Metropolitan

Sorry for being so late with my updates. Life just gets away from you sometimes, “know what I mean?” But I recently have been watching some movies that made me think, “I must let the world know, even if the world doesn’t care, what I think about these movies.”

The good folks at Criterion have been on a tear recently, with some good movies being released. First up was Whit Stillman’s “The Last Days of Disco,” the third, and final, installment, in his "urban haute bourgeoisie" trilogy. But not having seen the first two films that he wrote and directed, I had to wait for those to come from Netflix. While I believe I would have appreciated “TLDoD” even had I not seen his previous films, I just prefer to see, especially in a trilogy (even if it is a loose one), a director’s previous films so I can see a little bit of his evolution and ease myself into his oeuvre.



His first movie, “Metropolitan,” honestly took me by surprise. I had read a little about it beforehand, but mostly just the blurb on Wikipedia or on the Netflix disc sleeve.

A tale of idle rich trust-fund babies, one may wonder why this movie would be any interesting to watch. The dialogue is all the reason you need.
From the first moments of this film I “got it.” The dialogue was sharp and witty as one character convinces another to share a cab that he doesn’t want to go to a place he wasn’t going to go to, just so that there will be no “ill feelings” and consequently they will all be travelling in the same way, making the ride more economical.

It is in this way that Tom Townsend gets an introduction into the “Sally Fowler Rat Pack.” This group of Northeastern prep school—cum—Ivy League graduates comes together during the cotillion season. Tom is a socialist (not just any type however, he’s a Fourierist) who is open about his disapproval of upper crust snobs. Despite feeling like an outsider (he does not, after all, own his own tuxedo and must rent one), he finds that he naturally fits with their group. This is a world that Nick Carraway would be at home in. Even as one of the girls in this group develops a crush on Tom, he is still having trouble getting over the preppie girl who broke his heart years before.

This movie had some of the funniest lines and situations I’ve seen in a while, delivered with such aplomb and exactness. Unfortunately, while some will retain their cleverness out of context, I fear that most of them would not. One of my favorite exchanges, however, is when two characters are discussing whether or not the fact that a social experiment turned town no longer exists means that it failed. As one character points out, we all cease to exist, yet we are not all failures.
The direction in this movie is pitch perfect. In this case, writing the movie you’re that will become your first directorial effort obviously helped Stillman. He had a vision in his head, and not only was he able to write it well enough to earn an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay, but he was able to execute it and turn his vision into reality. The lines and scenes, as outlandish as they can seem on the surface, are delivered with the right amount of deadpan-ish emotion.
But most intriguing is the world these characters inhabit. As this movie was made in 1990, it doesn’t have cell phones, the Internet, or so many of the things that make today’s world so markedly different from the world of 20 years ago. Included in selling this world is the conviction with which these characters commit to what they are saying. This world also includes the belief that they are, to put it bluntly, doomed as a class. They have been born, bred, and raised in upper class society. And so there is a feeling that they won’t be able to compete in the real world, that their trust funds and sense of security has left them with an underdeveloped sense of motivation and the hunger needed to excel in a competitive world. It is actually this self-awareness that gives them depth. They know they truly aren’t that important, even though they act like aristocracy. It’s just the world they inhabit, but they know it’s on the way out. Without it they would just be a bunch of self-righteous young turks with nothing put forward; but with that self-awareness, the knowledge that their world will not last, we begin to understand, if not sympathize with, them. And that makes all the difference.

It is difficult for me to really say what rating I would give this film. I am going to settle on 8.5/10. It is stronger than most of the 8's I have, but a 9? I'm not so sure about that. All in all, I immensely enjoyed this film for the dialogue, the acting, and the absurd but down to earth situations.
If you like quirky, understated movies, then I would definitely give this (and the other films by Stillman, but I'll get to those later) a shot.

The whole truth and nothing but...

It's a real shame when a good movie goes unnoticed. Good movies rarely get DVD only releases, so when it does happen one needs to pay attention. For all the crap that gets released into theaters (see Knowing, Paul Blart), why is it that some quality movies still cannot get released?

Nothing But The Truth is one such film. Rod Lurie (The Contender, TV's Commander-in-Chief) has crafted a very solid, very tight, suspenseful political thriller.

Using the Valerie Plame scandal as a framework, Nothing But The Truth is about a reporter (Kate Beckinsale) who outs a covert CIA agent (Vera Farmiga) and is sent to jail when she will not reveal her source. Matt Dillon plays the special prosecutor, Alan Alda as her attorney, and David Schwimmer as her husband. Even Noah Wyle gets a meaty role. The casting is perfect. Beckinsale and Farmiga are two of the best actresses we have around. Someone needs to get these two nominations (and wins) for Best (Supporting, if applicable) Actress awards.

Matt Dillon plays a predator waiting in the weeds for the right time to pounce. As the special prosecutor, his one job is to find the source, with no limits on money he can spend or anything to distract him. When we first meet him he is a very charming country lawyer, but he is tenacious in the courtroom. One of his best roles. Alan Alda is perfect as always, conveying a sense of emotion and sympathy with his client. In fact, his character grows the most throughout the story.

Although using Valerie Plame/Judith Miller as a framework, this work is a pure piece of fiction. And what a great work of fiction it is. It keeps you on your toes, you can guess at what's going to happen but there are still those moments where you are shocked.

Despite its strengths, the ending is a little lackluster; it leaves you asking yourself, "What? She went to jail for that!?" And it leaves you wondering if she went to jail for a principle (The First Amendment), or to protect her specific source. Some may see that as a strength of the film, but I'm not sure it is.

Over all, a very solid 7/10. Very nearly a 7.5, but certainly not any higher than that.

Hope you check this one out. It deserves your attention!

My Oscar Predictions

Here's my predictions for the 81st Academy Awards:

Best Picture:
Slumdog Millionaire

Best Director:
Stephen Daldry

Best Actor:
Mickey Rourke

Best Actress:
Kate Winslet

Best Supporting Actor:
Josh Brolin

Best Supporting Actress:
I'd love to say Amy Adams or Marisa Tomei (Tomei is such a cougar!!), but I will say:
Penelope Cruz

Original Screenplay:
WALL-E, though I'd like to think In Bruges has a chance.

Adapted Screenplay:
This is a tough one:
The Reader (but in an aside, if Slumdog wins this, expect for Slumdog to win for Best Picture...but it's not my choice)

Animated Feature:
WALL-E (What else?)

Best Foreign Language Film:
Last year, Counterfeiters (A German language film from Austria) won; the year before that The Lives of Others (A German film) won; this year there's a German AND an Austrian film nominated...could the German language have a three-peat? I don't think so. My choice:
Waltz With Bashir, (though don't be surprised if The Class wins)

Best Art Direction:
The Duchess

Cinematography:
The Dark Knight

Costume:
The Duchess

Documentary:
Man on a Wire

Editing:
Frost/Nixon

Makeup:
Benjamin Button

Sound Editing:
WALL-E

Sound Mixing:
WALL-E

Visual Effects:
Iron Man

Everybody Wants to be Italian? Not after this movie!

Everybody Wants to be Italian tries to be a good movie, but it simply fails. Yes, there were some funny jokes. Truly there were. But it also made me shudder. It was at times painful. And not in a good way. There are times when watching other films that I feel pain, but it's simply because those filmmakers were able for me to feel empathy with those characters and the situations in which they find themselves. Unfortunately it's not the case here. I felt sorry for these characters because the world that was created for them is one that makes them ethnic stereotypes; a world where the hero is supposed to be likable even though he refuses to believe that his ex-girlfriend could be married (with three kids) to someone else after breaking up eight years prior. It's bad because it reinforces the Hollywood myth that stalkers aren't stalkers just because they're good looking. I guess that his ex does like him chasing her, but who in their right mind wouldn't get a restraining order and some psychiatric help for this man after eight years of harassment? I know the filmmakers would say that this is where they lost me, and I tried to "go along for the ride." But no matter how likable this man it supposed to be, he has got to be "slow" or at least socially awkward. He takes a beautiful woman out on a date in a hooded sweatshirt, jeans, and a ball cap, and on top of that tries to order for her! Yes he is getting bad advice from his friends, but what they don't tell him to do, which he does, is tell the woman he has a girlfriend.

The idea is simple enough. Jake's friends, in order to set him up with Marisa, convince them both to attend an Italian singles party. The only problem is neither of them is Italian, yet they each think the other one is. It's not a completely horrible premise. It enough to provide for a "meet-cute" and for the basic problem in the relationship that must occur in a romantic comedy before they fall in love and stay together forever (ie, they both lied to each other and feel betrayed). But the tension added by Jake's ex-girlfriend and his refusal to give her up is contrived and too unbelievable. The tension comes to a head when his ex-girlfriend decides to leave her husband and go back to Jake (but only after he stops chasing her). Uh-oh.

The filmmakers say that the movie is at its core about Freud and psychology...about want and desires. It talks about transference and quotes Freud liberally. That's fine, but a film that wishes to explore humanity's deep hidden desires vis-à-vis relationship either needs to be hilarious or a drama. Unfortunately such a roller coaster of jokes that do hit and jokes and situations that just create a sense of pain because of how bad they are simply is not the right forum.

Unfortunately as well, if the film really does want to explore love, then perhaps it should portray it. You get the sense that the characters in the film know nothing about love. They are only physically attracted to each other and at no time get the sense that they truly have anything in common beyond the physical.

Finally, the music soundtrack is HORRIBLE. It only comes during the montages and the songs themselves are simply bad samples from an indie rock compilation CD.

Just about the only thing about this movie I liked was the beautiful Cerina Vincent. I feel that she's got some real talent and although she isn't up to the point where she can be a true leading lady just yet, she deserves some better writing to help her along. Maybe she won't ever be a leading lady, maybe she'll just be a character actress, but she still deserves a script that doesn't make you cringe.

Overall, I did find that some of the jokes were great and right on the mark. But the ethnic stereotypes (imagine a movie populated by Shylocks or Charlie Chans) and the parts of the movie that go beyond not working work like an anchor.

2.5/10, but probably rounded to a 3/10, and a D- on the grade.

The commentary is party devoted to slamming the critics of the film...not "The Critics," but just people who didn't like the movie in general. They claim that people were laughing in the screenings and that they don't get it how others can see the same movie and just have a complete opposite opinion. I don't know, but I suppose it's because he's focusing on the positives, whereas critics and people who don't like the movie in general can't forget the negatives.

And listening to the commentary, listening to the drivel between the director and his editor, they are wrong. Half of what they say works actually doesn't. It is almost as bad as the film, but that'd be difficult to pull off. Commentary gets a D/D+, other special features get a C.

Beauty is a Cruel Mistress

After seeing Guy Ritchie's disappointing Revolver I had to wonder if He had lost his touch...if he was going to be entering into a stage of mediocrity. I am glad that he has not. I was wrong to doubt him. Sure he has one bad film, but that's behind him now.

I know many people love Snatch, and to them it may be blasphemy to say this, but I think that RocknRolla is Guy Ritchie's best film to date.

I really liked and enjoyed both Lock, Stock and Two Smokin' Barrells as well as Snatch. I truly did. They were great works in and of themselves...but Ritchie's latest takes it to a new level. It not only goes into London's seedy underbelly, but also goes into the world of the rich. I'm not talking about gangsters on the same level as a Hatchet Harry, but gangsters on a level completely above even him.

The whole of it is beautifully acted, directed, written, and shot. It is pure poetry in its words and in its movements. It is this way from the beginning to the last.

I can't necessarily say that the story is wholly original...Ritchie steals/borrows a plot twist from his protégé Matthew Vaughn's (and former producer) film Layer Cake, as well as a story somewhat similar to what was in Lock Stock. But through all this Ritchie creates a world through the dialogue and through the actor's movements that is far above anything he has done before.

Speaking of Layer Cake, I think that Ritchie was impressed with the how Vaughn was able to borrow from Ritchie's own films and add to it with more serious action and a more subtle humor. Not to say that Vaughn's debut was better than Ritchie, but they were different yet similar. Ritchie seems to have taken what Layer Cake did well and merge it with the best of Lock Stock and Snatch.

I'm going to give this film a 8/10, A-. Yes, I think it's just that good. Mark this up as a triumphant return for Guy Ritchie after a poor showing with Revolver. BTW, unless you are a huge Jason Statham or Ray Liotta fan, go ahead and skip Revolver.

More on Dark Knight

I just realized that I talked a lot about Batman and The Dark Knight a while back but that I never gave my opinion of it.

So here it is...7/10, B+. It was a very good film. But Heath Ledger was the best thing about it. It was too long, the last half hour was poorly written, Two Face wasn't fleshed out enough, and Joker was simply TOO crazy. He was just crazy for the sake of being crazy. I didn't really buy it. And that's that. One of the better ones of the year, but not in my top three, maybe not even in my top five.

My Fair Lady

HDNet Movies was showing My Fair Lady, a movie I've always heard great things about, and so I simply had to DVR it. Also, I'm a huge Audrey Hepburn fan (the epitome of grace and class in my book), so that's another reason why I had to see it.

Great musical. Amazing. What else can one say? Hepburn is at her best switching between accents and singing; and Rex Harrison is, well he's Rex Harrison, and that's all that needs to be said.

This film is just a classic. It's even been parodied in "Family Guy"...twice.

I do, however, have one grip with this film: The ending. I prefer the ending to George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion play, which served as the basis of the original film, as well as the stage and film musicals based on that adaptation. Generally it's a rule of mine to avoid the endings or plot twists, but I don't care in this instance. The musical is over 50 years old, and the film that changed the ending is 70 years old. If you haven't seen it or don't know the ending, then too bad. Anyhow, the ending would've been 10x better if Eliza hadn't returned to Prof. Higgins. She should have kept true to her plan to marry Freddy Eynsford-Hill.

Other than that, it seems to be the nearly perfect musical. One of the best I've seen, with songs that are absolutely amazing!

Full grade of 10/10, A+. It clearly deserved all the Academy Awards it received.

Next Up: The Rocker

"I had no idea real life was so boring." "And soul-crushing. Don't forget soul-crushing."

I love those lines. And I love Rainn Wilson and Jeff Garlin. I love how once the American heavy metal band makes it big they start speaking with British accents.

Unfortunately those are about the only things about this film that I loved. I like other parts of it, but that's about it. It's not so bad, and for anyone looking to go see a light comedy it's worth a look. It even makes fun of the fact that they have a tormented lead singer/songwriter, a nerdy kid on keyboard, and a quiet punk chick on guitar.

But most of the movie elicits just a slight chuckle, even with its predictable story line. Fish (Wilson) gets kicked out of his original band, lives a life filled with unfulfilled dreams while refusing to grow up, and gets a second chance with his nephew's band. Not surprisingly he's a bad role model, gets the kids in trouble, and the rest of the tour has to be chaperoned by one of the band members' mother (Christina Applegate). The formulaic story continues with the record company trying to force Fish out of the band, and succeeding for a little bit before he returns for one triumphant concert.
This story is definitely where the movie loses some points. Simply put, there's nothing special about the story. Some of the jokes, however, are dead on. For instance, when the band tried to ditch Fish at the beginning, he chases after the band's van, eventually jumping on top and using his drumsticks to punch through the roof and pull himself forward in a manner reminiscent of, in my mind, the T1000 in Terminator 2.

All in all, it's a C+, or in number terms, a 6/10.

Starting back up//The Lucky Ones

Alright, I'm going to start back up with my semi "stream of consciousness" reviews as I watch the film, or just whenever I get around to it...unfortunately I can't do this from work (where I do get to watch movies), so I may not talk about all the movies I watch.

First up:

Niel Burger's The Lucky Ones starring Tim Robbins (Mystic River), Rachel McAdams (Wedding Crashers), and Michael Peña (World Trade Center).

This film is about a trio of soldiers returning from the wars in the Middle East, all three wounded in some way, who find themselves on a cross-country road trip. It's a cross of the "soldiers returning home" genre and the road trip film.

That being said, this is no The Best Years of Our Lives, but then again, what is? It's got your standard road trip gags, a car accident, one of them getting more than they anticipated in a sexual encounter, a bar fight, and dashed expectations. In that, it's pretty standard. Why I think this is an interesting film and one to watch is simply because it tries to merge that service veterans.

It does bring the stories of the soldiers to life, although probably quicker than those stories would happen in real life. Cheaver (Robbins) returns home to suburban St. Louis only to find after a few minutes that his wife wants a divorce and his son needs $20,000 in a matter of weeks or he loses his spot at Standford University. T.K. (Peña) suffered an injury to his "upper thigh" that caused erectile disfunction, a condition he's hesitant to tell his fiancée. Colee (McAdams) is returning her dead boyfriend's (he died saving her in Iraq) guitar to his family.

Its shortcomings are mostly in the road trip and in the things that bring the trio together. The bar fight happens because a snotty college girl makes fun of Colee's service and war injury; and only a heartless b*tch would ask a returning soldier for a divorce five minutes after he gets home. It's a little hard to believe that those would actually happen. But I found the rest of the soldiers' interactions civilians to be true and honest. I recognize not quite being sure what to say when people say "Thank you for your service;" I myself have never been "over there," but I have an idea of what it feels like when people who aren't in the military talk about it and the war. I think that those scenes are well witten, and could be interesting for people unfamiliar with the military to see those scenes. It can be a bit uncomfortable for those who are serving or have served to talk about the war with those who have never been in the military or who don't have anyone close to them who serve. I found the actors pulled those scenes off very well.

It also stumbles towards the end when it gives T.K. second thoughts about going back to the Army once his leave is done. I do wish the story had been a little bit longer and hashed out both Colee's and T.K.'s personal stories a little more; it also should've put them together more...not necessarily in a romantic way (although it seemed there was that aspect, I'm glad they didn't focus on that and make it a romantic dramedy), but shown them growing closer as friends. There was some chemistry there, while we didn't get much of a sense of chemistry with T.K. and his fiancée or why they were together. In fact, we never meet her. His story is the only one we don't even get into at all.

Overall, about 5 or 6/10. On a 5-point scale, it'd have to be a 3; I just couldn't go down to a 2, although 2.5 would be more accurate. It has lots of unfulfilled promise, which is a real shame; this could have been the first GREAT movie to come from the Middle East wars. Still though, it's probably one of the better films to deal with the Iraq war.