Movie Review: 500 Days of Summer (2009, Directed by Marc Webb)

500 Days of Summer manages to walk a fine line between romanticism and cynicism on the subject of love. We come out of the experience both saddened and optimistic. The annoying narrator at the start of the film announces that “this is not a love story.” I beg to differ. It is a love story, just not the kind we are accustomed to seeing on the big screen.

Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), an aspiring architect, spends his days writing slogans for a greeting card company. Not exactly a dream job. However, I have to confess I’m a bit jealous. Getting paid to write bad poetry all day? … wow! It’s nearly impossible to get paid writing good poetry. Anyway, I digress … Summer (Zooey Deschanel) works at the same greeting card company. She is an “assistant” for a higher-up in the company, though what exactly she does all day is never seen. Boy meets girl. Boy has a quirky and, at times, touching relationship with girl for approximately 500 days. Audience doesn’t get a straight linear story, but rather director jumps around from day to day. (OK, I’ll stop writing without the use of articles … it’s annoying me too).

This hipster rom-com’s unorthodox cinematic technique is generating a lot of buzz. First time feature director Marc Webb uses split-screen, non-chronological storytelling, and an abruptly-placed musical dance number to depict Tom and Summer’s relationship. If you’re hearing echoes of Woody Allen, you would be right. In some ways, 500 Days of Summer feels like my generation’s Annie Hall. Though, I would argue, the former doesn’t even approach the blissful perfection of the latter. As interesting as the film’s technique is, the lead performances are what impressed me the most. Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel are truly gifted. There is not one misguided step in either performance. They subdue their characters’ quirkiness with a kind of naturalism that makes them not only fun to watch, but believable.

Perhaps it is the fact that this film seems tailored to my own personal sensibilities and taste that I resist embracing it as a full-blown masterpiece. The fascinating set-pieces of the film’s opening half give way to a series of interesting, though generally uninspired conversations between the couple in the middle. The problem is not the lead actors’ performances, but rather a lack of imagination in writing and direction. Although my interest waned a bit in the middle, later on I felt I was back on solid ground. The film’s final scene feels heavily contrived and strangely derivative of Pedro Almodovar’s masterwork Talk to Her. Still, the wild creativity of the movie’s better parts more than makes up for its few misguided steps.

500 Days of Summer is an ideal anecdote to all the formulaic, boring romantic comedies out there. It seems like almost the perfect date movie. So many guys hate romantic comedies, I believe, because they so often reduce the male characters to hackneyed stereotypes. To be fair, many action pictures commit the same sin with their female characters. In 500 Days of Summer we finally have a film that depicts both lead characters as complex, flawed, and fascinating individuals. Summer is strong-willed, independent, and witty. Tom is creative, sensitive, and introspective. Despite the film’s flaws, I would much rather spend time with Summer and Tom than any couple in any other comedy on the screen right now. I have to confess, though, that if I were fortunate enough to be in Tom’s position, I would have probably broken up with Summer much more quickly. Ringo is her favorite Beatle, for heaven’s sake!

Mid-Term Report: 2009 in Movies (So Far ...)

Since we’re approximately half-way through 2009, here’s my mid-year assessment of the year in movies so far:

My Top 10 Films of 2009 (Jan. 1-July 20):

I obviously haven’t had a chance to catch up with all the 2009 films I want to see. Highly-anticipated films from the first half of the year that I need to see include (among others): Adventureland, Goodbye Solo, Sin Nombre, Tetro, Tyson, Anvil! The Story of Anvil, Last Chance Harvey, The Brothers Bloom, Star Trek, and The Great Buck Howard. However, excluding these regrettable omissions by default, here are the ten films that have given me the best experiences at the movies so far in 2009:

#10: Drag Me to Hell
Not a great or profound film by any measure. However, it was a joy to see Sam Raimi finally return to form and make the kind of movie he seems born to create: a masterful mix of horror and comedy. I’ll take this over Spiderman 3 any day.

#9: The Limits of Control
I seem to be a voice calling out in the wilderness on this one. Very few positive reviews have been published in print or on the Internet. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I loved this picture. I’m not even sure that I can say I liked it. However, my response at the end of the film was intellectual curiosity, not outrage (as it seemed to be with so many others who saw the film). At the very least, I have to respect director Jim Jarmusch’s willingness to create a film that will engage a few who see it, yet alienate most everyone else.

#8: Public Enemies
His name is John Dillinger, and he robs banks. That’s about all that happens in Michael Mann’s interpretation of the great Chicagoland criminal who rocked the nation. I was engaged by Johnny Depp’s performance, yet slightly annoyed by Mann’s digital photography and hyperkinetic editing style. Mann’s film was still a lot of fun though, especially the balletic final encounter between Depp and the law at Chicago’s Biograph Theatre. As we all know by now, he fought the law, but the law won.

#7: Gomorra
Gomorra deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as such legendary gangster pictures as The Godfather and Goodfellas. It’s just that good. It’s also more brutal and nihilistic than either of those classic films. Effortlessly weaving five engaging stories together, director Matteo Garrone boldly depicts the harsh realities of Italy’s criminal underbelly. This film makes the supposed “realism” of old Cagney pictures seem like a walk in the park. Strongly recommended for anyone who has every wanted to be a gangster (and anyone else, for that matter, other than the faint of heart).

#6: The Girlfriend Experience
My guess is that a lot of people would avoid this film based upon its subject matter [see the IMDB listing (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1103982/) for more info]. However, know that the film contains no graphic depictions of the protagonist’s professional life. Rather, the movie works as an extended allegory for our current economic situation and the logical conclusions of latter-day capitalism. In addition, film blogger Glenn Kenney gives the best cameo performance of the year. Director Steven Soderbergh continues to explore uncharted territory using consistently interesting experimental techniques. I applaud him for this. I just hope his recent intimations about retirement are merely publicity stunts.

#5: The Class
The Class serves as an anecdote to Freedom Writers, Mr. Holland’s Opus, and every other sentimental film about teaching ever made. Here, we have the stark reality of modern education. Francois Begaudeau plays a high school French teacher working in an inner-city Parisian school. He experiences the frustrations, challenges, and, yes, even occasional joys of teaching. So do we. The winner of the Golden Palm at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival, this gem of a movie deserves to be seen by a larger audience.

#4: 500 Days of Summer
We are told at the beginning of this film that “this is not a love story.” I think that might be overstating the situation a bit. 500 Days of Summer is a love story, albeit a highly unconventional one. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel carry this hipster rom-com with their amazing performances as two young Los Angolans who find their way in and out of love. Director Marc Webb uses highly unorthodox cinematic techniques, reminiscent of Woody Allen in Annie Hall, to tell their tale. Don’t expect a clear three-act structure or an easy resolution. Do expect some exceptional acting, beautiful (yet unfamiliar) shots of Los Angeles, and a hipper-than-thou soundtrack.

#3: Up
The first fifteen minutes or so of Pixar’s latest animated offering are among the most sublime I have seen in recent cinema. The rest of the film doesn’t quite live up to the standards set in the beginning but, still, it’s good enough. I love Ed Asner’s cranky old man. I love the annoying young Boy Scout. I even love the “talking” dogs. Who among us hasn’t wanted at some point to leave everything and fly our house to a land far, far away?

#2: Wendy and Lucy
Most critics consider this a 2008 film. But, it didn’t arrive in Chicago until 2009 … so there! Michelle Williams bravely plays Wendy, a young woman who has fallen on some very difficult times. On her way to a potential job, her car breaks down and she has no one to rely upon, sans her poor dog Lucy. Wendy and Lucy is not only a film very much of the moment (people in Wendy’s situation are becoming continually more common in our troubled economic times), but also is instilled with a sense of universalism. I immediately thought of such poverty-depicting films as The Bicycle Thief and City Lights.

#1: The Hurt Locker
I gushed so unapologetically in my initial review of Kathryn Bigelow’s Iraq film that I hesitate to say anything more. There is nothing more I really can say, other than this is the best experience I’ve had at the movies this year (and in quite awhile, in fact). Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty all deserve Oscars for their performances as members of an elite Army bomb squad whose mission it is to disarm or safely detonate IEDs. It’s not about Iraq. It’s not even really about war. It’s about how human beings react when they are faced with the proposition of their own mortality.


Most Anticipated Films for the 2nd half of 2009:

The year’s not over yet … right? So, here’s the ten films I am most anticipating for the rest of 2009:

#10: Adam
A New York City, Asperger’s love story? Why not?

#9: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
This looks like way, way too much fun.

#8: Paper Heart
Based on the trailer, this is an early candidate for the “too cute for its own good” award of 2009. But, it’s definitely worth checking out.

#7: Taking Woodstock
Demitri Martin’s one of my favorite comedians. Ang Lee’s one of my favorite directors. Woodstock is one of my favorite overrated, Baby-boomer-merchandising, cultural experiences. Who could ask for more?

#6: Julie & Julia
I like food. I like Amy Adams. I like Meryl Streep. Sure …

#5: Invictus
A Nelson Mandela biopic directed by Clint Eastwood. This sounds fishy too me, but I’m definitely willing to give it a try.

#4: A Serious Man
I haven’t heard a lot yet about the new Coen Brothers movie. I’ve recovered from my disappointment last year in Burn after Reading. Here’s hoping that this one comes closer to the brilliant perfection of No Country for Old Men.

#3: The Road
I think John Hillcoat (who directed the grisly masterpiece The Proposition) can pull off Cormac McCarthy’s dark and nihilistic vision. I feel all the more confident since he has Viggo Mortenson to work with.

#2: Shutter Island
Martin Scorsese and Leo do Boston again? Mine is not to question why, mine is simply to give Marty the benefit of the doubt. He is rarely wrong. Even his “failures” are more fascinating than the successes of most directors.

#1: Inglorious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino + Nazis + Hitler + Brad Pitt + (according to the MPAA) “strong graphic violence” = a little bit of heaven

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker (2009, Directed by Kathryn Bigelow)

Now, THIS is how a movie should be made!

Before I commence to express my unyielding and, perhaps, irrational enthusiasm for Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, let me ask a small favor of you. If you have not yet seen Michael Bay’s pornoviolent ode to “blowing things up real good,” Transformers 2 … DON’T! Please, please, please see this movie instead. The great movie critic and French New Wave auteur Francois Truffaut once observed that the most effective way to critique a film is to make another film. Case in point: Bigelow’s thoughtful and perfectly-constructed film demonstrates exactly why Bay’s movie is so … what’s the word I’m searching for … crappy. Both Transformers 2 and The Hurt Locker will inevitably end up on the “action” rack in Blockbusters in a few months. The difference, though, is that one film is a meticulous work of art and the other is … well … you know how I feel by now.

OK, now that I’ve got that “Bay dis” out of my system (it had to be done), I can begin to pour lavish praise on Bigelow’s movie, by far the best film ever made about the war in Iraq and the only perfect film I have seen so far this year.

The Hurt Locker does not depict the lives of “everyday” combat troops, but rather a group of elite soldiers responsible for disarming bombs in the heat of war. The narrative focuses on three specialists in particular, who work together on a bomb disposal team. Sgt. Sandborn (Anthony Mackie) is the team leader, a no-nonsense, by-the-book kind of guy who fully appreciates the gravity of his work. Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geragthy) is a neophyte who cracks easily under pressure. The real protagonist, though, is Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner), a chain-smoking, heavy metal-listening desperado-type, who faces his grim duties with a spirit of reckless abandonment. James’ psychological condition is summarized by a quote included at the film’s beginning: “For some, war is a drug.” He knows he has a job to do, that he is very good at it, and that nobody else can tell him how to do that job. The specialist’s arrogance leads to some interpersonal conflict on the team, particularly between the unorthodox James and the stern Sandborn, a stickler for military procedures.

Bigelow throws these three characters into a series of alarming incidents, mostly involving IEDs that must be disarmed or, in a worst-case scenario, safely detonated. We get a series of fascinating set-pieces that, in toto, provide us a riveting portrait of reality for these brave specialists. The director employs cinematic techniques right out of the playbook of the Master of Suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock. It is emotionally engaging for us to watch characters we care deeply about put into perilous situations in which time and caution is of the essence. The threat of a bomb going off at any second is five thousand times more suspenseful than five thousand bombs actually going off before our faces. Bigelow succeeds because she understands this rudimentary principle of effective filmmaking.

Bigelow’s film should be studied in film schools and closely analyzed for its deft handling of all elements of cinema (camera movement, editing, music, lighting, etc.). Yes, at times, she employs the currently-popular MTV-style quick cuts to convey the chaos of the characters’ situation. Most of the time, however, she uses a more classical approach, opting for longer takes to give the reader a clear sense of setting and character emotion. Therefore, we have a stake in what is happening on screen. We feel like we are there with the characters, not just being bombarded by a constant barrage of sound and vaguely impressionistic images. When this film comes out on DVD, I envision going through it carefully, a frame at a time, to see exactly how this film achieves its perfection. I am not a filmmaker, nor do I have a desire to be one, but I feel that this type of attention to detail makes me appreciate great films and filmmakers that much more (and makes me very intolerant of films which insult the viewer’s intelligence). The last film I was inspired to scrutinize in this manner was 2007’s No Country for Old Men. Having looked at the film more closely, I concluded that it was indeed the perfect masterpiece I believed it to be while watching it in the theatre. I suspect I will come to the same conclusions with The Hurt Locker.

Now, I’ve spent the last few paragraphs talking about the film’s amazing technique, how riveted I was by its overall effect, and how Bigelow has accomplished something absolutely incredible on a technical level. Let me also say that I found the film’s themes just as engaging as its technique.

The Hurt Locker is not a political film, but rather an existential film. I once knew of a philosophy professor who included on his list of objectives for a course: “prepare yourself to die.” He always had students question him about what this meant and he would reply that this would be one of the course’s mysteries. I must admit I always found this academic objective a bit odd, especially alongside more seemingly practical goals like “learn how to read a text more critically.” However, I think I now understand better what this professor meant. One of my favorite bands, Wilco, have a lyric in their profound song “War on War” that reads: “You have to learn how to die / If you want to stay alive.” Isn’t this true? Isn’t dealing with our own mortality one of the principle tasks of existence?

We all deal with this task in different ways. Personally, I spend a lot of time pouring over the works of great thinkers like Kierkegaard, Camus, and Jesus, trying to come to some understanding of the meaning of both life and death. I continually try to find ways of leading a meaningful existence, though I find it incredibly challenging at times. The Hurt Locker subtly points out that soldiers in combat are really our most profound existentialists. Death, which we all know is waiting for us somewhere down the line, is incredibly immanent for men and women who face machine-gun fire and unexploded bombs on a daily basis. In The Hurt Locker, each main character deals with the prescience of death in a different way. Eldridge is terrified much of the time. Sanborn finds solace in the unyielding routine of military procedures and protocol. James, on the other hand, seems to face death with a kind of arrogance that makes Sanborn jealous. When Sanborn asks James how he deals with the knowledge that he could be blown up at any moment, the specialist simply replies “I try not to think about it.” Could there be a more concise summary of how some deal with the dilemma of human existence? I think James might sympathize with a character from Woody Allen’s Hannah and Her Sisters who at one point throws his hands in the air and says, “how the hell do I know why there were Nazis? … I can’t even get the can opener to work right!”

In addition to the above thoughts the film inspired, I will also add that it made me feel a certain emotion that no recent movie has awakened in me. In a word, I came out of the movie feeling patriotic. Now, I must explain what I mean by this, since the word has been limited to such a narrow definition over the past eight years. I’m not talking about the flag-waving, Glenn Beck-crying-on-Fox News kind of patriotism. I’m not talking about the America-is-always-right-so-there kind of patriotism. I’m talking about a deep and profound respect for what our men and women in uniform go through for us every day. As I said before, this film does not have a political point of view. Previous filmic attempts at capturing the war in Iraq have yielded low audience turnout. Perhaps this is because most previous Iraq War movies have arguably alienated many people with their political viewpoints. No matter how you feel about the American presence in Iraq, though, I think you can appreciate the sacrifice our servicemen and women have made. Bigelow’s film is a worthy tribute to that sacrifice because it views them as complicated human beings, not as merely unthinking fighting machines.

I should note that not all viewers of the film are likely to find the existential themes I have discussed as prominent as I did. I’m not convinced that all my philosophical musings can be backed up by directorial intent. Rather, I found the film an apt vehicle for exploring and expanding upon thoughts I was already having when I entered the theatre. Nevertheless, whether you find the movie profound or not, I hope you at least find it entertaining. At the end of the day, it is, at the very least, one of the most brilliant action pictures of recent times.

If there is any justice in Hollywood (which there is arguably not), The Hurt Locker should be nominated for as many Academy Awards as possible. Now that the Academy has decided to nominate ten films for Best Picture, Bigelow’s great achievement must get recognized.

Note: Having recommended the masterpiece “No Country for Old Men” to countless friends and relatives a couple years ago, I was saddened by the reaction some had to the film (i.e. “How could you recommend a film so violent/profane?/etc.”). So, since my enthusiasm for Bigelow’s film is stronger than I have displayed for a movie in quite some time, let me just say that “The Hurt Locker” does contain a high dosage of strong language and combat violence. If you have a low toleration for that sort of thing, unfortunately, the film might not be for you. Personally, I found these elements to work in service of the story—men and women in desperate and extreme situations—not to simply shock or titillate the audience.

Movie Review: Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)

Here are a few thoughts I had while watching the latest entry in the Ice Age chronicles:

1. My 3-D glasses are smudged … or is that just the intentional muddled visual look (an intentional artistic decision on the part of these brilliant artistes)?

2. I can’t think of a single film starring animal protagonists beloved by me (I thought of Finding Nemo, the exception that proves the rule, on the way out of the theatre).

3. My sister sitting next to me looks like she’s enjoying this film way more than I am.

4. I haven’t seen either of the first two Ice Age films … are they as vapid as this one?

5. Where did I park my car?

6. Wow! … I bought 8 great DVDs at Big Lots for $20 an hour ago … who knew that Big Lots is the place for cinephiles to shop?

7. Roger Ebert, a legendary film critic beloved by many, including myself, gave this film 3 ½ out of 4 stars. Did he see the same movie I’m watching now?

8. I’m starting to wish I could see the new Transformers film instead of this one.

9. Up may be the greatest animated film of the last 5 years or so.

10. I’ve had a wonderful time … this isn’t it!

Movie Review: Public Enemies (2009, Directed by Michael Mann)

Director Michael Mann handles the life and times of John Dillinger just right in Public Enemies. It’s refreshing to see a filmmaker rely more on stark reality than the conventions of genre in depicting an infamous man’s troubled life. This isn’t to say that Mann’s new film is not entertaining. Indeed, I was deeply engrossed in the story for almost all of the movie’s 2+ hour running time. I’m just saying that I appreciate Mann’s insistence on painting Dillinger’s story with strokes of realism, rather than the typical Hollywood flourishes.

The degree to which the film avoids common generic conventions can be seen at the picture’s end. Dillinger watches an old Clark Gable gangster picture at Chicago’s Biograph Theatre. We, the audience, know exactly what is coming. Even someone who is only casually familiar with the facts of Dillinger’s life has some notion of how it ended. Dillinger and his female companion sit and watch the hackneyed gangster pic. We see Gable’s depiction of a “movie gangster,” complete with over-the-top charm. In contrast, Johnny Depp’s Dillinger is stoic, direct, and brutal. As the Hollywood nonsense on Biograph’s silver screen winds down, Dillinger is in for a stark dose of violent reality out on the mean Chicago streets.

I believe that Mann deliberately dwells on the Gable picture, not just to emphasize the historical facts of the story (apparently Dillinger did actually attend a gangster film on that fateful night), but also to show the extent to which his film Public Enemies is not a typical Hollywood gangster film.

The difference is that Depp plays Dillinger not as a likeable, charming guy who made some bad decisions at some point, but rather as someone who simply lives to commit crimes. The movie never attempts to explain why this is the case. It is all about the what and how of Dillinger’s career, not about the why.

I don’t know that this lack of psychological depth is really a flaw of the film, although it is responsible for leaving me emotionally bankrupt by the end. The truth of the matter is, though, that Mann does an outstanding job dropping us in the middle of the action and giving us a sense of what it was like to live in the time of John Dillinger. All of the film’s events seem immediate, as if they were happening here and now. This is accomplished partly through Mann’s fast-paced editing style. The movie’s frantic pacing matches Dillinger’s life of nonstop violence.

I have to confess that part of my interest in this film lies in the fact that I live in the Chicago area. The legend of Dillinger hangs over the region like a dark cloud. I live just a few blocks from a location in which about 15 minutes of the film were shot. Mann effectively re-dresses the modern locations to take the audience back in time.

I think the rest of the world (not just Chicagoans) will like this film too. It offers a unique combination of well-crafted action sequences, appropriate for the summer blockbuster season, and tightly-constructed story.

I should also mention that Johnny Depp proves himself an actor of great discipline and range as Dillinger. He very easily could have over-acted, but chooses instead to bring out the criminal’s quiet, yet treacherous demeanor. Christian Bale is also effective as the FBI agent (Melvis Purvis) trying desperately to put an end to Dillinger’s crime spree. Marian Cotillard sensitively plays Billy Frichette, Dillinger’s lover (the word “girlfriend” seems strangely inappropriate in this case). All three characters have in common the fact that each of their lives revolve around just one thing. Dillinger’s life revolves around, as he says at the beginning of the film, “robbing banks.” Billy’s life revolves around Dillinger. Purvis’ life revolves around stopping Dillinger. That’s all the film knows about these characters. Perhaps that’s all it needs to know.

Movie Review: Food Inc. (2009, Directed by Robert Kenner)

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about food. For the last couple of weeks or so, I’ve been on phase one of the South Beach Diet. As a result, I have eliminated all bread, fruit, and most sugars from my diet (temporarily, of course). Thus, I have been thinking a lot about my own eating habits, what I eat, how much I eat, how often I eat, etc.

Unfortunately, eating healthy foods is not as easy as one might think. I’m not talking about the intrinsic motivation needed to change one’s habits. I’m just talking about the challenges of navigating the complex market of food choices in modern America. As David Denby points out in his New Yorker review of Robert Kenner’s new documentary Food, Inc., “Those of us who avoid junk food, with many sighs of relief and self-approval, may still be eating junk a good deal of the time.”

The problem arguably stems from the fact that most of us have very little concept of where our food actually comes from in our complex world of huge corporations and food processing centers. According to the makers of Food, Inc., this problematic fact is at the center of many dangerous American trends, including food contamination, childhood obesity, and early diabetes among minority groups. Whereas we used to enjoy a much more diverse American marketplace in food production, processing, and distribution, the entire process of creating and distributing food is in the hands of a few corporations. Our cost structure is so warped that it is much cheaper to eat junk than to eat healthy. You can feed a family of four on the dollar menu at Burger King for less than $5. How far will $5 get you at your local market purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables? It’s no wonder, the film argues, that obesity rates are highest among lower-class American families.

I always struggle with reviewing a film like this. It is difficult at times to separate the content of an editorial piece like this from the way in which the information is conveyed. First of all, let me say that I find myself in sympathy with many of the ideas expressed in this film. I am troubled by the fact that I don’t truly know where the meat in my Big Mac comes from. Some of the footage from the film revolted me, as I’m sure it would any sane person. On the other hand, I feel that the issue is more complicated than this documentary lets on. Predictably, the companies under attack in this film, including Monsanto and Tyson Foods, have protested that it is too one-sided. They have set up websites providing a rebuttal to the claims made by the documentary’s makers. I think it’s good that this dialogue is going on. I just wish that the many facets of food production/ethics would have come to light in all their complicated glory in Kenner’s film. He is guilty of the same problem that plagues a filmmaker like Michael Moore. The problems and solutions are no doubt far more complex than either side would admit.

Nevertheless, I still enjoyed this film (if “enjoy” is really an appropriate term here) primarily because of the strength of its raw images. Authors Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, who have both written extensively on the subject, provide the movie’s main narrative voice. Pollan was recently interviewed by Stephen Colbert. Pollan was discussing the problematic nature of processed foods, which contain a large quantity of high-fructose corn syrup. Colbert sarcastically commented that he likes to eat his Cheetos. Pollan replied, “how about just eating them every once in a while, not every day.” That sounds like a good start to me …