R.I.P.

Paul Newman

Synecdoche, New York

'Synedoche New York' Theatrical Trailer @ Yahoo! Video


This excites me in so many ways. And it looks like it just might break my heart.

The Dark Knight and the return of Disappearing Worlds

I just reread my review of Iron Man, written way back on May 16. Wow. Since then, so many changes have occurred, mostly personal ones. I'm in a new city at a new school with new goals. And obviously my writing about film has suffered for it. But I like to think I'm back now. It may be sporadic at times, but I'm committed to keeping up the habit. In the next couple of days I'll be putting up a few posts detailing what I thought of the movies I saw in the theatres this summer. I'm going to try my best to keep up with the movies I've been seeing lately, which unfortunately has been next to nil. That said, I'm also going to try to post comments about older movies I watch at home, movies I am looking forward to seeing, movies I've seen again and have changed my mind about, etc.

My goal? In short, I want to move away from a formal review column. Writing a full-fledged review is a bit too daunting. It's fine when I have an actual deadline and people to report to, but it appears that self-motivation I was going to rely on just isn't enough. At least for now when I've got so much going on. I want to move toward this site being just a general discussion of film, so if you actually read this, feel free to comment with appraisals, agreements, disagreements, information, etc. I don't want a news site or a rumor blog, this is an outlet for my cinematic opinions, pure and simple. Feel free to let me know what you think.

Why now? As I said, I just reread my review of Iron Man. I stand by what I said about that movie, but I was struck most by the comments I gave about the state of comic book films. About how they were in a holding pattern. About how they needed that last artistic push. Well, odds are you saw that push this summer. Of course, I'm talking about The Dark Knight.

I've seen it three times now. The last two times I was determined to go home and write a review about it. But I never got around to it. Each time afterward there were just so many thoughts running through my head. What could I possibly say that hadn't already been said? But what struck me most about my dilemma was how it was so difficult each time to get past the raw emotions and thoughts raised within me after each viewing. There was just no way for me to formulate them all into coherent thoughts.

In short, obviously, I really really liked it, as I'm sure many of you did. It seems to have won a wider acclaim than I can ever remember for a film. It's truly a film that almost everyone can agree on. In a way, for me, I was destined to love it. I've loved Batman ever since I was a wee lad. I loved lots of superheroes. But while I seemed to grow out of several of them, I seemed to fall more and more in love with Batman as I grew older. It's a testament to the richness of the character and the depth of the material. What could be a novelty is instead, now, one of the most compelling stories in American popular culture. And seeing how it's all based on twisted psychoses, it's success is all the more amazing.

Psychology is what spurned my second phase of Batmania. I started reading more of the recent graphic novels like The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: Serious House on Serious Earth. I felt validated. Here, finally, was an intellectual and mature reason for my boyhood fascination. Batman's psyche became much more complex, and with that, his relationship with The Joker. Relationship is not a word you can use with all superheroes and their archnemeses. But it exists here, not just on a personal level but on a literary, archetypal level. The Joker is telling the truth when he tells Batman "you complete me."

All of that psychology and that wonderful, macabre, twisted relationship was all there in the film. Heath Ledger's performance is exactly what it has been made out to be. Jack Nicholson's Joker was Jack Nicholson playing the Joker. Ledger is how the Joker has always been meant to be. I find him endlessly fascinating, not just for the acting technique, but for the fleshing out of so many facets of the Joker character that had hitherto gone unseen on film. His philosophy, his drive to "just do things" is especially poignant today. Indeed, along with Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, The Joker makes The Dark Knight one of the most significant post-9/11 films yet. Both grapple with rational people trying to contend with completely irrational violence. The randomness they employ is the most frightening weapon they have.

The Joker enough would have been enough to make me love this film. It gave me all I wanted. But The Dark Knight sparked a third phase of my Batmania. I was moved. In fact, I'll go ahead and admit that I found myself on the verge of tears with each viewing. And for the most part, it was because of Harvey Dent.

Two-Face was always interesting to me, but his transformation into such a tragic figure gives this film its emotional punch. In an age where political systems have become truly useless, he was enough to give me hope. He builds on that hope, that hope for a true change you can believe in, all throughout the first half of the film. When it comes crashing down, only then do we see the real menace behind The Joker. In Batman Begins Bruce found he could fight evil by becoming more than just a man. In The Dark Knight The Joker finds he can fight Batman by doing the same thing.

If The Dark Knight had to be boiled down to one theme, I think that would be it. That people can be more than just their life. More than a biological existence. This series of Batfilms are brilliant because they have finally shown a reason for Batman beyond the tired conventions of a revenge melodrama. That's enough to twist Bruce to the point of taking action, but by transforming into a metaphor, he starts a journey that is so much bigger than one man's desires. Harvey was more than one man's desires. He was not about wanting power. He was actually righteous. One of the most moving moments to me is Jim Gordon's desperation as he screams "We have to save Dent! I have to save Dent!" Harvey's destruction and perversion at the hands of The Joker is the most diabolical scheme in the film. It truly is The Joker, and Christopher Nolan's, "ace in the hole."

So there it is, folks. The comic-book movie I dreamed of almost four months ago. It looks beautiful, it's written beautifully, acted beautifully, directed beautifully, etc. And that's the best I can do at describing it. Sitting here writing this has made all those emotions come up again, and they're still fresh. In a way, it's hard to believe a summer blockbuster made me feel this way, but it's apparent this film has rewritten the definition of that term. It may be presumptuous to say, but The Dark Knight has put us into a whole new ballgame in terms of the film industry. I can't wait to see what happens next.

Iron Man

(Note: from here on out, reviews will be a bit shorter now that I'm not first writing them for the newspaper. I've graduated, and I'm going to rely on my own personal motivation to keep this blog going. Let's hope it works.)

Marvel's newest, and first independent, effort is both highly conventional and fairly unique. It's probably no surprise, especially if you've read other reviews, that Robert Downey Jr.'s casting as Tony Stark the stroke of genius it was destined to be. That said, without his presence the film would be much more ordinary, and not the standout of its genre that it is. That's not to say there's not some great work being done elsewhere.

Jeff Bridges is probably one of the best comic book movie villains to come along in recent years. There's not a whole lot of depth to his role as it's written, but he makes it so interesting to watch. And Gwyneth Paltrow is just as good as you'd expect her to be in the role. With a name like Pepper Potts, you wouldn't expect much from the character, and while it doesn't quite rise beyond quirky sidekick, it's still great to see her having fun with the role.

As far as the story and script go, it's your average superhero origin story. Jon Favreau's direction is capable enough, but his real triumph is putting together such a solid package all-around. Perhaps it's the character himself that makes the movie work so well. While the sequel will most likely deal with Stark's more colorful flaws, like his alcoholism, this first outing wisely steers clear of such provocative material to allow us to grow to love Tony. His personal revelation is unique as well. Instead of just stepping up to take responsibility for himself, there's a lot more at stake.

Comic book films have entered a holding pattern. While a new renaissance began with X2 and Spider-man and peaked with Batman Begins, most of the films post-Superman Returns have been a bit lackluster. X-men: The Last Stand and Ghost Rider have shown us that the material is sophisticated enough to require an intelligent director to make it work, something that only the Nolans and Singers of the industry have been able to pull off. They've grown in respectability, to be sure, but they're going to need that last extra push to convince everyone that they're just as worthy as other film art. What would happen if Scorsese were to tackle The Flash, or David Lynch were to do Doctor Strange? Only time will tell.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

“I’m finding it hard to believe that things are going to get better.” If you’re familiar at all with the plot of “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” you might assume that this line is spoken by the main character, Peter, who has just been dumped by his girlfriend, Sarah Marshall. But it’s not spoken at all. It’s sung. By a puppet.
It’s an appropriate gesture for a film that doesn’t necessarily wear all its feelings on its sleeve, though Peter does. After getting dumped we see him break down crying, probably more than any other male character ever seen on film. He’s not your traditional masculine protagonist.
He’s sensitive, and so is the film. Produced by Judd Apatow and written by actor Jason Segel, who also plays Peter, it’s the kind of comedy that has a lot more underneath than it wants to let on at first. It doesn’t indulge in stereotypes or easy laughs, though there are plenty of laughs to be had.
The plot is quite simple. Peter, tries to get away from his pain by going to a Hawaiian resort that he remembers Sarah (Kristen Bell) talking about once. Of course she’s there, with her crude English rock star boyfriend Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Awkwardness ensues.
As Peter attempts to get over Sarah, he starts to fall for a customer service representative named Rachel (Mila Kunis), and quickly bonds with her and the other colorful characters who populate the hotel.
One of the strengths of the film is the supporting cast. Whether it’s an oblivious surfing instructor (Paul Rudd), a star struck waiter (Jonah Hill), a nervous conservative newlywed (Jack McBrayer), or Peter’s overly-sensible stepbrother Brian (Bill Hader), there’s always someone around the corner to console Peter and provide some laughs.
Unfortunately the laughs aren’t always very consistent. The blend of comedy and poignancy is not always balanced, and a few of the jokes now and then fall flat. It’s not as polished a film as it could be, or should be considering those involved.
But still, there’s a lot going on here, and if you pay attention it’s worth your while. For instance, watch the character of Sarah Marshall. You start the film wanting to hate her because of how she left poor Peter. But instead of letting her remain a villain, Segel’s script lets her have her own feelings and conflicts, and we gradually see why she initially made the instigating decision.
The same can be said for Peter, in a way. We pity him as sort of an underdog, but eventually realize it’s of his own doing. The film doesn’t answer all the questions of how he got to be who he is, and the story is better for it. Ambiguity isn’t a staple of modern comedies, so it’s nice to see it here.
Still, there’s plenty of crude and unusual humor, culminating with a hilarious climactic scene involving the aforementioned puppets. I won’t spoil it for you here. Good comedies rely on surprise, but also remind us why we should care. Though it’s not perfect, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” will most likely prove to be one of the better comedies of the year.

Smart People

I’m sure we’ve all had at least one professor like Lawrence Wetherhold, played by Dennis Quaid in the new film “Smart People.” As the title infers, he’s smart, and he knows it. And he has no problem lording his intellectual superiority over his students, much to their, and our chagrin.
It is a bit painful to watch a character who we should view as sympathetic act in such a singularly self-destructive manner. In fact, most of the “smart people” in the film do the same, but it’s a testament to the filmmakers that such masochism never causes us to lose interest.
We get the sense that Lawrence has always been a misanthrope, but since the death of his wife, his attitude has worsened. His high school age daughter Vanessa (Ellen Page) seems to be a chip off the old block, even mimicking her father’s indifference toward his adopted brother Chuck (Thomas Haden Church).
Lawrence becomes involved with a former student (who he doesn’t remember) named Janet Hartigan (Sarah Jessica Parker), who is now a doctor. As expected, Lawrence’s sour disposition isn’t exactly great fodder for a good relationship, and the two start to have problems.
There’s not really that much of a central plot, just scenes from a specific point in all these characters lives where they must ultimately decide if they will take the necessary steps to become happy again. Considering their personalities, one doesn’t expect much, and the film doesn’t necessarily spell out a certain happy ending.
So why would anyone want to spend an hour and a half with such unpleasant characters? I’ll admit it takes a certain mindset and patience, but it can be rewarding. It works, pure and simple, but not in an easily identifiable way.
That’s not to say it’s perfect all the time. Dr. Hartigan comes off as particularly ill-developed and confusing. It’s no wonder Lawrence has a hard time figuring her out. And an odd subplot involving Vanessa and her adopted, emphasis on the adopted, Uncle Chuck may fit the theme but doesn’t fit well with the rest of the comparatively realistic story.
Dennis Quaid continues to be one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood today. Considering his choice of projects, it’s no wonder. He usually seems content to be involved in mediocre action films or shallow comedies. But when he’s given a chance, like he is here, to really stretch himself and show his chops, he never disappoints.
The rest of the cast is capable enough, if not particularly brilliant. Ellen Page shows considerable range in being able to play a completely different kind of smart-aleck than we saw in last year’s “Juno.” It would have been easy for her to repeat characters, but she goes the extra mile to make sure she doesn’t.
It’s refreshing to see a film that doesn’t necessarily give into artificial character arcs or forced poetic justice. Their lives are just as messy at the end of the film as they are in the beginning, but for whatever reason, there’s just a little bit more hope.

Leatherheads

George Clooney’s new film “Leatherheads” seems to be wandering between two worlds. On one side is a relatively realistic period picture, depicting the formation and popularization of the National Football League. On the other side is a nostalgic view of the 1920s gleaned from classic early Hollywood screwball comedies.
There’s merit on both sides, particularly in the screwball portions. You have the familiar character types: the sassy female reporter, the blustery newspaper editor, the quiet pretty boy, and the more rugged and world-weary leading man.
The female reporter is Lexie Littleton, played by Renee Zellwegger, who is assigned to cover a supposed war hero turned college football star, Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski). She’s been tipped off that his combat stories may not be all true, and she’s determined to get to the bottom of it.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to save his financially scrapped NFL team, ‘Dodge’ Connelly (Clooney) has recruited Carter to lend his star power and skills to the team’s profile, launching them into the heights of victory and fame.
The central comedic conflict comes when Dodge and Carter both fall for Lexie, leading to a series of misadventures and drunken brawls. There’s no sense in saying anything more, because you can probably predict how it will end.
But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Clooney’s goal seems to evoke a bygone era, which fits the tale about the end of an era when people like Dodge could play football in a more interesting, albeit dishonest, way. The legitimization of football becomes the harbinger of doom for Dodge.
So while at times it seems uneven to be bouncing back and forth between screwball antics and a mellow swan song, it oddly enough seems to work. The film is consistently enjoyable, despite some plot devices being a tad out of place, like Dodge and Lexie dressing up as cops to escape a raid on a speakeasy.
But such over-the-top flourishes can be welcome, in a way. They keep things interesting and pique your interest before it has a chance to wane. It’s a hard balancing act to manage, but the cast is more than capable.
As a director, I think Clooney is still maturing. His previous efforts, the underrated “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” and the overrated “Good Night, and Good Luck” showed good promise, and “Leatherheads” continues to show that potential, though it’s clear he hasn’t hit his peak. He still seems a little bit too concerned with style over story.
Still, it’s refreshing to see a group of stars led by such a socially-conscious figure as Clooney taking the time to let loose and have some fun. Watching his previous two films would not lead you to expect such lighthearted fare. In its own way, it’s quite the bold move.
It’s not a perfect film; few are. But it’s a riskier film than many have given credit for. With everyone so concerned about the future, it’s nice to see someone looking lovingly at the past. If it leads viewers to discover the old films it’s referencing, then I’m all for it.