Irreviews

I don’t think I Could Never Be Your Woman ever made it to theaters (I could be wrong) despite being an Amy Heckerling film with big stars in it. For a while my wife and I let that stop us for watching it, but I finally insisted, being an Amy Heckerling fan. We’re both glad we did.

I Could Never Be Your Woman is a charming movie that doesn’t quite come together. It has all the halmarks of Amy Heckerling – snappy dialog (and lots of it), teenage themes, a quirky love story – and it has some nice performances in the lead roles (Michelle Pfeiffer, Paul Rudd, Saoirse Ronan). But unlike with Clueless, here the story just never gels, and the humor never quite comes across as crisply as it should. That’s not to say there are not moments, but the moments are well-spaced and always leave you with the feeling that they should have been funnier somehow. I think too much time was spent on the ranting of the “Mother Earth” character (Tracy Ullman) at the expense of developing Pfeiffer and Rudd’s characters and their relationship. The Mother Earth rants are sometimes funny, but they really don’t propel the story forward in a significant way – in fact, I strongly suspect that they could have been jettisoned – and with the chemistry that Pfeiffer and Rudd show on screen these two could have used a good extra 25 minutes of dialog and scenes together. As it stands, the only character that felt at all developed is the kid (Ronan).

My impression of this film is that Heckerling got a good idea for a movie, but happened to be in the middle of a woman’s mid-life crisis, and the idea sort of morphed into a big, long rant about how unfair society if to women as they age. It’s not that I am not sympathetic to this, but this film needed to be more about a woman transcending all this, and instead it somehow stayed a film about a bitter, angry woman. In the middle of the film, my wife asked “Why does Paul Rudd even like her?” That tells you something. And this central theme is made even less plausible by the casting of Pfeiffer, a dazzlingly gorgeous older woman who heaps visual shame on most of the woman half her age  – for example, Heckerling makes this huge deal about how middle-age women can’t wear short skirts without looking ridiculous, but she cast a lead actress who can more than pull it off, trust me. It made no sense that the women in the club would be laughing at her – they would have been running for cover, and slapping blindfolds on their boyfriend’s eyes!

But with all this, my wife and I still enjoyed it. It’s cute and charming, and even if the humor is not laugh-out-load funny, it still works and more importantly it is smart and dignified (no Judd Apatow / Seth Rogan “look I pooped” humor here.) Paul Rudd is as usual warm and winning, and Saoirse Ronan is delightful in her role as the daughter. Maybe I’m elevating this film only in comparison to the utter tripe that passes for comedy these days, but so be it. You could do worse than this perky little film.

I really do not like gangster movies, but Sin Nombre is something of an exception. It’s not that these gangsters are more interesting or more human – they are just like all the other gangsters in movies: raping women, killing people, beating the shit out of people, grunting, pointing guns at people, and looking intensely and repulsively ugly, with bad hair and really bad skin. And their dialog is the usual crap-fest as well – Gang boss: “Why did you lie to me hommie?” Gang member: “I didn’t lie.” Then ‘gang member’ gets the living fuck beaten out of him by twenty guys. Just your typical dialog sequence … from every movie gangster of the last 40 years!

So what sets Sin Nombre apart in this miserable genera? It’s the predominant low-key, human story of people escaping to America, in which the gangsters play more of a “framing” role. They represent what America has done to the third world, the same America that all the main characters are trying desperately to get to. The hero of the story wants to escape the gang life, sort of, and when events kind of accidentally push him in that direction, he jumps in rather halfheartedly, but knowing that he has just signed his own death warrant. In the process, he meets the family migrating from Honduras, through Mexico, to the USA, and he and the daughter wind up making a go of it. Most of the movie is their process of running, hiding (from gangs and border patrols,) and trying to make it to the promised land.  It is an interesting story, with fairly decent dialog, and good acting. The two leads don’t really have a relationship – they barely speak to each other – but nevertheless you are pulling for them as a couple, and when they finally start warm up to each other, it’s actually rather convincing.

I recommend it!

Monsters is a really cool film. It’s an indie Sci-Fi monster movie: no-name actors, tiny special effects budget, no distribution. But watching it you immediately see what is missing from the formulaic, CGI embarrassments that have become so ubiquitous these days. There have been a lot of films recently that try to capture the spirit of various cataclysmic events, including a bunch that deal with aliens living on Earth in various scenarios, but none of them come as close as Monsters does in painting something that seems real, and none of them are nearly as satisfying in the end as Monsters.

Why does it seem so real and why it is so satisfying? Beacuse Monsters takes the time to develop good old-fashioned atmosphere, built through simple, well-chosen settings, scenes and shots. The entire story is perceived through the two main characters, who are realistic, interesting, well-drawn, and nicely acted. The strange, unknowable menace of the so-called Infected Zone where the aliens reside is developed slowly and obliquely. Instead of using CGI to “thrill” the viewer, they use simply-developed ambiance – the slow approach to the infected zone (it’s amazing how effective a simple, obvious technique can be, like the repeated showing of road signs giving the distance to the infected zone,) the crazy adventure teams that are braving the infected zone to make money, and the multistage journey itself, with its frequent delays and mishaps which convey the utter chaos the aliens are causing in the region, and which also give the main characters plenty of time to talk! Without ever seeing the monsters you feel like you and they are both there – it’s old school film making, the kind of film making that made films like Missing so incredible. Monsters is not at the level of Missing (no where near it) but it uses some of the same basic visual techniques, and the result is a delight to watch.

I don’t have too much to say about Monsters, other than it is quite a fine little movie and I would highly recommend it to anyone.

Twelve would have been a good movie if it wasn’t for the narrator. They had a great story idea (horrible, rich, upper-east-side brats addicted to drugs), a reasonably good story, and a selection of interesting and memorable characters. In the first half of the movie the narrator is completely out of control, dominating everything and representing maybe 75% of all spoken words. Somewhere in the second half of the film the narration recedes and there are some pretty decent, extended scenes with pretty good dialog. Throughout, the narration (as with most narration) is completely necessary – the stuff the narrator is telling the viewer could have so easily been built into the dialog. It’s a shame they didn’t realize this. Another promising story idea done in by narration!

Still, I think Twelve is better than a lot of crap I’ve seen recently. I liked it better than Rango and Jane Eyre, for example. And compared to other films in its genera, at least Twelve is not doing the same old thing. Sure, the story is full of holes, with characters and plot-lines disappearing and reappearing, and the drug called “Twelve” really does not function as a unifying theme in any way. But nevertheless the movie still holds your attention, and you care about what happens in the end, and I honestly can’t say that about most films I see. I thought all the actors were quite effective, and when the narrator settled into the background, the movie actually became somewhat gripping.

I usually regret most of the movies I see nowadays. I can’t say that about Twelve. It has its problems, it’s not great, it’s not even good, but I still enjoyed it for what it was, and at the end I was left feeling that I had experienced a semi-coherent piece of art, as opposed to a slick and well-developed manipulative media event. I’m not sure what kind of endorsement that really is, but there you have it!

When my wife and I arrived at Union Square on opening night to see The Lincoln Lawyer there were studio people desperately handing out audience surveys – never a good sign. But in this case, it wasn’t the movie that was the problem but instead the utterly bizarre reality of the modern movie-goer’s ever decaying taste. The theater was pretty empty, and it became clear to us that the studio people were in fact trying to figure out what the hell to do with this movie: a smart, suspenseful courtroom drama with big stars and no special effects – in other words, disaster.

In the 1980’s a film like this would have been a big hit, and people would have been talking about it. Now, if it’s not Transformers, forget it. I’m not sure what has happened over the last ten years, but it’s not good. Before the movie started we saw a preview for The Conspirator, a period thriller with fabulous actors which is having trouble getting any distribution because no one wants to see it (it looked quite good, by the way). If The Conspirator came out in the 1980’s there would have been Oscar buzz for crying out loud!

Anyway, The Lincoln Lawyer is a fun and entertaining movie. Manohla Dargis was surprised that Matthew McConaughey can act a little, but anyone that has ever seen Lone Star(1995) will realize that he is actually pretty decent, with a good screen presence, at least in intense, semi-comic cowboy-type roles. Hell, I even thought he was pretty good in Contact (he was the best thing in the movie, that’s for sure.) In The Lincoln Lawyer, McConaughey does a great job embodying his character with swagger and confidence, and making you like him while at the same time showing his many flaws.

Ryan Phillippe is getting the better of his break up with Reese Witherspoon in one way: he is much better at picking movies. Plus, he has grown on me, going from the punk in Cruel Intentions to a mature actor who takes a pretty wide range of roles and always brings something interesting to them. He is solid here as the insane rich brat who is protected from his own crimes by his family and their money. William H Macey is not too distracting in his role as the investigator, and Marisa Tomei is, as usual, wonderful, even if she does not have that much to do. The supporting actors, particularly Michael Peña, John Leguizamo, and Margarita Levieva are really strong, and their great scenes help the movie a lot.

The Lincoln Lawyer has a good story (not great, but good) with some nice twists. The dialog is actually pretty decent by today’s standards. I think the director is a little over-fond of putting the camera right in people’s faces to show “intensity” but that is easily forgiven. It has a very satisfying ending. I recommend it!

Okay, I should start with a disclaimer. I have a very limited tolerance for animation, and this is going to color my review of this film. My wife, who has a higher tolerance, enjoyed Rango – she should probably review it. But alas, we’re stuck with me.

I enjoyed it too, sort of. It has some entertaining moments in the beginning when he shows up in the town and starts to interact with the town-folk. But after that the film degenerates into the usual schlock-fest, with outrageous chase scenes that go on forever, a political statement (of sorts) about modernity, a cheesy love story, a cardboard villain with a husky voice, you know, all the usual shit that is in every animated feature that is made these days. It was a lot better than Toy Story 3, that much is for sure. But in the end, it’s just more animation. If you like modern animation, you’ll probably like this. If you’re like me, you won’t be missing much if you decide to skip it.

Listen, I love a good costume drama as much as anybody, but this adaptation of Jane Eyre sucks. It sucks because the filmmakers completely failed to develop the relationship between Rochester and Jane. They wrote no dialog for them!! I know I am always bitching about how most modern films have “no dialog,” but it’s true, and this film is a perfect example. Jane and Rochester just kind of look at each other, exchange a few words, and then he is all set to rip her clothes off! Wasikowska plays Jane like some postmodern twit (she recycled her performance from The Kids Are Alright, in my opinion) who is off in her own androgynous, spaced-out little world. I know it’s been a while since I read the book, but even I remember Jane being a lot spunkier and verbose. Moreover, Jane and Rochester had a RELATIONSHIP, meaning they talked to each other. It wasn’t just him abstractly longing for her bony ass. So the whole movie basically comes down to whether you believe that Rochester would rather fuck Mia Wasikowska than Imogen Poots. Personally, I don’t buy it for one second.

The only other thing I would like to comment on is the score. What a disaster! Who scores an over-the-top funeral dirge for a freaking love story, no matter how dark! How can you get swept up in a love story if there is always this ridiculous, droning music bashing you over the head with “this story is eventually tragic, people, don’t forget it! It’s all gonna end bad! Everything you are seeing is tinged with hopelessness and the epic disaster to come ….” The golden rule is that music should amplify the emotions of the characters, not distract from them. Jane Eyre gets an F in this category.

Lastly, I was kind of shocked to see that Rochester had Penelope Cruz locked in his attic. What was his problem, exactly?

My wife is a Jane Austen / Jane Eyre kinda girl. She really wanted to see this. She thought it sucked too.

I say, skip it.

What ultimately sinks Never Let Me Go is that it totally fails as a love story. With this material the audience should be sobbing its eyes out – unrequited love in childhood continuing on into adulthood, love stolen by a friend you feel inferior too, a slow but handsome and pure-hearted guy as the object of affection, desperately trying to make a last go of it late in the game, all the weird “donor overtones” and implicit musings on life, the amazing Carey Mulligan in the lead role … good heavens it certainly seems like there was a tear-jerker in their somewhere, doesn’t it?

Does that make Never Let Me Go a bad movie? Well, no, but as a result it does leave the viewer with a somewhat disappointed aftertaste. I mean, everything looks great in the film, Carey Mulligan is great at delivering the decently written narration, Keira is solid in her role (I continue to believe she is an under-rated actress.) The basic storyline is communicated in a subtle and low-key fashion. But the story doesn’t have much depth. The characters don’t talk very much, so you are always at arms length from them emotionally – instead, there’s a lot of long, mournful shots of them with music droning, that sort of thing. I get that this fits with the postmodern tone of the story, but at the same time it really limits the audience’s emotional investment in the film and in the plight of the characters. Never Let Me Go invites you to cursorily view chapters in their lives from afar, almost as still paintings, and imagine what they must be feeling. I prefer films that tell me what the characters are feeling in the characters own words. It’s just a lot more powerful and satisfying in the end. Compare this film to My Life Without Me, for example, and you will see in dazzling, horrifying detail just how inept Never Let Me Go is as an exploration of love, the emotions of our mortality, and the connection between the two.

I also found the title song, if you will, to be rather distracting. It’s a song called “Never Let Me Go,” done in the style of 50’s female crooning. But it sounds fake. It’s clearly not from the period in question, as everything about it is a little off – the singing, the sound quality, even the composition itself. Since the filmmakers clearly wanted this song to become an emotional touchstone for the audience, this is a big problem.

Carey Mulligan is an amazing star with an amazing voice and look, but she has relatively little to do in this film. Keira comes across better as her character is more clearly drawn. The fellow playing Tom (Andrew Garfield) is really good, but his quiet, emotional character tends to get lost in a sea of quietly suffering characters about whom we know relatively little. All the supporting performances are fine, I suppose, but they don’t bring much to the film because the film is so flat and uncompelling. I mean, think about the scene early in the movie where the new teacher “spills the beans” to the students about their role in life – I can’t imagine a more lifeless and uninteresting way of communicating this information to the viewer.

Never Let Me Go: It’s not bad, especially compared to most of the dreck we are subjected to nowadays. I just found it a little dull and a little disappointing.

Cedar Rapids is what I would call a “cute film.” As a comedy it falls a bit short. The audience in the Union Square theater did laugh, but I got the feeling that they really wanted to be laughing a lot more than they were, especially with such a solid cast assembled. The writing is just not up to the level of the cast – the actors even look like they wish it was all more clever. But nevertheless Cedar Rapids is light, enjoyable fun that never sinks to the “potty humor” that has become such a staple in recent comedies (think: Rogan, Smith, Apatow.) And I have to give the movie one thing: it really captures the kind of geeky fun that happens at conferences like this.

It’s a cute little film – inoffensive and diverting. I recommend it.

I don’t know exactly when Liam Neeson went from being this dweeby, non-descript actor who appeared in crap like Schindler’s List, Ethan Frome, and Woody Allen’s Husbands and Wives, to being a warm and dazzling superstar action hero who can lift any movie out of the gutter with his mere presence and the sound of his voice! For most of his career I never liked the guy, but now he is among my favorite actors.

I think it’s a case of an actor finally discovering his true calling: Liam Neeson is an emotionally warm version of Clint Eastwood, and perhaps the most likable ass-kicking action hero I’ve ever seen. Clint himself was way to cold and reserved and unapproachable. Harrison Ford was too hokey and not earnest enough. Mel Gibson was too spastic, Bruce Willis, too dopey. Matt Damon is a touch too mechanical. But Liam Neeson brings it all together – you like him immediately, you believe him immediately, his voice is simply amazing, and you get more visceral pleasure per act of violence from Neeson than from any other action hero out there.

In addition, I would argue that Neeson is the only actor that can deliver “tough guy lines” and actually make them sound real! From this movie: the bad guy taunts Neeson’s amnesia, saying something like “You don’t remember anything,” to which Neeson replys “I still remember how to kill you, fucker!” and he makes it sound like something someone would actually say. It’s hard to over-estimate how difficult this is to do. They should give him an Academy Award nomination.

Unknown is the latest vehicle for the born-again Neeson. It is a fairly solid and entertaining movie made really fun by Neeson’s presence and warmth as an actor. You bond firmly and instantaneously with the lead character, and the power of this bond smooths over a lot of the smaller issues. It still has its problems: some of suspense sequences come across as a little stale or obvious, for example. But the story is interesting and not badly paced, and basically Neeson takes it from there. I should point out that there is a pretty good sequence where he meets the old Stasi official who tries to help him – not a great sequence, but that character and the relationship with Neeson does boost the film a good bit – it’s a very nice little plot element.

As for the other actors, Diane Kruger is always a great thing in movies, even though we hardly ever get to see her, and she and Neeson have an interesting chemistry. I thought Neeson’s wife and the dude that is impersonating him were pretty weak, but frankly their weakness does not effect your enjoyment of the film very much.

Don’t listen to the critics. Unknown is a lot of fun! It’s a reasonably well-made movie with a fabulous star who has finally figured out how to play to his strengths. Let’s hope he keeps turning them out!