again.. it was kind of cute.

Movie List 2012: 3.) Predisposed

Predisposed

Sundance viewing number three...

Roll Call: Jesse Eisenberg, Melissa Leo, Tracy Morgan, Isiah Whitlock, Sarah Ramos, Emma Ryane Lyle.  Ron Nyswaner, writer.  Phil Dorling and Ron Nyswaner, directors.

What's It About:  Building on the short film of the same title, Predisposed is essentially a bizarro road movie that follows the exploits of a dysfunctional mother-son combo.  The mother, Penny (an intense Melissa Leo), is a drug-addicted train wreck, her son Eli (Jesse Eisenberg... doing the typical geeky anxiety thing that has worked so well for him... either you like him- like I do- or you don't- like a bunch of people, I suppose) is a budding piano prodigy who has a host of issues himself, including an upcoming audition for an elite music school.  Another of Eli's issues?  He can't very well go away to the music school and leave his mother to take care of his young sister (Emma Rayne Lyle).  The answer?  Rehab.  Eli needs his mother to go to rehab.  The only problem there is that she doesn't qualify at the moment, having temporarily kicked drugs in order to "prep" for her upcoming stay.  Unless she gets high and produces some tainted urine, she's not getting in, and Eli- in turn- isn't going to be able to go to the elite music school, regardless of how his audition turns out.  Eli must get his mother high.  Their quest for drugs eventually involves Penny's typical dealers (Tracy Morgan and Isiah Whitlock) and a Mexican supplier.  As one can imagine- particularly with a cast that includes Tracy Morgan, zany hijinks ensue.

What About it:  As you can probably tell based on the plot description, this is a pretty over-the-top premise.  A son trying to get his mother high in order to get her to rehab?  Sounds like it shouldn't work.  But it does- to a degree- if you're willing to just go with it.  All in all, Predisposed is the fun, popcorn flick that the director Phil Dorling introduced it as prior to my Sundance screening.  Nothing really wrong with that.  In fact, that basic plot is the least of the movie's worrisome aspects.  I think the film's biggest problem is that Dorling and Nyswaner tried very hard to shoehorn a rather gratuitous- and occasionally distracting- love story subplot into the movie.  Eli has the hots for Chloe (Sarah Ramos), a girl he met in the eighth grade.  Of course being the geeky, self destructive type he is, Eli has never been able to admit to Chloe how he really feels about her.  Soooo how exactly is this relevant to Eli's struggle to break free of the burdensome life-anchor that is his druggie mom?  I'm still trying to figure that out.  In fact, given its hasty development and tendency just to pop up every now and again, I'm still trying to figure out how it was relevant to any part of the movie.  Chloe- for the most part- occasionally pops into the story (during the final third of the movie as a Revolutionary War reenactor... a move that was supposedly meant to pay homage to the big annual reenactment that takes place in the directors' home town of Kingston, NY, but comes off more as comedic relief... and... rather awkward) so that she and Eli can engage in awkward exchanges that usually involve Eli insulting her (or coming damn close) and her just shrugging it off.  In fact their chemistry is more akin to a recently broken up couple than two long-time lovers who've never found the way to letting each other know of their shared feelings.  It was all just so oddly out of place with the rest of the story.  Was it meant to illuminate Eli's multitude of problems (he's quick tempered, has a drinking problem, lacks confidence, and- I guess- has trouble communicating)?  I don't know, but they could have done away with the angle and I don't the film would have suffered (nor would anyone have really minded, I'd bet).

Beyond that, the movie is full of noise.  There are very few quiet scenes.  Much of the movie's dialog takes place chaotic screeched, multi-layered arguments.  Several scenes feature as many as four and sometimes five people talking over each other at once.  I know- as per the filmmakers' explanation in the Q &A- that it was drawn up that way to signify the incredible dysfunction happening during the course of this one chaotic day for this band of misfits.  I can appreciate that.  But when you have to sit through nearly two hours of this noise, it goes beyond setting the environment to physical discomfort.  I can't tell you the number of times I just wanted to get up and scream, "Shut the hell up... ALL OF YOU!" at the screen.  Eventually Eli does get everyone to quiet down, but by then, the damage is done.

I don't mean to suggest that this was an awful movie by any stretch.  As I mentioned before, it was fun.  I like Eisenberg.  I know he usually plays the same character in every movie (right down to the physical mannerisms), but he's so good at it, it rarely bothers me.  That said, the saving grace of the movie was- by far- the tag team duo of Tracy Morgan (as Penny's drug dealer Sprinkles) and Isiah Whitlock (as his brother Black).  Sprinkles and Black are two all-bark, little bite small-time hoods whose sole weapon was their deadly wit.  I know.  I'm surprised as anyone that I'm heaping praise on Tracy Morgan.  The same Tracy Morgan whose typical schtick usually gets old for me in the first three minutes.  Here, though, he downplays the whole idiotic man-child routine in favor of being more of a routine smartass.  And it works.  To great effect.  His interplay with Isiah Whitlock (in full "I'm a bad mutha" form) was downright hilarious at times.  Their running commentary on everything from Eli's lifestyle, to Penny's mothering skills, to Eli's piano skills, to reenactors is the singular best part of the movie.  It got to the point that it seemed as though the movie suffered by not having them in it from start to finish.  Again, I'm shocked to be admitting this.

Other than that, the movie really doesn't have a whole lot going for it...other... I suppose... than Melissa Leo's performance.  Leo- as would seem to be typical- gives a hell of a performance as a drug addled wreck (who is wrecked far more below the surface than above).  Her character is, of course, reprehensible- which is by design.  Leo, however, inhabits the role so well- and naturally- that it kind of makes you wonder about her... I mean, you know... or you're fairly confident she's not a drug-addled wreck in her spare time... but... well, she was damn convincing.  Too convincing?  No, it's not her fault that her character has few redeeming qualities.  Let's just put it this way, casting Leo was nothing short of a homerun for Dorling and Nyswaner.

Bottom Line:  I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy Predisposed.  I think whether others will like it as much hinges- to a large degree- on whether they can tolerate Jesse being Jesse and Tracy Morgan stealing scenes.  I think, for me, a bigger problem is that I expected to love the hell out of the movie.  Jesse Eisenberg, Melissa Leo, and a just-quirky-enough plot seemed to add up to a potentially awesome movie... to me.  In the end, though (and unfortunately) Predisposed amounted to little more than overwhelming din punctuated by some genuinely funny moments... and some real heart as well.  Entertaining?  Yeah, for the most part.  But it could... and probably should... have been better.

Grade: B

Movie List 2012: 2.) Shut Up And Play The Hits

Shut Up And Play The Hits

I'm already giving up on the new format.  For now anyway.  Just wasn't feeling it.

Ok so, here we have my second Sundance film, Shut Up And Play The Hits, the documentary covering LCD Soundsystem's last performance.  They key point here is that it was a documentary first, concert film second... though.. that said, it was a blend of both.  Typically, these types of films are right up my alley.  I love music.  I love live performances.  I love getting the behind-the-scenes stories straight from the mouths of the horses who lived them. I absolutely devour films like Rattle and Hum (U2's journey to the heart of America) and Last Play at Shea (Billy Joel closes Shea Stadium with a big ol' bang).  This one, however, was different.  I'm a huge U2 fan, and have grown to like Billy Joel quite a bit.  But here?  LCD Soundsystem?  I have to admit, I don't believe that prior to seeing the film, I had heard any of their songs.  I knew nothing of their culture or back story.  Simply put, I'm not an LCD Soundsystem fan.  Doesn't mean I disliked them, I just never ran across their music.  In a way though, I thought this might be to my advantage.  Rattle and Hum was a no-lose situation for me.  I was going to love it.  My unfamiliarity with this band, though, should allow me a more objective view of the film as a whole then, right?  Well, maybe.  But it still probably would have been a bit easier to follow if I had had some idea of what I was in for.

But then, I'm not so sure that even fans knew what to expect here.  From what I was to glean during our hour-long wait in line, this farewell concert at Madison Square Garden was the definition of EPIC.  It lasted something like four hours and was supposedly one hell of a party.  Fans looking solely to bask in that epic glow, though, will come away disappointed.  As far as the documentary angle goes with  the movie, it's more of a portrait of lead singer (and evident guiding force for the band), James Murphy.  The film bounces around from the end of the concert, to the day after the concert (the first day of Murphy's "retirement") to the week before the concert (where he's interviewed by pop culture maven, Chuck Klosterman... I suppose as a way of teasing out some of the more choice sound bites then incorporated into the film), and, of course, the concert itself.  I believe the point of the movie is to explore why Murphy decided it was time for LCDSS to call it quits- particularly at a time when it was evident that they were on the top of their game- and what it meant to him that he did break up the band... and end the party.  I can't say that Klosterman (or the directors Will Lovelace and Dylan Southern) ever get to a definitive answer to any of these questions... and perhaps that is the definitive answer in and of itself.  Maybe Murphy just doesn't know why now was the time to stop... but it just felt right... and yet... sad.  To be clear, Murphy does attempt to give something approaching concrete answers.. among them- rather curiously- that he doesn't want to become too famous... odd considering- as my lovely girlfriend Courtney pointed out- that he allowed this film to be made.  Without the doc, I'm not so sure that I would have recognized Murphy walking his French bulldog in Manhattan.  With the amount of face time he racks up here, I'm pretty sure I could pick him out of a crowd.  The problem is that there seems to be something bubbling just below the surface that is guiding his decision just as much as any of the reasons he flatly gives.  And while Murphy starts down the road to delivering these insights, he never quite gets there.  So, I suppose it's up to the viewer to parse through his statements, take in his emotional farewell concert, and make up his or her own mind as to what it is that made Murphy kill the party that in many ways was just getting started.  Frustrating to a degree, I suppose... interesting as well.  (My thought?  To put it simply -and perhaps overly so- I think he had a fear of becoming irrelevant... of overstaying his shelf-life.  He seemed very, very in touch with the idea that- as sad as it is- all good things must come to end... and he hoped to bring it to an end while it was still good.  Seems to simple, and there are probably elements of all his other suggestions at play here as well, but I think this idea of getting out while the going is good may have been at the core...maybe).

None of all that answers whether the film- in and of itself- was any good.  I will say this...even given my neophyte status in terms of being an LCD Soundsystem fan... and really now I guess that ship's sailed... I did find it interesting and engaging.  But maybe not for the reasons I had initially thought it would be worth seeing. I was expecting tremendous concert footage with interspersed with shots designed to give insight into who these guys were and why it all ended.  The thing was, the concert footage- while pretty cool- just didn't have the engrossing pull I thought it would.  The one thing I knew about LCD Soundsystem is that they were one of the best party bands around.  Whenever they played, a huge party broke out.  And so it was here.  Or rather there.  On screen.  It just didn't resonate as well with the audience.  I saw Last Play at Shea on Showtime.  In my living room.  All by myself.  And I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't pulled to the edge of my seat, heart racing, and completely engaged with Billy Joel's concert- you know, when they played the concert footage.  Here, I was- in all likelihood- in a theater that was packed with LCDSS fans (though, I'm sure there were some curious festival-goers just there to see a Sundance movie) and rather than feeling like I was at the party, it felt more like it was.  I was in amongst a throng of people simply viewing a party... it was as though the party, the concert was taking place in a snow globe.  A few people bopped about in their seats, but people mostly just sat there and watched the concert drift by.  It's kind of a shame.  It was evident from the delirious (and probably ecstasy-fueled) Madison Square Garden crowd, that this was, indeed, one hell of a party.  I'm not sure I can readily explain why the concert on the screen felt so insulated- there were a bunch of flashing lights... so much so that they had to give the "strobe light effect" warning before the show... and the music sounded awesome- and yet I just didn't feel as though I was a part of it all.  It was just odd somehow.

The film made up for the lack of engaging concert film (some of this lacking may have been due tosome of the camera angles used to shoot the band doing their thing on stage... and the decision to mute the ambient crowd noise to a point where it seemed as though they weren't even in the same room as the band) by providing some really interesting insights and a detailed look at who James Murphy is.  Lovelace and Southern may not be able to answer the one questions they feel they need to have answered, but that doesn't mean that they don't get a lot of cool footage trying.  Murphy just is an interesting guy- and the give and take between Klosterman and Murphy- while admittedly bordering on pretentious (by the guys themselves!)- was awesome to listen to.  (Though I have to say I can't imagine I'd be able to handle a Klosterman interview myself... it was oddly...intense... for two seemingly laid back dudes.)

I think the most intriguing thing about the film was the profound sadness that permeated everything.  Murphy was clearly sad that this part of his life was coming to a close... but... he was the one who decided to walk away.  I would have expected more relief to shine through.  But no, he was sad... which made everything bittersweet.  This was never more striking than during the concert footage.  There was Murphy, in one moment giving in to spurts of fun and happiness... and in another trying hard- a midst an aura of bittersweetness- to drink in the moment.  It was as though he knew this was the right decision- to walk away from it all- but he didn't expect it to go like it did.  Shit, he seemed to think, I didn't think it would hurt this much.  It was just interesting to watch that unfold.  (On the other hand, there were a few sequences that were blatantly staged as a way to hammer this sadness angle home.  These were frustrating and gratuitous moments in the film.)

In the end, I think the fact that the filmmakers chose not to pursue the insights of Murphy's band mates, might have been a mistake.  We can see how torn Murphy was.  I'd have loved to know how his fellow band members felt about him.. and his decision to break them up.  I think these perspectives could have added some more intrigue to the film.

At the end of the day, though, this was clearly Murphy's show.  It's evident that he was the center of the LCD Soundsystem universe.  His band revolved around him.  Fans loved the hell out of him.  Fellow musicians looked up to him.  He was the star of the show.  Whether he wanted it or not.  And you know what?  I'm generally ok with this.  So even while it might frustrate some people that the question at the heart of this exploration was never fully answered... or rather overtly answered, I do think that what does bubble to the surface makes for some really interesting viewing.

Grade: A