Limitless
So, today's selection was Limitless, a drug-thriller starring Bradley Cooper. No, not the type of drug thriller like... ummm... Traffic? Ok, maybe "drug thriller" isn't the best way of putting it. Thriller. Yeah. Thriller might due. Actionish thriller at that. With some twistyness to it too. On the whole, it was good enough fun. But, since it does rely on some reasonable twists, turns, and complications as part of it's fun, I'm not going to say much about the plot. The basic story is that a kind of lazy, creatively-challenged, bathing-optional writer manages to turn himself into a dynamo with the help of a chance (kind of flimsy in turns of premise) encounter and a little drug that allows you to use your entirety- including the other 80%- of your brain (the idea being that the old adage that we only use 20% of our brains is actually true...). Of course, Cooper's Eddie quickly becomes addicted... perhaps necessarily... and also quickly becomes a hell of a financial guru... and author... and so on and so forth. In short, the little drug turns him into the mental equivalent of Superman, but see, it is a drug... and an illegal one at that and this, of course brings complications. And so a kind of cool, sci-fi-y thriller ensues.
And I do mean only KIND of cool. The premise seems original enough. And there is plenty of action and some genuine thrills. But the problem is, the as the action revs up and the plot line becomes more complicated, holes starting bursting through the story line. By the end, I had a pretty good time, but also lots of questions. Some were on the level of: wait, what happened to so and so by the end? Others were of the "wait, how does that make any sense?" level. And still others were "that doesn't really make much sense at all, does it?" sorts of questions. None of these are great to have rolling around your head at the end of an action/thriller movie. And some take away from the movie more than others. Ok, perhaps an example... let's see, how not to give away too much.... oh, so yeah, there's a kind of throw-away line in the scene where Eddie gets the goods. The skivvy dealer who gets him that first sweet taste lets him know that it works better for smart people. I guess in a sense it's just really unlocking your ultimate potential. Well here's the deal: Eddie is a writer. A struggling writer. Yeah the film leads you to believe he's pretty smart, he talks a good game, but no where does it hint that he has an aptitude for numbers. Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't. But that's where he makes his mark, as a financial guru. Does this mean that Eddie is really just a pretty damn smart guy in general? Does it mean that we all have innate ability to comprehend numbers? Is there any real difference between Eddie and the other folks who take it? It's hard to say. Are they trying to make any broad generalizations about people and the way the mind works? Again hard to say, but not really a big deal in the least. Just a little unclear. In the end, there were enough of the truly bothersome types of questions to drop the movie down a few notches in my mind. Yeah, I was entertained for the most part, but I was also confused. Not cool.
In a sense, the questions, confusion, and plot holes are a bit of a shame. Like I said, the movie was genuinely entertaining, and a lot of that comes from the really great performances Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro (as corporate power player Carl Van Loon) deliver. Cooper seems a natural to play the role, particularly post-drug discovery. Eddie, after all, is not a mean spirited figure, just arrogant and smug enough to have an edge, but really a decent guy. He maybe a touch slimy, but not so much that you bathe after you cross paths with him. Eddie does have charm (both before and after the drug experience) and Cooper plays this off with ease. And I'm not so sure it's a compliment, but Cooper seems really well equipped to play such a simplistic character... heavy on charm (genuine charm) and good looks... a little light on depth. De Niro, too, seems to have stumbled on an ideal role. The character of a corporate powerhouse tough guy just seems to suit him. He chews his scenes up well- if in a typical De Niro way. The best scenes in the movie are when the gritty, tough, seen-it-all, done-more Van Loon goes toe to toe with the kind-of arrogant, kind-of sincere, kind-of out of his league except for his little pill friend Eddie. Eddie's in some manner of control.. and he knows it as does Van Loon, but they both know- for the most part- that things don't quite make sense in that arrangement. It's pretty cool to watch.
But beyond the enjoyable acting and action there are indeed plot holes, superfluous characters (or near-superfluous characters), and some general confusion. I also had the sense that the film ducks what would have been a weighty and entertaining question: what are the deeper implications of possessing god-like intelligence? What are some of the moral issues with becoming freakishly smart solely because of a pill? Is it right? Not just illegal, but truly right? We don't know. I suppose if they really started trying to answer those questions, the movie would take on a heaviness that would ultimately weigh it down and work against it. So perhaps it's better that they didn't really even try. But then again, if it were done right, exploring these questions might bring about a movie that leaves audiences thinking for all the right reasons... not out of a sense of genuine confusion. But as it is? Well, it could have been worse... yeah, could have been better, but it definitely could have been worse.
Grade: B
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Movie List 2011: 13.) Just Go With It
Just Go With It
Yeah, I saw it. Yeah, it was a typical Adam Sandler movie. Well, typical Adam Sandler of late movie that is. No, it wasn't very good. Wasn't his worst effort in recent years either, it just wasn't particularly good. It had what you would expect it to have: toilet humor, dick jokes, Adam Sandler's character being completely obsessed with a much hotter than he could hope to snag chick, Adam Sandler doing stupid voices, and of course a ludicrous, over-the-top, please-have-him-killed-off-mid-movie sidekick. Among other convential Sandler gags (I was surprised at the minimal amount of singing and Jewish jokes... or Jew-related jokes, rather). Here's the thing, though. It was also heavy on...ummm...heartfelt moments... which is also a Sandler staple of late. He's dialed down the potty humor and dialed up the date-friendly humor. A little something for everyone...or anyone...with half a working brain. But here's the other thing... even given his attempt (and yes, I do mean his. No, he didn't write the movie...or the play it's apparently based on...but his production company, Happy Madison did produce this gem... and he is credited as a producer) to- I don't know- grow up a bit, Sandler, here offers one of his dumbest movies to date. The whole thing is ridiculously unbelievable and so totally predictable. And yet, Sandler and company managed to squeeze out nearly two hours of story here. How? They just kept out-doing themselves in ridiculousness. In fact, one of the things that kept engaged was my curiosity at how absurd they were willing to go... and the answer? Pretty damn absurd. Which, of course, makes me absurd for seeing it, right? Maybe.
But by absurd, what do I mean? Well the whole thing is built on such a shaky premise... that ladies are attracted to damaged married, men. Wait, what? They are. And by ladies I mean women 30 and under. And by attracted I mean they want badly to shag. And by men, I mean men looking and acting like Adam Sandler. See what I mean? Sure, all the single chicas I know are just itching to be "the other woman". But it's ok, see, because Sandler's Danny- who is of course lying about marriage- is in a string of dumpster-fire relationships. His "wives" are abusive, strung-out on drugs or alcohol, cheating, or some engaging in some other horrid/satanic act. And Danny, well, he's noble for sticking by them... except he's also willing to shag you, and you, yes, you 30 (generous) and under female, that's your ticket! Huh. Isn't that something....stupid. Why, yes, it is. So to sum up: Hi, I'm a 20-something woman. Oh, you're married. And in such a horrid marriage that you need professional help or at the very least, you need to leave. And yet you're so nobly sticking by the bitch. Hmm, you know what? USE ME!!! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are women out there who do like one-night stands, and who do get excited by the thought of being the other woman... and there are women out there who find Sandler attractive... but a parade of twenty-somethings that fit all three criteria? Not so sure.
Ok,ok, yes, I'm being a bit hypocritical. And yeah, I usually don't like to get so preachy. It's a movie after all, just fun and games. And you HAVE to be willing to suspend your disbelieve in virtually any movie in order for it to be fun. I've always said that the movie just needs to be consistent and play by the rules it establishes as it's baseline in order for it to be believable. So, this is the baseline, and as Sandler is the emperor he can establish such a laughable baseline. (Never mind the fact that it was his being used by a callous, gold digger that set Danny's 20-charade off- the lesson he learned apparently was what's good for the goose is good for the gander... bitch). That doesn't mean that I have to think that the baseline isn't dumb. It's stupid. Again, maybe I'm getting too wound up here. It's just a movie.... I don't know. But, ok, we'll play by YOUR rules Sandler. What happens next?
Danny bumps into 23ish year old Palmer (Brooklyn Decker). And after what apparently is an evening of small talk, big sex, and umm, deep connections (we know this because Danny tells it to us...as he tells it to Palmer- yeah the chemistry between Sandler and Decker wasn't really there. Maybe it's because Sandler is trying to have relationship-quality chemistry with a woman young enough to be his daughter... or maybe it's because Decker is a model who can't act- she can't...yet anyway, maybe there's hope for her. Malin Ackerman was a model and I actually think she's done pretty well in the movies. But Decker? Right now? Not so much acting as reciting her lines.. I don't know, they form a connection. Over night. But here's the deal. Because of that connection- formed, incidentally, without Danny having to play the beat-up husband role- Danny has finally found a girl worthy of being something other than a receptacle for his lust. And...she's interested in BEING something other than a receptacle for his lust! Win-win. A match made in Hollywood. What a magical one-night stand. Only, Danny blows it by having his trusty wedding ring in his pants and Palmer finds it. Show over. She never really wanted to be a receptacle for his lust... I mean... if he was married anyway. She's not THAT kind of girl. Fair enough. So the ever resourceful Danny hits the fall back plan... he lies. Well... 24ish hours later he shows up at Palmer's place of employment and tries to explain away the ring. You see, he's getting a divorce because his wife is the devil. Ah, but Palmer wants proof. She needs to meet the devil. So Danny begs/bribes his assistant (Jennifer Aniston) into playing the role of she-devil, soon-to-be ex-wife. By the way, Danny is a plastic surgeon. A rich one. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Palmer would fall for Danny, not because he's rich... or because she would get a discount on plastic surgery (because, honestly, she doesn't need the work... unless, that is, Danny specializes in adding a dimension to folks' personality. She may be a candidate for that.). No, Palmer connected with Danny. He told us so. Anyway, shenanigans ensue when Katherine/"Devlin"- that'd be her phony married name- drops the bomb that she has kids- which the two lie about and claim they're hers with Danny. And the whole crew ends up going to Hawaii where... I suppose I should issue a warning here... spoiler alert.... Palmer ends up parading around in a bikini. A lot. And Danny and Katherine fall for each other. Something you could see coming from the first extended scene with the two in Danny's office.
Just a couple of problems here. First, the "connection" between Danny and Palmer. Danny seems only interested in Palmer for two reasons. To watch her strut her stuff in her barely there bikini (speaking of which kudos to said bikini for its game effort in narrowly holding on to keep this a pg-13 gig) and to have sex with her. That's the connection. We know this because every time she does anything that isn't one of those two things, Danny rolls his eyes, acts exasperated, and seems genuinely annoyed by her. So I guess she's different than every other girl, because he wants to shag her til death do them part. So yeah, about that connection. It's ridiculous.
The other major problem. Well, see, he likes Palmer enough that he doesn't want to reveal what a real shallow, skivvy asshole he is to her by telling the truth about his wedding ring. So instead he starts to build up and ever more complicated lie which would be harder to maintain expecting her never to find out...forever. He doesn't want to reveal what a pathological lier he is...so he lies. Ok, sure, that does actually make sense. What else would a lier do. The fact that he's able to pull it off for so long is ridiculous. And you know what else is ridiculous? Katherine knows all about all the lying. She knows all about the parade of really young women Danny has bagged. And yet, she still falls for him. One reason? He tells her that she's the only one he's never lied to... said the lier. How do you believe him? So, Danny has no problem being the complete ass he is (even if he is fun and charming) to the woman he falls for, but the one he was interested in for the sake of banging...she can't find out what a scoundrel he is. And even though she knows he's completely disgusting. Danny ends up being KATHERINE'S completely disgusting jerk. So its ok. She can fall in love with him. Sandler's not playing by rules here, he's playing Calvinball and making the rules, the baseline, up as he goes along. And in doing so he creates a ridiculously unbelievable and ultimately dumb movie.
Ok, yeah, no, I don't usually like to take things so seriously. It WAS just a movie. A dumb one. And it wasn't even THAT terrible. It had some redeeming factors. Not many. But Aniston is charming in it. Even if it is the role she seems destined to play for the rest of her career. The really sincere, giving, consolation prize of a woman... who's really the main prize. Never mind that she's stunning and -in this role- fun in her own right and completely worth winning. Whatever. HER chemistry with Sandler- particularly the flirting back and forth in the office was entertaining. And, I suppose, there were a few gags I chuckled at.... annnnnd... hmmm. well that's it. So redeeming factors or not, this movie kind of sucked. But if we're grading on a Sandler curve... this would be towards the tip of the list. Harmless, ultimately, I suppose, but really unbelievable...and dumb.
Oh, I should also apologize if I did, in fact, ruin the movie for anyone. I'm sorry. But let me put it this way... I might have ruined the movie, but I'm pretty sure I saved your night.
Grade: D+
Yeah, I saw it. Yeah, it was a typical Adam Sandler movie. Well, typical Adam Sandler of late movie that is. No, it wasn't very good. Wasn't his worst effort in recent years either, it just wasn't particularly good. It had what you would expect it to have: toilet humor, dick jokes, Adam Sandler's character being completely obsessed with a much hotter than he could hope to snag chick, Adam Sandler doing stupid voices, and of course a ludicrous, over-the-top, please-have-him-killed-off-mid-movie sidekick. Among other convential Sandler gags (I was surprised at the minimal amount of singing and Jewish jokes... or Jew-related jokes, rather). Here's the thing, though. It was also heavy on...ummm...heartfelt moments... which is also a Sandler staple of late. He's dialed down the potty humor and dialed up the date-friendly humor. A little something for everyone...or anyone...with half a working brain. But here's the other thing... even given his attempt (and yes, I do mean his. No, he didn't write the movie...or the play it's apparently based on...but his production company, Happy Madison did produce this gem... and he is credited as a producer) to- I don't know- grow up a bit, Sandler, here offers one of his dumbest movies to date. The whole thing is ridiculously unbelievable and so totally predictable. And yet, Sandler and company managed to squeeze out nearly two hours of story here. How? They just kept out-doing themselves in ridiculousness. In fact, one of the things that kept engaged was my curiosity at how absurd they were willing to go... and the answer? Pretty damn absurd. Which, of course, makes me absurd for seeing it, right? Maybe.
But by absurd, what do I mean? Well the whole thing is built on such a shaky premise... that ladies are attracted to damaged married, men. Wait, what? They are. And by ladies I mean women 30 and under. And by attracted I mean they want badly to shag. And by men, I mean men looking and acting like Adam Sandler. See what I mean? Sure, all the single chicas I know are just itching to be "the other woman". But it's ok, see, because Sandler's Danny- who is of course lying about marriage- is in a string of dumpster-fire relationships. His "wives" are abusive, strung-out on drugs or alcohol, cheating, or some engaging in some other horrid/satanic act. And Danny, well, he's noble for sticking by them... except he's also willing to shag you, and you, yes, you 30 (generous) and under female, that's your ticket! Huh. Isn't that something....stupid. Why, yes, it is. So to sum up: Hi, I'm a 20-something woman. Oh, you're married. And in such a horrid marriage that you need professional help or at the very least, you need to leave. And yet you're so nobly sticking by the bitch. Hmm, you know what? USE ME!!! Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are women out there who do like one-night stands, and who do get excited by the thought of being the other woman... and there are women out there who find Sandler attractive... but a parade of twenty-somethings that fit all three criteria? Not so sure.
Ok,ok, yes, I'm being a bit hypocritical. And yeah, I usually don't like to get so preachy. It's a movie after all, just fun and games. And you HAVE to be willing to suspend your disbelieve in virtually any movie in order for it to be fun. I've always said that the movie just needs to be consistent and play by the rules it establishes as it's baseline in order for it to be believable. So, this is the baseline, and as Sandler is the emperor he can establish such a laughable baseline. (Never mind the fact that it was his being used by a callous, gold digger that set Danny's 20-charade off- the lesson he learned apparently was what's good for the goose is good for the gander... bitch). That doesn't mean that I have to think that the baseline isn't dumb. It's stupid. Again, maybe I'm getting too wound up here. It's just a movie.... I don't know. But, ok, we'll play by YOUR rules Sandler. What happens next?
Danny bumps into 23ish year old Palmer (Brooklyn Decker). And after what apparently is an evening of small talk, big sex, and umm, deep connections (we know this because Danny tells it to us...as he tells it to Palmer- yeah the chemistry between Sandler and Decker wasn't really there. Maybe it's because Sandler is trying to have relationship-quality chemistry with a woman young enough to be his daughter... or maybe it's because Decker is a model who can't act- she can't...yet anyway, maybe there's hope for her. Malin Ackerman was a model and I actually think she's done pretty well in the movies. But Decker? Right now? Not so much acting as reciting her lines.. I don't know, they form a connection. Over night. But here's the deal. Because of that connection- formed, incidentally, without Danny having to play the beat-up husband role- Danny has finally found a girl worthy of being something other than a receptacle for his lust. And...she's interested in BEING something other than a receptacle for his lust! Win-win. A match made in Hollywood. What a magical one-night stand. Only, Danny blows it by having his trusty wedding ring in his pants and Palmer finds it. Show over. She never really wanted to be a receptacle for his lust... I mean... if he was married anyway. She's not THAT kind of girl. Fair enough. So the ever resourceful Danny hits the fall back plan... he lies. Well... 24ish hours later he shows up at Palmer's place of employment and tries to explain away the ring. You see, he's getting a divorce because his wife is the devil. Ah, but Palmer wants proof. She needs to meet the devil. So Danny begs/bribes his assistant (Jennifer Aniston) into playing the role of she-devil, soon-to-be ex-wife. By the way, Danny is a plastic surgeon. A rich one. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Palmer would fall for Danny, not because he's rich... or because she would get a discount on plastic surgery (because, honestly, she doesn't need the work... unless, that is, Danny specializes in adding a dimension to folks' personality. She may be a candidate for that.). No, Palmer connected with Danny. He told us so. Anyway, shenanigans ensue when Katherine/"Devlin"- that'd be her phony married name- drops the bomb that she has kids- which the two lie about and claim they're hers with Danny. And the whole crew ends up going to Hawaii where... I suppose I should issue a warning here... spoiler alert.... Palmer ends up parading around in a bikini. A lot. And Danny and Katherine fall for each other. Something you could see coming from the first extended scene with the two in Danny's office.
Just a couple of problems here. First, the "connection" between Danny and Palmer. Danny seems only interested in Palmer for two reasons. To watch her strut her stuff in her barely there bikini (speaking of which kudos to said bikini for its game effort in narrowly holding on to keep this a pg-13 gig) and to have sex with her. That's the connection. We know this because every time she does anything that isn't one of those two things, Danny rolls his eyes, acts exasperated, and seems genuinely annoyed by her. So I guess she's different than every other girl, because he wants to shag her til death do them part. So yeah, about that connection. It's ridiculous.
The other major problem. Well, see, he likes Palmer enough that he doesn't want to reveal what a real shallow, skivvy asshole he is to her by telling the truth about his wedding ring. So instead he starts to build up and ever more complicated lie which would be harder to maintain expecting her never to find out...forever. He doesn't want to reveal what a pathological lier he is...so he lies. Ok, sure, that does actually make sense. What else would a lier do. The fact that he's able to pull it off for so long is ridiculous. And you know what else is ridiculous? Katherine knows all about all the lying. She knows all about the parade of really young women Danny has bagged. And yet, she still falls for him. One reason? He tells her that she's the only one he's never lied to... said the lier. How do you believe him? So, Danny has no problem being the complete ass he is (even if he is fun and charming) to the woman he falls for, but the one he was interested in for the sake of banging...she can't find out what a scoundrel he is. And even though she knows he's completely disgusting. Danny ends up being KATHERINE'S completely disgusting jerk. So its ok. She can fall in love with him. Sandler's not playing by rules here, he's playing Calvinball and making the rules, the baseline, up as he goes along. And in doing so he creates a ridiculously unbelievable and ultimately dumb movie.
Ok, yeah, no, I don't usually like to take things so seriously. It WAS just a movie. A dumb one. And it wasn't even THAT terrible. It had some redeeming factors. Not many. But Aniston is charming in it. Even if it is the role she seems destined to play for the rest of her career. The really sincere, giving, consolation prize of a woman... who's really the main prize. Never mind that she's stunning and -in this role- fun in her own right and completely worth winning. Whatever. HER chemistry with Sandler- particularly the flirting back and forth in the office was entertaining. And, I suppose, there were a few gags I chuckled at.... annnnnd... hmmm. well that's it. So redeeming factors or not, this movie kind of sucked. But if we're grading on a Sandler curve... this would be towards the tip of the list. Harmless, ultimately, I suppose, but really unbelievable...and dumb.
Oh, I should also apologize if I did, in fact, ruin the movie for anyone. I'm sorry. But let me put it this way... I might have ruined the movie, but I'm pretty sure I saved your night.
Grade: D+
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Movie List 2011: 12.) Cedar Rapids
Cedar Rapids
Kind of tired right now, so I'll cut right to the chase. Really enjoyed this one. Which is nice because I had been looking forward to seeing it... though I suppose I was afraid that all the funny parts would have popped up in the previews. And a lot of them did, but still, a quality comedy nonetheless. I think the thing that I liked about it most was the tone. And the feel. It was just a fun movie- didn't take itself too seriously. It seemed like the filmmakers were aiming for a solid, good time and that's where it hit. For the most part anyway. There were times, particularly at the beginning where the characters- especially Ed Helms' Tim Lippe- started to veer way too close to outlandish caricature. Could anyone be as childishly ignorant of the world as Lippe? So idiotic... so clueless? At times, his character came off as grating. But then, just as quickly as the film started to lose me, it managed to draw me back in. How? Other than being fun, I think the secret to the movie's quality was that it mixed in just enough earnestness and believability in the main characters to keep it grounded. There was something... I dunno...sincere about Lippe as well. His goody-goody persona was never over-the-top but balanced just well enough with the annoying parts to make him a likable enough character. And as the movie went on, I found myself less and less bothered by him. And, as such, I was able to enjoy the movie more and more.
Another thing to like about Cedar Rapids was the strong supporting cast- and by that I mean both the characters and the actors portraying them. John C. Reilly was awesome. He nailed the "that guy"role- the guy who constantly and purposefully steps over the line, but really has a heart of gold. He's an idiot, but he's our idiot. I'm not sure Reilly has ever been better in a comedy. His timing was fantastic. The way he dove into the role... it was great. And he was matched step-for-step by Anne Heche as the firecracker insurance insurance agent attending the conference in Cedar Rapids primarily because she wants an escape from her life back home. Heche plays the role with an easy coolness and charm. You can't help but want to hang out with her character. Her character is effortlessly fun and Heche proves to be a real asset to the film. In addition to Heche and Reilly, Isiah Whitlock as not-quite-as-up-tight-but-damn-close fellow insurance agent Ronald and Alia Shawkat as small-town prostitute Bree both add an element of fun to the film. So as far as the casting and performances go...well done, folks.
In fact, there's not really a lot to complain about with the movie. I was thoroughly entertained and that, of course, is my main criteria for a decent movie. I actually did laugh out loud several times. Which was nice. That said, yeah, it wasn't a perfect movie. The story was- at times- ridiculous. But if you can hang with it through those times, and can get through some of Lippe's more annoying traits, a good time will be waiting. I definitely enjoyed it. But then again, I'm kind of a sucker for quirky, earnest-yet-outrageous comedies. So as far as that goes, this one was a winner.
Grade: A
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Movie List 2011: 11.) The Adjustment Bureau
The Adjustment Bureau
I had been looking forward to seeing this one for a long, long, long time. Don't know if any of you remember but it had been slated to come out last summer... then fall... then maybe winter, before finally finding a spot in March. Usually that means bad things for a movie. After all, summer, fall, winter? These are Academy Awards qualifying seasons. No one remembers movies from February or March. Of course, I'd like to think that the rules changed when Shutter Island was pushed to February. That movie kicked ass! But usually... I guess.. the rule is that movies released in February and March kind of suck.
So...Did The Adjustment Bureau suck? Well, no, actually it didn't. It was pretty darn good. Not quite on par with Shutter Island, but good nonetheless. Certainly COULD have played well in the Oscars seasons, but knowing the Academy (ok, I don't KNOW the Academy per se, but from what I understand about the Academy...) it wouldn't have stood a chance for any awards. But that's not really the movie's fault.
So...here's the deal: I'm not going to be able to write as much about the plot as I'd like and some explanations are going to be lacking... and not because I suck as a writer either. I think it'll be better for the folks who see it to know as little about the finer plot points as possible. It's not really a twist-filled adventure but I still think it'd be better not to give away too much. This much you could reasonably snag from the trailer- which if you've seen many movies over the last year or so, you'll have seen about 50 times. The movie is essentially explores the question of free will... specifically, what would happen if we really didn't have it...or, rather, what would happen if you found out that your decisions weren't your own. What would happen if everything truly DID happen for a reason... and that reason was that your life had a plan...and every time you were inclined to stray from the plan, something nudged you back on. It's a pretty interesting idea to explore, and the way it is explored is compelling as well. Viewing the question through the lens of a love story was a pretty good...if predictable...way to relate the issues and consequences involved with it. After all, why else would New York Senate candidate David Norris (Matt Damon) stray from a pretty awesome plan? Love, of course. It's the ultimate curve ball. And so David tries to stray from his plan when he meets the unquestionably awesome Elise (a fantastic Emily Blunt). And well, things get interesting for him from there. Lots of compelling questions tied into it. Couldn't help but wonder what I would do in the situation. And so the movie unwinds into a pseudo-action/love/chase movie. It's definitely engaging and really pretty entertaining, but the meat of the movie is in the questions being asked and the situations you're left to grapple with and the implications involved with these situations and questions. All good, heady stuff. It makes you think.... or...really it asks you to think. And those of you willing to be engaged by it, I imagine will have a good time with it. I did.
But that isn't to say that the movie as a whole or the way it unfolds are altogether perfect or perfectly satisfying. There are some disappointments here. There are, for instance, some pretty gaping plot holes that may raise some questions that have nothing to do with the core questions the movie is designed to have you ask yourself. More like well why wouldn't they just...? types of questions. These weren't major, major issues in my mind because I was willing to go with it. I suppose these types of holes develop when a movie becomes strained by it's own complexity. Or at least when the filmmakers struggle with the decisions of what to explain and what they feel they don't need to explain. I don't know. It just didn't bother me. At least not significantly. The ending was also a bit problematic. I don't know if it's just that they tried to explain too much or they spun it all the wrong way...or maybe it was done right, but just delivered wrong. I don't know what exactly it was, but the way they brought everything to a close was a little unsatisfying to me. But, in terms of drawbacks... that was it.
I think what really helped me get beyond the drawbacks were the awesome casting and the fantastic performances. Especially in the case of the leads. Matt Damon as an earnest politician? I can't imagine a more perfect role. And Emily Blunt was as charming and engaging on screen as any actress I have seen in a long time. I loved the role for her. She absolutely nailed it...at least for the most part. She fast becoming one of my favorite actresses. The rest of the cast was fantastic as well. The dialog was at times encouraged some wooden performances but for the most part I couldn't complain.
Yeah, actually that's a pretty good way to sum up the entire flick. It wasn't perfect on the whole. But it was really good. As far as a way to spend a couple hours of my life? I'm certainly not going to complain.
Grade: A-
I had been looking forward to seeing this one for a long, long, long time. Don't know if any of you remember but it had been slated to come out last summer... then fall... then maybe winter, before finally finding a spot in March. Usually that means bad things for a movie. After all, summer, fall, winter? These are Academy Awards qualifying seasons. No one remembers movies from February or March. Of course, I'd like to think that the rules changed when Shutter Island was pushed to February. That movie kicked ass! But usually... I guess.. the rule is that movies released in February and March kind of suck.
So...Did The Adjustment Bureau suck? Well, no, actually it didn't. It was pretty darn good. Not quite on par with Shutter Island, but good nonetheless. Certainly COULD have played well in the Oscars seasons, but knowing the Academy (ok, I don't KNOW the Academy per se, but from what I understand about the Academy...) it wouldn't have stood a chance for any awards. But that's not really the movie's fault.
So...here's the deal: I'm not going to be able to write as much about the plot as I'd like and some explanations are going to be lacking... and not because I suck as a writer either. I think it'll be better for the folks who see it to know as little about the finer plot points as possible. It's not really a twist-filled adventure but I still think it'd be better not to give away too much. This much you could reasonably snag from the trailer- which if you've seen many movies over the last year or so, you'll have seen about 50 times. The movie is essentially explores the question of free will... specifically, what would happen if we really didn't have it...or, rather, what would happen if you found out that your decisions weren't your own. What would happen if everything truly DID happen for a reason... and that reason was that your life had a plan...and every time you were inclined to stray from the plan, something nudged you back on. It's a pretty interesting idea to explore, and the way it is explored is compelling as well. Viewing the question through the lens of a love story was a pretty good...if predictable...way to relate the issues and consequences involved with it. After all, why else would New York Senate candidate David Norris (Matt Damon) stray from a pretty awesome plan? Love, of course. It's the ultimate curve ball. And so David tries to stray from his plan when he meets the unquestionably awesome Elise (a fantastic Emily Blunt). And well, things get interesting for him from there. Lots of compelling questions tied into it. Couldn't help but wonder what I would do in the situation. And so the movie unwinds into a pseudo-action/love/chase movie. It's definitely engaging and really pretty entertaining, but the meat of the movie is in the questions being asked and the situations you're left to grapple with and the implications involved with these situations and questions. All good, heady stuff. It makes you think.... or...really it asks you to think. And those of you willing to be engaged by it, I imagine will have a good time with it. I did.
But that isn't to say that the movie as a whole or the way it unfolds are altogether perfect or perfectly satisfying. There are some disappointments here. There are, for instance, some pretty gaping plot holes that may raise some questions that have nothing to do with the core questions the movie is designed to have you ask yourself. More like well why wouldn't they just...? types of questions. These weren't major, major issues in my mind because I was willing to go with it. I suppose these types of holes develop when a movie becomes strained by it's own complexity. Or at least when the filmmakers struggle with the decisions of what to explain and what they feel they don't need to explain. I don't know. It just didn't bother me. At least not significantly. The ending was also a bit problematic. I don't know if it's just that they tried to explain too much or they spun it all the wrong way...or maybe it was done right, but just delivered wrong. I don't know what exactly it was, but the way they brought everything to a close was a little unsatisfying to me. But, in terms of drawbacks... that was it.
I think what really helped me get beyond the drawbacks were the awesome casting and the fantastic performances. Especially in the case of the leads. Matt Damon as an earnest politician? I can't imagine a more perfect role. And Emily Blunt was as charming and engaging on screen as any actress I have seen in a long time. I loved the role for her. She absolutely nailed it...at least for the most part. She fast becoming one of my favorite actresses. The rest of the cast was fantastic as well. The dialog was at times encouraged some wooden performances but for the most part I couldn't complain.
Yeah, actually that's a pretty good way to sum up the entire flick. It wasn't perfect on the whole. But it was really good. As far as a way to spend a couple hours of my life? I'm certainly not going to complain.
Grade: A-
Friday, February 25, 2011
New To Me 2011: 3.) Winter's Bone
Winter's Bone
And that's 10 for 10. Went out with a bang too. A hell of a riveting bang. Haunting. Dismal. Gritty. Bleak. Engrossing. Gripping. And above all, great cinema. All certainly describe Winter's Bone. The story is akin to any number of thrillers or crime thrillers. Someone has to find/prove something before time runs out and something horrible happens. And there are- of course- a number of individuals who are definitely invested in that someone NOT finding what he or she needs to find. In this case, 17-year-old Ree needs to find her meth-cooking father in a matter of a few days or she looses her primitive Ozarks house- the same house that allows her to provide for her ailing mother and younger and dependent brother and sister; this house is ALL they have besides each other. For Ree, finding her Dad is a matter of life and death for her family. She has no choice, she simply has to find her dad or at least find out what happened to him. Along the way, Ree runs a foul of some fairly nasty elements- folks who know what happened to her Dad, but it's in their best interest not to share this information. These are people who can make life even more hellish for Ree. But given no other choice, she's got to do what she's got to do- as unfathomable as that is.
The story of Ree doing what she has to do plays out in such a fantastically gripping manner. It's hard to look away even though there are definitely times you'd really like to. The tension here plays very much like a gangster pic. The only difference is that here, the bleak existence of the Ozarks stands in for the mean streets and shady corners of NYC and New Jersey. The sense that something could go horribly wrong at any moment still very much permeates the story. You just can't help but stay glued to the screen waiting to see if things will take that turn for the worst. Masterful story telling here. It really is. What's interesting is that despite seeing how absolutely shitty her existence in this utterly depressing world is, you never for a second question why Ree needs to do anything and everything in her power to hold on to what little she has. It might have been easy to think: why bother? How much worse can things get? But, no. Here- through the incredible performance of Jennifer Lawrence, you can sense and FEEL why this matters to Ree. Lawrence leaves no doubts about Ree's determination and desperation; she absolutely disappears into her role much to the benefit of the viewing audience. It's mesmerizing to watch. Kudos to Lawrence for making her character... I don't know.. real.
Actually, yeah, real. That's the one thing that sets this film apart from lesser crime thrillers. It feels real and true. It feels easier to relate to somehow...which is odd because most of the folks who will end up seeing this will never know what it feels like to live in such conditions and to be backed into such an impossible corner. The way the story is told and the virtuoso performance by Lawrence go along way into providing that feeling of empathy.
There's not a lot to dislike about Winter's Bone, other than it really SHOULD be a harder movie to watch. But, as I've mentioned above, the challenge is actually in trying to look away. Oh, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention John Hawkes' incredible performance as Ree's uncle, Teardrop. Hawkes brought an amazing amount of intensity and life to the role- it was stunning to watch. Much like the movie on the whole. It's definitely one that will stick with me for some time... and I mean that in the best possible way. Well done Debra Granik and company, well done.
Grade: A+
And that's 10 for 10. Went out with a bang too. A hell of a riveting bang. Haunting. Dismal. Gritty. Bleak. Engrossing. Gripping. And above all, great cinema. All certainly describe Winter's Bone. The story is akin to any number of thrillers or crime thrillers. Someone has to find/prove something before time runs out and something horrible happens. And there are- of course- a number of individuals who are definitely invested in that someone NOT finding what he or she needs to find. In this case, 17-year-old Ree needs to find her meth-cooking father in a matter of a few days or she looses her primitive Ozarks house- the same house that allows her to provide for her ailing mother and younger and dependent brother and sister; this house is ALL they have besides each other. For Ree, finding her Dad is a matter of life and death for her family. She has no choice, she simply has to find her dad or at least find out what happened to him. Along the way, Ree runs a foul of some fairly nasty elements- folks who know what happened to her Dad, but it's in their best interest not to share this information. These are people who can make life even more hellish for Ree. But given no other choice, she's got to do what she's got to do- as unfathomable as that is.
The story of Ree doing what she has to do plays out in such a fantastically gripping manner. It's hard to look away even though there are definitely times you'd really like to. The tension here plays very much like a gangster pic. The only difference is that here, the bleak existence of the Ozarks stands in for the mean streets and shady corners of NYC and New Jersey. The sense that something could go horribly wrong at any moment still very much permeates the story. You just can't help but stay glued to the screen waiting to see if things will take that turn for the worst. Masterful story telling here. It really is. What's interesting is that despite seeing how absolutely shitty her existence in this utterly depressing world is, you never for a second question why Ree needs to do anything and everything in her power to hold on to what little she has. It might have been easy to think: why bother? How much worse can things get? But, no. Here- through the incredible performance of Jennifer Lawrence, you can sense and FEEL why this matters to Ree. Lawrence leaves no doubts about Ree's determination and desperation; she absolutely disappears into her role much to the benefit of the viewing audience. It's mesmerizing to watch. Kudos to Lawrence for making her character... I don't know.. real.
Actually, yeah, real. That's the one thing that sets this film apart from lesser crime thrillers. It feels real and true. It feels easier to relate to somehow...which is odd because most of the folks who will end up seeing this will never know what it feels like to live in such conditions and to be backed into such an impossible corner. The way the story is told and the virtuoso performance by Lawrence go along way into providing that feeling of empathy.
There's not a lot to dislike about Winter's Bone, other than it really SHOULD be a harder movie to watch. But, as I've mentioned above, the challenge is actually in trying to look away. Oh, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention John Hawkes' incredible performance as Ree's uncle, Teardrop. Hawkes brought an amazing amount of intensity and life to the role- it was stunning to watch. Much like the movie on the whole. It's definitely one that will stick with me for some time... and I mean that in the best possible way. Well done Debra Granik and company, well done.
Grade: A+
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
New to Me 2011: 2.) Toy Story 3
Toy Story 3
Continuing my quest to see all the Best Picture nominees before the Academy Awards show... The main question swirling in my mind before watching Toy Story 3 was whether it truly belonged in the Best Picture nominee race. Well, actually, I should say whether it belonged as a nominee, I doubt anyone thinks it has a serious shot at winning the prize. Including me, after having seen it. There is no question that this is a very clever and very well done animated feature. But one of the ten best of 2010? Um, no, sorry.
It definitely is one of the best animated movies I've seen in a while. (Not THE best, that honor still goes to Wes Anderson's fantastic Fantastic Mr. Fox). In comparison to last year's apparently token animated Best Picture nominee, Up, there really isn't much of an argument: Toy Story 3 is better by leaps and bounds. And that's saying something- Up was a pretty good movie in its own right. Here's the deal with both of them, and animated movies in general: they're just lacking something. I'm not saying that they can't be considered among the best movies of the year, but there's just something in my mind that keeps a step or two below the best live-action movies. Is it the screen presence of actors and actresses? The depth of performance? I'm not entirely sure what it is, but I just can't get into animated movies like I do live-action flicks. Let me say this, though, the best animated movies certainly kick the shit out of the run-of-the-mill live-actioners... I'm looking at you, The Tourist. But when comparing the creams of the crops, the best live-action movies blow away animated fare. So, no, I don't think the tenth slot should have gone to Toy Story 3; not over Shutter Island or The Town or Get Low and certainly not over Blue Valentine. Or how about this? How about switching Toy Story 3 out for a truly original and incredibly well done live-actioner that borders on animated: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World? In any event, I don't think Toy Story 3 belongs in the discussion.
I know that sounds pretty darn narrow-minded of me. And it may be true. I don't want to be a...I dunno... genre-ist when it comes to movies, but again, I just can't get all that attached to animated movies...outside of Fantastic Mr. Fox, that is. (Though that might have more to do with Wes Anderson- I'll follow him where ever he's willing to take me- a damn expert storyteller). Regardless, in this case, while I thought it was good, I just don't think Toy Story 3 was everything it was cracked up to be. So literally, in any event, I don't think it merits Best Picture consideration. But, then again, I'm not a member of the Academy.
Anyway, enough of my comparing it to the opinions of other people, and enough of the negative thinking. It REALLY was a good movie. The thing that stands out most about it is how damn well-written and clever the story is. Andy (the little-boy owner of the motley group of toys from the first two movies) is all growed up now and heading to college, the toys, well there headed for a whole heaping dose of uncertainty. One thing leads to another and they're shipped off via donation to a day care center. Adventure ensues when the toys ultimately decide that being with Andy- even if that means waiting around in the attic until Andy's kids come around- is where they're meant to be. So they have to find their way around the misguided forces of a duplicitous teddy bear in order to find their way home.
Great, imaginative stuff. It's the kind of story that could only be dreamed up by folks who have the brains of grown-ups but the hearts of little children. It kind of makes you wonder whether the creative forces behind the movie would be the most fun people to hang out with... or the most annoying. Either way, I was happy to hang out with their product for just shy of two hours. See, the Toy Story franchise was really the first in the new breed of animated movies- or rather the first in the next step of animated movie evolution- both in technology and in the story lines. Traditional animated gave way to computer generated animation and plots that had only brief moments that resonated with both children and adults fell aside for entire movies that genuinely engaged adult and child audiences. The Toy Story movies were always able to harness the power of thinly veiled real, adult issues in a package that was replete with a sense of wonder and adventure that kids were able to get into. Toy Story 3 really manages to bring this feat to perfection. Sure, there are goofy stunts and genuine child-level excitement going on, but the movie also tackles, and tackles well, such weighty issues as sense of purpose, love and loss, and, I suppose, growing up and moving on. All told through the toys point of view. Like I said, a little something for almost anyone watching.
This isn't to say that th movie doesn't stumble at times. It was predictable. It, of course, had to rely on some level of silliness to keep the kids engaged. And it also had a few too many "Full House"-type morality lesson moments. But on the whole even these issues were minimal. I just happen to really dislike the Full House-y moments. I will say this, though. If this was the end of the franchise as I understood it to be (it doesn't have to be, they did leave a window open, I suppose), it was one of the most touching and satisfying endings of a franchise you'll find. And it's always awesome to nail the ending. Couldn't think of a better way to have finished it myself.
In the end, my issue with animated issues may just be that- MY issue. I generally like edgier stuff, more original stuff, things that make me think more. I'm also a big fan of subtlety and nuance... and quirkiness. While there is some of all that to some animated movies- and Toy Story 3 specifically, there may just not be enough. I don't know. Maybe it really does boil down to that certain- je ne sais quoi. But animated movies (at least animated movies that weren't hatched from Wes Anderson's noggin) just don't seem to resonate as well with me. I'm not saying I don't like them. I just don't like them as much. Or, maybe it's just the animated movies I've seen. I don't know. And I don't need to know. I like what I like. Including Toy Story 3 (especially the story/writing- I have no beef with its adapted screenplay nod). Yeah, I don't want to bury that point. I DID like Toy Story 3, it was good, it just wasn't as good- to me- as some folks made it out to be. Nothing wrong with that, to each his or her own.
Grade: A-
Continuing my quest to see all the Best Picture nominees before the Academy Awards show... The main question swirling in my mind before watching Toy Story 3 was whether it truly belonged in the Best Picture nominee race. Well, actually, I should say whether it belonged as a nominee, I doubt anyone thinks it has a serious shot at winning the prize. Including me, after having seen it. There is no question that this is a very clever and very well done animated feature. But one of the ten best of 2010? Um, no, sorry.
It definitely is one of the best animated movies I've seen in a while. (Not THE best, that honor still goes to Wes Anderson's fantastic Fantastic Mr. Fox). In comparison to last year's apparently token animated Best Picture nominee, Up, there really isn't much of an argument: Toy Story 3 is better by leaps and bounds. And that's saying something- Up was a pretty good movie in its own right. Here's the deal with both of them, and animated movies in general: they're just lacking something. I'm not saying that they can't be considered among the best movies of the year, but there's just something in my mind that keeps a step or two below the best live-action movies. Is it the screen presence of actors and actresses? The depth of performance? I'm not entirely sure what it is, but I just can't get into animated movies like I do live-action flicks. Let me say this, though, the best animated movies certainly kick the shit out of the run-of-the-mill live-actioners... I'm looking at you, The Tourist. But when comparing the creams of the crops, the best live-action movies blow away animated fare. So, no, I don't think the tenth slot should have gone to Toy Story 3; not over Shutter Island or The Town or Get Low and certainly not over Blue Valentine. Or how about this? How about switching Toy Story 3 out for a truly original and incredibly well done live-actioner that borders on animated: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World? In any event, I don't think Toy Story 3 belongs in the discussion.
I know that sounds pretty darn narrow-minded of me. And it may be true. I don't want to be a...I dunno... genre-ist when it comes to movies, but again, I just can't get all that attached to animated movies...outside of Fantastic Mr. Fox, that is. (Though that might have more to do with Wes Anderson- I'll follow him where ever he's willing to take me- a damn expert storyteller). Regardless, in this case, while I thought it was good, I just don't think Toy Story 3 was everything it was cracked up to be. So literally, in any event, I don't think it merits Best Picture consideration. But, then again, I'm not a member of the Academy.
Anyway, enough of my comparing it to the opinions of other people, and enough of the negative thinking. It REALLY was a good movie. The thing that stands out most about it is how damn well-written and clever the story is. Andy (the little-boy owner of the motley group of toys from the first two movies) is all growed up now and heading to college, the toys, well there headed for a whole heaping dose of uncertainty. One thing leads to another and they're shipped off via donation to a day care center. Adventure ensues when the toys ultimately decide that being with Andy- even if that means waiting around in the attic until Andy's kids come around- is where they're meant to be. So they have to find their way around the misguided forces of a duplicitous teddy bear in order to find their way home.
Great, imaginative stuff. It's the kind of story that could only be dreamed up by folks who have the brains of grown-ups but the hearts of little children. It kind of makes you wonder whether the creative forces behind the movie would be the most fun people to hang out with... or the most annoying. Either way, I was happy to hang out with their product for just shy of two hours. See, the Toy Story franchise was really the first in the new breed of animated movies- or rather the first in the next step of animated movie evolution- both in technology and in the story lines. Traditional animated gave way to computer generated animation and plots that had only brief moments that resonated with both children and adults fell aside for entire movies that genuinely engaged adult and child audiences. The Toy Story movies were always able to harness the power of thinly veiled real, adult issues in a package that was replete with a sense of wonder and adventure that kids were able to get into. Toy Story 3 really manages to bring this feat to perfection. Sure, there are goofy stunts and genuine child-level excitement going on, but the movie also tackles, and tackles well, such weighty issues as sense of purpose, love and loss, and, I suppose, growing up and moving on. All told through the toys point of view. Like I said, a little something for almost anyone watching.
This isn't to say that th movie doesn't stumble at times. It was predictable. It, of course, had to rely on some level of silliness to keep the kids engaged. And it also had a few too many "Full House"-type morality lesson moments. But on the whole even these issues were minimal. I just happen to really dislike the Full House-y moments. I will say this, though. If this was the end of the franchise as I understood it to be (it doesn't have to be, they did leave a window open, I suppose), it was one of the most touching and satisfying endings of a franchise you'll find. And it's always awesome to nail the ending. Couldn't think of a better way to have finished it myself.
In the end, my issue with animated issues may just be that- MY issue. I generally like edgier stuff, more original stuff, things that make me think more. I'm also a big fan of subtlety and nuance... and quirkiness. While there is some of all that to some animated movies- and Toy Story 3 specifically, there may just not be enough. I don't know. Maybe it really does boil down to that certain- je ne sais quoi. But animated movies (at least animated movies that weren't hatched from Wes Anderson's noggin) just don't seem to resonate as well with me. I'm not saying I don't like them. I just don't like them as much. Or, maybe it's just the animated movies I've seen. I don't know. And I don't need to know. I like what I like. Including Toy Story 3 (especially the story/writing- I have no beef with its adapted screenplay nod). Yeah, I don't want to bury that point. I DID like Toy Story 3, it was good, it just wasn't as good- to me- as some folks made it out to be. Nothing wrong with that, to each his or her own.
Grade: A-
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Movie List 2011: 10.) Barney's Version
Barney's Version
Let me start off by saying that the trailer for the movie was better than the movie itself. And it's because of that trailer that I had been looking forward to seeing Barney's Version for months. I guess with that kind of build up and anticipation, it'd be hard to have it deliver, but then, I've had movies even surpass my inflated expectations before. This was not one of those movies.
I'm not saying that Barney's Version was a bad movie; it wasn't. It just wasn't as good as I thought it'd be. From the previews, it looked like it'd be a wholly unique story of one man's battle against himself and his surroundings as he tried to forge the life he wanted for himself. And it looked damn funny to boot. In reality, while it did tell the story of one man's battle against himself and his surroundings, it was neither particularly funny (it DID have its moments) nor tremendously unique (but again, it had its moments). In the end, it was a movie that had- to be fair- more hits than misses, but when I was expecting a grand slam, a solid and productive single to left just seems less satisfying.
So yeah. The story really does boil down to a man's struggle with himself and the course his life takes. At various times, Paul Giamatti's Barney is selfish, noble, giddy, disgruntled (a lot of disgruntled), in control, losing his mind, and so on and so forth. The range of emotions and scenarios plays out as Barney is confronted with a tell-all book about a crime he insists he didn't commit. The "Version" the title refers to is Barney's take- through yo-yoing between flashback and the present - on his life and how he both struggled to get to where he wanted to be and his battle with himself to stay there and all this is filtered through his relationships with his three wives and his best friend. Lots of things happen and through it all Barney always is faithful to being himself... for better or worse... even when he doesn't want to be. I'm trying not to lay it all out on the table for anyone who happens to read this. Watching how his life unravels is the best part of the movie. And in that there are some awesome moments and great surprises.
But there's also some elements that are frustratingly unoriginal and run of the mill. I think one of the most annoying aspects of the movie is how the failed relationships in Barney's life play out- particularly with his second wife. I don't think they needed to make Minnie Driver's character so shrill and annoying. But she was, so you can see where Barney would want to move on to wife number three. You can see that the two were never right for each other from the moment they first meet. The whole thing was clearly Barney's version of what the ideal life would and perhaps should be. And, it wasn't. I don't know. By the end of it, you can kind of find yourself rooting for Barney to break up with her... she's... just... so... I don't know... vapid and materialistic. But I think the stronger play would have been to humanize her more. Look, these two just don't belong together. And no matter how you dice it, Barney's gotten himself into trouble here by just going with some preconceived flow. Do you have to make her out to be such a bitch? Yes, I think the very end of their relationship was a nice twist, but I think it would have been a stronger story if Barney really had a choice. But, as you'll see in the movie. He doesn't. Not that you'll have a problem with it besides what you already would have depending on your tolerance for divorce. After all, she's horrible and if he stays with her, man it'll suck for him.
This is often something movies get wrong... at least in my mind. It's the ultimate in suck when you meet the person of your dreams just after you've cornered yourself with someone else. Of course, in conventional movie-making, the person who is cornered needs to break free and get with the love of his or her life. And you, the viewer, have to be left with no doubt that the person newly in love has made the right decision to break free. And so, the film maker proceeds to villain-ize the cornerer. And usually they err on the side of mega-bitch/asshole-dom rather than showing it for what it is- not quite right. I think the best I've seen come to reality in this plot line was Sleepless in Seattle. Of course Meg Ryan HAS to leave Bill Pullman's character. He's not the one, but he's not a bad guy... just kind of a wuss. Unfortunately, even there you kind of get it... I mean, you're supposed to get it, but is life really ever that cut and dry? Don't get me wrong, I get that you have to show why someone would be even open to falling in love with someone else. These things don't generally happen to people who are overly happy, but do they ALWAYS have to make it so damn clear. Can't they just set it up as these folks were just not right... or are no longer right for each other without turning the other person into a monster. At least in Barney's Version, you see that Barney is every bit to blame for where he is as his second wife, but in the end, the slathered the bitchiness on a touch too thick for my taste. Could have added some complexity there.
And that may be splitting hairs too. I just found it annoying that a film that at times seemed so willing to side step typical movie convention would fall into that sort of almost cliched plot point. It had its other moments too. I found the whole way they dealt with the crime he insists he didn't commit to be a little unsatisfying. It involves a bad situation no matter what happened, and you never get the feeling that Barney was particularly affected by it one way or the other. Yes, Barney could be the foremost self-centered prick, but you'd think he'd feel something more than he seemed to. Ok, I just wrote this huge bit about how I thought the ending made the entire movie confusing... or at the very least missed a golden opportunity to rise to the rank of one hell of a thought provoking flick... but I thought by including all that here, I'd have revealed too much. I don't like ruining the movies for the four or five of you who read this... so it's always a tough balancing act. I think what I did write stepped over that line too much. Suffice it to say that -after spending some time really thinking about it- I think the ending made the movie a little confusing... and also might have missed the opportunity to really step it up.
But enough of focusing on the negatives. At its best the movie was a fascinating look at a guy's life journey including all the battles he has with himself and those he lets in close to him. As someone who often struggles with himself and who he is, I can relate to some of this... though I don't think I could be as big of a prick as Barney can be if I tried... really hard. There were also a number of fantastic scenes and parts of the movie. I loved the way they portrayed Barney's relationship with his third wife. The idea of how they came together and built up a life was awesome to see. I also loved Barney's relationship with his Dad (played by a superb Dustin Hoffman). These are the types of things- the tone, the development of some of the relationships, the over all feel of most of the movie and the casting- that director Richard J. Lewis and company got right. Particularly the casting. Besides Dustin Hoffman and Paul Giamatti (he's really perfected the art of playing the discontented schlub... so much so that despite playing the role over and over again, it never seems to get old), Minnie Driver (despite the lack of complexity the writers allowed for her character), Scott Speedman (holy cow, didn't see that coming) and Rosamund Pike all deliver great performances. In fact, I'd go so far to say that Dustin Hoffman and maybe even Speedman are worthy of Oscar consideration. (Ok, maybe I'm going overboard with Speedman- he was good and I had never seen him in anything else that I can recall, but he just didn't seem like he'd be all that great an actor... so when he delivers? Perhaps I should tone it down... no... wait... I'll stick to it he deserved at least some passing consideration for Best Supporting Actor... if even only for a second...but certainly Dustin Hoffman was good enough to snag a nod... particularly over Mark Ruffalo).
I guess what I have to figure out is whether I'm penalizing Barney's Version for not being as incredibly awesome as I had thought it would be. I wasn't bored and being boring is- in my mind- the biggest sin a movie and its creators can commit. So it has that going for it. It also had a solid story told... pretty well. And some great acting. Hmm. But it just wasn't as satisfying as I would have hoped. Overall? Pretty good... I suppose.
Grade: B+
Let me start off by saying that the trailer for the movie was better than the movie itself. And it's because of that trailer that I had been looking forward to seeing Barney's Version for months. I guess with that kind of build up and anticipation, it'd be hard to have it deliver, but then, I've had movies even surpass my inflated expectations before. This was not one of those movies.
I'm not saying that Barney's Version was a bad movie; it wasn't. It just wasn't as good as I thought it'd be. From the previews, it looked like it'd be a wholly unique story of one man's battle against himself and his surroundings as he tried to forge the life he wanted for himself. And it looked damn funny to boot. In reality, while it did tell the story of one man's battle against himself and his surroundings, it was neither particularly funny (it DID have its moments) nor tremendously unique (but again, it had its moments). In the end, it was a movie that had- to be fair- more hits than misses, but when I was expecting a grand slam, a solid and productive single to left just seems less satisfying.
So yeah. The story really does boil down to a man's struggle with himself and the course his life takes. At various times, Paul Giamatti's Barney is selfish, noble, giddy, disgruntled (a lot of disgruntled), in control, losing his mind, and so on and so forth. The range of emotions and scenarios plays out as Barney is confronted with a tell-all book about a crime he insists he didn't commit. The "Version" the title refers to is Barney's take- through yo-yoing between flashback and the present - on his life and how he both struggled to get to where he wanted to be and his battle with himself to stay there and all this is filtered through his relationships with his three wives and his best friend. Lots of things happen and through it all Barney always is faithful to being himself... for better or worse... even when he doesn't want to be. I'm trying not to lay it all out on the table for anyone who happens to read this. Watching how his life unravels is the best part of the movie. And in that there are some awesome moments and great surprises.
But there's also some elements that are frustratingly unoriginal and run of the mill. I think one of the most annoying aspects of the movie is how the failed relationships in Barney's life play out- particularly with his second wife. I don't think they needed to make Minnie Driver's character so shrill and annoying. But she was, so you can see where Barney would want to move on to wife number three. You can see that the two were never right for each other from the moment they first meet. The whole thing was clearly Barney's version of what the ideal life would and perhaps should be. And, it wasn't. I don't know. By the end of it, you can kind of find yourself rooting for Barney to break up with her... she's... just... so... I don't know... vapid and materialistic. But I think the stronger play would have been to humanize her more. Look, these two just don't belong together. And no matter how you dice it, Barney's gotten himself into trouble here by just going with some preconceived flow. Do you have to make her out to be such a bitch? Yes, I think the very end of their relationship was a nice twist, but I think it would have been a stronger story if Barney really had a choice. But, as you'll see in the movie. He doesn't. Not that you'll have a problem with it besides what you already would have depending on your tolerance for divorce. After all, she's horrible and if he stays with her, man it'll suck for him.
This is often something movies get wrong... at least in my mind. It's the ultimate in suck when you meet the person of your dreams just after you've cornered yourself with someone else. Of course, in conventional movie-making, the person who is cornered needs to break free and get with the love of his or her life. And you, the viewer, have to be left with no doubt that the person newly in love has made the right decision to break free. And so, the film maker proceeds to villain-ize the cornerer. And usually they err on the side of mega-bitch/asshole-dom rather than showing it for what it is- not quite right. I think the best I've seen come to reality in this plot line was Sleepless in Seattle. Of course Meg Ryan HAS to leave Bill Pullman's character. He's not the one, but he's not a bad guy... just kind of a wuss. Unfortunately, even there you kind of get it... I mean, you're supposed to get it, but is life really ever that cut and dry? Don't get me wrong, I get that you have to show why someone would be even open to falling in love with someone else. These things don't generally happen to people who are overly happy, but do they ALWAYS have to make it so damn clear. Can't they just set it up as these folks were just not right... or are no longer right for each other without turning the other person into a monster. At least in Barney's Version, you see that Barney is every bit to blame for where he is as his second wife, but in the end, the slathered the bitchiness on a touch too thick for my taste. Could have added some complexity there.
And that may be splitting hairs too. I just found it annoying that a film that at times seemed so willing to side step typical movie convention would fall into that sort of almost cliched plot point. It had its other moments too. I found the whole way they dealt with the crime he insists he didn't commit to be a little unsatisfying. It involves a bad situation no matter what happened, and you never get the feeling that Barney was particularly affected by it one way or the other. Yes, Barney could be the foremost self-centered prick, but you'd think he'd feel something more than he seemed to. Ok, I just wrote this huge bit about how I thought the ending made the entire movie confusing... or at the very least missed a golden opportunity to rise to the rank of one hell of a thought provoking flick... but I thought by including all that here, I'd have revealed too much. I don't like ruining the movies for the four or five of you who read this... so it's always a tough balancing act. I think what I did write stepped over that line too much. Suffice it to say that -after spending some time really thinking about it- I think the ending made the movie a little confusing... and also might have missed the opportunity to really step it up.
But enough of focusing on the negatives. At its best the movie was a fascinating look at a guy's life journey including all the battles he has with himself and those he lets in close to him. As someone who often struggles with himself and who he is, I can relate to some of this... though I don't think I could be as big of a prick as Barney can be if I tried... really hard. There were also a number of fantastic scenes and parts of the movie. I loved the way they portrayed Barney's relationship with his third wife. The idea of how they came together and built up a life was awesome to see. I also loved Barney's relationship with his Dad (played by a superb Dustin Hoffman). These are the types of things- the tone, the development of some of the relationships, the over all feel of most of the movie and the casting- that director Richard J. Lewis and company got right. Particularly the casting. Besides Dustin Hoffman and Paul Giamatti (he's really perfected the art of playing the discontented schlub... so much so that despite playing the role over and over again, it never seems to get old), Minnie Driver (despite the lack of complexity the writers allowed for her character), Scott Speedman (holy cow, didn't see that coming) and Rosamund Pike all deliver great performances. In fact, I'd go so far to say that Dustin Hoffman and maybe even Speedman are worthy of Oscar consideration. (Ok, maybe I'm going overboard with Speedman- he was good and I had never seen him in anything else that I can recall, but he just didn't seem like he'd be all that great an actor... so when he delivers? Perhaps I should tone it down... no... wait... I'll stick to it he deserved at least some passing consideration for Best Supporting Actor... if even only for a second...but certainly Dustin Hoffman was good enough to snag a nod... particularly over Mark Ruffalo).
I guess what I have to figure out is whether I'm penalizing Barney's Version for not being as incredibly awesome as I had thought it would be. I wasn't bored and being boring is- in my mind- the biggest sin a movie and its creators can commit. So it has that going for it. It also had a solid story told... pretty well. And some great acting. Hmm. But it just wasn't as satisfying as I would have hoped. Overall? Pretty good... I suppose.
Grade: B+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)