“The Town”Written by Peter Craig and Ben Affleck & Aaron Stockard; based on the novel “Prince of Thieves” by Chuck Hogan; Directed by Ben Affleck; Stars: Ben Affleck, Jon Hamm, Rebecca Hall, Blake Lively, Jeremy Renner, Pete Postlethwaite and Chris Cooper. Story: A young armored car and bank-robbing ring leader from Charlestown, Mass tries to straighten out his life despite his criminal friends’ tendencies, a crime boss that won’t let him out, and an FBI agent that could send him to jail like his father. Seen by Adam and Lars, September 18, 2010 LARS:If somebody had said to me five years ago that Ben Affleck would write, direct and star in one of the best films of 2010, I would have been seriously concerned about their mental health. However, after watching ’The Town”, I have to eat a large slice of humble pie and admit that Affleck is turning into a force to be reckoned with. It’s too early to say whether he’ll turn into a true auteur, but he’s on his way to be mentioned in the same breath as Warren Beatty, Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood as leading men, who create their own vehicles. And not just vanity projects, either. Both of Affleck’s directorial efforts, “Gone, Baby, Gone” and “The Town” are gritty dramas that avoid clichés, even if they are not exactly exploring brand new territories.The town of the title is Charlestown, a part of Boston, where both Affleck’s films have been shot. He’s a Bostonian himself and knows and understands the blue-collar world of the city, far from Harvard and MIT. Affleck plays Doug MacRay, a no-good deadbeat from a family of no-good deadbeats. His dad is in jail for life, his mom’s fate is unresolved. He’s in the family business, which is robbing armored money transports and banks. But in an unusual turn that’s never fully explored or explained, Doug has quit drinking and drugs and is looking to get out of the vicious cycle, before he ends up in the cell next to his dad. But it’s not easy to quit, when the evil Fergie (a great turn by Pete Postlethwaite), who runs the local gangsters, isn’t done with you.It’d be a shame to go into more details about the plot, as part of the pleasure of this film is that it’s extremely well written. But then Affleck is an Oscar-winning screenwriter (a sentence I still find it hard to write), and maybe having a director who not only understands and appreciates the written word, but has to act them too helps.The cast is pitch-perfect. Even smaller characters, like the slutty single mother whose kid may or may not be Doug’s, stand out. She is played by Blake Lively, whom I’d never before seen outside of “Gossip Girl” and had pretty much written off as just a pretty face. Here she does a great job in a small part. Affleck nails his character and his dilemmas. He’s not a particularly sympathetic guy, Doug, but Affleck gives him a tinge of sadness and regret that allows the audience to stay on his side, even as he does unspeakable things. Other standouts are Jeremy Renner (last seen doing a magnificent turn in “The Hurt Locker”), who plays the live wire James Coughlin, a man with nothing to lose and hell-bent on losing it as quickly as he can.The film is bloody with great action sequences, but also in parts funny as hell, with great zingers generously served up on a regular basis. We haven’t had a good crime drama like this for a long, long time. The two recent films that “The Town” resemble the most in both mood and deftness of execution are Michael Mann’s “Heat” and Clint Eastwood’s “Mystic River”. High praise indeed, but “The Town” earns every little bit of it.Consider me a Ben Affleck fan from now on. That doesn’t mean that I’ve forgiven him for “Jersey Girl” or “Gigli” just yet, but if he keeps cranking out films like this we’ll get there. Eventually. ADAM:Turn back the clock about sixty days. Lars and I were surely about to sit through two hours of painful cinematic trash called (fill in the blank from one of several we’re reviewed here), and we caught a first glimpse of “The Town” via the trailer. I remember my feeling; this is a crime drama, a heist movie — one of my favorite genres. Also, one of the easiest to screw up. It looked good. Good cast. Affleck at the helm – worth a shot – “Gone Baby, Gone” was an impressive effort. Since that first glimpse, I’d been anticipating what I hoped would be a pearl in a sea of horrible misfires — a year of film forgettable in every way other than its endless list of critical and financial failures. So, to put it mildly, I was setting “The Town” up for a big failure. Luckily, like Ted Williams’ last at bat at Fenway, Affleck knocked it out of the park.“The Town” isn’t wholly original, in fact, there are several parallels to Michael Mann’s “Heat” and countless other heist pictures from memory. We meet the flawed hero who decides it’s time to get out, except the transition from career criminal to the straight and narrow isn’t an easy career adjustment and hell ensues from every direction.Here it’s Doug MacRay (Affleck), an armored car and bank robber carrying on the family tradition, but itching to get out as the next baby step after kicking drugs and alcohol and realizing the effect his gang’s crimes have on the victims. His obstacles to getting out range from Fergie (Pete Postlethwaite), the evil local boss who assigns the jobs, gets a taste of the action and keeps the gang on a short leash through tradition and intimidation, Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), Doug’s partner and a short-tempered, impulsive career criminal who’d rather die in the streets then go back to jail, Coughlin’s sister and Doug’s former flame Krista (Blake Lively), who’s still trying to keep her options open, and I’d say fate itself – Doug is constantly reminded of from where he comes, though his actions, those he interacts with and most certainly his incarcerated father. Doug has to fight to try and change what seems like a predetermined series of events that will result in him lying either in a cell like his dad, or a morge. Oh, and lest I forget, there’s FBI Agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) tracking Doug’s moves and trying to collar him for everything he’s done in the past.Movies like this don’t win me over by being new or novel; they earn my respect my being comfortable. And Not. I’ll explain. The best movies in this genre bait you in with a fantastic essay on the setting and surroundings of our main character, even if he’s a criminal or unlikable. The way Affleck sets up Doug and his world is as comfy as your favorite shirt. That’s vital. Because once your settled and relaxed in this place, the reality of the harsh crimes, the mistrust, and the volatility Doug has to deal with makes you uneasy in all the right ways. How a tough character like Doug can pull off his crimes and still become fragile is a testament to the quality of the material and how well Affleck directs and performs it. He’s a smart director in another way: he surrounds himself with great talent. I imagine that made his job a little easier. Renner nails it as Coughlin, another shoe in for an Oscar nomination I’d imagine; Postlethwaite is perfect as Fergie, Hamm never stumbles as Frawley, and Blake Livey (confession: I’d watch her play chess, I’m so enamored), confirms I’m not a liar, handling her role like a pro, and thus grabbing a foothold on what should be a massive expansion in her career.And Affleck’s chose properly for support behind the camera as well. He’s taken on exponentially more here than “Gone Baby, Gone,” with shootouts and chases that might in fact rival those filmed in downtown L.A. for Mann’s “Heat.” Cinematographer Robert Elswit, whose pedigree is as impressive and varied as anyone’s in Hollywood (There Will Be Blood-Michael Clayton-Heist-Salt-Boogie Nights) never shoots any of the action “too close,” or from too high an angle, so what we’re left with is heart-pounding sequences that feel real and intimate.I’m hopeful that (like in most years), the last few months of the movie year make up for the first three quarters in terms of quality. Regardless, I think other than Toy Story 3, we have our first true contender for film of the year in “The Town.”  I’m not sure it’s a best picture winner, but the efforts by the entire team should garner several deserved nominations.

“The Town”

Written by Peter Craig and Ben Affleck & Aaron Stockard; based on the novel “Prince of Thieves” by Chuck Hogan; Directed by Ben Affleck; Stars: Ben Affleck, Jon Hamm, Rebecca Hall, Blake Lively, Jeremy Renner, Pete Postlethwaite and Chris Cooper. Story: A young armored car and bank-robbing ring leader from Charlestown, Mass tries to straighten out his life despite his criminal friends’ tendencies, a crime boss that won’t let him out, and an FBI agent that could send him to jail like his father.

Seen by Adam and Lars, September 18, 2010

LARS:

If somebody had said to me five years ago that Ben Affleck would write, direct and star in one of the best films of 2010, I would have been seriously concerned about their mental health. However, after watching ’The Town”, I have to eat a large slice of humble pie and admit that Affleck is turning into a force to be reckoned with. It’s too early to say whether he’ll turn into a true auteur, but he’s on his way to be mentioned in the same breath as Warren Beatty, Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood as leading men, who create their own vehicles. And not just vanity projects, either. Both of Affleck’s directorial efforts, “Gone, Baby, Gone” and “The Town” are gritty dramas that avoid clichés, even if they are not exactly exploring brand new territories.

The town of the title is Charlestown, a part of Boston, where both Affleck’s films have been shot. He’s a Bostonian himself and knows and understands the blue-collar world of the city, far from Harvard and MIT. Affleck plays Doug MacRay, a no-good deadbeat from a family of no-good deadbeats. His dad is in jail for life, his mom’s fate is unresolved. He’s in the family business, which is robbing armored money transports and banks. But in an unusual turn that’s never fully explored or explained, Doug has quit drinking and drugs and is looking to get out of the vicious cycle, before he ends up in the cell next to his dad. But it’s not easy to quit, when the evil Fergie (a great turn by Pete Postlethwaite), who runs the local gangsters, isn’t done with you.

It’d be a shame to go into more details about the plot, as part of the pleasure of this film is that it’s extremely well written. But then Affleck is an Oscar-winning screenwriter (a sentence I still find it hard to write), and maybe having a director who not only understands and appreciates the written word, but has to act them too helps.

The cast is pitch-perfect. Even smaller characters, like the slutty single mother whose kid may or may not be Doug’s, stand out. She is played by Blake Lively, whom I’d never before seen outside of “Gossip Girl” and had pretty much written off as just a pretty face. Here she does a great job in a small part. Affleck nails his character and his dilemmas. He’s not a particularly sympathetic guy, Doug, but Affleck gives him a tinge of sadness and regret that allows the audience to stay on his side, even as he does unspeakable things. Other standouts are Jeremy Renner (last seen doing a magnificent turn in “The Hurt Locker”), who plays the live wire James Coughlin, a man with nothing to lose and hell-bent on losing it as quickly as he can.

The film is bloody with great action sequences, but also in parts funny as hell, with great zingers generously served up on a regular basis. We haven’t had a good crime drama like this for a long, long time. The two recent films that “The Town” resemble the most in both mood and deftness of execution are Michael Mann’s “Heat” and Clint Eastwood’s “Mystic River”. High praise indeed, but “The Town” earns every little bit of it.

Consider me a Ben Affleck fan from now on. That doesn’t mean that I’ve forgiven him for “Jersey Girl” or “Gigli” just yet, but if he keeps cranking out films like this we’ll get there. Eventually.

ADAM:

Turn back the clock about sixty days. Lars and I were surely about to sit through two hours of painful cinematic trash called (fill in the blank from one of several we’re reviewed here), and we caught a first glimpse of “The Town” via the trailer. I remember my feeling; this is a crime drama, a heist movie — one of my favorite genres. Also, one of the easiest to screw up. It looked good. Good cast. Affleck at the helm – worth a shot – “Gone Baby, Gone” was an impressive effort. Since that first glimpse, I’d been anticipating what I hoped would be a pearl in a sea of horrible misfires — a year of film forgettable in every way other than its endless list of critical and financial failures. So, to put it mildly, I was setting “The Town” up for a big failure. Luckily, like Ted Williams’ last at bat at Fenway, Affleck knocked it out of the park.

“The Town” isn’t wholly original, in fact, there are several parallels to Michael Mann’s “Heat” and countless other heist pictures from memory. We meet the flawed hero who decides it’s time to get out, except the transition from career criminal to the straight and narrow isn’t an easy career adjustment and hell ensues from every direction.

Here it’s Doug MacRay (Affleck), an armored car and bank robber carrying on the family tradition, but itching to get out as the next baby step after kicking drugs and alcohol and realizing the effect his gang’s crimes have on the victims. His obstacles to getting out range from Fergie (Pete Postlethwaite), the evil local boss who assigns the jobs, gets a taste of the action and keeps the gang on a short leash through tradition and intimidation, Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), Doug’s partner and a short-tempered, impulsive career criminal who’d rather die in the streets then go back to jail, Coughlin’s sister and Doug’s former flame Krista (Blake Lively), who’s still trying to keep her options open, and I’d say fate itself – Doug is constantly reminded of from where he comes, though his actions, those he interacts with and most certainly his incarcerated father. Doug has to fight to try and change what seems like a predetermined series of events that will result in him lying either in a cell like his dad, or a morge. Oh, and lest I forget, there’s FBI Agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) tracking Doug’s moves and trying to collar him for everything he’s done in the past.

Movies like this don’t win me over by being new or novel; they earn my respect my being comfortable. And Not. I’ll explain. The best movies in this genre bait you in with a fantastic essay on the setting and surroundings of our main character, even if he’s a criminal or unlikable. The way Affleck sets up Doug and his world is as comfy as your favorite shirt. That’s vital. Because once your settled and relaxed in this place, the reality of the harsh crimes, the mistrust, and the volatility Doug has to deal with makes you uneasy in all the right ways. How a tough character like Doug can pull off his crimes and still become fragile is a testament to the quality of the material and how well Affleck directs and performs it. He’s a smart director in another way: he surrounds himself with great talent. I imagine that made his job a little easier. Renner nails it as Coughlin, another shoe in for an Oscar nomination I’d imagine; Postlethwaite is perfect as Fergie, Hamm never stumbles as Frawley, and Blake Livey (confession: I’d watch her play chess, I’m so enamored), confirms I’m not a liar, handling her role like a pro, and thus grabbing a foothold on what should be a massive expansion in her career.

And Affleck’s chose properly for support behind the camera as well. He’s taken on exponentially more here than “Gone Baby, Gone,” with shootouts and chases that might in fact rival those filmed in downtown L.A. for Mann’s “Heat.” Cinematographer Robert Elswit, whose pedigree is as impressive and varied as anyone’s in Hollywood (There Will Be Blood-Michael Clayton-Heist-Salt-Boogie Nights) never shoots any of the action “too close,” or from too high an angle, so what we’re left with is heart-pounding sequences that feel real and intimate.

I’m hopeful that (like in most years), the last few months of the movie year make up for the first three quarters in terms of quality. Regardless, I think other than Toy Story 3, we have our first true contender for film of the year in “The Town.”  I’m not sure it’s a best picture winner, but the efforts by the entire team should garner several deserved nominations.

*

“Machete”Written by Alvaro Rodriguez and Robert Rodriguez; Directed by Ethan Maniquis and Robert Rodriguez; Stars Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba, Michelle Rodriguez, Jeff Fahey, Steven Segal, Cheech Marin, Lindsay Lohan, Don Johnson and Robert DeNiro. Story: A former Mexican cop done wrong by crooked politicians and fellow officers, Machete avenges the death of his wife and child the only way he knows how. Seen by Adam and Lars Sept 4, 2010 LARS & ADAM: Machete don’t blog.

“Machete”

Written by Alvaro Rodriguez and Robert Rodriguez; Directed by Ethan Maniquis and Robert Rodriguez; Stars Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba, Michelle Rodriguez, Jeff Fahey, Steven Segal, Cheech Marin, Lindsay Lohan, Don Johnson and Robert DeNiro. Story: A former Mexican cop done wrong by crooked politicians and fellow officers, Machete avenges the death of his wife and child the only way he knows how.

Seen by Adam and Lars Sept 4, 2010

LARS & ADAM: 

Machete don’t blog.

*

A Day of Dumb: “Piranha 3D” & “The Expendables” Piranha 3D: Written by Pete Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg; Directed by Alexandre Aja; Stars: Jerry O’Connell, Elizabeth Shue, Ving Rhames, Kelly Brook and Adam Scott. Story: The prehistoric, flesh-eating fish wreak havoc on a lake that just happens to be a regional hotspot for sexy college students to spend their spring break. The Expendables: A group of mercenaries for hire are sent to a remote island to overtake a crooked General.  They learn the General is a puppet for an American former agent and the lead mercenary falls for a local woman who is in fact the daughter of the general and becomes a pawn in a violent game. Seen by Adam and Lars August 29, 2010 LARS:To celebrate the end of one of the worst movie summers in history, Adam and I decided to officially do a “Day of Dumb”. So we went for a classic double feature afternoon, and these two movies seemed the perfect pairing. It all reminded me of my childhood double features, the best of which was a pairing of the original “Friday the 13th” and “Enter the Dragon”. Talk about excellent trash! Somewhat surprisingly, the better of the two movies is “Piranha 3D”. Maybe because the director Alexandre Aja (who did the great underrated French thriller “Haute Tension” before Hollywood called him over to do schlock) completely understands what’s expected from the genre and follows the rulebook to a T. He’s got the requisite unexpected occurrence that sets everything into motion, a good dose of gratuitous nudity, kids in peril, spectacular deaths and some celebrity cameos. Add some pissed off fish with razor-sharp teeth and some fun 3D effects, and it all adds up to a good, if utterly predictable, time. Elizabeth Shue (who still looks amazing), Jerry O’Connell, Christopher Lloyd, Eli Roth and Ving Rhames are all merrily slumming it here. Even Richard Dreyfuss shows up in a case of fun stunt casting. This flick will have a long, long life on DVD and late night TV, where you’ll probably come across it and think you’ll watch ten minutes of it, but end up watching the whole thing, because, you know, it’s just damn fun. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know that we’ve been railing against 3D a lot. In this case, I think the movie would have worked just fine without it, but it wasn’t offensive or annoying. Well, aside from the fact that the theatre charged an extra $5 for the film (making it a whopping $17.50 to see it), which just seems wrong to me. Now, what to say about “The Expendables”? It’s funny at times, but mostly unwittingly. Sly doesn’t do tongue-in-cheek; he plays it all very straightforward. The biggest problem here is probably the complete lack of any story of interest. The characters are all clichés and cardboard cutouts. And while the same could be said for “Piranhas”, the story of that movie is so straightforward (man vs. evil fish) that it doesn’t need anything else. In the case of “The Expendables” everyone lives up to the title – as the viewer, you couldn’t care less who lives and dies, as no one is given any kind of motivation or back history or any of all that nonsense. Sure, it’s amusing to see people like Dolph Lundgren again (was he really always that bad an actor?) and the brief scene with the Governator, Bruce Willis and Sly is fun too, but it’s in the same empty calorie way that a corndog tastes good for the first few bites, then the grossness of what you’re ingesting creeps up on you. Shit blows up, men with enormous muscles beat each other senseless, chicks are ogled and protected and the difference between the bad guys and the good guys is negligible. There isn’t a shred of original thought anywhere in sight. And it’s slightly boring because it’s all been seen a million times before. The highlight of the screening was when the screen changed to the famous Microsoft Windows ‘blue screen of death’. Welcome to digital cinema. Maybe they should have gone with a Mac? ADAM:And so there we sat, Lars and me, waiting to begin our “Day of Dumb,” prepared to lose some brain cells (and if the stories about bed bugs invading the movie theaters of New York City were true, possibly a little blood). In retrospect, particularly by escaping the theater bite free, this was a good exercise. But the film choices weren’t so foolish either. Working in advertising probably helps the perspective, but the reality is we approached these two films with so little expectations that the result made at least one of the films seem pretty decent. I know – it’s not fair to the mainstream more complex movies that try so hard and fall slightly short. But the fact is, like sitting down to a narrow-cast children’s animated movie, there is only so much to anticipate. For “Piranha 3D”, I believed I’d see schlock. I thought there’d be blood and some hokey gore, maybe a topless chick or two and some very bad acting, along with some poor effects and gratuitous attempts at cool 3D. What I got was a movie that didn’t take itself so seriously (to its credit), had more gore than anyone probably expects (though Alex Aja of High Tension fame did direct it), full-frontal nudity, lesbianism and some great cameos. The guy’s guy in me was very content by the last reel. And I can only imagine that regardless of the moderate to good revenue brought in by the theatrical release will be (forgive me) blow out of the water by the monies generated by the cable and DVD releases. This is the DVD every thirteen year old boy will have his parents (who never saw it) buy him, so he can laugh at the dismemberment and drool over the breathtaking Kelly Brook, amongst others. And dismemberment seems as good a segway than any to start talking about “The Expendables,” which begins with an action scene that sees one foe torn in half at the waist and pretty much continues the body count at a steady clip until the final reel. I truly was expecting a borrowed reprise of the body count chroma key titling from “Hot Shots, Part Deux” to flash across the screen as this approached the honor of being the bloodiest movie ever based on fatalities. As it unfolds, the action sequences is all that holds the film together, as the “story” connective tissue – a contrived love story between Stallone and the daughter of the Evil general that might warm the cold heart of lost Sly is more than a bit ridiculous. This is most likely a result of the fact that we don’t really care about Sly or any of the other appropriately titled expendables. Only Jason Statham’s Lee Christmas has reason for care. He’s also arguably the best actor of the bunch, which isn’t saying much. Sure Mickey Rourke has chops in an expanded cameo (and he actually does something with what he’s given, but he’s not given much). The best line of the film comes in the scene that was trailer fodder, featuring Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzennegger. I won’t spoil it. But you don’t go to this movie for the lines really. It’s for firepower and a leg broken in two or three places. And though there is a lot that’s repetitive (especially the knife throwing), I can’t say it really disappoints. If anything the action is more than you need in places, really (again, forgive me) overkill. The last battle sequence on a hypothetical Central American island location is an annihilation so extensive, utilizing so much firepower, that not only are all the man-made structures completely leveled, vehicles reduced to dust and bad guys vaporized, but one has to wonder if even the remaining single-cell creatures managed to survive.

A Day of Dumb: “Piranha 3D” & “The Expendables”

Piranha 3D: Written by Pete Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg; Directed by Alexandre Aja; Stars: Jerry O’Connell, Elizabeth Shue, Ving Rhames, Kelly Brook and Adam Scott. Story: The prehistoric, flesh-eating fish wreak havoc on a lake that just happens to be a regional hotspot for sexy college students to spend their spring break.

The Expendables: A group of mercenaries for hire are sent to a remote island to overtake a crooked General.  They learn the General is a puppet for an American former agent and the lead mercenary falls for a local woman who is in fact the daughter of the general and becomes a pawn in a violent game.

Seen by Adam and Lars August 29, 2010

LARS:

To celebrate the end of one of the worst movie summers in history, Adam and I decided to officially do a “Day of Dumb”. So we went for a classic double feature afternoon, and these two movies seemed the perfect pairing. It all reminded me of my childhood double features, the best of which was a pairing of the original “Friday the 13th” and “Enter the Dragon”. Talk about excellent trash!

Somewhat surprisingly, the better of the two movies is “Piranha 3D”. Maybe because the director Alexandre Aja (who did the great underrated French thriller “Haute Tension” before Hollywood called him over to do schlock) completely understands what’s expected from the genre and follows the rulebook to a T. He’s got the requisite unexpected occurrence that sets everything into motion, a good dose of gratuitous nudity, kids in peril, spectacular deaths and some celebrity cameos. Add some pissed off fish with razor-sharp teeth and some fun 3D effects, and it all adds up to a good, if utterly predictable, time. Elizabeth Shue (who still looks amazing), Jerry O’Connell, Christopher Lloyd, Eli Roth and Ving Rhames are all merrily slumming it here. Even Richard Dreyfuss shows up in a case of fun stunt casting. This flick will have a long, long life on DVD and late night TV, where you’ll probably come across it and think you’ll watch ten minutes of it, but end up watching the whole thing, because, you know, it’s just damn fun. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know that we’ve been railing against 3D a lot. In this case, I think the movie would have worked just fine without it, but it wasn’t offensive or annoying. Well, aside from the fact that the theatre charged an extra $5 for the film (making it a whopping $17.50 to see it), which just seems wrong to me.

Now, what to say about “The Expendables”? It’s funny at times, but mostly unwittingly. Sly doesn’t do tongue-in-cheek; he plays it all very straightforward. The biggest problem here is probably the complete lack of any story of interest. The characters are all clichés and cardboard cutouts. And while the same could be said for “Piranhas”, the story of that movie is so straightforward (man vs. evil fish) that it doesn’t need anything else. In the case of “The Expendables” everyone lives up to the title – as the viewer, you couldn’t care less who lives and dies, as no one is given any kind of motivation or back history or any of all that nonsense. Sure, it’s amusing to see people like Dolph Lundgren again (was he really always that bad an actor?) and the brief scene with the Governator, Bruce Willis and Sly is fun too, but it’s in the same empty calorie way that a corndog tastes good for the first few bites, then the grossness of what you’re ingesting creeps up on you. Shit blows up, men with enormous muscles beat each other senseless, chicks are ogled and protected and the difference between the bad guys and the good guys is negligible. There isn’t a shred of original thought anywhere in sight. And it’s slightly boring because it’s all been seen a million times before.

The highlight of the screening was when the screen changed to the famous Microsoft Windows ‘blue screen of death’. Welcome to digital cinema. Maybe they should have gone with a Mac?



ADAM:

And so there we sat, Lars and me, waiting to begin our “Day of Dumb,” prepared to lose some brain cells (and if the stories about bed bugs invading the movie theaters of New York City were true, possibly a little blood). In retrospect, particularly by escaping the theater bite free, this was a good exercise. But the film choices weren’t so foolish either.

Working in advertising probably helps the perspective, but the reality is we approached these two films with so little expectations that the result made at least one of the films seem pretty decent. I know – it’s not fair to the mainstream more complex movies that try so hard and fall slightly short. But the fact is, like sitting down to a narrow-cast children’s animated movie, there is only so much to anticipate. For “Piranha 3D”, I believed I’d see schlock. I thought there’d be blood and some hokey gore, maybe a topless chick or two and some very bad acting, along with some poor effects and gratuitous attempts at cool 3D. What I got was a movie that didn’t take itself so seriously (to its credit), had more gore than anyone probably expects (though Alex Aja of High Tension fame did direct it), full-frontal nudity, lesbianism and some great cameos. The guy’s guy in me was very content by the last reel. And I can only imagine that regardless of the moderate to good revenue brought in by the theatrical release will be (forgive me) blow out of the water by the monies generated by the cable and DVD releases. This is the DVD every thirteen year old boy will have his parents (who never saw it) buy him, so he can laugh at the dismemberment and drool over the breathtaking Kelly Brook, amongst others.

And dismemberment seems as good a segway than any to start talking about “The Expendables,” which begins with an action scene that sees one foe torn in half at the waist and pretty much continues the body count at a steady clip until the final reel.

I truly was expecting a borrowed reprise of the body count chroma key titling from “Hot Shots, Part Deux” to flash across the screen as this approached the honor of being the bloodiest movie ever based on fatalities. As it unfolds, the action sequences is all that holds the film together, as the “story” connective tissue – a contrived love story between Stallone and the daughter of the Evil general that might warm the cold heart of lost Sly is more than a bit ridiculous. This is most likely a result of the fact that we don’t really care about Sly or any of the other appropriately titled expendables. Only Jason Statham’s Lee Christmas has reason for care. He’s also arguably the best actor of the bunch, which isn’t saying much. Sure Mickey Rourke has chops in an expanded cameo (and he actually does something with what he’s given, but he’s not given much). The best line of the film comes in the scene that was trailer fodder, featuring Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzennegger. I won’t spoil it.

But you don’t go to this movie for the lines really. It’s for firepower and a leg broken in two or three places. And though there is a lot that’s repetitive (especially the knife throwing), I can’t say it really disappoints. If anything the action is more than you need in places, really (again, forgive me) overkill. The last battle sequence on a hypothetical Central American island location is an annihilation so extensive, utilizing so much firepower, that not only are all the man-made structures completely leveled, vehicles reduced to dust and bad guys vaporized, but one has to wonder if even the remaining single-cell creatures managed to survive.

*

“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World”Written by Edgar Wright and Michael Bacall based on the graphic novels by Brian Lee O’Malley; Directed by Edgar Wright; Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin, Ellen Wong, Aubrey Plaza, Anna Kendrick and Jason Schwartzman. Story: Scott Pilgrim must defeat his new girlfriend’s seven evil exes in order to win her heart. Seen by Adam and Lars August 15, 2010 LARS:I discovered the Scott Pilgrim comic books a few years ago and enjoyed them immensely. The writer Brian Lee O’Malley has created an immediately recognizable group of Toronto slackers, who happen to live in a world where their daily discourse about love and life gets interrupted by spectacular fights and other videogame elements. It being a comic book, it was sometimes hard to discern whether the more fanciful flights of the imagination were how Scott Pilgrim wished the world worked or an actual event. When I heard that the books were being turned into a movie, my first reaction was disbelief that anyone would ever manage to capture the mood of the comic books, the second an a good dose of skepticism that anything this geeky would actually get produced. The British director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) actually pulls off the task of recreating the unique world of Scott Pilgrim and his friends. So huge kudos to him for managing to ensure that O’Malley’s world didn’t get bastardized and dumbed down on it’s journey through the vagaries of Hollywood. All of which makes it even sadder that it’s not a particularly good movie. A huge part of the problem for me lies with the casting of Michael Cera as Scott Pilgrim. Let’s forget about the fact that Cera basically either can’t or won’t act. He shows up and is himself in front of the camera and has somehow managed to make a career out of that. Good for him. The main problem is that his portrayal of Scott Pilgrim basically makes Scott an unsympathetic character. He’s a bit of a douche and it’s very hard to root for him to get together with Ramona Flowers for that very reason. Which brings me to my second issue; why would anyone go to such lengths for Ramona Flowers? Sure, as played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, she’s pretty and somewhat mysterious, but she never gives the audience any reason to root for her or for her and Scott to get together. Other than perhaps that they deserve each other, as they are both pretty vapid people. Additionally, there’s little to no chemistry between the two leads, so it’s hard to get too excited about the 6 big fights Scott has to go through to defeat Ramona’s 7 evil ex-lovers. Sure, they are executed using every special effect and comic book trick in the world, but it gets repetitive after a while: Yakking about nothing in particular/fight/more yakking/fight etc. This worked much better in the books, where each book held one big fight. Here it’s overload. Oh, and I don’t for one second believe that Cera could beat even a six-year-old armed with a wooden spoon. That said, it’s worth celebrating “Scott Pilgrim” for it’s many small moments of genius. The 8-bit version of the Universal Pictures theme music that opens the movie, the enemies that turn into coins when defeated, the music Sex Bob-Omb plays, the comic book cut-aways and the great cast of supporting players. The supporting players are so much better and more fun than the leads. Ellen Wong completely captures Knives Chau, the high school girl that has a mad crush on Scott Pilgrim, making her charming, a little pathetic and fully loveable. Kieran Culkin has enormous fun as Scott’s gay roommate Wallace Wells, the master of the snarky comment. I could go on. I really do wish I’d liked the movie better as it’s one of the few originals, alongside “Inception” and “Kick-Ass” to hit the theatres this summer. As such it deserves to do well, so please go see it. ADAM: Different isn’t always a good thing. That’s true for people as well as products and services. You’ll have an uphill battle if you try to convince the masses to experience something completely different from what they expect. The key is to include an element at the core that is relatable — a principle, a recognizable and familiar thought or belief to cling to.   It’s also how people who are different get along; they find common ground, and go from there. I think this is a big reason why “Scott Pilgrim Versus the World” works, at least on the surface. Director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) has taken the teen-angst slash doomed teen romantic comedy that at its core has elements we can all relate to and given it a flashy, unique wrapper. Now, it’s not really Wright, or Michael Bacall (who co-wrote the script with Wright) that are responsible for this wrapper, but rather Brian Lee O’Malley, who penned the graphic novels on which the film was based. What we’re presented with, is the idea that we live in a moderately disposable, quick sound bite, somehow innocuous violence-ridden, 8-bit video game world. And for both the young crowd who has embraced the retro 8-bit movement, to older people who enjoyed 8-bit when it was new, it’s a fun and refreshing way to experience a movie.   And like film itself, characters Pilgrim(Michael Cera) and Ramona Flowers(Mary Elizabeth Winstead) find common ground in the way they float through life, which brings them together as a couple. The performances are fairly strong all around, though I’m still not sure I’m okay with Michael Cera being the poster child for today’s misunderstood youth. Maybe it’s because I’m not part of his generation. But he feels so one-dimensional to me, I would think there must be better candidates. Cera seems to play himself in every role; in fact, I’ve seen him on Letterman and he’s still the same guy. Not having read the graphic novels, I can’t speak to authenticity or attention to detail in the film. What I can say is that I found the character development a little weak, though to be fair, further development of secondary characters would’ve undermined the “visual catalog” and “disposable” titles given to everyone in such a fleeting and fun way. What bothered me more was how repetitive the action was as Scott Pilgrim is confronted by ex-es. Veiled threat, big punch, over the top action, bodies flying and damaged scenery. After two fights, I knew what to expect. I didn’t need to see it again. Or again and again and again. The final showdown and moral turn were exactly as expected, even not having read the script or novels.  But the way Wright (again, surely the graphic novel) used the video game metaphor to allow Pilgrim to set things right really worked for me and let the film land on it feet as the credits ran. Nowhere near perfect, and I wouldn’t put it on the top of list as a film of the year, but a good time and a original vision on how to tell a story and how to adapt it to film. I hope that rather than inspire copycats, it inspires studios to allow other audacious filmmakers the room to get unique fare to the theater. Boy, do we need it.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World”

Written by Edgar Wright and Michael Bacall based on the graphic novels by Brian Lee O’Malley; Directed by Edgar Wright; Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin, Ellen Wong, Aubrey Plaza, Anna Kendrick and Jason Schwartzman. Story: Scott Pilgrim must defeat his new girlfriend’s seven evil exes in order to win her heart.

Seen by Adam and Lars August 15, 2010

LARS:

I discovered the Scott Pilgrim comic books a few years ago and enjoyed them immensely. The writer Brian Lee O’Malley has created an immediately recognizable group of Toronto slackers, who happen to live in a world where their daily discourse about love and life gets interrupted by spectacular fights and other videogame elements. It being a comic book, it was sometimes hard to discern whether the more fanciful flights of the imagination were how Scott Pilgrim wished the world worked or an actual event. When I heard that the books were being turned into a movie, my first reaction was disbelief that anyone would ever manage to capture the mood of the comic books, the second an a good dose of skepticism that anything this geeky would actually get produced.

The British director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) actually pulls off the task of recreating the unique world of Scott Pilgrim and his friends. So huge kudos to him for managing to ensure that O’Malley’s world didn’t get bastardized and dumbed down on it’s journey through the vagaries of Hollywood. All of which makes it even sadder that it’s not a particularly good movie.

A huge part of the problem for me lies with the casting of Michael Cera as Scott Pilgrim. Let’s forget about the fact that Cera basically either can’t or won’t act. He shows up and is himself in front of the camera and has somehow managed to make a career out of that. Good for him. The main problem is that his portrayal of Scott Pilgrim basically makes Scott an unsympathetic character. He’s a bit of a douche and it’s very hard to root for him to get together with Ramona Flowers for that very reason. Which brings me to my second issue; why would anyone go to such lengths for Ramona Flowers? Sure, as played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, she’s pretty and somewhat mysterious, but she never gives the audience any reason to root for her or for her and Scott to get together. Other than perhaps that they deserve each other, as they are both pretty vapid people.

Additionally, there’s little to no chemistry between the two leads, so it’s hard to get too excited about the 6 big fights Scott has to go through to defeat Ramona’s 7 evil ex-lovers. Sure, they are executed using every special effect and comic book trick in the world, but it gets repetitive after a while: Yakking about nothing in particular/fight/more yakking/fight etc. This worked much better in the books, where each book held one big fight. Here it’s overload. Oh, and I don’t for one second believe that Cera could beat even a six-year-old armed with a wooden spoon.

That said, it’s worth celebrating “Scott Pilgrim” for it’s many small moments of genius. The 8-bit version of the Universal Pictures theme music that opens the movie, the enemies that turn into coins when defeated, the music Sex Bob-Omb plays, the comic book cut-aways and the great cast of supporting players.

The supporting players are so much better and more fun than the leads. Ellen Wong completely captures Knives Chau, the high school girl that has a mad crush on Scott Pilgrim, making her charming, a little pathetic and fully loveable. Kieran Culkin has enormous fun as Scott’s gay roommate Wallace Wells, the master of the snarky comment. I could go on. I really do wish I’d liked the movie better as it’s one of the few originals, alongside “Inception” and “Kick-Ass” to hit the theatres this summer. As such it deserves to do well, so please go see it.

ADAM:

Different isn’t always a good thing. That’s true for people as well as products and services. You’ll have an uphill battle if you try to convince the masses to experience something completely different from what they expect. The key is to include an element at the core that is relatable — a principle, a recognizable and familiar thought or belief to cling to.   It’s also how people who are different get along; they find common ground, and go from there. I think this is a big reason why “Scott Pilgrim Versus the World” works, at least on the surface.

Director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) has taken the teen-angst slash doomed teen romantic comedy that at its core has elements we can all relate to and given it a flashy, unique wrapper. Now, it’s not really Wright, or Michael Bacall (who co-wrote the script with Wright) that are responsible for this wrapper, but rather Brian Lee O’Malley, who penned the graphic novels on which the film was based.

What we’re presented with, is the idea that we live in a moderately disposable, quick sound bite, somehow innocuous violence-ridden, 8-bit video game world. And for both the young crowd who has embraced the retro 8-bit movement, to older people who enjoyed 8-bit when it was new, it’s a fun and refreshing way to experience a movie.   And like film itself, characters Pilgrim(Michael Cera) and Ramona Flowers(Mary Elizabeth Winstead) find common ground in the way they float through life, which brings them together as a couple.

The performances are fairly strong all around, though I’m still not sure I’m okay with Michael Cera being the poster child for today’s misunderstood youth. Maybe it’s because I’m not part of his generation. But he feels so one-dimensional to me, I would think there must be better candidates. Cera seems to play himself in every role; in fact, I’ve seen him on Letterman and he’s still the same guy.

Not having read the graphic novels, I can’t speak to authenticity or attention to detail in the film. What I can say is that I found the character development a little weak, though to be fair, further development of secondary characters would’ve undermined the “visual catalog” and “disposable” titles given to everyone in such a fleeting and fun way. What bothered me more was how repetitive the action was as Scott Pilgrim is confronted by ex-es. Veiled threat, big punch, over the top action, bodies flying and damaged scenery. After two fights, I knew what to expect. I didn’t need to see it again. Or again and again and again.

The final showdown and moral turn were exactly as expected, even not having read the script or novels.  But the way Wright (again, surely the graphic novel) used the video game metaphor to allow Pilgrim to set things right really worked for me and let the film land on it feet as the credits ran.

Nowhere near perfect, and I wouldn’t put it on the top of list as a film of the year, but a good time and a original vision on how to tell a story and how to adapt it to film. I hope that rather than inspire copycats, it inspires studios to allow other audacious filmmakers the room to get unique fare to the theater. Boy, do we need it.

*

“The Disappearance of Alice Creed”Written and Directed by J Blakeson; Stars Gemma Arterton, Martin Compston and Eddie Marsan. Story: Two men fortify a nondescript apartment, then kidnap a woman and tie her to a bed. Before there’s even time to react, we’re plunged into a situation that’s very nasty and far more complex than it seems at first glance. Seen by Adam and Lars August 7, 2010 LARS:In this summer of overproduced and mindless blockbusters, leave it to a British first-time director and three great actors to do a little indie flick that’s among the most fun and twisty delights in a while. Sometimes having no money forces you to actually have an idea. This is not unheard of in advertising either. But I digress.“The Disappearance of Alice Creed” is the first feature length movie by the mysteriously firstnamed J. Blakeson, a British director who also penned the script for the movie. It is essentially a stage play and most of it takes place in one location. This means that you better have some damn good actors on your hands, as they will be carrying the movie, not the explosions or the swooping camera crane moves. This is not to say that there are lovely filmic touches; the first 15 or so minutes are dialogue-free as Blakeson sets the scene for what is to come. It’s nice, if a bit show-offy. Your film school friends will enjoy it!The cast is exemplary. Most surprisingly, Gemma Arterton, whom I’d written off as a piece of fluff after her roles in “Quantum of Solace” and “Prince of Persia”. Here she gets to be fearless and show some real acting chops, not just be a damsel in distress who spouts quips and exchanges looks with the hero. Martin Compston, who has so far mostly played bit parts in British movies like “The Damn United” and “Doomsday” plays the young whippersnapper with a plan so smart it’s really stupid. If there’s any fairness in the world, this role will lead to bigger and better things for him too.However, the real standout is Eddie Marsan. He is one of those actors that you know you’ve seen before, but you don’t know his name or where you saw him. He’s been in a ton of movies, but mostly in supporting roles. Here he finally gets to play the lead and he makes the most of the opportunity. His performance is tense and tightly wound and yet you get the feeling that he could break down and cry any moment. It’s a fascinating character study and it must have been a relief for the writer/director to see, how much humanity Marsan brings to a role that could have been a trite cliché if done by a lesser actor.I knew nothing about the plot going into the movie, and I think the less said the better. All you need to know is that it’s the story of a kidnapping gone wrong. Enjoy. ADAM:Refreshing to see a good piece of filmmaking all the way through, top to bottom. That it’s the antithesis of the big summer blockbuster makes it even better, and to do all this while still being dark, dangerous and edgy and “The Disappearance of Alice Creed” is tailor-made for me. Super contained, it only features three actors, making me think that at one point the film, written and directed by J Blakeson, was a play, written and directed by same. And with so few characters filling the screen, it’s vital that the characters have depth and be well-drawn. Check. And the performances must be realistic and top notch. Check number two. All three are excellent, but Eddie Marsan as Vic is a standout in a threesome of excellent work. His emotional roller coaster from being a sure-footed alpha male to second guessing himself and potentially emotionally collapsing like a deck of cards is perfectly portrayed. Gemma Arterton plays a strong-willed victim who runs the gamut of emotions as the reality of the situation becomes clearer and her point of view changes. And Martin Compston thrives as Danny; a seemingly timid pawn in the game, but who has more than one plan up his sleeve. Ultimately it’s a winner, albeit a small one. But while blockbusters with print advertising budgets bigger than the cost of this entire film fail and continue to get made, small movies like this need to be seen and recommended; word of mouth will translate to more of this kind of fare — quality filmmaking — in the future.

“The Disappearance of Alice Creed”

Written and Directed by J Blakeson; Stars Gemma Arterton, Martin Compston and Eddie Marsan. Story: Two men fortify a nondescript apartment, then kidnap a woman and tie her to a bed. Before there’s even time to react, we’re plunged into a situation that’s very nasty and far more complex than it seems at first glance.

Seen by Adam and Lars August 7, 2010

LARS:

In this summer of overproduced and mindless blockbusters, leave it to a British first-time director and three great actors to do a little indie flick that’s among the most fun and twisty delights in a while. Sometimes having no money forces you to actually have an idea. This is not unheard of in advertising either. But I digress.

“The Disappearance of Alice Creed” is the first feature length movie by the mysteriously firstnamed J. Blakeson, a British director who also penned the script for the movie. It is essentially a stage play and most of it takes place in one location. This means that you better have some damn good actors on your hands, as they will be carrying the movie, not the explosions or the swooping camera crane moves. This is not to say that there are lovely filmic touches; the first 15 or so minutes are dialogue-free as Blakeson sets the scene for what is to come. It’s nice, if a bit show-offy. Your film school friends will enjoy it!

The cast is exemplary. Most surprisingly, Gemma Arterton, whom I’d written off as a piece of fluff after her roles in “Quantum of Solace” and “Prince of Persia”. Here she gets to be fearless and show some real acting chops, not just be a damsel in distress who spouts quips and exchanges looks with the hero. Martin Compston, who has so far mostly played bit parts in British movies like “The Damn United” and “Doomsday” plays the young whippersnapper with a plan so smart it’s really stupid. If there’s any fairness in the world, this role will lead to bigger and better things for him too.

However, the real standout is Eddie Marsan. He is one of those actors that you know you’ve seen before, but you don’t know his name or where you saw him. He’s been in a ton of movies, but mostly in supporting roles. Here he finally gets to play the lead and he makes the most of the opportunity. His performance is tense and tightly wound and yet you get the feeling that he could break down and cry any moment. It’s a fascinating character study and it must have been a relief for the writer/director to see, how much humanity Marsan brings to a role that could have been a trite cliché if done by a lesser actor.

I knew nothing about the plot going into the movie, and I think the less said the better. All you need to know is that it’s the story of a kidnapping gone wrong. Enjoy.

ADAM:

Refreshing to see a good piece of filmmaking all the way through, top to bottom. That it’s the antithesis of the big summer blockbuster makes it even better, and to do all this while still being dark, dangerous and edgy and “The Disappearance of Alice Creed” is tailor-made for me. Super contained, it only features three actors, making me think that at one point the film, written and directed by J Blakeson, was a play, written and directed by same.

And with so few characters filling the screen, it’s vital that the characters have depth and be well-drawn. Check. And the performances must be realistic and top notch. Check number two. All three are excellent, but Eddie Marsan as Vic is a standout in a threesome of excellent work. His emotional roller coaster from being a sure-footed alpha male to second guessing himself and potentially emotionally collapsing like a deck of cards is perfectly portrayed. Gemma Arterton plays a strong-willed victim who runs the gamut of emotions as the reality of the situation becomes clearer and her point of view changes. And Martin Compston thrives as Danny; a seemingly timid pawn in the game, but who has more than one plan up his sleeve.

Ultimately it’s a winner, albeit a small one. But while blockbusters with print advertising budgets bigger than the cost of this entire film fail and continue to get made, small movies like this need to be seen and recommended; word of mouth will translate to more of this kind of fare — quality filmmaking — in the future.

*

“Salt”Written by Kurt Wimmer; Directed by Phillip Noyce; Stars Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor. Story: A CIA officer’s loyalty is tested when a defector accuses her of being a Russian spy. the officer goes on the run, using all her skills and years of experience as a covert operative to elude capture. Seen by Adam and Lars July 25, 2010 LARS:In what has been one of the worst film summers in human memory, here comes another flick that’s so dumb that I’d consider standing outside of a theatre to beg people not to give their money to Hollywood to produce more of this. The problem, as so often before, is in the writing. I think there’s a backlash coming. During the trailer for some inane looking film called “Devil”, the words “From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan” came up on the screen, and a collective groan, followed by laughter, rolled through the theatre. Shyamalan has now gone from being a promising director to being a laughing stock. And he only has himself and his incredibly bad recent movies (“The Last Airbender” and “The Happening”) to thank for it. They are so inanely written that even millions of dollars of special effects and name actors won’t sway the public to part with their hard earned dollars anymore. At least I hope so. But then “Transformers 2” happened, so I could be wrong… In fact, this recent slew of more-than-usually stupid movies may end up having the opposite effect. They will make people stay at home to watch more TV. TV is where the writers have power these days. A lot of the show runners are writers and they enjoy working in the longer, serialized formats, where you can tell deeper and more engaging stories. Look at shows like “True Blood” and “Mad Men” to name just two that will keep me at home on a Sunday night instead of seeing the latest slice of fromage from California. Then there’s the 3D format that Hollywood is trying to cram down our throats to ensure the survival of the theatres in this home entertainment center world we live in. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know what I think about that, so I’ll spare you the rant (if you’ve never read this blog before, here’s the short version: there’s been a single recent movie that knew how to use 3D and that’s “Avatar”. Everything else is shit so far. Probably because there’s only one James Cameron. End of rant.) It almost seems moot to talk in any detail about the story of “Salt”. It was originally written to star Tom Cruise, but he felt that it came too close to his “Mission: Impossible” series, so he pulled out. Then it was touted as the ‘female Bourne’. Both comparisons are apt. If Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne had both gone ‘full retard’, that is. Evelyn Salt is the name of the double (or is it triple or quadruple) agent who goes deep, deep undercover to solve an evil Russian conspiracy to take out the USA. When did the Russians become the bad guys again, I wonder? Anyway, she kicks a lot of ass, doesn’t take many names and runs at least as much as the Cruiser has ever done in any of his movies. So ADD sufferers will feel right at home with this one. A word about Angelina Jolie. She’s actually a talented actress in the right roles (“Gia”, “Girl, Interrupted” and “Changeling” come to mind). The problem is that she basically looks like an alien entity’s attempt at creating the perfect human female. Every desirable trait is exaggerated to near anime proportions on her face and disappearing into the crowd, like a good spy should be able to do, is just not possible for her. Even disguised as a man, she looks otherworldly. This works to her advantage in movies like “Wanted”, where reality has left the building from scene one. Here, it makes the whole thing unbelievable, even if Angelina gamely tries her best. But to see her fight Liev Schreiber, who is probably twice her weight and could most likely eat her whole and still have room for a snack, just isn’t convincing. Even if Angelina tries to outgrunt Monica Seles every time she lands a punch. The director, Phillip Noyce, is a journeyman filmmaker, who is completely hit or miss with little to no consistency. When he’s good (“Dead Calm” and “Clear and Present Danger”) he is great. When he’s bad (“Sliver”, The Saint”, “Salt”) he is awful, hiding any sense of narrative under the weight of form to try and pull a fast one on you in the hope you wont’ notice. Two weeks from now, we’ll see if “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is as great as the comic book it’s based on. If not, this summer will stand out as one of the worst in the 25 years I’ve been writing about movies. ADAM: Ironically lacking in flavor, “Salt” attempts to be a female-driven, first offering in what Warner Brothers hopes will become a tent-pole action franchise, like the Bourne films are for Universal and the Jack Ryan films were for Paramount. Phillip Noyce, director of “Patriot Games” and “Clear and Present Danger” — arguably the best of the Ryan films is behind the camera for “Salt”, but that’s where the similarities end. The biggest differences between the aforementioned franchises and Salt is that those other films had a genuine story that made sense and compelling characters the audience cared about. “Salt” has neither of those. It’s nearly impossible for me to sit through any movie without finding things I’d change to improve the experience. There were several moments during “Salt” when I felt the only thing that would make the experience better would be if I weren’t watching it any longer.“Salt” isn’t sure if it wants to be a political thriller, an “innocent man on the run” movie (The Fugitive), or a “revenge” film (Payback, etc.). Thus, tone plays very unevenly and most if not all attempts at twists, turn and misdirections all seem to fall flat. Regardless of which genre it might claim to adhere to, poor use of backstory elicits little if any support from the audience. Salt kicks ass repeatedly in the name of Russia, but in childhood flashbacks we see Salt happily being groomed for this future life rather than being harshly taken advantage of, and breeding resentment.  Why should I’d give a shit about what happens to her?  Go watch the opening of “The Outlaw Josie Wales,” one of my favorite movies ever. We see Eastwood at home - a small frontier cabin - with his wife and kids(it’s as the Civil War is ending). Some redlegs show up, kill the wife and kids and leave Josie for dead. The next morning, Eastwood fights back tears as he knocks makeshift crosses into his family’s graves, before setting off to make things right.  Then the opening credits roll. No dialogue. Not necessary. This movie is set up and Eastwood as Josie has my support till the last frame. The Bourne series did a good job showing Jason as a victim or guinea pig who’s trying to get back his identity, and Jack Ryan is a symbol of what’s right — he’s a patriot, with a family and an idealist with a sense of what’s fair. Salt is cold and emotionless, not helped by the fact that she’s played by Angelina Jolie, who seems to be one part model, one part ninety-pound ninja and the rest alien.  The action is okay, although some falls victim to “being shot to close,” and it’s not nearly enough to save this mess of a film about a possible Russian spy who might not really be a Russian spy after all.  I’m still confused. Not to worry.  On to the next. As for “Salt?” Dasvidanya, wouldn’t wanna be ya.

“Salt”

Written by Kurt Wimmer; Directed by Phillip Noyce; Stars Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor. Story: A CIA officer’s loyalty is tested when a defector accuses her of being a Russian spy. the officer goes on the run, using all her skills and years of experience as a covert operative to elude capture.

Seen by Adam and Lars July 25, 2010

LARS:

In what has been one of the worst film summers in human memory, here comes another flick that’s so dumb that I’d consider standing outside of a theatre to beg people not to give their money to Hollywood to produce more of this.

The problem, as so often before, is in the writing. I think there’s a backlash coming. During the trailer for some inane looking film called “Devil”, the words “From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan” came up on the screen, and a collective groan, followed by laughter, rolled through the theatre. Shyamalan has now gone from being a promising director to being a laughing stock. And he only has himself and his incredibly bad recent movies (“The Last Airbender” and “The Happening”) to thank for it. They are so inanely written that even millions of dollars of special effects and name actors won’t sway the public to part with their hard earned dollars anymore. At least I hope so. But then “Transformers 2” happened, so I could be wrong…

In fact, this recent slew of more-than-usually stupid movies may end up having the opposite effect. They will make people stay at home to watch more TV. TV is where the writers have power these days. A lot of the show runners are writers and they enjoy working in the longer, serialized formats, where you can tell deeper and more engaging stories. Look at shows like “True Blood” and “Mad Men” to name just two that will keep me at home on a Sunday night instead of seeing the latest slice of fromage from California. Then there’s the 3D format that Hollywood is trying to cram down our throats to ensure the survival of the theatres in this home entertainment center world we live in. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know what I think about that, so I’ll spare you the rant (if you’ve never read this blog before, here’s the short version: there’s been a single recent movie that knew how to use 3D and that’s “Avatar”. Everything else is shit so far. Probably because there’s only one James Cameron. End of rant.)

It almost seems moot to talk in any detail about the story of “Salt”. It was originally written to star Tom Cruise, but he felt that it came too close to his “Mission: Impossible” series, so he pulled out. Then it was touted as the ‘female Bourne’. Both comparisons are apt. If Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne had both gone ‘full retard’, that is. Evelyn Salt is the name of the double (or is it triple or quadruple) agent who goes deep, deep undercover to solve an evil Russian conspiracy to take out the USA. When did the Russians become the bad guys again, I wonder? Anyway, she kicks a lot of ass, doesn’t take many names and runs at least as much as the Cruiser has ever done in any of his movies. So ADD sufferers will feel right at home with this one.

A word about Angelina Jolie. She’s actually a talented actress in the right roles (“Gia”, “Girl, Interrupted” and “Changeling” come to mind). The problem is that she basically looks like an alien entity’s attempt at creating the perfect human female. Every desirable trait is exaggerated to near anime proportions on her face and disappearing into the crowd, like a good spy should be able to do, is just not possible for her. Even disguised as a man, she looks otherworldly. This works to her advantage in movies like “Wanted”, where reality has left the building from scene one. Here, it makes the whole thing unbelievable, even if Angelina gamely tries her best. But to see her fight Liev Schreiber, who is probably twice her weight and could most likely eat her whole and still have room for a snack, just isn’t convincing. Even if Angelina tries to outgrunt Monica Seles every time she lands a punch.

The director, Phillip Noyce, is a journeyman filmmaker, who is completely hit or miss with little to no consistency. When he’s good (“Dead Calm” and “Clear and Present Danger”) he is great. When he’s bad (“Sliver”, The Saint”, “Salt”) he is awful, hiding any sense of narrative under the weight of form to try and pull a fast one on you in the hope you wont’ notice.

Two weeks from now, we’ll see if “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is as great as the comic book it’s based on. If not, this summer will stand out as one of the worst in the 25 years I’ve been writing about movies.

ADAM:

Ironically lacking in flavor, “Salt” attempts to be a female-driven, first offering in what Warner Brothers hopes will become a tent-pole action franchise, like the Bourne films are for Universal and the Jack Ryan films were for Paramount. Phillip Noyce, director of “Patriot Games” and “Clear and Present Danger” — arguably the best of the Ryan films is behind the camera for “Salt”, but that’s where the similarities end. The biggest differences between the aforementioned franchises and Salt is that those other films had a genuine story that made sense and compelling characters the audience cared about. “Salt” has neither of those.

It’s nearly impossible for me to sit through any movie without finding things I’d change to improve the experience. There were several moments during “Salt” when I felt the only thing that would make the experience better would be if I weren’t watching it any longer.

“Salt” isn’t sure if it wants to be a political thriller, an “innocent man on the run” movie (The Fugitive), or a “revenge” film (Payback, etc.). Thus, tone plays very unevenly and most if not all attempts at twists, turn and misdirections all seem to fall flat.

Regardless of which genre it might claim to adhere to, poor use of backstory elicits little if any support from the audience. Salt kicks ass repeatedly in the name of Russia, but in childhood flashbacks we see Salt happily being groomed for this future life rather than being harshly taken advantage of, and breeding resentment.  Why should I’d give a shit about what happens to her?  Go watch the opening of “The Outlaw Josie Wales,” one of my favorite movies ever. We see Eastwood at home - a small frontier cabin - with his wife and kids(it’s as the Civil War is ending). Some redlegs show up, kill the wife and kids and leave Josie for dead. The next morning, Eastwood fights back tears as he knocks makeshift crosses into his family’s graves, before setting off to make things right.  Then the opening credits roll. No dialogue. Not necessary. This movie is set up and Eastwood as Josie has my support till the last frame. The Bourne series did a good job showing Jason as a victim or guinea pig who’s trying to get back his identity, and Jack Ryan is a symbol of what’s right — he’s a patriot, with a family and an idealist with a sense of what’s fair. Salt is cold and emotionless, not helped by the fact that she’s played by Angelina Jolie, who seems to be one part model, one part ninety-pound ninja and the rest alien.  The action is okay, although some falls victim to “being shot to close,” and it’s not nearly enough to save this mess of a film about a possible Russian spy who might not really be a Russian spy after all.  I’m still confused. Not to worry.  On to the next. As for “Salt?” Dasvidanya, wouldn’t wanna be ya.

*

“The Kids Are All Right”Written by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg.  Directed by Lisa Cholodenko;  Stars Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson. Story: The children of a lesbian couple seek out their biological father.  Nerves become frayed as the father gets more involved in all their lives. Seen July 24, by Adam Wohl Adam: The Kids Are All Right is an enjoyable, albeit predictable slice of life film that could’ve been a TV movie, but nudity, language and other variables makes it naturally suited for the big screen.  And by the way, none of those things seem gratuitous. They, like everything else in this film feel real.  What’s more, this tale about a lesbian couple (played by Annette Bening and Julianne Moore), their two kids (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson) and the man whose sperm donation brought it all together (Mark Ruffalo), never focuses for more than thirty seconds on the fact that this is about a family with gay parents.  It’s a modern, American family with the same issues that might arise regardless of there being two moms, two dads, or a mom and a dad.The kids have typical teen issues; dealing with their parents and their own sexuality as they navigate high school and prepare for adulthood.  And the “Moms” have their share of many married couples’ issues: growing older, getting complacent and adultery.  Add to that the resentment the moms develop when their kids go behind their back to contact Ruffalo and the subsequent relationship they develop with him and there’s a lot of issues to work through.As is typical with this kind of family drama, one or more characters eventually act immorally and the dominos begin to fall and there are casualties; this isn’t about happy endings and rainbows, but about real life problems.Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg have written a tight screenplay and Cholodenko has directed her most commercial film to date.  The performances are first rate across the board — Bening and Moore excellent, as usual; Ruffalo, who I have a tendency to dislike is better than I’ve ever seen him, and Mia Wasikowska who was lifeless and forgettable as the lead in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is subdued and fantastic here.  All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It surprised by pushing a few boundaries, but it never felt too preachy.  Properly focused on the issues faced by the characters rather than dwelling on the setting in which the issues have taken place, “Kids” is a portrait of America.  It asks whether the youth of today are better prepared to handle adversity than their parents, what it means to grow up and what matters most in the world — where you came from, where you are or where you’re going.

“The Kids Are All Right”

Written by Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg.  Directed by Lisa Cholodenko;  Stars Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson. Story: The children of a lesbian couple seek out their biological father.  Nerves become frayed as the father gets more involved in all their lives.

Seen July 24, by Adam Wohl

Adam:

The Kids Are All Right is an enjoyable, albeit predictable slice of life film that could’ve been a TV movie, but nudity, language and other variables makes it naturally suited for the big screen.  And by the way, none of those things seem gratuitous. They, like everything else in this film feel real.  What’s more, this tale about a lesbian couple (played by Annette Bening and Julianne Moore), their two kids (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson) and the man whose sperm donation brought it all together (Mark Ruffalo), never focuses for more than thirty seconds on the fact that this is about a family with gay parents.  It’s a modern, American family with the same issues that might arise regardless of there being two moms, two dads, or a mom and a dad.

The kids have typical teen issues; dealing with their parents and their own sexuality as they navigate high school and prepare for adulthood.  And the “Moms” have their share of many married couples’ issues: growing older, getting complacent and adultery.  Add to that the resentment the moms develop when their kids go behind their back to contact Ruffalo and the subsequent relationship they develop with him and there’s a lot of issues to work through.

As is typical with this kind of family drama, one or more characters eventually act immorally and the dominos begin to fall and there are casualties; this isn’t about happy endings and rainbows, but about real life problems.

Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg have written a tight screenplay and Cholodenko has directed her most commercial film to date.  The performances are first rate across the board — Bening and Moore excellent, as usual; Ruffalo, who I have a tendency to dislike is better than I’ve ever seen him, and Mia Wasikowska who was lifeless and forgettable as the lead in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is subdued and fantastic here.  All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It surprised by pushing a few boundaries, but it never felt too preachy.  Properly focused on the issues faced by the characters rather than dwelling on the setting in which the issues have taken place, “Kids” is a portrait of America.  It asks whether the youth of today are better prepared to handle adversity than their parents, what it means to grow up and what matters most in the world — where you came from, where you are or where you’re going.

*

“Inception”Written & Directed by Christopher Nolan; Stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy and Ken Watanabe. Story: In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a single idea within one’s mind can be the most dangerous weapon or the most valuable asset. Seen by Adam and Lars July 17, 2010 LARS:Christopher Nolan has it made. After “Memento” and two successful Batman movies, he got to make the film he’d been ruminating over for more than a decade. He and his co-writer and brother, Jonathan Nolan, have spent all this time thinking about how to bring the very cool concept at the heart of “Inception” to life. Oddly, they succeed and fail at the same time.The first hour of the movie is an extremely well-written and spectacularly produced introduction to the idea that you can enter another person’s dream. Dream-time moves slower than real time, so you can spend what seems like days in dream-time, but only hours will have passed when you wake up. So far, so fascinating and very successful. It’s obvious that many people will compare “Inception” to “The Matrix”, if only for the parallel ideas that you can live in alternate realities. But where “The Matrix” was content to be an unabashed action movie (it only grew delusions of grandeur in the sequels), “Inception” goes for a love story, albeit an untraditional one, as the emotional lynchpin around which the story revolves. To me that’s where the movie fails.[SPOILER ALERT – do not read on, if you’ve not seen the movie]Leonardo DiCaprio, doing a fine, if not remarkable, job as always, plays Cobb, an “extractor” whose job it is to find information in other people’s dreams. As we find out, he and his now-deceased wife (Marion Cotillard) created such an amazing dreamworld for themselves that she eventually lost touch with reality and killed herself in the belief that she was still in a dream (when you die in dreams, you wake up, as everyone knows). Yet she still haunts him in his dreams, especially when he goes several layers down (cue an elevator scene that was done to much greater effect in “Angel Heart”). Maybe I’m a cold-hearted bastard (yet I’m unashamed to admit I wept like a baby at the end of Toy Story 3), but I just didn’t buy into their romance and the way their story was told in the movie. Neither of them are portrayed as particularly sympathetic characters worth rooting for and there’s a shot of their two kids playing in the sun that’s used crassly over and over again. I guess it’s supposed to make me feel sympathy for these people because I feel bad for their, now orphaned, kids? I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it and it took me out of dream-time and into yawn-time over and over again during the movie.The other thing that doesn’t work in the movie is the perceived need for layer upon layer of complexity. The other core part of “Inception” is, at heart, a simple heist story. Instead of retrieving a dream from someone, the gang comes together to insert a dream/notion into someone. Heist stories are hellishly difficult to get right, but wonderful when they work. This one is serviceable and it’s not where the faults of the story lie. “Inception” uses a conceit that if you fall asleep inside a dream, you enter another layer of dream-time, and you can do that over and over again to get deeper and deeper into dreams. As anyone who’s had dreams where you wake up from sleeping only to realize that you’re still in a dream knows, this is a creepy experience. But that’s not what it’s used for here. Here it’s used to escape further and further from reality and deeper into dream-time to buy time. Sadly, it ends up, several dream levels down, as a bizarre rehash of “Where Eagles Dare” mashed up with the ski scene from the James Bond movie “For Your Eyes Only”. Not that it wasn’t visually engaging and entertaining, but it had become so far-fetched that I entered yawn-time again. So the overall conceit of the movie works perfectly and is fascinating, but the two parallel storylines never really gel or work to the standard that the Nolan brothers have set themselves.So that’s where the movie fails for me. Where it is wildly successful is in the visual world that Nolan conjures up. There are scenes of stunning beauty in the film and Nolan masters special effects like few other directors at this point. He also knows how to cast well and unexpected. I nearly yelled out in surprise, when Tom Berenger showed up all of a sudden. He doesn’t look like time has done him many favors since he was almost a movie star (remember “Shattered”?). Ellen Page’s part is basically to be exposition-girl, asking all the dumb questions about how it all works, so the audience understands the mechanics of dream-time. She does a decent job with an underwritten part. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is interesting as always, and it seems like Nolan asked him to not do his trademark smirk and he’s better for it. I barely recognized Tom Hardy from “Bronson” – see it if you haven’t already; it’s an acting tour de force. Here’s he’s the wily outsider who comes in to help with a crucial aspect of the reverse heist.For all its flaws, “Inception” is still the most interesting movie to come out this summer. It’s not a sequel, it’s not dumber than a bag of hammers, it’s not a comic book adaptation, and it’s not animated. It’s an actual original movie, written for the screen. Who knew they still made those? ADAM:Okay, okay. I jump into this review of Christopher Nolan’s film “Inception” with the knowledge that Lars and I will probably be more apart in opinion than usual. It’s a weird feeling; not only do we usually agree on the films we review, our parallel tastes as cinephiles go very deep — through the 90’s, 80’s and way, way back. It’s almost scary. Still, sometimes you say potato, I say onion ring.Also: I’m going to try to keep this as general as possible and devoid of spoilers.This was probably the movie I was most excited to see all year, with the TRON sequel and the next Harry Potter close behind.  I’m a huge Chris Nolan fan. And as much as I love and respect Nolan’s Batman films, it’s the more complex, more cerebral, noir-y Memento that made me a fan of his for life. Give me a thinking man’s movie, sprinkle in a little gunplay and I’m a happy clam.Going in to the theater I was only apprehensive about one thing. This film is about dreams and the ability to enter the dreams of others, at first to protect or steal secrets. So many movies have tried — and failed — to create a workable story within the dream construct. Tackling this problem and succeeding would be a major achievement in my mind.Walking out of the theater I had a different feeling. Not only did I think Nolan did as good of a job creating and abiding by rules for the “dream” movie genre, but I think he solidified himself as a torch carrier for dark, action-filled, cerebral films the way I classify Michael Mann.  In fact, I believe if Michael Mann could wrap his head around the kind of abstract thinking involved in writing Inception, the film I saw would be very close to what he’d produce.There’s no question that the first half of the film is better than the second — Nolan does a great (if a little too expositional) job of setting up the rules of the game we’re about to witness. We meet Cobb (Leo DiCaprio), a man with a troubled past who works as a type of black bag operative, hired by shady scions of big business to infiltrate the minds of their adversaries and enemies through dreams. Cobb and his sidekick Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) specialize in ferreting out the secrets people hide in their deepest subconscious.  When a Japanese tycoon named Saito (Ken Watanabe) makes Cobb and offer he can’t refuse — a chance to overcome his shady, troubled past,  Cobb enlists the help of a young up-and-coming Architect, Ariadne, played by Ellen Page.  That ‘external storyline’ — the inception itself — planting an idea inside of someone’s head is a bit thin. But I liked the balance between that story and Cobb’s inner struggle about his wife, Mal (Marianne Cotillard). Nolan knows flawed heros, understands pace, is brilliant at visualization and mood and knows how to build suspense.  The “levels of dreams” can be a bit exhausting, but Nolan needs these shifts of time and locations to literally buy himself time to tie off loose ends and make the story work. And it does work.He gets very good performances across the board, from DiCaprio and Cotillard as expected, Page makes her job in Juno look not like a fluke, Gordon-Levitt continues to improve and may be at he is best here surrounded by better class horses than usual, and Tom Hardy as Eames gets the best lines and shows why he’s still one of the best kept secrets in Hollywood.  Michael Caine, Pete Postlethwaite, Cillian Murphy and Lukas Haas have little to do in essentially cameos, and Tom Berenger is good in his role, but may actually look worse alive than Postlethewaite does dead.

“Inception”

Written & Directed by Christopher Nolan; Stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy and Ken Watanabe. Story: In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a single idea within one’s mind can be the most dangerous weapon or the most valuable asset.

Seen by Adam and Lars July 17, 2010

LARS:

Christopher Nolan has it made. After “Memento” and two successful Batman movies, he got to make the film he’d been ruminating over for more than a decade. He and his co-writer and brother, Jonathan Nolan, have spent all this time thinking about how to bring the very cool concept at the heart of “Inception” to life. Oddly, they succeed and fail at the same time.

The first hour of the movie is an extremely well-written and spectacularly produced introduction to the idea that you can enter another person’s dream. Dream-time moves slower than real time, so you can spend what seems like days in dream-time, but only hours will have passed when you wake up. So far, so fascinating and very successful. It’s obvious that many people will compare “Inception” to “The Matrix”, if only for the parallel ideas that you can live in alternate realities. But where “The Matrix” was content to be an unabashed action movie (it only grew delusions of grandeur in the sequels), “Inception” goes for a love story, albeit an untraditional one, as the emotional lynchpin around which the story revolves. To me that’s where the movie fails.

[SPOILER ALERT – do not read on, if you’ve not seen the movie]

Leonardo DiCaprio, doing a fine, if not remarkable, job as always, plays Cobb, an “extractor” whose job it is to find information in other people’s dreams. As we find out, he and his now-deceased wife (Marion Cotillard) created such an amazing dreamworld for themselves that she eventually lost touch with reality and killed herself in the belief that she was still in a dream (when you die in dreams, you wake up, as everyone knows). Yet she still haunts him in his dreams, especially when he goes several layers down (cue an elevator scene that was done to much greater effect in “Angel Heart”). Maybe I’m a cold-hearted bastard (yet I’m unashamed to admit I wept like a baby at the end of Toy Story 3), but I just didn’t buy into their romance and the way their story was told in the movie. Neither of them are portrayed as particularly sympathetic characters worth rooting for and there’s a shot of their two kids playing in the sun that’s used crassly over and over again. I guess it’s supposed to make me feel sympathy for these people because I feel bad for their, now orphaned, kids? I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it and it took me out of dream-time and into yawn-time over and over again during the movie.

The other thing that doesn’t work in the movie is the perceived need for layer upon layer of complexity. The other core part of “Inception” is, at heart, a simple heist story. Instead of retrieving a dream from someone, the gang comes together to insert a dream/notion into someone. Heist stories are hellishly difficult to get right, but wonderful when they work. This one is serviceable and it’s not where the faults of the story lie. “Inception” uses a conceit that if you fall asleep inside a dream, you enter another layer of dream-time, and you can do that over and over again to get deeper and deeper into dreams. As anyone who’s had dreams where you wake up from sleeping only to realize that you’re still in a dream knows, this is a creepy experience. But that’s not what it’s used for here. Here it’s used to escape further and further from reality and deeper into dream-time to buy time. Sadly, it ends up, several dream levels down, as a bizarre rehash of “Where Eagles Dare” mashed up with the ski scene from the James Bond movie “For Your Eyes Only”. Not that it wasn’t visually engaging and entertaining, but it had become so far-fetched that I entered yawn-time again. So the overall conceit of the movie works perfectly and is fascinating, but the two parallel storylines never really gel or work to the standard that the Nolan brothers have set themselves.

So that’s where the movie fails for me. Where it is wildly successful is in the visual world that Nolan conjures up. There are scenes of stunning beauty in the film and Nolan masters special effects like few other directors at this point. He also knows how to cast well and unexpected. I nearly yelled out in surprise, when Tom Berenger showed up all of a sudden. He doesn’t look like time has done him many favors since he was almost a movie star (remember “Shattered”?). Ellen Page’s part is basically to be exposition-girl, asking all the dumb questions about how it all works, so the audience understands the mechanics of dream-time. She does a decent job with an underwritten part. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is interesting as always, and it seems like Nolan asked him to not do his trademark smirk and he’s better for it. I barely recognized Tom Hardy from “Bronson” – see it if you haven’t already; it’s an acting tour de force. Here’s he’s the wily outsider who comes in to help with a crucial aspect of the reverse heist.

For all its flaws, “Inception” is still the most interesting movie to come out this summer. It’s not a sequel, it’s not dumber than a bag of hammers, it’s not a comic book adaptation, and it’s not animated. It’s an actual original movie, written for the screen. Who knew they still made those?

ADAM:

Okay, okay. I jump into this review of Christopher Nolan’s film “Inception” with the knowledge that Lars and I will probably be more apart in opinion than usual. It’s a weird feeling; not only do we usually agree on the films we review, our parallel tastes as cinephiles go very deep — through the 90’s, 80’s and way, way back. It’s almost scary. Still, sometimes you say potato, I say onion ring.

Also: I’m going to try to keep this as general as possible and devoid of spoilers.

This was probably the movie I was most excited to see all year, with the TRON sequel and the next Harry Potter close behind.  I’m a huge Chris Nolan fan. And as much as I love and respect Nolan’s Batman films, it’s the more complex, more cerebral, noir-y Memento that made me a fan of his for life. Give me a thinking man’s movie, sprinkle in a little gunplay and I’m a happy clam.

Going in to the theater I was only apprehensive about one thing. This film is about dreams and the ability to enter the dreams of others, at first to protect or steal secrets. So many movies have tried — and failed — to create a workable story within the dream construct. Tackling this problem and succeeding would be a major achievement in my mind.

Walking out of the theater I had a different feeling. Not only did I think Nolan did as good of a job creating and abiding by rules for the “dream” movie genre, but I think he solidified himself as a torch carrier for dark, action-filled, cerebral films the way I classify Michael Mann.  In fact, I believe if Michael Mann could wrap his head around the kind of abstract thinking involved in writing Inception, the film I saw would be very close to what he’d produce.

There’s no question that the first half of the film is better than the second — Nolan does a great (if a little too expositional) job of setting up the rules of the game we’re about to witness. We meet Cobb (Leo DiCaprio), a man with a troubled past who works as a type of black bag operative, hired by shady scions of big business to infiltrate the minds of their adversaries and enemies through dreams. Cobb and his sidekick Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) specialize in ferreting out the secrets people hide in their deepest subconscious.  When a Japanese tycoon named Saito (Ken Watanabe) makes Cobb and offer he can’t refuse — a chance to overcome his shady, troubled past,  Cobb enlists the help of a young up-and-coming Architect, Ariadne, played by Ellen Page.  That ‘external storyline’ — the inception itself — planting an idea inside of someone’s head is a bit thin. But I liked the balance between that story and Cobb’s inner struggle about his wife, Mal (Marianne Cotillard). Nolan knows flawed heros, understands pace, is brilliant at visualization and mood and knows how to build suspense.  The “levels of dreams” can be a bit exhausting, but Nolan needs these shifts of time and locations to literally buy himself time to tie off loose ends and make the story work. And it does work.

He gets very good performances across the board, from DiCaprio and Cotillard as expected, Page makes her job in Juno look not like a fluke, Gordon-Levitt continues to improve and may be at he is best here surrounded by better class horses than usual, and Tom Hardy as Eames gets the best lines and shows why he’s still one of the best kept secrets in Hollywood.  Michael Caine, Pete Postlethwaite, Cillian Murphy and Lukas Haas have little to do in essentially cameos, and Tom Berenger is good in his role, but may actually look worse alive than Postlethewaite does dead.

1 note 

*

“Splice”Written by Vincenzo Natali & Antoinette Terry Bryant and Doug Taylor, based on the story by Vincenzo Natali & Antoinette Terry Bryant; Directed by Vincenzo Natali; Stars Adrian Brody, Sarah Polley and Delphine Chaneac. Story: A couple who work as genetic scientists decide to take their gene splicing a step too far when they introduce human genes into the mix and create more than they bargained for. Seen by Adam and Lars June 13, 2010 LARS:It has been a shitty summer for movies so far. A steady stream of sequels to movies people vaguely remember were once good, remakes of old TV shows that were not even good in the first place, and films based on computer games. It’s as if Hollywood had once and for all decided that originality is way overrated, so why even pretend? Instead of great stories, they feed us a steady stream of movies in 3D as an excuse for making shit blow up in more dimensions. I’m not buying it, guys; you can only bronze turds for so long before you’re found out. I predict it’ll be soon, unless you stop treating the consumers like utter morons. Remember where you read it first: 3D is already a failure and a false savior. There. Rant over. Well, maybe not quite.Anyway, today’s task is not to be a grumpy old cineaste pining for just one decent movie, but to review “Splice”.The director of “Splice”, Vincenzo Natali, was the man behind one of my favorite sci-fi/psychological thrillers, “Cube” from 1997. It was a taut little drama with a concept so high you had to stand on your tippy toes to accept it, but somehow he managed to pull it off and make it great on no budget and with a cast of unknowns. That should have given him an invitation to the ball and at least a stab at doing something interesting in Hollywood. Instead he spent the next 13 years making movies you’ve never heard about and that you don’t want to see. No, trust me on this, you don’t.This makes you wonder how he got “Splice” made, doesn’t it. As both the director and the writer of the screenplay, this movie is as close to an auteur project for Natali as he’ll ever get. So with “Cube” in mind, and after hearing whispers that this was an underrated summer movie that might actually be worth seeing, Adam and I went in high spirits, hoping to see something original. And, boy, is “Splice” ever original…I have a theory about how Natali managed to get two excellent actors like Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley to play the leads in the film. They must have read the first half of the script, called their agents in a rush and said hell, yes, I’ll do this. Then some contractual obligations probably came into play, as they desperately tried to wriggle out of their obligations after reading the second half of the script.The film does start out very promising. Brody and Polley play two young scientists and lovers whose research into genetics have taken them to a point, where they are within spitting distance of a major, world-changing breakthrough. As always, when Dr Faustus rolls out a tempting contract, someone is standing ready to sign it. And so our intrepid heroes end up creating a genetic oddity of a human mixed with several other animals DNA. So far, so timely.“Splice” then turns into a fascinating study of how human are genetically coded to protect something you’ve created, something that needs your love and protection, no matter how alien it may seem. Up till this point, it is a good, if not great movie. It’s when the creature the scientists made grows up – which happens very fast – and turns into an odd, but not ugly looking, creature that is all goes sideways.Adam suggested an alternative title to the movie could have been the epic “Honey, I Fucked the Science Experiment”, a title that would at least have tipped you off to the fact that something utterly preposterous was about to happen. Other alternative titles could include “Don’t Mess with the Hermaphrodite” or “Strange Wings (One Day I’ll Fly Away)”.Needless to say, and without spoiling the movie too much, it turns from a psychological drama and character study into unintentional high comedy so preposterous that both Adam and I looked at each other after the screening and said, “Wow. Just wow.” I mean, there are movies with disappointing endings, where you’ll kind of accept it, because the rest of the flick is so good. Then there are movies, where the ending makes the rest of the movie seem better than it really is. But I’ve never before seen a movie that gave me the impression that the writers made a decision to shoot liquid LSD into their eyeballs before writing the 3rd act of the screenplay.The final analysis has to be that “Splice” is a miss for Natali. The first half, even two-thirds of the movie work quite well and are almost completely believable as a likely outcome of messing with things that are just beyond our knowledge. If only someone had sat out the drug-fuelled insanity or had snatched the computer from the writers’ room, while they came down, it could have been a decent movie.Still, catch it on DVD. If only for the surrealness of it all. ADAM:Like my counterpart mentioned: Wow, just wow. I’ll keep it short and sweet… Spoiler alert! [Like you give a shit.] “Splice” has a nice set up – rather than the innocent, well-intentioned scientist(s) forced into immoral decisions by an authority figure (Aliens), it’s a self-induced descent into moral madness (The Fly). But here, the morally inept aren’t subjecting themselves to the madness physically, they’re manipulating the DNA of multiple organisms, including human, in order to crack the code on many incurable diseases. And when the experiment “works,” the emotional madness begins.The film is a chameleon-like propaganda piece; I can’t decide which insane pseudo lobbyist group /slash/ wacky non-profit cause deserves the right to use this as ammunition to further their fight because the leading moral violations change from scene to scene. At the cost of giving a little too much away (see it anyway, you won’t believe your eyes) the film escalates from a cautionary tale about cloning and stem cell research to one about creating life for the sake of an experiment to falling in love and consummating that love with a human-animal-vegetable mutation. With gills. And wings. I’ll take a short break while you go back and read that last part again. I fear Oscar winner Adrian Brody has either spent all of his money, was struck on the head by said Oscar, or both. To add complication to his character’s perverted insanity, the victim of his mutant raping changes from female to male in the third act, so Adrian’s character has some issues to deal with: Should he have stopped his girlfriend (played by Sarah Polley) from going through with the experiment in the first place? Should he have put his foot down when she gets so caught up in caring for “Dren” (Nerd backwards, on purpose) that she puts Dren in a Shirley Temple dress? And after learning that his test tube slam-piece has changed from female to male, does banging Mr.+Mrs. Creature from the black lagoon make him gay? Bi? It’s at this point that one might wonder how the balance of power in the film could ever shift again. Brody has slept with the family experiment, shaming himself, disrespecting his girlfriend and most likely breaking any rules and/or laws of science, medicine, decency and sanity (at least in every state but New Jersey). So how can all that is wrong become right? Let me rephrase: how can Brody and Polley seemingly find common ground? Only by Polley getting raped by the winged, gilled, and now dominant male monster, of course. Then and only then, when it’s an eye for an eye and a rape for a rape that everything seems right in the world again.

“Splice”

Written by Vincenzo Natali & Antoinette Terry Bryant and Doug Taylor, based on the story by Vincenzo Natali & Antoinette Terry Bryant; Directed by Vincenzo Natali; Stars Adrian Brody, Sarah Polley and Delphine Chaneac. Story: A couple who work as genetic scientists decide to take their gene splicing a step too far when they introduce human genes into the mix and create more than they bargained for.

Seen by Adam and Lars June 13, 2010

LARS:

It has been a shitty summer for movies so far. A steady stream of sequels to movies people vaguely remember were once good, remakes of old TV shows that were not even good in the first place, and films based on computer games. It’s as if Hollywood had once and for all decided that originality is way overrated, so why even pretend? Instead of great stories, they feed us a steady stream of movies in 3D as an excuse for making shit blow up in more dimensions. I’m not buying it, guys; you can only bronze turds for so long before you’re found out. I predict it’ll be soon, unless you stop treating the consumers like utter morons. Remember where you read it first: 3D is already a failure and a false savior. There. Rant over. Well, maybe not quite.

Anyway, today’s task is not to be a grumpy old cineaste pining for just one decent movie, but to review “Splice”.

The director of “Splice”, Vincenzo Natali, was the man behind one of my favorite sci-fi/psychological thrillers, “Cube” from 1997. It was a taut little drama with a concept so high you had to stand on your tippy toes to accept it, but somehow he managed to pull it off and make it great on no budget and with a cast of unknowns. That should have given him an invitation to the ball and at least a stab at doing something interesting in Hollywood. Instead he spent the next 13 years making movies you’ve never heard about and that you don’t want to see. No, trust me on this, you don’t.

This makes you wonder how he got “Splice” made, doesn’t it. As both the director and the writer of the screenplay, this movie is as close to an auteur project for Natali as he’ll ever get. So with “Cube” in mind, and after hearing whispers that this was an underrated summer movie that might actually be worth seeing, Adam and I went in high spirits, hoping to see something original. And, boy, is “Splice” ever original…

I have a theory about how Natali managed to get two excellent actors like Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley to play the leads in the film. They must have read the first half of the script, called their agents in a rush and said hell, yes, I’ll do this. Then some contractual obligations probably came into play, as they desperately tried to wriggle out of their obligations after reading the second half of the script.

The film does start out very promising. Brody and Polley play two young scientists and lovers whose research into genetics have taken them to a point, where they are within spitting distance of a major, world-changing breakthrough. As always, when Dr Faustus rolls out a tempting contract, someone is standing ready to sign it. And so our intrepid heroes end up creating a genetic oddity of a human mixed with several other animals DNA. So far, so timely.

“Splice” then turns into a fascinating study of how human are genetically coded to protect something you’ve created, something that needs your love and protection, no matter how alien it may seem. Up till this point, it is a good, if not great movie. It’s when the creature the scientists made grows up – which happens very fast – and turns into an odd, but not ugly looking, creature that is all goes sideways.

Adam suggested an alternative title to the movie could have been the epic “Honey, I Fucked the Science Experiment”, a title that would at least have tipped you off to the fact that something utterly preposterous was about to happen. Other alternative titles could include “Don’t Mess with the Hermaphrodite” or “Strange Wings (One Day I’ll Fly Away)”.

Needless to say, and without spoiling the movie too much, it turns from a psychological drama and character study into unintentional high comedy so preposterous that both Adam and I looked at each other after the screening and said, “Wow. Just wow.” I mean, there are movies with disappointing endings, where you’ll kind of accept it, because the rest of the flick is so good. Then there are movies, where the ending makes the rest of the movie seem better than it really is. But I’ve never before seen a movie that gave me the impression that the writers made a decision to shoot liquid LSD into their eyeballs before writing the 3rd act of the screenplay.

The final analysis has to be that “Splice” is a miss for Natali. The first half, even two-thirds of the movie work quite well and are almost completely believable as a likely outcome of messing with things that are just beyond our knowledge. If only someone had sat out the drug-fuelled insanity or had snatched the computer from the writers’ room, while they came down, it could have been a decent movie.

Still, catch it on DVD. If only for the surrealness of it all.

ADAM:

Like my counterpart mentioned: Wow, just wow.
I’ll keep it short and sweet…
Spoiler alert! [Like you give a shit.]

“Splice” has a nice set up – rather than the innocent, well-intentioned scientist(s) forced into immoral decisions by an authority figure (Aliens), it’s a self-induced descent into moral madness (The Fly). But here, the morally inept aren’t subjecting themselves to the madness physically, they’re manipulating the DNA of multiple organisms, including human, in order to crack the code on many incurable diseases. And when the experiment “works,” the emotional madness begins.

The film is a chameleon-like propaganda piece; I can’t decide which insane pseudo lobbyist group /slash/ wacky non-profit cause deserves the right to use this as ammunition to further their fight because the leading moral violations change from scene to scene. At the cost of giving a little too much away (see it anyway, you won’t believe your eyes) the film escalates from a cautionary tale about cloning and stem cell research to one about creating life for the sake of an experiment to falling in love and consummating that love with a human-animal-vegetable mutation. With gills. And wings. I’ll take a short break while you go back and read that last part again.

I fear Oscar winner Adrian Brody has either spent all of his money, was struck on the head by said Oscar, or both. To add complication to his character’s perverted insanity, the victim of his mutant raping changes from female to male in the third act, so Adrian’s character has some issues to deal with: Should he have stopped his girlfriend (played by Sarah Polley) from going through with the experiment in the first place? Should he have put his foot down when she gets so caught up in caring for “Dren” (Nerd backwards, on purpose) that she puts Dren in a Shirley Temple dress? And after learning that his test tube slam-piece has changed from female to male, does banging Mr.+Mrs. Creature from the black lagoon make him gay? Bi?

It’s at this point that one might wonder how the balance of power in the film could ever shift again. Brody has slept with the family experiment, shaming himself, disrespecting his girlfriend and most likely breaking any rules and/or laws of science, medicine, decency and sanity (at least in every state but New Jersey). So how can all that is wrong become right? Let me rephrase: how can Brody and Polley seemingly find common ground? Only by Polley getting raped by the winged, gilled, and now dominant male monster, of course. Then and only then, when it’s an eye for an eye and a rape for a rape that everything seems right in the world again.

*

“Sex and the City 2”Written and Directed by Michael Patrick King; inspired by the Book by Candice Bushnell and the Television Series, Created by Darren Star; Stars Sarah Jessica Parker, Kristin Davis Cynthia Nixon and Kim Cattrall. Story: Frustrated by their everyday lives that have fallen into a rut, the girls jump for a chance at an international road trip when Samantha’s work brings the opportunity. Seen June 1st, by Guest Reviewer, Dana Scanlan DANA:Thanks to Lars and Adam for asking me to contribute to their blog. In the spirit of the brutal honesty they have fostered, I have a few things to say about Sex and the City 2…The franchise seemed played out, the previews looked ridiculous, the buzz was all bad and still I went to see SATC 2, hopeful that it would exceed my (very low) expectations. Sadly, it was far worse than I could have imagined. After two hours and thirty minutes of stupid puns, (“He’s Lawrence of my Labia”), a weak story and blatantly unsympathetic characters, I found myself sprinting to the bar downstairs to drown my own sorrows in Cosmopolitans. It usually follows that if a studio saturates the market with round the clock press just before the release of a movie, it’s a sure bomb and the studio is just trying to troubleshoot — hoping for a monster opening weekend before word of mouth kills it. Actor interviews leading up to the release were filled with all the same buzz words, “a romp” a “Hope and Crosby like road movie”, “it’s all about the fashion – Carrie, alone, has 49 outfits…” It was as if they were all reading from the same list of studio approved sound bytes. And, btw… a Hope and Crosby road movie? Seriously? If that’s how they are promoting this thing, who is the target demographic — my grandmother? Her grandmother? The press frenzy and desperation to make SATC 2 an EVENT should have been an indication that they were scrambling. The story thread picks up two years after Carrie got everything she ever wanted… She married her uber-rich prince charming, Big, and should have sailed into the sunset to continue buying Manolo’s and boring her readers with her whiny musings on love and relationships in the big city. But now that she has everything, Carrie is still not happy. She wants to go out every night and pouts when her hard working husband wants to stay in, order take-out and cuddle a few nights a week. She fears that they are becoming a boring married couple and is aghast when Big installs a television in their bedroom — sure this marks the beginning of the end for her youth and status as a hip Manhattanite, with a great fashion sense. Carrie’s cohorts are equally restless: Miranda is stalling at work, feeling oppressed by a boss who doesn’t want to hear her opinions; Charlotte is overwhelmed raising a toddler and a five year old, despite having a full time nanny; and Samantha is trying to fight menopause with organic concoctions she is required to rub on her vagina twenty- four seven. And she does. In her office — which has glass walls. When Samantha is invited to travel to Abu Dhabi to meet with a sheik about promoting it as THE up and coming resort destination, she suggests her three besties join her on the press tour. The “ladies” jump at the chance to get away and flee all their problems in New York. And thus, begins the “romp” portion of the movie. In Abu Dhabi, they are treated to fancy cars, world-class accommodations, personal butlers and camel rides in the dunes. They dine and drink champagne like royalty in beautiful tents constructed for their comfort, wearing outfits that become more and more insane as the trip progresses. But these ladies are tough – braving the heat and desert sands draped in many layers of clothing and sporting six-inch high heels – all in the name of fashion. Still Carrie worries about the freshness of her relationship with Big. And when she runs into old flame Aidan, she slathers on the kohl eyeliner and flirts up a storm, which results in a furtive kiss. Now Carrie has to decide if she should tell Big or keep the kiss to herself. Meanwhile, Samantha flaunts her sexuality, refusing to respect the customs of the Middle East. And Charlotte and Miranda bond over how difficult it is to be a mother. The characters are all so desperate and lame; it’s hard to care about any of them. Samantha has become an over the top freak and all the women in general are far less confident, realistic and empowered than they are in the early years of the HBO series. Once iconic “types” who real women could relate to, the characters have morphed into weirdly unrelateable cartoon-like versions of themselves that no lavish, wedding featuring Liza Minnelli as officiator AND entertainment, Abu Dhabi karaoke version of “I Am Woman”, nor desperate race through a souk dressed in shrouds and veils can salvage.

“Sex and the City 2”

Written and Directed by Michael Patrick King; inspired by the Book by Candice Bushnell and the Television Series, Created by Darren Star; Stars Sarah Jessica Parker, Kristin Davis Cynthia Nixon and Kim Cattrall. Story: Frustrated by their everyday lives that have fallen into a rut, the girls jump for a chance at an international road trip when Samantha’s work brings the opportunity.

Seen June 1st, by Guest Reviewer, Dana Scanlan

DANA:

Thanks to Lars and Adam for asking me to contribute to their blog. In the spirit of the brutal honesty they have fostered, I have a few things to say about Sex and the City 2…

The franchise seemed played out, the previews looked ridiculous, the buzz was all bad and still I went to see SATC 2, hopeful that it would exceed my (very low) expectations. Sadly, it was far worse than I could have imagined. After two hours and thirty minutes of stupid puns, (“He’s Lawrence of my Labia”), a weak story and blatantly unsympathetic characters, I found myself sprinting to the bar downstairs to drown my own sorrows in Cosmopolitans.

It usually follows that if a studio saturates the market with round the clock press just before the release of a movie, it’s a sure bomb and the studio is just trying to troubleshoot — hoping for a monster opening weekend before word of mouth kills it. Actor interviews leading up to the release were filled with all the same buzz words, “a romp” a “Hope and Crosby like road movie”, “it’s all about the fashion – Carrie, alone, has 49 outfits…” It was as if they were all reading from the same list of studio approved sound bytes. And, btw… a Hope and Crosby road movie? Seriously? If that’s how they are promoting this thing, who is the target demographic — my grandmother? Her grandmother? The press frenzy and desperation to make SATC 2 an EVENT should have been an indication that they were scrambling.

The story thread picks up two years after Carrie got everything she ever wanted… She married her uber-rich prince charming, Big, and should have sailed into the sunset to continue buying Manolo’s and boring her readers with her whiny musings on love and relationships in the big city. But now that she has everything, Carrie is still not happy. She wants to go out every night and pouts when her hard working husband wants to stay in, order take-out and cuddle a few nights a week. She fears that they are becoming a boring married couple and is aghast when Big installs a television in their bedroom — sure this marks the beginning of the end for her youth and status as a hip Manhattanite, with a great fashion sense. Carrie’s cohorts are equally restless: Miranda is stalling at work, feeling oppressed by a boss who doesn’t want to hear her opinions; Charlotte is overwhelmed raising a toddler and a five year old, despite having a full time nanny; and Samantha is trying to fight menopause with organic concoctions she is required to rub on her vagina twenty- four seven. And she does. In her office — which has glass walls.

When Samantha is invited to travel to Abu Dhabi to meet with a sheik about promoting it as THE up and coming resort destination, she suggests her three besties join her on the press tour. The “ladies” jump at the chance to get away and flee all their problems in New York. And thus, begins the “romp” portion of the movie. In Abu Dhabi, they are treated to fancy cars, world-class accommodations, personal butlers and camel rides in the dunes. They dine and drink champagne like royalty in beautiful tents constructed for their comfort, wearing outfits that become more and more insane as the trip progresses. But these ladies are tough – braving the heat and desert sands draped in many layers of clothing and sporting six-inch high heels – all in the name of fashion. Still Carrie worries about the freshness of her relationship with Big. And when she runs into old flame Aidan, she slathers on the kohl eyeliner and flirts up a storm, which results in a furtive kiss. Now Carrie has to decide if she should tell Big or keep the kiss to herself. Meanwhile, Samantha flaunts her sexuality, refusing to respect the customs of the Middle East. And Charlotte and Miranda bond over how difficult it is to be a mother.

The characters are all so desperate and lame; it’s hard to care about any of them. Samantha has become an over the top freak and all the women in general are far less confident, realistic and empowered than they are in the early years of the HBO series. Once iconic “types” who real women could relate to, the characters have morphed into weirdly unrelateable cartoon-like versions of themselves that no lavish, wedding featuring Liza Minnelli as officiator AND entertainment, Abu Dhabi karaoke version of “I Am Woman”, nor desperate race through a souk dressed in shrouds and veils can salvage.

*