I'm Not Dead

The last few weeks have been crazy, and the few movies I've had a chance to see I haven't had a chance to write up. I'll be playing a little catch up this weekend, and my apologies for the delay. 

As an aside, is there any other movie that splits people down gender lines more then Monty Python and the Holy Grail? I havent met a girl who likes it, or a guy who doesn't

Blindness (#27)

I’m really surprised that this one didn’t get any Oscar buzz this past year, either for its exceptional and creative direction,  adapted script, or several outstanding performances. Julianne Moore is easily the most overlooked actress of last year. Fernado Merielles, directs the adaptation of the acclaimed Jose Saramago , and does so with subtly, with a beautiful use of texture. The premise immediately creates a barrier for a film adaptaion. How do you film the story of a epidemic of blindness, when for the vast majority of the movie only one character can see? Smartly, Merielles uses a great deal of restraint, and suggests much more then he shows. The story, and plight of the characters is devastating, and many times very difficult to watch. The film raises questions about the fragility of the social contract, and very structure of our daily lives, but does so with out lecturing. See this, but see it with some one who will want to discuss it with you afterwards.

State of Play (#26)

A decent movie that had a stacked cast of actors and actresses kind of sleepwalking through their roles.  A political thriller, that is a pretty overt love letter to newspapers and the way “real” reporting is done.  There are enough twists and turns to keep things interesting, but nothing remarkable.

 

Adventureland (#25)

Did you ever have a summer that totally snuck up on you? The one between your college years and adult hood, when you though you had a plan,  and were in total transition. Adventureland captures that really well. After the movie my wife nailed it by comparing it to the great book The Perks of Being a Wallflower. The cast here, does great and memorable work. Ryan Reynolds turns in a likable performance for a unlikable character.  The movie felt like it was written with Micheal Cera in mind for the lead, and whne they couldn’t get him, go a Micheal Cera like actor instead and told him to act like Michael Cera. Doesn’t matter though, because it worked.  Martin Starr needs to be in more movies, he ably plays the best friend here, and damn near steals every scene he’s in. The director Greg Mottolla, made Superbad, and although I liked that movie, this one is is more mature, with humor coming from a realer, less outrageous place.

Quantum of Solace (#25)

I’ve never been a huge James Bond fan. The tongue in cheekness of the Connery and Brosnon versions always made me role my eyes.  I was pleasantly surprised by Casino Royale, as it seemed to be more influenced by the Bourne franchise, then any Bond before it.  (never mind  the irony that Bourne franchise being a spin on the Bond movies, the thought just made me go cross eyed) Quantum of Solace plays like Casino Royale Vol. 2 picking up directly after the confusing but fun events at the end of the first Daniel Craig Bond. While it’s successful as a brief, intense, fun popcorn movie with some unbelievable action sequences, its lacking on characterization and plot. Am I supposed to know why Bond is so devoted to M? The great Jeffrey Wright is teased as a CIA foil to Bond, but is given almost nothing to do, and perhaps the worst sin of a movie like this, the villain was week, and given almost super powers at the end to physically hang with our hero, in a showdown that had very little suspense.

 

Let the Right One In (#24)

I remembered reading about this one as it appeared on a few best of lists at the end of the year.  One critic I like also threw a tantrum when it didn’t get Sweden’s support as its best picture nominee for the Oscars.  I was eager to see what all the buzz was about. This movie was a little bit of a slow burn, but absolutely worth it. It’s a really beautiful movie about friendship, but wrapped up as a genre movie. The plot follows Oscar, a young Swedish boy, tormented by bullies, a mysterious young girl neighbor, and series of murders across the city.  I won’t ruin the movie by spoiling the connections here, but I will say that I recommend this one highly. 

I Love You, Man (#23)

The day after I saw this if for the first time, Berto asked if I wanted to see it again. I was game, and can report that it holds up on a second viewing.  This isn’t an Apatow production, but that’s definitely the vibe, maybe a little sillier though. 

 

I Love You, Man (#22)

Paul Rudd and Jason Segal have great chemistry, in this bromantic comedy. The premise is clever. Rudd plays a newly engaged real estate agent, whose fiancé gets weirded out by the fact that he doesn’t have any real make friends. The role is a little bit of a different flavor for Rudd, who I feel typically plays snarky dudes. Here, he plays a nice guy with a lot of earnestness.  Segal is really enjoyable, and plays the Oscar to Rudd’s Felix.  It’s great to see Rashida Jones, but the script doesn’t give her that much to do.  The rest of the supporting cast is great with a couple of familiar State players putting in funny turns, and Andy Sandberg not being annoying. The plot moves in funny but predictable ways, and really embraces the conventions of a romantic comedy, right down to the relationship crisis at the climax of the movie.

Australia (#21)

Baz Lurhman was able to reign in his excess after the first half hour, and save his movie.  The movie opens at a frenetic pace, and felt like Moulin Rogue without the music. I was confused. But after the first half hour of confusing set up, the movie really settles in and finds its groove as an epic tale that’s a throwback to the Gone with the Wind style of filmmaking. The movie works on a couple of levels. It’s a bit of history lesson on Australia, which I am admittedly ignorant of. Its also a satisfyingly well acted romance between the two lead. Kidman and Jackman have a great chemistry. The third lead, in his first role, plays an mixed race aboriginal boy whose coming of age story really ties the whole movie, thematically and plot wise together nicely.

Changeling (#20)

Not a big fan of this one. The movie centers around Angelina Jolies character, and it really is a one woman show. The premise is interesting enough, a single mother in 1930s Chicago is devastated when her son is kidnapped, only later to  be replaced by another boy at the haste of a corrupt police department looking to avoid a scandal. The movie lacked a lot of characterization. Jolie’s character is the only one that isn’t quite a cardboard cut out, but everyone else is. There are few suprises, which makes its almost three hour runtime insufferable. 

Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist (#19)

I was really looking forward to this one, but was a little disappointed. I had it built up in my head as a laugh out loud, mad cap romp, and its most decidedly not.  Instead it was a funny/amusing mature romance. It almost felt like Nora Ephron for young hipster set. Michael Cera is likable, and saves what could have been a pretty unlikable character. However he pretty much hits the same note he has in all of his roles.

 

The Secret Life of Bees (#18)

I thought this one was  pretty forgettable. The perfomances were solid, most notably  the great Sophie Okonedo, who played the tragic character May. I’ve seen Okonedo in a few things now, also in the great  Tsunami mini series, and she steals everything she’s in. I know a lot of women who enjoy the book, and the direction seemed to support a  pretty straight forward adaptation.  I do wonder what kind of career Dakota Fanning is going to have in a few years?

 

Duplicity

Don't trust Duplicity to deliver on its promise.

Oh, it all looks nice. Tony Gilroy is an all-star Hollywood writer, and this, his second foray into directing, goes off reasonably well. Whether he could have coaxed a little more tension in the script or from his actors is a concern, however. After a boffo job at the helm of Michael Clayton, this is a bit of a sophomore slump for Gilroy.

Duplicity is a romantic comedy wrapped in a caper pic. We jump back and forth through time, following the recent lives of Ray Koval (Clive Owen) and Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts). He's an MI-6 agent. She works for the CIA. The meet-cute comes early on at a cocktail party in Dubai (presumably before it became a ghost town), a stand-offish meeting that quickly finds its way into a hotel room.

When Ray wakes up, Claire is gone, and so are the Egyptian defense codes he lifted as part of an assignment. Zoom ahead five years later, and Koval is working for the corporate espionage unit of a toiletries company. New to the gig, he's selected to meet with a mole working within another company, and guess who she is.

The friction returns, and it seems as though this is just bad luck, unless you've seen any of the trailers Universal has been running the last six months. In truth, Ray and Claire are secretly working together to defraud the two companies out of millions. But, as with most modern caper movies, there can't be one twist. Instead, we're subjected to about 74 more reversals, including the whopper at the end that has no real relation to the rest of the movie, no matter how much it tries to show otherwise.

Beyond the unjustified ending, the movie's finish is not without some satisfaction, and the story, overall, is pretty solid. It's also a pretty picture; Gilroy takes advantage of settings and uses the small back rooms, bowling alleys, and corporate executive suites for good effect. In style and tone, Gilroy is very much like Stephen Soderbergh both in tone and style.

So here we are, with two fine actors giving relatively good performances, working with a relatively good script. But something's missing. In a movie that's a bout trust and the hilarious extremes people go to when they don't trust one another, Roberts and Owen don't trust themselves to find the humor in their situation. Gilroy, Roberts and Owen should have had a big popcorn party sleepover and marathoned a season or two of Moonlighting. Distrust and attraction can combine for comedic gold.

Much has been made about Julia Roberts' age and five-year layoff to raise her kids. It's a ridiculous sideshow that pits working moms against stay-at-home mothers, lipstick feminists against traditional second wavers, blah blah blah. Does her performance hold up after the hiatus? Sure, mostly. She's Julia Roberts; She gives a good performance and adds her mega-watt smile to the proceedings. Overall, not a bad job for someone with a little ring rust.

Owen never looked more like a George Clooney stand-in, but his animal side is a bit more restrained here than it was in The International (a mess of a movie with a truly fantastic gun fight in the Guggenheim Museum. Pay the ticket price for that scene alone). Owen risks becoming overexposed with the frequency and similarity of the roles he's been taking on. You can see a lot of the Clive-being-Clive act here as well, but you also get a sense of the potentially playful side. More of that in the future, please.

Then there are some minor characters who fully deserve more screen time. Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson shine as rival CEOs who are both nearly driven mad with jealousy, contempt and distrust for each other. These two displayed all the sizzle lacking between Owen and Roberts. If the leads couldn't find the chemistry to make this movie work, then Gilroy and his editing team should have made this more on an ensemble effort.

It's not a disaster; Duplicity makes for a fun watch, and rates a date movie for a thinking couple. As a director, you can see Gilroy learning as he goes. He's got a sense of cool, for sure, but sometimes loses his grip, and that cool slips and becomes a little more aloof. Catch Duplicity in the theater if you like, but it's a better value as a rental.

(#17) Watchmen

Somewhat predictably, I liked this. Although I had hoped I would love it.

  I like comics. When I was a kid I would get my allowance on a Friday, and walk down to my local comic shop, and within the hour have spent it all, with a little extra left for some Chinese food. Now back then I was still just reading basic superhero stuff, and Watchmen, a comic with characters that resembled the mainstream characters I did follow, didn’t really capture my interest. However, anyone who has spent any time in a comic shop, knows Watchmen is regarded as one of  the finest examples of the form, and held  with the kind of reverence many reserve for classic movies.

It wasn’t until college, that I picked up Watchmen, at a discount bin at a comic book shop in Worcester, and sat down to read it. As cliché as it sounds, Watchmen brought me back to comics. It’s complexity, thoughtfulness, and maturity really were a high water mark for the genre, and the perfect gateway someone with a background of comics, to get back into it. It lead me to seek out a whole generation of graphic novels that came after it, and for that reason, I think I’ll always have a soft spot for this story and the characters.

  As a movie Watchmen works. It’s an incredibly faithful to the source material, and because of that hit mostly all the right buttons with me. That said, I can totally understand how, for those same reasons, the movie is a less enjoyable for an audience without any of that experience with it’s earlier incarnation.  There is a subtext to the whole movie that plays off of typical superhero archetypes, and gleefully deconstructs the conventions of the genre, that works the more having read more superhero comics. Watchmen walks a funny line, asking you to apply an added realism, seriousness, and logic to the world of superheroes; but at the same time asks you to accept a flying owl car, and omnipotent blue man.  It wasn’t a problem for me, but I think the point is certainly debatable.

  Watchmen the comic pushed comics towards a realism, and seriousness that was markedly different from tone of the other comics of it’s time. Think, Dragnet, versus The Wire. However the years that have passed, make the newness of what Watchmen represented, a little less suprising. We have already seen a more realistic take on superheros with the Christopher Nolan’s Batman, and to some extent the recent Spiderman and Iron Man films, and I think that also significantly waters down Watchmen’s impact.

Watchmen raises so many questions, about government, morality, power, and human nature, that I think resonate with people toady, but the film doesn’t really reach for that, and that may be it’s biggest weakness. Snyder missed an opportunity to connect with the audience by being so faithful to the source material. He didactically sticks to a Cold War/doomsday theme that’s firmly set in a dystopian 1980’s, and doesn’t transcend its setting.  Watchmen doesn’t fit the formula of what we expect from a superhero movie,  with  the yin and the yang of the hero and the villain, playing out a primal/operatic struggle between good and evil. Synder understands that but emphasizes the wrong moments, so it feels like there is no real payoff at the climax of the movie.

  I really agree with Berto’s take on the actors, especially the critique of a soulless Malin Ackerman as the Silk Spectre. Billy Cruddup as Dr. Manhattan, and Jackie Earl Harley as Rorschach really do bring their A game, and for my money steal the movie.

  The action is compelling, even though I think that the movie fetishsized the violence at times, in a way the graphic novel didn’t. It’s played for gore and a visceral impact that I don’t know added much.

  Reading over what I just wrote I am realizing it probably sounds like I didn’t like this movie, which isn’t the case. Although I was left wondering why I loved the graphic novel, but just enjoyed the movie.

Watchmen

Who will stay awake to watch the Watchmen? Clocking in at a staggering 2 hours and 43 minutes, Watchmen is about as long as last year's The Dark Knight . What made the time pass for The Dark Knight, however, was the quality of the work produced. Watching Watchmen will remind you of a different picture altogether: 9 1/2 Weeks. It's not all bad. You can definitely see the bones of a good story somewhere in the tangled mess served up by Director Zach Snyder. If you haven't read the book, you'll want to after seeing the movie. Even if it's just to see what the Hell the hype was really all about. And Jackie Earle Haley gives one hell of a performance as Rorschach. But beyond that, Watchman has serious problems. So, where to begin? This is the kind of movie where spoilers are unforgivable, so I'll be circumspect. Early on, we learn that Richard Nixon eliminated term limits, used some interesting tactics and weapons to win the Vietnam War, and is still President in 1985. Ten years earlier, he decreed all masked heroes be banned, putting out of work a whole network of Superfriends known as the Minutemen, and later, the Watchmen. These guys are still kicking around; some life in obscurity, others wrote books about their experiences, while others still use their former identities as platforms for greater projects. Only one guy, Rorschach, remains a masked vigilante. The film itself opens with the death of one of these characters, The Comedian. A mysterious figure breaks into his apartment and tosses him out a window. Who would do this? Is this a robbery gone awry, or a more menacing signal to the other Watchmen? Rorschach figures on the latter, and decides to recruit the others to find the killer. From there, the plot is best left discovered by the viewer. And if they can discover it, they deserve a prize. For a three-hour movie, things feel awfully rushed. The material Snyder tries to get through could take up a mini-series, which, in the end, probably would have been a better vehicle for this story. Instead, the picture groans from the sheer volume of plot lines and characters crammed into it like an overstuffed suitcase. We get a nice set-up to move things forward: Who killed the Comedian? But that early energy is wasted by an hour and a half of back story for each character. These vignettes and flashbacks go on for until just after the two-hour mark, when Snyder remembers that—oh yeah!—he's got about a thousand loose ends he needs to tie off. And he does so at about 85mph. Watching the final 45 minutes is liable to give you whiplash. There's nothig memorable about the final build-up, and the great reveal for the mystery that drove the story forward? It's given less than two minutes of screen time, explained by a character instead of flowing naturally from the script. The acting, as a whole, is forgettable. Malin Ackerman clocks in another wooden performance as Silk Spectre II. She hasn't shown signs of acting life since her stint as Juna in the highly underrated HBO comedy The Comeback. Billy Crudup is a fine actor, but has to portray Dr. Manhattan, a semi-corporeal being that is more in tune with the matter of the universe than he is humanity itself. So, how do you portray a guy with no emotions? Blankly. Crudup does bring some game to the flashbacks, but otherwise does his job by being as inert as possible. The entire story around Manhattan is confused, and his eventual interplanetary sulk, completely with an unexplained and slightly ridiculous watchworks house, is almost comical. Jefferey Dean Morgan is good as The Comedian, and this would have been a more interesting movie with more of him in it. As it is, however, he's given good but very small scenes to work in. It's time for Morgan to be rescued from the ongoing Hell that is his dead/not dead character on Grey's Anatomy. He clearly has the looks and chops for the big screen. Patrick Wilson is forgettable as Night Owl II. He serves as a nice-guy counterpoint to Rorschach and not much else. he does get to fly a bad-ass Owl-ship-thingamabob, so that's something. But, like with most of the rest of the cast, there's little for him to do, and what he does have to do, he does't do very well. Matthew Goode and Carla Gugino fall into that category as well. The real revelation is Haley, who has a recent Oscar nod for Little Children, but is best remembered as cool kid Kelly Leak in The Bad News Bears. Haley infuses Rorschach with a little malice, a big dose of righteousness, and a snarling disposition. The movie was much more watchable any time he was on screen. It's almost as if he and Morgan were the only ones who really picked up on the larger themes of vigilantism, the tyranny of obedience, and fundamentally rotten core of humanity. The film looks great, which is what you'd expect from Snyder, who directed 300, another comic book movie that defied traditional filmmaking. But the spark and energy he brought to 300 are notably absent here. He instead chokes on the sheer size of the story he tries to tell. Critics of 300 often cited the lack of characterization and thinness of the film. Snyder's use of visuals made up the difference in 300, but no amount of gorgeous cinematography and shot framing can save the bad acting and a disjointed screenplay here. Maybe a fanboy can fill in the holes and see a coherent picture, but everyone else should wait to rent Watchmen, or skip it altogether.

Joe and I Argue about Watchmen

Joe and I went to see Watchmen last weekend in Providence. We agreed to both write a review from our two different perspectives: I have never read the graphic novel, and Joe has not only read it multiple times, but is an absolute connousieur and expert in comic book history. We decided to each write a review based on those different perspectives. Here's mine, written for folks who have never read the book. Joe's will be soon to follow.

Also, there were technical difficulties at the showing we attended, and that gorgeous cold start, where The Comedian is confronted and shot, had an odd, high-pitched dying robot sound instead of the actual sound of the movie. Which is too bad, because it sets up some important information. If you go to see this movie, don't show up late.

Anyway, expect our reviews shortly. I can tell you that Joe like the movie and i did not. Expect some serious disagreements.

Helvetica (#16)

I just made the switch from Blockbuster to Netflix, mainly because the two Blockbuster stores I can trade movies at closed, making Netflix and its online movies the better option.  In filling my Netflix que I cam across this documentary that sounded interesting, and was exactly what you would think by it’s title. Yes, I watched, and enjoyed, a documentary about a font. Now this movie clearly isn’t for everyone, but I dug it. It’s a really well produced and directed documentary, that traces the history of the font, and its pervasiveness in modern culture.  It brings attention to a little considered , or appreciated, world wide phenomenon. Not surprisingly slow at times, and heavy on the opinions of various rock star graphic designers, I found it mostly compeling and a nice change of pace.

 

Rocky Balboa (#15)

Not a perfect movie, but perhaps one of my most memorable movie going experiences. I was so excited to see this character back on screen, and so happy that this movie delivered on the the promise of a more satisfying ending to the Rocky saga.  Just for fun, here’s how I rank em, Rocky I, Rocky IV, Rocky II, Rocky Balboa, Rocky III, Rocky (although I think those two will flip flop depending on the day), and Rocky V, aka Go For It!

Rocky IV (#14)

This may be a perfect movie.  It certainly won’t be the first time I write about it this year, as I plan on re-watching it many times. I do want to note that this could be the perfect movie to run too. Right as I was finishing my last mile, the “No Easy Way Out” montage came on, as if it was magically timed to inspire me in the last lap.  A perfect movie.

Man On A Wire (#13)

This was the best reviewed and buzziest documentary of the year, so I was pysched when Netflix delivered it so promptly. The film follows the story of Phillipe Pettit, the French high rope walker/performance artist, who famously walked across a wire stretching between the two towers. The story is fascinating, from what inspired the event, to the planning stages, to how the team carries out the incredible feat, to the aftermath. The structure of the documentary is linear for the most part, and the filmmakers use dramatic recreations narrated by the (spoiler) still living Pettit and his team.  It all works to great effect, although Pettit grated on me at times, seeming a little too pleased with himself.  On the other hand the man does do, simply amazing things, and should be pretty pleased with himself.  There are some clear allusions to the hopeful wonder of this event, and the more recent tragic history of the twin towers, although the film never addresses them directly. I can’t decided if that was a positive or a negative.

Joe Is Not Psychic 17% of the Time

Thanks for being the keeper of my picks Berto.  

 

While picking 20/24 of the Oscar winners this year is plenty good enough for bragging rights, it was not good enough for sole possession of the family Oscar trophy. My dad and I had the exact same ballot picking every category the same way. Despite the long odds, no shenanigans are suspected.

 

I am haunted by my missed picks. Here's where I went wrong.

 

Foreign Film-

What I picked- Waltz with Bashir

What Won- Departures

 

This was ridiculous. Waltz with Bashir was an innovative movie, that garnered worldwide acclaim, and the only all the flims with a wide U.S. release. And it's beaten by a movie about a out of work musician that discoveries his talents for work in a funeral home. I'll pass, and secretly count this one as a win.

 

Documentary Short -The Witness

What I Picked-The Witness

What Won- Smile Pinki

 

I took a shot at this one, and considered picking Smile Pinki, a story about an poor Indian girl who gets a surgery to repair her cleft pallette. Instead I went with The Witness a story of a man who witnessed the assasination of MLK Jr. Part of me thought that Obama's innauguartion, and racial equality being on the forefront of so many americans mind would somehow push this one to the forefront of the academy's. In hindsight that chronicles such a vile event, was probably too disonent with the optimism of the time, to have that effect.

 

Short Film Animated-

What I Picked-Presto

What Won- Le Maison En Petits Cubes

 

I should have know better. Pixar always loses these categories. That said if I picked another film, I wouldnt have picked this one. It drawings looked like they were drawn with a pencil sticking out of the cartoonists butt, and the film looked like it was used as a rag.

 

Sound Mixing-

What I Picked-The Dark Knight

What Won- Slumdog Millionaire

 

I'll cop to not knowing the difference between sound editing and mixing. I just thought The Dark Knight would sweep both the sound catergories. Doh!

Joe Is Psychic 83% of the Time

I'm not from PriceWaterhoue Coopers or anything, but I was the keeper of Joe's Oscar picks, which he keeps secret because of his incredibly competitive family Oscar pool. His picks came to me at about 5 p.m. EST, three hours before the show started. Good work, Joe!


 

Let's Fix the Oscars!

The Oscars were incredibly boring last night. To be fair, they seem to know that  the show is incredibly boring, and made some big changes to try and combat the interminableness of the four-hour broadcast.

It didn't help.

That's not to say the changes were all terrible. Quite the contrary: The smaller stage, the more theatrical host, and the attempt to focus more on the actual nominees were all good. It's just the execution that was bungled.

After 81 years, this show's gotten a little musty. It's time for some radical changes to make it as entertaining as the premiere entertainment showcase of the year should be.

Here are five suggestions:

1. Cut the number of televised awards from 24 to 12.The show should present the Big Six along with Song, Score, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Documentary, and Cinematography. The rest get shuttled off to the "No-TV-But-At-Least-The-Host-Is-Hot" technical awards night. The broadcast can show some of the winners' work and acceptance speeches in a segment, but that segment can't be longer than two minutes. If you want this to be a good show, you have to get the time down to two hours, three tops. And to do that effectively, you have to lop off the minor categories. The winners still have the honor of an Academy Award, and the viewer has the honor of you not wasting their time anymore.

Still feel like you're giving the sound editors short shrift? Put samples of their work, their acceptance speeches, and even a small documentary about what they do on the Oscars Web page. That's more attention than they've ever gotten inside the Kodak theater.

That buys you time to try your Superfriends approach of having five actors give the award, but also show a clip of the actual work that was so good, it deserved to be nominated. Shocking, I know, but not everyone has seen the nominated pictures. Us normal folk don't have screeners sent to the house. Best of both worlds.

2. No more thanking everyone in the phone book. Instead, all nominees must give a list of acknowledgments to the Broadcast beforehand. If they win, those Thanks Yous will run below their smiling faces while they deliver a real acceptance speech. Use Michael Caine's speech from 2000 as an example of how to say thank you with class:



EXCEPTION: Please do thank your wife, kids, and dogs. Everyone else, to the crawl!

3. Here's an idea: Don't upstage the dead with a live musical performance. Have Queen Latifa sing live so the cameras focus on her and not the two seconds of screen time for Ricardo Montalban?You stay classy, Oscars! I give you credit for trying to shake things up, but no one ever had a problem with the In memoriam montage. In fact, it's one of the few things people stayed up to watch. Don't sully that. C'mon now.

4. Show the backstage press gaggles after commercial breaks. Kate Winslet won last night, and she gave a nice speech. In this scenario, go to commercial, and come back with her talking with the press, a little less guarded, saying something more frank and honest. It's great television! Why squirrel it away and give those nuggets to bottom-feeder shows like Inside Edition?

5. Play up the club vibe. Hugh Jackman's intoductory skit was funny and showy and set the right tone for the show:



The smaller set design made the program feel more intimate. If the oscars feel like a fun night at a club, all the better. Play the entirety of the best song nominees. Get the blood moving a little!

Those are just a few ideas. Joe, I'm sure you have some you'd like to add or delete. I'd love to hear what you think, and what any readers (do we have readers?) think as well.

Handicapping the Oscars: Final pass

I've spent the better part of the month catching up on the nominated films, and re-watching one or two more to get a better bearing on tomorrow night's show. Here is my revised list, with each category ranked in my order of preference:

Best picture

1. “Milk”
   
2. “Slumdog Millionaire”
   
3. “Frost/Nixon”
   
4. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
   
5. “The Reader”
   

I finally got to see Benjamin Button on Valentine's Day, and was completely underwhelmed. It wasn't a bad movie, but there was no life to this story about a individual's life. It just lay there on the screen. It will win a slew of technical awards, and some artistic awards, like Cinmatography, but I list it fourth of five in the category.

Milk still gets my nod, because it was the best made picture, the story was so compelling, and the overall acting job by the cast was superb. It is also Gus Van Sant's best movie in years, combining his ability to tell a story with his more avante garde tendencies as a filmmaker. Slumdog is the favorite heading in, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a Best Picture/Best Director split.

Best Actor

1. Sean Penn in “Milk”
   
2. Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler”
   
3. Frank Langella in “Frost/Nixon”
   
4. Richard Jenkins in “The Visitor”
   
5. Brad Pitt in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
   

I've seen The Wrestler and the Visitor since my past pass at the Oscars. Rourke really does give an excellent performance as Randy The Ram, and Richard Jenkins' first leading role turned out to be spectacular. This category is studded with four performances worthy of the award. So who wins? I think it actually falls the way if should.

Pitt is out. His work in Benjamin Button is good but not nearly at the level of the other four performances. So we'll slot him fifth.

This was Jenkins' first time out of the box, and despite his excellent performance, he's outshined by actors with a better pedigree in the category. He could be a dark horse, but that's only if there's a split among voters between Pitt and Rourke.

Langella turned Nixon into a Napoleon on Elba in Frost/Nixon, breathing complexity and ambition into the disgraced politician. Any other year, he's a shoo-in favorite. This year, though, he's out of luck. Chris Connelly noted in a recent Bill Simmons podcast that Langella won a Tony for the role, which may make voters view this as a role and perforamnce already rewarded.

So Rourke vs. Penn. Either way is no travesty. I think Penn actually wins or delivering an excellent performance outside of his comfort zone. Rourke's also gone out of his way to say he doesn't care either way, which can be a turnoff to the ever-vain Oscar voters.

Best Actress 

No rankings
Anne Hathaway in “Rachel Getting Married” (Did Not See)
Angelina Jolie in “Changeling”(Did Not See)
Melissa Leo in “Frozen River”(Did Not See)
Meryl Streep in “Doubt”
Kate Winslet in “The Reader”

I can't rank my choices here because I haven't seen the Hathaway, Jolie or Leo films. It's too bad.  Of the two I've seen, I still will back Winslet.

Best Supporting Actor

1. Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”
   
2. Josh Brolin in “Milk”
   
3. Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder”
   
4. Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Doubt”
   
5. Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road” (Did Not See)
   

I re-watched The Dark Knight, and I'm changing my call: Ledger wins, and not just because of his circumstances. He created one of the all-time great movie villains with His Joker. Brolin is deserving, but he'll have another shot soon. I still haven't seen Revolutionary Road, so no comment on Shannon's work.

Best Supporting Actress

1. Viola Davis in “Doubt”
   
2. Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler”
   
3. Penélope Cruz in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
   
4. Taraji P. Henson in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
   
5. Amy Adams in “Doubt”
   

I've now seen all five performances. I'm going to stick with Viola Davis, even though there's so much buzz around Penelope Cruz. Davis wrung more emotion, complexity and depth in her short screen time than any of the other four performances nominated.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona was a bad film with a few good moments. When will the Boomer critics of the world finally admit that Wody Allen has lost his fastball, and it's never coming back?
And Penelope Cruz did good work with an utterly stereotyped role, but Rebecca Hall did more with her understated role as Vicky.

Marissa Tomei was good in The Wrestler, as was Henson in Benjamin Button, but neither was good enough to catch Davis.

Best Director

1. “Milk”, Gus Van Sant
   
2. “Slumdog Millionaire”, Danny Boyle
   
3. “Frost/Nixon”, Ron Howard
   
4. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, David Fincher
   
5. “The Reader”, Stephen Daldry
   

Seeing Button didn't change my feelings. Van Sant deserves the award, but could very well lose to Boyle without it being robbery. I'll repeat, watch for a split between these movies in the dirctor and best picture categories.

Roger Ebert on Gene Siskel

Roger Ebert gives us a glimpse of life with Gene Siskel. Roger is a legend in the critic business, of course, but this piece really shows what kind of man he is, and what kind of writer. It's as moving as any elegy, but in the simple prose of a newsman.

X-Men III : The Last Stand (#12)

A strong series and this one holds up really well. Where the other two may have had more interesting stories this one had more fun and compelling action sequences.  Half way through though it does feel like the filmmakers were clearing the field of the other characters and making Wolverine the central character, which could have been problematic for a movie that’s supposed to be an ensemble, but it all somehow works.

The House Bunny (#11)

“Nipples are the eyes of the face, “ and Anna Ferris is awesome.  She’s been great in so many supporting roles that I’ve enjoyed, that I was excited to see this. She’s a gifted comic performer, and this movie was perfect vehicle for her mix of spacey line delivery and physical comedy.  Ferris plays a Playboy playmate who gets booted from the playboy mansion on her 29^th birthday (being 56 years old in playboy years, and ends up stumbling into a house mother role for the dorky girl sorority at a nearby university.  She really elevates the material, which could have been on the lesser end of the spectrum of Happy Madison productions. Berto will be happy to know that despite the production company , Rob Schneider does not make an appearance. 

 

The Wrestler (#10)

Berto said it all really well, and for the most part I’m in agreement. Rourke’s performance is worth the ticket price. Aronovsky directs with an unflinching camera and captures the agony/ecstasy of professional wrestling, that mirrors the emotional themes of the film.  I didn’t think Tomei’s performance was as good as the hype, and didn’t think Evan Rachel Wood was as bad as some of the reviews. The story was pretty predictable, and the journey of the main character was not as inspirational or moving as I expected. My disappointment might have been due to high expectations though.

American Teen (#9)

I recommend this documentary highly.  The film follows four, archetypal  students through their final year of high school. We all know the school these kids go to, we all know the kids that populate the movie,the situations, and even the twist and turns. But that’s part of what makes this film so engrossing, the familiarity and honesty.  The filmmakers deserve an immense amount of credit for how deftly and creatively they tell this story, and for building the relationships with these kids that allow them not only access to their lives, but invites  really honest exchanges.  Great stuff.

The Wrestler

Yeah, he's that good.

Mickey Rourke gives the performance of a lifetime in The Wrestler. Whether that's enough to rescue the movie from an hour and a half's worth of 10-year-old indie pic conventions is entirely up to the viewer.

Everyone's heard about the performance, but for anyone still uninitiated: Rouke plays Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a broken-down wrestling star working the weekend community center circuit for cash. Clearly past his prime, Randy nonetheless is treated like royalty by the dozens of fans and handful of other performers. It's when he leaves the locker room and returns to the real world that his true, tattered existence comes into focus. This former superstar of the 80's has been locked our of his trailer, so he has to sleep in his van. He doesn't own a phone, so he has to track down the last working pay phone in New Jersey to confirm gigs. He cries to his nebbish, mean-spirited boss for more hours at the supermarket. And he spends his night pining for the love of a stripper (Cassidy, in another strong performance by Marisa Tomei) in a third-rate club. 

Even this tenuous hold on life is wrecked when Randy suffers a heart attack after a particularly brutal hardcore wresting match. Now facing the real prospoect of losing a career he rightfully lost 20 years ago, Randy reaches out to Cassidy, who in turn encourages him to reach out to his daughter (Evan Rachel Wood). 

From that set-up, Writer-Director Darren Aronofsky cobbles together a plot based loosely on every indie movie you watched in the 1990's. There's the tearful initial confrontation between Randy and his daughter Stephanie, followed by an inexplicable second meeting, which leads to a tearful reconciliation, followed by a promise and a betrayal, which leads to a tearful falling out. He woos Cassidy, the stripper with a heart of gold, who's trying hard to save up money and get out of the business. They have a meaningful conversation in a bar, which is capped with laments of better times and dancing to a song inappropriate to the mood of the movie, but conveys a happier past for both of them. There's also the steeling of resolve as displayed by Randy's decision to get back in the ring one last time, even though his doctors say it'll kill him. All the old tropes are there, and Aronofsky does nothing to freshen things up.

What works are the performances. Rourke was born to play this part. A victim of his own bad decisions and some tough luck, Rourke brings a real sense of grief for lost opportunity, lost relationships, and lost pride, and is completely open and vulnerable in his scenes with Tomei and Wood. He's probably a shoo-in for the Oscar. Sean Penn and Frank Langella both had excellent performances in Milk and Frost/Nixon, respectively, but they don't have the backstory that Rourke has. That shouldn't be a consideration, but we all know that it is.

Tomei rises to the occasion, creating a parallel to Rourke's wrestler with her aging stripper. Both characters know their time in the flesh market is about up, and both aren't sure how to proceed. Tomei has quietly put together a number of strong performances over the years, and her nomination isn't entirely unfounded, although I don't think she has a real shot at the supporting actress award this year (Viola Davis was just that good in her limited screen time in Doubt). Still, she has the look and sensibility for the role, and does enough against Rourke's animal performance to make her a credible pick.

Evan Rachel Wood, however, is completely overmatched. Playing a disaffected college kid isn't the hardest thing in the world, since disaffected college kids are overdramatic and full of shit. But Wood can't manage even this, and displays either full-on rage or total submission with Rourke. The world is still waiting for the kid in Thirteen to show up again.

Aronofsky does give the wrestling scenes love, too. The shots of Randy's matches and backstage banter have a distinct documentary feel to them, reminiscent of Beyond The Mat. The Ram doesn't seem to be a direct derrivative of any former wrestling great, though he comes across as Macho Man Randy Savage with a little lucha libre style added for effect. Aronofsky captures the backstage and in-ring action well. The few embellishments, like a steroids dealer working so openly in the back room, feel a bit forced, however.

The soundtrack in this movie is great for anyone who was alive and loved hair metal in the 1980's. It's another 90's indie trick to fill the soundtrack with "Hey, I remember that!" music, but there are still a few people out there who are suckers for a good Ratt song. Whether Round and Round and Rourke's stunning work is enough to save the movie from Aronofsky's lack of imagination is unclear. See it in the theater if you are an Oscar completionist or if you love performance above all other film elements. Wait to rent it if story is your bigger concern.

Five I'm Excited For In 09

Watchmen: I've had mixed feelings on Zach Synder. The man's movies have been stylistically gorgeous to look at , but have felt a little soulless. As a big time comic fan I was more then a little nervous that he was handed the reigns to what is regarded as pound for pound the greatest graphic novel of all time. I've been encouraged by the trailers and everything that's come out so far. Despite my doubts it looks like the guy's nailed it. I'm curious to see how they cut it to get it under the report 3 hour plus run time, that would surely be box office death. Now that Warners and Fox settled their lawsuit over the rights for the property the release date is set for March 6th 2009

The Expendables: I've only read rumors, but this is Sly Stallone next opus. Now anyone who knows me, knows I'm a big Stallone fan, and homer, but I haven't met anyone who didn't think his recent revisiting of both the Rocky and Rambo franchises didn't deliver. The Expendables aims to to be an ode to the bombastic action pictures of the 80's but with more modern effects. The reported cast sounds amazing, Stallone, Jason Stratham, Jet Li, Ben Kingsley, Forrest Whitiker, Mickey Rourke, and wait for it… Doplh Lundren. That's right. Freaking Drago. I'm so there opening weekend, and maybe this time my friends won't make me go see a matinee so they don't have to pay full price. No Release date yet.

Up: Pixar's track record is good enough to get my money, but the premise of this one makes me think it can be special. Something about it has a Goonies vibe to it. An old man, sets off to take the vacation he was supposed to take with his wife before she passed away. He latches thousands of balloons to his house, and floats off into the sky. The thing is, a boy scout looking to earn his "help the elderly" badge happened to be on his porch when the house takes off. One part tale of unfinished business, one part unlikely friendship, one part adventure, and a whole lot pixar style, makes me eager to see what Pixar has cooked up next. Release date is scheduled for May 2009

The Brothers Bloom: I've see the trailer for this a few times and really dig it. It has a fun Fish Called Wanda vibe, with a bit of Wes Anderson flavor (but less pretentious) mixed in. I'd watch Rachel Weisz read the phone book. The release has been delayed, which could be a troubling signal. I just have a feeling that this one can be really unique and fun. It’s scheduled for May 29th 2009

Scott Pilgrim Versus The World: Scott Pilgrim is a great graphic novel series by Canadian artist Bryan Lee O’Malley, that follows the main character's battle against his new girlfriends 7 evil ex boy friends. It’s fun mash up of manga, video game, and garage band culture, with a deep bench of fun supporting characters. This project seems to be attracting the perfect mix of talent including writer director Edgar Wright of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame, and Michael Cera as the lead. Could be a very cool indie hit. No release date yet.

Run Fat Boy Run (#8)

Bland Fat Boy Bland.Starring Simon Pegg (Sean of the Dead), written by Michel Ian Black ( The State, and all the VH1 decade shows, and directed by David Schwimmer (Ross), Run Fat Boy Run, was a disappointingly generic comedy. I kinda felt like I had seen it already, even though I hadn't. Not bad, but kinda predictable. Destined for endless replays on the USA network.

Handicapping the Oscars: First Pass

So the Oscar nominations come out yesterday morning, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has 13 nominations. i tried to run out the clock on Button, but it looks like I'll have to see it this weekend. I've seen the other best picture pics, but I have some homework to do for the other major awards. Joe, what are your thoughts about the nominations?

I've listed the nominations in each category by my favorites. I have not yet seen a few of these movies, though, so this is just an early pass at handicapping the picks. 

Best picture

“Milk” 
“Slumdog Millionaire”

“Frost/Nixon”

“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”

“The Reader”


I haven't seen Benjamin Button yet, so I can't really say whether it's deserving of the nod. I was a little surprised to see The Reader in this list, which I thought was a little lackluster and unfocused.

The other three are deserving of the nomination, however, and Milk should be the early front runner to win.

About Slumdog: It's a lot of fun, and it's a touching and uplifting story, but I don't know that it reaches the same level of overall excellence as Frost/Nixon and Milk. I can see it winning, and it won't be a travesty if it does, the way Crash winning was a few years ago. Still, what do we mean when we say best picture? the movie we liked best or the movie that was the best made, directed, acted, written, etc? I prefer the latter, but I don't think the emotional experience of seeing a movie should be completely excluded, either.

Best Actor

Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler”

Frank Langella in “Frost/Nixon”
Sean Penn in “Milk”

Richard Jenkins in “The Visitor”

Brad Pitt in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”


I've only seen Penn and Langella's performances here, and they both were excellent. I'd give the nod slightly to Langella, purely because he so thoroughly captured the menace and incredible intellect of Richard Nixon. I put Rourke at the top of the list because of the incredible and unanimous word of mouth.

Best Actress

Anne Hathaway in “Rachel Getting Married”
Angelina Jolie in “Changeling”
Melissa Leo in “Frozen River”
Meryl Streep in “Doubt”
Kate Winslet in “The Reader”

I've only seen two performances on this list, so I can't rank the performances at all. Streep and Winslet: Neither struck me as excellent. Streep played an overbearing, inscrutable nun, and it was hard to tell if she was hamming it up, or if the character was written with such little nuance. Winslet was better in The Reader.

Best Supporting Actor

Josh Brolin in “Milk”
Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”

Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder”

Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Doubt”

Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road”

I've seen four of the five (sorry, Michael Shannon). This is a tough field, as all of the performances were great. Ledger is the sentimental choice, and the work really does support his nomination. Downey winning would be a great story as well. But Brolin gives such a strong performance in Milk that he may spoil those particular parties.

Best Supporting Actress

Amy Adams in “Doubt”
Penélope Cruz in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
Viola Davis in “Doubt”
Taraji P. Henson in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler”

Again, only saw Doubt, so no rankings. Of the two performances, Viola Davis is more deserving, although her limited screen time will hurt her chances. 

Best Director

“Milk”, Gus Van Sant

“Slumdog Millionaire”, Danny Boyle

“Frost/Nixon”, Ron Howard

“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, David Fincher
“The Reader”, Stephen Daldry

Another strong slate in this category. Gus Van Sant's ability to take Milk from the bland, predictable biopic genre and transform it into a movie about a time and place makes him my choice. Danny Boyle is also very deserving for his use of setting and pacing in Slumdog. 

Slumdog Millionaire (#7)

I had high hopes for this movie. Everything I had heard had been positive, and people who I usually never talk movies with had been urging me to go see it. I also really enjoy the work of Danny Boyle, and think he is a film maker who has been making consistently good movies for a while now. Knowing that it did so well at the Golden Globes only added to my interest in seeing it. However, with so much going for it I was nervous that I was over hyping it in my mind, and setting myself up to be disappointed. Perhaps it’s a testament to how exceptional Slumdog Millionaire is that it delivered on all that hype.

The opening sequence drops you into the basic framing device for the movie, a young Indian male is doing quite well on his countries version of “Who wants to be a Millionaire”. The film quickly signals a grittier if not darker tone, by jumping in time to that same young man being tortured by the Indian police. From there the movie embraces the epic “in medias res” structure, as tried and true formula, drawn from literature (the Odyssey) and other films (Braveheart comes to mind). Doing so gives the whole movie a hopeful, fairytale type vibe. Even in the darkest, saddest moments I got the feeling the movie was building and building to a moment of triumph.

Thematically, I can’t think of a movie in recent memory that is a stronger statement for the idea of destiny or fate. Each detail of the movie is laid out in such a specific way, as if to suggest an underlying plan, connecting events over years, and physical distance. I was left wondering why, if not for the purpose of telling a compelling story, were these characters fated to suffer so much, before reaching a such a euphoric resolution.

Visually, Slumdog, combines the best of Danny Boyle’s work. The urban grittiness of Trainspotting, the frantic running action of 28 Days Later, and the fairytale sweetness of Millions, into a truly memorable and compelling mix. He also really has knack for working with child/young adult actors who all give solid performances. If anything some to the adult performances come across kind of over the top (I’m looking at you Indian Regis).

At the end of the movie, stay for the credits. Boyle keeps the high energy of the film going with a Bollywood style dance number that puts a emotional exclamation point on a really satisfying movie experience.

Defiance

What to make of Daniel Craig? He's helmed the successful reboot of the movie industry's most venerated franchise. He's starred in an indie darling. He's done fine supporting work in an Oscar-caliber film . So do we have Steve McQueen 2.0? Or is he just another square-jawed tough that never seems to rise above the material at hand? His movies make money, but it isn't yet clear whether he's smart about the projects he picks or if he's a face that can pack a theater all on its own. 

Craig is good in Defiance, the third of the World War II-tinged movies this Oscar season. He carries a little flame of humanity and conflict behind his eyes, which is all you can ask of a guy with Craig's face. If he does succeed as a star with drawing power, it'll be because he can do more than look rugged and handsome, which he does here.

Beyond Craig, however, there's not so much going on for Defiance. The film's direction and editing turns an incredible true story of hardship and survival into a sloppy action flick that at times has a little soul. There's barely time to register the character's names before they are already taking on the homeless and infirmed in the woods. In the first reel, two brothers, Zus (Liev Schreiber) and Asael Bielski (Jamie Bell is Billy Elliot fame) come home to find their parents killed by the Germans, discover a third, younger brother, Aron, (George MacKay)  hiding under the floorboards of the house, and head out into the woods, where a fourth , long-lost brother (Craig's Tuvia) tracks them down. The third brother goes wandering off and comes back with a small dentist office's worth of sick and scared Jews who have also fled from the Nazi slaughter in the villages. A decision is made then and there to keep and feed these stragglers.

In short, it's a mess. Tuvia's return is completely unexplained until much later in the film, and even then there's no confirmation; just hints at a tragic separation. The leadership of Tuvia and Zus is just assumed by everyone else in the forest. The entire first act is rushed and the film suffers for it. Tuvia's return to town to kill his parents' killers carries no emotional heft. His immediate disapproval of Zus' demands to form raiding parties comes immediately after the killings. Had the previous scene been given room to breathe, Tuvia's disapproval at more violence would have made more sense.

The raids do nothing but lead to camp members dying, and to increased attention by the Germans. The camp is forced to uproot and move deeper into the forest. Now come the Belarusian resistance fighters, who are none to pleased to find milk thieves and hungry, sick folk as their new neighbors in the metropolis-like forest. An uneasy peace is made.

As time passes, the hot-headed Zus becomes more and more disenchanted with the passive existence of the camp and the heavy-handed rule of his brother. He and other able-bodied men walk off and join the resistance fighters. The schism, some hour into the movie, finally gives a narrative drive to the project. Is it cowardice to hide in the forest? Is it worth fighting with allies who still hate you and your people? Is survival, in and of itself, the best revenge? To his credit, director Edward Zwick asks difficult questions and does not provide easy answers. The brothers' checkered past is not hidden, and their autocratic tendencies are uncomfortable to watch, even in the service of such great good. If only Zwick had done a better job of presenting the questions.

Schreiber does what he usually does: Lend structure and support with strong character work. He delivers Zus as a ill-tempered man who strives to meet his noble goals with less-than-noble tactics. His scenes with Craig and Ball carry the distinct flavor of a brother who wants, but doesn't always get, his way.

The film does not hide the Jewishness of the characters. Beaten down, starving and forced to live in makeshift cabins in the woods, the camp members still retain their cultural integrity. There's a wedding, complete with Chuppah and Horah . Camp elder Shamon Haretz (Allan Corduner) teaches the Talmud to the children. The scenes give the camp a sense of place and camaraderie, so the inevitable fissions and splintering takes on the weight of true separation. 

It also justifies a lot of the symbolism in the camp's second and final flight. After losing a few too many soldiers to the forest dwellers, the Germans send a full company to find and eradicate the camp. Tuvia leads the camp's feeling members to the edge of the forest, where they are confronted with miles of bog and a river. Tuvia has become Moses leading his people out of bondage and toward freedom. Shamon, now too sick, is carried at shoulder-height on a stretcher like the bones of Joseph coming out of Egypt.

This being Hollywood, of course, it isn't the promised land on the other side of the water. In the end, there's a bit too much Hollywood in the film, which drowns out the Bielski Brothers' story. Maybe Zwick was worried about the film's length, which was already over two hours, but a little more patience at the beginning would have made the film worthy of the story it tells. Instead, wait to rent Defiance.

Hamlet 2 (#6)

In a summer that has been hyped as big for comedy I was under whelmed by two of the biggest hits. Pineapple Express and Tropic Thunder. Although different in tone, both lacked that quotable, better on repeated viewing, push the boundaries and surprise you with a laugh that sneaks up on you quality that I had expected from both. Where I felt let down by both of those movies, Hamlet 2 delivers.

From Pam Brady and Andy Fleming, two South Park writers, who worked on the tv show, movie, and Team America, Hamlet 2 spotlights a really exceptional Brittish comic named Steve Coogan. Coogan plays a failed actor, turned high school drama teacher, who takes his drama program getting shut down as an opportunity to stage his opus.

The plot is pretty standard, but clever parody on a couple of movie clichés; the teacher inspiring his students to success, the community coming together to make a work of art, a likable loser persevering in the end. It feels like it shouldn’t work, but it really does. Coogan, who I haven’t seen in anything before, but understand he’s a notable comic performer in England, really holds the whole movie together. His performance is a really unique mix of wide-eyed hopefulness, unhinged manic behavior, and quick clever one liners. Think a mix of Steve Carrel from the Office, Will Ferrell, and Stan’s dad Randy on South Park.

The movie is also full of strong supporting comic turns. Catherine Keener plays Coogans unsupportive wife. Amy Poheler plays a feisty ACLU attorney who helps make sure the show goes on. And in a surprising and enjoyable role, Elizabeth Shue, plays Elizabeth Shue, in a wry and self deprecating performance.

Hamlet 2 was really enjoyable. It was silly and clever, with great comedic performances, and some really clever and memorable lines. I'll definitely keep an eye out on more from Steve Coogan or this writing team.