Inglourious Basterds

DAN - I've respected Quentin Tarantino's films in the past, but I've never considered myself a "fan." My personal DVD collection includes Reservoir Dogs and both Kill Bill volumes, each of which I've only watched a couple of times. Inglourious Basterds, however, lifted my appreciation for this filmmaker to a new level.

The word "visionary" is often associated with Tarantino. It might be ironic that he's often accused of ripping off other filmmakers, though he refers to his throwbacks as "homages." Either way, part of my newfound admiration for Tarantino comes from the niche he's created for himself. He made a name for himself in the early '90s with a string of innovative movies, and he's now known for his ability to write engaging dialogue - many consider him to be the best. Much of what I love about his newest film rests in what the characters say and how they say it.

Inglourious Basterds is more than just a showcase for violence. The bloody scenes are actually pretty scarce, though they can get pretty heavy handed. It's the dialogue in Basterds that stood out most to me. Tarantino knows how to craft multi-layered characters and put them in heart-pounding situations. It's like a fuse has been lit, and we're just waiting for the dynamite to explode. Several scenes in Basterds are works of art, thanks to both Tarantino's dialogue and the actors who deliver it.

Basterds features a slew of actors I've never heard of, and they're all fascinating to watch in their roles. Mélanie Laurent, Daniel Brühl, and especially Christoph Waltz are a pleasure to watch in this film. Waltz won the Best Actor award at Cannes this year for his turn as Colonel Hans Landa, who might be the most captivating character I've seen on the big screen this year.

I don't often notice the sound design in movies, but whoever worked on Basterds did a bang-up job. The sound in this film complimented the visuals in a way that provided a level of energy, adding to the tense nature of certain scenes. The sound design and cinematography worked together to create beautiful, startling, and terrifying moments throughout the film, all of which were welcome surprises.

I can't say Tarantino's films are for everyone. If you've seen any of his work, you already know this. If you're looking for an intense ride with an experienced, trailblazing director at the helm, this might be it. Tarantino is at the top of his game here, and for the first time this year, I feel like I need to see a movie twice in the theatre.

(500) Days of Summer

DAN - Director Marc Webb enters the public eye with (500) Days of Summer, an unorthodox story about love. The promotional material for this film made a point of avoiding the term “love story,” and rightfully so. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a man scorned by the woman he loved (played by Zooey Deschanel). The film recounts the course of our protagonist’s relationship as he attempts to understand what went wrong.

When I first saw the teaser trailer for this movie, I fell in love. The cast, the cinematography, the locations, the narration, and especially the music plucked my heartstrings in just the right way. I even visited the Civic Center fountain in downtown Los Angeles because of its appearance in the trailer. I was looking forward to this movie.

The final product barely met my expectations, which were decidedly high. I wasn’t emotionally involved in the story at any point, but I was thoroughly entertained. Webb and his writers (Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber) have made a satisfyingly original movie, but I can’t say it had a lasting impact on me.

Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel provide decent performances, though their vacant expressions seem to suggest a lack of commitment to the roles. As I said, this film left me for the most part emotionally untouched.

I fear I might be harping too much on the negative side of a film that I actually enjoyed. Webb uses a variety of refreshing metaphorical lenses to project his vision onto the screen. Perhaps the best part of this film is Webb’s innovative use of the medium as he explores the worlds of architecture, music, cinema, and true-to-life drama. There are a number of sequences that capture the energy of that initial trailer, and they lift this movie high above any thoughtless blockbuster.

In a somewhat unrelated note, it may be worth mentioning that I saw this movie in the same theater as Roger Ebert, whose review can be found here. Unlike him, I chose to keep the title’s punctuation intact.

Brüno

DAN - Brüno is Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest vehicle, a follow-up to his 2006 crowd pleaser of the same genre, Borat. The film is presented in a pseudo documentary manner, following the character of Bruno as he travels the world, seeking to overcome his recent troubles and find worldwide fame. Hilarity ensues... with a vengeance.

This is without a doubt the most raucous, awkward, sometimes frightening comedy I’ve seen since I can remember. I can’t help but be amazed by Cohen after seeing this movie - the man has guts. He repeatedly puts himself in horrible situations for the sake of comedy, and he makes the best of it.

Brüno is the most flamboyantly gay character I’ve ever seen committed to film, yet he somehow manages to be unoffensive toward homosexuals. It’s the reactions of other people (non-actors) in the movie that provide the film’s best moments, and Brüno is the instigator. Like Borat, this film features unsuspecting victims from around the world (but mostly in the United States).

Brüno encounters professional gay converters, macho huntsmen, a stadium full of angry, drunk rioters, and a sadist with a penchant for whipping the hell out of her cohorts. That’s barely the tip of the iceberg. Cohen was literally at risk of losing his life several times in the making of this film, but we can all laugh about it now because (spoiler alert!) he survived.

I wish I could keep going. There’s so much to love about this movie, but I wouldn’t want to ruin it by saying too much too soon. I’ll say one more thing: if you plan on buying a ticket for Brüno in the coming weeks, be prepared to witness personification through mind-bending male frontal nudity.

Admit it. Now you’re curious.

Cohen has cemented his place as one of the world’s top entertainers, and it hasn’t come easy for him. It’s the chances he takes that make Borat and Brüno so captivating and worthwhile. As much as I enjoyed this movie, I can’t necessarily recommend it for everyone. If you haven’t caught on yet, this is a pretty twisted movie. But for the right sense of humor, this is a gold mine. Just be careful - you might laugh your “auschwitz” off.

Up

DAN - Pixar has released a total of ten movies since the debut of Toy Story in 1995, and not one of them has been disappointing. The studio has stated numerous times that their primary concern is strong storytelling, which has worked well in their favor. Up is a character-driven story about an elderly widower who, along with an accidental stowaway boy scout, makes a long-awaited journey to South America.

Another highlight of Pixar Animation is, well... Pixar animation. The animators at Pixar are somehow able to breathe life into the characters’ motions like no other modern animation studio. I can’t think of any other movies that employ nonverbal humor so well. The animal characters in Up (Dug the dog and Kevin the... bird thing) are shining examples of how Pixar animators inject personality into their work.

While Up’s story may not be Pixar’s strongest to date, it still packs some emotional punches. Specifically, there’s a beautiful montage in the film’s first reel that just might leave you in tears. All of the featured characters experience some sort of drastic change during the film, providing for some strong points of conflict.

Pixar is currently releasing one new film each year, and each film is followed by whispers of a Best Picture nod. I doubt Up will reach such status, as its not the best film in Pixar’s collection, but this film is still lightyears above most movies in theaters these days.

Away We Go

DAN - Away We Go is the newest film from acclaimed director Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Revolutionary Road). The film opens on an unmarried couple, played by John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph, at the moment of discovering an unexpected pregnancy. The pair sets off on a cross-country trip with the hope of finding a place to start their new family.

I’ve always been pleasantly surprised by Mendes’ films. Road to Perdition has been one of my favorites since its release in 2002; I remember convincing my dad to let me see it, assuring him that I would be able to extract meaning beyond the violence. Mendes has a knack for examining relationships and the barriers that often tear them apart. Away We Go is a departure from the director's regular fare, and though it pains me to say so, I was disappointed.

This is Mendes’ least innovative film. It’s an amalgamation of the current trend of quirky indie movies that feel more hip than genuine. Mellow acoustic songs accompany people staring ahead with somber expressions hanging lazily over their eyes, as in any other film of the genre. I was sick of it before Juno, and I find it depressing to see an Oscar-caliber director follow suit.

Fortunately, a disappointment from Sam Mendes can still be a decent movie. Being a comedy, this film provides at least a few good laughs, including what might be the funniest line I’ve heard from a child.

Away We Go is ultimately a heartwarming film, but I’m personally tired of this style of filmmaking. Everything about this movie is so underplayed that I wonder how well it will be remembered in years to come. For now, this is a fun little film, but it could have (and should have) been something more.

Synecdoche, New York

DAN - Charlie Kaufman has written some of the most innovative screenplays of the last decade, including Being John Malkovich, Adaptation., and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. His newest film marks his directorial debut.

Synecdoche, New York is about Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman), an ambitious director who undertakes the world’s largest live theatre production: recreating the daily lives of thousands of people in New York City. Cotard uses this world within a world to make sense of his personal troubles, all of which revolve around broken love.

This film is packed with hidden meanings, symbolism, and intense introspection. The narrative is non-linear to a point where the story might be overwhelmed by its own convolution. I can’t say that I fully understand this movie. In fact, I’m certain that a good portion of it flew right over my head. But I love this film. It’s one that demands repeat viewings.

Cotard is a character with whom I can easily relate, though his narcissism is much more apparent. He uses theatre as a means of analyzing his own life, hiring actors to give lifelike portrayals of himself and those around him. Cotard’s dedication to his art doesn’t make his personal life easy, but his faux reality provides him with an escape from such problems.

I can’t write enough about this movie. I haven’t even mentioned the cast, which consists of nothing but talented people. If you’re unfamiliar with Charlie Kaufman’s work, I strongly suggest you make an effort to change that.

The Wrestler

DAN - Darren Aronofsky is one of the most visionary directors of this era. His previous films, Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and The Fountain, have become modern cult classics. The Wrestler is the least psychedelic of Aronofsky’s films, but it is perhaps the most emotionally profound.

The film follows Randy “The Ram” Robinson, a professional wrestler who is past his prime but unwilling to end his career. When our protagonist experiences health trouble, he turns his efforts to finding romance and mending a broken relationship with his daughter.

The Wrestler is a raw movie. Aronofsky isn’t afraid to let the handheld camera linger on his characters in quiet moments, allowing the audience to realistically experience the world of the film. This movie’s rough edges reflect The Ram’s lifestyle, both in and outside of the ring.

Randy is self-abusive both physically and mentally. He puts his body through hell for the sole purpose of entertaining his audience. His personal relationships are on the ropes and his heart takes a beating (ah, the puns). The Ram is like a less fortunate version of Rocky Balboa, but he has equally high hopes.

The Wrestler is one of the best movies I’ve seen in the past year. It’s a shame that the film only garnered two Oscar nominations, but they are well deserved. This film is worth seeing if only for Mickey Rourke’s career-reviving performance.

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

DAN - “The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.” This quote from the late Dr. Hunter S. Thompson is a suitable introduction to the man himself. Gonzo is a documentary about Thompson, a rogue journalist and author who gained notoriety throughout the ‘60s and ‘70s.

The film’s title comes from the term “gonzo journalism,” which was used to describe Thompson’s eccentric style of reporting. Oscar-winning documentarian Alex Gibney composed this film from archive footage and interviews with those who knew Thompson.

Those of you who are familiar with Thompson’s book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (or the film adaptation starring Johnny Depp) are aware of the doctor’s other-worldly nature. The unashamed pot smoker once ran for sheriff of Aspen, Colorado and was highly involved (no pun intended) in politics for the majority of his life.

A large portion of Gonzo focuses on Thompson’s role in the presidential election of 1972. The reporter adamantly supported George McGovern, who lost to Nixon. This was one of the most intriguing segments of the film for me, as I observed parallels with America’s more recent elections.

A two-hour retrospection is hardly enough to capture the essence of a character like Hunter S. Thompson. The author once said, “...the public version of the news or whatever event, is never really what happened.” This documentary can only go so deep into Thompson's psyche; it’s more like a beginner’s guide to the man.

Quantum of Solace

DAN - The latest James Bond film comes from Marc Forster, director of such films as Stranger Than Fiction and The Kite Runner. The story is a direct continuation of Casino Royale, which is unique for a Bond film.

I did not grow up on 007. I started regularly watching the franchise when Pierce Brosnan stepped into the role, and I’ve only seen a handful of the classic films. I, like many, was thrilled by Casino Royale when it came out two years ago. It fit the mold of a Bond film while simultaneously breathing new life into the series.

Solace isn’t as innovative as Royale; instead it seems to rely on the success of its predecessor to hold the audience’s interest. In that sense, I find it difficult to think of this as a stand-alone movie. It’s more like an afterthought of the previous film. And I like it.

The action sequences worked for me, but you’ll hear a lot of people complaining about them. I don’t need to see every punch and crash from a distance in order to follow what’s going on; in fact, that would be a little too disconnected for me. I like to feel each jolt as if I were in the middle of the action.

The main villain and his Chinatown scheme weren’t entirely memorable for me, but they served their purpose in allowing Bond to purge himself of lingering ghosts. He’s still a “blunt instrument,” but he’s on his way to becoming the suave spy we’ve come to recognize. This is the story of a man with a thirst for revenge. He simultaneously redeems and loses himself by fighting through the (literal) fires of hell.

__________________________

STEVE - For 46 years and 22 movies, audiences have attended regularly to see Ian Fleming’s iconic British spy. James Bond was a household name long before Michael Phelps was treading water. He was fighting Russians during the cold war. Ridding the world of cheesy villains through the 80’s and 90’s, and has been seducing women and drinking shaken martinis to the present, all the while evolving but still keeping the charm, wit, and rapport that is James Bond.

However, after 46 years it would appear that neither the producers nor director of the latest Bond outing have seen a James Bond film. Because I can tell you that this is not a James Bond movie. Where are the gadgets, the drinks, and cool cars? Q and Miss Moneypenny?

There are Bond girls, two, as are typical of all good Bond films, the first he quickly seduces and then tosses to the side. The other, however, gets away without even a hint of debauchery? What? How is this possible?

Every good girl knows that if James Bond offers to share his bed with you… then you take that opportunity. Sleeping with James Bond is the one exception to the rule when in comes to intercourse with strange men Okay… maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration. But nonetheless, things that are meant to happen in a Bond film, staples of the Bond convention, are tossed aside without thought or concern. No shaken Martini, no famous, “Bond, James Bond.” Not even a dry subtle quip or pun.

I grew up with James Bond. Watching old Bond movies with Dad over the holidays while stuck at Grandma’s is holiday tradition. I know what a James Bond movie is. This is not a James Bond movie.

This is a sad and tormented James Bond. Not that I have an issue with that, but A.O. Scott of The New York Times brings up an interesting point, “Is revenge the only possible motive for large-scale movie heroism these days? Does every hero, whether Batman or Jason Bourne, need to be so sad?” Indeed every hero needs something to push them while fighting bad guys, but does James need to be sad? Does he need to have revenge? I say no, Bond is better than that.

Overall, this movie is nothing more than a very mediocre, poorly edited, poorly shot action movie that had potential, but fell short of the mark. I still believe that Daniel Craig is the best Bond to date, rivaling if not overcoming the epic Sean Connery. Unfortunately, this movie suffers from being a little too Jason Bourne than James Bond.

Elegy

DAN - Isabel Coixet’s most recent film is based on a novel by Philip Roth. Roth has been known to write stories that feature sexually promiscuous characters, and this one is no exception. Elegy is the story of David Kepesh, a professor who becomes infatuated with Consuela, a student in one of his classes.

The film features Sir Ben Kingsley and Penélope Cruz as the two central characters. These roles require heartfelt performances from the actors, and they are successful for the most part. At times Kingsley seems detached from his character. He tends to stare blankly, which forced me to remember that I was sitting in a theatre, watching a movie. Dennis Hopper plays a supporting role in this film that, in my opinion, is one of the most authentic of his career. Patricia Clarkson and Peter Sarsgaard round out this noteworthy cast.

At first glance, the story may seem somewhat shallow. The relationship that develops between Kepesh and Consuela is immensely physical. Kepesh is accustomed to having flings with a number of women, but through the course of the film, he and Consuela experience a great deal of change.

At this film’s center are themes of fear, change, and loss. Kepesh becomes enraptured by his mistress, and he fears that she will eventually realize their age difference and lose interest in him. At the same time, Consuela wants their relationship to last, but her lover’s fears are apparent to her.

The characters’ motives are never made entirely clear, which allows for some healthy speculation. It’s worth noting that the novel on which this film is based is entitled The Dying Animal. It’s not made clear to whom this title refers, but I would suggest that the “animal” is Kepesh, whose behavior is somewhat animalistic. The transformation of Kepesh in this film is preceded by this quote from Hopper’s character: “We’re so dazzled by the outside that we never make it inside.” Consuela provides him with a second chance at something more than a physical romance.

I saw Elegy in a screening at the Canton Palace Theatre. Each Thursday, the Palace shows films that wouldn’t normally appear in mainstream theatres, and they always make for great conversation. If you live in the Canton area, I encourage you to visit cantonpalacetheatre.org to see what’s playing next.

W.

DAN - Academy Award winner Oliver Stone’s latest film chronicles a fictionalized version of the life and times of George W. Bush. Though the story is based on actual events, many scenes and conversations are created to support Stone’s comedic vision of the president.

I’ve never been a fan of Oliver Stone. Alexander was painfully long and boring, and World Trade Center seemed like an attempt to take advantage of a crisis for personal gain. W. is a politically charged film, and I get the feeling that Stone created it for the primary purpose of drawing in crowds.

Having said that, this movie is all right. Although Stone makes it clear that he does not approve of President Bush, this is a film that can be enjoyed by democrats and [open minded] republicans alike.

Josh Brolin (Goonies, No Country for Old Men) delivers a surprisingly effective impression of Bush. He succeeds in going beyond the typical caricature, providing a character that feels human. I found myself sympathizing with this variant of Bush, which I’m sure is also due to the screenplay by Stanley Weiser.

The rest of the ensemble cast is impressive, consisting of James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton, Jeffrey Wright, Ellen Burstyn, and plenty more. Each performance is funny and unique, emphasizing the strange variety of characters that have been a part of this administration.

The most powerful and thought-provoking moment in this film takes place after the credits. The very last image we see is a symbol of the crucifix morphing into a “W.” Stone is a self-proclaimed Buddhist, so I’m not sure if this is a jab at Bush or Christianity.

Other than that, this is a pretty basic movie, serving as a retrospective of sorts. I’m interested in seeing how people will perceive this film in the future; will it be the definitive representation of Bush’s presidency? I hope not.

__________________________

STEVE - When I first heard that controversial filmmaker Oliver Stone was tackling a project about our current president I was (to say the least) shocked, appalled and very intrigued. A fictional biography on a living, still in office president… you don’t say?

Of course a film dealing with a major political figure, conveniently coming out around the time of presidential elections is sure to have political undertones, which this movie does about a third of the way into the film. However, this doesn’t keep W. from being a riveting and engrossing drama about the man in the White House.

The film focuses on the life of President Bush (the second one), and not so much on his political decisions, which was a wise choice by the filmmakers that easily paid off do to actor Josh Brolin. Brolin is intoxicatingly funny, gripping, and riveting as George W. Bush and I wouldn’t be the least surprised if he received an Oscar nomination for his performance. Equally as enjoyable was James Cromwell who was brilliant as Bush Sr.

Director Oliver Stone made excellent casting selections. Not only do his actors look and sound similar to their real life counterparts, but each actor brings to the table engrossing performances that drive the momentum of the story. The movie works for this very reason.

Great performances and a riving script that surprisingly tells it as it is makes W. a must see.

Tell No One

DAN - Tell No One is a thrilling French mystery from director Guillaume Canet, based on a novel by Harlan Coben. The film follows Alex Beck, a doctor whose wife was murdered eight years ago. When new details emerge concerning his wife’s death, Beck must run from the law in search of the truth.

After seeing this film, I think it’s safe to say that I’m a sucker for French movies. Maybe it’s the romance of their language, or maybe I just don’t expect to see such well-made films from foreign countries. Either way, I liked this one.

François Cluzet plays the protagonist well. I’ve never seen him before, but I enjoyed this performance. The supporting cast of characters, a few of whom I recognized, also works well.

One thing that I found somewhat odd about this movie was the music. There are a lot of lighthearted songs that don’t seem to fit the story, and it doesn’t help that most of them are in English. The presence of U2's “With or Without You” was especially jarring for me, but it led to a moment that suggested a romantic side of the film.

I loved the stunts in this film. Beck takes a few punches, jumps from windows, and nearly gets run over on a highway, and it all looks convincing. Even something as simple as tripping and falling onto the pavement made me cringe. It looked painful.

There were several points in the movie where characters made references to something I didn’t understand, and I’d say to myself, “What did I miss?” But it would all be cleared up before the end of the film. There’s a particularly lengthy scene of exposition that ties a lot of loose ends together, and it was a relief.

Tell No One threw me for some loops, but it all worked out by the time the credits rolled. I was never certain what to believe, and I didn’t see the twists coming, which is a good thing for any mystery. Good story, good performances, and good direction.

Body of Lies

STEVE - Leonardo Dicaprio and Russell Crowe star in the latest film from Director Ridley Scott. Body of Lies is a spy film set in the middle of the Iraq War. DiCaprio plays Agent Ferris, a solo on the ground CIA spy who tries to stop terrorism single handedly, while Crowe plays as Ferris’s ever watchful boss Ed Hoffman, who is always observing from the sky.

Real locations and sets serve the mise-en-scene in creating Ridley Scott’s dirty and depressing modern day Middle East. The cinematography aids in creating a stylized and fast paced film that unfortunately becomes sluggish due to a creative but Hollywood contaminated plot.

I recall talking to a friend about the overall plot after viewing the film. There where many sideplots and subplots and loveplots and subparplots. And the main plot (for which the title is named) becomes sandwiched between all these other plots and ultimately is left with itty-bitty-little space to breath. I believe when attempting to describe how the main plot was executed the word my friend used was, (insert high pitch voice) “Bloop!” And I think that pretty much sums it up.

Body of Lies isn’t anything special. Good acting and decent cinematography regrettably doesn’t make up for a poor plot(s) that could have been salvaged into something superior. It’s an ordinary, middle-of-the-road, run of the mill film that leaves you with nothing more than a few, fun, distracting hours. The movie attempts to send a message, but it ultimately was lost. After watching I just kinda felt like… well… I’ve had better.

__________________________

DAN - Ridley Scott’s latest film is an espionage thriller set chiefly in Jordan. Leonardo DiCaprio plays a CIA operative with a plan to infiltrate a terrorist organization, and Russell Crowe acts as his boss at Langley.

There’s not much more to it. This film follows the recent trend of terrorist-related movies set in the Middle East (Syriana, The Kingdom). Throughout most of the movie, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I’d seen it before. I wanted something new, but this felt like a rehash.

Near the end of the movie, Crowe’s character says, “Ain’t nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There’s nothing here to like.” As far as films go, I tend to agree. I’m bored by the deserts, worn buildings, and warfare.

I didn’t have an emotional investment in any of the characters, and I rarely felt that they were in danger. There’s a romantic subplot that develops halfway through the film, and it seemed out of place.

I was bothered by a couple of things that should have been irrelevant, but they caught my eye. Most of them aren’t worth mentioning, but here’s one example. Ever since I saw the trailers for this movie, I’ve been annoyed by the characters’ hair. I know it should be trivial, but there’s no reason to dye DiCaprio’s hair pitch black (including his goatee). And Crowe’s hair doesn’t need to be grey and spiky. It was noticeably fake and distracting.

I was surprised to see Mark Strong as a Jordanian character, but he pulled it off. Strong has played supporting characters in several notable movies, such as Sunshine, Stardust, and a few Guy Ritchie films. Sure enough, his character in this movie has awkward grey streaks in his unnaturally black hair.

Even with all of my complaints, Body of Lies is a decent movie. It’s just not very inventive. I want more from the likes of Ridley Scott.

Man on Wire

DAN - In 1973, construction was officially completed on the World Trade Center. One year later, a tightrope walker named Philippe Petit walked between the roofs of the Twin Towers on a high wire, and he did it without anyone’s permission. His antics are chronicled in Man on Wire, a documentary by James Marsh.

This is a magical film. The story, visuals, music, and “characters” are presented in a way that had me wholly captivated.

The story is told firsthand through interviews with Petit and his cohorts. Each person has a distinct and genuine personality, and it is evident that they are each proud (and sometimes ecstatic) to have been a part of this inverted scheme. Petit in particular is a fantastic and physically active storyteller.

The film’s visuals, aside from the interviews, consist of archive footage, photography, and reenactments. I was surprised by how cohesive all of this material is; the cinematography of the black and white footage from the ‘60s meshes perfectly with the modern segments. It’s a delight to see Petit and his friends running through tall grass and wrestling like giddy children.

The film’s music supports a sense of wonderment. In particular, Erik Satie’s “First Gymnopédie” left an impression on me.

Man on Wire serves as an uplifting memory to associate with the World Trade Center in light of more recent events. It is a true heist story in which there are no victims, and nothing is stolen. Rather, Petit provides his audience with inspiration.

Vicky Christina Barcelona

DAN - Woody Allen’s newest film is built around two friends, Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Christina (Scarlett Johansson), who decide to spend a summer in Barcelona. They meet a mysterious and alluring painter named Juan (Javier Bardem) who invites them to visit his home in the countryside. Complex romances soon evolve among the characters.

I’ve seen a few of Woody Allen’s most famous movies, but I was never impressed. I was put off by the thought that he had written and directed those films for the purpose of casting himself in the role of a nerd who sleeps with beautiful women. It would push me even further away if he continued this in his old age, but he fortunately doesn’t appear in Vicky Christina Barcelona.

I enjoyed this film a bit more than I expected, but it’s not a complete victory. I suppose this is a character-driven film, though the characters’ behavior is sometimes difficult to understand. This movie might appeal to lovers of romance, as long as they aren’t offended by the loose and shallow nature of its characters.

Not much was required of the actors except for Penélope Cruz, who plays a semi-psychotic lover. The rest of the characters are fairly conventional. The presence of a narrator was distracting, as he provided insights into the characters’ minds. Narration only works if handled well, as in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

Concerning fine arts, this is a beautiful film. Soulful Spanish guitar accompanies breathtaking scenery in Barcelona and Oviedo. The characters drink wine, express themselves through art, and enjoy life. A few brief scenes in New York City provide noticeable contrast.

I appreciate this film, though it hasn’t left much of a lasting impact on me. I was left wondering if the characters had learned anything through the course of the story, and I wasn’t sure if I had any personal gain.

__________________________

STEVE - What starts off as a proposition to a weekend of sightseeing and a threesome, quickly develops into a well crafted film on the subject of love and happily ever after.

Vicky Christina Barcelona is a terrific and engaging movie. The film is full of witty dialogue and smart characters, some of whom are logical, and others who are reckless and passionate. The film delves deep into the topic of love, and makes a beautiful exploration of the subject through the characters with their neurotic and sometimes irrational behaviors.

The plot follows two close friends, Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Christina (Scarlett Johansson), who have decided to spend the summer in, of all places, Barcelona. It is the meeting of an attractive painter (Javier Bardem) and his proposition of a romantic weekend away…involving all of them that pushes the plot into interesting territory.

Vicky Christina Barcelona is a rare and skillfully made film, which makes it such a joy to view. Though surely this isn’t the screenwriter and director’s best work in his catalogue of over forty films, it is defiantly a wonderful refreshment from a summer of mediocre blockbusters (The Dark Knight excluded).

Burn After Reading

DAN - Burn After Reading is a comedic pseudo-spy film from writers and directors Joel and Ethan Coen. When the memoirs of a disgruntled CIA employee end up in the hands of deviously dim-witted gym workers, the situation quickly spins out of everyone’s control.

The Coen brothers earned four Oscars for last year’s No Country for Old Men, including Best Picture and Best Director. Their choice to follow such a film with a farcical comedy was interesting, but I was concerned. The Coens’ last two comedies, Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, weren’t exactly up to par with their previous efforts.

Fortunately, the brothers have managed to whip up something special again.

Though the cinematography and setting (Washington, D.C.) didn’t initially thrill me, the characters and plot won me over. The cast consists of some of Hollywood’s most highly-regarded actors in less than flattering roles. John Malkovich’s short-tempered performance is a treat, and George Clooney nicely rounds out his “trilogy of idiots” with the Coen brothers.

Carter Burwell’s boisterous score stands out nicely, and it sets a tone for the film and its unduly pompous characters. In Joel Coen’s words, the music is “something important sounding but absolutely meaningless.”

For those of you who were upset with the conclusion of No Country for Old Men, this one doesn’t require quite as much soul searching. If you enjoyed Burn After Reading, I recommend Raising Arizona and The Big Lebowski, both from the Coens’ collection.

__________________________

STEVE - Burn After Reading is by far one of the most bizarre, screwball, tragicomedy that only could originate from the uncanny minds of the Brothers Coen.

This movie is littered with big name performers like Brad Pitt, George Clooney, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, and J.K. Simmons. All of whom give very unique, comical, and vastly different performances than you’ve seen before. Both Pitt and Clooney are hilarious, Pitt with his gum chewing, uneducated, gym instructor dialogue, and Clooney as the sex-addict, cheating buffoon. But it’s J.K. Simmons, who only appears for 5 minutes of film that brings the house down.

This film is made with expert execution and style, not to mention some terrific dialogue. But even with all of that, I found myself looking at the clock more than once, which isn’t a good thing when the film runs a total time of 96minutes. The issue lies in have to bring together so many different characters that the pacing of the film ultimately suffers.

Though it is by far one of the better ensemble casts that I’ve seen, and is quite comically screwy, Burn After Reading fails (for myself at least) to create an emotional connection with its audience. I’ll give it credit for its smart screenplay, fine cinematography, and first rate performances, but with all the scheming, affairs, and unique basement contraptions, it just didn’t hit home.

Bottle Shock

DAN - In 1976 a competition was held in Paris in which obscure Californian wines were compared with the best that the French had to offer. At the time, France was producing what was considered to be the best wine in the world. This event, which came to be known as the “Judgment of Paris,” was the basis for Bottle Shock, directed by Randall Miller.

Even without seeing this movie, its ending shouldn’t be difficult to predict. The film’s tendency toward convention is its most obvious weakness. Sure, there are some unique moments here and there, but they’re all contained in a color-by-number story.

The movie takes place largely in Napa Valley, which provides some beautiful scenery. This is one of the few positives that stood out to me.

Bottle Shock suffers from a lack of character development. Friends betray one another, friendships are seemingly broken, but everything is conveniently back to normal fifteen minutes later. The cast’s performances weren’t noteworthy, though I’m sure they’d benefit from a better screenplay. Even Alan Rickman, who is usually fun to watch, didn’t have much to work with.

Little risk was taken in the making of this movie. Perhaps the producers’ only gamble was in making a film about wine fanatics. It’s not exactly blockbuster material.

At one point in the film, the characters say, “Through hardship comes enlightenment... in grapes.” If the movie’s producers had adhered to this philosophy in regard to film, they might have ended up with something more than mediocre.

__________________________

STEVE - What starts off as an intriguing film of a love affair between a man and good wine slowly becomes a movie bogged down by a sour and uninteresting family relationship that kills the feeling of a good movie buzz.

Bottle Shock is one of those “based on a true story” type of movies. You know the type… the kind which is “loosely” based on a true story. And because it’s “loosely” based on a true story it allows the writer to take certain “privileges” of the plot in order to create those typical “Hollywood Movie” clichés, because that’s what “sells” these days. It’s really quite unfortunate, because Bottle Shock could have been something unique. Instead it became another typical film of the modern Hollywood cinema.

However, this film does have a strong point, that point being Alan Rickman. Bottle Shock truly works best when focusing on the character and story of Alan Rickman’s Steven Spurrier. Spurrier is a British wine lover who owns a little shop in France called “The Academy of Wine.” The year is 1976, and it’s his idea to host a wine tasting contest between the two countries of France and America (this is the true story part). Rickman gives a wonderful performance as the snobby connoisseur of wine. His character and performance is so enjoyable that whenever he walks on screen you are simply unable to pull your eyes away. Unfortunately, every moment he’s not on screen, the film becomes a boor.

The movie is filled to the brim with mediocre plot, acting, and everything else. And it’s only because of Alan Rickman and his character’s storyline that I give this film a pass. Ironically enough, the movie works best when it focuses on the true events of the story, and not dealing with the “loosely based” characters and their family issues.

Pineapple Express

DAN - Pineapple Express, directed by relatively unknown David Gordon Green, is a stoner comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco. One of the characters witnesses a murder, and the pair of potheads are forced to run from hitmen and cops alike.

I’ll preface this review by saying that I didn’t get much sleep the night before watching the movie, and I found it difficult to stay awake through the second half. But I persevered for the sake of providing well-informed opinions for our readers, who will settle for nothing less.

This movie is odd. It wanders through comedic takes on various genres, most notably action and adventure. There are drug lords, assassins, and moments of violence that surpass Grand Theft Auto in over-the-top offbeat gore. It’s as if Cheech and Chong wandered into a poor-man’s combination of The Fugitive and Kill Bill.

I’ve noticed that I’m becoming increasingly tired of comedies like this that use improvised dialogue. It’s too obvious, and it bumps me out of the film. The man behind this trend is Judd Apatow, who produced similarly-styled films like Step Brothers, Superbad, Knocked Up, and Anchorman.

Having said that, there were a number of good scenes. Danny McBride, who is on his way to becoming a big name in comedy, provided some of the best moments in this movie.

I’m sure Pineapple Express was meant to be viewed while on the reefer, because even though it’s a comedy, I didn’t laugh enough. Maybe I just need to loosen up. If only there were some sort of inhalable substance that would keep me laid back... legally, of course.

__________________________

STEVE - In late 2007, the Hollywood Insider came out with a list. This list ranked, in their opinion, the fifty smartest people in Hollywood. Conditions for such a list ranged from rules such as not only making smart films and movie decisions in the past, but to making smart movies now, while in the process, pushing the industry forward in a new and unique way. At the top of this great list, which contained legendary filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, and celebrated actors such as Meryl Streep and Will Smith, was none other than Producer/Director Judd Apatow. The reason he topped such a list? Well, to put it simply… smart and very funny movie making.

Mr. Apatow has brought us such classics as Anchorman, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Talladega Nights, Knocked Up, Superbad, and my most recent favorite Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Hit after hit, Judd Apatow has produced (and sometimes directed) many of our modern day comedy classics. After all, how many times did you or your friends find yourself confessing love for a lamp after seeing Anchorman for the umpteenth time?

So maybe now you can see why Judd Apatow is deserving of such a spot as the smartest man in Hollywood, and maybe why I was excited to see his latest produced comedy, Pineapple Express. So it burdens me with a heavy heart to reveal my sincere disappointment in what I was hoping to be a good movie.

Star and writer Seth Rogen (whom had impressed me once before with his witty and hilarious script in Superbad) failed not only to impress me as an actor, but also as a screenwriter. Rogen’s acting skills never impressed me to begin with, even though sometimes, when in the right role, the man can charm the pants right off of ya (not here however). It was nevertheless, his script’s dialogue, which in many scenes felt improvised and awkward, that caused this film to feel disjointed and uneven. And perhaps that was the issue; they should have stuck to the script instead of improvising. However, the larger offense done to the audience in this movie was its exposition.

In a horrible attempt to push the movie along it’s merry and at many times jarring plot, was some of the most ridiculous and unbelievable explanations and exploitations of plot and unlikely circumstances. True, this movie is in many regards what some would call a “pot-smoking movie” being that it contains much smoking of pot and or weed as it is sometimes referred to in many intellectual circles. And true, the movie was aimed at those certain intellectual circles that smoked said weed. Nonetheless, such horrible writing and execution of plot is truly unforgivable. And this here is where the problem lies.

Director David Gordon Green, whose previous experience was on serious independent drama up until this point, failed in many ways to form a cohesive and smart film. He should have called a halt to the improvising, which was truly out of hand in this movie, and made a more conscious effort to bring the film under the reigns of some of intelligence and coherent thought.

Now true, this was a “pot-smoking movie”, and yes it did and was meant to stretch the bounds of believability… which I’m all for. But you can’t force feed me a poorly constructed vehicle to drive the plot and expect me to get into that vehicle and ride in it to the end of the movie. It doesn’t work! Just like I’m sure my use of literary terms didn’t just work, or maybe it did. I don’t know… I go to Malone.

To be quiet honest, I think the real issue for me was that this movie had an important missing element… that wonderful, good feeling, Judd Apatow comedy charm. This movie had no charm. I didn’t fall in love with the characters, I didn’t route for the underdog, and my emotions weren’t carried away in the story. I was stuck in a theater… and I had gum on my shoe.

The Dark Knight

STEVE - It was perhaps the most anticipated movie of my lifetime. As I told a friend, “I can’t ever remember wanting to see a movie this bad.” True, I’m a big Bat fan, but nonetheless you also have considered the rest of the variables in this film equation. You have a great director, who on more than one occasion has wowed me with his skill at pointing a camera. Legendary actors such as Michael Cain, Christian Bale, and Gary Oldman just to name a few of the top A list actors in this film. And of course you have the hailed performance of the unfortunately late Heath Ledger. So many great things to look forward too… and usually when I’m close to this level of excitement about a movie, I almost always tend to be more than a little disappointed after the experience. Thank the heavens that every once in a while, the Hollywood Studio System gets things right.

So many wonderful things in this movie were done right. So many, that I can’t list them. Thank you Warner Brothers for letting a wonderful vision come to life. Thank you Mr. Chris Nolan for a wonderful movie going experience, and thank you cast and crew and everyone else involved for making a top notch movie worthy of multiple nominations and awards. The performances, music, cinematography, direction, action… all outstanding!

It isn’t a perfect movie but the flaws are few and far between and it would just be nitpicking for me to point them out. So I won’t, all I say is that this is a must see, one to see over and over again with many multiple viewings after that.

__________________________

WARNING - Dan's review contains spoilers. Do not read it unless you've seen the film.

DAN - The Dark Knight is easily the most hyped film of this year. I had great expectations for it, and I wasn’t disappointed. Then again, I wasn’t exactly thrilled by the result. My initial reaction was basically this - I knew the movie was amazing, but I couldn’t fully celebrate it for two reasons.

1. I had invested too much hope into the idea that this would be a great movie. It met my expectations, but I’ve been on sort of a Dark Knight high for a while now. As a result, I didn’t really feel much exhilaration while watching it. This was minor, though. I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even if the “wow” factor wasn’t entirely there.

2. What surprised me most was how depressing this film is. This is where the spoilers kick in.

First, Rachel Dawes’ death took me by surprise. Granted, I wasn’t very invested in her character, but she was a good, innocent person. What’s worse are the effects of her death on other people.

I honestly cared about Harvey Dent. I was convinced that he was what Gotham needed in order to become a better place. He seemed like a truly selfless person who wasn’t afraid to stand up for what is right in the face of death, and I was rooting for him. The fact that he became evil (and ended up dying in that state) made me lose a little hope in the world. I knew all along that he would become Two-Face, but I didn’t want to accept it.

Also, the Joker is just... mean. Unpleasant. And knowing that he is the cause of Harvey Dent’s downfall, and that he enjoyed it, makes me mad. And now he’s (theoretically) sitting in a jail cell somewhere, happy with what he accomplished, and planning a way to escape and cause more damage. It worries me that such a person exists, albeit in a fictional world.

On a lighter note, I was glad to find myself laughing at some of the Joker’s moments and mannerisms. Despite his evil nature (and the knowledge of Ledger’s death), I was able to enjoy the performance.

In addition to this, there were some morally uplifting moments in the movie. The people on the ferries, even the prisoners, make the right choice. I take that as a sign that Harvey Dent made a good impression on the people of Gotham. Even though Dent is gone, he seems to have created a legacy that is already taking hold in average citizens and criminals alike.

Also, I gained a new love for Batman, himself. He’s willing to look like a villain in the eyes of the people he’s protecting for the sake of keeping Dent’s honor alive. It’s comforting and admirable.

All in all, I think this is an awesome movie, but it has taken me time to process some unexpected reactions. Ultimately, I admire the fact that Nolan and company didn’t make a “Hollywood” movie with a happy ending. Elements of the real world are reflected in The Dark Knight, and though they may be hard-hitting, they are truthful. I’ve thought about the relation between this film’s themes and reality more so than with other dark movies, such as No Country for Old Men. This is definitely more than a comic book movie. Not only is it entertaining, but it has meaning.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

DAN - Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a romantic comedy directed by Nicholas Stoller (Fun with Dick and Jane) and produced by Judd Apatow (Knocked Up). Jason Segel plays a man who falls into depression after his celebrity girlfriend dumps him. In an attempt to lift his spirits, he takes a trip to Hawaii. When he arrives, he soon finds that his ex-girlfriend is there on vacation with her new boyfriend.

I had a decent time watching this film, but I’d like to preface my review with an observation: the crowd with which you see a movie can have a big impact on your experience. I saw this film at a matinee, and the theater was barely occupied. The audience wasn’t up for a riotous afternoon of laughter, which isn’t helpful when seeing an edgy comedy.

The humor in this film ranges from subtle wordplay and nonverbal interaction to raunchy jokes and full-frontal male nudity. I chuckled a few times, but I couldn’t help wishing I was surrounded by a crowd that could really get into the movie.

The cast does a pretty good job, as they do in any Apatow film. Segel, who also wrote the screenplay, was charismatic and fun to watch, but some of my favorite moments in the movie involved cameo appearances by other actors. Russell Brand, an actor who is well known in England, was great as a carefree musician living the rock and roll lifestyle.

Overall, I enjoyed Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but it really wasn’t anything great. I probably could have benefited from watching it with a better audience, but it was still a good time.