Class of 2009 Supporting Actress Blogathon: Vera Farmiga

2009 Supporting Actress Blogathon: Vera Farmiga in Up in the Air



SPOILER WARNING: Please don't read if you haven't seen Up in the Air.

Once again, I'm pleased to be a part of StinkyLulu's Supporting Actress love. Today is the Class of 2009 Supporting Actress Blogathon, where bloggers across the web ruminate on "actressing at the edges" that moved them this year. Please head over to StinkyLulu's site later today and see what other bloggers have to say. I toyed with a few different actresses to write about (Melanie Laurent in Inglorious Basterds, Rosamund Pike in An Education), but in the end by heart belonged to Vera Farmiga. I absolutely loved her in 2006's The Departed, and she truly takes another leap forward this year in Up in the Air.

One of the main things that make Up in the Air a great movie is the way it treats its female characters. While the movie is clearly "about" Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), both love interest Alex (Vera Farmiga) and protege Natalie (Anna Kendrick) exist as fully formed characters with their own lives and motivations.

We first meet Alex (as Ryan does) in a hotel bar, and their first scene is a hilarious sequence of comparing corporate perks filled with sexual innuendo. Farmiga matches Clooney line for line, scene for scene, and even tops him. As they embark on their affair, Alex assures Ryan that their affair is casual and no-strings attached ("Just think of me as you with a vagina.") Farmiga fills these initial scenes with delightful banter and a grown-up sexuality.

For my money, Farmiga's best scene comes when the three main characters (Ryan, Alex, and Natalie) meet up and the two women talk about what they are looking for in a man. Young Natalie has a plethora of demands she puts out. "Older" Alex has resigned herself and is basically looking for someone who is good enough. This scene only grows in power with later information.

Then comes the second half of the movie (Once again: SPOILER ALERT). Ryan takes Alex to his sister's wedding, and Farmiga brings new notes to the performance. These two are sweet and soulful and seem to actually be falling in love. Farmiga plays the role just right, showing her initial hesistation and then enjoyment of the weekend.

Then comes the killer. Ryan decides he needs to find Alex, goes to her house in Chicago, and hears her husband and children in the background. She closes the door and this is (presumably) the last time they see one another, although there is another phone call. The look on her face is absolutely heartbreaking. In the end, Alex is the one who has won Ryan over, but she's also the one who has decided to play by the rules.

It's a testament to Farmiga's performance that the viewer ends the movie having sympathy for Alex and, at least for me, holding no grudges. If her performance wasn't pitch-perfect, she could have come across as a heartless. Instead, the viewer inevitably remembers the earlier scene, where Farmiga talks about what she wants in a man. Clearly, she has made compromises in her life. They're sad, but there they are and she is honest about them. She doesn't exist as a device to solely fill the need for Clooney's romantic redemption.

So the character of Alex needs to be incredibly sexy, extremely witty, mysterious, and able to show vulnerability at a few key moments. Farmiga was the absolute perfect choice for this role. As a thought experiment, try imagining Up in the Air with Jennifer Aniston or Sandra Bullock in the role of Alex. It's easy (but oh so awful) to imagine, and the relationship would have had so many fewer layers. Be thankful we had a master in the role, and a performance for the ages.

Looking Back at the Aughts..... Lost in Translation and Happy-Go-Lucky

As the decade comes to a close, there have been a plethora of critics coming up with "Best of the Decade" list. While I'm tempted to do the same, I also came to a realization. There are many films I remember fondly that I'd love to see again and see how they hold up. There are other films that I liked but did not love and deserve another chance. And (believe it or not) there are still a few prominent films from the decade that I missed. I hoped to spend much of the beginning of this year watching/rewatching movies from the past decade. Sometime this summer, check back for my totally arbitrary (but deeply felt) best of the decade list. I'm also accepting any and all suggestions for movies that I should consider!

Here are thoughts on a couple movies I recently rewatched and brought me great enjoyment:

Lost in Translation (2003)

I've probably seen this movie and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind more than any other films of the decade. There is so much I love about this film, I hardly know where to begin. I love the performances. Bill Murray gives one of the performances of the decade as a washed-up film star sick of life and now doing crappy Japanese commercials to make some quick cash. Only a great comedic actor could simultaneously bring such humor and heartbreak to the surface. While 18-year-old Scarlett Johannson never reached the heights of this performance as Charlotte again, she was a perfect fit for this role. World-weary before her time, she is just as lost as Bob.

What I may love most is the mood of this film. It perfectly encapsulates the ennui felt by the character. It's also an interesting meditation on the inherent pleasures and loneliness of being a stranger in a foreign country. Japan is really the third major character in this film, and director Sofia Coppola shows us many sides of the country.

When I think of this movie I think of my favorite scenes: Charlotte and Bob's night out singing karaoke, Charlotte's visit to the countryside, and, of course, the sublime ending. A truly great film of the decade.

Grade: A

Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)

I saw director Mike Leigh's movie last year, and I admired it a lot for its message and its performances, particularly the lead one by Sally Hawkins in (to my mind) one of the most egregious Oscar snubs in years. She won just about every critics award and then was passed over by Oscar. Still, I wasn't in love with the movie as a whole. It was pleasant and fun, but it didn't fully hit me.

Watching it again, I kind of fell in love with the movies, and I'm now embarrassed it was only a runner-up on my2008 top 10 list. If I redid it, it would easily make it to number 6. Happy-Go-Lucky tells the story of Poppy, an inescapably cheerful British schoolteacher who lives a full life and attempts to bring joy to all around her. She also is taking driving lessons from Scott, a racist and bitter man whose worldview is utterly opposed to Poppy's. And there is pretty much the entire plot of the movie.

What gives me so much joy about the movie is the individual scenes and moments. Sally Hawkins is unafraid to make her character pass the line of annoying, yet you still can't help but love her. She brings her incredibly specific personality to every scene. Every other actor also feels completely organic in their role. I especially liked Alexis Zegerman in her role as Poppy's longtime roommate.

Could it have been a bit better? Perhaps. I would have liked a little more encounter with the darker side of life, if only because Poppy's final scene with Scott is so incredibly powerful. For a movie that is so light in its plot and light on its plot, though, it actually gives you a lot to think about. Just thinking about Poppy now, I'm smiling.

Grade: A-

Great Link

So this site just wasted 30 minutes of my Saturday.....and I really enjoyed it.

The New York Times has taken Netflix queues from several metro areas around the country and done highly interactive maps of which movies are popular in which zip codes. It's a fascinating look at how much similar tastes seem to huddle together (even more than voting patterns, it appears). While some movies are popular everywhere (Benjamin Button), others are wildly different (Mad Men; Paul Blart: Mall Cop). Check it out!

A Peek Into Netflix Queues

Views from South Africa: Invictus & District 9

In the past week I've seen two movies about South Africa, Clint Eastwood's political biopic Invictus and first-time filmmaker Neil Blomkamp's sci-fi action movie District 9. One is extremely insightful and thought-provoking while the other is a standard genre movie with some fun moments. Which one is which? Read on to find out.....

Invictus

Invictus tells the story of the newly elected Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) attempting to unite his country behind the white-dominated rugby team The Springboks, led by their captain Francois Piennar (Matt Damon). The movie begins by showing Mandela's transition to power, and this part of the movie moved a little slow. It takes quite a bit of exposition until we get to the main part of the movie. Once the movie moves into the political machinations of Mandela's decision and its complications, the story is much more engaging. Mandela's message of reconciliation to those who had been bitter enemies is inspiring, and there were several moments in the film where I got a lump in my throat. As inspirational sports movies go, the sports sequences are clear and easy to follow, even though many will be unfamiliar with rugby.

Now on to my qualms about the movie. For all the wonderful messages in the movies it also feels a little dull. Eastwood is a director who is capable of greatness (Unforgiven, Mystic River) and of bland filmmaking (Gran Torino). I think much of his craft depends on his script, and here the script is structured in the most exciting or revelatory way. The story is a good one, but it misses out on more nuanced or deep views of the characters and goes more for standard uplift. At other times, it teeters dangerously close to saying that cheering for the same rugby team truly solved many of the problems of modern South Africa. Morgan Freeman was clearly the right choice to play Mandela. He has his voice nailed down, and he lends him a mischievous spark that marks him as a real person. Still, I think Freeman could have done more with the role. He lacks the depth and perception that Helen Mirren brought to Queen Elizabeth in The Queen, where you truly feel you know something more about the character. Matt Damon is as good as he can be in the thinly-drawn character of Francois.

So there is it. An entertaining movie that hits two well-worn genres (biopic; inspirational sports) with moments the viewer will no doubt enjoy.

Grade: B-

District 9

Now on to the other movie set in South Africa. Director Neil Blomkamp directs the most exciting sci-fi movie of the year. I've seen Star Trek and Avatar, and for my money this is the most cohesive and insightful picture of the bunch. For a sci-fi movie that's mostly action and filled with gross-out moments, it also effortlessly lends itself to political allegory without feeling heavy-handed.

The movie imagines a world where an alien spaceship has been stranded in Johannesburg. Not knowing how to react to the aliens, they are kept in an internment camp called District 9. They have been there 20 years, it's turned into a violent slum, so the humans have decided to relocate them. Leading this effort is mild-mannered and slightly goofy operative Wikus van de Mere (a very good performance by Sharlto Copely). While attempting relocation, Wikus finds himself in a situation where he is wanted by the humans and more connected to the aliens and their fight for liberation.

There are so many things that work about this movie. They give a vision of alien life that feels completely non-cliched. These creatures are not peace-loving utopians (a la Avatar or Close Encounters) or rampaging monsters (War of the Worlds or Independence Day). They are a separate society who feel entrapped when they are entrapped and sometimes turn to violence. I also love the way that Blomkamp shoots action sequences. My problem with many action movies is that they devolve into shoot-outs where you never know who is shooting at who. In this movie, it is always crystal clear what is happening in each sequence, and the action makes sense.

The political allegory is also very insightful. During apartheid, the South African government had forcible evictions of its black residents. This movie imagines all residents, black and white alike, doing the same to the alien visitors. The way the humans devolve in their treatment of the aliens is typical of the selfishness and fear that dominates so many atrocities around the world.

So in the end, District 9 actually made me think more and felt much more insightful about racial politics than an inspirational movie about Nelson Mandela. Its filmmaking was also much more alive and inspired.

Grade: A-

Avatar & Inglorious Basterds

Avatar (2009)

Avatar is the first movie where I decided to splurge and see it in 3D, and I picked the right one. James Cameron spent somewhere between 200-400 million on this colossal movie (reports are a bit fuzzy) and every penny is certainly up on screen. While my eyes were tired when I was done, I do think the 3D adds to the experience.

First of all, I do believe that Avatar is a groundbreaking movie in the use of new technology to meld special effects and human subjects. Imagine Gollum from Lord of the Rings times 1,000 and you have some sense of this movie. Cameron creates a beautiful world called Pandora, an idyllic planet far away from the Earth that the humans have destroyed. There are 10-foot-tall blue creatures called the Na'vi, original animals, and trees that have magic powers. Everything is depicted in absolutely gorgeous details.

Now on to the story. I think the outlines of the story is good and very interesting. I really liked the way the humans became avatars and how they switched back and forth when they went to sleep or were unplugged. The central love story in Avatar is also good in the sort of broadly romantic way. While I have a few compliments, I can also definitely say that the writing is not the strength of Avatar. The dialogue can be clunky, the themes are a little too on-the-head, and the basic outline of the story is fairly predictable. The movie has a clear anti-imperialist, pro-environment message (no argument here), but it is extremely heavy handed. It's as if every theme has to be underlined 5 times for the audience to get it. I think the best parts of the movie are the battle and action scenes. There is so much to be seen, you can't help but be wowed. I thought the weakest part of the movie was actually the middle, when Sully (our hero) is shown the new world by Neyitri, the babe of the Na'vis. It reminded me a little too much of scenes from Disney's Pocahontas.

As I was thinking about how to grade Avatar, I came back to a few points. If this movie had used traditional animation, what grade would I give it, based on the story? Probably a C+ or a B-. But the effects, the spectacle, and the leap forward in movie technology are definitely something worthy of awe. I settled on giving it a B+. Not the best of the year, but definitely a spectacle worth seeing.

Grade: B

Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Quentin Tarantino came up with a delightfully deranged concept for this movie. Take World War II history, alter the facts, filter it through decades of Hollywood movies, mix it with modern-day violence and humor, and spit it all out. The good news is, he comes up with scenes and images that are among the most memorable and powerful of the year. The bad news is, not all the parts fit quite as well as others.

For being the title of the movie, the sections of the movie featuring the "Basterds" were actually the least interesting moments of the movie. The Basterds are a group of Jewish-American soldiers who are on a mission to kill and scalp Nazi soldiers. While the movie has a loose and pulpy vibe to it, these scenes lean too much on absurdist humor, and I think Brad Pitt overplays his hand. Much more interesting is the story of Shoshanna (the fabulous Melanie Laurent), a young Jewish woman in disguise who runs the French cinema frequented by the Nazi collaborators. Now they want to have the premiere of a new German film, and she has other plans for the night....

Christoph Waltz has been pulling in every Supporting Actor award under the sun and he is terrific as a brilliant,multi-lingual Nazi commander Hans Lander who is called "The Jew Hunter." He is a magnetic force every time he is on screen. There are so many moments when you know he could snap at the drop of a hat.

There are numerous great scenes in this movie. I'll name my favorite 4: The extended opening, where Hans Lander visits a French farmhouse that has been hiding Jews; the meeting between Hans Lander and Shoshanna in a Paris cafe; a gathering in a French restaurant full of mind games and double crossers; and the brilliant closing minutes where Tarantino indulges in some revisionist history. Unfortunately, these scenes are interspersed with others that don't fully live up to the promise of Tarantino's vision. If Tarantino had kept the energy and film references but cut down a bit on the jokiness, I think it would have been a stronger film.

Grade: B

Oscar Precursor Stampede Part 2 (Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, & Director)

Continuing my rundown of prominent recent awards.....

SUPPORTING ACTOR

NY Film Critics: Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)
LA Film Critics: Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)
Runner-Up: Peter Capaldi (In the Loop)
National Board of Review: Woody Harrelson (The Messenger)
Broadcast Film Critics Nominees: Matt Damon (Invictus); Woody Harrelson (The Messenger); Christian McKay (Me and Orson Welles); Alfred Molina (An Education); Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones); Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)
Golden Globe Nominees: Matt Damon (Invictus); Woody Harrelson (The Messenger); Christopher Plummer (The Last Station); Stanely Tucci (The Lovely Bones); Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)
Screen Actors Guild Nominees: Matt Damon (Invictus); Woody Harrelson (The Messenger); Christopher Plummer (The Last Station); Stanely Tucci (The Lovely Bones); Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)

What does it mean? Well, it looks like Christoph Waltz is locked and loaded for the Supporting Actor Oscar. Also, since the Globes and SAG nominated the same 5, those might be our 5. It looks like Stanley Tucci will be the only one to survive the Lovely Bones critical dismissal. I'm disappointed to see no love for Anthony Mackie in The Hurt Locker. He was terrific in his pivotal role.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

NY Film Critics: Mo'Nique (Precious)
LA Film Critics: Mo'Nique (Precious)
Runner-up: Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)
National Board of Review: Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)
Broadcast Film Critics Nominees: Marion Cotillard (Nine); Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air); Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air); Mo'Nique (Precious); Julianne Moore (A Single Man); Samantha Morton (The Messenger)
Golden Globe Nominees: Penelope Cruz (Nine); Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air); Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air); Mo'Nique (Precious); Julianne Moore (A Single Man)
Screen Actor Guild Nominees: Penelope Cruz (Nine); Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air); Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air); Diane Kruger (Inglorious Basterds); Mo'Nique (Precious)

What does it mean? It looks like Mo'Nique, Anna Kendrick, and Vera Farmiga are in for sure! All three performances are absolutely terrific, so good for them. The other slots look like a duel between the Nine actresses (Cotillard and Cruz), Julianne Moore, and Samantha Morton. While Kendrick has picked up a few wins, I still feel this is Mo'Nique's Oscar to lose (and I doubt she will).

BEST DIRECTOR

NY Film Critics: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
LA Film Critics: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
Runner-Up: Michael Haneke (The White Ribbon)
National Board of Review: Clint Eastwood (Invictus)
Broadcast Film Critics Nominees: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker); James Cameron (Avatar); Lee Daniels (Precious); Clint Eastwood (Invictus); Jason Reitman (Up in the Air); Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds)
Golden Globe Nominees: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker); James Cameron (Avatar); Clint Eastwood (Invictus); Jason Reitman (Up in the Air); Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds)

What does it mean? It means we could be looking at our first ever female director winner! And for a war movie. A great one at that. Otherwise it looks like Tarantino, Reitman, and Cameron are in I think. The last slot will probably go to Eastwood or Lee Daniels. But who knows. The Academy sometimes does interesting things with Best Director.

Oscar Precursor Stampede: Part 1 (Picture, Actor, Actress)

In the past week or so, many many critics groups and awards bodies have released their awards and nominations for 2009. I'll take a look at how each category is panning out and what that means for Oscars. I'll look at the National Board of Review (first major awards) the New York Film Critics and LA Film Critics (the two most influential critics groups), the Broadcast Film Critics (fairly predictive of Oscar), the Screen Actors Guild (ditto), and the Golden Globes (biggest prize after Oscar).

BEST PICTURE

NY Film Critics: The Hurt Locker
LA Film Critics: The Hurt Locker
National Board of Review: Up in the Air
National Board of Review Top 10: An Education, (500) Days of Summer, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Invictus, The Messenger, A Serious Man, Star Trek, Up, Where the Wild Things Are
Broadcast Film Critics: Avatar, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Invictus, Nine, Precious, A Serious Man, Up, Up in the Air
Golden Globe Nominees (Drama): Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Precious, Up in the Air
Golden Globe Nominees (Comedy/Musical): (500) Days of Summer, The Hangover, It's Complicated, Julie & Julia, Nine
Screen Actors Guild (Best Ensemble): An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Nine, Precious

What does it mean? A few movies are obviously doing extremely well in these precursors: The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air, and Inglorious Basterds. The Hurt Locker seems to be winning the most awards, but I still tend to think Up in the Air is our current frontrunner for the win. The Hurt Locker is probably a little small and a little unconventional for a Best Picture win. Precious missed the National Board of Review, but otherwise looks strong. Nine, Invictus, and An Education are a little spotty in their awards attention. Also, it looks like Avatar will be good rather than a bomb..... can't wait to see it!



BEST ACTOR

NY Film Critics: George Clooney (Up in the Air & The Fantastic Mr. Fox)
LA Film Critics: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
Runner-Up: Colin Firth (A Single Man)
National Board of Review: Morgan Freeman (Invictus) & George Clooney (Up in the Air)
Broadcast Film Critics Nominees: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart); George Clooney (Up in the Air); Colin Firth (A Single Man); Morgan Freeman (Invictus); Viggo Mortenson (The Road); Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)
Golden Globe Nominees (Drama): Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart); George Clooney (Up in the Air); Colin Firth (A Single Man); Morgan Freeman (Invictus); Tobey Maguire (Brothers)
Golden Globe Nomineees (Comedy/Musical): Matt Damon (The Informant!); Daniel Day-Lewis (Nine); Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes); Joseph Gordon-Levitt ( (500) Days of Summer); Michael Stuhlbarg (A Serious Man)
Screen Actors Guild Nominees: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart); George Clooney (Up in the Air); Colin Firth (A Single Man); Morgan Freeman (Invictus); Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)



What Does it Mean? If I had to make a bet, I'd bet our five nominees are going to match the Screen Actors Guild (Bridges, Clooney, Firth, Freeman, Renner). It looks like a Jeff Bridges vs. Clooney fight for the win. I'm super excited to see relative unknown Jeremy Renner get so much attention for The Hurt Locker. Here's hoping he goes all the way to Oscar nomination morning.

BEST ACTRESS

NY Film Critics: Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)
LA Film Critics: Yolande Moreau (Seraphine) - HUH? had not even heard of this.
Runner-Up: Carey Mulligan (An Education)
National Board of Review: Carey Mulligan (An Education)
Broadcast Film Critics Nominees: Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria); Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side); Carey Mulligan (An Education); Saorsie Ronan (The Lovely Bones); Gabourey Sidibe (Precious); Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)
Golden Globe Nominees (Drama): Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria); Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side); Helen Mirren (The Last Station); Carey Mulligan (An Education); Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)
Golden Globe Nominees (Comedy/Musical): Sandra Bullock (The Proposal); Marion Cotillard (Nine); Julia Roberts (Duplicity); Meryl Streep (It's Complicated); Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)
Screen Actors Guild Nominees: Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side); Helen Mirren (The Last Station); Carey Mulligan (An Education); Gabourey Sidibe (Precious); Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)

What does it mean? As someone who is particularly annoyed by Sandra Bullock in most roles, it pains me to admit that it looks like she has a likely claim on one of the five nomination slots this year. As with the actors, the Screen Actors Guild may have given us the same list that is likely to be Oscar nominated: Bullock, Mirren, Mulligan, Sidibe, Streep. I think it's definitely between Mulligan and Streep for the win, with my money on Streep. I loved both performances, so I haven't fully committed to a camp yet.

Up in the Air, Star Trek, and Julie & Julia

As Oscar season heats up, I'm doing my best to fit in all the 2009 contenders I can Hooray for my upcoming holiday break! Here are my latest viewings.....



Up in the Air

Up in the Air is probably the front-runner for Best Picture, and I can see why. It's a movie so carefully written, directed, and acted that all the pieces seemed to fit into place. This is no small feat since there are several narratives within the movie. George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a man who goes to other companies to tell their employees they are laid off. So part of the movie is about that and is a commentary on our economy. Another part is about his casual (or not?) relationship with another business traveler Alex (Vera Farmiga). There is also his young protege (or nemesis?) Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick). And by the end, you also learn a lot about Bingham's relationship with his family.

The fact that all these threads are woven together with laugh-out-loud and lump in your throat moments are testament to the great screenplay and the lead and supporting actors who pull it off. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is George Clooney's best performance. He does always kind of play a similar suave character, but he plays it well, and in this movie he adds depth and complexity to the character. The two supporting actresses are absolutely outstanding. Vera Farmiga, best known from her great role in the male-centric The Departed, is great as a counterpart to Clooney's businessman. The two definitely set off sparks in their moments together. Anna Kendrick is also excellent as a young go-getter who finds her views widened in her time with Clooney. The female roles here always feel like fully formed characters, and not tools for Clooney's character development.

This is the kind of movie I don't want to tell too much about, because much of the pleasure to be found is in the directions it takes. Do I have quibbles? Sure, but they are few and minor. There's a little too much indie-rock towards the end of the film when it really doesn't need the extra emotion, and I would have appreciated a touch more closure on a plot point or two. But all in all, this is easily one of the best movies of the year. See it.

Grade: A



Star Trek

When I was a young preteen, I loved the old Star Trek. I remember watching them with my brother on summer evenings and enjoying the kitschy trips to other planets and the sense of opportunity aboard the Starship Enterprise. I also remember being put off by Star Trek: The Next Generation. It was too modern-looking, too serious, and just not as fun.

The good news about Star Trek is that it definitely has the spirit of the old show and not The Next Generation. It's bright, fun, fast-paced, and shot through with a dose of good feeling. It basically sets up the backstory of how Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and the rest of the gang came to be aboard the Starship Enterprise. I really enjoyed seeing the origin and seeing Kirk and Spock's relationship develop. The time-travel plotline with Leonard Nimoy is also a lot of fun. The cast is young, attractive, and easy to watch.

All in all, it's definitely a fun popcorn movie. My biggest complaint is that is has a bit too much action near the end and not enough character development. The other quibble is that it sometimes seems more like a setup for future sequels (which I'm sure there will be) and less like a movie aware of its own strengths.

Grade: B


Julie & Julia

Meryl Streep hits it out of the park as Julia Child. You could call what she does overacting, with her whoops and mutterings and physicality, but when you watch videos of the actual Julia Child it actually feels like Meryl is dead on. The scenes detailing Julia's life in France with her diplomat husband (the wonderful Stanly Tucci) are also charming and delightful. You see Julia fall in love with food and find her passion, and Meryl takes you along for the ride.

Unfortunately, this charming story is paired with a pedestrian story of Julie Powell (Amy Adams), a Queens blogger who attempted to cook all the recipes in Child's cookbook in one year. The concept is interesting, but the character of Julie is rather bland. Whenever the movie switches back to her story, you know it is going to move in predictable directions. It's not exactly "bad," and Amy Adams does her best in the role of Julie, but the story only holds so much dramatic material. The ending of the movie is also a let-down. You're waiting for some kind of climax where everything comes together, and it never really comes.

Still, this movie is definitely worth seeing for the Julia Child half of the movie, and especially Meryl Streep's performance, which may finally win Streep her third Oscar. If I ever watch it again, I certainly know which parts will get the fast forward button.

Grade: B-

DVD Review Round Up

With all of my recent theater viewings, I've fallen a bit behind on my at-home reporting. Here are the last several movies I've watched, three 2009 releases and one from a few years ago. As you'll see, they are a bunch of B's, all worth seeing but nothing that blew my mind....


Funny People (2009)

The first 2/3 of this movie were very very good. Seth Rogen plays a young comic who is hired as a personal assistant and writer to George Simmons (Adam Sandler), a washed-up and detached from life comic who has also found out he is gravely ill. The scenes with Seth Rogen and his young comic friends (Jason Schwartzman, Jonah Hill), are hilarious. The scenes between Sandler and Rogen are alternately very funny and somewhat poignant.

The problem with this movie was the last 1/3. It turns the movie from a comedy/drama of mortality and humor into a love triangle between Adam Sandler, Leslie Mann, and Eric Bana. Mann and Bana are good, but this part seems tacked onto a different movie. It also makes the movie about 20-30 minutes too long. A great premise and a great start, but definitely a step down for Judd Apatow from Knocked Up.

Grade: First 2/3-A-, Last 1/3- C, so I'll give it a B

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

I'm not usually a fan of horror movies, but this movie got a lot of good buzz. I'm glad I saw it. The movies follows a loan officer (Alison Lohman) who is cursed when she denies to extend a home loan to an old woman. Sam Raimi, the director, has travelled from horror cult classics (Evil Dead), to critically acclaimed thrillers (A Simple Plan), to blockbusters (Spider-Man). Here he returns to his horror roots and makes a movie that relies on every horror trick in the book.... and they mostly work. I thought a few scenes fell flat, and there was a little too much gross-out material, but overall this was a really effective horror film. I jumped multiple times It was also fun to watch. I'll take this over any of the Saw movies any day.

Grade: B

Every Little Step (2009)

This documentary is kind of two movies in one. One is the story of the creation of the Broadway musical A Chorus Line. Another is a movie about a competition over who will be cast in the musical's recent revival. The first story (the history) was a bit dry, but the auditions were fascinating. I wish there was actually more audition footage and more backstory on those auditioning. It could have been like Spellbound with adults. Overall, though, a fun movie to watch if you like musicals or competitions.

Grade: B

Birth (2004)



I was intrigued by this movie since I know that it got fairly negative reviews when it was released, but I've also seen it listed as a cult classic on many of my favorite film blog sites.

The story is strange (and more than a little bit disturbing). Anna (Nicole Kidman) is a woman whose husband dies. 10 years later, she is about to get married when a 10-year-old boy comes to tell her that he is her reincarnated husband. Anna gradually comes to believe this is true, which leads to many surprising turns of events. The movie is told stylishly with a great score and a wonderful and mysterious performance by Kidman. What I didn't like is how it gave away almost too much at the end. Ambiguity would have been much more interesting. Worth a look mainly for Kidman's performance.

Grade: B-

First Best Picture predictions

In a major change to Oscar protocal, this year there will be 10 nominees for Best Picture, rather than the standard five. Here are my (very) early predix for the 10 we are most likely to see. The biggest unknowns right now are the release of The Lovely Bones, Invictus, Nine, and Avatar. Will these films wow or bomb? I'm guessing at least one of these will flop, but which one?

Here are my predictions, more or less in order of likelihood. I'm fairly confident in my top 6, but after that it gets a little murky.

Precious
Up in the Air (Release Date 12/25)
Nine (Release Date 12/18)
The Hurt Locker
Invictus (Release Date 12/11)
An Education
Up
Inglorious Basterds
A Serious Man
The Lovely Bones (Release Date 12/11)

Or maybe?: Avatar, Bright Star, A Single Man, The Last Station

An Education

An Education (2009)



Any review must start, first and foremost, with talk of Carey Mulligan, who stars as Jenny, a 16-year-old girl in 1961 London who has a quintessential coming-of-age experience. Mulligan is absolutely charming and remarkably perceptive in the role. I may as well me the 300th reviewer to compare her to Audrey Hepburn, but the comparison is unmistakable. I'm sure this movie will lead to many more opportunities for this actress.

Now on to the movie as a whole. I enjoyed An Education quite a lot. It's the kind of movie that is easy to watch, unpredictable in its turns, and strikes an balance between its light and dark sides. I The movie is mostly concerned with Jenny's relationship with a much older man (Peter Sarsgaard) and how that contributes to her "education." Sarsgaard has a very tricky role. He has to be charming enough for the audience to like him and see how Jenny could like him, but also questionable enough to raise doubts. Sarsgaard plays the role very well.

The rest of the supporting cast is also excellent, particularly Alfred Molina as Jenny's typically middle-class father and Rosamund Pike as a new friend. Emma Thompson is biting in a small role as well.

What I found most interesting about the movie was how initially it seemed to be a movie about the pull between Jenny's parents and her new boyfriend, but they actually don't end up being on opposite sides. If anything, they are all in a sort of unknowing collusion against Jenny's true promise. In order to grow she has to find her own way, with a little help. It's a good message, I think, and the movie tells it with effortless grace. It's not a groundbreaking film, but it's a story very well told. Easily one of the most entertaining films of 2009. And seriously, keep an eye on Carey Mulligan.

Grade: A-

Precious Thoughts

Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire



On Saturday, I sat in a packed theater to see the much-buzzed (Oscar frontrunner?) Precious, which most of you probably know is about a severely obese and abused young woman living in Harlem in the 1980s. It's won numerous audience awards at film festivals, and now it is here, and I predict it will be a film phenomenon. It has a sort of cross between arthouse/urban/tearjerker appeal that will serve it well.

But how was it? For the most part, I have to say it lived up to the hype. For me, the movie had a very personal connection. I spent 4 years as a GED/ABE teacher and a large chunk of the movie takes places in an ABE classroom. While inspiring teacher movies are begging to be cliched, this classroom rung true for me as a teacher. I definitely knew students like Precious, and others who had problems just as severe. I also knew students with similar personalities to every other student in the classroom. These classroom scenes are lively, inspiring, and give the viewer a break from the relentless intensity of the home scenes. Paula Patton does a really nice job as Blu Rain, the teacher of Precious who helps her seek her own liberation. I haven't even mentioned the deglammed Mariah Carey yet. She is quite good in a smallish role as Precious' social worker.

The powerful and disturbing home scenes are played between Precious (newcomer Gabourey Sidibe) and her mother Mary (Mo'nique). Mo'nique gives an absolutely terrifying performance as a mother who subjects her daughter to monstrous things. She's a true force of nature of screen, and you can't turn away from her performance. The brilliance of the performance is that, while we never truly sympathize with Mary, Mo'nique allows the character to be a person and not simply a figure of evil. The grandmother shuffling about in the background of a few scenes also makes you wonder what Mary lived through as well. What's inspiring about the movie (spoiler alert) is that Precious' triumph is that she is gaining the skills to break the cycles of abuse for her children. Her future may be bleak, but there is hope in her empowerment.

Precious is also, with a few minor exceptions, well-directed by Lee Daniels. I think he knows how to suggest much of the brutality without being overly graphic in its depiction. In one particular scene, the fade to black is probably actually more powerful than showing the viewer what is about to happen. I do question a couple of his judgments. The movie often shows Precious' fantasies at times when difficult things are happening, and these are mostly successful at showing us how she would choose to escape. The foreign movie scene, however, felt forced and not something that would necessarily be in Precious' experience. My other minor qualm is about the details of Precious' life. Do we really need a scene where Precious steals fried chicken, has grease all over her face, and then gets sick? It struck me as overkill in a movie that is telling a compelling story on its own.

There's been some backlash of the movie along the lines of wondering if the movie should have even been made and if it isn't just trading in negative stereotypes. While I do question a few choices made by the filmmakers, I have to disagree with this general line of argument. What I like most about Precious is that it shows us a character who many would otherwise turn from. As much as it saddens me, I also don't think this movie is unrealistic. Should we refrain from making and seeing movies about people who are not shown in their best light? This seems, to me, to be a severely limiting view of art. In the end, I think the character of Precious truly comes through as an individual and not as a stereotype. In the end I think Precious is that rare thing, a tearjerker and inspirational that earns every emotion it elicits.

Grade: A-

A Serious Man.... Seriously Good (plus quick reviews of Sin Nombre and Julia)

A Serious Man (2009)

While The Hurt Locker and Goodbye Solo came close, I had not yet seen a 2009 movie I would call great. Until Friday. A Serious Man stands with the very best of the Coen Brothers films and is a remarkable achievement.

The brothers follow up their last, star-studded movie, the enjoyable if light Burn After Reading (with Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton) with a movie full of virtual unknowns playing a Jewish community in 1967 suburban Minnesota.

The movie stars Michael Stuhlbarg as Larry Gopnik, an upstanding man whose life if falling apart on him. His wife is leaving him for the horrifyingly soft-spoken Cy Ableman (Fred Melamed in one of the funniest performances I've seen in a long while), his children barely acknowledge him, a student at the college he teaches at is trying to bribe him, and his brother won't leave his house and spends all his time draining the cyst on his neck.

The Coens (along with their masterful cinematographer Roger Deakins) have created a world that feels specific and inhabited. This is a world of an insulated Jewish community (much like where the Coens were raised) that mostly stays to themselves. Some of the best scenes involve Larry's visits to various Rabbis, who attempt to give him some meaning. Throughout the movie, various questions of religion and meaning in life are raised (without ever sacrificing the comedy).

I actually don't want to tell too much about the movie because it would spoil its many surprises. The Coens are masters at setting up surprising scenes that milk the audience's expectations, and this movie is no exception. It also has an ending that I found brilliant, but will probably prove as divisive as the enigmatic finale to No Country for Old Men. While I have enjoyed just about all the Coen Brothers films (perhaps excepting Intolerable Cruelty), A Serious Man stands with Fargo and No Country for Old Men as one of their unqualified masterpieces.

Grade: A

I have also been trying to catch up on my 2009 releases on video. Here are a few quick thoughts.

Sin Nombre (2009)

A sort of cross between City of God, El Norte, and Maria Full of Grace, and unfortunately it suffers a bit in comparison to these great movies. Sin Nombre tells the story of a young gang member attempting to escape from gang brutality, and a girl who is traveling to the United States with her family. The movie is told with grace and simplicity, but I never felt as fully invested in the characters as I did in other movies that told a similar story.

Grade: C+

Julia (2009)



No, not the movie about cooking and Julia Child. This one stars Tilda Swinton as an alcoholic train-wreck of a woman who kidnaps a young boy in order to make some cash. The chief reason to see this movie, and its a good one, is Swinton's performance. In a role 180 degrees removed from her Oscar-winning supporting role in Michael Clayton, Swinton fully inhabits the role and doesn't make a play for audience sympathy. I admired the way this movie didn't go for easy sentiments or redemption. Its tough-minded about the way Julia acts, and yet the audience remains watching because we can't turn away. It's a little overlong, and a few elements of the plot are perhaps too far-fetched, but it's definitely worth seeing for Swinton's performance (easily the best female performance I've seen so far this year).

Grade: B

Top 10 Retrospective: 2003

It's been a little while since I did this feature, but it's back! Looking back, here is my top 10 of 2003.

(Also, please see the side of my blog to get easy access to all my previous top 10 lists!)

2003

Runners-Up: 21 Grams, Capturing the Friedmans, Dirty Pretty Things, A Mighty Wind.

10. Cold Mountain: Despite Renee Zellwegger being a little annoying (albeit interesting) and Nicole Kidman being a little miscast, I thought this was a beautiful Civil War movie with a great performance by Jude Law and numerous masterful scenes by the late director Anthony Minghella.



9. The Fog of War: This documentary is basically an interview with Robert McNamara, the chief architect of the Vietnam War. Great documentarian Errol Morris is able to get fascinating footage from his interview, and McNamara engages in gripping scenes of self-doubt and (almost) apology.

8. Finding Nemo: Another excellent animated film from Pixar, the most visually stunning film they had made to date.

7. The Return of the King: While it had about 4 endings too many, there is no denying the scope and beauty of Peter Jackson's finale to the amazingly detailed trilogy.

6. In America: A lovely semi-autobiographical film from Irish director Jim Sheridan about a new immigrant family's adjustment to life in America. I dare you not to choke up.

5. Spellbound: This hugely entertaining and edge-of-your-seat documentary profiles contestants from various walks of life making their way to the National Spelling Bee.



4. Mystic River: Clint Eastwood directs a superb cast (Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Marcia Gay Harden) in a great drama about wounds of the past and how they follow people into the future.

3. American Splendor: Paul Giamatti and Hope Davis are excellent as comic-book artist Harvey Pekar and Joyce Brabner, two misfits who somehow find love. This movie utilizes animation, documentary, comics, and fiction to tell the story of some of the most unique individuals I've ever seen in film.



2. City of God: I can still remember being absolutely riveted while watching this in the theater. Has the violence and energy of early Martin Scorsese, with the added freshness of its Brazilian-ghetto setting. One of those movies that's depressing, but also very invigorating because of the power of its filmmaking.

1. Lost in Translation: A movie I can watch over and over again. Few films have gotten the sense of loneliness and human connection so right as Sofia Coppola does. Bill Murray is astonishing and Scarlett Johannson also great (in a role that fits her perfectly) as Americans lost in their lives and lost in Tokyo. Easily one of my favorite movies of the decade.



Summing it Up: A strong year for film, especially my top 5. It had a wide range of genres that caught my love and admiration.

Away We Go (2009)

Away We Go (2009)

Like Where the Wild Things Are, this one was penned by author Dave Eggers (and wife Vendella Vida). If I did not know the director, I never would have pegged this as a Sam Mendes effort. The indie/quirky spirit of this movie is a far cry from the stylized American Beauty and Revolutionary Road.

The movie stars John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph as a young couple about to have a baby. When his parents tell them they are leaving for a few years in Europe, the couple decides to visit a few places in the country to see where they fit. The movie is an episodic account of their journeys and the several people they visit. Most of the visits unearth some sort of horror the couple wishes to avoid, such as suburban alcoholics who demean their kids, inflexible New Age hippies, or broken marriages.

John Krasinski is likable enough as Burt, but to me he was really just playing a hipster version of Jim from The Office. I found Maya Rudolph much more interesting as Verona. Throughout the movie, her character is the more guarded one, and Rudolph does a really nice job at suggesting the layers underneath.

There were a lot of fun moments in this film, but also parts that seemed a bit mashed together. Some episodes could be from a Christopher Guest movie (the sections with Allison Janney and Maggie Gyllenhaal), while others seemed to be going for a much more sincere vibe. I think I actually would have liked the movie a little more if it had been a flat-out comedy with a little sentiment and not quite so many soft indie songs on the soundtrack. As it stands, the movie is an entertaining road movie with many funny bits, a lot of good actors, and a little bit of a message (find your own path in your relationships).

Grade: B-

Wild Things....

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

When I was a kid, there was once when I got mad at my family and rode my bike to a fort in the woods that my friends and I had made. This is just a preface to say that I get Max, our protagonist in Where the Wild Things Are, and I think the reason the book is such a classic is the emotions it evokes. Who doesn't remember the childhood moments when you wanted to be somewhere else?

So here comes the movie version of Sendak's classic picture book. In many ways, it follows the basic plotline of the book and just adds details. Max gets mad at his mom, escapes (instead of going to his room like in the book), and ends up on an island of Wild Things, where he is made their king. I thought the opening of this movie was extremely strong and poignant in giving us a view of the world through Max's eyes. When he gets to the island, viewers are in for a shock. Almost immediately, Max is beset by the human-like problems of the wild things. One has anger issues, one has acceptance issues, and they all lack a certain sense of purpose. The monsters reflect emotions that Max has been feeling towards his own mother and sister. In order to get back home, he has to somehow face and deal with these issues.

Sendak personally chose director Spike Jonze for the project, and I think he made a great choice. Jonze's only other two movies are the mind-bending Being John Malkovich (a personal favorite) and Adapation (another fascinating movie). What Wild Things has in common with these two movies is the way it uses fantasy to project elemental human feelings of desire, conflict, and inadequacy. Are Max's feelings of anger really so far off of Charlie Kaufman's (Nicolas Cage) in Adaptation?

The movie consistently kept me hooked on an intellectual level. At times, I could hardly believe the heavy emotions that the movie was giving to the Wild Things. Throughout the movie, I was constantly finding the connections between Max's life and these wild things. I also loved the music and the cinematography (the fantasy sequences were shot in Australia). Unfortunately, I don't think this movie is the unqualified masterpiece I was hoping for (or that it could have been). While the problems of the Wild Things were fascinating, I would have liked a little more unadulterated childlike wonder, at least when Max first encounters the creatures. I also thought that there were a few too many creatures so that it was difficult to care about them all. The movie definitely began and ended good, and there are some truly great sequences, but also a few too many parts that begin to feel repetitive.

This movie is by far one of the most thought provoking of this year's movies, and you should definitely see it. It has so much going for it, I just wish it crossed the line into greatness.

Grade: B+

Sunshine Cleaning

Sunshine Cleaning (2009)

OK, so the makers of this film decided to put Sunshine in the title. And cast Alan Arkin as a kooky old man. A kooky old man who has a poignant relationship with a child. As I was watching it, I couldn't quite believe it. The choice to be so clearly derivative of a better and widely-seen movie (Little Miss Sunshine just in case you didn't get the references) was unfortunate for a movie with many minor charms of its own.

Nevertheless, I did enjoy the movie on the whole, and it's mainly because of the lovely performance of Amy Adams. Does anyone play inherently good characters as well as her, as we've seen in Enchanted, Doubt, and Junebug (if you have not seen Junebug, Netflix it NOW. One of my favorite movies of recent years). Amy Adams plays a single mom working as a cleaner who is led into the crime-scene and hazardous materials business by her married cop boyfriend. She partners with her also troubled sister (the also enjoyable Emily Blunt), and the business begins. While the movie was marketed as a comedy, it's really more of a drama with some comedic parts. There are definitely some lovely moments along the way in this film, but it is definitely inconsistent. To sum it up, I'd say I enjoyed it, it was worth a rental, but I'm glad I didn't pay money to see it in the theater.

Grade: C+

Sugar & Two Lovers

So being a teacher has its perks, like being able to watch lots of movies and blog about them during the summer.... it also has its drawbacks, which I will blame for my woeful lack of blogging the past month or so. Anyway, here are a few thoughts on a couple of recent 2009 viewings...

Sugar (2009)
Directed by Ryan Fleck and Anna Nelson, the forces behind the excellent Half Nelson, Sugar tells the story of a 19-year-old Dominican who comes to the United States to play minor league baseball. This is kind of an anti-sports movie. There is no real big game or big moment. There is really only one extended sports sequence. It doesn't really care who wins or loses, it cares about this young man's experience. Miguel comes as a wide-eyed innocent to the United States, and the movie does a really fine job of portraying things through his eyes. It's a very gentle film, with not a lot of obvious emotional highs and lows. Still, at the end, I was genuinely moved and enlightened by Miguel's story.

Grade: B+

Two Lovers (2009)



I saw this movie yesterday, and I knew that I enjoyed it but saw it as sort of a minor accomplishment. As I've ruminated about it today, though, it strikes me more as a cinematic version of a really good short story. It focuses on a few characters, has a basic plot that can be told in a few sentences, but the characterization lends the story its complexity. A great Joaquin Phoenix stars as a youngish depressed man who lives with his immigrant Jewish parents in Brooklyn. The movie basically follows him as he is torn between the Jewish nice girl (Vinessa Shaw) and the troubled girl (played by Gwyneth Paltrow). What makes this movie really engaging is the performances. Phoenix brings to mind a young Brando in his naturalism of his performance. Paltrow, playing a sort of "bad girl," is the best she's been in a long time. And Isabella Rosselini, older and now able to pull off matronly (funny to see... anyone seen Blue Velvet?) gives a great small performance as his mother. The directing, by James Gray, is also really solid. He give the audience time to absorb each scene, but keeps the emotional story moving enough that I never got bored. A movie many people probably missed but I definitely think is worth a look.

Grade: B+