The Road

After No Country for Old Men, I wasn’t sure what to expect from a film based on a Cormac McCarthy book. I enjoyed No Country, for the most part, but like a lot of people, I felt somewhat alienated by the ending. I’ve always been a fan of stories where the character(s) are forced to survive by their own wits in a disastrous situation, such as being stranded on a desert island or lost in the mountains. The Road is about the Earth slowly becoming uninhabitable as a result of a meteor.

The Road, however, is a bit more straightforward. Viggo Mortensen is the lead character, a nameless father, who leads his son towards a warm, southern refuge that may or may not exist. Everywhere they go carries the possibility of running into roving gangs of cannibals. There is absolutely no food to be found (all plant life seems to have died), except for the occasional grasshopper or 10-year-old can of Coke. Their journey seems to follow whatever major highway they’ve managed to find, which runs right into a truck full of armed men. You’d think they’d avoid such major roadways when they’re always full of danger. Rightfully so, Mortensen is overly paranoid, dodging every possible confrontation.  And, just in case, the father carries a handgun with two bullets – one for him, and one for his son.

The son is, in most respects, a typical child character. He wants to believe everyone has the best of intentions, asks mindless questions, and is especially possessive of useless trinkets and toys. He clutches his father for safety, and whines whenever he doesn’t get his way. Both remember the third figure, the mother and wife. Her story is told in flashbacks experienced by the father, which also serve to explain how the beginning of the end of the world affected them.

The film reminded me heavily of 2008’s Blindness, a similar film with a bleak outlook, washed out visual effects, and nameless characters. Where Blindness seemed foolishly illogical and unlikable, the characters in The Road often act the way we think we would in the same situation. We’re fairly sure there is no sunny haven waiting at the end of the movie, but if we were the father and son, we know we’d need to have something to journey towards.

Road depicts the scenario of a dying planet and a dwindling and desperate population extremely well, and a little too graphically well at times. That’s not a knock, but a tough-to-watch accomplishment by the filmmakers. But, the flaw of the film is that it’s somewhat limited by what it can do. It’s a disaster movie, and can’t really travel outside the boundaries of such a film without transcending genres or breaking rules. Again, not a knock, just an opinion. Still, what The Road sets out to do, it does very well. Just be prepared for a very dark and depressing film that doesn’t let up.

Rating: ★★★¾☆ 

Oh, the Coen brothers. Where do I start?

If you’ve heard anything about their new film, A Serious Man, you may have heard the comparisons to the story of Job. (The guy in the bible.) That’s certainly a good starting place, but I think it’s best to use that story as an influence, and consider the characters to be completely independent.

The film opens with a sort-of flashback, to olden times. A seemingly harmless old man comes in out of the snow for some soup and to sit by the fire, and to chat with a younger man he helped earlier in the day. The younger man’s wife immediately declares the old man to be a demon – because she’s sure this old man died some time ago. The younger man openly accepts the living man he sees in front of him, while the wife clings to her beliefs, and stabs the old man. As the old man excuses himself, believing it must be rude to bleed on someone’s floor, and wanders out the door, the younger man is sure his life is ruined by the act. The wife is certain she’s avoided doom.

Our main character, Larry Gopnik, is a math professor for a Hebrew school in suburban 60s Illinois. And he seems to have the task of using extraordinarily complex mathematical equations to explain similarly complex theories. These equations make perfect sense to Larry, and explain the unexplainable. But to his students, they might as well be gibberish. Larry may understand his craft, but he has no idea how to convey its significance to his class. Perhaps, he seems to imply, they should just accept what he’s saying as fact, and move on. It’s much too difficult to comprehend – and it’s best to just take it as it appears.

The story begins as Larry is confronted with difficult life decisions: Should he allow his brother to live on the couch and monopolize the family’s bathroom? What should he do with a supposed bribe from a student? His wife wants to divorce him to marry a family friend. His financial troubles mount. His neighbor is encroaching on his lawn. His neighbor sunbathes nude. He’s being considered for tenure. Larry is at that crossroads in life. And he seeks help from his faith.

When a man is faced with temptation, and is tested, possibly by higher powers, faith can provide guidance. But a man’s decision is his own, and he must decide what to do with the advice he may be given. Take Larry’s brother, Arthur. Arthur leeches off of the family while he comes up with a formula to win at gambling. But it only lands him in trouble with the police. Later, Arthur breaks down, and curses God for not rewarding him with the things Larry’s received. And, at that point, you might think Larry would realize what he does have, instead of bemoaning what he’s lost. Or, rather, you’d think Larry would finally wake up, and begin to act, instead of falling further. He looks to his rabbis for solutions. The first is young and inexperienced, and offers absolutely no help. The second relates a seemingly helpful story, but can’t explain it’s true meaning. The final rabbi, whom everyone in town agrees is wise, refuses to see Larry. Larry begins to fall apart at this rejection, and the viewer might assume that the wise rabbi sees that Larry is beyond his help. Maybe, like us, he’s hoping that Larry will start to work against the forces pushing him down.

Instead, Larry continually cries, “I didn’t do anything!”.

And, he’s right.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

For a long while, I was unsure how to talk about this film. It’s obviously about the war in Iraq, but it’s not necessarily a war film. There are tense scenes, but it’s not really a suspense/thriller film. The film is less about a certain storyline or eventual showdown, and more about the ability to function in a personal hell. Maybe it just exists.

The film centers around a three-man crew whose specialty is EOD, or Explosive Ordinance Disposal. For those of us not in the military, they’re the bomb squad. Their daily routine is much like that of a firefighter – extremely dangerous situations are going to call, and it’s a question of when, not if. Sgt. William James (played by a surprisingly entertaining Jeremy Renner… wasn’t he in that god-awful S.W.A.T. remake?) is the team leader, who seems to insist on doing things the hard way. Sgt. James appears to be the very definition of above and beyond – wearing bomb suits, refusing the assistance of robot drones, and working under fire. His initial attitude seems to rub his fellow soldiers the wrong way. Taking unnecessary risks, ignoring the rulebook, and relying on instinct seems to create anger amongst the EOD team – at least on the surface. Senior officers drop by to heap praise on Sgt. James while his crew looks on. Are you kidding me? This guy is going to get us killed, they think.

Is Sgt. James the reckless hothead he appears to be? Or is he really that good? Whenever he shares details of his personal life, or even opens his mouth, Sgt. James doesn’t appear to be the perfect soldier, much less the perfect person. But he continues to dive head-first into the worst situations imaginable, and gets the job done while his crew swears they’ve dodged another bullet. And, Sgt. James begins to show flashes of leadership and empathy, suggesting he might be the leader the squad needs. Or is he? Perhaps Sgt. James just lives off of instinct, and he happened to be born to defuse bombs.

Either way, the team both bonds and becomes torn as they count down to their final day of deployment. They’re all sure they’re going to die. After all, it’s not a question of if – but when.

I highly recommend The Hurt Locker, and I don’t feel that I can completely express just why in words. It’s a great film experience, and there’s solid portrayals of real people on screen. I think it’s fair to say that what impressed me most was that the film wasn’t black-and-white, cut and dry, or whatever other catchphrase applies. It was real. Nothing was clear cut or perfectly defined. It was easy to make assumptions that proved to be right and wrong. People aren’t perfect role models, or complete degenerates. People have flaws, and don’t get along, and have degrees of emotions. And this film manages to have real people in the worst place in the world, doing things that happen to make for a great cinematic experience.

Highest recommendation.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

I’ve seen a great number of films, and experienced a great deal of villainy. One of the recent villainous greats was Heath Ledger’s interpretation of The Joker in The Dark Knight. Ledger’s version of The Joker gave the character a whole new shade. His take was a whole new voice compared what we’d seen in comics and previous Batman films – literally. But, more importantly, he was a character with depth and emotion. And, he was evil. He created tension and dread amongst the characters in the film and the audience in their seats.

John Travolta’s character, Ryder, the lead villain of our film, certainly does and says things that bad guys should. He yells “motherfucker” every chance he has, has tattoos, and tries to establish a few catchphrases. But acting like a villain, and being a villain are two different things. The Joker created an atmosphere of fear and panic in Gotham City. Ryder, on the other hand, seems to work from his Cliff Notes version of the villain handbook. His henchmen seem interesting, but we’re not given any details on them – they might as well have “Hired Goon #2” signs around their neck. A shame, too, since we’re provided with a former MTA employee who seems defeated and almost regretful he’s involved in the scheme. We have a trigger happy silent killer who effortlessly identifies and murders a non-uniformed police officer. They certainly seemed interesting, but we’re instead left with Travolta’s villain caricature.

Denzel Washington is our hero, Garber, who is surprisingly not a cop – but a subway dispatcher with his own issues. He’s a little pudgy, grayed, and isn’t always sure of the right thing to say. But, beyond that, his character also brings nothing new to the table. Likewise, the hostages seem to be paper-thin personalities as well. A super-cool teenager named George (“Geo” to his friends) seems like he was casted first, and detailed later. I won’t try to figure out why his laptop, with his stripping girlfriend on webcam, was never noticed by the bad guys, but, well, it is a movie, after all. Additional characters (no-nonsense cops, a beleaguered but passionate mayor) bring their personalities to the party, and seem equally hollow.

But that’s Pelham 123 in a nutshell. It’s definitely not a bad film, but I expect a bit more from Tony Scott after a strong thriller like Man on Fire. Examining Pelham seems to suggest that the filmmakers took a known story, and filled in the basic action formula pieces. I hate to say that the film comes off a bit lazy, but I’m not sure how else to see it. A film like this, centered on a heist, depends on its villain, and the relationship between antagonist and protagonist. I never felt that connection between Garber and Ryder was there. They simply spoke into a radio and replied to each other. Furthermore, the film displays a clock to transition scenes – Ryder and his gang have given the city of New York one hour to deliver ten million dollars. But, since we know that heist movies never get the money to the bad guys on time, we don’t even care about the clock. And, later, Garber somehow gets dragged into the confrontation physically, despite him not being a cop – but he’s the star of the film, so of course he has to face off with Ryder. Right?

Again, let me repeat: not a bad movie. But it wants to be so much more. It wants to be a thriller. Blurry editing, sped-up car chases, and bloody gun brawls don’t make a thrilling film. Intensity does. And this movie simply didn’t have it.

Rating: ★★★☆☆ 

“Adventure is out there!”

So claims Charles Muntz, famous world explorer and star of black-and-white newsreels. Carl Fredericksen, an elderly widower, grew up idolizing Muntz. Muntz discovered Paradise Falls, a seemingly mythical jungle paradise, home to a strange beast Muntz claimed to have discovered – but was rejected and shamed by the scientific community. Fredericksen was a pudgy small child, with goggles and a leather pilot hat, who grew up into a pudgy small man. But, along the way, he met someone else with their own goggles and hat, and a missing tooth – his future wife Ellie. And fate takes its course, and we see Carl and Ellie grow old together, through some very happy times, and through the worst. After finding out the couple couldn’t have children, Ellie became ill later in life, and passed away, leaving Carl alone.

As we’re dropped into the present day, we now see the stereotypical cranky old man, but, more importantly, we know how a pudgy young boy became that bitter old man. Ellie and Carl’s dream home is surrounded by construction, with businessmen plotting to get Carl’s house out of the way. Carl, alone with pictures and memories, likely spends most of his time wondering how his life went from perfect to misery. A man who was once a balloon vendor at a zoo, who spent his days selling helium and smiles, now grumbles with every knock at his door. And that leads to a confrontation that has him on a one-way trip to a retirement home. And somehow, in less than half an hour, an animated film has craftily shown us an everyday man’s journey – Carl’s once-full life has been taken away, and his back is to the wall.

And, with nothing to lose, Carl takes a desperate chance to hang on to the only thing he has left – his memories. Thousands upon thousands of balloons, he’s sure, are going to take him away from orderlies in white coats, and drop him in what should’ve been he and his wife’s fantasy: the magical Paradise Falls, the place where Charles Muntz, Carl’s childhood hero and disgraced explorer, claimed to have found that fantastical creature. As Carl tries to take control of his life, his house is carried away, with one addition – a pudgy young boy named Russell.

And off they go. Carl has his reservations, of course, because his freedom has now become saddled with responsibility. They’ll run into obstacles, villains, pitfalls, and so on (of course), and they have their adventure. But the fact that Pixar, yet again, can make a simple film work so well, on so many levels, demonstrates how consistently strong their work is. Up is a family film, animated, and should have that fairy tale ending, so there have to be limits and boundaries as to what the movie can do. But the film works those boundaries to their limits, and gives us a full, satisfying, funny escape.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

To boldly go where… several movies have gone before?

The new Star Trek film is blasting into theaters, almost literally. There have been plenty of Trek movies, derived from the original television series or its various spin-offs, but this new film is stepping outside the realm of continuing a TV show.  This Trek film fits into the action movie trend, with loud noises, fast-moving (almost too fast to see) vehicles, lots of explosions, and popular music played over action sequences. (The Beastie Boys’ “Sabotage” is used here in the case of a car chase, for example.) The film, as an action movie, which requires a brain turn-off and a bucket of popcorn, works just fine. There’s a villain, loud noises, battles, and the aforementioned pop songs.  So, if that’s what you came for, you’ll walk away happy.

The tone of Star Trek is based upon, well, almost in-action. The most powerful scenes from Star Trek films and shows are based upon logic, emotion, politics, morals, and – you get the idea. Captains Kirk, Picard, and so forth solved their problems by deducing, not destroying. Violence, as a last resort, never resulted in a victory – it just made the friends of your enemies angrier. Revenge, I suppose, is the issue with this Star Trek. Nero, a Romulan in command of a massive, spiked ship, has come from the future (where else?) to exact revenge on Starfleet – and Spock in particular. His plan: Destroy some planets, upset Spock, and… okay, he didn’t say what he’d do after that. Our heroes plan to stop him, of course. Our heroes, in this case, are a pre-TV series (not-yet Captain) Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the gang. This film appears to explain how our crew came together, and it wasn’t exactly the happy-go-lucky team-up you’d expect. In fact, Kirk and Spock meet in a quasi-court room (presided over by a very unlikely judge – one who’s usually seen in older women’s clothes) on opposite ends of an argument. From there, their relationship only grows colder, literally. Kirk ends up on an ice planet, as a result of Spock, and Kirk’s left to fend for himself against various monsters, until he’s saved by… well, if I told you, you wouldn’t believe me.

And so, the usual action movie formula kicks in, and heroes have to band together to stop the one-dimensional villain from destroying the world. That probably sounds like a giant negative, but it’s not – Star Trek handles that formula just fine, and the result is fun to watch (Even if Eric Bana’s performance, under all that makeup, isn’t.). The only negative I can think of (besides an extremely cliché slow-motion dive out of a careening car by a very young James T. Kirk), is that the film should have been above such things. But, there’s certainly nothing wrong with a very polished blow-’em up.

Trek fans, I can’t speak for you, but time will tell if this film is really part of the franchise’s universe. Sure, it’s the same old characters (and one very familiar actor), and the logo is there, but… something was missing. A good example is Superman Returns – a film I enjoyed very much. I later realized that what I was enjoying was the old John Williams score, the Christopher Reeve-lookalike, and an overall slick reference to old movies I liked as a kid. I get the feeling that Trek fans may end up feeling the same. This isn’t the most terrible thing in the world, but it does raise the question: If this film was asked to stand on its on two legs, without the build-up and history provided by a 30-some year old franchise, would it hold up?

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

Kristen Bell as Princess Lea

Most people, I think, have some sort of unhealthy habit. Whether they admit it or not, everyone has some trait, activity or habit that they take to the extreme. Now, I doubt very much that most people can relate to the love of Star Wars that the characters in our film have. But, everyone has an obsession, don’t they? Some people are clean freaks, some people love dogs, and, well, some people love a series of movies about space drama.
Our film is Fanboys, an adventurous tale about a group of friends who decide that their chance at the Holy Grail is at hand. Instead of a treasured chalice, four nerdy guys (and their amazingly cute gal-pal, played by Kristen Bell) decide that they need to break into George Lucas’s home and watch the new Star Wars movie before anyone else. The boys decide to do this because one of them, Linus, has terminal cancer. This trip is, really, their gift to him – even though they realize it’s likely impossible (and would end with felony charges). And, to quote Han Solo, that’s the real trick, isn’t it? This, in fact, was a source of controversy in production – the film changed directors, the script dropped the cancer bit, then picked it up at the protest of fans, and so on. Was a cancer subplot really going to dramatically change the historical cinematic impact this film would have? No, but then, I can’t say I was a fanboy for Fanboys.

Now, anyway, with the film, our gang goes off on a series of adventures, with jail time, internet dating, rumbles with trekkies, and hookers galore. And there are cameos by Star Wars actors, and non-Star Wars actors (including Seth Rogen in two roles). And there are tons of gags, Star Wars-related and not. And I laughed. I did. But the film, graded against other films, was quite poor. It is. I’d honestly have to rank it alongside Project: Alf. Honest. I have to put it in the same category as a TV film that was built on pure nostalgia. That’s what this film is.

Now, to me, the film was certainly fun. I’m a Star Wars fan, and this film was made for people like me. I hate Star Trek, and I love Han Solo. I am this film’s target audience. I caught each quote from the Wars movies, noticed all the sounds (Chewbacca’s growl and R2-D2′s whine), and loved that “Hutch” had to pound his van’s ceiling to get it to start, just like the Millennium Falcon.

If you count yourself among casual Star Wars fans, then, well, you’re in sort of a gray area. But it’s more than likely that this film is going to annoy you. Just giving you fair warning. But it is exactly as it appears on the surface: a horny teen comedy with Star Wars references galore. But… in case you were hoping for some sort of money shot, you don’t get one.

Unless, that is, you count Kristen Bell in a slave girl costume.

Ever watch The History Channel? It’s got the H logo in the corner – for history! Every time I go to that channel, it seems to be about Hitler. So often, in fact, that I just call it The Hitler Channel. I mean, how many documentaries can there be about one guy? At least that channel (and history class) has drilled it into my head that he was a pretty evil guy.

Valkyrie assumes we’ve all watched The Hitler Channel, er, The History Channel. That’s probably an easy assumption to make, but in the universe of a single film, it’s a lazy assumption. Within Nazi Germany, there’s a growing unrest among the higher-ups who want to end the war. This sentiment comes from a loss of faith in Hitler, the desire to avoid the invasion of their homeland by the Allies, fears of the negative perception of Germany by the rest of the world, and so on. Or so I assume. One of these is our main character, Tom Cruise’s Colonel von Stauffenberg. He hates Hitler because, um, he’s… a bad guy? Stauffenberg says several times that Germany has to be saved from Hitler, but isn’t very clear in his explanations. Early in the film, we’re shown how Stauffenberg becomes disfigured after an attack by the Allies. At one point, he even shuffles his family into the basement during the bombing of Berlin. And, of course, he’s risking his own neck taking on Hitler. But why? Why are we, the viewer, left to assume so much of what drives Stauffenberg to risk the lives of his family and his fellow men?

Valkyrie is an extremely crisp looking film. The filmmakers made sure to show step-by-step how Stauffenberg’s circle put their plan into motion, and detailed all the speed bumps along the way. But it’s damaged by its lack of motivation. Richard Fleischer’s 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora! shows how government blunders led to the successful surprise attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor. The problem with that film was that it was nothing but a dry re-hashing of a history book. It was so, well, matter-of-fact that it failed as a movie. A well-made movie has character development and plot movement that gets you emotionally invested in the intensity of its characters and events. Tora! did not. The explosions at the end were neat, and everyone in uniforms sure looked like they were in the military, but so what? Valkyrie falls into the same trap. It presents facts, and shows people doing things, but why do I care? How is it drawing me into the emotion? I found no reason to feel tense when Stauffenberg put his assassination plot into motion. Of course, Hitler’s the bad guy and needs to get beat up or killed or jailed or whatever, but I know that happens already. Make me think that Stauffenberg can’t pull it off, or get away, or find the golden ticket or something.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Valkyrie was definitely a very good-looking film. I’m not usually a fan of Tom Cruise, but I felt like he pulled off the bitter soldier quite well. All the pieces were in place for this film to succeed; I place the blame for coming up short on direction. Bryan Singer has done quite well with emotion in the past (see Apt Pupil for proof), but just didn’t give me that here. It was a treat to watch, but I just don’t feel like I gained anything lasting by watching it. If you’re a fan of war films, I’d definitely recommend Valkyrie, but otherwise… I just don’t know. Other people in the theater felt strongly about the movie, and I heard someone say, “It was pretty intense!”. But I think it’s fair to demand that movies make you empathize, and have a reason to care about the hero. If you wanted facts and nothing but, then there are numerous books (and documentaries on The History Channel!) about plots to kill Hitler. But for a film, the viewer needs a little more.

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

Check out Michael’s review of Valkyrie here.