Inception

I have been looking forward to "Inception" since I saw its first preview, even though I remember the trailer as incomprehensible at the time.  The sole reason for the excitement was that Christopher Nolan's name was connected with it.  Nolan has actually directed a relatively small body of work, but I have really enjoyed every one of his movies that I have seen.  They are all tense, well-made, and very original.  Also, the ones that have "twists" or surprise endings are actually surprises.  He is becoming one of the major forces in Hollywood. 

In high school I watched a little-known Nolan movie starring Guy Pearce called "Memento."  It told the story of a man who lost his short-term memory when criminals broke into his house and raped and murdered his wife.  He spends the bulk of the movie as a vigilante hunting for one of these men, but can only remember the clues he finds by leaving himself notes, often in the form of tattoos on his own body.  Half the movie is told in reverse chronological order.  My description of it here doesn't do it justice and probably makes it sound too confusing.  But its awesome, and you should watch it.  The ending is great.

In 2002 Nolan released Insomnia with Robin Williams and Al Pacino.  I never saw this one (I actually remember trying to buy a ticket for it but it was sold out.  I never got back around to it), but it has a 92% "fresh" rating on rottentomatoes.com, so my hunch is that it's pretty good, too. 

I also really enjoyed "The Prestige," which stars Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale as competitive turn-of-the-century magicians one-upping each other to the point of ruining their individual lives.  Also tense, original, and well-told.

Then Nolan re-envigorated the Batman franchise with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, making that cooky Tim Burton look like a real chump in the process. 

Nolan's next project after The Dark Knight was Inception, so the moviegoing public was understandably pretty jazzed up to see what Nolan was going to cook up next.  Such high expectations usually spell disaster for a movie, but in the case of Inception, Nolan delivered yet again. 

the deal: Leonardo DiCaprio's character is a thief. Only instead of stealing jewels or gold or cash or art or whatever thieves steal, he steals ideas. He and his team break into people's minds and steal their inner most secrets while they are dreaming. We find out that he has been banned from the United States for some reason, so in return for a promise to be allowed back into the country, he agrees to put an idea into someone's mind instead of stealing it, a process known as, you guessed it, Inception. 

They decide that the best way to do this is to go several dreams deep. In other words, if they place the dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, the subject has a greater likelihood of thinking it was his own idea. So that's what they do...they go several dreams deep. It's wild.

What I like:

1. It's blazingly original. As the moviegoing public had hoped, Christopher Nolan delivered again. While it will remind of you The Matrix and Shutter Island, it's perhaps more like The Italian Job or Ocean's Eleven or another heist movie. But even then, it's a totally unique moviegoing experience, which is such a breath of fresh air in the era of sequels, franchises, and remakes.

Seriously, let's look at some of the biggest movies out right now (or very recently).

Inception = screenplay by Christopher Nolan, written as a screenplay.
Toy Story 3 = sequel (but still very good).
Iron Man 2 = sequel, based on a comic book
The A-Team = weird remake of a 70's drama/comedy series
Twilight whatever = sequel, based on a novel
Predators = sort of sequel / remake.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice - Full-length feature loosely based on a 3 minute cartoon. still don't understand that one.
Knight and Day = also known as Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Except not good.
Sex and the City 2 = sequel / based on a TV show
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time = based on a video game. ?
Clash of the Titans = remake / based on a Greek myth or something.
Shrek, part 95 = sequel.
MacGruber = based on a Saturday Night Live skit.
Robin Hood = based on other movies/legends. Except not good.

The point is...there just aren't that many totally fresh ideas any more. But Inception is one, and that's very refreshing.

2. It's engrossing. Usually two and a half hour movies have me looking at my watch a couple of times or at least noticing their length. I did not do that in Inception. Yes, it's long. But it's so good that I wish it was longer.

3. The Special Effects. Nolan has been vocal about his desire to use as few computer generated images as possible. That is evident. The special effects are excellent, but they are all made with creative camera work and actual stunts instead of the cartoon-like sequences that filmmakers try to pass off as exciting. (Think 2012...give me a break). Not only does Inception avoid those cartoony special effects, but when effects are shown, they just look great.

4. It takes some real concentration. And even then you probably won't fully get it. As I mentioned above, there are dreams within dreams within dreams within dreams here. It's probably not as impossible to follow as that would make it seem, but the viewer still has to pay pretty close attention. Make a special point to empty the bladder before it starts, or you'll never catch up.

5. The imagery. A lot of it really sticks with you. good, good stuff.

What I didn't:

1. It leaves you hanging.  Not in a there-will-be-a-sequel kind of way, but in a you-will-argue-about-it-with-your-friends-in-the-car-on-the-way-home kind of way.  I realize that's the point, but I guess I'd prefer a hard and fast answer.  It by no means ruins the movie. It's still great. Just watch it.

Crazy Heart

What's the Deal:  Jeff Bridges plays "Bad Blake," a washed up, has-been, alcoholic country music singer who lives paycheck to small paycheck by playing in venues like Bowling Alleys and run-down honky tonks.  He's depressed and performs drunk.  Very drunk.  Like has-to-leave-during-the-middle-of-the-set-to-vomit drunk. 

We also find out that Blake's former band member Tommy Sweet (played by a surprisingly un-annoying and un-accented Colin Farrell) has "made it big" and is a huge Country Music Star.  Blake is somewhat jealous of Sweet's success, but also bitter at Sweet's apparent lack of gratitude to Blake for Blake giving him his start. 

While performing in Santa Fe, NM, he meets a reporter (Maggie Gyllenhaal) for an interview.  He falls for her and they begin dating.  Bad Blake's wrestling with this relationship, his alcoholism, his jealousy of Tommy Sweet, and his need for money make up the balance of the movie.  It is a really powerful story with great music, great images, a great story, and some really tense moments.  I highly recommend it. 

What I like:

1.  Soundtrack:   I like Country Music, so its no surprise that I found this soundtrack great.  I liked the songs that Bad Blake plays, and intend to download them shortly.  But what I really enjoyed were the backgrounds songs played during various montages and things.  Two of them, "If I needed you" by Townes van Zandt and "Live Forever" Billy Joe Shaver are fabulous songs that I have loved for many years.  It was especially cool to hear them in this movie. 

(Trivia... The lyrics of "Live Forever" are quoted by Robert Duvall in the movie, who has a small supporting role.  "Live Forever" was written by an old rough-around-the-edges singer named Billy Joe Shaver.  Mr. Shaver was accused last year of shooting a man in a bar here in the Waco area.  At his recent trial, Robert Duvall came to town to testify on Mr. Shaver's behalf as a character witness.  Mr. Shaver was subsequently acquitted, in part because no Waco jury is going to disobey Gus from Lonesome Dove.)

Billy Joe Shaver

2.  Jeff Bridges.  A lot has been made of his performance (he won the Best Actor Oscar and a bunch of other awards).  It's all well-deserved.

3.  The imagery.  The movie just looks great.  It's shot mostly in the Southwest, which is cool.  But what I really mean here is the way the early "Bad Blake" is portrayed.  When he's dirty and sweaty and drunk or hung over, he looks terrible.  You can almost smell him through the screen. 

4.  It's actually pretty powerful.  Melissa cried.  Just saying. 

What I didn't:

1.  It's a whole lot like Tender mercies. Let's analyze the plot of Crazy Heart compared to the plot of the previously reviewed Tender Mercies with Robert Duvall.

Alcoholic, Washed up Country Music Singer?  check.
Meets a young woman?  check
The woman has just come out of a bad relationship / marriage?  Check
He Falls in love with her?  Check
She has a son he also likes and takes under his wing?  Check
She forces him to wake up and quit drinking?  Check
He tries to revitalize his career?  Check
The Record companies are resistant?  Check
He reconnects with a child from a previous marriage?  Check
All of these occurrences allow him to write a wonderful new hit song that he couldn't have written otherwise?  Check. 

Now, none of this is all that bad.  Tender Mercies is a good movie.  And I happen to have watched it pretty recently, so these similarities are probably more apparent to me right now than they would be otherwise.  It's just something I noticed.

Iron Man 2

What's the Deal:  In the summer of 2008, 2 mainstream superheroes movies were released.  One the highly anticipated The Dark Knight which was about perhaps the second most famous superhero of all time fighting arguably the most famous superhero villain of all time (Batman vs. the Joker).  The other was Iron Man, which started very under-the-radar, smaller budget movie about a superhero the vast majority of the general public had never heard of.  The Dark Knight was fantasitc, as was anticipated, but the crazy thing is that so was Iron Man.

Well, because Iron Man made a bazillion dollars in 2008, you knew there was a sequel coming.  And it came out in May of 2010. 

Iron Man 2 picks up a few months after Iron Man left off.  The government/military wants Tony Stark's iron man suit and his technology for itself.  But, over in Russia, some guy whose father was screwed over by Tony Stark's father actually has the technology!  He is known as whiplash, and he builds himself a suit.  But his suit has lightning bolts that come out of the arms.  He attacks Tony Stark at the Monaco grand prix auto race.

Then Whiplash joins forces with Tony Stark's business rival to take Stark down.

What I liked:

1.  The Bad Guy:  It's very creative and he's very bad.  The fight scenes involving whiplash are cool, exciting, and well done. 

2.  Robert Downey Jr.  He's so smug, sarcastic, narcissistic, and hilarious.  His portrayal of Stark really makes this movie and the previous one worthwhile. 

3.  The Action:  It's really pretty good.  Just a very solid, summer action blockbuster where you don't have to think too much. 

What I didn't: 

1.  The obvious foreshadowing to both another Iron Man Sequel and an "Avengers" movie.  Apparently in some future movie Iron Man, his sidekick War Machine, the Hulk, and a bunch of other superheroes are going to team up, call themselves The Avengers, and fight some terrible bad guy.  This is all being foreshadowed already in this movie, and the recent Ed Norton Hulk movie a year or 2 ago.  I just kind of wish they weren't...

2.  Too much:  I guess I just miss the days of one superhero fighting one bad guy in each movie.  Nowadays they feel like they have to add multiple bad guys, sidekicks and plots to every movie, especially sequels.  That's one of the best parts of the first iron man was so great: It was one, straightforward plot.  Here, there are a lot of bad guys and a lot of sidekicks and a lot of subplots that aren't that relevant to the overall thing.  That's just a minor complaint of an overall pretty good movie. 


Funny side-note.  I loved the first Iron Man.  I really expected it to be bad superhero movie, along the lines of the Fantastic 4 or Elektra or Daredevil.  Also, I found out it was directed by Jon Favreau.  Wait, Jon Favreau?  The guy I had previously known as "the-other-guy-in-Swingers?"  Yes.  He directed Iron Man.  But when I did see it, I bought into it and it was great. 

So...Melissa and I were invited to see Iron Man 2 with my parents.  Melissa never got around to seeing the first one, so I decided to try to describe the plot of it to her so that she would be up to speed for the sequel. 

"Yeah, so this guy is super rich and his family makes weapons.  He's in the middle east on a business trip and he gets captured and kept in a cave.  While there he uses a bunch of spare metal parts to make a suit that flies and shoots flames and helps him escape.  Then when he gets back to the states, he realizes that his corporation's leadership has become corrupt by the guy that plays Lebowski.  Eventually the Lebowski guy builds an iron suit of his own and they have a fight in their iron suits.  Oh, and also the out-of-suit iron man runs on some kind of shiny battery that he puts into his chest and constantly needs recharging."   

As I continued talking, and her look got more and more condescending, I realized how silly it kind of was.  But it's still a good one. 

Robin Hood

What's the Deal:  We all know the story of Robin Hood, the forest-dwelling English vigilante / outlaw whose band of merry men thwarted the greedy English crown by "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor."  However, that is not the story that the current "Robin Hood" tells.  It's a shame, because that story is much better than the one portrayed in this film. 

This version tells the "early" story of Robin Longstride, the man who will eventually become Robin Hood (in a sequel, I assume). 

Here, Robin is a soldier returning to England after the crusades.  When a fellow soldier (Robert of Loxley) is mortally wounded in an ambush, his dying wish is that Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) take his (Robert's) sword back to Loxley to his (Robert's) father.  So Robin, along with his friends Little John and Will Scarlett and some other guy take the sword back, meeting Robert's father and widow (Cate Blanchett as Marion) when they get there.  And then Robert's father suggests that Robin pretend to be Robert of Loxley who has returned home from the Crusades so that Robert's widow Marion won't get her land taken away by the greedy tax-hungry government.  What?  I know...I don't get it either.  But that's what happens.  And apparently no one remembers what the real Robert of Loxley looks like, because the whole town has a huge party to welcome him home.  Robin and his entourage also meet Friar Tuck, who, in addition to being a drunk, is also a beekeeper.  So there's that. 

Meanwhile, back at the castle, the newly crowned King John, King John's mother, some guy named Godfrey, King John's second wife, and a "chancellor" all have hushed dialogues by the light of various fires about King John's leadership and the fate of England.  Then they all double-cross one another about 50 times.  It's impossible to keep track of.  (Seriously, at one point I looked at Melissa and told her I had no idea what was going on.  She responded that she hadn't known for a long time).  But you don't really have to keep track of it, because it all culminates in a battle where Robin's side wins!

What I liked: 
1.  The very fist scene.  King Richard and his British army are "sacking" a castle (that seems to be the British word for what they were doing), and it's actually really cool to see all the different tricks they had to get up the wall and through the door.  I don't know how historically accurate it all is, but it was cool to watch. 

2.  The Archery.  There are a whole lot of battles in the movie, and a lot of them contain cool bow-and-arrow sequences.  I especially liked the close-up slow motion shot of the arrow leaving the bow.  Neat cinematography. 

3.  The idea.  The studio had a good idea with a "Robin Hood Begins" movie.  Unfortunately, I just don't think they pulled it off in this one. 


What I didn't:
1.  It's just not very original.  Sure, it tries to be, by telling the story of Robin Hood that has never been told before...but there's a reason its never been told before: it's not as good as the Robin Hood story we all know and love.  And it would be original if I hadn't seen Braveheart.  Or Gladiator.  Or Troy.  Or Kingdom of Heaven.  Or Rob Roy.  Or First Knight.  But I have, so it wasn't.

2.  The inevitable comparisons to the Kevin Costner and Morgan Freemen movie "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves".  I still think the Costner version is an outstanding movie.  As far as I'm concerned, that's the definitive Robin Hood movie, and you should rent that one again.  Plus, the Costner version was directed by Baylor alum Kevin Reynolds. 

3.  No humor.  None.  There is not a single light, semi-funny moment of comic relief in this movie.  Compare that to the Costner version, which contains brilliant lines like this one from Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham: "I'm going to cut his heart out with a spoon.  Why a spoon, cousin?  Because it's dull you idiot, it will hurt more." 

4.  The lady sitting in front of us had really, really unbelievably bad B.O.  It was hard to breathe, and may have ruined the whole movie for me.  I'm not sure.  It certainly did for Melissa. 

5.  Cate Blanchett.  I just can't figure her out.  Sometimes she's really beautiful (see Scorsese's Aviator), and sometimes she's just not.

Tender Mercies

What’s the Deal: Tender Mercies (1983) tells the story of Mac Sledge, a has-been country music singer who finds redemption in new relationships he forms later in life. Mac is played by Robert Duvall, in, shockingly, the only role Mr. Duvall has ever won an Oscar for. (Lonesome Dove wasn’t a theater-released movie, or else I’m certain he would have for that. He might have won emmys..??). I mean seriously, he’s only won one Oscar?…this is the man that played Gus in Lonesome Dove, Bluebonnett in Open Range, Tom the Consigliere in the Godfather, and the Nicolas Cage’s mechanic friend in Gone in 60 Seconds. I’m joking about that last one.

The movie begins with Mac passed out drunk in a random Texas hotel, with no clear description of how he got there. He is broke and begins working for the hotel owner to pay for his room and the damage he has done. We eventually realize that he was once a respected country music singer, and so begins the story of redemption. He takes an ambitious, up-and-coming country music band under his wing, begins writing music again, steers clear of alcohol, reconnects with his ex-wife and estranged daughter, and then marries a new wife and adopts her son.

What I liked:

1. Robert Duvall. He’s got that I-know-more-than-you-think-I-do-grin, and he plays the lazy, hard-ass smart aleck better than just about anyone. Apparently he also traveled all around Texas to study the Texas accent, which he nailed.

2. The soundtrack. Robert Duvall sang Mac Sledge’s music himself, which is awesome.

3. Texas. It’s no secret that I love all things Texas. That the movie is set here is pretty cool. I also discovered that it was filmed mostly in the nearby town of Waxahachie, Texas. So that’s interesting as well.

4. The story. What’s not to like about a story of someone down on their luck that picks himself up by his bootstraps and finds happiness again? It’s just good stuff and pretty inspiring.

What I didn’t:

1. It is pretty dated. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but they just seemed to make movies a little bit slower back in the early 80’s.

Last of the Dogmen

What’s the Deal: Tom Berenger plays Louis Gates, a mountain man / bounty hunter in rural Montana. After a prison bus crashes and 3 prisoners are on the loose, local law enforcement sends Gates into the woods after the prisoners. While on his hunt, he sees “something” through the fog in the woods, then the prisoners disappear. Gates suspects that he knows what the “something” was. He does some research and discovers that an unusually large number of people have disappeared from those very woods. His curiosity gets the best of him, and he and a professor from a local University go into the woods to try to solve the mystery of the “something,” and the disappearances.

What I like:

1. Very interesting plot. I don’t want to give too much away, but the mystery in the woods is interesting, even if not very plausible. But that’s the fun of it…these characters didn’t think it was plausible either, and it turned out to be.

2. The setting / cinematography. What’s not to like about a movie set in the mountains and woods of Montana. Most of the movie takes place out in the woods, and there are numerous beautiful shots of forest, snowy mountains, trees, rivers, waterfalls, etc. Think “Legends of the Fall.” Seriously, it’s that good.

3. Melissa actually suggested it. Usually when I suggest watching a movie I am met with blank “not-again” stares from Melissa. But this time it was her idea. On a related note, I’m going to need Courtney Giammalva to suggest more movies to Melissa, so that she’s actually interested in seeing them. Thanks.

4. The side characters who I also recognize from sitcoms. This is just more of a personal thing. The escaped convicted plays Mac’s dad in Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, where, interestingly enough, he also plays a convict. The Sheriff also plays the dad from That 70’s Show, which is as unfunny as anything ever. And the old man in the nursing home plays the Mayor from the Andy Griffith Show. Grouchy mayor, not bumbling mayor. One of them is Mayor Stone, one is Mayor Pike, but I can’t remember which one. Also there is a random appearance by a redneck at the beginning who plays Brisco Darlin, also in the Andy Griffith Show. Good Stuff.

What I didn’t like:

1. There are some times when the dialogue seems pretty forced and there really isn’t much chemistry between the stars. The word “cheesy” comes to mind at points.

2. Also, the subplot where the sheriff and Gates don’t like each other is also cheesy.

Date Night

With a couple of hours to kill at the mall in Austin, the timing worked out perfectly and Melissa and I were able to squeeze in “Date Night.” Despite plenty of problems, the movie was pretty funny overall.

What’s the Deal: Tina Fey and Steve Carell play the Fosters, a suburban married couple. They have stressful jobs, children, a couple of hobbies, become exhausted, and get stuck in the proverbial “rut.” In an effort to bring a little spice/variety into their marriage, they try to go to a romantic dinner in Manhattan. When the swanky restaurant they try to eat at can’t seat them, they take someone else’s reservation. Then, of course, they are mistaken for the people whose reservation they stole, who happen to be criminals, and hilarity ensues. Sometimes.

Things I liked:

1. Before the “date” starts, it’s actually funnier (incidentally, this could also be something I didn't like.  But I figured I'd be positive): the 20 or 30 minutes before the crazy date starts were actually much funnier than what happened during the “date.” Their children, jobs, book club, Tina Fey’s retainer…t’s all funny stuff. Also, before they go on this wild date, they go on a much tamer one to a laid back applebees-style restaurant in the suburbs. Again, their conversation here is really funny.

2. Tina Fey and Steve Carell: Especially Tina Fey. This is a pretty weak script, but these two stars make it much, much better.  Also, there is an outtake reel during the credits, and no two takes were exactl;y the same.  It seems they did a lot of ad-libbing.  Good for them. 

3. Minor Characters are also funny: James Franco and Mila Kunis make appearances as the druggies whose reservation the Fosters stole, and they are loud and crazy, and really funny. Also, the Mark Wahlburg subplot, which you have no doubt seen from the previews, gets the job done. 

Things I didn’t like:

1. It’s all in the previews: Seriously. Did you know that Mark Wahlberg answers the door with his shirt off? Did you know this because you’ve seen it on ever preview and plug ever? That’s right, you did. That would probably be a really funny bit if you didn’t know it was coming a mile away.

2. Too much yelling. (director). Take a look at this guy’s film history, and you will see a bunch of “comedies” that are not funny. Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum, Night at the Museum 2, Just Married, The Pink Panther. It seems that this guy doesn’t really know what’s funny. In fact, he seems to live by the oh-so-wrong assumption that louder and/or busier is always funnier. So how is this movie funny? The stars. It’s easily distinguishable what parts the stars make funny with their dialogue delivery, and what parts the director ruins with ill-timed screaming, screeching, explosions, and crashes. (I’m thinking of the car chase scene, which almost gave me a headache).

3. Kristin Wiig: She only has a small part, but I do not like her in anything she’s been in yet, including this. Saturday Night Live skits, (not that I watch that often anymore) take a noticeable nosedive when she comes on screen.

4. Script problems. It’s not hard to think of funnier situations that these two people with the wrong identities could have been placed. Oh well. Also, don’t pretend that any of this is plausible in real life. That helps your enjoyment of the movie. Just relax, turn your brain off, and laugh at Tina Fey.

Temple Grandin

Melissa and I made the trip to Fort Worth this weekend to take part in the Newman / Yowell Easter Festivities. Her parents get HBO (unlike us) and at one point we came across the HBO original called “Temple Grandin.” I was especially excited to see this movie because I knew that my uncle, Phil Hardage, was an assistant director.


What’s the Deal?: The movie tells the true story of, you guessed it, Temple Grandin. Ms. Grandin is an autistic individual. The bio-pic chronicles her social struggles juxtaposed against her academic excellence. There are several interesting aspects of Ms. Grandin’s life, but the most prominent is her revolutionizing of the United States cattle industry. Her interest in the cattle industry began when, as a child, she visited her Uncle’s ranch and observed the cowboys’ handling of the cows. While studying at college, she wrote her dissertation about cattle movements, tendencies, and stress. She then published several related articles in various ranching magazines. She finally winds up designing revolutionary dip vats and other humane and efficient procedures.
Things I like:

1. Claire Danes’ performance. Look, I don’t understand “acting.” The only “performances” I really ever notice are truly bad ones. However, I do acknowledge that it must be tricky to play someone with a learning disability or something as unique and misunderstood as autism. So…it is clear that Claire Danes spent a lot of time studying autism generally, and Ms. Grandin specifically. Another note, you may think that Claire Danes is “overacting,” as her eyes are constantly open widely and her movements are often greatly exaggerated. However, I have discussed this with my mother, a teacher who has taught autistic students, and she has confirmed that autistic individuals often do keep their eyes wide open just like the actress in the movie. So that’s interesting.

2. The way the movie demonstrates how Ms. Grandin thinks. The script calls for Ms. Grandin to say several times that she “thinks in pictures.” These words themselves aren’t really that clear, but the film goes further by showing on screen several of the images that Ms. Grandin is “thinking in,” and it’s an interesting step towards understanding her unique mind.

3. The little accomplishments. This might sound odd. What I mean by this is that much of the movie shows us her hard childhood and her painfully awkward social interactions. So when her teachers compliment her or when she does figure out a complicated problem (building the diorama) and she smiles, it, oddly enough, really makes you feel good. In other words, because of all the bad in her life, when something does go her way, it is especially gratifying.

4. Its not preachy. Yes, the movie deals a lot with slaughterhouses and feed lots, but at no time does it make you feel guilty for enjoying steak. “Humane slaughter” might seem like an oxymoron, but the point of the movie is not “killing-animals-for-food-is-an-evil-thing-to-do,” it’s “look-at-the-amazing-accomplishments-of-this-remarkable-individual.”

Things I didn’t like:

1. Its a biopic. It’s hard to sum up someone’s life in 2 hours, so the moviemakers have to just kind of go from one big event to another. They did it well here, but that is still hard to ignore. Also, it’s “made for TV.” The quality is still very good, but you can tell it’s just not quite theater-ready.

2. Melissa now likes to pretend she is Temple Grandin, frequently saying “I only eat jello and yogurt,” and “a door opened and I walked through it!” It was charming at first…

Overall – highly recommend. Very interesting and entertaining.

L.A. Confidential

When I was listing “gritty cop movies” that I liked in my discussion of the worthless “Brooklyn’s Finest,” I mentioned “L.A. Confidential.” I remember seeing it when it came out (it was released in 1997), and remembered it being a good movie. And recently, I had the chance to watch it again, and was reminded that it absolutely is a fantastic movie. I am very glad that I have revisited it.

What’s the Deal: It’s 1950’s Los Angeles. After a Christmas-night beating of innocent “Mexicans” by decorated L.A. police officers, some of the officers present refuse to “snitch” on the officers who actually took part in the incident. (Russell Crowe) Others readily do so, knowing they will be hated by the rest of the department (Guy Pearce). After another former officer is gunned down in the middle of the night, several officers break out on their own to solve the crime. An additional piece of the story is the tabloid publisher (Danny DeVito) feeding leads on crimes to Detective Vincennes (Kevin Spacey), who is more interested in high-profile arrests that make the newspapers than actual police work. Finally, there is the ring of high-dollar prostitutes who have had plastic surgery to be made to look like famous movie stars of the time (Kim Basinger).  Basinger gets the lion's share of the movie's poster, I suppose because she was the biggest star of the bunch in 1997.  But the majority of the screen time is Pearce's. 

Admittedly, this is a whole lot to follow. “L.A. Confidential” was a novel first, and that is obvious through the numerous, interwoven subplots. There is a lot going on here, almost too much for a 2 hour and 15 minute movie. I haven’t read the book, but have a hunch that the novel would be slightly easier to follow. However, a focused viewing of L.A. Confidential is very rewarding.

Things I Like:

1. The cinematography / setting. The movie is set in 1950’s Los Angeles, and it feels like 1950’s Los Angeles. The costumes, cars, backgrounds, lighting…all serve to set the mood of the time and place. (after some research, it turns out this cinematographer also did “The Last of the Mohicans” and “Heat,” movies that also look great).

2. The way it all fits together. As I mentioned above, there is a lot going on, but if the viewer has followed it all the way through then he is rewarded with a lot of suspense and a really great conclusion.

3. The “grit.” The officers in the movie are really rough around the edges and the story confronts controversial issues, such as beating confessions out of people, planting evidence, manipulating others for one’s own political gain, “snitching,” racial profiling, racial slurs (it was, after all, the 50’s), domestic violence, and police corruption. But this all makes the story really, really compelling.

Things I didn’t like:

1. The pacing. In an effort to fit it so many sub-plots, there are important parts of the movie that have to be handled in a quick manner. This is generally not a problem, as long as the viewer hasn’t taken a bathroom break or anything. If you do that, you just might never recover.

Brooklyn's Finest

As Melissa mentioned, we recently made our second trip to Phoenix to watch Spring Training baseball. It was a wonderful trip. But of course it rained during one of the afternoon baseball games. Yep, an all-day rainstorm in the desert. Our luck, I guess. Anyway, we decided to go to a movie that afternoon because there was no baseball to watch. As is typical, the early spring movie options are less than great. We had no interest in Alice in Wonderland so the other real option was the police drama “Brooklyn’s Finest.”

There is a reason that the only good thing the commercials for Brooklyn’s Finest say is that it was directed by the director of Training Day. Training Day (2001) is a fantastic movie, and you should watch it again instead of Brooklyn’s Finest.

What’s the Deal: There are essentially three plotlines, all unrelated, and they are all as cliché as possible. The Training Day plot has been done and done (the veteran cop showing the rookie cops the ropes and what the job is “really like,” but it was still original and different. On the other hand, Brooklyn’s Finest is just super lame. First, Richard Gere’s character is the old cop who is about to retire and must show a young cop the ropes and what the job is really like. It should sound familiar. Also, he routinely “sees” a prostitute and then busts up a prostitute ring. Oooo, how ironic.

Second, Ethan Hawke is an overall good cop whose enormous family is outgrowing his tiny house, and he must start stealing dirty drug money to pay for the new one. Ooooo he’s so conflicted. Blah blah blah. It should also sound familiar.

Third, Don Cheadle is an undercover officer. He befriended Wesley Snipes while undercover in prison, and when Snipes gets out the two begin to run drugs together “just like old times.” Which side is he really on? Oooo he’s so conflicted, too. This is actually the most entertaining plot line, I thought, but that’s not saying much. But it’s still been done to death.

What I Liked: (not much)
1. The cinematography is pretty good, I guess. The cramped spaces and setting feel like a dirty, cramped Brooklyn neighborhood would feel, I suppose. So that was good.

What I didn’t like:
1. The violence. Look, I enjoy the gritty cop movie as much as anyone. Like Training Day, or The Departed, or the Untouchables, or the French Connection, or Heat, or Narc, or L.A. Confidential (especially L.A. Confidential)... But there’s a difference between gritty and just ugly. This one is just ugly. Those good movies had their fair share of violence and language, and that didn’t make them bad movies. One could say it enhanced them, in fact, because it was real (or at least it seemed real-ish. I have never been a gritty cop, so I can’t say for sure how real it is). Here, it is forced and I just didn’t buy it.

2. Along those lines, there are super extended and uncomfortable sex scenes between Richard Gere and his prostitute. Also not “gritty,” just terribly graphic and pointless.

3. The plots. As I mentioned above, they’ve just been done to death. It’s also too long and everyone in the theater was glad when it was over. Steer clear of Brooklyn’s Finest.

Zombieland

I have to come to realize that my posts are really going to interrupt the flow and tone of our blog. It seems that Melissa’s posts about the newly married couple doing wholesome things like building a snowman and going bowling and whatever will be interrupted with very random discussions of movies I see. This will be especially true when the movie I watch happens to have a title like Zombieland. Sorry, Melissa.

So yes, I watched Zombieland. (Special thanks to Rebecca Tatum for inviting Melissa out of town for the weekend). I have also decided the “format” my entries will have, copied pretty shamelessly by the aforementioned critic Dave White.

What’s the Deal: It’s post-zombie-apocalypse, and there are only a handful of humans surviving. One of them is “Columbus.” He is called “Columbus,” because he is from Columbus, Ohio, and the characters make a special point not to get to know each other too well, like by learning each other’s names, because they all know that each could soon be the Zombies’ next victim. Columbus strictly adheres to his hyper-cautious list of Rules for surviving zombie encounters. He eventually meets up with Woody Harrelson’s “Tallahassee,” a zombie-killing expert, and two con artists, known as Little Rock and Wichita. The group makes its way to California fighting off various zombie encounters along the way.

Things I liked about the movie:
1. Tone. This movie is really funny. I swore I would never write incoherent things like “this movie never takes itself too seriously,” but that’s really the best way to describe Zombieland. It’s really short, quick-witted, and very well done.

2. The scene where Columbus first encounters a zombie. While alone in his dorm room, again, on a weekend night, his super-hot neighbor who has never spoken to him before knocks on his door and explains that she has been running from a strange homeless man who tried to bite her. They go and sit on the couch and take a nap, and when he wakes up he is attacked by his neighbor who has now morphed into a zombie. As he’s fighting her off he keeps apologizing. It’s good stuff.

3. Columbus’ survival list. Also very funny. As he’s narrating the list, the film shows the near-miss that caused him to add that rule to his list. It’s done very well.

4. The Cameo. This movie features one of the best, funniest, and most surprising cameos I’ve ever seen. I don’t want to give it away, but you’ll know what I’m talking about when it happens.

Things I didn’t like.
1. Really the only thing that bothered me was that the main character acted just like Michael Cera’s characters. Kind of timid, kept talking when he should stop, etc. Other than that, good, solid entertainment.

Side Note… I thought I would share one of the funnier lines from a review by Dave White. This made me laugh out loud (not necessarily a difficult task, but it was funny just the same). He was reviewing some terrible teen comedy (Miss March, perhaps?), and was describing where it was on the “funny” continuum compared to other recent bad teen comedies. He wrote, “it was funnier than College, but of course a prank phone call from someone telling me my mother had just died would be funnier than College.”

John's First Post...Shutter Island

So… we started a blog. I’ve been out of the loop for about six months, with practice court, “big trial,” practice court III final, graduation, and the bar exam. Holy cow. Anyway, Melissa’s been doing most of the work on the blog, so I figured I should make a contribution.

So, the question is…what should I write about? The life-consuming, God-forsaken things I mentioned above are off-limits. I don’t want to talk or think about them, and sure don’t want to relive any aspect of them by blogging about them. Plus, they’re not nearly interesting enough for anyone to actually want to read about.

Which leaves me wondering… what is interesting enough? Well, I really don’t know the answer to that question, but I did decide what I’m mostly going to write about.

Most of my contributions will be discussions on movies I watch. I am a big fan of the cinema. It’s pretty much that simple. I like to watch movies, both old movies and new. I like to rewatch movies. I like to talk about movies…my favorite scenes, favorite lines, movies I don’t like that everyone else does (Tombstone), movies I do like that fly under the radar, classic movies, underrated movies, overrated ones, movies that speak to me, etc. I even have favorite professional movie critics (Dave White is the best. Just about every one of his reviews makes me laugh). I realize the last thing the internet needs is another dude with a laptop who thinks he’s a movie critic, but that’s what the internet is getting.

So…the format is going to be pretty simple. Whenever I watch a movie, I’m going to blog about it. I’ll do my best not to sound like one of those pretentious, nerdy movie critics, because those people annoy me. I’m actually kind of excited to get started.

The first movie I saw after the bar exam was Shutter Island. I had high hopes because of the good trailer, Martin Scorsese, and Leonardo DiCaprio. I generally like Scorsese movies (love Goodfellas, love The Departed, thought Gangs of New York was very interesting and entertaining, but still pretty weird, was honestly a little bored during Raging Bull and Taxi Driver (and I call myself a movie fan…) like The Aviator, and have never seen Mean Streets. I think he directed Mean Streets. I could go to imdb and look, but that’s cheating). I also generally like recent Leonardo DiCaprio movies (there happens to be a lot of overlap with Scorsese…, plus Blood Diamond is excellent and has kind of been forgotten too soon, I think). Because I’m a man, I must qualify the previous sentence with the word “recent.” I mean, it would be social suicide to post on the internet that I love Titanic and Romeo and Juliet.

So...high hopes. And for the most part, the movie delivered. The movie tells the story of Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo (they play characters with names, but I don’t remember them), investigating the mysterious disappearance of a prisoner from a maximum security mental hospital. After a lot of ominous music, dreary, lonely-looking cloudy days, some jump scares, wacky conversations with insane inmates, dream sequences / hallucinations, gory flashbacks, Nazis (Nazis? Yes, Nazis) and a bunch of clues that Federal Marshal Leo just can’t get to add up, the mystery is revealed through a series of twists.

Was I entertained? Wholly. Was it scary? Parts of it really were. Can you see the “twist” coming a mile away? Melissa could, but it took me pretty off-guard (which was especially disappointing since I pride myself and seeing twists coming early… I guessed the “twist” of the movie Hide and Seek with Robert DeNiro and Dakota Fanning after the first preview… Robert DeNiro is the little girl’s friend Charlie that she plays hide and seek with and then starts killing people. I don’t feel bad ruining it either, because that movie is really terrible). Is Shutter Island a masterpiece? Probably not. Was it worth my admission ticket? You bet.

So there we have it…my first written movie review. It happened to be a movie with a lot of twists, turns, and secrecy, so I couldn’t write too much about it because I don’t want to give it away.

Blog Post 1. Booya.