Dan in Real Life

Steve Carell strikes comedy gold again with his latest about an advice columnist whose own life is in disarray. He is a widower who takes his three girls to the annual family reunion only to meet a woman who strikes his fancy. Unfortunately that woman is also his brother's girlfriend and together they must deal with the quirks and idiosyncrasies of each family member over the course of a long weekend. During that time, they learn more about each other and more importantly, the viewer gets an inside glimpse at a slightly disfunctional, but loving family. The journey has its ups and downs, but at the heart of this story is love and the different forms it takes.

Carell shows quite a bit of range in this movie, and although there are moments when he is comic genius, there are also more subtle times when he lets down his guard and you can really feel his emotional sadness. The scene where he serenades the family in the annual talent show with his brother almost brought a tear to my eye, and just is an indicator that he will be around for a long time doing more than just comedy.

The rest of the cast does fine, I originally thought Juliette Binoche was an odd choice for the girlfriend, what with her French accent, but she kept up with Carell just fine. Dane Cook plays the brother, and surprisingly held his own without putting off the aura that he's just a pretty-boy stand-up comedian.

This film reminded me of Little Miss Sunshine, which I didn't particularly care for (I know, blasphemy). It is a feel-good family comedy with some serious issues, but overall more of a comedy than a drama. Films like this seem to be a rarity when done properly. They are character driven and the focus is not as much on the story.

I would strongly recommend this for an entertaining getaway. 8/10.

Gone Baby Gone

With all of the criticism that Ben Affleck has hailed over the past decade, you would expect that his directing debut would fall in line with those sentiments. He pulls through on this one, with the help of a strong story by the writer of Mystic River and a solid group of performers, one of whom happens to be his little brother.

The story is eerily similar to Mystic River in that a residential working class Boston neighborhood falls victim to a terrible crime only to find the criminal elements band together to put things in their proper place. This story deviates slightly with the protagonist as a street-tough Bostonian private detective who finds himself in over his head taking on a missing persons case. Affleck plays the lead fairly well with his authentic accent and his tough guy demeanor, but there is something a little odd about seeing him in the lead, particularly with heavyweights Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman carrying such strong supporting roles.

Midway through the film, I thought the movie was over without any significant action or suspense, but then the second act began and it really kicked things up a notch. The intensity was subdued after a great shootout sequence, but the story took a clever turn that led to the morally ambiguous ending.

I find myself making comparisons often, and this was no Mystic River. That said, this was not directed by Eastwood either. It was however a good movie. A good story and good acting. Especially impressive was Ed Harris as the hardened detective working with Casey Affleck on the case. Dennis Lehane certainly writes a good tale and I will check out some of his other works after seeing this. 8/10.

Rendition

The basis of the film is "extraordinary rendition", what basically equates to an anti-terrorist loophole in the constitution where suspects are taken out of the country for interrogation and/or detainment. The story unfolds in a flash, with a highly regarded chemical engineer abducted from a Washington, DC airport and taken to an undisclosed location in "North Africa".

Seemingly parallel plots converge in a twist of flashbacks and different vantage points, but a major continuity flaw left me unsatisfied in the end. Rendition is not your typical patriotic anti-terrorist film, instead it is a reflection of the gray area that surrounds the constant struggle with the war on terror and the thin line between security and liberty.

I also found myself thinking during the film that Reese Witherspoon is the most over-rated actress in the industry. She has only three emotions; happy, angry and confused/sad. I don't find her appealing in the slightest. The added detail that she was 9 months pregnant did nothing to help the story, and although I was sympathetic to the situation, her character evoked nothing from me.

Jake Gyllenhall did a fine job as the CIA liason observing the interrogation. The role was understated and worthy of recognition. I have enjoyed his work in his past few movies, particularly Brokeback Mountain, Jarhead and Zodiac. The other standout performance was the interrogated Omar Metwally, who keeps you suspicious and sympathetic at the same time up until the very end.

The great thing about this movie is the cautionary moral tale. In today's society almost anything can happen, and there is adequate justification for it on either side of lady liberty's scale of justice. It is just too bad that Hollywood has been so entranced with the Muslim Jihad angle lately. It is frankly getting a little old.

Good performances by Gyllenhall and Metwally, mediocre from the other stars; Arkin, Streep and Saarsgaard. Reese Witherspoon continues to rub me the wrong way. Good story, but the continuity flaw ruined it just enough for me to ding it a couple of points. 7/10.

Lars and the Real Girl

You would think that a movie with the premise of a young emotionally distraught man who seeks solace in the arms of a blow-up doll would be a recipe for disaster. It's actually not. Surprisingly this film had just enough comedy, just enough community kindness and just enough good acting to pull it off.

The story is simple; Lars has had hang-ups since his mother died during his childbirth and left him to live with his emotionally vapid father. This experience has left him a bit deprived, and consequently he has issues dealing with people in his simple life. This is not necessarily a bad thing however, because he lives in a small town in Wisconsin, and he is a nice enough guy, so the town folk understand him and make a genuine effort to befriend him.

He reaches a breaking point and buys a lifelike silicon doll which he believes is real due to a delusional illness. His caring sister-in-law and his brother take control of the matter in the only logical way; they make everyone in the town play along with Lars to show their support and help him get through his issues.

I have to say, I had heard that Ryan Gosling portrays Lars in a brilliant manner, and I agree that there are few actors that could have pulled off this role in such a genuine way. He does a great job, but it is still a strange role in a very simple film and likely one that will fall short of most awards' radars. Also worthy of mention was Emily Mortimer, as the altruistic sister-in-law who only wants to see Lars happy. It is almost painful to see her failed attempts to invite him to meals with the family throughout the first half hour.

The film is really all about Lars, and the power of help from community. This character is the type that really gets to you, makes you feel sorry for him, and you root for him in the end. I feel that was the intent by both Gosling and the director, Craig Gillespie.

Go see this movie if you're feeling down, or if you want a good laugh, or if you just feel like losing yourself in a simple entertaining story for a couple of hours. It's just good fun. There are too few movies this original and this good natured. 7/10.

Michael Clayton

In his directorial debut, Tony Gilroy (also the writer) is fantastic. The writing and acting moves the movie seamlessly through the four day flashback of Clooney's titular character. The story is simple, corrupt litigators and moral and ethical dilemmas that result from a health related class action lawsuit. Where the story strikes gold is in its lack of detail regarding the case itself. Too many legal dramas spend an unnecessary amount of time setting up the payoff, but what that tends to do is complicate the heart of the story, which is simply justice. Clooney delivers his best performance since Syriana, but the scene stealer here is Tom Wilkinson. At this point, I expect him to win the supporting actor Oscar in the same way I expected Nicholson to win last year for the Departed. He is absolutely brilliant. His character's dialogue doesn't hurt much either. Tilda Swinton and Sydney Pollack also deliver great performances, which leads one to believe that this may be a film full of nominations this year.

Clooney is a lawyer who has a mysterious role within a large firm, labeled simply as "special counsel". He is in fact a problem solver, a self-described janitor of sorts. He finds himself in a moral and ethical pickle as one of the firm's pending cases has some complications and his services become required. He finds his role of janitor turn to investigator and back to janitor before the film is through, and he does it with an understated performance. Not the Clooney we're all used to, but the one that will win him awards.

I would expect a Wilkinson nod, perhaps Clooney and even possibly Swinton when the nominations are announced. Don't be surprised if this is up for best picture or best director as well. This is a smart film that is carried by the story and the acting from beginning to end. 9/10.

We Own the Night

We Own the Night, a motto of the New York Police Department in the early 1980's in their failing attempt to clean up the streets, is a story about a family of cops and the black sheep son who is a night club manager and drug user. The setting works well and credit has to go to a very inexperienced Gray for writing and directing a pretty decent story.

Based on the previews, this film had the feel of the Departed to me, which was my favorite of 2006, and also had Joaquin Phoenix, one of the most underrated actors around. He should have won the Oscar for Walk the Line in 2005. What it didn't have was supporting players or a satisfactory ending. Mark Wahlberg had a meaty role, but just didn't perform up to his potential. His character lacked any emotional depth and he played the disapproving brother a little too blindly. Robert Duvall, on the other hand, who is a classic actor who just hasn't had a decent role in a decade, just didn't seem to fit as the police chief and father of the two boys.

Over the course of the movie, the line between family and justice becomes blurred over and over, and ethical obligations are questioned by nearly everyone. I will say that there is a good deal of suspense, and the turn of events in the film are more realistic than they could have been if the intent was more for audience approval. The high point for me was the car chase scene, which was absolutely brilliant. No music, no explosions, just an obscured view out of a rain-drenched windshield. I was very impressed with the scene, it was just flat-out cool. Not the way Jason Bourne car chase scenes are cool, but the way that you envision it would actually go down if it were to happen in front of you.

Overall, Phoenix delivered in another great performance, putting him right up there with Christian Bale as one of the most talented leading men around. The ending warranted comparison with Heat, a great movie, but it just didn't seem to satisfy me. The realism was commendable, but overall the whole thing was a little disappointing. 7/10.

3:10 to Yuma

I wasn't going to do a review of this movie until I saw the original (1957) On Demand last night. The similarities are interesting, but what really interested me were the striking differences. The film follows Dan Evans, a poor drought-stricken rancher struggling to feed his family and keep his home. His life is forever changed by a chance meeting with Ben Wade and his criminal gang. The new version of this film portrays a much more in-depth character study than the 1957 version, which focuses on the story and the wild west hero cliche.

Dan takes on the job of escorting Ben to Contention, AZ mostly because he is offered money but also because he feels a sense of failure in his life, and shame in the eyes of his two boys. This journey and general theme remains consistent in both versions of the film, as does much of the dialogue.

Where the two films are surprisingly different is in the violence and resolution. The bad guys are far more sinister and heartless in the newer version, which is a sign of the times, as audiences have become much more bloodthirsty (to steal an observation from Steven King). The ending of the original version was surprising to me in its formulaic good triumphing over evil theme, probably because I saw the updated version first.

The new version lost some of its effectiveness to me because it stuck with most of the original storyline, but threw in the new and questionably improved ending with more entertaining violent sequences, and far more lead slinging.

Audiences seem to have an insatiable desire for new and shocking changes to old Hollywood film standards. This is very evident in the disparities between the two versions of this film. I would recommend seeing both. The updated version is a great Western, one that is rare in today's day and age. I would go as far as to put it up there with Unforgiven and Tombstone, however, I did not appreciate the ending for various reasons.

Overall, entertaining and a great, timeless story. 1957 version - 5/10, 2007 version - 7/10.

Into the Wild

About halfway through the film, I started thinking about the reviews I'd read and how there was criticism regarding the portrayal of Chris/Alex and his family. Primarily, critics either vilified the parents for driving him to this irrational fate, or skewered his own personal character for alienating everyone in his life and ultimately hurting them all.

I saw neither in the film. It was a heartfelt recount of an innocent and passionate young man who only wanted to find truth and meaning in life. Clearly influenced by the allure of solidarity and bonding with nature via London or Kerouac, he sets off for an adventure without the constraints of material things or interpersonal relationships. Along the way, he makes friends then abruptly leaves them. He works a few odd jobs, but only as a purely sociological experiment and to save up enough to make his way to Fairbanks, Alaska and buy the necessary supplies for his survival quest into the Yukon.

The emphasis of the film is on the carefree journey, escaping the rat race and bucking the system. It could have gone down a much different path from a cinematic standpoint, but Sean Penn does a great job of managing the story so that the viewer believes in the journey for its beauty and spirit.

Although a little on the long side at nearly 3 hours, the adventure is accompanied by refreshingly melodic music by Eddie Vedder, and fortunately for the viewer there is not much time spent on the back story or the aftermath.

Some may say he was crazy to abandon his future for a 2 year hiatus. I say he was following his heart and found his nirvana. Chris makes a crucial realization when his demise is near, and it is almost heartbreaking to see him die, but it was inevitable, and was the only way that this story could end with dignity. Not to call him a martyr, but there is something beautiful about the story. Overall I was moved by this film, and enjoyed the introspection that it inspired. 9/10.

Eastern Promises

This film blew me away. It was ultra-violent, but told a wonderful story about the dark underbelly of the Russian mob in present day London. It follows David Cronenberg's recent template of a very simple story with a twist at the end (See A History of Violence). I admit, I didn't exactly see it coming because there was a curveball right before the twist that took the form of one of the most realistic and brutal fight scenes in recent memory. Viggo Mortenson is the star power, and carries his character well as a driver working his way up the proverbial ladder within a powerful family. Tattoos play a central role within the film, acting as the identifier of experiences and rank among the mobsters, however, this sub-plot would have been better left in the background. It was more of a distraction than an additive, and the story and dialogue was certainly strong enough to hold an audience's attention.

This film took the grand prize at the Toronto Film Festival this year, and is expected to be a serious contender come Oscar time. I would expect nods to go to Cronenberg (snubbed last year) and Mortenson on this one, and as of early October, it is my personal front-runner for best picture. I would highly recommend checking this one out, but it's definitely not for the squeamish. 9/10.

In the Valley of Elah

I was impressed with bits and pieces of this film, but the emotional manipulation seemed a little contrived and I am sure that Paul Haggis knows it. Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron did a fine job acting, but their characters were a little too stereotypical. Jones is a retired army NCO and his attitude conveys stoicism and emotional absence. His wife is dutiful and committed, although I have had a problem with Susan Sarandon ever since Bull Durham. Jones loses his second son to a military mishap, but the twist is that it happened upon return stateside. The rest of the movie follows Jones as he conducts the investigation that the Army and local police (Theron) are neglecting. There are flashbacks via cameraphone that add little substance to the inevitable heartbreak ending, which is as predictable as it is disappointing. Overall a valiant effort from a great writer, and good acting by the principals.

I was expecting Oscar-caliber writing, but this picture will only receive acting nods (if that). I am very much looking forward to Jones' other potential Oscar contender, No Country for Old Men, which comes out in November.

Entertaining enough, better than some, but the content is very disheartening. I expected more from the team behind the film. 7/10.

The Kingdom

Alright, so I went to see this highly anticipated Peter Berg action-drama on Friday night, and frankly I was a little disappointed. The casting was fine, of course I am a huge Jason Bateman fan. The storyline however was a little predictable and formulaic. In an NPR radio interview, Berg mentioned that the original ending was a twist on the cliche good guys ride off into the sunset after killing all the bad guys, in which all four protagonists are blown up in a suicide bombing and then the credits role. I truly think this would have been more realistic as (SPOILER ALERT) none of the main characters die. There is quite a bit of patriotism attached to this film, and the back story of Saudi Arabia as the real harbor for terrorists is intriguing, however, the genre mixture of action with realistic political global issues is a little too blurry. Fortunately, the action film comes out of top. The final shootout is intense (although not as great as anticipated) and the action and special effects are top-notch. Two complaints; Jennifer Garner is a great action star, but her character's attitude and ignorance regarding the culture in Saudi Arabia was almost annoying. Second, the camera work should have been a little more stable. Granted, many of the explosions and action sequences were complicated and benefited from the jerky motion, but it got a little old.

I may have had unrealistic expectations going in, and was fully entertained, but it wasn't as good as it could have been.
7/10