Crazy Heart

As the Oscar season winds down, I finally saw one of the films that I’d missed - “Crazy Heart”. “Crazy Heart” has been regaled primarily for the performances of the leads – Jeff Bridges and Maggie Gylenhaal. Bridges plays Bad Blake, a country music star has-been. He’s a drunk and an unrepentant loser – just like the heroes of many country songs. Gylenhaal plays Janey, the young ladies who captures his heart and blah blah blah blah.

This film could firmly live in cliché-land. You know how it goes – loser country singer redeems himself though the love of a good woman. Or, loser country singer takes young woman down with him and they both drown in misery.

The charm of this film is that it lies between the two clichés, and in the difference becomes a real story with effortless performances all the way around, and a surprise or two.

Everyone knows that Jeff Bridges can sing. If you don’t, watch “The Fabulous Baker Boys”. But for a surprise – he’s not the only one that does. Performances are genuine, Bridges’ and that of Colin Farrell, who is great in this film. He’s always done good work when in the background, and this is no exception (although he does look like a Billy Ray Cyrus clone).

The film gets a bit bogged down though, during the repetitive song performances. There are only maybe 4 songs, and it’s like an ipod stuck on repeat. I understood the point they were identifying, but I don’t feel that many performances were necessary.

Bridges does make the acting look effortless. He put on some pounds to play this role, and he threw all he had into it. The Oscar that he will win is well deserved. Gylenhaal’s performance is understated, but the perfect counterpoint to Bridges’. I’ve heard it said that she’s the heart of the movie, but I disagree with that. The heart of the movie is actually Gylenhall’s son Buddy – he’s the heart and ultimately the catalyst of the film.

“Crazy Heart” is also a film about growth. All of these characters grow and learn something. Personally, I learned that I’ve outgrown country music. The lyrics to all of the songs (with the exception of the nominated song) are repetitive, mundane, and actually boring. But seriously, characters that work need to have some conflict/struggle that they’ve fought against and defeated. That’s clearly here.

But the best thing about the film is the lack of a “pat” ending. What could have gone one of two ways ends up going neither. That’s where my personal comfort lies – in knowing that it’s more real if it’s not obvious. It’s why “Casablanca” is my 2nd favorite film. The ending adds an authenticity to the entire film that makes it better than most I’ve seen lately.

I am glad for the accolades that this film has, and I’m glad that I saw it, but it’s not one of my top 10. Now I’m off to listen to some good old rock and roll music.

"Crazy Heart" - Rated R, 112 minutes (***)

Shutter Island = Semi-Cringeworthy

When I first saw the trailer for “Shutter Island”, I wasn’t that impressed. It didn’t look very coherent, and although I love Dennis Lehane’s work, I wasn’t 100% sure I could get into the movie.

Then I started reading early reviews, and I changed my mind.

Even after leaving the theater, I still cut the film some slack. Maybe you just need to let it marinate before it hits you. So I gave it a few days.

It’s been three days, and I can honestly say that my initial instincts were right. And I’m sticking by this. I should have passed.

I know that some people are claiming this is a masterpiece, yet another in the line of Martin Scorsese’s “I Can Do No Wrong” school. You’ll get no argument from me that Mr. Scorsese is a genius. He’s also the best film scholar EVER – no doubt and one of the best directors of ANY time. But, sorry, this one is a misfire.

“Shutter Island” takes place in a sanitarium. That much I got. To go into the story any more may or may not infringe on spoiler territory, so I won’t really try. I will say that Leonardo DiCaprio (not a big fan) does an admirable job here of a bizarroland script. Mark Ruffalo was also very good, and the performances themselves aren’t an issue.

I wouldn’t dream of saying anything against the way Scorsese shoots the film. There’s simply nobody better to frame a shot or set a mood. However, there were too many things thrown in there that simply made me go “Huh”? Even after speaking to people about the film, I understand where he was going, but it didn’t make me like the film more.

In food metaphors, think of deveining Shyamalan, julienning Hitchcock, and garnishing with David Lynch. It’s THAT all over the place. There’s a supposed “twist” ending, although I got that part 10 minutes in. The coolest part about the film is the very last 20 minutes or so, where they tie up some dialogue to some action. That took thought and imagination.

My biggest criticism of the film isn’t the script though – it’s the pacing. It’s SO slow. It crawls. I actually wanted to hit a fast forward button to hurry it along. The second biggest criticism is that even if you can’t tell the difference between reality and delusions (I get that’s the point and I’m ok with that), why do you have to have different ACTORS? That made the mud even murkier. Instead of trying to figure out how a character fit the story, I spent 10 minutes deducing it was Emily Mortimer, not Emily Watson.

But I didn’t hate the film. How could I? It’s Scorsese! And even though I consider it a misfire, it’s still worth a watch – if for no other reason than to
discuss and dissect it afterwards, and watch the one of the greatest directors ever dabble in his craft. Because even a so-so Scorsese beats 75% of what's out there.

"Shutter Island", Rated R, 138 minutes (**)

Asian Cinema At Its Best

Whenever American cinema seems stale to me (and it often does), I’m always game for globe hunting. When globe hunting, I usually end up in Asia, which is what I did this past week. Usually I indulge in Asian horror before the Americans dumb it down beyond recognition, but I decided to branch out even further, into a non-Miyazaki anime and an Oscar-winning drama.

My first film this week is 2006’s “The Girl who Leapt through Time”. This is an animated film and was one of the first films to receive the Japanese Animation Award. It’s the story of young girl who discovers she can slip in and out of time at will. But while time-hopping, she learns the more important lesson that all actions have consequences.

This is actually a movie that I hope American never revamps, because to touch it in any way would be a crime. The story is much deeper than anything Pixar or Disney could come up with, and the drawings are still extremely colorful and interesting. The plot had me hanging on repeatedly and I ended up in tears.

I’m a big fan of Miyazaki’s work, and I’m now very glad to know there are others out there who did the same thing. I found the film by default on a website listing the Top 10 films of that year. I’ll be trying to get my hands on the others.

The second film this week is “Departures”. This film won last year’s Foreign Language Film Oscar, beating out a personal favorite, France’s “The Class”. At the time, I didn’t understand that, but now I wholeheartedly agree. This isn’t one of the best Asian films I’ve seen – it’s one of the best films I’ve EVER seen.

“Departures” tells the tale of a young, married cellist. When his current orchestra shuts down due to lack of funds, he has to change careers abruptly in order to continue to support his family. Finding a very generalized want ad asking only for people to work with departures, he applies and is hired. The catch is that the boss is actually a mortician, and the departures are for the departed.

What could be a very depressing film is actually quite moving. The ceremonies that are conducted by those left behind are nothing short of amazing. I wish they did something like that in this country – I’d be all for it. It’s rare that a film both honors a culture and transcends it at the same time, but this one completely pulls it off.

It’s an unexpectedly weepy drama, and I ended up with red swollen eyes the next day, but it’s completely worth it. I can’t recommend it enough – whether you can stand the subtitles or not.

So when you’re sick of the snow and ice that’s here, feel free to take a trip – on me. I promise you that you won’t regret it!

"The Girl Who Leapt Through Time" - Unrated, 98 minutes (****)
"Departures" - Rated PG-13, 130 minutes (****)

The Blind Side

As I write this, it is both the day before the Super Bowl and the day of the biggest blizzard in recent years. The snow is so deep here you can barely see the cars.

Since I have one Best Picture Nominee left to watch, before the snow set in, I finally went to watch “The Blind Side”. It’s a good thing I didn’t go outside to shovel snow today, because I’m still tired from shoveling the two hours of bullshit in this film.

“The Blind Side” is the true story of Michael Oher, an African American boy taken in by a wealthy white family led by Leigh Ann Tuohy (Sandra Bullock, in a not-even-Oscar-stratosphere performance). Leigh Ann is a “cracker jack”, which basically means that she gets away in the Film World with things that would NEVER happen in the Real World. Think Julia Roberts’ Erin Brockavich character with a southern accent and more expensive clothes.

Leigh Ann takes on all comers, from calling Michael’s high school coach during a game, to a verbal alternation with a drunken fan during a game and even sparring with some drug dealers. All cower in her wake – due to her fierce stare? That’s about all she’s got – except for the aforementioned nice clothes.

This film is based on a book. It’s obvious to me (and to Michael Oher, given some of his recent comments), that there was MAJOR dramatic license taken with the material. Case in point, Leigh Ann’s husband is played by Tim McGraw. But pictures of the “real” family show Sean roughly fifty pounds heavier. And box office defeats realism! Also, allegedly Michael knows nothing about the game of football as he goes to stay with the Tuohys – the same game he actually started playing at age eight.

The film is loaded with clichéd, stilted, we-are-not-racist dialogue, such as “You changed his life”. Beat. Wait for it… “No, he changed mine”. There’s also racism apparent during the football game, when the redneck officials flag Michael’s coach after Michael’s opponent kicks him in the head. There’s racism in the south? Say it ain’t so, hoss.

I’m not even really sure whose story this is supposed to be – his or hers. According to the press that this film has been given (and Bullock’s own Golden Globe Acceptance speech), it’s hers. But last time I checked it was more about him. Or maybe I’m wrong.

If the Academy hadn’t expanded to 10 films, this film would NEVER have gotten the BP Nod. Everyone agrees with this – and everyone is right. If the argument is that the Academy wants more films that people actually saw, then why not include “Transformers 2”? It seemed about as realistic as this did.

Do I admire what Leigh Ann did by taking in a troubled youngster? Of course – it’s an admirable thing to do. But what I don’t get is why Hollywood needs to make oxymoronically fictionalize the truth.

Or maybe that’s exactly the way it all happened, even if one of the protagonists of the film disagrees. But then again, he’s not really THAT important. Is he?

Teenage Dreams - Glad I've Woke Up

As I seem to be almost out of Oscar films (I’m hoarding those I haven’t yet seen), I decided to go back to the DVD shelves and pick up some releases I had otherwise missed. I had no set theme, but apparently one arrived anyway.

This week’s theme is the dreams of the American teenager. Original no – but neither is either of these films.

My first film this week is the 2009 remake of “Fame”. As an 80’s kid, I admit to watching the original film (and loving it), and the TV show. I even re-watched the first season on DVD, hoping to indulge nostalgia. I did indeed relive my geeky teenage years, and realized that I’m a still geeky, non-coordinated almost-40 year old. But I’m finally pretty cool with that.

Unlike its predecessors, this is basically “American Idol” set in high school. Talent abounds, but the focus is more on the dancing and singing than the actual acting. (In both story and film) Stereotypically, everyone appears – rappers, a classical pianist, a struggling dancer with money to spare, etc. Even the “teachers” are recognizable “stars” from TV years gone by – Kelsey Grammer, Megan Mullally, Bebe Neuwirth, Charles S. Dutton.

I’m not sure if it’s the times or me that have changed, or both, but in today’s era of “High School Musical”, the Jonas Brothers, et al, this simply doesn’t cut it. I should have paid attention to those people telling me not to watch this one. Sometimes, nostalgia needs to stay untouched.

The second film is “Whip It”, starring Ellen Page. This is Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut, and she’s certainly off to a decent start. Bliss (Page) is a geeky girl stuck in Podunk, Texas (It’s actually Bodeen, but Podunk works too). Poor Bliss has a mom (Marcia Gay Harden) who wants her to be a Beauty Pageant Queen, but Bliss decides that she’s more of a Roller Derby Queen (cue Jim Croce). This film could have been quite bad, but it’s not. By the end, I actually found myself getting into it, rooting for Bliss and her Hurl Scouts to defeat Juliette Lewis and the Holy Rollers.

This film is based on a book, but what makes it work isn’t the narrative. The narrative is actually the worst part of the film. The story isn’t whipped at all, it’s more like cappuccino foam – evaporating even as you’re consuming it.

What stops “Whip It” from becoming another geeky girl rising above/female empowerment/coming age film are the performances – although not Page’s. I would like to see her take on stronger roles, like the underrated “Hard Candy”. The biggest standout is actually Kristen Wiig as Maggie Mayhem, a woman who’s been in Bliss’ shoes and tries to steer her in the right direction.

But as a reformed geeky girl in the back of the room, it’s good to know that my age still doesn’t stop me from appreciating a decently made teen film (just not “Fame”).

“Fame” – Rated PG, 107 minutes (* ½)
“Whip It” – Rated PG-13, 111 minutes (**1/2)

The Hurt Locker

The first time that I sat down to watch “The Hurt Locker”, I stopped watching it about 20 minutes in. I just wasn’t in a frame of mind to watch “that kind of a movie”. Reread as “a war movie, because I don’t like them and they confuse and upset me”.

The second time I sat down to watch “The Hurt Locker”, I didn’t stop until it was over. Sometimes I think I forgot to breathe. I called out a few times, jumped several, cried once or twice, and at the end, just sat in stunned silence.

James Cameron had it right (bet ya never thought you’d see me type THAT): this is the best directed film of the year, and any and all directorial awards should be handed to Kathryn Bigelow.

Anything else is a downright crime.

What’s so amazing about “The Hurt Locker”? Well, it’s the first war movie not really about the war. It doesn’t try to make a political endorsement or condemnation. It’s just the story of a guy – what makes him tick (pun intended), and how he copes with the aftermaths of his decisions.

War movies are hard to describe. You can’t really say you like them, because isn’t that an indirect statement about your politics? You can usually summarize the plot in a sentence – “The Americans go to Place X. They invade. People get killed. Stuff blows up. War is bad. The End.”

So why did this hit me harder than other war movies? Was it because this war happened in my lifetime? Because I had heard all the press and the backstory, so it couldn’t really BE sensationalized? Because this war is recent enough not to have nostalgia attached to it?

In the end, I’ve realized that the reason this is better than the classic war movies because it’s one of my favorite types of films – it’s CHARACTER DRIVEN. I may not be able to agree with Will James in his decisions or his lifestyle, but in a crazy sort of way I understand it. I won’t go into detail, because that could be construed as a spoiler, and you really should see this film for yourself.

I wish more people would see this film. I wish I had more people to discuss it with. It will reverberate in your head for awhile after you see it. And THAT’S the true hallmark of a great film.

I’m glad I don’t write one of those “Top Ten of ” Lists, because I’d have no idea where to rank this. I’m also glad I’m not an Academy voter, because there’s no way I could pick between this and that other character-driven film I loved. But I am glad I’m a movie watcher. And I’m especially glad that they made more than one film this year that was that damn good.

Now if only I can get that Bigelow acceptance speech I didn’t get over the weekend…

"The Hurt Locker", Rated R, 131 minutes (****)

"Up in the Air" - Raise The Awards High!

Jason Reitman’s newest film “Up in the Air” is aptly titled, because it is head and shoulders above anything else I saw in 2009.

The more films I watch, the more I realize that film, just like everything else, is subjective. Ask ten people what their favorite films are and not only will you get ten different answers you’ll get ten different genres.

Personally, I’m a character driven film junkie. In order for a film to work for me, it needs an interesting story and characters that I want to learn more about. They need not be familiar or relatable, but they do need to be honest and real.

“Up in the Air” has everything I want in a film – great characters, wonderful acting, witty (but not too witty) writing, a bit of heartbreak and disillusionment, a reality check and a fitting denouement in spades.

At its core is Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a man hired to fire people. Ryan loves his job, but loves the detachment (and frequent flyer miles) his job affords him even more.

When a young protégé played marvelously by Anna Kendrick comes up with the idea to save money by replacing the human touch with a human face on a screen, Ryan is tasked with showing her the ropes. Of course, she learns much more than that as does he.

The third member of this surely Oscar-nominated trio is Vera Farmiga who plays a woman that Ryan meets, his female counterpart. She’s also fantastic – just dry enough to spar with Clooney yet welcoming enough to interact with Kendrick.

This film is perfectly cast. Reitman wrote Kendrick’s part with her in mind, and when Clooney discusses his view on marriage, it’s not really clear if it’s Reitman’s words or his. I can’t think of anyone else who could have pulled it off.

“Up in the Air” is also thematic. Reitman juxtaposes downsizing a company and downsizing a life. It also touched on loneliness, love, isolation, happiness, and more. The film actually improves upon discussion. (I even have a post-it on my desk that says “Type with Purpose!”)

The only criticism I can offer is that I would have ended the film two minutes earlier, right before the last scene. If you’ve seen the film, you’ll understand. But then again, that would have made the ending too pat, and that’s why they don’t pay me to direct or write films. (I’d settle for being paid to write about them but oh well…)

This film is what the Academy loves. Given all the press that I’ve read, it’s a contender for the Top Prize. Personally, I think they’re going to spread the wealth this year, and I’m ok with that. I’m just thankful for the experience I had watching this film. Only one or two films a year usually make me think it’s possible for a film to be perfect. The other was “Star Trek”. Here’s hoping the Academy feels similarly.

"Up in the Air" - Rated R, 109 minutes (****)