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.