*Spoiler warning*
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool." - Lester Bangs
Almost Famous is a true masterpiece about fame, love, growing up, being cool; but most of all it's about the music. Music is such a powerful force. Almost everyone is inspired or touched by music in some way. The soundtrack of Almost Famous is a roll call of the greatest musicians of the 1970's; Elton John, Led Zeppelin (who rarely lets their music be used in films), Jimi Hendrix, Steely Dan, etc. The film is a look into the world of one of the truly great eras of music, the early 1970's. Almost Famous is beautiful, with great performances, poignant dialogue and genuine emotion and characters that bring reality to the lives of rock stars.
William Miller (Patrick Fugit) is a fan. He loves music and he loves to write about it. At 15, he is somewhat geeky and awkward, doomed in school by being the youngest in his grade after his invasive mom (Frances McDormand) skipped him ahead a few grades. But William has some talent for writing, and after some tutelage from legendary rock journalist Lester Bangs (Philip Seymour Hoffman), he is offered a chance to write a story for the pantheon of rock n' roll journalism, Rolling Stone magazine. His assignment is to go on tour to study Stillwater, an up and coming band. Stillwater is led by its front man guitarist/songwriter Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup) and volatile lead singer Jeff Bebe (Jason Lee). Along the way William fits in with the band and the crowd that runs with them, including "band aid" Penny Lane (Kate Hudson).
Stillwater is a fictional band based on writer/director Cameron Crowe's experiences as a Rolling Stone journalist touring with rock acts such as The Allman Brothers Band, The Who, and The Eagles. They fit into the mold of what you would expect rock bands to be. Hammond is the guitarist with mystique, the backbone of the band that writes all the music and gets all the credit, and is always subtly putting himself above the rest of the band. Bebe is the lead singer that wants to be the recognizable face and the big star, the Mick Jagger type. The bass player and drummer are totally nondescript, they recede into the background and do what they are told. The relationship between Hammond and Bebe is tumultuous and hilarious. They are constantly struggling for power, with Bebe mostly wanting to get out of Hammond's shadow. "Your looks have become a problem," Bebe says to Hammond. Their Lennon/McCartney type relationship is one of the most fun in the film. A great scene is when the first Stillwater t-shirt shows up, only to enrage Bebe when Hammond's face is the only one that is actually depicted clearly.
Russell Hammond:
Can we just skip the vibe, and go straight to us laughing about this?
Jeff Bebe:
Yeah, okay.
Russell Hammond:
Because I can see by your face you want to get into it.
Jeff Bebe:
How can you tell? I'm just one of the out-of-focus guys!
But the most intriguing character in the film is Penny Lane, played exceptionally by Kate Hudson. Penny is mysterious and accessible at the same time. Her and Russell have had an on-again-off-again fling for the past year, and William gets caught right in the middle. Penny cares for William while they are on the road with the band. She is almost motherly towards him. They care about each other, an especially rare thing in the world of fame and rock n' roll, where nothing matters but the pursuit of self-gratification. Russell slowly starts to realize that he cares for Penny as well, and seeing how William treats her inspires him.
Almost Famous is a great study on the shallow nature of fame. People are used and thrown away. Nothing matters to the rock starts and those in their inner circle except for their own pleasure. Except for William. The band gets to see a regular kid who just loves their band. He brings some innocence to it all. William feels patronized when they point this out to him, and their pretension is hilarious. It's ridiculous that famous people feel like they aren't "real". That somehow they are in this dream world of fame and being on a stage, and that somehow makes them better. I guess this is society's fault for putting them up there and worshiping the position. William and Penny help Russell realize that he is no different than everyone else. William's mom is one person that will speak to Russell without some hushed awe, and it humbles Russell. The film ends with Russell visiting William at his home, where he starts to realizes what it's all about.
The early 1970's were a huge time for music. Rock n' roll, with a little help from The Beatles and other early pioneers, was being explored in brand new ways. Almost Famous has one of the best soundtracks ever assembled, a vital element to creating the feel for the film. The characters all talk with such reverence about music, how it inspires them and moves them. I can relate. The other day I was driving down Maple Street in Fayetteville, Arkansas in my truck. The leaves were just starting to turn colors. The sun was shining. I was listening to Fleet Foxes self-titled album, and I was just stunned at how beautiful the moment was. The next thing I realized was that this glimpse of pure beauty was a tiny glimpse of Jesus. He created all of it; the trees, the sun, and the music. Even though there is a lot of great music that is not "Christian", I can still see Jesus through it. His beauty is magnified in all things that he creates, including music. For some, it's a way to see His face. There's a reason why worship through songs is such an important part of our worship towards Him. Music is a God-given way to express our feelings towards him. In a strange way, this film reminded me of all of that, which thrust me into prayer and worship. It's funny, a movie filled with drugs and profanity caused me to worship Jesus. I think that's just his power though, he can redeem all things!
"I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, Holy One of Israel."
Psalm 71:22
"Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him; talk of all His wondrous works!"
1 Chronicles 16:9
I've seen this movie many times, and something I picked up on that I hadn't before was about William and his mother. William's mother Elaine is a single mom, as her husband died when her children were very young. She does her very best to keep her children close to her through the form of over-protection, which naturally drives them away. She talks of how she had to play mother and father to her son and daughter (William's sister Anita, played by Zooey Deschanel). While she does the best she absolutely can, it seems clear to me that her kids need a father figure. William tries to get this in Russell, but he is too caught up in himself to play the role. God created man and woman to each have a role in a child's life, and a father's role is so important.
I absolutely love Almost Famous. As I am writing this, listening to "Led Zeppelin II", I still feel like I am on the road with Stillwater in 1973. There's a magic to this film, and I think that even if you aren't a fan of the musical genre, you can still appreciate it. Just watch the "Tiny Dancer" scene, and you'll see what I mean. Russell Hammond is one of the coolest characters to ever hit a movie screen, and Billy Crudup does an outstanding job making him mysterious, cool, and still likable. Hoffman only has a few scenes, but he is fantastic in all of them. Kate Hudson has not since matched her performance here. Now if only I could listen to Stillwater's "Fever Dog" on iTunes...
5/5
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Looper
As I sit and stare at my computer screen, I am only certain of one thing: Looper is the most difficult movie to review this year. My head is still swimming with thoughts, theories, and wonders from this absolutely unique science fiction movie. Two of the best sci-fi films of the past five years have come out in 2012, and Looper stands alongside Prometheus as one of them. Part Terminator, part Blade Runner, and part Minority Report, Looper is a heady time traveling science fiction film that doesn't get bogged down in the details. Bruce Willis is his John McClane/ Butch Coolidge self, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues to make his case for the title of "new Leonardo DiCaprio", starring in what seems like his 5th or 6th great role in a row (The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, (500) Days of Summer). Simply put, Looper is great science fiction, and in a year without The Dark Knight Rises it would be a heavy contender for best movie of the year.
In the future, time travel exists. In 2044, time travel does not yet exist, but it is known that it will exist in thirty years. Future organized crime syndicates use a very unique form of taking out their enemies, by sending them back in time and having the bodies disposed of by a "looper". A "looper" quickly disposes of their target, dumps the body, and gets paid. When the mob is done using you as a looper, they "close your loop", sending back your future self to be disposed of... by you. When Joe (Gordon-Levitt) sees his future self (Willis) come back in time to have the loop closed, he hesitates, and now his older self is on the run. This is bad news for Joe, who will have to answer to his boss Abe (played wonderfully by Jeff Daniels), and try to find old Joe before things get too complicated.
As with any time travel movie, your head is going to hurt with inconsistencies. Looper does a good job of staying away from the details and focuses on the greater story. Any time travel movie is going to break down the harder you look at it, no matter how hard you try to close up plot holes. The Terminator, Back to the Future, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban are just a few examples of great movies dealing with time travel that have troublesome plot points. There is a reason why time travel doesn't exist, and why it never can exist (at least I think it won't). It's a concept that is outside of our understanding of humans, paradoxical at every turn. For a movie that deals so heavily with time travel elements, Looper does a good job of not letting the little inconsistencies get in the way. In fact, the time travel works quite well. A particularly impressive scene is in the first 20 minutes, when one of Joe's friends has to "close the loop", and his future self gets away. I won't spoil anything, but it is one of the most visually unique scenes I have seen in a long time.
Looper makes you guess at its protagonist the whole way. Several characters seem to be the "hero", but constantly do things to the contrary. Once it seems like you've figured out who to root for, the script is flipped. Movies without a central protagonist can run into some major problems (I'm looking directly at you Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace), but as Looper unfolds, it does so almost like a mystery, and the changes in character drive are what keeps it engaging.
Joe eventually runs into Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon), and this is where the movie starts to pick up. Joe's character is given some depth, and the story is further exposed. But the most impressive thing is the acting by Gagnon, the child playing Cid. I was blown away by how well this small child, no older than 8 by my estimation, could convey subtleties and emotion as well as any kid actor since Haley Joel Osment. Child actors can be very dangerous because, with rare exceptions, they are mostly terrible. A movie can be brought down by an annoying kid (you better believe that had the rest of Terminator 2: Judgment Day not been so awesome, there would be waaaay more complaining than there already is about Edward Furlong's John Connor), but here Gagnon is so great as Cid, nothing is taken away from the experience.
Looper has lots of cool futuristic action scenes, and the ones that are the most fun involve Bruce Willis. This guy is an all time great action hero for a reason, and he shows no signs of slowing down. His cool look, the snide comments, they all find their place in Looper. JGL certainly holds his own in his scenes with Willis, and one scene early in the film in a diner is particularly impressive. Since they are playing the same character, just at different times, it's an intriguing dynamic. JGL wears some almost unnoticeable makeup to make him look more Willis-ish, making their scenes together even more believable. It's a funny concept to even think about, having a conversation with your younger self. Old Joe chastises his younger self for being such a selfish idiot, and I think that every person would want that chance. I know that I would most certainly tell a thing or two to 16 year old Drew.
Looper went in a totally opposite direction than I thought it would, in a very good way. Instead of playing out like a run of the mill "revolt against the system" action movie, Looper has many genuine surprises in store. Get to a theater, pay the outrageous ticket price, pull out your smuggled in Skittles, and enjoy one of the year's best!
4.5/5
In the future, time travel exists. In 2044, time travel does not yet exist, but it is known that it will exist in thirty years. Future organized crime syndicates use a very unique form of taking out their enemies, by sending them back in time and having the bodies disposed of by a "looper". A "looper" quickly disposes of their target, dumps the body, and gets paid. When the mob is done using you as a looper, they "close your loop", sending back your future self to be disposed of... by you. When Joe (Gordon-Levitt) sees his future self (Willis) come back in time to have the loop closed, he hesitates, and now his older self is on the run. This is bad news for Joe, who will have to answer to his boss Abe (played wonderfully by Jeff Daniels), and try to find old Joe before things get too complicated.
As with any time travel movie, your head is going to hurt with inconsistencies. Looper does a good job of staying away from the details and focuses on the greater story. Any time travel movie is going to break down the harder you look at it, no matter how hard you try to close up plot holes. The Terminator, Back to the Future, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban are just a few examples of great movies dealing with time travel that have troublesome plot points. There is a reason why time travel doesn't exist, and why it never can exist (at least I think it won't). It's a concept that is outside of our understanding of humans, paradoxical at every turn. For a movie that deals so heavily with time travel elements, Looper does a good job of not letting the little inconsistencies get in the way. In fact, the time travel works quite well. A particularly impressive scene is in the first 20 minutes, when one of Joe's friends has to "close the loop", and his future self gets away. I won't spoil anything, but it is one of the most visually unique scenes I have seen in a long time.
Looper makes you guess at its protagonist the whole way. Several characters seem to be the "hero", but constantly do things to the contrary. Once it seems like you've figured out who to root for, the script is flipped. Movies without a central protagonist can run into some major problems (I'm looking directly at you Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace), but as Looper unfolds, it does so almost like a mystery, and the changes in character drive are what keeps it engaging.
Joe eventually runs into Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon), and this is where the movie starts to pick up. Joe's character is given some depth, and the story is further exposed. But the most impressive thing is the acting by Gagnon, the child playing Cid. I was blown away by how well this small child, no older than 8 by my estimation, could convey subtleties and emotion as well as any kid actor since Haley Joel Osment. Child actors can be very dangerous because, with rare exceptions, they are mostly terrible. A movie can be brought down by an annoying kid (you better believe that had the rest of Terminator 2: Judgment Day not been so awesome, there would be waaaay more complaining than there already is about Edward Furlong's John Connor), but here Gagnon is so great as Cid, nothing is taken away from the experience.
Looper has lots of cool futuristic action scenes, and the ones that are the most fun involve Bruce Willis. This guy is an all time great action hero for a reason, and he shows no signs of slowing down. His cool look, the snide comments, they all find their place in Looper. JGL certainly holds his own in his scenes with Willis, and one scene early in the film in a diner is particularly impressive. Since they are playing the same character, just at different times, it's an intriguing dynamic. JGL wears some almost unnoticeable makeup to make him look more Willis-ish, making their scenes together even more believable. It's a funny concept to even think about, having a conversation with your younger self. Old Joe chastises his younger self for being such a selfish idiot, and I think that every person would want that chance. I know that I would most certainly tell a thing or two to 16 year old Drew.
Looper went in a totally opposite direction than I thought it would, in a very good way. Instead of playing out like a run of the mill "revolt against the system" action movie, Looper has many genuine surprises in store. Get to a theater, pay the outrageous ticket price, pull out your smuggled in Skittles, and enjoy one of the year's best!
4.5/5
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Eight Men Out (1988)
The 1919 World Series. "Black Sox" scandal. "Shoeless" Joe Jackson banned from baseball. Any hardcore baseball fan knows this story well, and Eight Men Out is a fascinating retelling of this dark moment in baseball history. Myself being a ridiculously huge baseball fan, the odds that I would love this movie were pretty high, and any baseball fan will love it. I think that even if you aren't a big baseball fan, you can still appreciate the impressive snapshot of early 20th century American history, and an interesting portrayal of culture during the time period. Also impressive is how well Eight Men Out has aged, a period piece with impressive costume and set design that holds up 24 years later. As far as sports movies go, Eight Men Out is up there with the best.
1919 was a different era. There was no NFL, no fantasy sports, no round the clock ESPN coverage of every piece of sports minutiae painfully scrutinized ad nauseum. In 1919, there was big league baseball. This film starts as the Chicago White Sox are finishing up their American League Pennant victory, preparing to meet the Cincinnati Reds in the World Series. The White Sox are one of the greatest teams ever assembled, led by Buck Weaver (John Cusack), 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney), Hap Felsch (Charlie Sheen), ace hurler Eddie Cicotte (David Strathairn) and managed by the great 'Kid' Gleason (John Mahoney). But Sox players become increasingly frustrated with their cheapskate owner, Commie Comiskey (Clifton James), who pays them well below what they are worth and doesn't live up to his promises. He promises Cicotte a $10,000 bonus for winning 30 games, and benches him for 3 weeks in August. As frustrations begin to boil over, the gambling community finds a way to exploit this, paying the players their due wage in exchange for throwing the Series. The men are conflicted, but several give in, and as the Series starts, the White Sox are ready to lose to get rich.
Not all players approached give in to the scheme. Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson just want to play. They love the game, and even though they feel cheated by their owner, they can't stand to lose. Weaver is played as the hero in the film, the guy that despite the temptation of money, just wants to win a World Series. He develops a relationship with a couple of Chicago neighborhood kids who adore him. These scenes are very cute, and a great dichotomy of how things get complicated from childhood to adulthood. When you're a kid, there's just fun and baseball. When you're an adult, it gets a little bit more muddled. Joe Jackson is one of the tragic players in baseball history. A great ball player but not the brightest bulb in the box, Jackson is walked upon by others who are smarter than him. He just wants to play the game, but the harsh reality of the world won't let him.
If I had a time machine, one of the first places I would visit would be a Major League Baseball ball park in the early 20th century. The era fascinates me. The game was so much different back then. Fans packed the stadiums in suits and hats, scrutinizing every detail of the game. Every child wanted to grow up to be a baseball player. The players were of the rough and tumble type, the kind that fought when it was (un)necessary and threw back the whiskey after games. Spitballs and all other types of illegal pitches of today were legal and prevalently used. One interesting quirk that is highlighted in the film is that the players of opposing sides would actually share their gloves. At the end of an inning, the fielders would leave their glove at their position for the other team to use. The game that is played today, while at it's purest is still the same, is so dissimilar to the early days.
I loved how the movie showed the internal conflict of the players trying to throw the game. Losing on purpose is a harder thing than it would seem. One of the beauties of baseball is that once you're on the field, nothing else but the game matters. The guys who are on the take know what they must do, but most of them don't want to. By the end most are ready to quit the rouse, but once you've made a deal with the devil, you can't go back. The team is so tense, as most of the guys know who is on the take and who isn't. Manager Kid Gleason doesn't want to believe his boys would throw the game. Could you imagine looking a teammate in the eye after you purposefully make an error in the field in the World Series?
The movie follows the events of the 9-game World Series, and the aftermath that led to the eight men involved being banned for life from the game. The set pieces, the costumes, and especially the ragtime musical score wonderfully immerse you in the era. Like I said, it's hard for me to be unbiased because I love this era and subject matter so much. But the story is a great portrayal of the struggle between getting rich and the love of the game. Could you imagine if something like this happened in 2012? What if it was discovered that Nelson Cruz was on the take and his woeful attempt at David Freese's game tying triple in the 9th in Game 6 of last years World Series was purposeful? It would be national scandal that would bring baseball to its knees. This is similar to the "Black Sox" scandal, except imagine that today's MLB was by FAR the country's most popular sport. What a big deal it was to the country is an interesting facet to this story to me.
Even though the NFL might be the most popular sports league of today, our nation was founded on baseball. Eight Men Out is a great film about one of the low points in American sports history. Great sports movies are hard to come by, and any fan of the genre should give this movie a look. Baseball nerds like me will especially adore it.
4/5
1919 was a different era. There was no NFL, no fantasy sports, no round the clock ESPN coverage of every piece of sports minutiae painfully scrutinized ad nauseum. In 1919, there was big league baseball. This film starts as the Chicago White Sox are finishing up their American League Pennant victory, preparing to meet the Cincinnati Reds in the World Series. The White Sox are one of the greatest teams ever assembled, led by Buck Weaver (John Cusack), 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney), Hap Felsch (Charlie Sheen), ace hurler Eddie Cicotte (David Strathairn) and managed by the great 'Kid' Gleason (John Mahoney). But Sox players become increasingly frustrated with their cheapskate owner, Commie Comiskey (Clifton James), who pays them well below what they are worth and doesn't live up to his promises. He promises Cicotte a $10,000 bonus for winning 30 games, and benches him for 3 weeks in August. As frustrations begin to boil over, the gambling community finds a way to exploit this, paying the players their due wage in exchange for throwing the Series. The men are conflicted, but several give in, and as the Series starts, the White Sox are ready to lose to get rich.
Not all players approached give in to the scheme. Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson just want to play. They love the game, and even though they feel cheated by their owner, they can't stand to lose. Weaver is played as the hero in the film, the guy that despite the temptation of money, just wants to win a World Series. He develops a relationship with a couple of Chicago neighborhood kids who adore him. These scenes are very cute, and a great dichotomy of how things get complicated from childhood to adulthood. When you're a kid, there's just fun and baseball. When you're an adult, it gets a little bit more muddled. Joe Jackson is one of the tragic players in baseball history. A great ball player but not the brightest bulb in the box, Jackson is walked upon by others who are smarter than him. He just wants to play the game, but the harsh reality of the world won't let him.
If I had a time machine, one of the first places I would visit would be a Major League Baseball ball park in the early 20th century. The era fascinates me. The game was so much different back then. Fans packed the stadiums in suits and hats, scrutinizing every detail of the game. Every child wanted to grow up to be a baseball player. The players were of the rough and tumble type, the kind that fought when it was (un)necessary and threw back the whiskey after games. Spitballs and all other types of illegal pitches of today were legal and prevalently used. One interesting quirk that is highlighted in the film is that the players of opposing sides would actually share their gloves. At the end of an inning, the fielders would leave their glove at their position for the other team to use. The game that is played today, while at it's purest is still the same, is so dissimilar to the early days.
I loved how the movie showed the internal conflict of the players trying to throw the game. Losing on purpose is a harder thing than it would seem. One of the beauties of baseball is that once you're on the field, nothing else but the game matters. The guys who are on the take know what they must do, but most of them don't want to. By the end most are ready to quit the rouse, but once you've made a deal with the devil, you can't go back. The team is so tense, as most of the guys know who is on the take and who isn't. Manager Kid Gleason doesn't want to believe his boys would throw the game. Could you imagine looking a teammate in the eye after you purposefully make an error in the field in the World Series?
The movie follows the events of the 9-game World Series, and the aftermath that led to the eight men involved being banned for life from the game. The set pieces, the costumes, and especially the ragtime musical score wonderfully immerse you in the era. Like I said, it's hard for me to be unbiased because I love this era and subject matter so much. But the story is a great portrayal of the struggle between getting rich and the love of the game. Could you imagine if something like this happened in 2012? What if it was discovered that Nelson Cruz was on the take and his woeful attempt at David Freese's game tying triple in the 9th in Game 6 of last years World Series was purposeful? It would be national scandal that would bring baseball to its knees. This is similar to the "Black Sox" scandal, except imagine that today's MLB was by FAR the country's most popular sport. What a big deal it was to the country is an interesting facet to this story to me.
Even though the NFL might be the most popular sports league of today, our nation was founded on baseball. Eight Men Out is a great film about one of the low points in American sports history. Great sports movies are hard to come by, and any fan of the genre should give this movie a look. Baseball nerds like me will especially adore it.
4/5
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Rounders (1998)
Did you know that this movie existed? Granted I'm only 23 years old, but a movie starring Matt Damon, Edward Norton (one of my favorites) and John Malkovich shouldn't just slip by me. Needless to say when Rounders popped up on the "recommended for you" section of Netflix, I was excited to give it a shot. The movie gets bogged down a little towards the end, but the performances are great, and it is an overall great ride.
Mike McDermott (Matt Damon) is a law student by day, and a "rounder" by night. "Rounders" make their way around New York City playing underground poker games, Texas Hold 'Em being the game of choice. Mike is an especially good player, knowing exactly how to play the man across the table and not his cards. In an effort to make it big, Mike bets it all on a game against Teddy KGB (John Malkovich), only to wind up being reduced to nothing. After swearing off cards forever, Mike's best pal from high school Worm (Edward Norton), fresh out of prison, convinces Mike to get back in the game. Mike loves poker, but he has things he can't lose: a steady girlfriend, a job, and law school. But the allure of playing the game he loves coupled with Worm's serious gambling debts bring Mike back into the fray.
When Rounders is great, it's for the same reason that makes Ocean's Eleven great. When executed properly, it's a blast to watch the main characters outsmart everyone in the room. You're never quite sure the intricacies of what is going on, but you are sure that the hero is more cunning, more sly, and knows way more than anyone else in the movie. Damon and Norton hustling card games is a treat to watch. Part of all of us just wishes that we were that skilled at one thing that we could walk into any room and feel unbeatable. In my lifetime, I have only come close to that skilled in one thing, playing R.B.I. Baseball on the original Nintendo, but even then my Dad was always better than me. The "rounders" make it look easy, pulling stunts that have names you've never heard of with such style. The problem is that this gimmick is relied on a little too much. A lot of time in the film is spent playing cards, and it starts to bore.
Matt Damon is the king of boyish charm, at least in the 90's. Just like in his other early films like Good Will Hunting and The Rainmaker, Damon has the wit and charm that make you cheer for him without him really doing anything. Damon plays the hero with such ease, oozing charisma from every pore. Edward Norton is exceptional as well, playing Damon's loser best friend. Worm is smooth and desperate, a combination that Norton pulls off. He and Mike bond over poker; it drives them, they love every part of it. Worm aspires for nothing more than to pay his debts and get a rush, while Mike has goals of true poker immortality: playing in Las Vegas at the World Series of Poker.
Replace Norton and Damon and this movie is extremely run of the mill. The poker scenes get bogged down and the ending can be seen coming from a mile away. As a law student, I smiled more than a few times when there was any mention of law school. Clerkships, moot court, caveat emptor, all things mentioned in the film that I felt like I was "in" on because I am in law school. Malkovich does his usual loud performance as the villain, a Russian with a hilarious accent. I could have used a little more insight into Mike and especially Worm, who seems to be strictly one note.
Rounders is saved from being run of the mill by its extremely talented cast. Fans of Damon or Norton should at least give it a shot.
3/5
Mike McDermott (Matt Damon) is a law student by day, and a "rounder" by night. "Rounders" make their way around New York City playing underground poker games, Texas Hold 'Em being the game of choice. Mike is an especially good player, knowing exactly how to play the man across the table and not his cards. In an effort to make it big, Mike bets it all on a game against Teddy KGB (John Malkovich), only to wind up being reduced to nothing. After swearing off cards forever, Mike's best pal from high school Worm (Edward Norton), fresh out of prison, convinces Mike to get back in the game. Mike loves poker, but he has things he can't lose: a steady girlfriend, a job, and law school. But the allure of playing the game he loves coupled with Worm's serious gambling debts bring Mike back into the fray.
When Rounders is great, it's for the same reason that makes Ocean's Eleven great. When executed properly, it's a blast to watch the main characters outsmart everyone in the room. You're never quite sure the intricacies of what is going on, but you are sure that the hero is more cunning, more sly, and knows way more than anyone else in the movie. Damon and Norton hustling card games is a treat to watch. Part of all of us just wishes that we were that skilled at one thing that we could walk into any room and feel unbeatable. In my lifetime, I have only come close to that skilled in one thing, playing R.B.I. Baseball on the original Nintendo, but even then my Dad was always better than me. The "rounders" make it look easy, pulling stunts that have names you've never heard of with such style. The problem is that this gimmick is relied on a little too much. A lot of time in the film is spent playing cards, and it starts to bore.
Matt Damon is the king of boyish charm, at least in the 90's. Just like in his other early films like Good Will Hunting and The Rainmaker, Damon has the wit and charm that make you cheer for him without him really doing anything. Damon plays the hero with such ease, oozing charisma from every pore. Edward Norton is exceptional as well, playing Damon's loser best friend. Worm is smooth and desperate, a combination that Norton pulls off. He and Mike bond over poker; it drives them, they love every part of it. Worm aspires for nothing more than to pay his debts and get a rush, while Mike has goals of true poker immortality: playing in Las Vegas at the World Series of Poker.
Replace Norton and Damon and this movie is extremely run of the mill. The poker scenes get bogged down and the ending can be seen coming from a mile away. As a law student, I smiled more than a few times when there was any mention of law school. Clerkships, moot court, caveat emptor, all things mentioned in the film that I felt like I was "in" on because I am in law school. Malkovich does his usual loud performance as the villain, a Russian with a hilarious accent. I could have used a little more insight into Mike and especially Worm, who seems to be strictly one note.
Rounders is saved from being run of the mill by its extremely talented cast. Fans of Damon or Norton should at least give it a shot.
3/5
Monday, September 17, 2012
Why I am not going to see Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master"
The Master, released in limited theaters last weekend, is being hailed as a heavy Oscar contender. Early reviews are glowing, and it sits at 88% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Its director Paul Thomas Anderson has been lauded for his unique style of directing and writing, and has been nominated for 5 Academy Awards. It stars Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, two powerhouse leading men that have 5 Academy Award nominations and one win between them. Joaquin's performance as Commodus in Gladiator is one of my favorite performances of all time. So with all of that on the table, why in the world would I not go see The Master? Because it is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson- master of movie boredom.
Before I go any further I must confess that I am not fully versed in the ways of Anderson. I've only seen two of his films; There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love. I've managed to steer clear of Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Hard Eight. But the two I have seen have been so painfully boring and weird, I couldn't imagine having to suffer through any more.
There Will Be Blood, released in 2007, had all the hype in the world. A critically acclaimed director, Hollywood acting great Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead, and the promise of an engrossing tale of oil prospecting at the turn of the century. Needless to say I was very excited to see this movie in the theater. The opening scene was extremely promising. Daniel Day-Lewis, struggling in an oil well, in an amazing one man scene with no dialogue. After that is when things started to turn south. For what seemed like the next 9 hours (in reality it was only two and a half), absolutely NOTHING happened. Seriously, there is nothing that happens. I understand that not all movies are moved along by a traditional plot, and that there are other types of films. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a good example of a film that is a character study. We see Benjamin from his birth to his death. But in between there is growth, action, and love. In There Will Be Blood, there is none of that. Day-Lewis' character is an evil curmudgeon in the last scene, the exact same as he is in the first. There's no plot to speak of, just some events, and then it ends. Was I supposed to be invested in any of the characters? Was I supposed to care when anything happened?
About halfway through the movie I started to realize that my expectations had gone horribly wrong. After the movie my friends and I all had sheepish looks, none of us daring to be the first to say they hated it. Someone finally piped up with a "that was kind of boring" comment, finally giving the rest of us the ability to tell of how bored we all were during the movie. A group behind me in the theater loudly exclaimed, "this is boring crap!" and actually left the theater with an hour left. True story. I wish I had been as bold as them. It most certainly was boring crap. It was almost as if I could hear Anderson behind me in the theater screaming, "THIS IS ART! YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THIS!" I understand that I'm supposed to, the problem is that I don't, not even in the slightest. Maybe I was confusing that with Day-Lewis horribly overacted performance. It was as if Anderson told him,"OK, if you yell and strain your face, it conveys emotion! Do this EVERY time!" Yelling is not great acting, and that is the gist of Day-Lewis' performance. He overacts like Calculon from Futurama.
Round 2 with P.T. Anderson came completely by accident. Had I known that he was the director of Punch Drunk Love I would have never rented it. But I gave it a try, after reading some good things about it on the internet, and several great things about the performance of Adam Sandler. After watching it, it was clear to me that everything I had heard had been wrong. Again, I kept patiently waiting for ANYTHING to happen. Except that it doesn't. Nothing happens, there's some weirdness thrown in for the sake of being weird, and that's it. It's the slowest 95 minute movie you'll ever watch. I was so angry at myself after finding out who the director was, and that I didn't do my research first. I guess if anything, it was a good lesson in the dangers of renting a movie. It could end up being directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. There might be other movies out there as brutally dull as There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love, but I seriously doubt it.
I've had many friends tell me that they love one or both of these. This blows my mind, but hey, maybe I just didn't "get it". But wait a minute. These are MOVIES we are talking about. They are about entertainment. There's only one way to "get" that. Either you enjoy your time watching it or you don't. Understandably, there are films out there that the content and subject matter you may not fully understand, yet you can still be entertained by them. I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, but I don't really understand much of it's themes and undertones if I'm being honest. I just know that the world Scott created and the story presented are engrossing, and my time seems well spent. I couldn't care less about the "art" of the film if it bores me to tears. What was the point of me watching it if I felt like I was sitting through a reading of a Chemistry textbook, as read by Ben Stein? Obviously craft and technique matter, but all for the purpose of making the movie more engaging to watch, not less.
I'm probably being close minded about The Master, but after two nightmarish experiences with this director, can you blame me? I almost got suckered in by it too- the reviews, the actors, the hype. Ultimately I think I've finally learned one of the most valuable lessons any movie-goer can learn: unless you are suffering from crippling insomnia, stay away from Paul Thomas Anderson.
Before I go any further I must confess that I am not fully versed in the ways of Anderson. I've only seen two of his films; There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love. I've managed to steer clear of Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Hard Eight. But the two I have seen have been so painfully boring and weird, I couldn't imagine having to suffer through any more.
There Will Be Blood, released in 2007, had all the hype in the world. A critically acclaimed director, Hollywood acting great Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead, and the promise of an engrossing tale of oil prospecting at the turn of the century. Needless to say I was very excited to see this movie in the theater. The opening scene was extremely promising. Daniel Day-Lewis, struggling in an oil well, in an amazing one man scene with no dialogue. After that is when things started to turn south. For what seemed like the next 9 hours (in reality it was only two and a half), absolutely NOTHING happened. Seriously, there is nothing that happens. I understand that not all movies are moved along by a traditional plot, and that there are other types of films. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a good example of a film that is a character study. We see Benjamin from his birth to his death. But in between there is growth, action, and love. In There Will Be Blood, there is none of that. Day-Lewis' character is an evil curmudgeon in the last scene, the exact same as he is in the first. There's no plot to speak of, just some events, and then it ends. Was I supposed to be invested in any of the characters? Was I supposed to care when anything happened?
About halfway through the movie I started to realize that my expectations had gone horribly wrong. After the movie my friends and I all had sheepish looks, none of us daring to be the first to say they hated it. Someone finally piped up with a "that was kind of boring" comment, finally giving the rest of us the ability to tell of how bored we all were during the movie. A group behind me in the theater loudly exclaimed, "this is boring crap!" and actually left the theater with an hour left. True story. I wish I had been as bold as them. It most certainly was boring crap. It was almost as if I could hear Anderson behind me in the theater screaming, "THIS IS ART! YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THIS!" I understand that I'm supposed to, the problem is that I don't, not even in the slightest. Maybe I was confusing that with Day-Lewis horribly overacted performance. It was as if Anderson told him,"OK, if you yell and strain your face, it conveys emotion! Do this EVERY time!" Yelling is not great acting, and that is the gist of Day-Lewis' performance. He overacts like Calculon from Futurama.
Round 2 with P.T. Anderson came completely by accident. Had I known that he was the director of Punch Drunk Love I would have never rented it. But I gave it a try, after reading some good things about it on the internet, and several great things about the performance of Adam Sandler. After watching it, it was clear to me that everything I had heard had been wrong. Again, I kept patiently waiting for ANYTHING to happen. Except that it doesn't. Nothing happens, there's some weirdness thrown in for the sake of being weird, and that's it. It's the slowest 95 minute movie you'll ever watch. I was so angry at myself after finding out who the director was, and that I didn't do my research first. I guess if anything, it was a good lesson in the dangers of renting a movie. It could end up being directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. There might be other movies out there as brutally dull as There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love, but I seriously doubt it.
I've had many friends tell me that they love one or both of these. This blows my mind, but hey, maybe I just didn't "get it". But wait a minute. These are MOVIES we are talking about. They are about entertainment. There's only one way to "get" that. Either you enjoy your time watching it or you don't. Understandably, there are films out there that the content and subject matter you may not fully understand, yet you can still be entertained by them. I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, but I don't really understand much of it's themes and undertones if I'm being honest. I just know that the world Scott created and the story presented are engrossing, and my time seems well spent. I couldn't care less about the "art" of the film if it bores me to tears. What was the point of me watching it if I felt like I was sitting through a reading of a Chemistry textbook, as read by Ben Stein? Obviously craft and technique matter, but all for the purpose of making the movie more engaging to watch, not less.
I'm probably being close minded about The Master, but after two nightmarish experiences with this director, can you blame me? I almost got suckered in by it too- the reviews, the actors, the hype. Ultimately I think I've finally learned one of the most valuable lessons any movie-goer can learn: unless you are suffering from crippling insomnia, stay away from Paul Thomas Anderson.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Best Movie Each Year of Your Life
I've done this before, and it's kind of a fun thing to do. The point is to name the best movie from each year of your life, starting with the year of your birth. It definitely creates some close calls, and some of my top 10 movies won't make this list because of a solid year in film. 1999 brings the tough choice between Fight Club and The Matrix. 2002 has Minority Report and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. 1994 has Pulp Fiction and Dumb and Dumber. 2006 gave me the agonizing decision of Casino Royale and The Departed. Also, looking back, there are several very thin years for movies. 2005 is a super weak year, and 2004 is not much better. 2011 is a year with a bunch of good movies, and very few great ones. I challenge you to do this as well, it's a fun list to make!
1989: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
1990: Goodfellas
1991: Terminator 2: Judgment Day
1992: Reservoir Dogs
1993: Rudy
1994: Dumb and Dumber
1995: Se7en
1996: Sling Blade
1997: L.A. Confidential
1998: The Truman Show
1999: The Matrix
2000:Gladiator
2001: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2004: Collateral
2005: Batman Begins
2006: The Departed
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: The Dark Knight
2009: District 9
2010: Inception
2011: The Muppets
2012: The Dark Knight Rises
1989: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
1990: Goodfellas
1991: Terminator 2: Judgment Day
1992: Reservoir Dogs
1993: Rudy
1994: Dumb and Dumber
1995: Se7en
1996: Sling Blade
1997: L.A. Confidential
1998: The Truman Show
1999: The Matrix
2000:Gladiator
2001: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2004: Collateral
2005: Batman Begins
2006: The Departed
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: The Dark Knight
2009: District 9
2010: Inception
2011: The Muppets
2012: The Dark Knight Rises
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Midnight in Paris
Midnight in Paris is a wonderfully acted, wonderfully written film. I'm not very familiar with Woody Allen's work, but from what I have heard, this movie is extremely "Woody-esque". Owen Wilson plays a guy who feels like he is stuck in the wrong era- that he was born 90 years too late. Nostalgia and remembering the past is a wonderful thing, but is the past really as great as we imagine?
Gil (Wilson) and his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) come to Paris with Inez's family on vacation. Gil is a Hollywood screenwriter, but longs to write a novel in the vein of his idol's: Hemmingway, Elliot, and Fitzgerald. Inez is caught up in the material lifestyle; fame, wealth, and a perfect life with Gil in Malibu. Gil is overtaken by Paris and wants to move there and live the simple life, much to the dismay of Inez. He wants to take walks in the rain and experience the beauty of Paris; she wants to eat at the fancy restaurants, go dancing, and do it all while wearing the best clothes and jewelry. To get away from it all, Gil takes a midnight walk through the streets, where he encounters something very strange. A 1920's type vehicle transports him to a place in the past where he meets his favorite artists, authors, and musicians, giving him a chance to experience the era he believes to be the "golden age". His midnight walks take him further into the culture he loves, and further away from Inez.
Nostalgia is a funny thing. I think back on simple memories from my past and they seem so great: walking home from school in 7th grade, playing in high school football games on Friday nights, traveling to play in competitive baseball tournaments, staying out at my cousin's house in the country, and so many more. All of these memories are so vivid and give me a feeling of warmth and comfort; as if only I could just relive these moments again, it would be better than anything I am experiencing today. Gil certainly feels this way in the1920's. When he gets to experience this era he feels like it is a dream come true. His writing becomes inspired, he fits in, and sacrifices his time in the present to engross himself in the past.
But is the past really better than the present? Our memories cloud our judgments. We have emotions tied to them and they play tricks on us. Was playing in high school football games an amazing experience? Absolutely. Would I want to go back and be in high school again? That answer is a definite no. It's so important to appreciate your memories but it's also important to appreciate them for what they are. I see this all the time with my friends and how they view children's cartoons. "Our cartoons were so much better! Cartoons today are terrible!" These statements might be true, but it is way more likely that these cartoons are associated with youth, and a time of simplicity, which gives off a warm and fuzzy feeling. My seven year old brother in 15 years will be saying the exact same things; that the shows that were on when HE was a kid were way better than the new ones. The point being is that Midnight in Paris does a wonderful job of addressing the theme of memories and feelings from the past.
Gil and Inez are so different, and it makes you wonder how they even got together in the first place. This seems to happen a lot in romance stories; the main character is in a relationship that seems so opposite of their personality, and are miserable until they meet a fiery new man or woman. At first I thought that this was just a movie cliche, but as I get older I realize that there are people who are in relationships where they are nothing like their partner, making you wonder what attracted them to each other in the first place. Instantly I was against Gil and Inez staying together.
The dialogue is very witty and enjoyable, especially between Gil and the people he meets in the past. One of my few complaints is that Inez's character comes off as too simple. She seems to have a one track mind of wealth and status, and as I previously stated, it's hard to believe that her and Gil ever fit together. Some hilarious scenes are with Inez's pseudo-intellectual friend Paul (Michael Sheen), a know-it-all that you'd like to give a nice punch in the face.
Midnight in Paris is a relatively clean, fun and romantic film. Paris provides beautiful scenery, and Allen accentuates it with pretty shots and a lovely musical score. Owen Wilson is fantastic as Gil, and Allen's writing really shines. His Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay is well deserved, and I highly recommend seeing this film.
4/5
Gil (Wilson) and his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) come to Paris with Inez's family on vacation. Gil is a Hollywood screenwriter, but longs to write a novel in the vein of his idol's: Hemmingway, Elliot, and Fitzgerald. Inez is caught up in the material lifestyle; fame, wealth, and a perfect life with Gil in Malibu. Gil is overtaken by Paris and wants to move there and live the simple life, much to the dismay of Inez. He wants to take walks in the rain and experience the beauty of Paris; she wants to eat at the fancy restaurants, go dancing, and do it all while wearing the best clothes and jewelry. To get away from it all, Gil takes a midnight walk through the streets, where he encounters something very strange. A 1920's type vehicle transports him to a place in the past where he meets his favorite artists, authors, and musicians, giving him a chance to experience the era he believes to be the "golden age". His midnight walks take him further into the culture he loves, and further away from Inez.
Nostalgia is a funny thing. I think back on simple memories from my past and they seem so great: walking home from school in 7th grade, playing in high school football games on Friday nights, traveling to play in competitive baseball tournaments, staying out at my cousin's house in the country, and so many more. All of these memories are so vivid and give me a feeling of warmth and comfort; as if only I could just relive these moments again, it would be better than anything I am experiencing today. Gil certainly feels this way in the1920's. When he gets to experience this era he feels like it is a dream come true. His writing becomes inspired, he fits in, and sacrifices his time in the present to engross himself in the past.
But is the past really better than the present? Our memories cloud our judgments. We have emotions tied to them and they play tricks on us. Was playing in high school football games an amazing experience? Absolutely. Would I want to go back and be in high school again? That answer is a definite no. It's so important to appreciate your memories but it's also important to appreciate them for what they are. I see this all the time with my friends and how they view children's cartoons. "Our cartoons were so much better! Cartoons today are terrible!" These statements might be true, but it is way more likely that these cartoons are associated with youth, and a time of simplicity, which gives off a warm and fuzzy feeling. My seven year old brother in 15 years will be saying the exact same things; that the shows that were on when HE was a kid were way better than the new ones. The point being is that Midnight in Paris does a wonderful job of addressing the theme of memories and feelings from the past.
Gil and Inez are so different, and it makes you wonder how they even got together in the first place. This seems to happen a lot in romance stories; the main character is in a relationship that seems so opposite of their personality, and are miserable until they meet a fiery new man or woman. At first I thought that this was just a movie cliche, but as I get older I realize that there are people who are in relationships where they are nothing like their partner, making you wonder what attracted them to each other in the first place. Instantly I was against Gil and Inez staying together.
The dialogue is very witty and enjoyable, especially between Gil and the people he meets in the past. One of my few complaints is that Inez's character comes off as too simple. She seems to have a one track mind of wealth and status, and as I previously stated, it's hard to believe that her and Gil ever fit together. Some hilarious scenes are with Inez's pseudo-intellectual friend Paul (Michael Sheen), a know-it-all that you'd like to give a nice punch in the face.
Midnight in Paris is a relatively clean, fun and romantic film. Paris provides beautiful scenery, and Allen accentuates it with pretty shots and a lovely musical score. Owen Wilson is fantastic as Gil, and Allen's writing really shines. His Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay is well deserved, and I highly recommend seeing this film.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)