New Moon and the rise of Consumer Stupidity

I had the privilege of seeing an advance screening of The Invention of Lying last night, which was excellent. before it showed, there was one, and only one, preview: Richrd Kelly’s The Box. Now, I get pretty excited about movies, not necessarily the ones you’d expect, but when I say that I cannot wait for The Box, I mean that Richard Kelly is a genius and I would sit enthralled to watch someone read the back of a cereal box for two hours if he wrote the script. This movie looks so cool, I almost don’t even care if it’s good. It’s going to be awesome. Southland Tales was not what I would call great (maybe because, several viewings in, I still don’t get it), but it is cool as all hell to watch. Donnie Darko initially gave me the same reaction, except I knew it probably was great, I just didn’t get it (until I saw the Director’s Cut, whence it made perfect sense and is one of the most influential movies in my morbidly obese collection).

So, this preview comes on, I’m bouncing in my seat like a 4-year old on the way to the toy store, and after it, in the row behind me, I hear the following two-line conversation:

Idiot Girl #1: That looks terrible. I hope I never see that, like, ever.

Idiot Girl #2: Ooh, I know. OOH! I wonder if they’ll show the New Moon trailer!

I almost had an aneurysm. No word can describe my mood, my level of angered disappointment. Maybe “Lewis Black-ish” suffices. Nobody can ever remove that conversation from my mind. It will haunt me forever. I’m not really a violent man, but if I were… oh, if I were.

These two lines represent everything that is wrong with consumer culture. New Moon is not good. It’s not even out, and it’s already not good. Twilight was not good. Whatever-the-hell the third one is called will not be good. Hopefully there won’t be any more. If there are, they won’t be good. Bad writing, worse directing, worse acting, no cinematography. Those movies are the death of art in cinema. They aren’t alone, but they are in a unique position.

Their popularity is causing them to influence the entire next generation of indie filmmakers, currently disguised as socially awkward teenagers who now think this is what a good movie is. If any of you are reading this, IT ISN’T. Stop buying in to shitty cinema and go see a real movie. Go watch something by Danny Boyle (other than Slumdog Millionaire). Go watch some Darren Aronofsky. Some John August, some Rian Johnson. How about some foreign film? Some Michael Haneke? Some Takashi Miike? Or more importantly, how about some Richard Kelly. Go see The Box.

Throw your Twilight crap in with the rest of the trash and watch something that takes your breath away. Something pretty to look at, something you can’t possibly understand the first time, something… human. A good movie is like a person. It should take you years to figure it out, and even longer to appreciate it. Donnie Darko is Gandhi. Twilight is Miley Cyrus (that’s a bad thing, which you probably don’t know if you liked Twilight). Richard Kelly is a Picasso of modern film. Stephanie Meyer and the New Moon director are the artistic equivalents of a drunk four-year-old.

Those girls should be ashamed to be so stupid, but they’re too stupid to realize that. Don’t follow in their footsteps. If the world loses even one great filmmaker to consumer stupidity, I may snap.

One final note: I will say the soundtrack for New Moon unfortunately looks quite impressive. Thom Yorke, Death Cab, Muse, Grizzly Bear, they have gotten some goodies. All this tells me is that these musicians want money. A lot of money. They will get it. There is no such thing as artistic integrity in the soundtrack business. Thom Yorke has already established his artistic integrity about 9 times over, he doesn’t care. Money is not a shameful thing to pursue. Sure, they’re making money off of stupid people, but if you ask me, people stupid enough to buy into the Twilight culture of ignorance don’t deserve their money. Give it to a good cause. Like Thom Yorke. Someone with something to say in his life.

 

The Invention Of Lying

If you’ve ever said “honesty is always the best policy”, this might just be the most important movie you’ve ever seen.

This movie takes place in some alternate universe where mankind never evolved the ability to tell a lie. The small touches in this universe sell it to me. No art. No fiction books. No movies (other than documentaries). No religion. Everybody tells it exactly like it is. The store windows? Brilliant. Ad campaigns? Awesome. It makes for good comedy, but this universe would suck to live in.

Enter Ricky Gervais. A documentary screenwriter. He researches history and writes scripts to be read by “actors”. A movie consists of someone sitting in an armchair describing a historical event. Basically the most boring high school history class you can remember, but you have to pay to listen to it.

Everybody tells him he’s going to get fired. He gets fired. He doesn’t have rent money. He gets evicted. He goes to the bank to close his account; their system is down. The teller asks, “how much do have in your account?” (an innocent question in a world of honesty) BAM. The world’s first lie. From there, he uses lying to his advantage whenever possible, though I will admit quite tastefully (he refuses sex after telling a woman she has to sleep with him or the world will end, etc.). Then, to console his dying mother, he tells her that when you die, you go to a happy place. Well, now he has done what several others did when they realized that people were easily deceived: he has invented a religion.

I cannot wait to see the conservative response to this movie. I think Ricky Gervais has done something brilliant here: he has created a movie that the religious right might actually go see, because it looks relatively innocent and wholesome, and then the second half is an indictment of organized religion. Not that I have a problem with faith, but whoever said “religions are cults with more members” was onto something, aside from the fact that religions unfortunately have fewer mass suicides. But I digress.

This movie is great. It’s funny, heartwarming, with little to no vulgarity and no sex. It doesn’t need it either. It’s a rare example of a true PG-13 comedy. I feel many comedies nowadays artificially insert nudity or an unnecessary amount of cursing to garner an R rating in the hopes that it will boost their ticket sales (Adventureland is a wonderful example of this). Other movies need to be vulgar and crass to be funny at all (though I love it, I have to point a finger at Superbad, it would not have been funny otherwise). This movie fills its niche wonderfully, with natural dialogue and neither too little nor too much of anything offensive. I don’t care about any of that, I enjoy a raunchy comedy as much as I enjoy a G rated comedy (or, at least one of the few worth watching), but I approve of a comedy my mom can watch without that look on her face (you all have moms, you know the look).

My one-line review for this one: Wonderfully original, and twistingly funny. Go see it.

Consensus: 85/100

 

Adam

I do not have Asperger’s Syndrome. I worked briefly with a young boy who has it, but that is about the extent of my experience. I won’t attempt to guess what living with it is like. This movie is about a man with Asperger’s, and a woman who moves into his building. It’s a mild rom-com of sorts. It has its romance, it has its comedy, it has a great pair of performances (Hugh Dancy as Adam and the ever-talented Rose Byrne). It is charming, sad when it needs to be, funny when it needs to be. So why do I find myself without much to say about it? I guess this movie left me wanting a little more. For lack of a better word, I felt a little unrequited by the end. Peter Gallagher (I guess his O.C. and American Beauty money finally ran dry, he’s on Californication now too) played a really absorbing character, and I could have used more of him. I honestly thought they could have done quite a bit more with this story; it’s roughly an hour and 45 minutes, but perhaps I’m so spoiled by epics that I found it a little brief. Things swelled and faded and concluded quite nicely, but I just have this sense of… blah… about the whole thing. Maybe I’m looking for too much. What they did, they did well, and though I’m not qualified to make this assumption, I think they treated the subject well. It would be easy to make this movie clichéd and “Forrest Gump“y, but I don’t think they did. I guess, in the end, my one line review is “A good date movie, but that’s about all.”

Consensus: 66/100

 

Inglorious Basterds

A new Tarantino movie. Very obviously so. It’s good. Maybe that’s the first sign. Say what you want about him, Quentin Tarantino is a great filmmaker.

I’m about to say something which I may regret. I like his movies, but they all feel the same. I don’t feel like he has grown much as a director. This is classic QT: Violence that makes you laugh (truly, truly disturbing violence, which in other hands, would only come across as truly, truly disturbing), a woman scorned, in one way or another, and essentially no plot twists. I like that the ending is nearly obvious from the start of Chapter 3. The audience finds itself questioning whether things will play out as planned or even how they will play out, but this is Tarantino. She’s going to kill Bill, they’re going to catch and kill Stuntman Mike, and they’re going to kill as many Nazis as humanly possible.

So, a great filmmaker though he is, I hesitantly call him a one-trick pony. I like his movies. If you like his movies, you’ll like this one. The things that make this movie special have little to do with Tarantino.

Eli Roth is great. You might have heard of him. He wrote and directed Cabin Fever, Hostel, and Hostel 2. He even had a bit part in Death Proof (come to think of it, most of the Basterds did). If anyone knows about stylized violence, it’s Eli Roth. Tarantino picked the right role for him.

Christoph Waltz is great. Diane Kruger is great. Daniel Brühl is great. Mélanie Laurent is great. The cast is all great.

Oh yeah, Brad Pitt. Well, his last line “I think this may be my masterpiece” is probably impossible to decide (I’d personally go with Seven, Fight Club, or several others before this), but maybe the line is more of a reference to Tarantino, in which case, it should have been, “I think this may be the best movie I’ve done, though it is fundamentally identical to all the others.”

Consensus: 86/100

 

Adventureland

I don’t really know where to begin with this one. I liked it. Honest. It’s not a comedy. That really threw me off for a bit. First thing you notice, here’s the new movie from the guy who did Superbad. Ryan Reynolds in a quirky role, a la Waiting. FilmComment‘s critics really liked it. My thought? This movie’s gonna be hilarious. It wasn’t, and it isn’t. There are some laughs, but most movies have a few (that’s an interesting thought: is there a movie which elicits zero laughs?). But this movie is a drama. I wouldn’t even call it a dramedy. It stings a bit to watch.

I hate to draw the comparison, because both movies star the same person, but this movie reminds me a lot of The Squid & The Whale. That being said, I’d recommend it, only slightly less highly than Squid itself. I guess the only thing I can say is don’t expect a comedy. I did, and now I can hardly think of anything to say. I’ll have to watch it again.

Consensus: 77/100

 

The Hurt Locker

It’s been a while since I wrote a review, and almost as long since the third time I saw this one. Let’s start there. I saw it three times. It’s great.

I have never been in combat, or really in a high-stress situation worth mentioning in the same breath as combat. I can only imagine what it’s like. But that aside, it’s probably a lot like this. This movie is three hours of discomfort and stress packed into an hour of action and an hour of very heart-wrenching (and sometimes gut-wrenching) emotion. A bomb-diffusing squad in Iraq. Team Leader dies in the first ten minutes (not really a spoiler, but I’ve always loved the idea of killing off a big-name actor at the extreme beginning of a movie). Enter new Team Leader: the young and brilliant Jeremy Renner. I saw him on an episode of House once, and he was brilliant, but I didn’t know he had this in him. As chiseled as his jaw may be, and just as easily as he could have been another James Franco (which is not a compliment), this man stepped up to a lead role and showed that he is, without question, a virtuoso. He carries more than his own when on screen with David Morse, and even more so when on screen with Raiph Fiennes.

This is a film about one thing. It is about what kind of person it takes to be an efficient soldier. Everybody who proves to have any characteristics too… human, I suppose, either dies or breaks down under the pressure. Not this one, though. He shows us, for quite a while in the third act, that he does have a heart. But it brings him nothing but trouble. It does not serve him. I can’t give away the end, which I will say moved me more than most endings ever have, but I will say that, to his credit, he tries to have a heart. I should have realized that it can’t possibly work for him.

I will say, I’m developing a soft spot for movies where the lead doesn’t change at all. Naturally, I (and most audience members) love progression in a story, and especially in a character. But I have seen quite a few movies lately where the lead is no different at the end. Occasionally there is change in the middle, or even a prime opportunity to change, but the person ends in the same state they began in. This is one such picture. Happy-Go-Lucky was another. These kind of movies are trending upward, so I’m going to coin a genre title: Status-Quo Cinema.

I only now realize how many things I haven’t even said about the other wonderful parts of this movie. I won’t say them. You need to see this one for yourself. Visceral. Loud. Dirty. Motionless. Brilliant.

Consensus: 93/100

 

The Brothers Bloom

Wow. I am writing a review here, so I will say more, but I wish I didn’t have to; that you could see into my head and hear all the wonderful things I have to say about this without me having to put them into words.

Rian Joshnson is the writer-director of my favorite movie: Brick. He introduced me to my favorite actress (Nora Zehtener, if you’re reading this, you are perfect), and breathed new life into the Film Noir genre, especially for me. His second effort, nearly 5 years later, is another written and directed by piece called The Brothers Bloom. Sophomore slump? I think not.

Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel Weisz, and Rinko Kikuchi. All Oscar winners or nominees, save for Ruffalo, who should be (Reservation Road and Zodiac especially). Even a momentary appearance by Nora Zehetner (I cheered).

The story follows two brothers, who are given humble beginnings as con men at the ages of 8 and 10, through a poetic (literally, rhyming) introduction that felt as though it could be from a Wes Anderson movie (which is funny to say, because Johnson is much better). They discover that the perfect con is one in which everbody involved gets exactly what they want. Jump to 25 years later, the younger (Brody) wants out. He’s not happy. His life is lived playing parts. He wants a real life. Jump to 3 months later. The older (Ruffalo) has a con for him. I can’t escape the feeling that the older is conning the younger to get him what he wants. The mark is a rich young invalid of sorts. She crashes several Lamborghinis, has a new one delivered each day, and I die a little inside. Weisz plays it perfectly. Whenever she sees something fascinating, she learns how to do it (hilarious montage!); apparently she never saw someone drive a Lamborghini not into a wall. Brody reels her in, she wants an adventure. They’re off!

I don’t like synopses, so I’ll stop here. It’s a good stopping point because from here on out, you constantly wonder: What’s the real con? Who’s conning who? Who’s in on it? Will they all get what they want?

This movie is nearly perfect. It’s touching, gripping, impossible not to watch, and very funny. My parents were skeptical. I made them see it. They walked out in awe. I will be seeing it again this week.

Consensus: 98/100

 

Is Anybody There?

This one leaves me with mixed feelings. Michael Caine was brilliant. A retired magician moving into an assisted living facility. Not a good one. A British family needs money and rents their house out to the elderly. As a result, they pretty much only land crazies. Their 10-year old is miserable in the house, no friends, parents don’t pay attention, etc. Meets Caine, who hates him, and eventually warms as they help each other through things. Classic story (modulo the details), rife for hilarity. But it was just ok. I don’t know what to say. I wish it had been better. Some of the plot elements seemed unnecessary but to add length to the story, I didn’t like that. I need parts of my story to mean something, or to inform something.

I realize this sounds a little negative. But I liked the movie. It was entertaining, funny, etc. I wish it had been better. As good as Sir Michael Caine is (and was in this), it could have been better.

Consensus: 75/100

 

Terminator Salvation (review)

You know, this was not bad. Not amazing. But entertaining.

Christian Bale may have gone a little crazy during the filming of this one, but apparently going crazy is the thing to do in hollywood these days (Joaquin Phoenix anyone?). I felt he was using his unreasonably gutteral “Batman” voice a little much. That or he had a sore throat for the entire filming schedule. His acting, and everyone else’s in this movie, was on par with the quality of the movie. Not great, but reasonable. I found myself a little disappointed, both with Bale and with Anton Yelchin (Alpha Dog) who has previously demonstrated a lot of talent to me.

McG, the director, and his company, Wonderland (of The O.C. fame), have really demonstrated flexibility with this one. When I heard he was directing this, I was a little perplexed. It is not in his wheelhouse. The movie is quite large-scale, even by comparison to the prior three Terminator films. It takes place in 2018, during the war against the maqachines, and there are some classic man vs. Terminator fights, but there are also very large sequences, almost battle sequences, that set this one apart. It felt realistic. The CGI was well done. I don’t know what else there is to say. If you plan on seeing it, see it in theaters; it’s big enough to merit a big screen. Is it a great summer blockbuster? No. Was it worth seeing? Sure.

Consensus: 65/100

 

Two Lovers

Fair Warning: This post is really about Joaquin Phoenix. The movie was really well done. I enjoyed it a LOT. It isn’t for everybody. Not a very happy movie. It’s mostly about the illusion of happiness.

Consensus: 82/100

So I don’t know if people who aren’t as crazy into film as I am knew about this, but Joaquin Phoenix went off his rocker. He has apparently retired from acting and is starting a career as a (horrible, so I have heard) hip-hop artist. His E! Announcement was barely intelligible, and the subsequent Letterman Appearance was ridiculous. There have been rumors that he is doing this as a sort of immersion for a movie about a white hip-hop artist; Casey Affleck is doing a documentary about this whole thing. In either case, people are saying they respect him for going after what he wants to do, and people say those who come after him are just making fun of him, but I’m not impressed.