FilmJabber.com Theatrical Reviews - Last 20

Broken Embraces (2009) Movie Review

2009-11-20

Review by Nathan Samdahl (B-

The newest film from acclaimed director Pedro Almodovar, Broken Embraces, starring Penelope Cruz and Lluis Homar, delivers visually, but falls short of the mastery of story present in Almodovar's best films (i.e. Talk to Her). The film is about a famous film director, Mateo Blanco (AKA Harry Caine), who in a car accident loses both his sight and the woman he loves (Cruz), and discovers new ways to channel his talent. As the story twists and turns new information is revealed about the cause of the accident including the involvement of certain characters closest to him.

The entire film is beautifully shot, (I would expect nothing less). Just as in his best film Talk To Her (my favorite), Almodovar utilizes color perhaps better than any other director to greatly influence the audiences' emotional responses to each scene. Also, the integration of filmmaking into the story creates another fun level for Almodovar to play with, allowing him to create unique and stunning shots of the director in the story creating beautiful shots.

Where the film falters a bit is with the plot-heavy storyline. There are many reveals throughout the course of the film, each taking longer to fully explain. In the first half of the film, these reveals are integrated well into the overall story and do not greatly affect the film's pacing. However, by the end, it seems it was realized that there was still a lot of information to provide and not much time to reveal it in. A couple long scenes at the end, while still acted strongly, seem too expositional and a bit clunky, including one of the film's major scenes where Mateo's agent (played by Blanca Portillo) reveals a disturbing truth to him in a restaurant. I would have preferred the story to be simplified a bit, focusing more on the characters and less on their complex background.

The heavy plotting in the film still allows for strong and nuanced performances from Cruz, Homar and Portillo. However, unlike Volver, which allowed for a performance by Cruz that many thought was Oscar-worthy, her performance here will likely not create the same waves.

Would I see this film again? Probably not. Will people be swarming this film at Oscar time? Again probably not. Despite this, the strength of Almodovar's direction and the stunning beauty of Cruz (and her layered performance) still make this a film worth seeing.

View this Broken Embraces movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Red Cliff (2009) Movie Review

2009-11-18

It's been six years since we last heard from John Woo, and even longer since he directed a good movie. For a short while, Woo was my favorite action director - that is, until he made Windtalkers. Oh, and Paycheck. Jesus, Paycheck. But Woo is back with an all-Chinese, all-battle epic called Red Cliff (Chi Bi), and it his best movie this decade. Of course, that's not saying much.

Red Cliff is set during the final years of the Han Dynasty, and focuses on a battle between the ruler of the land of Wu, Sun Quan, and the Chinese Prime Minister Cao Cao, a vicious invader who has already taken over much of the country. Though Cao Cao's army vastly outnumbers the opposing forces, Sun Quan and his allies see weaknesses in his seemingly unstoppable armada and decide to make a stand and save China once and for all.

The movie is unlike any other Woo movie I've seen (which, save from Hard Boiled, includes only American films). The picture is gritty, in-your-face and very much Chinese, almost to a fault. All that American style Woo crafted through Broken Arrow, Face/Off and Mission: Impossible II has gone out the window, replaced with an abruptly edited, roughly shot and yet grandiose epic. The result: an entertaining, exciting and violent collection of battles and drama designed to be seen on the big screen, albeit one that suffers from some effects that American audiences won't get.

As entertaining as Red Cliff is, Woo goes overboard as he pays homage to Chinese classics of old. I'm not a connoisseur of such films, so I'll look at the movie from a purely American viewpoint. The film's editing, while alluring at time, is so basic and rough that at times it's just awkward; Woo uses some effects you'd see in a Tarantino movie, except for here they're not meant to be funny. While you get used to them after a while, they detract from the overall experience.

The use of wirework is minimal, which makes it all the stranger when Woo does employ it. Woo takes more advantage of the effect near the end of the 30-minute climax, which is a little unfortunate considering that up until that point he'd subjected us to one of the most explosive battle sequences put to film. The negative impact is minor, but still noticeable.

Overall, though, these flaws are nitpicky. On a grander scale, Red Cliff has plenty of intense, bloody action that makes it well worth the price of admission. Sure, most of the time you can't tell who is who (beyond the stereotypical "all Asians look alike," I seriously had trouble whether the good guys were winning or losing the battle) and a lot of the battle formations don't make much sense (why would the bad guys voluntarily ride their horses into a trap and then not attempt to break out of it?), but there's a lot of action and its engaging.

Beyond the action, Woo has littered his epic with several strong actors and a compelling screenplay. The story isn't particularly unique, but the movie doesn't have to be; the character dynamics are there, and the cast, which includes Tony Leung, Takeshi Kaneshiro, Fengyi Zhang, Chen Chang and Jun Hu, delivers.

Red Cliff is not without its flaws and audiences expecting a more American movie may be put off by some of the stylistic effects utilized in the picture, but it is a legitimately grand and well-made film. John Woo is back.

View this Red Cliff movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

2012 (2009) Movie Review

2009-11-14

The world isn't safe when Roland Emmerich is behind the camera. The master of disaster, the whore of death, the eater of souls, Roland Emmerich is back at it, looking to top his previous epics with his magnum opus of destruction films. Not content with wiping out much of the world's population by aliens (Independence Day) or bad weather (The Day After Tomorrow), Emmerich embraces the end of the Mayan calendar by unleashing 2012 upon movie audiences. Let's just say that more people die in this movie than all of his other films combined. And then some.

2012 is about the end of the world. You see, between the planets aligning perfectly as they tend to do once every 640,000 years and the largest solar flare in human history, the earth's core has begun to destabilize, resulting in a shift in the poles, a shift of the earth's crust and the death of just about every human on the planet - except those who are one of the lucky few selected by one of the many governments to survive on board a fleets of arcs.

Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) is not one of those people. But after hearing about a crazy conspiracy theory by an even crazier Yellowstone radio jock (Woody Harrelson) and listening to one of his client's cocky kids telling him that he's going to die, he jumps into fast action to save his ex-wife (Amanda Peet) and children from impending doom. Along with a few other lucky people, they find themselves in a race against time as the world itself crumbles beneath them.

The plot is pretty inconsequential, and in reality perfect for a movie like 2012. Disaster films need disaster, but Emmerich establishes a basic but perfectly acceptable tale of survival on the brink. The movie is, wholeheartedly, over the top, and if that kind of thing bothers you, 2012 is not for you. But if you can suspend belief for two hours and forty minutes (yes, it's that long), 2012 is Emmerich's best and biggest thrill ride since Independence Day.

The visual effects are incredible, especially in the first hour as Los Angeles and the West Coast literally get sucked into Hell. While you know it's CGI, Emmerich hits the audience with so many sequences one after another that it's impossible to take a breath and reflect on how crazy everything is. While I would normally criticize a film for having little character development and a lot of expensive special effects, Emmerich keeps you begging for more. 2012 is a major adrenaline rush, and the excellent visuals have a large part in that.

The movie isn't without its flaws, though most are logic nitpicks that are bound to crop up throughout a film like this. Strangely, one item that bugged me the most was a cell phone conversation that takes place after most of the world has been obliterated, as if cell phones would still be working under such circumstances. Another moment that stands out, perhaps a more serious one, is Peet's sudden kiss and "I love you" to her ex-husband at the end, just minutes after the boyfriend she loved bites it.

When you begin with destroying the world, it's hard to top that in the climax. We've already seen the huge tidal waves in the previews, so that leaves Emmerich with few other cards up his sleeve. The climax takes place on board one of the Arcs, leaving Cusack and the others to climb through the underbelly of the ship as water seeps in and gears crank overhead. Oh, and the arc is sailing right towards Mt. Everest. Unfortunately, this all seems so minor compared to the rest of the movie, though it's hard to think of an alternate finale. All in all, the climax is still exciting - it's just not as exciting as earlier in the movie.

At nearly three hours long, the movie does begin to feel long after a while, but there is so much action and suspense throughout that time still flies. I wasn't expecting a lot from 2012, but the movie far exceeded expectations: it is one of the most exciting and exhilarating films of the year.

View this 2012 movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Serious Man, A (2009) Movie Review

2009-11-10

Two years ago, their movie won Best Picture. Last year, their follow-up starred Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton and John Malkovich. This year, the Coen brothers' latest film - A Serious Man - stars no big-name movies whatsoever. It's also one of their funniest films yet.

A Serious Man, about a man who no one quite takes seriously, begins in 19th century Russia as a dead man arrives at a couple's home to chit chat and subsequently get stabbed in the chest. Flash forward a hundred years to an unrelated set of characters in 1967 Minnesota and we're introduced to Larry Gopnik, a soft-spoken physics professor who lives in a loveless marriage with thankless children, a mentally challenged brother and a complete lack of purpose. Strained for cash, tempted by a bribe and realizing that his wife is leaving him for another man, Larry begins to question his Jewish faith and seeks out guidance from the various rabbis in his community.

As with all films by the Coen brothers, some people will hate A Serious Man. Just looking at the IMDB message boards reveals that there are several haters who question what the point of the movie is (hell, I'm not even sure), argue that it doesn't have a plot (it does, but barely) and so on and so forth. Of course, there are others, like me, who will say that the Coen brothers have pulled it off once again, delivering a finely tuned comedy that has very little plot or purpose but excels nonetheless.

And since I'm writing this review, my opinion is clearly right. The Coen brothers have a knack for odd comedy, and A Serious Man is yet another example. It is consistently funny and strange, almost normal but just slightly off as if the world they live in isn't real, but it is. The characters range from strange to stupid, and yet all of them could exist in real life. The story arc is also unbelievable, and yet entirely believable. The movie, as a whole, is much more grounded than many of the Coen's other comedies, and yet it is just as off-the-wall. It's notably different from Burn After Reading in tone and style, but it's quintessential Coen brothers. And I just spent a whole paragraph going in circles.

To be frank, the movie is funny. Laugh-out-loud funny, though if you were to think back to that one specific scene that really stood out to you, you'd be hard-pressed to think of it. Some people are going to sit squeamishly through the film like some people always do at Coen brothers movies, but those people can't be saved. Satan is waiting for them. Enjoy the movie for what it is: an offbeat, goofy drama-comedy about funny Jewish people.

Michael Stuhlbarg (who?) is great in the lead role, playing a pushover of a father and husband who is the film's reluctant protagonist. He just wants things to go back to normal, or he doesn't know what he wants, but he does know that how things are just aren't kosher. Stuhlbarg, despite being surrounded by an excellent, pitch-perfect supporting cast (you'll recognize many of them, but I dare you to name any individual actor), carries every scene.

But ultimately it comes down to story and screenplay, and the Coen brothers carry A Serious Man far. It's random, it's weird, it's whacky, and yet unlike in Burn After Reading, it's much easier to relate to the characters and get swept up in the story. Whereas Reading was abrasive, A Serious Man is fluid, and for that it is a step above many of the other Coen brother comedies. It may not be their best, but it comes close - and without the typical menagerie of stars. They just keeping getting better and better, which is amazing considering their already impressive resume.

View this Serious Man, A movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Men Who Stare at Goats, The (2009) Movie Review

2009-11-07

Review by Nathan Samdahl (B-)

From Grant Heslov, Arnold Schwarzenegger's awesome sidekick in True Lies and yes, also George Clooney's producing and writing collaborator (on such films as Leatherheads and Good Night and Good Luck) comes The Men Who Stare At Goats, which stars none other than Clooney as the psychic soldier Lynn Cassady.

I will start by saying that this is a film that could be made few others than the famed Clooney/Heslov pairing (most would be hard pressed to get this production off the ground). The film is about an obscure unit of the military that trains soldiers to use paranormal or psychic powers against the enemy (one of the primary tests is knocking out a goat just by staring at it). However, the actual skill of most of these soldiers is questionable as no one really seems to be able to employ their true psychic skills to do much at all. Ewan McGregor, as reporter Bob Wilton, follows Lyn Cassady around the Middle East in search of and in hope of a great story. At the end of the film, Lyn tells Bob to go back and write about what they did. Sounds great, except that no one really did anything.

Certainly while this tongue-in-cheek Burn After Reading-esque story does not beg to be taken too seriously, I was still left wanting a lot more from the story (much as I felt with Burn After Reading). For the first 20 minutes of this film, I laughed pretty frequently, but then gradually over the rest of its runtime the humor seemed to be replaced with an odd Coen Brothers-like drama-comedy combo. Nothing was so dramatic that I felt truly engaged by the character's emotions nor was anything really comedic enough to make me laugh. The last two-thirds of the film seemed to linger in a bit of a grey zone.

This is not to say that there were not a few great moments along the way (such as George Clooney's hilarious use of an ineffective solar cooker in the desert), but after about an hour I felt a bit bummed that there wasn't more to laugh at given the outlandish (yet supposedly partially true) concept. The Men Who Stare at Goats is similar to The Informant as the trailers for both hold all the film's laughs, with many of them losing their comedic impact when placed in the context of the film. The Men Who Stare at Goats is perhaps too smart of a film and as a result it loses a bulk of its audience by not pigeonholing itself into one specific genre.

I would still recommend this film as the concept and its execution are somewhat unique. However, for sheer entertainment value there are better films out there and sadly better performances to be seen. Despite its incredible cast (Clooney, McGregor, Bridges and Spacey), no one delivers their best here. While a valiant effort, The Men Who Stare at Goats falls a bit short of its full potential.

View this Men Who Stare at Goats, The movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Invention of Lying, The (2009) Movie Review

2009-11-01

Ricky Gervais, the face of the British version of "The Office," continues to poke and prod American movie theaters, looking for inroads on the lucrative market. His brand has yet to resonate with American audiences, but people should take heed: Gervais is one of the funniest actors working today, and the movies in which he stars are well worth seeing.

Like his last headlined film Ghost Town, The Invention of Lying is a funny, clever and well-written comedy that just didn't get noticed by anyone but critics. In Lying, Gervais, who also co-wrote and co-directed the film, stars as Mark Bellison, a loser of a screenwriter who lives in a world where everyone tells the truth all the time. In fact, lying is so foreign that when Mark "invents it," he immediately realizes he is the most powerful person on the planet. Suddenly able to get as much money as he wants (the poor bank teller doesn't question his claim to riches), any girl he wants ("The world is going to end if you don't have sex with me right now!") and, of course, write much better screenplays than the boring historical dribble that his rival Brad Kessler (Rob Lowe) has been pumping out.

Gervais awkwardly bumbles his way through a pitch-perfect performance, delivering yet another painfully twitchy character one can't help but love. Gervais is a riot, but for those who haven't seen him in action, it's hard to describe his unique brand of humor. All that can be said is that he is a funny, funny guy, but knows when to lay back and let the story roll.

And that's where The Invention of Lying runs into a few problems, but also relishes. Lying has one of the most imaginative and cleverest ideas put to film, one that's so simple and ripe for comic situations that it's shocking no one thought of it sooner. So, as funny as Lying is, it never feels like it fully capitalizes on the concept. Lying could have been an absolute riot, but instead it's merely a consistent comedy with bursts of hilarity. While my desired outcome is never achieved, it's clear Gervais and co-direct/writer Matthew Robinson had loftier goals than just making a giggle-fest.

As much as Lying is a concept comedy, it is also a romantic comedy and a commentary on religion. Mark's relationship with Anna, a woman who, by all means, is completely out of his league (she looks and sounds a lot like Jennifer Garner), is central to the story. Despite the complete mismatch of Gervais and Garner, the two have surprisingly effective chemistry together and their interest in one another seems authentic. It also helps that Lowe, her other suitor, plays a complete douche bag.

But what Lying will become known for is its blatant and direct assault upon religion. After all, in a world where there is no lying, there can't be religion, because religion can't exist without lies. In one desperate moment, Mark accidentally makes up God, and from there the damage is done. The religious aspect to Lying isn't the funniest part about the movie, but it is the most stinging, and some great moments are created from it. Of course, if you're religious, you may be offended by Lying's insinuation that you're a big, stupid idiot.

The Invention of Lying isn't always as funny as I would have hoped, but its atheistic viewpoint - and the questions it raises - makes it well worth it. It's still an authentically funny and well-written film, and seeing Gervais in action is always a blast.

View this Invention of Lying, The movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Amelia (2009) Movie Review

2009-10-25

It's already the end of October, which means that the studio films aiming for Oscar glory are beginning to trickle into theaters. The first major film of the season to have much promise is Amelia, about the short-lived life of famous female pilot Amelia Earhart. The tragic tale seemed destined for greatness, if only for the fact that the movie stars Hilary Swank and is directed by Mira Nair. Unfortunately, Amelia is nothing more than a standard biopic, an unimaginative and uninteresting story that is less an examination of the woman and more a snapshot of some historic events.

Amelia is perfectly watchable, with pretty visuals and strong acting. The casting director certainly can't be blamed. Swank has always walked that fine line between having attractive features and boyish looks, and epitomizes the tomboy qualities of the title character. Swank, one of the best actresses working today, delivers an excellent performance as she immerses herself in the character as best she can. The supporting cast, which includes Richard Gere, Ewan McGregor and Christopher Eccleston, also are quite good. Gere, as Earheart's husband George Putnam, fits the part well; neither McGregor nor Eccleston get a lot of time to flesh out their roles.

That's the problem in general, however. Amelia barely scratches the surface in terms of character development; as hard as Swank and Gere try, their characters seem woefully plain. Though the picture revolves around Earhart's various accomplishments, most notably her flights across the Atlantic and eventually the doomed attempt to circle the globe (spoiler alert: she dies), it is driven by her unique relationship with her husband. And yet, Nair and screenwriters Ronald Bass and Anna Hamilton Phelan never appropriately explain what draws the two to one another, or why Earhart decides to marry him. Later, when she cheats on him, her motivations are never explained, and the film completely glosses over the reasons why Putnam takes her back. All of these elements are necessary to explore what makes Earhart and Putnam tick, and yet none of them are tackled in Amelia. The result: a very standard and at times dull movie that tells us what Earhart did but not why she did them. And I don't buy into the explanation given early on: "Because I want to."

Despite these major flaws, Amelia is perfectly watchable. Nair offers up fine visuals and scenery, full of scenic views of various parts of the world. Swank's performance smoothes over some of the script's shortfalls, and if she weren't in such a so-so movie would probably have a shot at an Oscar nomination. The film does kick into gear at the end, where things settle down and focus on the final hours of the pilot and her navigator.

Still, if Nair is scratching her head as to why critics and audiences aren't responding to her latest film, she may want to watch The Aviator. The movies have a lot in common, including a colorful, determined character interested in aviation who wouldn't let anything stand in his or her way; a story that spans a number of years; a period setting; and many other attributes. And yet, the two are worlds apart in execution. In The Aviator, there is an emotional investment in the characters and the story, and a dynamic layer that drives the film beyond the historical facts. Amelia lacks those things, and that's why the film never excels.

Amelia has its moments, and it goes out on a strong note, but aside from Swank's performance, the movie could have just as easily been a good television biopic. At the theatrical, Oscar-worthy level, however, Amelia just can't compete.

View this Amelia movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Where the Wild Things Are (2009) Movie Review

2009-10-18

In what could be one of the biggest wild cards of the decade, director Spike Jonze brings to life a family of nearly friendly beasts in Where the Wild Things Are, an adaptation of the beloved children's book. The movie, which can only be described as an indie kid's movie made for adults by a major distributor on a blockbuster budget, was always destined to be one of two things: excellent, or an unmitigated disaster. Thankfully, Where the Wild Things Are defies expectations.

Having not read the book as a child, I knew very little about the story going into the theater, but those of you who did grow up on it know that there wasn't much to adapt in the first place. Nonetheless, Jonze (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich) has taken Maurice Sendak's little book and turned it into a deep exploration of childhood growth and imagination. The result: not quite a masterpiece, but something pretty damn close.

The movie follows Max (Max Records), a 10-year old who is desperately seeking the sole attention of his single mother (Catherine Keener) and older sister. He has a tendency to throw tantrums, and after one especially over-the-top outburst, he flees his house, hops in a boat and sails to an island inhabited by a group of beasts. After convincing them that he's a king, they befriend him and start following his orders - but his fragile kingdom is threatened to be torn apart by immature overreactions.

Jonze captures the feeling of adolescent isolation perfectly and drives that theme home in the movie, creating a full-length feature out of something that really has very little in tangible plot. Max parades his new friends around, encouraging them to build a fort, get into fights and other things that don't end happily ever after, but if you were to sit down and say, "Now, what are the plot points of this movie?" you'd be resigned to, "Well, they make a lot of howling sounds, throw each other against trees, banter and... well, yeah, that's the plot." Where the Wild Things Are is a movie that runs on emotions, and Jonze plugs into that channel and takes things to an entirely different level.

The performances are excellent, primarily the one by young Mr. Records. He really nails the part, allowing us to go along with his emotional journey without judgment or bias. The voice cast is equally good, led by James Gandolfini - who knew that Tony Soprano would sound so good as a giant, hairy fur ball. Paul Dano, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Michael Berry Jr., Chris Cooper and Lauren Ambrose round out the cast.

Furthermore, Where the Wild Things Are is a visual treat. The movie looks and feels like an indie, with handheld camera effects and a real-world element rarely seen in standard Hollywood fare. Jonze has approached this as his own film, faithful to the book and yet not resigned to making something just for kids. In reality, the movie is much more for adults, both in mood and actual delivery; there are some parts that will frighten little children - I saw one family fall victim to this and leave partway through.

The visuals really round out what is indeed a complete picture. Top notch acting, a strong screenplay and excellent direction result in a moving and engaging fantasy that captures the attention. Where the Wild Things Are isn't for everyone - especially little children - but it is one of the better movies of 2009.

View this Where the Wild Things Are movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Paranormal Activity (2009) Movie Review

2009-10-11

Just a bit over a week ago, a little film popped onto my radar: Paranormal Activity. The ghost film, shot on a budget of just $11,000 or so, was premiering across the country in a rather clever format: midnight screenings near many of the country's largest universities. Coupled with strong early reviews, the buzz began to build. When I tried to attend last Friday, the showing was already sold out, as was the case elsewhere. This weekend, the movie opened wider, and next week, thanks to the website reaching a million hits, Paramount will release it nationwide. People, we have a bona fide phenomenon on our hands.

If you've heard that Paranormal Activity is 2009's version of The Blair Witch Project, the comparison is just. The movie is shot on a handheld camera and features only four actors. It relies on sound effects and moving doors to spook the characters and the actors, and spook it does. Paranormal Activity is one of the freakiest movies in years.

The plot is simple: a couple has moved into a house together and set up a camera in an attempt to capture the creepy things that go on at night. As it turns out, Katie (played by Katie Featherston) has been haunted by something since she was eight years old, though whatever is bothering her seems to come and go. Lately, it has returned, and thanks to her rather curious boyfriend, Micah (Micah Sloat), the two begin to experience an increasing number of disturbances.

Paranormal Activity is authentically scary. Writer/director Oren Peli knows that it's the basic, realistic bumps in the night that scare the average person, and that's exactly what he delivers. That creaking on the stairs or in the attack. The door that slams shut out of nowhere. The sense that someone else is in the room with you. These are the frightening things Peli takes advantage of, and he uses them within a well-written, well-acted film that feels a lot like it's real footage.

Sure, once some bad things start happening to the characters you'd assume they'd go to a hotel immediately, or that Micah would stop asking, “What the hell was that?” night after night, or that he would learn to keep his mouth shut. But these are nitpicks. The movie keeps you on the edge of your seat, not because it's full of a ton of thrills but because the “footage” feels like it could be taken by anyone. Peli crafts some incredibly simple but effective scenes: the powder footsteps, the woman standing still for hours on end, the dragging sequence. There are some images in this movie that will stick with you for a while; I'm getting shivers as I write this in the large, empty house where I'm spending the night.

Like The Blair Witch Project, this movie may only work on its first go around (have you watched The Blair Witch Project recently and realized how boring and non-scary it is?), but that's OK. This is a movie meant to be watched in a dark theater with a horror-loving audience. People will whimper, others will close their eyes and many will laugh at how scared they are over something so seemingly harmless.

It's rare to find a horror movie that is actually scary, but Paranormal Activity is one of those movies. It won't be nearly as effective the next time I see it, but the movie is one of the most frightening experiences in recent memory.

View this Paranormal Activity movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Informant!, The (2009) Movie Review

2009-10-10

Aside from the Ocean's trilogy, Steven Soderbergh hasn't had a lot of success in recent years. Though some of his films were never going to make much money (Eros, Full Frontal), others, such as The Good German and Che, have failed to resonate as expected. Che, especially, had to be tough; an epic so grand that it had to be split into two parts, the $30-million movie was an instant flop and didn't even garner any Oscar attention. Thus, it was pertinent that his latest film - The Informant! - got off on the right foot. Matt Damon to the rescue!

Damon stars as Mark Whitacre, an executive who is well known for being the highest-level informant and whistleblower the United States has ever seen. The company he works for, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), is engaged in a major price-fixing scheme with its international competitors, and Whitacre teams with the FBI (represented by Scott Bakula and Joel McHale) to bring them down. He goes on to gather more than 200 tapes worth of evidence, but his battle with undiagnosed bipolar disorder and some improprieties put him in the crosshairs as well.

Though based on a true story (specifically on the book by Kurt Eichenwald), Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns add a comedic slant, portraying Whitacre as an intelligent but off-note goofball who is incapable of fully telling the truth. Lie upon lie upon lie becomes standard, to the point where it's never clear what the truth is and what is not. Damon, who gained approximately 25 pounds for the role, runs around with a cheesy 90's moustache and wig, narrating to the camera random facts that have nothing to do with the story at hand. The FBI agents and Justice Department officials become increasingly frustrated with the man as more and more damaging facts are revealed, placing their investigation and integrity into question. Meanwhile, Whitacre never seems to be aware that his actions are indeed a problem.

The Informant! is not your typical comedy. In fact, it's a comedy that not everyone will like, and you have it to see it when in the right mood. For instance, don't see it when you're tired, because the movie can be slow at times. Don't see it if you're looking for a laugh-out-loud riot, because the movie will generally draw brief chuckles, nothing more. Do see it if you like high-brow, comedy-meets-drama-meets-thriller antics and strong acting performances.

The movie is good, but not that good. The story is interesting, the character compelling and the performance by Damon memorable, but it's not a movie that stands out in any particular way. Soderbergh's direction, combined with fanciful music by Marvin Hamlisch, is catchy, but also off-putting. The movie is so matter-of-fact, and at the same time off-the-wall, that it's hard to get swept along in the story. There are segments that are pretty slow, and the fact that it's a comedy without a lot of direct comedy leaves it drifting in a nether-genre where you can't decide whether you're enjoying yourself or bored out of your mind.

The Informant! is not for everyone, but who it is for it's hard to say. Hell, I'm not sure if it's even for me. The movie has its moments, and when all is said it's pretty well done, but it's so unconventional that it's challenging to just sit back and enjoy it from beginning to end. The second half is definitely better than the first, but Damon's excellent performance persists throughout. It's worth seeing, but will be better viewed on DVD, where you'll be able to determine pretty quickly whether the movie is right for you.

View this Informant!, The movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Damned United, The (2009) Movie Review

2009-10-07

Review by Nathan Samdahl (B+)

In the latest British historical film from the Oscar-nominated screenwriter Peter Morgan (The Queen, Frost/Nixon), The Damned United is a sports movie not really about sports, but about the crazy personalities that populate them. Certainly on a much smaller scale than Morgan's previous two films, the story here is probably one not known to most outside of Great Britain, or to most non-soccer fans (i.e. the majority of Americans). Despite this, the film is in many ways more satisfying to watch than Frost/Nixon or The Queen.

This satisfaction mostly comes from watching Morgan's fave Michael Sheen deliver his best and most noticeable performance to date. I say "noticeable" because he finally plays the character that people will take away from the movie, unlike Frost/Nixon where Frank Langella stole most of the accolades and The Queen where the contemporary figure of Tony Blair overshadowed Sheen's great character work. In Damned United, Sheen is manager Brian Clough, the star, an unpredictable, ruthless, cocky asshole that you love (or hate, but in a good way).

Structurally, the film operates in two time periods, in the present (1974) where Sheen's character takes over Leeds United (English soccer/football's best team) replacing the team's most accomplished coach Don Revie, and in the past (about five years earlier) showing Sheen's rise from his humble yet wildly successful beginnings as coach of a couple lower division teams. One of my only issues with the film is that the initial sequences in the past take a while to get going or at least get to the core of the film (Sheen's competitive feud with Revie). I found the 1974 sequences much more engrossing and was a bit bummed to get pulled away at the best parts to jump back in time. However, the film quickly picks up steam in both time periods and finishes strong with a great scene involving Sheen groveling to his longtime assistant manager Peter Taylor played by Timothy Spall (who he undeniably needs to succeed).

This film may not immediately appeal to everyone given the subject matter, but once audiences realize the movie is primarily a great story about the friendship between two men (Clough and Taylor) and the long-simmering feud between two egomaniacs (Clough and Revie), more interest should be created. If nothing else, see the film because Sheen, Spall and Revie (played by Colm Meaney - yes, from Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine for all you Trekkies out there)) are all outstanding. Or see the film because overall all it's one of the better ones out there in the thus-far barren wilderness of 2009 films.

View this Damned United, The movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Zombieland (2009) Movie Review

2009-10-03

In 2004, the Brits cemented Shaun of the Dead as the de facto standard for zombie comedy. There was no way another comedy could come along and compete with such a film, which so brilliantly blended zombie adventure with a sharp and ingenious script. And yet, just a few years later, the Yanks have fought back with a film that nips at Shaun's heels: Zombieland.

Zombieland does away with the requisite introduction that so many zombie films begin with, that realization that the world is crumbling away in a heartbeat. Instead, we're introduced to the main character, Columbus (Jessie Eisenberg), who lives in a world where he hasn't seen another human in months and who adheres to a series of rules for survivals: 1. Cardio (the fatties were the first to go when the zombies struck); 2. Beware of bathrooms (zombies like to attack when you're most vulnerable); 3. Wear your seatbelt (because they could save your life); 4. Double tap (always hit a zombie twice to make sure it's dead). However, his rules are thrown into upheaval when he meets Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), who's seemingly fearless and takes great pleasure in killing the walking undead. The two form an unlikely alliance, one that is strengthened after they are robbed by Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) and her older sister, Wichita (Emma Stone). The four end up traveling around killing zombies, having a good time and visiting a theme park.

The movie from Ruben Fleischer is practically as funny as Shaun of the Dead, though the comedic approach is quite different. Shaun was the inspiration for Zombieland, but it feels nothing like it - it's less a spoof than a comedy set in a very real zombie world. Nevertheless, as with Shaun, the movie is hilarious from beginning to end, offering up plenty of laughs, gore and zombie goodness.

The cast makes the movie, as Harrelson turns in his most enjoyable performance in years. The guy is a riot. Eisenberg and Harrelson play off each other well, each bringing unique and drastically different characters to the table that make the perfect odd couple. In her first more adult-oriented role, Abigail Breslin holds her own quite nicely, but it may be Emma Stone who benefits most from Zombieland. She's smoking hot in this film and oozes real-girl sexuality (and also has good comedic timing); as I read on the IMDB message boards, Megan Fox may have some competition.

Fleischer excels on the excellent script by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick; the movie is solid from beginning to end. The opening credits, which almost plays like a spoof on the Watchmen opening credits (slow motion shots of people getting attacked by zombies), set the scene and the movie just sails from there. Zombie fans will be happy to know that Zombieland, perhaps more than any of its competitors, succeeds at offering unique and gruesome zombie killings, and this in a genre where zombie killing is a way of art. Zombieland revels in its blood splatter, and yet the film still establishes a set of likeable characters.

Zombieland is a gruesome, hilarious and enjoyable zombie comedy. If you're a fan of the genre, this is a must-see.

View this Zombieland movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Surrogates (2009) Movie Review

2009-09-26

Bruce Willis vies for a comeback in Surrogates, a futuristic mystery where much of the world is inhabited by surrogate robots, controlled by a human population that has relegated itself to the sanctuary of their homes. Surrogates have changed the way people interact, as there is no longer any fear of communicable diseases or other dangers of the real world. But when two humans are found dead, apparently killed via their surrogates, a massive threat is exposed, threatening to destroy everything that's been built.

Surrogates works despite a number of flaws; it's entertaining, engaging and fun, even if it could have been so much more. It's hard not to like, but impossible to love.

The movie works primarily thanks to Willis, who isn't his most charismatic self but still commands every scene he's in. First seen as a surrogate, a younger, smoother version of the action star with a bad blonde wig (why, if you can look like anyone, would you choose that hair?) and colorful cheeks, Willis looks troubled by the life he's led; but when he appears as his real, 50-something self, his chiseled demeanor really adds to the film. As soon as Willis gets his first punch to the face, it becomes clear that humanity has lost its way, and that John McClane is the man to put things back on track.

Beyond Willis, Surrogates has an awesome premise. Sure, it's a stretch to believe that every human in the U.S. would just stay at home and send robots out in their stead, but sci-fi films often ask you to work the imagination. The opportunities established by the concept are enormous, as there are tremendous political, physical and relationship implications at hand. Willis hasn't seen his wife in the flesh in years; the creator of surrogates (played by James Cromwell) has exiled himself out of shame for what he's created; beautiful women could be fat men; cheating isn't really cheating; what is the cost of warfare when human beings are no longer involved; and to what length will the humans who refuse surrogacy go to? There are many ways Surrogates could have gone, and director Jonathan Mostow (Terminator 3, U-571) tries to tackle many of them.

Surrogates has an interesting story that plays out more like a "Law & Order" episode than an action film. There are a couple decent action sequences, including one where a damaged, surrogate-version of Willis leaps from building to building in pursuit of a cop killer, but those expecting an action movie should look elsewhere. There are also some funny moments thrown in for good measure.

And yet, Surrogates doesn't quite click. It presents a lot of interesting, compelling ideas, but Mostow never takes a full bite out of any of them. The idea that the non-surrogate humans are planning a revolution is at one moment a central focus and next an afterthought, a theme that is completely ignored by the end of the film. The relationship complications between Willis and his wife (played by Rosamund Pike) seem more like filler than anything else. There are enough plot holes or illogical moments to keep you distracted, and, most importantly, Mostow fails to make the film truly exciting. It's entertaining, but Mostow doesn't go out of his way to build suspense toward an incredible, awe-inspiring finale. Surrogates had the potential to amount to such, and it just doesn't live up to its potential.

Surrogates makes you wonder what kind of film this could have been had another screenwriter been brought in to clean up and tighten the story and another director hired who was more committed to turning the screenplay into an exciting, action-packed thrill ride. There are a lot of great ideas presented in Surrogates that are never fleshed out in a satisfying way. And yet, strangely enough, the movie is a fun and entertaining way to spend an evening. Recommended.

View this Surrogates movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Coco Before Chanel (2009) Movie Review

2009-09-23

Review by Nathan Samdahl (C+)

There are two kinds of films that take a lot for me to really enjoy: period films and biopics. Too often the former are too stodgy and bland, and the latter struggle to pick the right life moments to portray (usually resulting in an inconsistent final product). So I was more than happy to discover that the movie that I was to see - Coco Before Chanel - fell squarely within both genres. Perhaps, though, Coco could enter into the lean group of period biopics that defy the mold and find a unique, fresh way to tell an old story. Unfortunately, it did not.

While I certainly am not a fashion aficionado or really care much at all about the fashion world, I assumed that the story of one of the industry's shining moguls could sustain my interest for a couple hours. And the truth is that it could have had the film picked an interesting part of Coco's life to focus on. Committing biopic no-no Number 1, Coco Before Chanel, above and beyond its other flaws, failed to identify what is really interesting about the woman. While the story leading up to Coco's breakout in fashion was filled with trials and tribulations, it became very clear by watching the last and best scene of the film (which shows Coco putting on a stunning fashion show) that I would have much rather seen a movie about her actual career. The 15-20 years leading up to her breakout just were not that engaging. However, this did not seem to deter director Anne Fontaine.

Leading the film with a steady, subtle hand, Fontaine's approach is mostly successful given the content she had to work with, but also a bit flat. The characters never seem to overreact to anything, instead reserving their more extreme emotions for a scene that never really comes. Even when a death occurs in the film, the monotone feeling of most of the film never lifts to allow a breakout moment. Despite this, Audrey Tautou's performance is solid and effective. It was nice to see her back in her element with this material, thankfully staying far away from anything that resembles The Da Vinci Code. Her performance will probably not be remembered come award season due to the forgettable nature of the overall film, but she really does embody in every facet Coco Chanel.

Overall, I understand why this film chose to avoid TV movie status by carving out a particular niche. However, I don't understand why the filmmakers thought this particular niche would be engaging to an audience. As it stands, this pre-story lacks individuality; most of the sequences and scenes don't feel unique to a film about Coco Chanel. In fact, there are very few scenes even showing her designing skills at work. The film is worth seeing if you love fashion or Chanel, but not if you are looking for fresh filmmaking or a stimulating two hours. Sadly, It's hard to fault a biopic-period movie more than to say it ultimately picked the least interesting part of its protagonist's life to follow.

View this Coco Before Chanel movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) Movie Review

2009-09-21

Review by Nathan Samdahl (A-)

Capitalism: A Love Story, the new well-timed (as always) film by Michael Moore, strikes hard and cuts to the heart of yet another one of the country's key issues, the manipulation and greed at the core of our capitalist system. Moore traces the history of our capitalist system from our constitution, which mentions little to nothing about it, all the way through to our current economic meltdown. Moore follows the style set predominantly in his past two films, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko, relying more on the stories of the victims than those of the perpetrators to tell his story. Part of this probably spawns from the fact that most of the villains in his docus wouldn't step within a 100 feet of Moore, let alone give him an interview. It seems that the Charleton Heston-esque image killing may not be standard course for his upcoming film endeavors.

However, with that said, Moore could actually reach a wider base with this film than with some of his previous, partially because President Bush is not really at the center of the story. Certainly there is good amount of Republican bashing (you won't like Reagan much after the film), but the stories that Moore chooses to show should touch the hearts of anyone who hasn't replaced theirs with coal. For instance, the opening scene of the film shows video shot by a family as they are forcefully evicted from their home, by about seven police cars full of cops. The scene feels like something out of a horror film, certainly not something that would occur in the United States. But of course, as Moore points out, someone's house is foreclosed on in this country once every 7.5 seconds, so such scenes are apparently now common place. Similar sequences showing other families kicked out of their long-time homes by banks that should never have loaned money to people they knew couldn't repay them are disturbing to watch and help illustrate one of Moore's key topics: the growing divide between the rich and poor.

As always, the film has plenty of the antics we know and expect from Moore, including him trying to place the heads of AIG and Citibank under citizen's arrest as well as him trying to get back the billions of taxpayers' dollars paid to these banks. And yes, these billions of dollars used to bailout the very select group of banks and large corporations deemed important to our economy apparently were handed out with no tight supervision and regulation to determine where this money was actually going (as shown by a Moore interviewee, one of the heads of the committee overseeing the bailout, who had no clue where the money went).

This movie should make you angry, it should make you want to do something, and it sure as hell will make you love the concept of accountability. As with all of Moore's films, there will certainly be those that hate this film because it doesn't mesh with their beliefs or their pocketbook. There will also be those that say what Moore presents isn't factual. For those that feel this way, Michael Moore actually has a great proposition for you. Following the film, Moore came up for about an hour of Q & A and mentioned that from Fahrenheit onwards, he has offered $10,000 to anyone who can find an incorrect fact in his films. Furthermore, he has during that same period hired the fact checkers of the New Yorker (or other fact checking teams) and a group of attorneys to double check every part of his films. So again, for those that really think Michael Moore is off his wagon, this may be a great way for you to pick up some extra cash. Just keep in mind though, in all that time, as Moore mentioned, that $10,000 has stayed firmly planted in his pocket.

View this Capitalism: A Love Story movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Gamer (2009) Movie Review

2009-09-15

Review by Dakota Grabowski (D-)

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Gerard Butler, the fabled savior of the action genre due to his macho representation of Leonidas in the Warner Bros. film 300, finally returns to the action genre after his brief departure to romantic-comedies (2007's P.S. I Love You and 2009's The Ugly Truth). His return, though, is barred from being fully appreciated with the schizophrenic camera control, fast-paced editing, and pathetic storytelling.

Directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the same tandem that directed and helped craft the script for Crank and Crank: High Voltage, Gamer is put through the ringer in an attempt to create a visceral film that will stun the audience. Unfortunately, stealing cues from The Bourne series, Gamer suffers with its handheld camera shots that could nauseate viewers. More often than not, viewers will wonder, "What is going on?" The pacing of the film is poor due to the narrative bouncing around in effort to grab a hold of the viewer and have them become attached to the pitifully created characters.

In fact, the first 20 minutes of the film is nonstop action that has blood, guts and enough gore to appease the younger demographic who appreciate over-the-top violence. By the halfway point, though, the story still hasn't advanced far enough to create any real concern for Butler's action-hero Kable. Kable is fighting in a world where he's trying to win his freedom from death row by killing other inmates in a military-esque game. If Kable is able to survive 30 matches in a row, he'll be able to leave scotch free and resume his life.

Well, as clichéd as it is, Michael C. Hall's character, who runs the game for the public to watch, enters and determines that Kable isn't allowed to win since Kable holds the secrets to Hall's nefarious plot to rule the world. I kid you not; Gamer is as clichéd as any other science-fiction film where control of human beings and robots is the focal point; or in any video game, where the hero must stop the villain from taking over the world. Gamer is a contrived mess that has a bright idea to pit humans in a virtual world where they are, in turn, controlled by other humans; but ultimately, it fails at being a worthwhile film.

Michael C. Hall's performance as Ken Castle is the only bullet point that stands out. His acting is over-the-top, but looking back upon the film, the audience should appreciate his social commentary about how silly Gamer is. In the key sequence of the film, Hall busts out a dance number where he parades around a room while Butler's Kable fights Castle's minions who stand between him and Kable's free life. Even as the only dazzling moment of the film, it's not enough to recommend to any of Hall's Dexter fans to sit through the atrocious film.

The rest of the supporting cast don't do much but pose for the camera. Actually, I take that back: Terry Crews, known for his popular role in the television show "Everybody Hates Chris" and the film White Chicks, does a humorous job as a physical rival to Butler's Kable. Tongue-in-cheek throughout, Crews helps keep the story lighthearted even when it's not supposed to be. The same can't be said for rapper-turned-actor Ludacris, TNT's Kyra "The Closer" Sedgwick, and Sam Raimi's featured star in Drag Me to Hell, Alison Lohman - they just smile for the camera without much to do.

Besides the musical number, it's best to avoid Gamer at all costs.

View this Gamer movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

9 (2009) Movie Review

2009-09-12

Based upon the Oscar-nominated animated short of the same name, Shane Acker's 9 is a visually elaborate adventure film about a band of miniature puppets that must survive against evil robotic creatures bent on their destruction in a post-apocalyptic world where all of humanity has been wiped out. Not quite for children, 9 is one of the most ambitious films of the year, and while it's thoroughly entertaining, it's isn't as incredible as Acker intended.

9 features a voice cast of Elijah Wood, Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau, John C. Reilly, Crispin Glover, Jennifer Connelly and Fred Tatasciore, an excellent array of names if that mattered in a movie like this. The movie has great visual effects; Acker has spared no expense making an intricate world of destruction and death, where every tiny detail is fleshed out. The setting - what looks like a bombed-out England post WWII - is gorgeous in a nightmare kind of way, and the few creatures that inhabit the desolate place - the bug-eyed good guys and the spider-esque robots - are imaginative. Plenty of care has been put into how the movie looks and feels.

Less care has been given to the screenplay, written by Pamela Pettler (Corpse Bride, Monster House). As an animated adventure, 9 is good enough: the title character awakens, not knowing anything about this world he's been born into. The scientist who made him is lying dead on the floor, his flesh long since rotted away. He soon discovers others like him and learns they've taken sanctuary at a church, but an unwise decision unleashes the creature that is responsible for the end of the world, a machine-building "brain." The good guys then get themselves into several situations where they attempt to escape attacks by these robots and subsequently more where they decide it's upon them to destroy their enemies once and for all. Basically, the plot is run, hide, run, hide, attack.

This is all fine and good, but as enthralling as the animation is, the plot is just... okay. There's nothing particularly memorable about it, nothing unique or out of the ordinary. Sure, it's a cartoon, so it's not necessary to be picky, but this is a cartoon that's not really made for kids. At least not young ones. While most of the film is pretty safe - there's plenty of nail-biting action to keep a kid (or adult) engaged - 9 isn't your typical family fare. Some dead bodies are shown; all of humanity has been destroyed in a mass genocide; the robots are incredibly scary, especially a cobra-esque one that has a human skull as a head; and everything is deathly serious.

So, as a movie made more for adults (there was only one young girl in the theater, and I suspect her mom hadn't watched the trailer), the screenplay struggles at time. The dialogue is pretty rudimentary, with characters spouting out cliché statements that never amount to very much. There are a few noticeably clunky parts. The last minute or two make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Wood's voice is also too recognizable for the lead; I found him to be distracting.

Despite its flaws, 9 is an entertaining adventure film with amazing special effects and some creativity. It's a shame the screenplay wasn't a little better, but as is it still works effectively. Recommended.

View this 9 movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Extract (2009) Movie Review

2009-09-12

It must suck to be Mike Judge. You write and direct your own films, they turn out to be funny and no one shows up in theaters to watch them. Time after time after time. Then again, you're the creator of "Beavis and Butthead" and of the ultimate cult classics, Office Space. People may not see your work in theaters, but five years later, most people have seen your work. It must be great to be Mike Judge.

Judge's latest film, Extract, is his most marketable movie to date and most similar to Office Space. Granted, he's only done three live-action films in his career (the other being Idiocracy). In the well-casted comedy, Jason Bateman plays Joel, the owner of a flavor extract plant who's sexually frustrated because his wife (Kristen Wiig) won't put out and his new temp, Cindy (Mila Kunis), is hot and wants him badly. Most of his employees are idiots, but a large company has offered to buy him out - which would ensure a comfortable, early retirement. Unfortunately, one of his best employees just got his testicles blown off by a sloppy workplace accident and is threatening to sue, urged on by Cindy who, in fact, is a scam artist looking to make a lot of money from the settlement. J.K. Simmons, Ben Affleck and Gene Simmons (yes, that Gene Simmons) also star.

Extract is inevitably going to be compared to Office Space for the sole reason that the film takes place in a working environment, so let's get that out of the way. Extract is no Office Space. It's not as funny, not as clever and doesn't hit home nearly as well, probably because I've never worked in a manufacturing plant before (and presumably, most of Judge's target audience hasn't either). But...

Extract is still pretty funny. It doesn't always fire on all cylinders, but Judge has a way of drawing out small jokes over the course of a story, building upon them step by step. Things get funnier as they go along, and Judge pieces together a surprisingly intricate web of characters and situations that all play out in a quasi-realistic manner while being completely absurd at the same time. Don't expect a Judd Apatow-esque comedy where there's an edgy joke every 30 seconds, but accept it for what it is and enjoy it. Extract is definitely a step up from the inconsistent Idiocracy, though it too suffers from some off-and-on moments.

What makes the movie work, beyond Judge's careful crafting, is the talent involved. Bateman continues to come into his own as a leading man, proving once again that he has the comedic timing to make things work. He walks that fine line of being the smartest one around and yet also quite capable of doing stupid things himself (like hiring a gigolo to sleep with his wife so that he won't feel guilty about cheating on her). Kunis is at the top of her game here, cementing the fact that she's much more at home in comedy than she is in action films. She also looks ridiculously hot. Wiig doesn't get to do a whole lot, but she does get to unleash at the end. Affleck seems to have accepted that audiences prefer him in a supporting role, and he plays his character as a drug-selling, hippie bartender with sincerity.

Extract isn't perfect, and it's no Office Space, but it's still a deliciously funny and entertaining comedy. This is a great way to kick off the fall movie season.

View this Extract movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Inglourious Basterds (2009) Movie Review

2009-09-05

Quentin Tarantino's latest film, the long-awaited Inglorious Basterds, is here, and with it comes mighty expectations from his fan boys. Unfortunately, Basterds is Tarantino's weakest film to date - though that doesn't mean it's bad. Well-written and expertly crafted, Inglorious Basterds is an effective film; it's just not the off-the-wall war epic one would expect.

It's not surprising that Tarantino's version of a war film is one built around character and dialogue, not around violence and action. Even his most action-packed of films - Kill Bill, Vol. 1 - hinged on strong, dialogue-driven scenes. And yet, it's a little disappointing that Tarantino didn't channel his genius into a more focused narrative complete with a few lengthy action scenes and development of what one would assume to be the central characters - those mentioned in the title.

Inglorious Basterds is, roughly, about a group of nine Jewish-Americans called the "Basterds," led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who travel to France and Germany to literally scalp Nazis and strike fear into the hearts of their enemies. Simultaneously, we're introduced to a Jewish woman named Shosanna (Melanie Laurent), who, years after escaping the brutal execution of her family at the hands of the ruthless Jew Hunter (Christoph Waltz), is now running a cinema in downtown Paris. After a German hero takes a liking to her, he convinces the propaganda commission to premiere the latest Nazi war film at her theater. Subsequently, she decides that she's going to burn it down with everyone - including Adolf Hitler himself - in it. Meanwhile, the Basterds are plotting to blow up the cinema themselves.

As is the case with most Tarantino films, his story is a collection of loosely strung-together scenes that engage by pure force rather than guiding us through a natural development of a group of characters. The development of Melanie's character is pitch perfect, but, somewhat surprisingly, the Basterds themselves seem like afterthoughts. We don't get to know the men all that well; the only one who is given a flashy back story is a Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger). Maybe this is okay, and maybe I'm the one to blame for setting false expectations based on Tarantino's past storytelling approaches, but I found this a bit odd. Is this a complaint? I'm not sure.

In fact, I'm not even sure how much I liked the movie. That's a bad thing for a critic to say, but Inglorious Basterds is, as most Tarantino movies are, incomparable to other films. I know that I didn't enjoy it as much as his other movies, but it's not necessarily fair to compare it to his other movies. He's allowed to do something different. And yet, it's also unfair to compare Basterds to other war films. I'll admit I was expecting something more along the lines of Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse Now, two over-the-top and at times tongue-in-cheek war classics, but in hindsight I should never have expected Basterds to be anything like those. Those movies were both developed to show the ridiculousness of war, whereas Basterds is just meant to be ridiculous.

So, let's break things down by what works and what doesn't work. The film is slow at times, almost to the point where you want to shout out to Tarantino, "Get on with it already!" and yet each plodding minute he dives deeper into a scene, the more the tension builds. Still, those expecting any semblance of an action film should be aware that Basterds is almost entirely dialogue driven.

The lack of action also results in a lack of character development for the title characters. The movie is, in many ways, about their "final mission," and yet it begins with a bunch of young guys getting enlisted onto the team. There's a disconnect here, one that could have been remedied by showing a little more of what gave the Basterds their menacing reputation in the first place. Once Tarantino starts killing the title characters off, it's unlikely you'll know any of their names; they're simply red shirts meant to die.

Lastly, when things do finally boil over at the end, the climax is hurried and unsatisfying. I don't know what Tarantino could have done differently, but a little more could have gone a long way.

On the flip side, a lot of things work great. On their own, each individual scene is pitch-perfect. The first sequence, a long, drawn-out affair where a Nazi interviews a farmer that may or may not be hiding his Jewish neighbor, is incredibly tense. Many other scenes follow a similar formula, providing seemingly innocent dialogue laced with suspense.

Many of these scenes benefit immensely from the performances, most dominating of which is by Christoph Waltz, who parades around in good humor and utter insanity as Colonel Hans Landa, a.k.a. the Jew Hunter. Waltz is absolutely stunning in his role; every time he's on screen, his demeanor charming, even friendly, you get the sense that he's about to rip someone's head off. Sometimes something bad happens, and sometimes it doesn't; the magic is that he's completely unpredictable.

Pitt is also stellar, though in a much hammier kind of way. He's ugly, nasty and yet, also, strangely charming, more so when he's attempting to portray an Italian despite being unable to get rid of his Tennessee accent. Laurent is also extremely satisfying as Shosanna; she seems innocent and unoffending, but you can see the fear and anger simmering just beneath her skin.

When all is said and done, Inglorious Basterds is a superbly acted, well-written and suspenseful war drama of sorts... what sorts I'm not quite sure. It is the war film for Tarantino fans, or, more appropriately, Tarantino's war movie. Still, the movie lacks the energy and creativity of Tarantino's other works; this may be intentional, but it's still off putting. The result is a war movie that succeeds minute by minute and yet lacks the holistic synergy Tarantino has been able to pull off in the past. Still, recommended.

View this Inglourious Basterds movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!

Baader Meinhof Complex, The (2008) Movie Review

2009-08-17

Every year, the Oscars praise five foreign language films that few people in the United States have seen. More often than not, these films are excellent, and yet they rarely get prominent theatrical releases in America. And when they do, they often are released months after the Academy Awards are handed out in a time where they are guaranteed to receive amazingly little attention. Such is the case with The Baader Meinhof Complex (Der Baader Meinhof Komplex), an excellent, action-packed drama certainly deserving of worldwide recognition.

The Baader Meinhof Complex is about the rise and fall of the 1960's and 1970's German terrorist group The Red Army Faction (RAF), which conducted bombings, shooting and kidnappings throughout Europe in retaliation for what they saw as fascist policies by Western nations. The group was led by a few select individuals, most notably recognized journalist Ulrike Meinhof (Martina Gedeck) and Andreas Baader (Moritz Bleibtreu), who attempted to spread their views throughout the continent only to watch as later generations of the RAF took upon more extreme measures to get their point across.

From director Uli Edel and the writer of Downfall, Bernd Eichinger, based on the book by Stefan Aust, The Baader Meinhof Complex is an incredibly detailed, well-acted and violent depiction of the RAF's developments and attacks. Ranging in at two-and-a-half hours, the movie is both a deep character study and a thrilling collection of terrorist attacks. The movie looks great, taking elements from The Bourne Supremacy (including the score, which sounds eerily similar and at times identical) and applying them to a true story.

Having not been born until long after the RAF's reign of terror had ended, I knew little about their actions or what motivated them. Given the renewed focus on terrorism over the last ten years, it's intriguing to watch a story that shows what drives young, seemingly innocent people to commit murder in the face of tyranny. Eichinger's screenplay is incredibly well written and the actors take things to the next level, delivering superb performances all around.

The movie is surprisingly violent, as Edel does not hold back when depicting the various attacks the RAF committed over the course of several years. The film isn't particularly bloody, but Edel's directorial style is blunt and gritty, establishing a sense of realism seen in few films.

The movie does begin to feel long in the third act, as the film shifts to focus on the trial of the remaining RAF members and their time in prison. At the same time, new characters are introduced to continue the violence, but they're given little background or setup. There are quite a few scattered throughout the film that appear out of nowhere only to be killed a short time later, though some of their deaths or captures have a bearing on the emotional track of the film. Furthermore, even the main characters seem somewhat underdeveloped; while we see how their characters are defined by their struggles, there isn't enough exposition early on to show how they came to have such hatred in the first place. It's clear that Edel wanted to jump into the action quickly - which he does - but he loses our point of reference in the process.

Despite its flaws, The Baader Meinhof Complex is a consistently captivating drama that will appeal to both foreign film and action buffs. The movie is one of the best films of the year.

View this Baader Meinhof Complex, The movie review at its original location - FilmJabber!