Henry Saw: The Book of Eli and Legion

Two biblical action movies that are both riddled with flaws but also manage to entertain



The Book of Eli is the first film from the Hughes Brothers since 2001's From Hell. From Hell (an adaptation of Alan Moore's Jack the Ripper Graphic Novel) is a guilty pleasure of mine but it's not the work of great artists. Neither is The Book of Eli, though like From Hell there are some standout sequences, and the Hughes Brothers have returned to make a film that was a bit better than I expected.

The Book of Eli stars Denzel Washington as a man wandering across a ravaged world and desperate to protect a book he wants to take to the west. He enters a town run by Gary Oldman, who wants to get his hands on a copy of the bible so he can control the villagers, and the inevitable conflict soon arises.



The Book of Eli feels like it comes from a lot of different genres: Western, samurai, comic book, apocalyptic future...but the film does hold together as a genre piece. The action is strong throughout, there's a lot of long takes in the fighting and shooting scenes that is refreshing in this day and age. Washington and Oldman have a lot of fun with their stock characters and the whole film just has a good feel for what it is.

Unfortunately there are too few surprises (and the major one at the end is ridiculous), Mila Kunis is woefully miscast as a local street girl, there are too many dead spots, and the film's whole message is pretty dubious to me. I won't go into it too much but in my mind the film makes its point very clear and it just made me uncomfortable and didn't find the film found a solid middle ground given their touchy subject matter.



The Book of Eli is a perfectly decent action film, when it's an action movie, but there are too many lulls in the film and I have too many questions about the movie's approach to its subject to give it a fully positive review.

Best Scene: The scene pictured above that features a cameo from Michael Gambon



Legion is a much worse movie than The Book of Eli. Much worse. The direction is worse, the acting is much worse, and even the plotting is worse. Strangely, I might have had more fun at Legion. Legion tells the story of a fallen angel (Paul Bettany) who finds himself protecting a disparate group in a diner after God has declared war on the human race. The movie also features Dennis Quaid, Tyrese Gibson, and Lucas Black (the little kid from Sling Blade).

The plot of this movie is one that I am prone to liking. While religion is not really my thing, I do enjoy the mythology of Lucifer, the Arch-Angels, the Rapture etc. So the idea of the angels going to war over mankind is appealing to me. Unfortunately, Legion is a relatively small film, and so focused on just Bettany and the group in the bar, that this never becomes the movie I wanted.

If you've seen Fom Dusk Til Dawn, Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, or even Assault on Precinct 13, than you have a sense of how the film is structured. A group of strangers is forced to stay in an enclosed space and fight off faceless villains. Because we know how the movie will go, it's easy to sit back, relax, and enjoy the stereotypes and cliche lines. The one clever scene - the evil old woman - was "ruined" in the trailer (although I probably would not have seen the film if not for that moment in the advertisements).

The cast is hardly worth mentioning...I always like Paul Bettany but he's not entirely convincing as an ass-kicker...and I must admit I laughed out loud at the movie more than once. This is a pretty lazy movie...their use of religious myth is surface level at best, it rips off dozens of other films, and some of the action scenes feel like they were put together in 10 minutes. Still, I enjoyed my time in the theater, and the movie never tries to be more than 88 minutes of trashy fun. While I would love to see a movie more faithful to the iconography and legend of the warrior aspects of angels...I can't get too mad at a film for knowing what it wants to do and sticking with it.



The end of Legion is silly, and kind of makes the whole film feel unnecessary, but I liked how it's, almost literally, a deus ex machina finale (credit to Ben for putting that together). Don't go out and see Legion...really it's not any good...but just know that it's not the worst thing out there. If you see it in the right mood, or with the right person, you can have fun with it.

Best Scene: The old woman...


The Book of Eli Grade: B-

Legion Grade: C-

But I think I liked Legion more.

Henry Saw: Some more cool movies each Sunday night...

Some more brief reviews of the films Ben and I have watched each Sunday over the last few weeks...



Grand Illusion: Probably the most "respected" film we've watched on a Sunday, Jean Renoir's film follows a group of French soldiers who are captured by the Germans during World War 1, and the different ways they cope with their imprisonment. The heart of the film is the relationship between a French officer (Pierre Fresnay) and a German officer (Erich von Stroheim) who become friends despite the strained circumstances. Their discussion about class and the future are stirring and captivating. The rest of the film, including a famous scene in which the prisoners sing "La Marseillaise" (a precursor of a similar scene in Casablanca) is never as compelling as the scenes shared between Fresnay and von Stronheim. I think Renoir's other masterpiece The Rules of the Game is a more interesting film but Grand Illusion is definitely a must-watch for any of you cinephiles out there.

Grade: B




The Hit: Terrence Stamp plays an ex-gangster who betrayed his colleagues and moved to Spain to hide out. 10 years later, two hitmen (John Hurt and Tim Roth) show up to escort him to Paris where he is to be executed...

This was Stephen Frears (The Queen, High Fidelity, The Grifters) first major motion picture and it shows. The film has a very languid pace and never let's us connect or understand any of the characters. All the actors are strong, it's a talented cast, but the whole film feels off in a weird way. The comedy never works, the drama is forced, and it's all just kind of dull. A real disappointment.

Grade: D+




Miller's Crossing: Tom Regan (Gabriel Byrne), an advisor to a Prohibition-era crime boss (Albert Finney), tries to keep the peace between warring mobs but gets caught in divided loyalties...

Perhaps the most mainstream film that we've watched, this was another disappointment for me, and further proof that the Coens are among the most over-rated directors working today. The film, which does feature strong performances from Finney and John Tuturro, is far too into itself and its use of language. The Coens wrote a script filled with the kind of tough guy speak featured in old Warner Brothers' gangster films but with that "Coen" twist. The whole thing is kind of irritating and meaningless. They fetishise the gangster's fedora, and the tommy gun, but to no apparent end. Blah.

Grade: C-




Mysterious Skin: A teenage hustler and a young man obsessed with alien abductions cross paths, together discovering a horrible yet liberating truth...

This 2004 film from Gregg Araki made it onto our radar partially due to Ben's man-crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It's an aggressively independent movie, the kind of film I most associate with art-house theaters in New York, but it's a fairly successful work. It's quite an unpleasant film, and there are subplots that held no interest for me, but the main story is oddly compelling. Gordon-Levitt is great in a tough role and I can see how he was able to parlay this film into all his subsequent success. This isn't a must see, and don't watch the film unless you can handle some very disturbing pedophilia scenes, but it was a worthy addition to the Sunday Night Movie canon.

Grade: B-




Together: One house; one revolutionary; two open straight marriages; three gay people (maybe four); three children; two carnivores and eight vegetarians; there's only one way they're going to make it...together

If The Thief of Bagdad was the most fun film we've watched over the last few weeks than Together would have to be called my overall favorite. Recommended to me by my Brother-In-Law Rob, I put off watching it for awhile as I always struggle to find time to just pop in a foreign film. It seemed perfect for a Sunday night viewing though and Ben and I could not have been more impressed. Together is a little bit like a Sweedish version of Little Miss Sunshine but with more realistic characters and a more flowing (i.e. less cute) style.

There are multiple laugh out loud scenes, characters that you actually get to know and judge over its 106 minute running time, and a fully satisfying conclusion. I cannot recommend Together enough...thanks Rob.

Grade: A


That's all for this look back at Sunday Movie Night...after we build up a few more I'll post another...

Henry Saw: A lot of cool movies each Sunday night...

For the last few months Ben and I have tried to watch a "new" movie every Sunday night...here are some thoughts about what we've seen so far...


So a few months ago Ben had the idea of blocking out each Sunday night to watch a film that neither of us had seen before. I think it's finally time to discuss what we've been watching and which, in my mind, are worth seeking out:


Le Samourai: Alain Delon plays a hit-man in 1960's Paris who lives alone and kills in style...

Directed by Jean-Pierre Melville, LE Samourai is a very cool movie in almost every sense of the world. The cast is stylish, the camera work is suave, the music is modern...and yet it is impossible to connect to the film. This isn't an action movie...or a noir movie...it's very much an exercise in style and design. It's an awesome movie to look at, and has extended brilliant sequences, but is a hard movie to connect to. Still a must see for any fan of gangster movies, Paris, or good looking people...

Grade: B+




Le Doulos: About a recently released convict who quickly finds himself in trouble again and is never sure who among his old underworld friends he can still trust...

This film was also directed by Jean-Pierre Melville (better known as the director of Le cercle rouge and L'armée des ombres) but is a lot less interesting than Le Samourai. This film is filled with double-crossing and surprises but is never as engrossing as Le Samourai. It lacks an Alain Delon to hold the film together and is never half as cool to look at. It's a forgettable film that feels as though it is trying too hard to be grim and cool...and doesn't quite get there.

Grade: C+




Blast of Silence: A hit-man wonders around New York City during Christmas time before his last job...

This is a very interesting film...a fascinating look at New York City in 1960 and featuring a very unique narration...but I kind of struggled to stay with it. The whole cast is boring and amateurish, the plot is non-existent, and the pace (despite its 77 minute running time) is somewhat plodding. Still, as a movie that clearly influenced the Scorseses and Cappolas of the world it is definitely worth a viewing.

Grade: B-




Yojimbo: A roaming samurai finds himself in the middle of a war between rival gangs in a violence ridden town...

Akira Kurosawa is rightfully thought of as being one of the great directors of all time and this film is just another reason why. Operating on a smaller scale than Seven Samurai, Rashomon, or Ran, Yojimbo is a fairly focused action film. It is filled with actually funny moments and genuinely exciting fight scenes. The spaghetti western A Fistful of Dollars (Clint Eastwood's first "Man With No Name" film) is a remake of this Japanese classic but doesn't really compare

Grade: A-




A Wednesday: A man calls up the Mumbai police, and tells them he has placed five different bombs in the city -- all set to go off in some time. He wants four terrorists in exchange. What is his motive?

This is an Indian film that is far more interesting, and fun to talk about, than it is to actually watch. Its a stylistic mess, with horrible editing, crap music, and a poor script (outside of one scene...which I'll get to). It's actually the only Indian film I've ever seen without singing and/or dancing and it tries very hard to emulate "Western" cinema in its pacing and tone. The one great scene in the film is when we find out why the terrorist is committing this act...it's really a great scene...but it's the only great thing in the film. Actually, it's the only good thing.

Grade: C-




The Thief of Bagdad: Prince Ahmad is the rightful King of Bagdad but he has been blinded and cast out as a beggar. Now a captive of the wicked Grand Vizier Jaffar he is cast into a dungeon where he meets Abu, the best thief in all Bagdad. Together they escape and set about a series of adventures that involve a Genie in a bottle, a mechanical flying horse, an all-seeing magic jewel, a flying carpet and a beautiful princess.

By far the most fun film of this little weekly marathon of ours. This fantasy film is among the most innovative, fresh, and exciting films I've ever seen. The special effects in the film are astonishing for the time, the plot is simplistic but utterly charming, and the whole thing rates right up there with The Wizard of Oz as being a perfect and timeless family film. A revelation.

Grade: A+


That's all for now, there are some more to discuss but we'll get to those at a later date...

The Oscars: Who will get nominated...

I thought I would throw my hat in the ring and guess who will get a nomination come February 2nd...


Best Picture:

Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
Up in the Air
An Education
Up
Invictus
District 9
Julie and Julia

Best Director:

James Cameron
Katheryn Bigelow
Quentin Tarantino
Jason Reitman
Lee Daniels

Best Actor:

George Clooney
Jeff Bridges
Colin Firth
Jeremy Renner
Viggo Mortenson

Best Actress:

Sandra Bullock
Meryl Streep
Carey Mulligan
Gabby Sidibe,
Helen Mirren

Best Supporting Actor:

Christoph Waltz
Woody Harrelson
Stanley Tucci
Matt Damon
Christian McKay

Best Supporting Actress:

Mo'Nique
Vera Farmiga
Anna Kendrick
Julianne Moore
Diane Kruger

Best Adapted Screenplay:

An Education
Up in the Air
Precious
A Single Man
Crazy Heart

Best Original Screenplay:

Inglourious Basterds
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man
500 Days of Summer
Up

Cinematography:

Avatar
The White Ribbon
The Hurt Locker
Nine
Inglourious Basterds


Best Editor:

Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Up in the Air
District 9
Star Trek

That's all the categories that I feel strongly in predicting...once the real ones are announced I will post my predictions and hopes...

Henry Saw: Daybreakers

There are some clever ideas here but this is nothing but an average B-movie...


Another quick review coming up...

Daybreakers was made in 2007 but was put on the shelf until earlier this month. The strategy kind of worked as Daybreakers has made 25 million domestically from a 20 million dollar budget. The film takes place in a world where Vampires have taken over society and there are only a few humans left. Unfortunately, this means that the blood supply is running low, and the Vampires are facing a national crisis. A major corporation, run by Sam Neil, entrusts a vampire hematologist (Ethan Hawke) to invent a human blood substitute. Before he can achieve this goal Hawke meets a group of humans, led by Willem Dafoe, who ask him to go a different route and invent something else...a cure for vampirism.

This film exists in the same genre as Surrogates, Gamer, or the upcoming Legion, in that it is a science-fiction action film, that quickly establishes the world it inhabits, and the principle characters and conflicts. Daybreakers is more intelligent than those other films; there are some genuinely clever ideas to be found here such as the idea that in a vampire ruled society all the coffee would be laced with blood. I also liked how all the cars are completely covered up to protect the driver from the sun and the driver sees the road via cameras placed all around car. Daybreakers' strongest asset is how effectively the film-makers thought out what the world would be like if we were mostly vampires.

Unfortunately, the writing/directing duo of the Spierig Brothers used up all their creativity in thinking up the background of their film. The plot itself holds almost no surprises and is just one cliche after another. The action is boring, the scares aren't scary, and the characters are all tedious. Neil just hams it up as the evil corporate villain, Hawke sleepwalks through the movie, and Dafoe is slightly ridiculous as the crossbow wielding Elvis.

I wouldn't say that Daybreakers is worth seeking out, but I will give it credit for being more creative than similar movies of its ilk and for playing with some real world issues in a silly way. If you see that it is on TV some Thursday night then you should leave it on...it does keep your attention...it's just not very good.

Grade: C

Best Scene: A crowd demands more blood be put in their coffee....

Ben Saw: The September Issue and Good Hair

Actually, I saw September Issue a while ago. But they're both worth a comment.



When I first started writing here I gave a miniature 'movie manifesto' that, philosophically, I still stand behind. One of the key points I made is how hard it is to make a good 'message' or 'polemic' movie, at least if you're looking for an intellectually engaging argument, because of some of the fundamental constraints of the medium. Consequentially, a lot of documentaries fall flat or feel hollow.

That doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a good documentary, though. While I'm deeply skeptical of ostensibly highbrow documentaries that try to engage in intellectual debate for 90 minutes, documentaries can be wonderful vehicles for emotional appeals and exposing viewers to different experiences and ways of thinking. One of the reasons that Herzog's Encounters at the End of the World is such a dud as a movie is because I really didn't feel like he gave me an interesting or engaging view of life in Antarctica in any of its forms. Because he's such a self-absorbed crazy person, the movie instead becomes more about Herzog , his oddities and why he's so engaged by the land. This makes for some wonderful unintentional comedy that only Herzog can produce so well (see the embedded video in Henry's Bad Lieutenant review), but the movie as a whole is shallow and not engaging. Herzog himself is interesting the first time, but now we've gotten it in several of his films and I'm not willing to sit through a whole movie for a few moments of pure insanity. By contrast, Buena Vista Social Club is just a joy to watch. Putting aside the fact that I love the music and the shooting style, the glimpse in to the world of musicians (I am not one) and Cubans (ditto) is fascinating and heartwarming. I obviously don't have exhaustive knowledge of either world from watching the movie, but that's not the point. It's the fact that it's just a glimpse in to something complex and ongoing that can make a good documentary so engaging.

So this brings us to two documentaries from '09: The September Issue and Good Hair. They're very different dcoumentarie, but I liked both of them and would recommend them to more or less anyone who has a modicum of patience for documentaries.

Both of them deal with issues of fashion and appearance, two complex subjects that I'd love to reflect on at length but will try to resist the temptation.

The titular September issue is, as we find out, the most important issue of Vogue of the year, setting the stylistic table for the following 12 months. The movie tells the story of the making of the '07 September issue, following around several key people at Vogue, specifically Anna Wintour (of Devil Wears Prada infamy) and her colorful team. The standout from the team, and the one that will be viewed as the hero or protagonist by most of the audience, is Grace Coddington, a senior creative director at Vogue and one of the few people who is willing to stand up to Wintour; Coddington comes across as especially likable, intelligent and thoughtful.

I could go on, but let's boil this down to some observations

- To lead with the key point: from a technical and storytelling perspective this is a nearly perfect documentary in that I can't think of a single thing I'd change about the movie. It is well shot (and unobtrusively so), it has charisma and intelligence and, most importantly, it made me care about the fashion industry, which is not something I thought I'd find myself saying going in. This gets back to my point above: I got an engaging view of a world that I have little to no exposure to otherwise. I was allowed to get a brief sense of what it's like to work in the professional fashion world and that's the triumph of this movie.

- I really wrestled with how to grade September. The thing that keeps me from scoring the movie higher is that ineffable something that turns admiration or enjoyment in to passion. I was very happy to watch the movie and would be pleased to see it again, but I wasn't SO engaged or SO charmed that I feel the need to rave about it the way I might with, say, King of Kong.

- I thought a lot of the people come across very well. I really admired Coddington, who defies a lot of fashion stereotypes, and thought Anna Wintour seemed a lot more complex than the descriptions I'd heard of her. Who knows what she's like when the cameras are off, but I saw her as instinctual, opinionated and decisive far more than I saw her as cruel or evil. I have NO idea how her daughter turned out to be so cool and down-to-earth.

- As a person interested in business stuff, the first parts of the movie really sucked me in.


Chris Rock's Good Hair is a very different sort of movie, eschewing the narrative style for more of a Michael Moore-style investigative piece (except with far less preaching and pretensions of objectivity). Rock, motivated by his daughters' growing body consciousness, investigates what it means to have 'good hair' as a black woman in the U.S. In the process, he learns more about black hair products, how they're sold, where they come from, how they're used and, of course, the opinions they inspire both in men and women. I doubt Rock would claim that this is a world-saving documentary, but when you learn, for example, how much working class black women feel they need to spend on having 'good hair' the movie takes on more importance than you might imagine going in.

Let's stick to the bullet points:

- Again, bottom line first: I liked this movie, but it had a lot of flaws. Editing jumps out as a problem, given how often scenes linger counter-productively. There's about 40-60 minutes of really engaging movie, but Rock chose to have a 'hair styling battle' at the most important black hair products convention in the country serve as the dramatic backbone of his movie. This starts off well-enough, I enjoyed the character studies on each competitor, but the movie really didn't need the build-up to the battle the battle itself probably got too much screen time. While Rock's love for his daughters is sweet, it becomes cloying and reminds me of just how much of a personal project this was for him. Rock's a winning guy, but the amount of time he's on-screen takes away from the core of the movie after a while. Also, the camera work was not great.

- Some of the content smacks false or badly. I could have done without some of Rock's patronizing way of goofing on Indian people later in the movie. His attempt to 'sell black hair' (to make a point about weaves) felt too much like Moore's tired 'gotcha' style. The point that some hair commands a high price and some can't be sold at all is interesting and worth exploring, but potentially outing hair merchants as bigots doesn't really doesn't demand 5 minutes of screen time.

- I think the virtues outweigh the flaws, though. Again, it's a matter of an engaging glimpse in to another worldview or experience. As a guy (and a white guy at that), I only have an outsider's appreciation of just how important an issue this can be for some black women. Seeing some women who are (literally, in some cases) models, but think of themselves as ugly without 'fixing' their hair was jarring. I had no idea how hazardous relaxer can be (a scene with a professor dealing with this is one of the best in the whole movie) and I only had some understanding of the mysteries of the 'society of the weave' (as Ice-T refers to it in the movie) so learning that they cost thousands was surprising. Hearing a bunch of candid opinions about style, process and meaning, learning about the black hair care industry, getting a sense of what it's like to want 'good hair', these are the things you'd hope for in a movie like this and Rock does it in a way that's mostly mature and engaging.

- I'm in the camp of people who thinks that Chris Rock is a lot less funny today. This movie gives you a sense of why age, success and family make it a lot harder to keep that comedic edge. When you love a central portion of your life so earnestly, the sarcasm and cynicism that comedy requires has to get lost for most people.

- As with The September Issue, a lot of people come across well. Rev. Al Sharpton comes across as thoughtful and way more genuine than his bombastic persona. Ice-T and I don't see eye-to-eye on women, but I had no idea of how good an eye he had in terms of describing people. Maybe that's why he's a pretty good actor. Rock often comes across as pretty nerdy. I guess that shouldn't have surprised me given that he kind of copped to being one way back in CB4 (a great, great movie) but I was struck by how 'aw shucks' he comes across as with all this beautiful women he winds up interviewing.


September Issue: A/A-

Good Hair: B

Henry Saw (On a Plane): Julie & Julia

A very brief review of a perfectly decent plane movie...


Julie & Julia was a perfectly solid film to watch on a flight back from Paris. It wasn't too long, required no thinking, and I didn't care if I fell asleep and missed it. As it turns out I stayed awake and was fairly impressed...by half the film.

IMDB's plot description: In 1949, Julia Child (Meryl Streep) is in Paris, the wife of a diplomat, wondering how to spend her days. She tries hat making, bridge, and then cooking lessons at Cordon Bleu. There she discovers her passion. In 2002, Julie Powell (Amy Adams), about to turn 30 and underemployed with an unpublished novel, decides to cook her way through "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" in a year and to blog about it. We go back and forth between these stories of two women learning to cook and finding success.

The Amy Adams part of the film is pretty awful. Julie Powell is a dull character, who we never really learn anything about, and her entire storyline lacks drama or stakes of any kind. Will she get through all the recipes in 365 days? Who cares? Amy Adams is always charming but her character is so bland, and is given so little to say or do to enamor herself to the audience, that every time we are in "Julie-World" I was tempted to turn the film off.

I chose not to because of how strong the the Julia Child sections of the film are. Meryl Streep knocks it out of the park. When I saw trailers for the movie I thought it seemed like Streep was just doing a strong impression but there is more to it than that. She is so charming, and real, and makes us invest in Julia Child as a character. Streep has multiple moments where she is asked to do more than just mimic Child's on screen persona and show true happiness, or sorrow, and she just knocks it out of the park. Also great is Stanley Tucci as Julia's husband, he's far better here than in his more showy roll in The Lovely Bones, and has great chemistry with Meryl Streep (also seen in The Devil Wears Prada).

So I fully recommend half of Julie & Julia. I said it was a perfect airplane movie...this might be a pretty damn good film on DVD thanks to the "Next Scene" button. Rent this movie and just skip over every seen set in 2002. Streep is probably the best actor of her generation, a group that includes Deniro, Pacino, Nicholson, etc. and this is just another great performance in a career filled with them. I liked Carey Mulligan in An Education but come Oscar night...I think I'll be rooting for Meryl (Who hasn't won in over 20 years...).

Grade:
Julie: D
Julia: A-
Julie & Julia: B-

Best Scene: Julia finds out great news about her sister...

Sam Saw: The Road

A few weeks ago I finally took the plunge and saw the film adaptation of "The Road"...



Before I start, I should mention that Cormac McCarthy's "the Road" is one of my favorite books. That being said, I had a lot of expectations for the film version, so I was a bit hesitant to finally go see it.

The Road is almost one hundred percent faithful to the novel. The film follows a boy of roughly ten and his father (played by Viggo Mortenson), both unnamed, as they wander through the wasteland of the former United States after a undefined cataclysm. The world of "the Road" has a lot of the same feel as the one constructed for 2006's Children of Men. Both settings really embody a distinct feeling of hopelessness aided heavily by an incredibly gray color scheme. The story centers around the dialogue between the boy and his father as well as they try to cope with the world as it lies before them. The father struggles with the knowledge of what the world once was as well as how to survive this new one. Cannibalism, murder, rape and starvation are just a few of the perils he and the boy face every day.

The movie does a good job of never letting you feel like the characters are safe, so there is always a good amount of tension. Furthermore, we are made privy to the fact that the man plans to kill his son should any of the above mentioned fates appear to be inevitable, so there is another level of tension throughout the film as we wonder if each situation will force the man to kill his son out of mercy.

The setting aside, what was really important about the book was the relationship between the father and his son. Everything else is interesting, but when it comes down to it, the story is just about a father and his son and how they interact with one another in the most desperate circumstances. I was a little worried that the depth of this relationship might some how be diminished when "the Road" made its way to the screen, but this wasn't the case.

Upon hearing "the Road" was being adapted to film, my number one worry was that there wouldn't be chemistry between the actors who play the boy and his father. All my fears were put to rest after the first five minutes. Viggo Mortinson and Kodi Smit-McPhee have amazing chemistry, and their emotions towards one another throughout the film are absolutely believable. The other actors who comprise the small cast of "the Road" are equally impressive. Charleze Theron reminds us that she can act again after trying to force us to forget in Hancock, even if she's really only on screen for a few minutes.

There are a number of other actors who take on small rolls including Michael K. Williams who you might remember as Omar from the wire as well as Guy Pierce. Robert Duval also appears in a cameo, which may be the only true weak point of the movie. His acting is actually wonderful. It's the fact the he is Robert Duval that causes problems. He has such a minor roll and is on camera for so brief a time, that there is really just not enough time for him to fully meld with the character, so when we are supposed to be listening to an old man tell his story to the boy and his father, all we can see is Robert Duval. It's really too bad because a lot of what made "the Road" great up until that point was feeling like you were in that situation with those characters and that you were experiencing everything they were. Then along comes Robert Duval for five minutes and you are brutally reminded that none of what you are watching is real. I honestly think a much worse and unrecognizable actor would have been a much better choice. As far as I can see this hiccup is the only real fault to the film.

What you have in "the Road" is exactly what you have in the novel: an incredibly bleak and depressing setting in which a father an son try to persevere. Whether you enjoy the film or not is entirely based on your ability to relate to the father and son, and how they act in the desperate situations they encounter. I'm of the opinion that the book as well as the movie either work for you or don't. Either you can understand and sympathize with the character's actions or you can't. The film's success hinges almost entirely on its watchers ability to see themselves in place of the boy and father. If you can, you will find an incredibly emotional and moving story, if not "the Road" can appear to be nothing more than two hours of gray landscape and depression.

Grade: A-

Henry Saw: The Lovely Bones

Yikes...maybe Peter Jackson should have stayed on Middle-Earth...


Wow...this movie really stunk.

Peter Jackson's ninth feature-length film, his second since completing the Lord of the Rings trilogy, is an even bigger mess than King Kong, his first follow-up to his adaptation of Tolkien's saga. At least King Kong, which was marred by a bloated script and poor casting, had moments that stuck with me (I'm thinking especially of the interaction between Naomi Watts and Kong). The problem with Kong was that it was a passion project for Jackson and those tend to not work out so well for directors. Whether it is Spielberg's Hook, Scorcese's Gangs of New York, or in the extreme, Terry Gilliam's Don Quixote, the Film Gods seem to punish directors who try to make a film they've always dreamed of doing.

With that apparent bad karma out of the way, and a brief flirtation with the Halo franchise, Jackson moved on to adapting Alice Sebold's novel The Lovely Bones. Sebold's novel, released in 2002, tells the story of a 14 year old girl named Suzie Salmon, her murder at the hands of a neighbor, and how her family deals with the loss. What separates The Lovely Bones from other grieving family dramas is that the entire story is told from Suzie's perspective. Even after she dies, Suzie finds herself in the In-Between (somewhere like Limbo) and watches her family and her killer in the months following her death.



Let's break this down piece by piece:

Story: The whole plot of the film is really rather dull. Since anyone who knows a thing about the book or movie knows that Suzie dies, there is no real shock or pain in her death, and everything before that scene just feels like inconsequential build-up to her murder. Once Suzie is in the In-Between, nothing that happens in that realm matters or is in anyway involving, so we really just want to get back to seeing her family. The problem is...they are not that interesting either. The family dynamic is painted in very broad strokes. Her father (played by Mark Wahlberg) is the most obviously upset one; he's obsessed with finding out who did it and has emotional breakdowns. Her mother (Rachel Weisz) is keeping it all inside and won't even go into Suzie's old room. Her grandmother (Susan Sarandon) is the sassy drunk trying to keep the family together and her sister...her sister is...well she has no character whatsoever.

What story there is in the film mostly comes from Suzie's killer (Stanley Tucci). We see him cleaning up the mess he made, dealing with routine police inquiries, and interacting with the Salmon family. The problem is that all we want to see is Tucci's character be caught and punished. He's not Norman Bates cleaning up after his mother...we never are on his side or in his world...we just want him handled. While we are suppose to see how frustrated Suzie is watching her killer go unpunished, it ended up just turning me against the film, and the film never gave me any thread to hold onto.

Acting: Part of the blame for that falls on the acting. Wahlberg is really bad here. He's not all together different from his whining and cloying performance in The Happening. I never once believed this was a man grieving for his daughter. Weisz is underused...but she's not that great when she's on screen. Surandon is also given nothing to do, she's charming when she's around, but her character is so one-note and superfluous that she quite easy to forget.



Stanley Tucci has been getting a lot of good press for his role as the killer George Harvey (what an uninspired name) but I found his performance to be merely okay. Yeah, he's creepy, but he's not that different from doing a parody of a child molester. Look at Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children for a compelling portrait of a disturbed man with similar issues (Haley's character is not a murderer but the point is still valid). Tucci does go to some dark places, and is very effective in his interaction with Suzie right before her death, but kind of sleep walks through the rest of the film. As the murdered girl Saoirse Ronan (from Atonement) is solid, she does a good American accent, and though she's asked to act against a lot of green screen she holds our attention.

Effects: To make the In-Between stand out Peter Jackson had it be a lush, changing environment that is a mix between Narnia, the movie What Dreams May Come, and every generic image of heaven (sans angels) that you can imagine. While it didn't help that I thought all the scenes in the In-Between were tedious bores, I also thought that the look itself was quite dull, and expected a lot better from Jackson.



Direction: I recently rewatched Heavenly Creatures, the film that first put Jackson on the map in America, and what stood out was how cool the direction in that film was. Lots of interesting camera angles, perspectives, stylistic choices...its really a tour de force. Then there are the Lord of the Rings movies which were perfectly put together, using almost every cinematic technique in the book, and seemed to announce Jackson as the premier filmmaker of the era. Unfortunately, The Lovely Bones is a real step down from those films. There's almost nothing different about this film, it's all so paint by numbers, and there's none of the innovation to be found in the much more modestly budgeted Heavenly Creatures. While he does a fair job building tension in a few scenes, that's really the only positive I can say, as the rest of the film is really quite boring and, at times, kind of baffling.



So this was a big old misfire from Jackson. We'll see if he can recover from this failure with the Tintin films that he is making with Spielberg (who has also stopped making quality movies) but I'm not too hopeful. There's nothing to recommend about The Lovely Bones so don't bother seeing it when it goes wide later this month.

Grade: D+

Best Scene: I suppose the scene between Suzie and George right before her death...though it's hurt by some bad editing...because it is effective at being really uncomfortable and creepy.

My Neighborhood's Taste in Movies is Bland

A Peek Into Netflix Queues (NY Times)

I imagine this has already made its way pretty far around the movie interweb, but it's too interesting not to talk about at least a bit.



(Inside baseball prelude: There's some talk of the site transitioning to a Mon-Wed-Fri schedule in terms of definitely posting 'feature' content like reviews, the other days will then be for interesting stuff that doesn't demand much comment like this link. Anyway......)

The New York Times offers an interesting interactive graphic showing us the top 10 Netflix rentals in 2009 by zip code (mouse over a part of the map to see the top 10's). There's a lot of ways to go with this; for one, it's striking, if not surprising, to see how top 10s differ dramatically from area to area based on income and ethnicity.

One could quibble with all this: I have to wonder to what extent Netflix really can represent some zip codes adequately, though. Are there really hundreds of Netflix subscribers per zipcode? Do Netflix subscribers represent a relevant cross-section of a given neighborhood or are they pretty self-selecting? Certainly in lower-income neighborhoods I would think that Netflix is less common, but that could be wrong. Going to the movies is increasingly becoming a small luxury so maybe Netflix replaces trips to the movie theater or the pay channels? Point being that it's an open question as to whose rental habits we're really looking at.

With that being said, it's fun to look at my neighbors' dirty laundry. Here's the list for my zip code:

1. Rachel Getting Married (Seemingly kind of random. Indicative of a neighborhood fascination with Oscar noms)
2. Vicki Christina Barcelona (VERY Random. I enjoyed this movie, but I can only explain it being so high on the list because of Cruz's win)
3. Milk
4. Doubt
5. The Wrestler (Whatever)
6. Burn After Reading (You are joking. This movie stunk.)
7. Benjamin Button
8. Slumdog Millionaire (Sad that it placed this low, but maybe more people saw it in theaters)
9. Revolutionary Road (Meh)
10. Mad Men (Season 1, Disc 1)

And there you have it. With the exception of Mad Men and, somewhat inexplicably, Burn After Reading (which I attribute to standard Coen Bros. lust) my neighborhood was busy watching the movies blessed by the Academy as nom or award worthy. Among other things, this should make it abundantly clear why the Academy expanded the best picture category to 10 nominations. It genuinely drives viewing behavior.

The whole graphic's very fun. Try using Pineapple Express to suss out recreational drug use or learn to mock Medford, Mass. for it's love of Twilight.

Henry's Top 100 Performances of All Time: #72 - Mark Wahlberg in The Departed

"You were kind of a double kid, I bet, right? Huh? One kid with your old man, one kid with your mother. You're upper-middle class during the weeks, then you're droppin' your "R"s and you're hangin' in the big, bad Southie projects with your daddy, the fuckin' donkey on the weekends. I got that right?"


The Departed is my favorite crime movie of the last 15 years and while it is filled with great actors, it is actually Wahlberg who most stands out. His Staff Sergeant Dignam is not actually in that much of the movie, but he steals every scene he's in, and is by far the most "entertaining" character in The Departed.

Marky Mark is one of those actors that some critics tend to like much more than they should. I've heard many critics (especially online) hail his performances in Three Kings and I Heart Huckabees. They're wrong...Marky Mark is not a good actor. But he is perfectly cast as, and perfectly plays, Staff Sgt Dignam. Playing a bull-headed Bostonian suits Wahlberg (I wonder why?).

Just a stand-out role in a movie filled with stars and noteworthy performances. There's a reason he was the one actor from the 2006 Best Picture winner to be nominated for an acting award...

Best Scene:

Henry Saw: Red Cliff

An entertaining but flawed epic from director John Woo...


Red Cliff, the newest film from John Woo, is a Chinese war film based on the real life Battle of Red Cliffs (or Battle of Chibi) that was fought in 209 AD between the allied front of the southern warlords Liu Bei and Sun Quan and the numerically superior forces of the northern warlord Cao Cao. It is, according to Wikipedia, the most expensive Asian-financed film of all time with a budget of 80 Million dollars. In China Red Cliff was released as two separate films, with a total running time of 280 minutes, but the version we got in the United States is one film that has a truncated 148 minute running time.

While it's not accurate to call Red Cliff a Chinese version of Zack Snyder's 300, there are similarities, and it seems like an apt comparison to start off this review. Red Cliff is a glorified version of this famous and pivotal battle from Chinese history. John Woo focuses more on battle tactics and strategy than Zack Snyder did, and never quite weaves in the comic book fantasy elements that 300 played with, but both Red Cliff and 300 are highly stylized and slightly cartoony representations of a real life war.

To John Woo's credit the battle scenes are quite impressive. There is a silliness to them, they're not comedic but they are fairly ridiculous, yet they're all entertaining. I have to mention how much they reminded me of the video game Dynasty Warriors. If you had told me that this whole movie was an adaptation of Dynasty Warriors I definitely would have believed it.

There are many characters in Red Cliff, all based on real historical figures, but only two really stood out to this American viewer. One is Zhuge Liang (played by Takeshi Kaneshiro), chief advisor to Liu Bei, and who uses his cleverness and knowledge of the weather to help devise a battle strategy. The other is Zhou Yu (played by Tony Leung Chiu-Wai), Sun Quan's Grand Viceroy, who takes up the charge of leading all the allied Southland forces against Cao Cao. Zhuge Liang and Zhou Yu form a strong friendship that is the heart of the film.



Because this is two films smashed into one the audience is asked to just accept a lot of the characters' actions and motivations. I assume that in China these films are more nuanced, and distinguishes the principle characters to a greater degree, but the one film that we get is very broad and done in brush strokes. We quickly understand who to root for, get one trait for each supporting player (there's the warrior who likes knocking over horses, the one who uses two short swords, the woman who likes tea, etc.), and that's about it.

The film is also awkwardly put together. I suppose that is to be expected when you make two movies into one but it's still a problem. What's funny is that the Western version of Red Cliff could probably have been edited even further. There is a very solid 2 hour war film in here but there is a lot of fluff, probably left in to give us a taste of what the 4 1/2 hour version was like, that was not needed for American audiences.



I enjoyed Red Cliff but it's not actually that good. The action is fun but repetitive, the character interaction is mostly laughable, and there's very little suspense or drama in the climatic battle sequence. Still, it's an impressive film, and a movie I was very happy to have seen. It was fun to see how it still felt like a John Woo film despite the lack of handguns and sunglasses. There is a dove...he always has to have doves in his movies...but its an overly showy and obvious shot.

I kind of recommend Red Cliff. Watch it with someone else, you'll want to laugh and talk about the film as it plays, and don't expect too much, but Red Cliff is a fun experience. I'm somewhat certain I would have hated the "full length" version...I found this film to be too long as is...but I'd say that the "American" Red Cliff is worth 140 minutes of your time.

Grade: B-

Best Scene: The "Tortoise" formation scene where we see how a cavalry unit can be defeated by infantry.

Ben Saw: Sherlock Holmes

A rare example of accurate trailers....



I don't want to bury the lead: I felt pretty warmly towards Sherlock Holmes. But did you know that Sherlock Holmes was a total badass? I don't mean 'badass' in the generic sense of being a cool guy, but 'badass' as in someone who could walk in to a biker bar, start a fight and KO everyone in the room. Well, he's that kind of badass in this movie. The differences between the two Holmes' have been much-commented upon, but a proper review really can't avoid the subject. This difference might take you by surprise if you're only familiar with Arthur Conan Doyle's literary creation as Doyle's Holmes is a cerebral, witty eccentric who doesn't usually encounter direct danger in the stories. But, should you have seen the trailer for Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, you would have known to expect wall-to-wall fights and a Holmes who is more master ninja than great detective. In quality and often in genre as well, trailers seem designed to mislead, but that's not the case with Guy Ritchie's new Christmas blockbuster. The trailer said 'action movie with a mystery riding shotgun'.......or maybe Robert Downey, Jr's charisma riding shotgun while the mystery rides with the luggage and jumper cables.........and such is what we got. There was no playing coy about the fact that this is 'not your grandmother's Sherlock Holmes.'

Well, it wasn't MY grandmother's Sherlock Holmes at least. I saw it with her and, in her own understated way, she hated it. She genuinely enjoyed the Doyle original and held the incredibly faithful Granada series featuring Jeremy Brett in high-esteem. She'd never dispute the point that Holmes lead an exciting and often dangerous life, but Ritchie's Holmes was dedicated to turning Doyle's charaters' asides on past moments of violence and combat in to the crash-bang, hyperbolized heart of the movie. Not grandma's bag. The modern sensibilities and touches of raunch were also, for her, unwelcome and jarring.

But that's grandma; she's great and all, but I don't generally turn to her for an open-minded take on action movies. Moreover, I'm also loyal to the Doyle canon and the Jeremy Brett series, but I just don't think it's appropriate to judge a movie centrally on the basis of how slavishly it mimics its source material. This was supposed to be a modern re-imagining of the Holmes mythos that keeps the spirit of the characters, but not necessarily the pacing or narrative thrust. Thus Robert Downey, Jr. as Rock-Em Sock-Em Sherlock.

The result being that Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is a fun and, by blockbuster standards, intellectually spry popcorn flick.

As the trailer suggest, the plot is silly: The film opens with occult criminal Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) captured and, so we think, executed. However, Blackwood warns Holmes that this is only the beginning of his plan before he is hanged. Sure enough, Blackwood appears to be resurrected and it is up to Holmes and Watson to figure out what his seemingly supernatural masterplan is, although the audience learns that the ultimate goal is to *sigh* take over the world. Meanwhile Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), cunning criminal and love interest to Holmes, is shoehorned in to the plot as the agent of a shadowy figure.

For me, it's really all about the performances in this movie and that discussion has to begin and end with Robert Downey Jr. Downey Jr. is remarkably good at importing a recognizable series of tics and mannerisms in to virtually all of his roles while still creating distinct and reasonably complex characters. As a result his charisma is often dazzling and it's put to good use here in a Holmes that is fun to watch but also a recognizable modern incarnation of the Doyle original. Most of the key traits are still there: the brilliance, the eccentricity, the arrogance, the substance abuse, the wit, the rigid morals, the obsessiveness, the remoteness, but the movie emphasizes them in new and different ratios. Out goes the cocaine abuse and gentility, in comes incredible combat prowess, one-liners and a more modern set of sensibilities (Watson: "Holmes, does your depravity know no bounds?" Holmes: "No").

Meanwhile, Jude Law is engaging and fairly grounded as Watson, providing a straight man and a credible counterpoint to Downey Jr's Holmes. Saying they come across as a couple speaks to a certain shallowness in people's perceptions of male relationships, but you see why they are friends; they have that kind of on-screen chemistry. Given the the caterwauling about the bastardization of Doyles' work, it's ironic that Law's Watson is probably the most faithful version put to screen amongst the iconic interpretations. The role has often been played for bumbling comic relief when, in fact, Watson was a highly-decorated war hero with a successful medical practice. As this suggests, he was both smart (but certainly not Holmes' equal) and a tough bastard, although obviously not to anything like the superheroic degree the movie shows.



The marquee performances go pretty sharply downhill from there. Mark Strong (as the villain) has been great in other roles, but is given nothing to do here. McAdams is an actress I'm predisposed to liking, but her part is especially poorly written and she is unable to match the winning tone of Downey Jr and Law. Prettiness aside, she is a mostly unwelcome addition to this movie. The bit players are all forgettable, but Eddie Marsan as Inspector Lestrade ad Kelly Reilly as Holmes' landlady Mary Morstan are both able straight men for Holmes.

The more inside baseball aspects of the movie mostly fall on the 'not very good' side of 'watchable.' Besides some decent bon mots for Holmes and Watson, the script is a bit of a mess. The plot was simultaneously predictable and simple while being excessively twisty and arcane. I hated that we had Holmes fighting a villain who aspired to take over the world instead of a more down-to-earth villain and that the 'detective work' was far less about investigation and far more about the film noir school of tracking down leads from one nasty scrape to another. The camera work is, in Ritchie fashion, unnecessarily stylized and indicative of a pointless need for 'cool' when the two leads provided more than enough without directorial tricks. The CGI was unnecessary and, to my admittedly jaundiced eye, somewhat behind the times. On the plus-side, the movie felt broadly grounded in its time period and had a wealth of clever winks and nods to the old Holmes stories for the active watchers in the audience. As action blockbusters go, Holmes does try to be smarter than most.

It's worth pausing a second for a few words about the action. They have an effective gimmick in the movie where Holmes thinks through entire fights in narrated slow-motion before actually delivering blows; it does a good job of conveying that the Holmes character is genuinely a thinking man's brawler and differentiates the movie's otherwise fairly generic fight scenes. As with Iron Man, I was much more interested in seeing the leads act than watching the comparatively uninspiring fights. In Holmes, however, Ritchie seems insistent on throwing in another action sequence every 15-20 minutes or so to wake up the blockbuster zombies that can't handle dialogue that's not punctuated by gunfire and bodyblows (a cheap shot, but it's still a pandering habit of Hollywood's). Better editing would have shortened these and made the movie feel significantly less over-the-top.

I'm hoping the right picture is coming together here: flawed though it is, Sherlock Holmes is fun. At times it is a lot of fun and, on reflection, I've decided it's a surprisingly successful approach to the character despite my objections. If you are willing to go in with modest expectations and a relaxed attitude, it's a very good time at the movies. It might even win you over if you go in hating it; I went in expecting the worst (because of that trailer) and came out pretty pleased. If you go in expecting older screen adaptations of Holmes, you are missing the point. There are a lot of things worth fixing and I hope they address them in the sequel they are clearly hell-bent on making, but Holmes is worth catching at some point. Just watch the trailer first so you don't go in to it surprised.


Grade: B

Best Scene: The first scene at 221b Baker St.

Henry Saw: The Cove

This is a compelling film and probably the best documentary I've seen this year...


This has been a weak year for documentaries. The two I saw, and the ones that got the most press, were Anvil: The Story of Anvil and Capitalism: A Love Story. Both were dissapointing; Anvil wasn't interesting and Capitalism was a mess. I've read decent things about some other documentaries from this year such as Facing Ali, The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, Food Inc., and Valentino: The Last Emperor, but none of these generated any real buzz or sounded like something I had to see. I know some people who saw The September Issue, and thought it was great, but I could not have been less interested in its subject.

For some reason The September Issue, and the critically praised Anvil, are not being considered for the Oscar (Read the Short List here). The one documentary that is both eligible, and received a great deal of positive reviews, is the film I watched last night On Demand: The Cove.

The Cove tells the story of Richard O'Barry, the original trainer of all the dolphins on the 1960s TV Show Flipper, who following the "suicide" (we'll get to this) of the main dolphin on the show, dedicated his life to trying to free all dolphins who are in captivity. The film really focuses on his efforts to expose the actions of the fishermen in the whaling community of Taijii, Japan.

O'Barry, with the help of the filmmakers, (The Cove was directed by Louis Psihoyos) assembles a team (which at one point is compared to Ocean's 11) that will try to find a way to get cameras in a hidden cove where Japanese fisherman capture and slaughter bottle nosed dolphins. Interspersed with footage of their operation is footage of O'Barry and other Ceacean experts talking about the reasons against capturing dolphins and the dangers of eating dolphin meat.



The best parts of the film are the missions to place cameras in the cove. As my dad said, this part of the film could really have been a dramatized film. The real-life characters are interesting, their methods are not without risk, and their goal is a worthy one. Where the film is weaker is when it goes into Michael Moore territory and strongly argues slightly ridiculous statements (like dolphins can commit suicide or that the Japanese government wants to poison school children) and sandbag interviews.

The Cove, especially in the covert operations scenes, shows what a good documentary can achieve and why its such a viable medium to tell a story or reveal issues. The lesser parts of the film, the interviews and standard documentary information sessions, are what prevent the film from being a great film. As is, it's a very strong movie and the best documentary I've seen this year.

Grade: B+

Best Scene: The horrifying footage at the end when we get to see what happens in The Cove...


P.S.: South Park had a great spin on this story in an episode called Whale Whores earlier this year. Here are some of the highlights:

Henry Saw: Humpday

I did not expect this movie to work so well...


Mumblecore is a film movement that, as of a few days ago, I had completely missed. I basically had never heard of it outside of a few throwaway references in some reviews I've read or listened to. I certainly had never seen a Mumblecore film. According to Wikipedia, Mumblecore is "primarily characterized by ultra-low budget production (often employing digital video cameras), focus on personal relationships between twenty-somethings, improvised scripts, and non-professional actors."

Before Humpday, the only two Mumblecore films I had ever even heard of (and I didn't know they were considered "Mumblecore" at the time) were Hannah Takes the Stairs and Baghead and those barely registered. I only was made fully aware of Humpday because I read a lot of Top Ten lists for 2009 and Humpday was on a lot of trusted critics' list. So I decided, based on these strong endorsements, to seek out my first Mumblecore film and pick up Humpday on DVD.



I'm very happy I did. Some of the critics I read and listened to refused to give a plot summary of Humpday because they wanted the movie completely unspoiled for any new viewers. What drew me to the film, outside of the reviews, was the plot of the film. So I'm going to post what the set-up of the film is...if you don't what to know anything about the movie then stop reading here and go watch the thing.

IMDB's plot description: When Andrew (Joshua Leonard) unexpectedly shows up on Ben's (Mark Duplass) doorstep late one night, the two old college friends immediately fall into their old dynamic of heterosexual one-upmanship. To save Ben from domestication, Andrew invites Ben to a party at a sex-positive commune. Everyone there plans on making erotic art films for the local amateur porn festival and Andrew wants in. They run out of booze and ideas, save for one: Andrew should have sex with Ben, on camera. It's not gay; it's beyond gay. It's not porn; it's an art project. The next day, they find themselves unable to back down from the dare. And there's nothing standing in their way - except Ben's wife Anna (Alycia Delmore), heterosexuality, and certain mechanical questions.

Humpday is first and foremost a comedy. And while the film is filled with awkward moments, which usually make me just squirm rather than laugh, I was always with the film and its characters. The film just nails so many little moments, scenes where you can't believe how true it feels (especially given the absurd situation), that it really sucks you in and keeps you constantly entertained.

Most of the credit has to go to its three principle actors. Leonard and Duplass have strong chemistry, an absolute must for the plot to work, and really capture the character they're playing. Leonard is especially good (even if he looks a little too much like Zach Galifianakis) and is the more natural comic. Leonard's Andrew is a much more compelling, unique, and fully realized character. We actually learn a little less about him than Ben, and Ben is definitely the main character of the film, but I actually think Humpday is really Andrew's story. Leonard's portrayal of the particular kind of friend that Andrew is to Ben felt just right.



Also good is Alycia Delmore as the put-upon Anna. The filmmakers make a great decision in not making Anna the bad guy or the heavy. She's a loving wife who is forced to deal with her husband's hippie best-friend showing up on her doorstep. She has an extended conversation with Andrew where they discuss Ben, and their lives, that was nearly note-perfect in both feeling real and being quite funny.

Humpday was "written" (a lot of it is improvised) and directed by Lynn Shelton who doesn't necessarily impress with her direction, but does a good job having her movie walk a very fine line, and keeping the whole thing grounded. Shelton, and her two leads, shine in the film's final sequence. It takes place in the hotel room where the two guys have decided to film their "art-project". The whole scene is just right, and though you consider other ways it could have gone, I think is basically flawless.



I fully recommend Humpday if you think you can handle the subject matter...it's pretty damn funny and very entertaining. I'm not sure I'm a full convert to the Mumblecore movement (I've since checked out Baghead via Netflix...it really stinks) but Humpday is a movie well worth watching.

Grade: B+

Best Scene: The final sequence in the hotel

The Oscars: Who Should Get Nominated

This isn't wholly different from my Top Ten; but I still think it's worth voicing what and whom I'm rooting for getting a nomination (no matter how impossible it is) come February 2nd (when the nominations are announced).



I listed the nominees in the order that I think they deserve to win. I also noted some of the candidates who are being widely considered who I chose not to pick.

Disclaimer: I have not seen every movie or performance I'm about to list. Some of these are compiled from trustworthy friends and trusted critics.

Disclaimer 2: I didn't do every category - just the major ones and a few that stood out to me.

Disclaimer 3: I put my commentary in parenthesis (Like This).

Again, these are not my predictions for what will be nominated, but what I feel most deserve the nominations. I'll post my predictions closer to the actual announcement...

Best Picture

(Remember there are 10 nominees for Best Picture this year. And this is a different list than my recently posted Top Ten Best of the year. I love Taken. Taken should not be nominated for Best Picture...)

1. The Hurt Locker (The Best Picture of the year)

2. Inglourious Basterds (A very cinematic film)

3. An Education (Shouldn't win...but nothing should except The Hurt Locker)

4. Up (Because it would be awesome if an animated film won and this one was the best made)

5. Precious (I hated the direction but this is a very good film)

6. Moon (A very cool throwback of a film that works much better the second time)

7. Up in the Air (It is a very current film with some strong performances and 3/4 of a great script)

8. Crazy Heart (Solid Indie with great performances)

9. District 9 (Now we're just getting silly with this 10 nominees thing)

10. The White Ribbon (Here's how weak 2009 was...I haven't seen The White Ribbon, and I hate its director, but I still think it's a better option to win Best Picture than all the other films that I saw this year)


Omitted:

Avatar (Had way too many flaws in its plot and script to be considered)

Invictus (A schlocky movie that was done with very little skill)

Where the Wild Things Are (F*** this movie)

A Serious Man (This one too)

A Single Man (Too much about Firth's performance...the rest of the movie is a bit of a dud)

Star Trek (No)



Best Director

1. Katherine Bigelow for The Hurt Locker (She has too win)

2. Quentin Tarantino (Because this was by far the best directed film of his career)

3. James Cameron for Avatar (He should be shot dead for his screenplay but he directed the hell out of Avatar)

4. Lars Von Trier for Antichrist (This is must have been a very hard film to make...and I think he actually pulled it off)

5. Henry Selick for Coraline (Because stop-motion animation rocks and this movie was beautiful to watch)


Omitted:

Jason Reitman for Up in the Air (There was nothing remarkable about the film's direction. Nothing)

Clint Eastwood for Invictus (His poor decision making actively hurt this film)

Lee Daniels for Precious (So did his)

Rob Marshall for Nine (Apparently this is a terribly directed film)

The Coen Brothers for A Serious Man (F*** this movie)

Spike Jonze for Where the Wild Things Are (This one too)

Neill Blomkamp for District 9 (Too many mistakes made in the second half)

Tom Ford for A Single Man (Meh...not striking enough)


Best Actor:


1. Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart (Carried the film and really crafted a tragic yet likable character)

2. Jeremy Renner in The Hurt Locker (Played the key role in the year's best film)

3. Tom Hardy in Bronson (A tour de force. If there was justice in the world Hardy would be getting a lot more buzz)

4. Colin Firth in A Single Man (Unrecognizable and sad...quite good)

5. Sam Rockwell in Moon (To say anything about the performance feels like it would be spoiling the film...but he's great)


Omitted:

George Clooney in Up in the Air (In hindsight...he's good...but he sleep walks through the film)

Morgan Freeman in Invictus (Unremarkable and way too easy a role for him to play)

Matt Damon in The Informant! (F*** this movie)

Michael Stuhlbarg in A Serious Man (This one too)

Daniel Day-Lewis in Nine (The best actor alive but was apparently miscast as an Italian playboy)


Best Actress

1. Carey Mulligan in An Education (My favorite leading performance of the year)

2. Charlotte Gainsbourg in Antichrist (The hardest role of the year...and she knocks it out of the crazy park)

3. Tilda Swinton in Julia (Watched this movie on Netflix On Demand...Swinton is one ugly woman but she's a fantastic actress)

4. Gabby Sidibe in Precious (Who knows how good an actress Sidibe really is...but she's great here)

5. Meryl Streep for Julie and Julia (Because she's Meryl Streep)


Omitted:

Melanie Laurant in Inglourious Basterds (I loved her in the film but she wasn't in it enough)

Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side (Didn't see the film but how is it possible that Bullock is a lock for a nomination for this movie?)

Helen Mirren in The Last Station (The New Yorker critic loved her in this but having just seen the trailer...it's hard to believe...but she is a good actress...)

Emily Blunt in The Young Victoria (Heard only bad things)

Abbie Cornish in Bright Star (Just looked so boring)



Best Supporting Actor:

1. Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds (He has to win)

2. Christian McKay in Me and Orson Welles (McKay was awesome in this otherwise bland flick)

3. Peter Capaldi in In the Loop (The funniest performance of the year)

4. Joshua Leonard in Humpday (Haven't reviewed this yet for PITAOE...I'll get to it...but Leonard plays a very hard part with the right amount of humanity and lack of interest in the audience liking him)

5. Alfred Molina in An Education (Because I like Molina and I liked his part)


Omitted:

Stanely Tucci in The Lovely Bones (Over-rated...severely over-rated)

Matt Damon in Invictus (I liked him but this was a fairly easy role)

Woody Harrelson in The Messanger (I wasn't impressed at all by Harrelson's performance. Felt like a mish-mash of a 100 different characters we've seen before)


Best Supporting Actress:

Mo'Nique in Precious (She has to win)

Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air (I'd be alright if she won it)

Vera Farmiga in Up in the Air (She was solid)

Marion Cotillard in Nine (Read and heard good things)

Maggie Gyllenhaal in Crazy Heart (I don't usually like her but I thought she did a good job here)


Omitted:

Penelope Cruz in Nine (Meh...she won last year)

Diane Kruger in Inglourios Basterds (Was not impressed)

Julianne Moore in A Single Man (Hate her. Didn't like her part. Really rooting against her)

Samantha Morton in The Messanger (She's always good but this was one of her lesser performances)

Mariah Carey in Precious (She was surprisingly good but Mo'Nique is the main attraction in Precious)


Best Original Screenplay:

1. Inglourious Basterds (A great and fun screenplay)

2. Up (A really tight film)

3. The Hurt Locker (More of a directorial achievement)

4. Moon (A clever and focused work)

5. (500) Days of Summer (A complexly constructed and clever script)


Best Adapted Screenplay:

1. An Education (Other than a clunky ending I loved this script)

2. In the Loop (Based on a TV show...funniest script of the year)

3. Fantastic Mr. Fox (A nice blending of American humor and a classic British children's novella)

4. Up in the Air (The movie's best feature)

5. Precious (A tough book to adapt...)


Some other random categories for fun...


Best Editing:

1. The Hurt Locker
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. Star Trek
4. Precious
5. Up in the Air


Best Cinematography:

1. Antichrist
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. The White Ribbon
4. The Hurt Locker
5. Avatar


Best Animated Feature:

1. Fantastic Mr. Fox
2. Coraline
3. Up
4. The Princess and the Frog
5. Ponyo


That's all the ones that interest me for now...I'll do my real predictions sometime later in the month.