Movies That I One Day Expect to Force My Children to Watch from 2007, Possibly Against Their Will

Behold! My favorite films from 2007 (in no particular order, save for the last two):


Juno - This was an exceptional year for hilarity. 2007 saw a veritable cornucopia of comedy unleashed on a world in desperate need of cheer: Hot Fuzz, Knocked Up (I can't deny how great the initial experience was for me), Superbad, Walk Hard (saw 1/3 of it but would definitely go back to see the rest), Gone with the Woman (Norwegian film I saw at the Toronto Film Festival), Ratatouille, Shoot'em Up (not exactly a comedy, but funny as hell--yes, intentionally), 300 (what do you mean it's not a comedy? Pfft.) and of course Juno.

I reviewed Juno way back in September. Loved it then and loved it when I saw it again this month here in NYC.

I honestly don't get some of the criticisms leveled at Juno. It's been repeatedly pointed out that the characters are too quirky and the dialogue too quip-smart. Well couldn't the same be said about almost any film Woody Allen has ever made or David Mamet? It's a style, first-time screenwriter Diablo Cody's style to be precise. And besides, Ellen Page in the lead role of Juno pulls it off with aplomb. The supporting cast (which includes: J.K. Simmons, Jason Bateman, Jennifer Garner and Michael Cera) is uniformly excellent, but the movie first and foremost belongs to Page. Her acerbic future-Williamsburg-resident Juno manages to endear herself to the audience and make us laugh at her barbed insights and observations about high school and suburban life. Sure she's way too clever for a sixteen-year old, but the bottom line is that she's funny.

There really seems to be a dearth of good young female comedic actresses right now (discounting television, I can only think of one: Anna Faris). XY has always dominated comedy, but at least in the past, there have been actresses who could match their male counterparts note for note (e.g. Diane Keaton and Meryl Streep). It's ironic that the highest paid actresses usually make their fortunes in romantic comedies, but none of them are really what you'd consider funny (I'm looking at you Reese Witherspoon, Meg Ryan, Cameron Diaz and Renee Zellwegger). I'm hoping more 'Ellen Page'-type actresses emerge in the near future. Also can't wait to see what Diablo Cody has next up her sleeve. Should also note that with this film, Jason Reitman makes a clean exit from the "I-got-here-cuz-my-daddy"-box. Round of of applause for everyone involved.


Superbad - I believe my unabashed love of this film is well documented.

Ratatouille - Brad Bird. 'Nuff said.

Once - It's a musical in a new-fandangled way that I heartily approve. Best romance film of the year. The songs are great and the leads have real chemistry (as proven by their real-life coupling). The accents take a bit of adjusting to (set in Ireland), but after that you're good to go. Original review here.

Gone Baby Gone - Perhaps the most solid genre exercise of the year (I haven't seen The Orphanage which I hear is fairly keen) and nothing less than total redemption for its actor-turned-director, Ben Affleck.


Persepolis - Retrospective of an Iranian childhood based off an award-winning graphic novel. This movie really stuck with me for a while after seeing it. Here's what I said back in September. Highly rec'd.


American Gangster - Best big-name, big-budget Hollywood movie of the year(I don't mean this as feint praise, seriously!). Denzel gives a performance that at first seems like his usual fare, but then I noticed some wonderful subtleties and nuances to his portrayal of Frank Lucas, the most respectable on-screen sociopath since Walken's Frank White.

And my favoritest (that's the supreme superlative declension btw) two films of the year are:

No Country for Old Men - The Coens' adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's eponymous novel delivers its themes with the same frankness as its title. I had no issue with the much derided ending or anything else in the film. In Anton Chigurh, Javier Bardem inhabits one of the two entirely indelible characters conceived on celluloid this year (the other is in the next film on the list). This was my favorite movie of TIFF '07 and it's held on to be my co-favorite for the whole year. Here's my earlier review. Nothing really to add, except I saw it a second time and it held up even better.


There Will Be Blood - Its title evocative of Old Testament retribution gives you an inkling of what to expect in this film. Still it doesn't prepare you for the advent of Daniel Plainview, a self-made man in the most primordial sense. Plainview's natural habitat seems to be the belly of the earth. In the early scenes this is where we see him most frequently, picking and probing, searching for whatever precious materials he can violently extract. He starts with silver and progresses to crude oil. When we finally get his formal introduction we find out that he's been moderately successful at it, but we also see the toll it's taken on his body and perhaps his mind. Prospecting is depicted as an endeavor rife with peril. There is a sense of foreboding in almost every scene that takes place in or around a shaft or oil derrick. The film does a spectacular job of conveying the constant dangers of the profession. These scenes also inform us further as to the nature of Plainview.

The peerless Daniel Day-Lewis is Daniel Plainview (that's right, without peer--not Depp, not Crowe, not Denzel, not Cheadle; he occupies his own weight-class--DDL is to other actors as Mario is to other gaming mascots; go wikipedia 'actor' right now--see? did you know he took a three-year hiatus from acting to become a shoemaker? A freaking shoemaker?? You're not ready!). DDL is never less than mesmerizing. He sears himself onto your brain. He's in almost every scene and you can't take your eyes off him. It's a bravura performance made all the more impressive because this is a character you don't like; a character you barely recognize as human, yet you empathize with him on a certain level.

A tempest brews beneath Plainview's almost preternaturally sharp eyes and as we come to find out what's at the heart of it all, what drives this man, the more we come to fear him and fear what he says about us. His connection to humanity is tenuous to start with and as we slowly see those tethers cut away, we begin to see how truly monstrous Plainview is. TWBB is not a tragedy. It's an honest-to-goodness epic. It is about the forces that created this country, the vestiges of which still form the core of our society. The themes are no less than the struggle for material and spiritual wealth and the internecine conflict this struggle engenders. And of course Plainview is a physical manifestation of the former.

There are three other crucial characters to the story outside of Plainview. Paul Sunday, his nemesis, a pale wisp of a boy given to histrionic evangelism acts as a counterweight to Plainview. Their gamesmanship dominates the plot of the film. Their disdain for each other can be summed up in the saying: "Game recognizes game." Plainview's ward, H.W. is also a pivotal player in the story. Much of the story hinges on the evolution of their relationship. The kid who plays H.W. manages to express volumes mostly just standing around observing in silence as everything unfolds. The third character arrives in the second act and although he remains for only a brief period of time, he has a profound impact on not only Plainview but our understanding of the man as well.

The score deserves special mention (actually, the music in any Anderson film bears mention). Jonny Greenwood's score doesn't work in the traditional way to give the audience emotional cues. Instead it communicates the mood of what's happening on-screen. It makes the tension all the more palpable in many scenes, ramping it up to near unbearable. The often discordant sounds are the perfect complement to Robert Elswit's starkly beautiful visuals. Greenwood's score reminds me of something Philip Glass might concoct. It's pitch perfect for the film. It'll be interesting to see if he makes any future forays into making film scores.

I've always admired P.T. Anderson, even if I haven't loved everything he's made. I thought Sydney/Hard Eight was solid. Boogie Nights was expertly executed drama full of humor and pathos. Magnolia felt overwrought (although he coaxed from Tom Cruise the best performance he has ever given). Punch Drunk Love might very well be my favorite romance movie ever. Of this generations most visible directors, P.T. felt the most enigmatic. After a few movies, it was easy to figure out what Wes Anderson was about and what to expect. Nothing wrong with that. P.T. on the other hand sort of confounded with his choices. His prior films all felt experimental in a way, an artist trying out different palettes. There Will Be Blood feels like his most focused effort yet and there is no doubt that there is a self-assured auteur behind it. In making it, he's passed all of his contemporaries: Tarantino, Fincher, Wes Anderson, Jonze, etc. He's distanced himself from the pack the way Coppola did with The Godfather and Spielberg did with Raiders of the Lost Ark. This isn't a knock against the other directors who've turned out some fine work the last few years (including Zodiac this year), but Anderson is just working on a completely different plane.

I'll have to watch this again. Soon.

(Interesting note: Both NCFOM and TWBB were filmed in Marfa, Texas--as was Giant (last James Dean film performance; Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, good film if you haven't seen it...))

Here's hoping 2008 has more in store than just sequels (no offense Mr. Nolan; still can't wait for Dark Knight, but I'm just saying...).

Good luck out there.

"You want me on that mound! You NEED me on that mound!"

In the wake of the Mitchell Report, sports pundits have taken out the extra-sharp cutlery and started carving up the largest names in the game. To this I say (in my best Cartman voice): “Screw you guys!”

How many of us could exist in a constant tempest of ego, fame and wealth, yet emerge unscathed? If you offered the average person 25K to smack his or her momma, there’d be a lot of women rubbing their cheeks right now. Now think about your contemporary professional athlete. These men get paid sums of money that would make Croesus weep. Their egos are constantly stoked, stroked and inflated to the point of near eruption. Their faces appear on television, the ‘net, magazines and billboards with more frequency than any actor or politician. Sycophants and enablers orbit them like satellites. We build temples that draw worshippers by the tens of thousands. And the broadcasts of these contests draw millions of additional adulatory eyes. Yet somehow we expect these people to be above temptation; we expect these people not to try and gain any edge they can in order to stay atop their perches.

Part of what makes these guys so good is their hyper-competitiveness. The various elixirs they took weren’t magic. These guys were still in the gym from dawn until dusk. They put in work. Probably more work than their non-chemically enhanced peers. They were just willing to go further. Should everybody be forced to do that? No. But if somebody wants it more than you and is willing to sacrifice his body in order to achieve it…in a way I have an odd admiration for that kind of zealotry. It’s like my ambivalence for the Frank Lucas character in American Gangster. He was morally reprehensible, but there was a brilliant cold logic to what he did.


I don’t like Barry Bonds because he comes across as a totally self-absorbed tool who can’t see the world beyond his own nose. I feel the same way about Clemens, too. Yet I can’t condemn them for what they did. After all, it’s no less than what we demand of them. We want to see a hundred homeruns in a season. We want to see a man defy probability, time and nature. We want to see superhuman feats. But then we cry out fraud when we pull back the curtain and see how it’s all done? Please. Where were these cries for purity when we watched the hypertrophied humanoids, McGwire and Sosa send ball after ball into orbit? Oh that’s right, we were too busy cheering, cutting away from local news broadcasts to televise their every at-bat. Now we’re claiming that we were duped? We didn’t know men shouldn’t have arms with the circumference a California redwood? As a former co-worker of mine is often fond of saying: “You look crazy out here.”

This might sound crazy, but I say let’em juice. We’ve got no problem with football players sacrificing their bodies for glory and fame. We just call it the price they must pay for the eight-figure contracts and other rewards. What happens when medical science produces a steroid or drug that causes great physiological gains such as increased durability, speed and strength that isn’t deleterious to long-term health? This will happen. Bet money. So when it happens, do you still ban it? As somebody pointed out, how is this different in spirit than an elite athlete getting LASIK to give him better-than-normal vision? You can’t stop progress. You can only manage it.

Athletes will continue to evolve. And the margins are so thin that they will always look for an edge against their peers. We all know this. I just wish we’d stop pretending like they’re moral state should mirror their physical one.

Seriously, WTF?

Click for a better view.

P.S. - The trailer is pretty much what you'd expect.

The Once and Future (Burger) King

New York is a city of superlatives. Not a week passes where you don't hear of someone purchasing the city's most expensive condo; making the highest bid ever for a painting; concocting the most expensive payroll(s) in sports history (in two different sports no less!). Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the notoriously high stakes NYC culinary world. Best Italian. Best French. Best pizza (especially best pizza). The holders of these titles are debated constantly. This is perhaps inevitable in a city with roughly 1.5 restaurants per every 1000 residents (I totally made that up, but it sounds about right). Establishments display Zagats ratings with the diligence and pride of Cub Scouts showing off their merit badges. As an unabashed foodie, it's as close to nirvana as I could ever want to be.

It's terrible fun to go out and actually see if any of these claims of "best 'x'" can be substantiated. If you asked me, I'm pretty sure I could tell you where to get the best cupcake (Sugar Sweet Sunshine), best seafood (Aquagrill) or best french fries (Pomme Frite). The hotly contested title I'm looking to weigh in on here is "best burger." You may say, "WTF, man? It's just a burger. Is there really a large degree of qualitative difference between hamburgers?" To which I'd say, "Hell yes." Some places undercook their burgers; some overcook them; others just make crappy ones (McD's, you may have fooled me as a child, but my tongue is all growed up now!). Then you have the bun: what's it made of? Potato bun? Sesame seed bun? How are the fixins'? Special sauce? How big is the patty itself? What's the bun-to-patty ratio? Sirloin or regular ground beef? So many parameters for such a simple food, no? So, I'll be weighing in on five contenders including:

Five Guys Famous Burgers and Fries
Shake Shack
Burger Joint
Dumont Burger
Corner Bistro

I've already sampled the first three, but I'm waiting to try the last two (both of which I've heard high praise for) before I deliver a verdict. I've pretty much expunged red meat from my diet, but the hamburger will always have a place in my heart (but not my arteries I hope). Beefcake! BEEFCAKE!! Sorry...

Upon Further Review

I was afraid I'd have the same reaction to Superbad upon watching it in the quiet confines of home as I did to Knocked Up. Fortunately my apprehension was unwarranted. I f%$#ing love this movie. There are a lot of subtle bits of humor that I didn't catch the first (or second) time in the theater due to the audience's laughter treading over some of the quieter retorts. I've heard both Jonah Hill and Michael Cera criticized as being one-note, but they both have perfect comedic-timing and that alone can make a decent career (see early Bill Murray, Will Ferrell, Steve Guttenberg). I haven't enjoyed a comedy this thoroughly since Talladega Nights.

"Do you know what kinds of foods are shaped like d!ck$? The BEST kinds!"

Yeah, the initial review stands and I'll throw in bonus points for how it stands up to repeat viewings. On a side note: the 'first-look' at Pineapple Express doesn't look very promising, but then stoner-comedies have never really been my thing (although I can't say I remember ever watching any Cheech and Chong...). Here's hoping Apatow, Rogen and co. can keep making the funny stuff. (And really, who would root for them to fail? Who doesn't want to laugh?). From my count, they've got no less than a half-dozen projects coming down the pipeline including the soon to be released Walk Hard (which looks...quite awful actually. I hope the trailers are misleading.) and a bunch slated for summer '08. I wish them the best.

Like an episode of The Twilight Zone gone horribly awry...

Most problematic ending for a movie since Alien 3 (which I'm counting as the epilogue to Aliens--despite fan protestations (my own included), Alien 3 still remains part of the canon). Thomas Jane deserves better. I like irony as much as the next guy, but that was just overkill. I was willing to forgive the implausible behavior of some of the characters, but the ending just...*sigh* If you've no plans to see the movie then by all means: (inviso-text spoiler below!!!)

So having escaped from the grocery store which had become like a miniature Jonestown, our hero and four other escapees including his young son make their getaway in his Landcruiser. They drive as far as the gas in the tank will take them, only to find the mist extends seemingly forever. The SUV runs out of gas and the hero decides they should all just commit suicide. They all agree and he takes a revolver and shoots them, including his 8-year old son. He only has four bullets so he decides to step out into the mist and have the monsters kill him. He gets out of the car and beckons them to come end his misery, except they don't, because the cavalry arrives literally in the form of the military and dissipates the mist and exterminates the creatures. This happens literally seconds after he gets out of the car. Thomas Jane sees the army and screams in so much existential agony. Boo!

Too clever by half, Mr. Darabont.

Please, please, please...let this be the nadir of the 21st Century.

So let me get this straight: a teacher lets her class of seven-year olds name the class teddy bear. They choose the (extremely common) name Mohammed. Parents find out and this leads to rioting and death pronouncements? Common sense issues its unconditional surrender.

Can't we move all these loonies to Madagascar and quarantine the island from the rest of humanity? Worked pretty well with Australia didn't it?

Jesus Killed the Radio Star

I've always enjoyed the work of Robert Zemeckis (especially Contact, Death Becomes Her and the Back to the Future Trilogy). He's not Spielberg, but he's not trying to be either. Like Spielberg (or more accurately Cameron and Lucas) however, technology fascinates Zemeckis and he's always pushing the boundaries. Since the days of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Zemeckis has been developing tools to expand his ability to create worlds for his characters to inhabit. I never get the sense that he's incorporating all this technology just because he can; it's almost always integral to the story.

Beowulf with respect to technology, picks up where The Polar Express left off. I never saw the latter, but I remember how eery the characters looked. The conductor modeled after Tom Hanks looked a bit frightening because of how glassy and lifeless his eyes appeared. There is a psychological-effect that arises from observing a creature that looks more human than not. As the mimicry approaches perfection, the more troubling the doppleganger appears to the viewer. Maybe they remind us of dead bodies; I'm not sure, but I know it freaks people the hell out. Beowulf doesn't suffer from this problem to quite the degree that The Polar Express does. For the most part, I marveled at how photo-realistic the CG characters were. Anthony Hopkins' King Hrothgar impressed me the most. It seemed to capture the essence of Anthony Hopkins completely and if you just happened to glance at the screen for a few seconds, you might actually mistake the animated character for the flesh and blood person. The technology is that good (with the exception of the Robin Penn avatar who looks a little too soft and less detailed).

Ray Winstone's Beowulf is an achievement, but for all of us who remember Ray Winstone in this:

"I...AM...BEOWULF!!!"

It's not just a little bit hilarious to see him portrayed like this:


Okay, so enough about how cool the movie looks. Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary have taken a much hallowed mythopoeic text and created a worthy interpretation not merely accessible to modern audiences, but relevant as well. (I don't mean relevant to the Iraq War or current credit-implosion driven economic woe, but "relevant" as in relevant to modern schools of thought and sensibilities.) The movie is a deconstruction (in the popular sense, not the way-above-my-head Derrida sense) of hero-worship and looks at a crucial moment in history where humanity underwent a paradigm shift in how we create/worship our deities. The importance of stories is stressed throughout the film. In the world Beowulf inhabits, the story defines the man. He is literally nothing without it. Our early introduction to Beowulf reveals him to be somewhat of an embellisher; as a narrarator he's unreliable. He's a braggart, but this isn't a necessarily negative quality in his world. He's the type of guy who might have killed a giant, but in the re-telling speaks about how he killed five, with his bare hands, naked, while shaking off a hangover. Either way, he's no coward and his actions speak just slightly less loud than his words.

The other theme that arises in the movie is how Jesus Christ came to supplant not only the old Nordic gods (Tyr,Odin, Thor, etc.--shoutout to the Norse gods for giving us the days of the week!), but the for-all-intents-and-purposes human gods such as Beowulf. Prior to Christ, in order to achieve immortality (which when you think about it is the baseline definition of a god) a man needed his name to live on in story, song, etc.; he needed some way to have his identity forever entwined in the collective human consciousness. The advent of Jesus meant that anybody could become immortal. All they had to do was accept Christ. Beowulf laments this development, stating with a measure of moroseness in his voice something akin to, "Back in my day, you had to earn it, guldarnit!" Not bad for what most people will dismiss as a 90 minute overly violent cartoon.

Gaiman has plumbed these depths before with the seminal Sandman series and in his novel American Gods. He's perhaps the best post-modern storyteller we have today. If I had my druthers, I'd teach Sandman in a college lit course. Yes, it's that good. And that's all I've got to say about that for now.

Go check it out. Preferably in IMAX 3-D. You live in a terrible and wonderful age.

Recommended Bathroom Reading

It must be pretty gratifying to take a lame-@$$ character from the 80s and make him cool. Kudos to Matt Fraction and Ed Brubaker (and David Aja whose cover art makes me wonder what Jae Lee is getting into these days). I breezed through "The Last Iron Fist Story" graphic novel and will probably get caught up with the current storyline when I get a chance. It's a good read (not better than Y, sorry) and might actually get me going to the comic book store on a regular basis again. Maybe I'll pick up some issues of Black Panther while I'm at it (the Christopher Priest issues anyway).

So Daniel Rand is the current in a long line of Iron Fists whose sole purpose is to, uh, do wicked Kung-Fu on all would-be enemies of their mystical homeland, K'un L'un. Okay, I can work with that. The only thing I remember of the original Iron Fist comic is him punching through the hood of a car, because his fist was, you know, as tough as iron. Fraction and Brubaker expand extensively on what an Iron Fist can actually do. Now we've got hypnosis, chi-powered weaponry, invulnerability and who knows what else. Okay, I'm on board.

My only gripe is the whole billionaire/vigilante angle. I don't know if that was in the original, but don't we have enough of those? Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Warren Worthington, Richie Rich...I guess it's about having all that free time.

Speaking of the Eighties, as I'm writing this, I'm watching Friday the 13th Part VI and the movie blows but has two highlights. First, there's a shot of a bunch of little campers in their bunks sleeping and one kid who looks about eight has Sartre's No Exit resting on his chest. Second, it has an awesome theme song in the credits by Alice Cooper called "He's Back (The Man Behind the Mask)". Sample lyrics:

You're with your baby
And you're parked alone
On a summer night
You're deep in love
But you're deeper in the woods
You think you're doin' alright

Did you hear that voice
Did you see that face
Or was it just a dream
This can't be real
That only happens, babe
On the movie screen

Oh, but he's back
He's the man behind the mask
And he's out of control
He's back
The man behind the mask
And he crawled out of his hole

You're swimmin' with your girl
Out on lovers' lake
And the wind blows cold
It chills your bones
But you're still on the lake
That's a bad mistake

But the moon was full
And you had a chance
To be all alone
But you're not alone
This is your last dance
And your last romance

Wow...much like our beloved hockey-masked walking abattoir, the Eighties will never die.

Quit Your Day Job

Ben Affleck is far more interesting behind the camera than in front of it. Don't get me wrong; I've never had any particular dislike of Affleck or his acting abilities. He just never took any roles that made me take notice of him. He's good-looking in that sort of bland Hollywood way. The best I can say about him as an actor is that he's inoffensive. However as a director, he's distinguished himself as a mature talent with a strong voice who (if Gone Baby Gone is any indication) will have a great run.

About halfway through Gone Baby Gone, I sat there thinking: "Okay, not bad. This is a pretty competent film. Fairly engrossing." By the end of the movie, I kept saying to myself, "Wow. That was really good. Exceptional even..." Gone Baby Gone is one of those films that leaves you with something to chew on afterwards, a sort of moral quandary in the vein of Seven or In the Bedroom. It's impressive that Affleck would choose material that's this challenging for his first foray behind the camera. Then again, it seems many actors who choose to get behind the camera are fairly intelligent and not just looking to make vanity projects. Sean Penn, Robert Redford and Denzel Washington are just a few actor/directors who've made some seriously respectable films. (Penn's Into the Wild is a perfect example.) Affleck lets his scenes breathe and although his actors get intense at moments, they never become caricatures or just chew scenery (Okay, Ed Harris does a little bit, but I love Ed Harris. He can do whatever the hell he wants.). Casey Affleck also deserves special mention. He's the real deal. I didn't care enough about The Assassination of Jesse James etc. to really give his performance in it much thought. In Gone Baby Gone, he sells the character perfectly and he has to otherwise the conclusion of the narrative would have felt false.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that Affleck pulls off his first directing job which such aplomb. He is after all the same guy who co-wrote Good Will Hunting, which required a certain level of skill to not come across as (too) contrived. He's obviously an intelligent guy. Regardless of how this film does, he'll have at least one paying customer willing to see his next. Word, son.

This is How You Stay Funny After a Decade

Everytime I watch South Park, I wonder why I don't keep up with the show more regularly. Somehow Matt and Trey manage to put out episodes that still manage to make me almost convulse with laughter and wonder how the heck they get away with this stuff. Ten-plus years of scatological humor mixed with social satire and it somehow keeps getting better unlike a certain Fox comedy that perhaps should have been put down about a decade ago.

The first two parts of the "Imaginationland"-trilogy have been absolutely brilliant. Take note Family Guy: this is how you work in pop culture references as jokes. As Cartman explained in the equally ingenious "Cartoon Wars" episodes, South Park's jokes are not just throwaway non-sequitors, but actually work in the context of the story. The "Imaginationland" episodes have managed to work in references to Saving Private Ryan, The Abyss, "Thundercats" and damn near every other 80's cartoon staple plus comment (in a heavy-handed, but nonetheless funny way) on the climate of fear created by the ever-popular war on terror.

How can you not love a show where Kurt Russell gets raped by small woodland creatures? Can't wait for next Wednesday.

Here's half of part 1 (the rest is out there too, if you just dig a bit):

South park 1110 imagination land part 1
Uploaded by Itachi117

Movie Recommendation of the Week (for um, next week..)

They sure as hell don’t teach you this stuff in American history class. If Ridley Scott’s new film, American Gangster, is to be believed, then Frank Lucas was one of the most notorious (and ingenious) criminals in modern U.S. history. Morality aside, I came away with what can only be described as admiration for the man. Of course you can’t really separate what he did from the consequences and repercussions of his actions (he was a part of a drug epidemic that brought Harlem, if not NYC to its knees in the 70s), but you have to begrudgingly respect his business acumen.

Denzel does his usual thing playing Frank Lucas. I couldn’t really picture anybody else besides maybe Don Cheadle or Jeffrey Wright playing the role. Don’t get me wrong, I like Washington, but you already know what to expect from him. He’s a superstar and it’s impossible for a superstar to get lost in a role. The audience always sees that guy just beneath the surface. It doesn’t detract from the movie to be fair though.

Russell Crowe gives a good turn as the incorruptible cop set out to bring Frank Lucas down. No scenery chewing, but then I don’t think any could ever accuse Crowe of doing that in any film save maybe A Beautiful Mind. I’ve always dug his performances from L.A. Confidential to The Insider. The rest of the supporting cast ranges from solid to great with special nods to Ruby Dee and Josh Brolin (the former Goonie has had a resurgence of late giving another outstanding performance in No Country For Old Men. Seeing how Sean Astin has made some good films in the recent past, maybe Corey Feldman’s next? Wow…).

I’m usually fairly cool to Ridley Scott’s films. Alien is the only one I love unabashedly. I don’t remember Thelma & Louise or (I’m ashamed to admit this) Bladerunner. I’ll have to add American Gangster to that sparse list. I don’t want to review the film, because I think it has some real pleasures in it that the viewer should just discover on his or her own. I’ll just say the picture is highly recommended. I'll be lining up to see it again when it gets its theatrical wide release November 2nd. I'd love to fly out to L.A. to watch this movie at the Arclight. Why can't they build a Cineramadome here in NY? It's completely unacceptable that the Left Coast should have something we don't. Somebody needs to get on that...

Braniac Dumb-Dumbs Bust the Scientifical

One of the world’s most critically revered music outfits decides to release their 7th LP in what can only be described as an irreverent interpretation of free market economics. The morning of October 10th I received an email informing me that I could now download In Rainbows, the unexpected (originally due out in ’08) new release from Radiohead. In a couple of months, I’ll receive the rest of my purchase including the vinyl, CD with bonus tracks, plus various sundries. All the hoopla surrounding how the band’s inspired distribution method would affect the music business writ large threatened to overshadow a much more pertinent question: Is the album any good? I’d say, well of course, it’s Radiohead, but of course that doesn’t suffice for the non-/casual fan. Well upon first listen, it’s clear the album won’t win any new converts. However, those of us who have watched (or rather listened to) the evolution of this band will find many subtle yet significant changes in how they seem to be making music. When a band has made seven full-length records (plus material for at least four more), some complacency is expected, perhaps unavoidable. In Rainbows is not the sound of a self-satisfied band.

I don’t think it’s possible for the three main creative drivers of the band: Yorke (frontman), Greenwood (lead guitarist) and Godrich (producer) to be complacent. I’ve always pictured Nigel Godrich (the band’s producer since OK Computer) as this not so much mad as intensely focused chemist constantly working to create something special with the elements of the band; always tinkering with the formula (on a molecular level) from one record to the next. I’ve felt like that since watching Meeting People is Easy which had footage of the guys in the studio. They seem like the type of people who’ll stay in the studio for days on end to get an interesting take on a song. Jonny Greenwood just seems to bring an inexhaustible reservoir of creative energy. And Thom Yorke? Well he’s my Dylan, my Lennon, my pre-Player’s Club Ice Cube. Together they’ve created some of the most compelling and innovative pop music of the last decade.

Looking back, Radiohead’s 4th album, Kid A was the equivalent of Tiger Woods rebuilding his swing from scratch. Observers wondered aloud why you would screw with perfection. When Radiohead released OK Computer in 1997, it was hailed as the most important recording since the Watergate tapes. Critics ranked it up there with Dark Side of the Moon and Sgt. Pepper’s. Such praise can be deadly for young artists. As Yorke succinctly puts it in Meeting People is Easy:

“It’s like a supply and demand thing…this is what they want me to do, this is what they want to hear, so I can do more of this, this is great and they love me…[this] can be the demise of so many recording artists, because suddenly they start giving you cash as well, suddenly you’ve got money and you get used to this lifestyle. And you don’t want to take any risks, they’ve got you by the balls…you’ve got all this baggage you’re carrying around with you everywhere. You’ve got all these things that you’ve bought or you’re attached to…that’s how they get you.”

So Radiohead goes into the studio and conceives a record that shows almost no trace of OK Computer’s DNA. Some interpreted this as an In Utero-style kiss-off to critics and newly acquired fans alike, but that’s not what it seemed like to me. I felt it was a group of artists saying, you know what, we just want to make music that’s interesting and honest; music beholden only to ourselves. Contrast this to Coldplay who after the success of Parachutes basically decided that they wanted to become the most popular band in the world. Hope it works out for them. No really.

Radiohead’s sound as I said earlier is constantly evolving. This evolution begins and ends with Yorke’s voice. As a friend of mine once noted, it’s as if Thom Yorke isn’t even trying to sing anymore. And indeed, he really doesn’t. He doesn’t so much sing as deploy his voice into the soundscapes the band creates. Granted there are still songs where he does just sing the hell out of a song (see: “How to Disappear Completely”), but often he uses his voice (along with deft digital manipulation) as an exceptionally versatile instrument (see: “Everything in It’s Right Place”). On the new album, that evolution continues with songs like Reckoner. The lyrics are difficult to make out, but Yorke’s voice drives this collage of sound that’s just downright beautiful. Radiohead began as a rather conventional guitar-band that began experimenting with organic and synthetic sounds, weaving them into a surprisingly cohesive tapestry. Others have attempted this shift. R.E.M. tried it out and I thought it fit well (see: “Up”; also produced by Godrich coincidentally), but they abandoned it. U2 got all experimental for one album (see: “Pop” which I dug a whole lot), but then decided to go back to what they did best. Radiohead continued on down the rabbit hole. Their follow-up to Kid A, Amnesiac went even deeper. Many of their songs are about alienation; lovers disconnected physically, emotionally or both; people pursuing each other, fleeing each other, seeking each other out in some surreal landscape; individuals trapped in perpetual discomfit. You know the usual. Radiohead’s songs are at turns claustrophobic and ethereal like being trapped inside the genie’s lamp.

The song I keep coming back to on In Rainbows is “Weird Fishes/Arpeggi”:

In the deepest ocean
Bottom of the sea
Your eyes
They turn me
Why should I stay here?
Why should I stay?
I’d be crazy not to follow
Follow where you lead
Your eyes
They turn me
Turn me on a phantom
I follow to the end of the Earth
Fall off
Yeah everybody leaves
If they get the chance
And here’s my chance
I get eaten by the worms
And weird fishes
Picked over by the worms
And weird fishes

I swear in like half their songs Yorke’s being devoured by something: wolves, worms, rabbits, you name it. It sounds somber on paper, but the contrast of the lyrics to the driving beat turn it into a deceptively optimistic song. I’m also partial to "Nude", a song that has gestated for well over a decade and appeared in numerous incarnations in their live show. It’s a melancholy song (surprise!) about what happens when expectations come to fruition (“Now that you’ve found it/It’s gone/Now that you feel it/You don’t/You’ve gone off the rails”). The opener, "15 Step" didn’t grab me at first, but a few more spins and I’m nodding my head especially to the nimble bass line that kicks in at the two-thirds mark of the song. I’ve listened to the whole thing all the way through about a half-dozen times now.

This is the work of a band in full command of their talents. It doesn’t try too hard to be different from its predecessors, but it has its own voice. It will take another good week to properly digest the whole thing. It's a shame I'll have to wait until next year to see them perform this material. Now if only the band could figure out a way to circumvent Ticketmaster the way they have the big music labels. I guess it gives them something to shoot for.

Old Dogs with New Tricks

Radiohead's 7th LP will be released as a download this coming week. Won't make huge waves on the charts for a couple of reasons: 1.) they aren't a gorilla on the U.S. sales charts (with the exception of OK Computer) and 2.) they're only releasing it as a download for now from their website. The really sweet part though is that for the download, they are charging--whatever you want to pay. That's right, you enter how much you want to pay for the music and that's what they charge you. That is so unbelievably cool on their part (thus ensuring that I'll be one of those 60-year olds paying obscene amounts of money to watch them play thirty years from now like Rolling Stone fans). There is also the option to purchase the deluxe edition which comes with more songs, vinyl and artwork for the reasonable price of $40(UK). I chose the deluxe, because I figured I'd buy it anyway when it hit the shelves. So with the battered U.S. dollar the purchase came to a little under something like five grand. (When did the U.S. dollar turn into the freaking Mexican peso?) I don't even own a record player, but somehow it seems worth it.

I'm glad these guys find ways to stay relevant to the music world. They've got the entrenched fan base worldwide that will probably never abandon them, but they just give you more reasons to love them. It's like your girlfriend of five years coming home one day and presenting you with every back issue of X-Men just for the hell of it. I love you guys. "Why can't we just say that every day? I'm not ashamed!"

Essential Radiohead:
1. Kid A - (the album that ushered them to the top of Olympus)
2. OK Computer - ("When I am king/You will be first against the wall/With your opinion/Which is of no consequence at all..." - Paranoid Android, greatest rock song about emotional impotence, existential dread and unborn chickens ever. Ever.)
3. The Bends - (Coldplay before Coldplay)

BTW - You can check out the new album here.

About Last Night...

Comedy is so strange. You know, I watched Knocked Up opening night back in June and I thought it was fall-out-of-the-seat funny at times. I couldn't wait to see it on DVD, because I missed a lot of lines due to the crowd laughing so much. Flash-forward a few months and here I am watching the extended/unrated version at home and I'm thinking to myself, "Wait, what exactly was I laughing at?"

For starters, Ben's (Seth Rogen) character is so obnoxious that I can't suspend enough disbelief to make the relationship with Alison (Heigl) even semi-plausible. I mean, even if Alison wasn't played by the statuesque Katherine Heigl, I'd be pressed to believe he could get a girl to fall for him. He's coarse, crude and practically charmless. Yeah, he's funny at times, but those moments seemed far more rare on the second viewing.

I will say that Paul Rudd remains the most consistently funny thing in the movie. His riff on chairs in Vegas still felt like an inspired completely out-of-nowhere bit of comedy. Unfortunately, there's not enough of him and too much of his character's wife. Leslie Mann's Debbie rubbed me a little the wrong way when I first saw the film, but watching it again, her character was downright unbearable. Ben's defense of her in Vegas when he talks about her humor and kindness just doesn't ring true as far as what the audience sees. And it remains preposterous to have a character even suggest that playing fantasy league baseball is somehow worse or even on a par with infidelity. The only scene with her that I dug was the bouncer's takedown of her and Alison at the club ("It's not that you're not hot. I can't let you in because you old as f@##...for this club, not you know, for the Earth. You old, she's pregnant. Can't have a bunch of old pregnant b!#ches running around in the club. That's crazy."). Classic.

I also never realized how much Rogen's and Jonah Hill's schtick were the same. They both have this mode where they get angry and just launch into these expletive-laced tirades until they get hoarse. Granted, it can be funny (see Hill's Knocked Up deleted-scene commentary on Brokeback Mountain or his constant mantra from Superbad, "What the f@#$!"), but it gets old fast. I still like the guy, but I hope he doesn't lean on that comedic styling too much in his next flick, Pineapple Express. I'm still pulling for him to make funny movies. I actually enjoyed him in Superbad ("Did you just c@ckblock McLovin'? We're supposed to guide his c@ck.").

Speaking of Superbad, it actually does stand up to repeat viewings. Watching it a second time, I still found myself laughing jokes I'd just heard/seen a few weeks prior. Much credit to Hill and Cera. I wouldn't say it's as funny as what's for my money the funniest movie in the last few years, Talladega Nights, but it's a definite keeper. I should go rewatch 40-Year Old Virgin too. I remember thinking it was good but not great at the time, but I've never revisited it. Maybe I'll give Knocked Up another shot in a couple of months; watch it with someone who's never seen it; gauge his or her reaction. We'll see.

What a difference a few months makes. Wow.

Until We Meet Again, Peace TO

I wish the U.S. would just adopt Toronto so I could go live there with no hassle. One day...

The above photo (click to enlarge!) gives an idea of what happens during the festival. The Elgin Theater is host to many high profile film screenings during the festival. This year I saw Persepolis opening night at the Elgin. No matter how many times I've gone, I'm always astounded by how incredible it is inside. It's such a shame that these old theaters get decommissioned and turned into condos (like the beloved Uptown...man, I miss that place something terrible). As much as I love going to places like the Arclight in L.A., nothing beats one of these old dames.


The crowd in Toronto is always vibrant and full of film geeks like myself. Only at a film festival can you strike up a conversation about the works of an obscure (to the general public) South Korean director (in this case, Ki-duk Kim) with a random person waiting in line with you. Only at the Toronto Film Festival can you line up with 1500 other diehard film fans at a quarter-to-midnight, waiting to watch the latest zombie-flick offering from George Romero...and stand up with those 1500 people two hours later to give Mr. Romero a standing ovation for a job well-f#@!ing done. I love you crazy Canucks.

My only gripes:

1. What's with the Chinese food -- who makes General Tso's Chicken with fried rice? And the sauce had the consistency of rubber cement. Not good.
2. Learn how to make a good slice of pizza -- don't know if it's the cheese or the sauce, but it just ain't right.
3. Something needs to be open after 2 a.m. besides 7-11. Seriously.

That is all.

Look how clean the freaking subway is (click to enlarge)! The tracks are cleaner than the street outside my apartment. Ridiculous. Plus, they actually wait for you to get OFF the subway before they start trying to get on...even the teenagers. Must be something in the water.

Hey, Maybe This Won't Suck!

Never been the biggest fan of Iron Man, but this movie looks like it could be fun. I mean, it's got Robert Downey Jr. How bad could it really be?

Parting Shots...

Sukiyaki Western Django – Takashi Miike. Midnight Madness. Should have been a blast, but it was just okay. The movie was too long and it tried to have it both ways as a semi-serious western and all-out Miike freak-out. So at times the movie felt oddly restrained (only one castration and it was implied but not shown). The movie is Miike’s first English-language film—and I use the term loosely because the actors all spoke as if they were reading from a language instruction manual. Apparently this is intentional but the gimmick wears thin after, I don’t know, five minutes.

The crowd reacted pretty well, but I have to say it seemed forced especially at the end when after the hero kills the final baddy in the climactic scene, we all just sat there silent for a few moments before someone let out a “yeah!!!” and then everybody sort of started cheering as if they had been waiting for the prompt. Not bad, but not great. Quentin Tarantino had an extended cameo and he didn’t suck. So I guess that’s something.


Paranoid Park – Small film from Gus Van Sant. It’s a Dostoevskian tale set in the Pacific Northwest. A skateboard kid wrestles with his conscience and hangs out with his boys, grinding around the city. I dug it. I admire Van Sant. Here’s a guy who followed up the biggest success of his career (Good Will Hunting) with a shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. Sure it sucked, but just the fact that he even wanted to try it is impressive. I need to go rent Elephant now.


Across the Universe – I enjoy Julie Taymor’s work. I thought Titus Andronicus had some really potent visuals. I felt the same about Frida. Across the Universe is a musical set to Beatles songs taking place in the late sixties. If you’re not into the Beatles, I don’t know how you’ll react. I knew most of the songs and some of the new arrangements were quite inspired. Taken as a whole, I think it works for the most part. I got involved in the story despite knowing how it would turn out. I had to miss the last fifteen minutes or so, meaning I didn’t get to hear the finale which I’m guessing was “Hey, Jude.” (The main character is named Jude; his girlfriend is named Lucy; his best friend is named Max; there’s a girl named Prudence…you get the idea.) I guess I’ll go back and watch it when it comes out in the theaters. Not as bad as you might think, but didn’t grab me like Once.


Redacted – Brian De Palma’s Redacted isn’t really a good movie, but I’d recommend people watch it anyway. The acting feels amateurish which works against the gravitas of the subject. If you aren’t familiar with the story of Abeer Qassim Hamza then you should read it. It’s horrifying on every level. I understood what Mr. De Palma wanted to do here. The film is a bit experimental in that it attempts to incorporate new media such as blogs and YouTube-style sites as a means to deliver its narrative. George Romero’s Diary of the Dead does the same thing, but to much better effect.

Still, I’d say see this movie, because this story is so important. Of course it isn’t representative of the troops, but it does have something interesting to say about this war. The best parts of the film deal with the daily stress the troops endure and how debilitating it can be on a psychological level. It loses its footing once we get to the actual crime. The way the characters behave afterwards just doesn’t seem believable, particularly during their depositions/debriefings.

On a related note, a woman at the screening who said she represented an organization based here in NY that has been following the case said that these animals will most likely only see 10 years jail time. That makes me absolutely ill.

Top Five Films I Watched
1. No Country for Old Men
2. Juno
3. Rendition
4. Jihad for Love
5. Persepolis

You'll Laugh, You'll Cry...

Juno – This is the second film from Jason Reitman who did Thank You for Smoking a couple of years ago. I was lukewarm on that film. The topic and the humor felt dated to be honest. A comedy about the tobacco industry would have been better suited to the mid-to-late nineties than 2005. Even Aaron Eckhart who I usually love left me a bit cold. But I had heard a lot of good things about Juno and decided to check it out. I’ll try anything twice. The set-up is a 16-year old girl, Juno, gets knocked up by her quasi-boyfriend Beeker, played by Michael Cera. After briefly contemplating aborting the pregnancy, Juno decides to have the kid and turn the child over to a married couple (played by Jennifer Gardner and Jason Bateman). From there, the movie follows the same structure as Knocked Up as we watch Juno’s relationships with the people around her evolve as her pregnancy comes to term.

Ellen Page plays the lead character Juno and she’s got great comedic timing. The supporting cast is funny—especially Allison Janney who plays her stepmother—but Page does a great job centering the film. She reminds me of Thora Birch in Ghost World although she doesn’t play such an extreme outsider (Slight digression—how the hell did Scarlett Johansson end up with a better career than Birch? What happened to that girl?) Michael Cera in essence reprises his role from Superbad, but this isn’t a bad thing. He’s so sincere and affable; you never feel like he’s really acting. The way he delivers his lines is so perfect. I think he got the biggest laugh in the whole film just in the way he delivered one innocuous line in an exchange with Page towards the end.

Much like Superbad, the humor doesn’t come from outrageous situations or ridiculously improbable coincidences. It just arises naturally from the situations the characters find themselves in and their attempts to make sense out of their lives. At heart, it’s just a simple coming-of-age story involving really smart characters.

I won’t say Juno is as funny as Superbad or Knocked Up, but as a film it’s just as good. I can see more repeat-viewings than those other two in the future. As far as quirky teenage comedies go, it’s up there. And I don’t think it will succumb to the criticism that almost every comedy with an oddball lead character gets these days which is that it’s ripping-off Napoleon Dynamite (which I never liked). It’s a unique little film that I’ll definitely be urging people to check out.

Jihad for Love – A young gay man accompanies his friend to a boat party. Before they can board the boat, the police apprehend them and those on the boat in a raid. The young man is tried and sentenced to a year in prison. After serving this year (during which he was subsequently raped) he is tried yet again and sentenced to three additional years. Luckily he is able to flee to Europe before he can be remanded back to jail. Four Iranian men are forced to seek political asylum from the U.N. to escape being imprisoned or perhaps sentenced to death in their homeland for the crime of engaging in homosexual acts. Jihad for Love is a documentary about the persecution of gays in Muslim societies in the Eastern hemisphere.

In the most heartbreaking segment, we meet a young devout Muslim girl living in Paris named Maryam and her girlfriend Maha who still lives in Egypt. They see each other whenever they can; fortunately the penalties for lesbianism are far less severe than male homosexuality. At one point, Maha who seems much more comfortable with her sexuality, flips through an Islamic reference book that instructs Muslims what is and isn’t permissible and the punishments for breaking these laws. She tells Maryam that although it is explicitly forbidden under Sharia law, there is no real punishment for being a lesbian. This distresses Maryam. She states that she feels so guilty about her behavior and feelings that she wishes there was some punishment such as lashing or stoning—anything that might alleviate the anguish she feels.

The documentary follows the struggles of Muslim homosexuals who have decided to try and reconcile their faith with their sexuality. There are conversations about what the story of Lot really means about homosexuality and many visits to the local Imams whom these young adults turn to for guidance. The advice usually given (unsurprisingly) is for them to pray and get married. In another segment we meet an openly gay Imam in South Africa. Initially after coming out, he is subjected to death threats and basically ex-communicated from the community. Later he talks about how the community invited him back when they realized they had a huge problem in that they did not know how to deal with the emerging gay Muslim youths.

Perhaps more so than any other major religion, Islam has an issue with homosexuality. Christianity is far from perfect, but at least there are sects that not only tolerate but accept homosexuality. (Although I have to say the idea of “hate the sin, not the sinner” is utter bull$#!t—it still doesn’t alleviate the negative impact this can have on a person’s psyche when you say that what comes natural to you is evil.) Islam is younger than Christianity and has not undergone the multiple reformations that have allowed Christianity to better fit in with modernity. It is the conservative nature of Islam that has created this problem. It was good to hear during a community meeting in a South African Muslim community, a group of older women and men discussing the issue and deciding that they would not just blindly defer to the views of hardline leadership. After all, it is the families that make up the communities this most heavily affects. I would hazard to guess that the suicide rate among young gay Muslims is higher than Christian or just gay teens in general, at least in that part of the world.

I don’t think individual prejudices matter so much. I’ve never had the smallest dislike or issue with gay people. If they want to marry, let them. Adopt? Go for it. How does it affect me in the slightest? If you’re a person who thinks homosexuality is morally wrong, then bully for you. I hope you never have children. The problem stems from the institutionalization of that kind of bigotry. It’s like, hey, hate black people all you want, just don’t make laws enforcing it. Yet, that’s what we’ve done to the homosexual community in many parts of the world (including the U.S.). And if you can watch these people suffer underneath such oppressive circumstances, then what does that really say about your religion whether it be Islam or Christianity?

It bothers me that all these children are indoctrinated into a belief system that creates such destructive ambivalence, one that might never allow them to live a fulfilling life. Despite the qualms I have with these systems, I really applaud the efforts of those who are trying to change such systems from within.

At one point, Maryam and her girlfriend, Maha, discuss their regret in not being able to undertake the hajj to Mecca as a female needs her father, brother or husband to take her. Maha talks about how important such a trip is for all Muslims and how great it would be if one day they both could go. Maryam agrees, but goes on to say how good the trip would be, because it might give her the spiritual strength to eradicate the “unnatural” feelings she has.

As the director, Parvez Sharma, said, ‘jihad’ does not mean holy war; it means struggle. And indeed it will be. I hope this movie gets to the audience that needs to see it.

The TIFF Don't Stop

The Girl in the Park – Sigourney Weaver is an actress who I don’t get to see enough of. She’s up there with Meryl Streep in my book; both continue to get more interesting as they get older. The Girl in the Park is about grief and how people deal with tragedy. Weaver is a mother living an idyllic life when her young daughter is abducted from the playground. Flash forward fifteen years and Weaver’s character remains in an emotional stasis from the event. She’s divorced and working a meaningless job, living a desultory existence. Then a teenage screw-up played by Kate Bosworth (for the love of God, give this girl a sandwich—on screen and at the screening she looked like Skeletor’s sister) comes into her life. I’m sure you can figure out what happens next.

I actually liked the film for the most part, but I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it. It reminded me of a similar movie I saw at the festival a few years ago, P.S. starring Laura Linney and Topher Grace. Both movies had the same problem in that you knew where they were headed since they were firmly planted in reality. Weaver’s work is really strong here and Bosworth redeems her Superman Returns performance, but in the end it felt like hearing a story about someone that you really would have rather not known. The director comes from theater and I think the story would probably lend itself quite well to the stage. As a film though, it will struggle to find an audience.

Vexille – Another Midnight Madness movie; this time an animated one. Typical industrial dystopian future anime flick with interesting CGI animation with what looks like traditional animation layered on top—like they rotoscoped the CGI. Looked pretty cool, and it had its moments. Not sure if it was worth staying up until 2 a.m. to watch. Reminded me of a really long cut-scene from some Xbox 360 or PS3 game. I applaud the effort, though. Animation is a b!tc#.


The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – Brad Pitt was here in Toronto to promote this along with the other most photographed human in existence, Mrs. Pitt. I enjoy Mr. Pitt’s acting. Seven, Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club, Snatch, that little scene in True Romance…the guy’s pretty good. It’s a shame that his celebrity overshadows his talent, but I don’t think he or anybody else is shedding any tears.

Leaving this film, I didn’t really feel anything. I left knowing that Casey Affleck is pretty talented. Pitt does a good job as the increasingly paranoid and forlorn Jesse James. The movie is dialogue heavy which was a problem because for some reason the acoustics in the Elgin Theater are not very forgiving to dialogue spoken in low, stilted tones. It tends to echo. I missed quite a few exchanges, but I don’t think the words were really that important. The film is all about tone. It is a meditation on death and how men prepare and deal with the inevitability of it. Unforgiven did a better job of this though.

If you dig cinematography there is a lot to like about the picture. It looks beautiful. Other than that, I don’t have much to say about it. It’ll be interesting to see if Pitt can get an audience for this thing. It’s a long player. Nearly three hours. Maybe I’ll watch it again on DVD and see what the heck everybody was actually saying. Doubt it’ll change my opinion much, but you never know.

No Country for Old Men – The Coen brothers are like those kids that you used to know in school who you never had to ask what they got on a test, because it was most likely an ‘A’. These guys very rarely falter. Miller’s Crossing, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, The Man Who Wasn’t There, Barton Fink…they’ve crafted an impressive oeuvre. (Even their last two films have admirers).

Now comes No Country for Old Men. I’d put it right up there with the aforementioned. I really loved the hell out of this movie. Tommy Lee Jones has given some really great performances these last few years. I really enjoyed him in a movie I saw two years ago at the festival called The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada and I hear he gives another great performance in Paul Haggis’ In the Valley of Elah. He brings this world-weary air that lends a sense of authenticity to his characters.

Javier Bardem plays the saint of all killers. He is a psychopath in the truest sense. He operates on a completely different wavelength than anybody else in the film. Great performance and more than a little scary.

I love the way this movie plays with conventions. It follows what seems to be your typical chase-thriller narrative and then just…well you’ll see if you decide to go see it. Suffice it to say, I didn’t really expect things to play out how they did. One review I read said that mainstream audiences wouldn’t appreciate the way this movie plays out, but I don’t think the Coen brothers have ever really considered catering to that audience. They respect their audience and that’s enough for me.

The dialogue in this movie is perfect in the way Mamet movie dialogue is perfect. People don’t actually talk the way they do in the film, but you wish they did. I’ll be seeing this again when it opens wide and then again on DVD. Best movie I’ve seen all year maybe.

Real-ligious Talk with Bill Maher

Photo of Thom Powers (l.) interviewing Bill Maher and Larry Charles (r.)

Religulous – Bill Maher and Larry Charles (Seinfeld producer and Borat director) are making a movie about religious beliefs. Ostensibly the film is about finding out what people believe and why. From the clips that were shown, it seems more like an extended skit where Bill Maher goes and asks people questions about their beliefs and then makes acerbic (and funny depending on your sense of humor) comments about what the person just said. I don’t know if the guys are seriously categorizing it as a documentary, but it plays like a comedy where each person we meet just acts as a set-up for a joke or riff from Maher. This isn’t a problem if you like Bill Maher, but I’m guessing this film will appeal only to those who do. I’ll probably see it, because although I find Maher a bit too smug at times, I still think he’s funny.

Since I already don’t subscribe to any faith, I don’t expect to learn anything new. I’m squarely in the choir on this one. I think these types of films are good for young people who maybe haven’t made up their minds about religious matters. There seems to be a point where the ability to believe just becomes hard-coded into people, a point where no logical argument against a particular belief or for an alternative will be persuasive. I’ve always just been about avoiding dogma in general; it’s kept me among the faithless for as long as I can remember.

The screening was more of a dialogue with Bill Maher and Larry Charles as the film was still in production. Roughly 15 minutes of clips were shown. The audience responded very well (but then how do you not shake your head and laugh at a rabbi in Israel who describes heaven as a place where--swear this is true--pizza grows on trees). Both Maher and Charles talked about their religious upbringings and how they came to both be non-believers. Larry Charles had the most interesting story in that he was actually planning to become a rabbi (interestingly enough, he looks like an orthodox Jew with his long beard, hat and black attire). He recalls telling his father whose response was something like “Are you f@#$ing crazy? Just get bar’ mitzvah-ed and get the hell out of there!” Charles went on to say that it was the unsatisfying responses he received from the rabbis in his synagogue that caused him to give up his dream. He would ask questions about the Creation story such as “how come God had to rest on the seventh day?” The rabbis, he said, would yell at him and force him to sit in the dark in the middle of a giant empty sanctum for hours until he stopped asking his questions. Yeah, way to propagate the faith, guys.

The rest of the conversation dealt with how they put the film together and some of the locales they went to (Jerusalem, the Creation Museum, a store in the UK that sold Islamic garb, etc.). Bill of course spoke about Bush and how ridiculous/ironic it was that faith is one of the most important attributes a candidate in the U.S. must have and wear like a badge of honor in public, yet we currently have in office one of the most hardcore persons of faith in history and we see how well that’s turned out.

One thing struck me about how the various religions are portrayed on film: Muslims are always humorless. It never fails. The Christians are usually affable, smiling folks; the Jews are usually self-deprecating and really funny; the Muslims—not so much of either. Just once I’d like to see them talk to some more moderate Muslims like the people I know who are just normal people with regular personalities—and a sense of humor.

Maher says the movie might get released in the Spring, but that’s not definite. If you watch the HBO show, I’m sure he’ll be providing more details.

All TIFF, All the Time

My Kid Could Paint That – I had never heard of this kid until this movie. Amir Bar-Lev’s documentary about Marla Olmstead, her parents and the media whirlwind that engulfed their lives is fairly fascinating. What makes people like modern art? More to the point, what makes people pay seemingly obscene amounts of money for it? While the movie doesn’t answer these questions explicitly, I think you can glean some notion as to what does drive the modern art world. The movie isn’t so much about Marla. She’s just your normal 4-year old. It’s more about her parents and the controversy that emerges about the authenticity of her work. The film doesn’t outright come out to say that she isn’t solely responsible for the artwork, but the filmmaker’s position is pretty clear. In the Q&A, Mr. Bar-Lev stated that he still had an “amicable” relationship with the Olmsteads, but he noted that they weren’t happy with the final cut of the film. This film was a big hit at Sundance and you can see while. The characters are interesting in that their motives aren’t always clear (except for Marla’s art dealer, Anthony Brunelli, who has one very revealing scene that pretty much tells you exactly where he’s operating from). The film leaves you with interesting questions such as: if she didn’t paint them, should it matter; how do you manage a child’s success; does Pollock’s work suck because any schmuck with a paint brush could drip paint all over a canvas? Good stuff.

Gone with the Woman – Last year I saw a great film from Denmark called Adam’s Apples, so I figured it wouldn’t hurt to gamble with another film from the region. I picked this movie over Alan Ball’s Nothing is Private. I figure the Ball film will be out soon enough, but this film from Norway might sneak in and out of indie theaters before I knew it. I think it was a good choice. The movie is a sort of absurdist romantic comedy, a stripped-down version of Amelie. It’s the simple tale of a man who meets a crazy girl, falls in love and deals with the consequences. The protagonist has no name which fits him because his girlfriend, Marianne, seems to impose herself on him in every way possible. The highlights of the film include a very self-confident Peter Stomare as the nameless man’s confidante/swimming buddy (he spends almost the entire film in Speedos) and a few very funny dialogue exchanges. I didn’t really have any complaints. The film is whimsical and feather-light, but manages to deliver some nice observations about love. I can imagine this film getting remade here starring Zach Braff and Jessica Biel (hey, I like Scrubs, okay?). The film doesn’t inspire any strong feelings; it just makes you sort of smile—which is not a bad thing at all. If anything, the movie made me want to learn French and go marry some Parisian (does every woman in France look like Audrey Tautou?). The film isn’t that substantial, but it’s worth checking out on DVD again next year.

George Romero’s Diary of the Dead – Wow, I’m shocked how much I liked this film. In the back of my head, I’m like “how many times can you go to the zombie-well, George?” Yet, somehow this movie works. It takes place on the first night the dead start coming to life; so it’s set on the same night as the original film albeit in present day. A crew of film students is in the Pennsylvanian woods making a cheapie horror-flick when radio news reports start pouring in about the dead coming to life. The student who was directing the film decides to start filming the incidents taking place as the world starts going crazy, initially to the chagrin of his fellow students who just want to get home. So the film is shot as if from the perspective of this kid who records everything in sight. It’s not the cinema verite of The Blair Witch Project, because the DPing is professional and never distracts from what’s going on on-screen. However, it does create a distinct look that adds tremendously to the atmosphere of the film. This is a movie that lets you care about the characters, so when the isht hits the fan, you actually want to see these kids survive. Score one for George Romero in showing these young’uns how it’s done. The movie is smartly written with great dialogue and many funny exchanges. It’s also got its fair share of scares and gore. George Romero was at the screening and the audience reception was unreal. You had an entire section of the audience dressed up in zombie-garb. He received a well deserved standing ovation for the film and when he came up for the Q&A, almost every seat was still full. Quite an accomplishment at two in the morning on a Saturday night/Sunday morning. Definitely a movie worth checking out if and when it hits the theaters. I'd rank this film right behind the first two, Night and Dawn of the Dead. I think that’s it for horror films this year.

TIFF '07 - What I've Been Watching

They Wait - Ghost stories are tricky. When done well, you get The Sixth Sense or The Stir of Echoes. When done poorly, you get derivative crap like The Invisible. They Wait falls somewhere in between. The film is very competent, but it feels very by-the-numbers. The arc goes just as you would expect: some haunting type event or events occur; certain characters are in-tune with the spirit world and see these things; there is a mystery to be solved so that the spirits can rest; spiritually in-tune person is reluctant, but relents and tries to solve the mystery; mystery solved and somebody’s back-story turns out to be not so clean; spirit can rest in peace; spiritually in-tune person no longer haunted.

They Wait’s angle is that it takes place in a small Asian-American community in Vancouver, so the ghosts are Asian there’s a lot of talk about Chinese mysticism. But this is just garnish. At its heart, the movie is still your typical ghost story. Jaime King plays a mother whose little boy who gets his soul kidnapped by an angry ghost. She and her husband have just come to Vancouver for her husband’s uncle’s funeral. The family stays in the old factory/apartment building her Chinese aunt-in-law lives in. Of course weird stuff begins to happen and there are some good scares along the way. The problem of course is that there were no real surprises. Jaime King does a good job as does everybody else (save for a pretty much wasted Michael Biehn—why bother with him if he only has like three minutes of screen time?). The film is competently directed and looks ready for distribution. It’s a pretty easy sell and I can imagine the pitch being like “think Sixth Sense meets Dark Water” or something to that effect. The most interesting thing about the movie for me is that I bet the writer really, really, really wishes the movie, The Bone Collector had never come out, because that title would have been absolutely perfect for this film. Damn you, Denzel.

Frontieres – I understand why they keep making these movies, but I don’t think they are cool in the slightest. This is Texas Chainsaw Massacre set in the French countryside with Neo-Nazis. It is survival horror in the same vein as Hostel 2, Captivity, The Descent (which I quite enjoyed actually) and a slew of others. I wish the movie had been something else entirely, but it was a Midnight Madness feature so I can’t say I was expecting depth. However, the film alludes to the social/political turmoil going on in France right now, specifically pertaining to the growingly disaffected Muslim youths who live in the French ghettoes called banlieues. Could you have made a smart horror movie that also served as commentary on the situation? I think so, but this movie clearly isn’t it.

What irks me about these types of films is the sheer brutality and misanthropy involved. For some reason, I can watch a woman get strangled with her own guts in Mother of Tears and kind of laugh/cringe, but here just watching a huge brute of a man wail blows onto the waif-ish protagonist played by Karina Testa feels wrong and unclean. In the former, the whole thing is so absurd like watching your little brother stumble around with spaghetti sauce on his shirt pretending he’s been shot. It’s fake and everyone knows it. In the latter, the violence strives for hyper-realism and that makes it very uncomfortable. It feels like something a sadist would get off on. There are not really any sympathetic characters in the movie either, except for maybe one, a Muslim kid named Farid, but he gets the worst of it. The movie just feels relentlessly nihilistic. I prefer my horror flicks to either be trips into absurdity or terror, sometimes a mixture of both. These types of film just seem to revel in how squeamish they can make the audience. Not my cup of tea.

Rendition – Why Does Gavin Hood Hate America? So far, this is the best movie I’ve seen at the festival. I love well-crafted thrillers. Like Syriana before it, Rendition tackles the most pressing current issue: the U.S. war against terrorism. Specifically, the movie is about the methods the U.S. uses to obtain its intelligence these days. The title as Peter Sarsgaard’s character explains comes from the U.S. policy called extraordinary rendition. It is a policy that allows the U.S. to detain and export its own citizens to places where torture is legal. Since 9/11, the policy has been used to interrogate countless U.S. citizens. When these people are detained, they are denied legal counsel or even the right to contact their families. There was a widely publicized case that came to light last year about a man named Maher Arar who was actually Canadian. Anyway, the film focuses on a man, Anwar El-Ibrahimi, who is accosted by the CIA on his way home from South Africa. He is then sent outside the U.S. to be tortured and interrogated. The narrative has a few threads, although not all equally satisfying. Reese Witherspoon plays his wife who is desperate to find any information she can about her mysteriously absent husband. She does a good job, but her story kind of fades to the back with respects to the other main stories. Those two stories are about one C.I.A. operative's (Jake Gyllenhaal) internal struggle between conscience and duty and a young Muslim girl trying to rebel against the course her father has decided her life should take. Both are handled very well and although Gyllenhaal's arc is sort of predictable, it is nonetheless satisfying. Save for a few lines towards, the end, Hood's characters never sermonize and each is developed rather nicely. Definitely worth seeing again when it's released this Fall.