Thursday, March 3, 2011

The Adjustment Bureau

In “The Adjustment Bureau,” Matt Damon and Emily Blunt star in a romantic metaphysical thriller that aims to provoke thought about free will. Damon stars as Senator David Norris, whose up and coming political career continues to be at the mercy of his bad habits. Along the way, he meets Elise, a free spirit of a woman whom he has an instant attraction with. However, due to a fluke, Norris stumbles upon a group of men who appear to be in the habit of mind control.

The film is based off of a story by Philip K. Dick and it sets up some great questions with obvious metaphor for free will. That is the strength of this otherwise mediocre affair. It’s not that “The Adjustment Bureau” is a bad movie so much as it feels mundane. With the topic, actors involved, and set piece of New York City, it feels like we have a movie that could do so much more. Thrilling chases end up feeling pedestrian, revelations come quick and fast, and tension rarely exists.

Plot questions begin to arrive left and right – Like, why for all their supposed special powers do the Bureau employees so rarely seem to use them? (Mild spoiler) In one scene, a character is supposed to have coffee spill on him to distract the path of his day. When things change, a bureau member chases after the character, only to use his special powers at the last minute. Why not just use them from the outset? There are many more, but my questions would spoil too much of the plot.

Also troubling is how much of a wasted potential the aesthetic of the film is. The Bureau employees look awesome – the top hats, trench coats, and slick suit make them potentially menacing and imposing. Yet, they are framed so blandly – no shadows are used, nor are there ever interesting camera angles. Perhaps it is the Melville (Le Samourai, Army of Shadows) lover in me, but after seeing what he does with these types of characters I now have come to expect all other filmmakers to make good use of it. It doesn’t help that the music is bizarrely out of place and will find itself detracting more and more from the movie as time goes on. It’s not that the visual or music aesthetic is ever outright bad – just bland.

Yet, the movie’s interesting questions are what kept me interested. Once Terrence Stamp shows up, I suddenly was in the grip of the questions. They are interesting because they are clearly about how we see God involved in the affairs of man. Of particular note is some dialogue between Damon and Stamp about God’s intervention and then leaving mankind before the Bureau has to step in again. Once certain questions are raised, it left me with an immediate answer based on my worldview. I wanted to take the concepts further – what about mans access to God or the moving of His heart through prayer? The questions raised are certainly the films strength.

When my wife and I began discussing the movie afterwards, she seemed to be taken in by the love story between David and Elise. For what is there, the chemistry is believable even if the time jumps (3 years later, etc) feel less like years and more like days. Still, I appreciated that the leads seemed connected to each other. Otherwise the whole motivation of the story would have fallen apart.

Bottom line, this is an entirely mediocre adventure from a visual and aural perspective but one that is interesting for the mind (and possibly soul). The film certainly attracted its fair share of attention – cameos are littered throughout the film. If the tension could have been thicker, this could have been a great film. As it is, I can only get so excited. Then again, I watched “Hunger” by Steve McQueen earlier in the day (a visual masterpiece rife with visceral tension and passionate acting). Perhaps that was the Bureau’s way of affecting my viewing of this film.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

More Quick Thought Reviews

Time is fleeting, so here are some brief reviews:

Some of it is netflix, some of it is in the theater. All of it is opinionated. Read on and don't forget to comment on what you have seen lately below in your own 2-3 sentence reviews!


The Trotsky (8/10) - Rushmore set in Canada. Jay Baruchel's character is simply hilarious. The movie has some seriously flawed elements, but it is mostly funny if you can accept the premise.

Kick Ass (5/10) - Gratuitous in every sense. Nicholas Cage was watchable, Chloe Moretz made me cringe...not because of her, but because of what she did in the film.

The House Bunny (6.5/10) - Guilty pleasure with a terrible message. However, it gave me a new favorite line - "The eyes of are the nipples of the face." Anna Faris is hilarious in it.

MacGruber (4/10) - Manages to be simultaneously better and far worse than everyone said it would be.

The American (6.5/10) - Slow paced, great cinematography, dull. It wishes it were Melville or Leone and ends up being neither. Where those directors milked tension, The American ends up being boring. Fantastic ending though.

Cyrus (6/10) - Wants to be awkward, but too self conscious to achieve it. The awkwardness didn't feel natural. Some brief, but genuinely funny moments.

The Kids Are All Right (4/10) - Massively overrated family drama with two leads who feel like they are trying too hard to be in an awards contender movie.

Dinner For Schmucks (6/10) - Completely stupid, but I laughed out loud numerous times. Too sexualized for its own good.

Bored to Death Season 1 (8/10) - I laughed a ton and have a new show to add to my favorites which include Arrested Development and Extras. Great cameos as well.

Waynes World 2 (5.5/10) - A rehash of the first movie with some hilarious bits. Seeing Chris Farley made me sad because he was at one time my favorite person to watch on screen.

Get Him to the Greek (3/10) - Gross.

American Experience: Jonestown: The Life and Death of People's Temple (9/10) - A completely absorbing, engrossing, heartfelt documentary on one of the greatest tragedies in human history. Stories from former cult members and eerie footage are nothing less than heartbreaking.

Despicable Me (7.5/10) - The best non-pixar movie toon to come out in the last 10 years. Almost achieves the zen balance of kid/adult, funny/endearing with too much annoyance from the main villains writing and voice acting. LOVE the minions!

Exit Through the Gift Shop (10/10) - If you haven't seen it yet, why not? Brilliant on every level.

Tron: Legacy (7.5/10) - Awesome, exhilarating visual and aural experience with a story that is mostly coherent. What could have been a brilliant allegory of God and humanity gets sold short.

True Grit (9/10) - When I wasn't laughing, I was engrossed by newcomer Heilee Steinfeld in the lead female role. Great script by the Coens, who after two disappointing movies in The ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty have been on a consistent winning streak.

The White Stripes Under Great White Northern Lights (8/10) - Lots of fan service in the form of well cut live performances. However, when Jack White talks about himself and the band it becomes grating. However, watching them perform affirms much of the brilliance Jack brings to the table.

Good Hair (8.5/10) - Completely hilarious, and surprisingly interesting flick about the hair industry and African Americans. Chris Rock narrates and hosts as uneducated folks like me learn about weaves, sulfates, and India.

Brooklyn's Finest (4/10) - A relentlessly bleak picture of being a cop in the projects where everyone shoots each other and wishes they were in "The Departed." Don Cheadle's lines are either spot on or unintentionally hilarious.

Almost Famous - Directors Cut (10/10) - A literally perfect movie with endless amounts of character, warmth, and rock and roll. I had forgotten just how great this movie is until visiting it again on BluRay.

Let Me In (7/10) - Absurdly creepy, with some boring stretches and sprinkles of gore. The ending is unsettling, with an enormously effective finale. I also saw the Swedish version, but am not loyal to either side - It's nice to see vampires be scary again.


The Fighter

I rarely give actors and actresses credit for amovie. In fact, I am frequently irritated at how much credit they get at the cost of the writer, director, and cinematographer. The director shows you how to look good, the screenwriter gives you good things to say, and thecinematographer makes you look good. In only a few movies have I been thoroughly had by great acting – DeNiro in “King of Comedy” and “Raging Bull,”Jim Carrey in “Man On the Moon” (which I saw ages ago), and Frances McDormand in “Fargo.” I now can add Christian Bale to the list for his performance in "The Fighter."

“The Fighter” is a movie about Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg in an understated performance) and his brother Dicky (Christian Bale). Micky and Dicky have grown up loving the sport of boxing. Micky in particular has always looked up to his older brother Dicky. Dicky wants everyone to know his claim to fame – that he knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard. He is the pride of Lowell (his hometown where he and the family still reside) and Micky is the next rising star.

The problems then avalanche. The family is a brand of dysfunctional called “Enmeshed.” Enmeshment is when youhave family members who are so intertwined in one others lives that it is suffocating. Alice the Mom, played brilliantly by Melissa Leo, is the matriarch and proud whip cracker of the family. She is Micky’s manager, while Dicky serves as Micky’s trainer – if he can ever show up on time to train him. That Micky and Dicky’s sisters look like a row of 7 year olds playing dress up in 40-something-year-old’s bodies further emphasizes the enmeshed nature of the family.

Then there is Dicky. Dicky is addicted to crack and it has done what you expect crack to do to a persons life. Difficultscenes to watch involving groups of people in crack houses with Dicky at the center populate the first two thirds of the film. It is heart breaking – but with any less skilled actor, it would be silly. Bale’s portrayal of Dicky is the perfect portrayal of an addict – on the one hand you completely despise him. On the other, you can't help but love him.

What breaks the barrier of enmeshment in Dicky and Micky’s life is the arrival of Charlene, played by Amy Adams. Normally Amy Adams is played as sweet and innocent – her character in “Catch Me If YouCan,” or more famously in “Enchanted” come to mind. However, here she is a no nonsense street tough bar tender in Lowell. She sees the problem of the family system and starts to disrupt things in a big way. Things start changing, and Micky’s boxing career is right in tow.

So, what makes the movie so good? Well, a number of things really. David O Russell, a filmmaker whom I really enjoy (Three Kings, I Heart Huckabees) keeps it gritty without being dreadful (I’m looking at you “Brooklyn’s Finest”). Cinematography is up close, with a handheld style that is not overbearing (Rachel Getting Married). Additionally, there is a wise choice to use HBO cameras from the era in which the movie takesplace that provide a classic look to the boxing matches. Then there is the music. Wonderfully – if not perfectly – chosen and implemented songs up the adrenaline that make the final match one in which I literally had to be kept in chair for fear of jumping up and cheering at the fight that takes place. But really, the actors drive it home. The performances make the script go from formulaic and predictable to breathing and living. I have not been this captivated by acting in a long time.

Bottom line - Do we really need another boxing film after Rocky and Raging Bull? Not really – those two films captured the sport in really unique ways. Every film about the sport from then to forever will be compared to those films. But the film isn't merely about boxing in the same way the aforementioned films aren't either. Family systems and drug addiction give the story extra interest. Besides, how many sports movies have been made that all feel like must see inspirational “you already know the ending” types? We love to watch underdogs fight through their battles and come out on top. It’s ingrained in the human narrative –If you try hard enough and commit yourself, you can break through.

Of course, it helps when the people in front of and behind the camera know how to make it all work.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Exit Through The Gift Shop

I have been keeping most of my writing here: www.conversantlife.com. However, I decided to post this one here as well. Enjoy!

It is hard to explain “Exit Through the Gift Shop” without giving too much plot detail away. Where some films are more character driven, ETTGS has some of the most intriguing characters of any film I have ever seen. Where some films have an ever twisting plot, ETTGS has one that bends and curves. Where some films are a hoax on the viewer, ETTGS makes me wonder just what happened. It’s an experience that will make you laugh, give you a unique glimpse into a world that is notoriously exclusive, and leave you thinking about a handful of themes – hype, value, and art being somewhere on the list.

The first thing about the film you have to pay attention to is its director – Banksy. Google image search his name for a moment and then come back to this write up. Banksy is brilliant at what he does – he takes images that are uniquely his and makes opportunity for social commentary and creative expression that are pioneering in their creativity and depth. It could be worded statements plastered across a bridge, images painted on walls, or bringing Guantanamo Bay to the Magic Kingdom. He is brilliant, and far more on his game than you may want to give credit for. It’s also why he is notoriously wanted in Great Britain for numerous vandalism crimes but has never been caught.

ETTGS is told in 3 acts. As each act unfolds, an ever so slight bend to the story comes through that sucks the viewer in a layer deeper. The film first introduces us to Thierry Guetta, a Frenchman in Los Angeles who runs a high-end fashion shop. Except for Guetta, the fashion shop is him buying bulk stacks of clothes and calling them “designer” for no other reason than he has created the hype to do so. A shirt that cost him 35 dollars for purchase at another location will go up on the racks for 350 bucks. There is no good or logical reason for it. He just finds a way to call it “designer” and his store has a reputation for being hip.

Guetta also is notorious for bringing a movie camera with him everywhere. He films everything from flushing a toilet, to cherished memories with the family. The film later attempts to uncover the reason for his camera obsession but establishes that not all who hold a camera are filmmakers. This eventually leads to how Guetta shot most of the footage but Banksy has the credit as director.

The footage that the film highlights is in incredible work done by the street artists themselves. These individuals are seen (some of their faces are blurred out) scaling buildings, running from cops, and carrying large buckets around filled with glue like substances as they risk and thrill to put up their art. The footage really is amazing – seeing them do giant “OBEY” spreads that appear to be 2 stories high, painting with spray cans, or using tiles – it really is an art form. There is something often much deeper to the image than just the images themselves.

The film is nearly unclassifiable – is it a documentary about street art? Is it a documentary about Banksy? Is it a commentary about art? Maybe it is all of these things at different times and with different potencies. The bigger question however would be is it real? Remember who is directing the film and what his art does – Banksy makes you think. Questions have arisen about whether or not the events of the film are a hoax, or are real. But does it really matter? Whether or not the principal players are real, the effect at the end (in a conclusion you won’t see coming from any distance) that is achieved by street art enthusiasts and the means by which they express it is nothing less than brilliant. It makes a point that I don’t want to say more about because it is worth discussing and thinking more about on your own. Suffice it to say, “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is a must see movie for anyone remotely interested in good art, and why we consider art “good.”

As a bonus, Netflix subscribers can presently stream the film in high definition. I suggest you do it!