Kick-Ass

I will start by saying that this movie is not for children. It’s not for people who don’t think violence is amusing. It’s not for people who don’t think that… It’s not for everyone.

But it is for me.

I will next say that people who see this movie need to understand how bad you are going to feel for laughing. I will say, there should be nothing funny about seeing a little girl get kicked in the face. But believe me, it is funny. You will laugh. Then you will realize you are a bad person for laughing. But that’s ok. We’re all bad people.

I can’t help but think about the masterpiece that is Michael Haneke’s Funny Games. That movie is essentially about how violence isn’t supposed to be entertaining. Read: SUPPOSED TO BE. Doesn’t mean it isn’t. I found Kick-Ass almost endlessly entertaining. If you enjoy violence in movies or video games, or hell, even sports (what is football, if not a large display of televised violence?), you’ll probably be ok with it.

I need to rant briefly about one thing that did bother me, perhaps more than it should have, and certainly more than it would bother anyone who does not watch more than a reasonable number of movies (as I do). The music. I am of the opinion that original music composed for one movie is off limits to every other movie. Period. That song from Requiem For A Dream (“Lux Aeternal”) essentially ruined The Two Towers. It ruins every preview it is a part of. That song is from Requiem For A Dream, dammit. There was a phase where EVERY preview for EVERY epic used music from Gladiator. Ruined.

John Murphy is a genius, responsible for several of the best original scores of the last decade. Snatch. 28 Days Later. Sunshine. He write music for Danny Boyle (director of the last two of those three). He did music for Kick-Ass. Me=excited. Then, the music in the movie was the theme from 28 Days Later and Sunshine. It’s great music. I loved it here too. But THAT ISN’T FAIR. It unfairly evokes the images of those movies during this one.

Also, there is a build up to a climactic gun battle in a hallway, and the background music is very unmistakably an intro to “Kryptonite” by 3 Doors Down. I was stoked. I haven’t heard that song in years. And it fits! Then, right as it’s about to start, cut to a different song. My guess is they couldn’t get the rights to it, so they had to cut to something else. But still, annoying.

This movie was also quite bipolar. The first half is very reminiscent of Superbad. Not very serious. The second half is just like Shoot ‘Em Up, ridiculous fight choreography and all. But it’s easy to roll with. I didn’t mind.

Finally, my hat is off to Nicholas Cage. A much bigger role than I expected, and very well played. I did not see him coming on this strong.

I’d recommend this movie very highly, but only to certain people. But you know who you are. In fact, if you’re reading this, I bet you already knew whether you want to see this or not. I doubt I changed many minds.

One-line review: One part Superbad, one part Shoot ‘Em Up.

Consensus: 86/100

 

Sherlock Holmes

This movie is excellent. Much more so than the other reviews of it I’ve read. Perhaps it’s too smart for the average viewer. Not that I would expect less from Guy Ritchie. Snatch is one the smartest movies I’ve seen, and the lesser known (and more recent) Revolver is even more so. This movie is very smart. In places, the dialogue moves quite quickly. Those not comfortable with rapid Brit-speak may find this difficult, but that serves simply as a reason to go again. A British movie that came out earlier this year, called In The Loop, may have suffered from this. I intend to buy that movie and watch it several times with subtitles until I understand the whole thing, because it honestly may be one of the funniest movies of the decade. I’m not sure. But I will say that as obsessed as America is with faster cars, faster internet, faster everything, we speak our version of English more slowly than just about every other culture speaks their language on the planet.

Which brings us back to Holmes. The dialogue is fast and clever. The action is equally as fast and equally as clever. The plot is of the most excellent sort. The acting was very good, better than that even. Robert Downey Jr. continues to astonish, this time immersing himself in a British role very naturally. Jude Law has less of a difficult time with the whole British thing, but I was quite impressed at how well he played a supporting role. It is interesting to think that three years ago, this movie would have been cast in reverse, with Law as Holmes and Downey Jr. as Watson. It might not have worked as well. I think it took time for Robert Downey Jr. to become a great actor again. And he is. He is an almost singular talent in our era, funny, serious, charismatic. He does voice-over, he tells a story without words at all. Not an award-winning role by any means, but a powerful one.

One-line review: An incredible holiday movie, highly recommended.

Consensus: 85/100

 

Avatar

With all the hype, I’ll keep this one as brief as I can.

I went to this expecting an experience similar to the second Transformers movie. You go to a movie like that in theaters because, even though everybody knows it’s going to be terrible, if you’re going to see giant robots blow each other up (and we all will see that movie eventually), you might as well see it on as large of a screen as possible, so as to be at least a little amazed. That is to say, if the first time you see it is on a small screen, it’s barely even entertaining. How much does a movie like Independence Day lose from a big screen to a small one? It’s loses most of its wonder and astonishment, and for most of these kinds of movies, that’s really all they have going for them.

So I expected my one-sentence review to be “terrible movie, looks pretty”. I will start by commenting on just how pretty it looks. It’s gorgeous. CGI has reached a point where with enough of a budget (this one and King Kong come to mind), you can manufacture reality, or whatever version of reality you like. In addition, the 3-D is a nice touch. I have seen a few things in this new 3-d, and don’t let it fool you as a gimmick. It’s not stuff-jumping-out-of-the-screen 3-D like the days of old. They edit the film (I believe they simply throw different depths into different focal lengths) to give the extra dimension to it. That is, when you look down a hallway, you actually feel like you are looking down it, and not at a 2-D projection of a hallway. It’s nice. I realize just how far the technology has come because I was guilty of TWICE swatting at the air in front of my face to clear dust. It was in the movie.

So now, the story. It’s great. James Cameron blew my mind. He made a gorgeous movie that was excellent. It was well written, well acted, well directed. I haven’t seen Sigourney Weaver act this well in a very long time (Imaginary Heroes was very good, but not really because of her).

This movie, more than almost any other I have seen in a while, is a theatrical must-see.

One-line review: Go see it, and go see it in 3-D.

Consensus: 87/100

 

The Road

This movie was a let-down. It’s alright, but barely. It doesn’t really go anywhere, they never explain why it’s the apocalypse, and it drags. Though, I do suppose that’s much what the apocalypse would actually be like. Maybe that’s what they were going for.

The cinematography is nice, and the acting is good (I will say, the little boy does quite a good job). I appreciate good cameos, great actors that are ok with very small parts (of which my pick for Best Picture this year, The Hurt Locker, has at every single turn). A good debut from a new director. But after all the underground hype for this one, all the copies of the book stuffing the inside of my local Borders, I expected a lot more. I would honestly only recommend this movie to serious cinephiles.

One-line review: A post-apocalyptic thriller with no thrills and not much apocalypse.

Consensus: 55/100

 

Invictus

I read a review of this one that called it something along the lines of “a great rugby movie, an ok Nelson Mandela biopic”. I would be hard pressed to think of many things more backwards. The rugby is pretty good. Entertaining, exciting, etc. That being said, this movie is NOT about rugby. Rugby is the backdrop; it would be like saying that Grey’s Anatomy is about medicine. This movie is about Mandela, and the end of apartheid in South Africa. This is a true cinematic achievement in that the right actor was alive at the right time to play the right person. It’s a very happy coincidence, for I fear that this movie would never work in another time, place, or with another person.

That being said, the movie is pretty good. Not excellent, but pretty good. The acting is tremendous. Morgan Freeman is tremendous. Matt Damon is pretty good. He holds his own against Freeman, but I would say barely so. Unfortunately, I can think of an actor better suited to play the role, and even more unfortunately, that actor is dead. Everything in Damon’s performance screams Heath Ledger. His accent, his walk, his demeanor. Everything. It is almost as if Clint Eastwood said “act just like Heath Ledger would have”. To his credit, he does. I like Matt Damon a lot, and he certainly seems to be channeling Ledger quite well, but I hate knowing that he would likely not have been cast a few years ago. But alas, as I said, this movie might not have worked a few years ago, leaving us in a bizarre quandary.

This is definitely not my favorite Clint Eastwood movie (that would be Gran Torino). It is about as good as Million Dollar Baby. In 2004, this movie would have trounced every other at the Academy Awards (meaning people would have rioted if Crash had pulled off an upset). This year, not so much. The competition’s too good, and this movie is too… ok. If you like Clint Eastwood, you’ll like it. Hell, you’ll probably all like it. But don’t be too surprised if it goes a bit quietly into the good night.

One-line review: Entertaining and endearing, and an enjoyable viewing.

Consensus: 75/100

 

Where The Wild Things Are

This movie was very good. The cinematography was gorgeous, the acting was excellent. The voice talents? That list was epic. I cannot believe the cast Spike Jonze pulled together. Mark Ruffalo has two lines, tops. TWO. That’s absurd. I love it. And the effects might have been some of the best I have ever seen. Seriously, I could not have imagined they’d look that good.

That being said, I understand all the negative reviews, and I will tell you why. This movie, and this story, touch on a very large number of extremely dark themes concerning family, imagination, etc. But by touch on, I mean it’s obvious that they could explore it and don’t. But what should be equally obvious is that they can’t. It’s a children’s story. No child is ever going to follow a story with the exploration of any of those themes. The best you can hope for is the following moral: No matter how at home a place may seem, no matter how good things can be, every family has their troubles, and so you are best off making your way back home. That’s the point of the entire story. It can’t afford to delve into the myriad other lessons it admits. Yikes, I’ll stick with pretentious sentences for 400.

As an adult, as a moviegoer, I can say that this movie left me wanting a little more. But, I am smart enough to know that I can’t have it. The story is perfectly executed. In the words of a friend, “I’m really happy this movie didn’t kill a part of my childhood”. Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers turned a 10-sentence story into a wonderfully rich full-length. Karen O’s voice, while extremely annoying, was surprisingly fitting to the score (she co-wrote the score while her band, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, was busy destroying the notion of decent music). And I have to mention Spike Jonze’s filming style. Very well-constructed while being refreshingly haphazard. It looked like a kid would have shot it, but a kid who knows an absurd amount about composition and fluency.

A word to the wise: don’t take your children. This movie, though it is based on a children’s story, is not a children’s movie. I never thought I’d use the phrase “hard PG”, but that’s what this is. I honestly would not have been opposed to a PG-13 rating. The target audience is really college-age and above, people who’ve not only read the story, but are also old enough to understand a fantasy when they see one.

One-line review: A kid’s movie for adults, not kids. Dark and endearing.

Consensus: 78/100

 

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

 

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