mcsheehey Reviews

Weekend (II) (2011)

Not your Typical "Gay Movie"

[10/10 · 26 December 2011]

Featuring two of the year's finest performances, as well as an unabashedly honest script, Andrew Heigh's "Weekend" transcends the typical mold of the "gay movie" without making any apologies or concessions to the prudish cinematic standards that have squandered the potential of so many LGBT films of years past. The film tells a simple story, but it does so with such rawness and complexity that it ultimately defies expectations and conventions alike.

The two terrific leads, Tom Cullen and Chris New, portray Russell and Glen, two men who just happen to be gay. After meeting at a club and taking part in what begins as simply a one- night stand, Russell and Glen spend the rest of the weekend together, drinking, smoking, getting high, walking, and engaging in beautifully heartfelt and nuanced discussions about sex, love, marriage, money, and the like. Rather than whitewash these conversations to calm and comfort uneasy audience members, writer-director Haigh allows raw authenticity to dominate every word spoken.

In fact, everything about this film feels real, from the suitably straightforward cinematography to the naturalistic performances, which manage to make the whole affair seem unscripted, despite the clarity of the story's arc as a whole. However, perhaps even more impressive than the film's realism is its intense focus and narrative drive. While each scene does come across as a slice of life, the movie refuses to resort to an episodic or seemingly random "lifelike" structure. Instead, scenes subtly build upon one another as the audience becomes more acquainted with the two primary players, and as these complicated, but always likable, characters develop a deep relationship of their own. In the end, the film culminates in a climax of massive emotions, only to settle into a sincere and sweet finale that elevates the movie to the status of a masterpiece.

While the harsh language, the drugs, and the homosexuality will surely, and sadly, drive some moviegoers away, for those viewers who are willing to open their minds, this phenomenal film offers up one of the finest romances in recent cinematic history.

Kick-Ass (2010)

Smart Satire or Generic Genre Picture?

[7/10 · 6 August 2010]

"Kick-Ass" sets out to lay waste to the archetypal superhero movie, but some see the film as just another addition to the superhero genre. Those who argue for satire point to the first half of the film, where Aaron Johnson's "everyman" character learns the hard way that becoming a superhero isn't as easy as it looks in movies like "Spider-Man" or "Batman Begins." You see, Kick-Ass earns a reputation as a superhero, but he lacks the skills of the more covert Hit-Girl and Big Daddy, who lurk in the shadows with high-grade weaponry and martial arts mastery. While Hit-Girl and Big Daddy fight crime, Kick Ass must deal with the everyday plagues of the American teen. In a funny bit, Kick Ass' alter ego, Dave Lizewski, learns that the "love of his life" wants him to be...well I won't spoil it, but I will say that it stands in the way of Dave's dreams for a little while.

Bits like that one enrich the first half of Kick Ass with a dose of funny reality. Kick Ass comes off as kind of a loser, Hit-Girl looks way too young to be saying the things she says (and doing the things she does), and Nicolas Cage's Big Daddy stands as one of his funniest creations. He's like an overbearing Little League parent on steroids. Less funny are the villains. Mark Strong, an excellent actor, must play a fairly bland crime kingpin. He does his best to enliven his character's dialogue, but he still comes across as a cross between "Daredevil's" Kingpin and "Iron Man's" Obadiah Stane. This composite villain has an equally bland son, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse as a dull redux of McLovin. Still, in the first half of the film, these characters only slightly distract from the bold comedy surrounding the protagonists. Unfortunately, as Jackson Browne once sang, "all god things must come to an end."

The good things in "Kick-Ass" come to an end when the story begins to embrace the formula it's supposed to be tearing apart. Director Matthew Vaughn abandons humor almost entirely as the film claws its way to a gun-crazy climax. There's nothing funny about a scene in which gangsters kidnap and plan to televise the execution of good, if misguided, characters. Vaughn seems eager to comment on his audience's potentially disturbing fascination with violence. This is clear in the film's first half when Kick-Ass enters a fight with high hopes, only to suffer real consequences. It's similarly clear early in the film, when Hit-Girl dispatches some baddies in gruesome and methodical fashion. Towards the end of the film, however, Vaughn seems to fall into the very trap on which he sought to comment.

The encounters toward the end of the film drip with violence, but it's all very stylized. In order to grip the audience, Vaughn employs a type of violence that allows viewers o revel and cheer. This type of violence dominates most genre superhero films (just look t "Iron Man's" robotic smack-down, or at "The Incredible Hulk's" creature clash), so I would never expect it from a supposed "satire" of those films. Generic plot convention after generic plot convention, standard fight scene after standard fight scene, and ridiculous dialogue piece after ridiculous dialogue piece made the second half of Kick-Ass a huge disappointment That said, most of the action is well-shot, the pace still moved along well, and the film's ending has a certain charm to it.

"Kick-Ass" was not the film that it could have been. It starts off satirizing genre superhero movies, but it ends up becoming one. Still, the film works well on the whole. It has an exciting visual style, a number of cackle-worthy comedic bits, and some great hammy performances. It doesn't totally kick ass, but it just might kick butt.

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

The kids are all right, but the film is amazing

[10/10 · 5 August 2010]

When you walk into "The Kids Are All Right," don't expect a treatise on the issue of gay marriage in the United States. The film is, simply put, a great comedy about families. Different audiences will surely extract different themes and meanings from the film, but 'extract' is the key word. Director Lisa Cholodenko refuses to editorialize or preach; she simply puts forth a story to which most people can relate (love is, after all, universal), and allows them to see it as they will.

"The Kids Are All Right" centers on the marriage between Nic (Annette Beining) and Jules (Julianne Moore). Nic works hard to support what she sees as "her" family, but her tough-as- nails attitude sometimes frustrates her children, as well as Jules. Jules is much more laid- back and impulsive, which creates conflict and unrest throughout the film. Yet, despite their flaws, Nic and Jules make a great team, and their children seem, in fact, better than "all right." Joni (Mia Wasikowska) prepares to enter a top-ranked college, and Laser (Josh Hutcherson) excels at sports. All in all, the family is doing just fine.

Things change when another player enters the mix. Desperate to meet his and Joni's sperm donor, Laser has his sister track down the mystery man. The nebulous donor turns out to be Paul (Mark Ruffalo), who uses the phrases "but whatever" and "I'm just weird like that" on a minute-by-minute basis. Paul sends shockwaves through the family; Nic wonders what drove her kids to track him down, and Jules starts to crave something new and different in her life. At the same time, Paul's somewhat selfish and free lifestyle influences the kids. Joni begins to assert her independence, and Laser starts to see himself as an individual.

What begins as hilarious comedy becomes increasingly dramatic as conflicts flare and distrust looms. "The Kids Are All Right" hits all the right notes throughout; it handles the drama as well as the laughs. The kids really are all right, but this film transcends that level.

Despicable Me (2010)

Neither Despicable Nor Great

[6/10 · 5 August 2010]

The premise of "Despicable Me" seemed simple. The idea was to take a colorful villain and put him at the center of a film. This idea stemmed from the notion that, in many Good v. Evil stories, the villain steals the show from the blander or less compelling protagonist (see "Austin Powers"). I applaud the creators of "Despicable Me" for their attempt, but not so much for their execution.

At the start of "Despicable Me," we see the allegedly dastardly Gru performing small acts of rudeness; he comes off immediately as a bully with a big car. We soon learn that Gru has assembled a horde of so-called "minions" to accomplish such wicked ends as stealing the statue of liberty and the Eiffel tower. Embracing the silliness of the archetypal megalomaniac, the film then creates a rivalry between Gru and fellow villain Vector, both of whom try to steal the moon. This overblown rivalry leads to scenes of eye-popping physical comedy. It also allows the film's creators to show off the hijinks of the minions, who manage to be both adorable and riveting to watch. While they don't always serve the plot, they're always a blast to behold, and they save the film from the masses of cookie-cutter animated films. Unfortunately, other aspects of the story cannot be saved from such a wasteland of incompetence.

The primary problem with "Despicable Me" is that it becomes a generic "curmudgeon softens up" story before too long. In an attempt to force the viewer to sympathize with the supposedly villainous Gru, the creators strip away his villainous qualities. Instead of wreaking havoc, Gru begins to learn what it takes to be a good father. Suddenly strapped with three kids, Gru becomes attached to them. Sadly, when he finally settles into his new lifestyle, a wrench enters the works. We've seen this plot line before, most notably in "Kramer v. Kramer," and it doesn't belong in such an otherwise silly and light-hearted film. As an attempt at emotional resonance, the father-figure story will work just fine for families, but it didn't work for me.

"Despicable Me" is a lean machine; I only wish it were a little meaner.What begins as a clever spin off of the superhero genre becomes a run-of-the-mill tale of parenting and love, but hey- at least it has minions.

White Oleander (2002)

Whitewashed Grime

[7/10 · 5 August 2010]

Since the birth of Hollywood, countless films have aspired to dispel the myths surrounding the city of lights, cameras, and action. Films like 1950's "Sunset Boulevard" and 1991's "Bugsy" have juxtaposed palm trees, sunshine, and mansions with murder, jealousy, and madness. These films look pretty and bright, but they showcase the darkest shades of human nature. With his adaptation of Janet Fitch's novel "White Oleander," Peter Kosminsky tries to join the ranks of such Hollywood demystifiers as Billy Wilder and Robert Altman. On that front, he succeeds only marginally. However, on other fronts, he accomplishes quite a bit.

When her mother goes to prison for a violent act of vengeance, young Astrid, the protagonist of "White Oleander," floats from foster family to foster family. Due in part to the efforts of her conniving mother Ingrid, Astrid cannot seem to settle down in any one place; conflict always strikes. As time goes by, innocent Astrid must confront the cruelest of circumstances, again and again. Her foster mothers have strikingly different characteristics, but no one of them is what she seems. From her beautiful but selfish mother (Michelle Pfeiffer) to the allegedly "saved" but jealous Starr (Robin Wright) to the kindly but ill-equipped Claire (Renee Zellweger), Alison Lohman's Astrid seems to have nowhere safe to turn.

The film's poster says almost all that needs to be said about the plot and theme of "White Oleander." The poster displays the faces of the four leads; all four are blonde, all four look beautiful, and each face seems to meld into the next. While beauty resides, an eeriness pervades the image; everything looks a little too perfect. As it happens, it is. Each face hides some tragic truth that will guide the flow of Astrid's young life. Like the shining city in which the film takes place, the leading ladies of "White Oleander" are externally pretty but internally dark and unstable. This is ail very well, but we've seen it before, done better, in other films.

The larger arc of Astrid's character comes across brilliantly, but the structure moves in episodic fashion, which prevents the film from having a true climax. Moreover, the movie's supposed payoff, an imminent confrontation between Astrid and Ingrid, comes across as simply a rehash of what the audience already knows. The film seems too desperate at times to make its point; it even resorts to wistful narration that, while softly spoken, still manages to hit the viewer over the head. Even some of the shots in the film try so hard to show eerie beauty that they come across as hackneyed and heavy-handed. Still, "White Oleander" offers up a lot of greatness in other areas.

All four "leading" performances work brilliantly. Alison Lohman has a great understanding of her character, and thus manages to play every one of her emotional and physical states with conviction. While not given much screen time to flex her always exciting acting muscles, Robin Wright fleshes out her Bible-thumping mother with just enough humanity to make her believable; the character stands as a bit of a stereotype, but Wright at least gives it emotional resonance. Even better is Zellweger as Claire. She communicates sweetness and quiet instability with shocking humor and grace; just as Astrid loves and admires her, we do. All things considered, though, Michelle Pfeiffer gives the performance of the film. As Ingrid, she is ferocious. An actress who rarely resorts to theatricality for her roles, Pfeiffer plays every scene so true to character; she is truly scary.

In the end, "White Oleander" moves fairly quickly, although not very subtly, towards a disappointing finale. It will not be remembered for its not-so-groundbreaking plot, but it should be remembered for its brilliant performances. Where the film sometimes fails to show the whitewashed grime of its city, the actresses compellingly render the whitewashed grime of humanity.

Inception (2010)

What Dreams May Come...

[8/10 · 30 July 2010]

For all its flaws (and there are some), "Inception" succeeds as a star-studded blockbuster with a brain. Christopher Nolan has, yet again, crafted a work that manages to inspire both thought and awe: a rare feat, to be sure. As the film opens, the audience is thrown mercilessly into a scene of cascading schemes and chaotic confrontations. We, as audience members, feel uneasy; we don't know exactly where we stand on the characters or the situation at hand, and that's the way Nolan wants it (talk about 'in medias res'). By the time the first wave of tension subsides, another approaches in its wake. This new wave proves to be a tsunami; as the plot unfolds, revelations spring free, character motives come into question, and the film's dream world expands exponentially.

The plot of "Inception," without giving anything away, goes something like this. Leonardo DiCaprio's Cobb, a sort of "dream thief," takes on one final assignment, courtesy of Ken Wantanabe's corporate kingpin. Cobb assembles a team, ranging from Joseph Gordon- Levitt's crafty pretty-boy to Ellen Page's boyish architect. Things get a little crazy as the mission proceeds (certain characters just might be holding back some important information), and a nail-biting spectacle takes the stage.

I don't know how much Christopher Nolan was paid for this screenplay, but I can guarantee that it wasn't enough. The story examines the very nature of dreams; it explores their nuances, their limitations, and their possibilities, while at the same time exploring some of the science behind them. When characters have to choose between their dream worlds and reality, we have to consider which option we would embrace. When characters leap from layer to layer, we consider our own dream complexes. At the same time, a serpentine heist film unfolds on screen. While the plot does require the occasional suspension of disbelief, it plays by its own rules for the greater part of its running time.

In fact, most of "Inception's" shortcomings have nothing to do with the plot. Apart from a few over-explained monologues at inappropriate times, the script succeeds ferociously. However, some problems arise with the characters and their actor counterparts. While Leonardo DiCaprio's performance doesn't hit the wrong notes, it doesn't always hit the right ones either. DiCaprio has a compelling voice and look, especially early in the film, but trouble brews when the emotional turmoil strikes his character. Rather than reach for new dramatic heights, he settles for simply adequate deliveries. As such, it becomes difficult to invest in his character as anything more than "Man 1." Some other talents in the cast, while solid, are given too little to do. Ellen Page is reduced to the classic "angel on my shoulder" stereotype, and Tom Berenger and Cillian Murphy are just asked to look concerned for most of the film's duration. Still, Joseph Gordon Levitt looks spiffy, Tom Hardy makes great comic relief, and no one does all too poorly.

All in all, "Inception" makes for a great time at the theater. It sparks conversation, it moves briskly, and it looks brilliant on the big screen. If Hamlet were to see the dreams put on display here, he might just have shuffled off that mortal coil.

Public Enemies (2009)

This Film Should Be Shot

[2/10 · 19 January 2010]

Whether by firing squad, by assassination, or by suicide, this film should be shot and killed. Rarely in cinema history has such an abomination of heinous execution and excruciating boredom been allowed to live on screen.

Johnny Depp, in his blandest and most overly calculated performance to date, plays convict extraordinare. Marion Cotillard, in a role that gives her nothing interesting to do, plays his love interest. Christian Bale, who casts aside any charm or wit he might have shown in other roles, plays G-man Melvin Purvis. The rest of the cast is rounded out by an assortment of actors doing their best cop/robber impersonations.

The plot is simple. Dillinger goes on a final romp while Purvis tracks him down. That's basically all there is to it, since the film's laughable cinematography and editing make the scenes incoherent. In one particular shoot-out in the woods, the shots are so choppy and the lighting so poor that it's impossible to tell what's going on. The costumes and art direction are probably great, but Mann shuns establishing shots, so we don't get a chance to see them.

"Public Enemies" is poorly scripted, poorly edited, poorly shot, and poorly acted. It is far too long, and its plot deflates early on. This movie is unworthy of the greats involved with it, and it deserves to die.

Sunshine Cleaning (2008)

Messy, but Rewarding

[6/10 · 19 January 2010]

"Sunshine Cleaning" is neither as cheery nor as funny as its title and DVD cover indicate. It tells the story of Rose (Amy Adams) and Norah (Emily Blunt), two sisters who decide to start a business cleaning up after gruesome incidents. They take on the name "Sunshine Cleaning," buy the necessary materials, and get to work.

The job proves to be a messy experience, both physically and emotionally, for Norah and Rose. Rose attempts to keep a firm hold on her past; she has a long-running affair with a high school fling (Steve Zahn). Meanwhile, Norah attempts to reach out to the daughter of one of the tragic homeowners (Mary Lynn Rajskub). Further subplots involve Rose's troubled son and her father (Alan Arkin).

"Sunshine Cleaning" repeatedly emphasizes the irony of attractive young women cleaning up human remains. It also seems obsessed with questions of responsibility and reward. As such, the film is much more a drama than a comedy.

The father and son subplots add nothing to the film. Director Christine Jeffs tries to use them to illustrate society's failure to see beyond appearances, but she does so in an obvious and heavy-handed manner. Alan Arkin essentially rehashes his Oscar-winning performance from Little Miss Sunshine, so his work feels bland and tired.

Fortunately, the film's core functions well. The attempt by Rose and Norah to find success and contentment is universal. Jeffs again emphasizes society's inability to look beyond appearances, and it comes across much better here. Still, the film would work better if the Zahn, Arkin, and Rajskub plot lines were pared away and replaced with more scenes of Rose and Norah in their new job.

Amy Adams does fine as Rose, and Emily Blunt is terrific as Norah. They carry the film and supply it with much-needed charm. "Sunshine Cleaning" is as messy as the homes that Rose and Norah clean. However, it ends well and has some great bits. The forecast for the film is something akin to drizzling rain, with a rainbow on the horizon.

Julie & Julia (2009)

A Well-Cooked Meal

[8/10 · 19 January 2010]

"Julie and Julia" works. It uses an approach that we've seen before (The Hours, Iris, The Godfather Part II), in which stories from different time periods are placed in a blender and mixed into a smooth double-(or triple-) layered narrative structure. Fortunately, Nora Ephron's script is lively and fun enough to make the approach appear fresh, or at least interesting.

Amy Adams and Meryl Streep lead the cast as Julie Powell and Julia Child, respectively. Powell is a perpetually depressed government worker who relies on cooking to fend off her woes. When Julie sees the success and apparent happiness that her friend's blog has spurred, she decides to start a blog of her own. Julie will cook every recipe in her idol Julia Child's book in the period of a year. The project runs into obstacles, and Julie finds herself breaking down on the floor more than once. These cooking calamities are compounded by rising tensions between Julie and her husband, played by Chris Messina.

These stories are interwoven well with Julia Child's own quest to become a great cook, and then her efforts to create a grand cookbook. Julia's verve and aplomb allow her to persevere in spite of problems with her husband's (Stanley Tucci)job, her partner's cooperation, and her book's publication.

The two stories complement one another very well. Amy Adams makes Julie Powell a distinctly human, three-dimensional character, despite the fact that Julie herself isn't all that interesting. The Powell scenes work because the food looks delicious and the cooking style is fascinating to behold. Julie's scenes show the impact of Julia on the world, and open the audience's eyes to the sumptuous splendor of her dishes.

Julia's scenes are a revelation. Meryl Streep embodies Julia Child; everything from the impression to the perpetual joy comes through. Tucci also does well as Mr. Child. The two make a terrific couple, and their lives make a terrific story. It's absolutely inspiring.

Ultimately, the Julia Child scenes are perfect; they make for a delicious feast. The Julie Powell scenes, on the other hand, are just fine; they make for the kind of meal you'd expect from a restaurant chain: good, but not memorable.

The Hangover (2009)

A Good Time

[8/10 · 18 January 2010]

"The Hangover" is a fun movie. It's consistently entertaining, even when a few of its jokes fall flat. The plot is predictable, the characters are familiar, and the film says nothing. Still, it works as an enjoyable movie to sit down to after a long day.

The plot is simple. Doug is getting married, so his two best friends and brother-in-law-to-be take him to Las Vegas for a weekend of hard liquor, strippers, and gambling. Things escalate quickly when Phil and Stu (Doug's friends) wake up in their hotel room with Doug's brother-in-law, a tiger, a baby, and an assortment of random odds and ends. The only thing missing is Doug.

"The Hangover" tells the story of the men's quest for Doug; they need to find and recover him before the time of his wedding. The plot doesn't matter all that much; it's more of an excuse to put in an endless flow of gags. Fortunately, the gags work, and so does the movie. It never tries to be poignant or PC, and it has a bunch of laugh-out-loud moments. Accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia seem a little out-of-place; all three issues are treated in intentionally absurd fashion.

All three of the main actors give good comedic performances, and the script clips along smoothly. This is not a 'great' movie, but it doesn't try to be.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

The Best Film of 2009

[10/10 · 18 January 2010]

"Inglourious Basterds" is a perfect film. It boasts an incredible script, an innovative score, rich cinematography, great performances, and the finest direction job by any director this year.

Characters, rather than situations, form the heart of "Inglourious Basterds." The film's narrative structure cleverly introduces these characters in their respective backgrounds, only to thrust them together as time progresses. Shosanna, a young French woman, runs a cinema that may play host to the upcoming release of a Jewish propaganda film. The film stars Nazi soldier Fredrick Zoller. The Nazi officer in charge of security for the event is Hans Landa, the "Jew Hunter." Lt. Aldo Raine and his "Inglourious Basterds" see the release as an opportunity for them to strike. They employ the services of British officer Hicox and German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark.

Each character is richly drawn, both through the script and through the acting. Melanie Laurent is ferocious as the dynamic Shosanna. Christoph Waltz shatters the screen as Hans Landa. Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, and Diane Kruger also do exceptionally well. The plot itself moves at the ideal pace. It's full of outstanding set-pieces and dialogue scenes, the most notable being the opening conversation and a scene at a bar (I'm being intentionally vague).

"Inglourious Basterds" is entertaining and outstandingly well-made. It warrants its run-time and its sprawling plot. It's the best film of the year.

Grey Gardens (2009 TV Movie)

Pitch-Perfect

[10/10 · 18 January 2010]

The myth has been shattered....again.

Made-for-TV movies can indeed equal - or even surpass - high-class theatrical releases. "Grey Gardens" is proof of this. HBO does not aspire to replace the 1975 documentary "Grey Gardens," but rather to supplement it with an account of the lives of the two Edith Beales. The storyline is mainly set at Grey Gardens, the elegant manor in which the Beales reside. As the story opens, "Big Edie" (Jessica Lange) is a high-society woman, and "Little Edie" (Drew Barrymore) is a fresh-faced girl with doll-like clothes and a sweet disposition. Grey Gardens itself is glorious to behold.

As the film progresses, the house begins to wither and fade. Its occupants start to experience the trials of aging and poor health. The house becomes their island: a place of isolation and decay. This is where the documentary begins, but it's treated as a framework in the film version.

"Grey Gardens" tells a story that is both highly specific and completely universal. It deals with missed opportunities, loneliness, aging, and the consequences of seemingly small decisions. Jessica Lange does wonderful work as the matriarch, and Jeanne Tripplehorn and Charles Albert lend invaluable support. Still, the film's revelation is Drew Barrymore. She portrays the most dynamic character, and she pulls it off with great verve and aplomb. She captures the accent, the mannerisms, the sadness, and the vitality of "Little Edie." "Grey Gardens" is an emotional roller-coaster, to use a cliché. It builds slowly, so give it the patience it deserves, and it will deliver.

Precious (II) (2009)

Brutally Good

[9/10 · 18 January 2010]

"Precious" the kind of film studios should be making more often nowadays. It's boldly confronts a real-world issue that people typically turn away from, and it tells its story brilliantly.

"Precious" centers on the plight(s) of young Precious Jones (Gabourney Sidibe, and good), an overweight and impoverished black teenager. Precious is pregnant with her second child (by her own father), and she's forced to live in constant fear of and service to her monstrous mother, Mary (Mo'nique). The film sees new potential opportunities appear for Precious, but it doesn't shy away from the immense obstacles that tower above her.

Some critics have complained that "Precious" is too tough to watch. I don't see that. The film shows scenes of brutal domestic violence and heartbreaking discussions, but it also has a heart. The film's texture is rich, due mainly to the superb supporting cast. Mo'nique is chilling as Mary, especially in her final scene. Paula Patton is inspiring as a teacher who strives to do what is right for Precious. Most surprisingly of all, Mariah Carey is pitch-perfect as a social worker who wants to help, but can't quite connect.

"Precious" features great performances, a bold script, and iconic visuals. Aside from Precious' dream sequences, which were better realized in the novel, the film works extraordinarily well.

The Hurt Locker (2008)

Great Film-making

[10/10 · 17 January 2010]

"The Hurt Locker" is a fairly subdued, restrained war film with a brain, which separates it from most films of its genre.

Jeremy Renner leads the cast as James, the new front-man of a bomb squad in Iraq. He takes risks and defies the standard mold, which puts him at odds with "teammates" Sanborn and Eldridge. The plot's spotlight shines on the various missions of these three men; each mission is its own exhilarating set-piece.

Director Bigelow explores James' complex attitudes towards his job through lingering close-ups. She captures the intensity of the situations through a variety of different shots and artistic techniques. The film immerses the audience in the conflict without extensive dialogue.

Jeremy Renner leads the cast with a pitch-perfect performance, and Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty lend invaluable support, along with great bits from veteran actors Guy Pearce, David Morse, and Ralph Fiennes.

There's nothing simple about the characters of situations in "The Hurt Locker," and the film-makers don't try to dumb down the material or take a polarizing stand. The film is a work of art; it entertains and enlightens.

Big Love (2006–2011)

Starts Off Very Well

[8/10 · 17 January 2010]

"Big Love" begins as a gripping exploration of a family that attempts to walk the tightrope between polygamy and normalcy. Bill Paxton stars as Bill Henrickson, a straitlaced family man with three wives: Barb (Jeanne Tripplehorn), Marge (Ginnifer Goodwin), and Nicolette (Chloe Sevigny).

Season 1 allows the audience to step inside the Henrickson homes (there are three, right next to one another). We see Bill struggle to please all three wives as he faces problems at work. We see Barb struggle to rise to her duty as "First Wife." We see Marge struggle to find her place in the family. We see Nikki struggle to cling to her conservative roots. At the same time, the show hints at doubts and serious questions concerning Sara and Ben, Barb's children. Season 1 works as a compelling dysfunctional family drama: 10/10 Season 2 doesn't flow quite as well. It picks up just as Season 1 ends, and it doesn't bring much new content to the table. Conflicts with Nikki's father, Roman Grant (Harry Dean Stanton) escalate, which pushes the show out of the house and into Roman's compound. The compound scenes are repetitive and bland, as well as over-the-top. Season 2 gets a 6/10.

Season 3 is a huge step up from Season 2. The show returns more to its roots at the Henrickson household, and it introduces new conflicts of exposure, family ties, and possible expansion. 8/10.

On the whole, "Big Love" is a solid show with one very weak season. It would do best to abandon the compound scenes altogether. Still, each character and performer gets his/her due. Paxton is solid as the patriarch, Tripplehorn shines throughout as the questioning mother, Goodwin shines in Season 2 as she finally gains some responsibility, and Sevigny carries the show in its third season.

True Blood (2008–2014)

Bloody Amazing!

[10/10 · 17 January 2010]

HBO's "True Blood" is a steamy thriller that chills, excites, and entertains its audience. It elevates the "vampire genre" to an unheard-of level of quality and innovation.

Anna Paquin stars as Sookie Stackhouse, a twenty-something woman with the ability to read the thoughts of those around her. Stephen Moyer plays her primary love interest, Bill Compton, a vampire who strives to "mainstream." The rest of the primary characters consist of Tara, Sookie's childhood friend; Sam, Sookie's boss; Eric, the vampiric "sheriff" of Bon Temps; Arlene, a fiery waitress; Lafayette, a flamboyant chef; and Jason, Sookie's sex-crazed brother. As Season 1 ends and Season 2 progresses, scores of other players join (and leave) as well.

"True Blood" works as a political satire, a romantic drama, and a mystery/thriller. The show places vampires (and other humanoid creatures) into the context of modern American societies. It explores human/vamp relationships, vampire politics, church reactions, and the like. This allows viewers to immerse themselves in Sookie's saga.

If you can stomach sex, blood, and a little language, I highly recommend digging your fangs into this show.

The Blind Side (2009)

The Curious Case of the Hollywood Treatment

[5/10 · 16 January 2010]

"The Blind Side" isn't awful, as some critics are writing. It's also not terrific, as some viewers are saying. It's a mediocre movie with moments of greatness.

As a Baltimore resident, I love to see the Ravens logo emblazoned on screen. Michael Ohers strikes me as both a respectable player and a respectable man. His story is an inspiring one; Ohers rose from poor circumstances and became a national figure. But this isn't the story you get when you put your $10 in the ticket slot, buy your buttery popcorn, and sit down in your sticky seat at the local cinema.

"The Blind Side" is essentially about a dumb, poor, black man who finds salvation at the hands of a sassy white woman. Clearly, this is not the story of Michael Ohers. I'm not accusing the Hollywood producers responsible for the film of racism, but rather of opportunism. They obviously decided that this sports story would be best served as a Sandra Bullock movie, complete with "comedic" stock characters and "humorously" ironic situations.These Bullock-pampering comic scenes are then juxtaposed with clearly exaggerated and dramatized serious scenes. The effect is an uneven dramedy with some thudding jokes and some unintentional laughs. Toby Keith and Kathy Bates don't bring much to the table as Bullock's husband and Michael's teacher. However, the film doesn't completely collapse.

Sandra Bullock gives one of the best performances of her career. With a game Southern accent and a tough-as-nails attitude, she turns a stereotype into a flesh-and-blood character. Her comedic timing has always been good, and it works especially well here. At the same time, she brings gravitas to her character's more trying moments. Bullock carries the film. While her character's role in Ohers' life is overplayed, her work saves the film from the "DUD" label.

Some of the comedy falls flat, Ohers comes off as a wholly dependent idiot, and the film's realism is shaky at times. Still, it's worth seeing the film for Bullock's performance.

500 Days of Summer (2009)

Captures the Generation

[10/10 · 16 January 2010]

"(500) Days of Summer," seems like a simple romantic comedy from the DVD cover. It's not. It's an unconventional comedy that captures the 2000s generation.

"(500) Days of Summer" is not a love story. Leads Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel don't begin the film as rivals/enemies and end it as lovers in the screwball fashion spurred by Tracy/Hepburn and company. They don't have a hot-cold romance that eventually falls through, in the Annie Hall tradition. In "(500) Days," Gordon-Levitt's Tom falls head-over-heels in love with Zooey Deschanel's Summer. He doesn't have that Woody Allen "devil may care" attitude, where you doubt that the romance really means all that much to him. He is totally smitten. The wrench in the works is Summer. She's just not in love with Tom. Their relationship actually loses steam and fizzles out with Tom despairing and Summer.....well......feeling alright.

This sounds like a spoiler review, but it's not. Part of the innovation of this film is its structure. Thanks to visual cues on screen, the film jumps from day to day, whether forward or backwards. The film opens at the end of the relationship, the jumps all throughout its 500 days. This keeps the narrative fresh and interesting, and doesn't allow the sadder scenes to sink the film into depression.

This is THE romantic comedy for this generation. The characters are bitingly sarcastic and pop culturally-aware. Their conversations are compelling and witty, and their clothes have that undeniably "hipster" quality. They love "vintage" items, and they think.talk about profound subjects. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are perfectly cast. They play the leads with genuine humanity and interest. They shine especially in the scenes towards the end of the romance, where snappy dialogue gives way to mood swings and foreboding.

"(500) Days of Summer" will assuredly becomes the basis for a new generation of tired romantic comedies, but it rises above the mold and will hopefully always be remembered as a rend-setter rather than just part of the trend. With a great soundtrack, a memorable dance sequence, and an innovative structure, "(500) Days of Summer" has entered the canon of the greats.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Bloody Brilliant!

[10/10 · 16 January 2010]

"Sherlock Holmes" is part-comedy, part-thriller, part-romance, and part-buddy movie. It is also completely brilliant.

The film's plot concerns a mysterious plot by the menacing Lord Blackwood. Holmes (Downey Jr.), Watson (Law), and an alluring past love interest (McAdams) must work together- sometimes reluctantly- to crack the case. It sounds simple, but a number of ominous supporting players and adrenaline-inspiring set pieces make it constantly entertaining and riveting.

The perpetually likable Robert Downey Jr. takes up the torch as Sherlock Holmes. There's no need to compare his work to that of Basil Rathbone- the two performances could not be more different. Downey Jr. makes Holmes both comedic and competent. His accent is convincing, and his delivery is as dead-pan as ever. In Guy Ritchie's revisionist take, Holmes has become a comic action hero, and Downey Jr. pulls off both the comedy and the action seamlessly. Jude Law lends great support as Watson; his take on the character is more traditional, but he makes a great comedic straight-man as well. McAdams also does well as an American femme fatale whose allegiances are always in question.

Stylistically, the film combines Ritchie's "guns-blazing" sensibilities with period detail and witty dialogue. The quick-cut shots and fast-paced visual flashbacks/explanations suit the source material surprisingly well. The musical score is effectively creepy; it evokes the air of the Rathbone films and the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novels. Similarly, the costumes and art direction capture the time period, and arrest the audience visually. The script is chock-full of funny lines, and the cast delivers them well.

While purists may shudder at the sight of Sherlock in the boxing arena, Ritchie's "Holmes" is fun, fast-paced, and fresh. Case closed.

Up in the Air (I) (2009)

First-Class Dramedy

[10/10 · 16 January 2010]

"Up in the Air" manages to be funny, poignant, and troubling, often all at once. It's a film about people, jobs, and the fulfillment that these things do or do not bring. It's also director Jason Reitman's most mature and even film so far in his career.

Protagonist Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) constantly flies from city to city to fire people. When a boss is too cowardly to let his/her employees go, Bingham steps in with his sleek suits and ominous "new opportunity" brochures. Like Aaron Eckhart's tobacco spokesman in Reitman's "Thank You For Smoking," Clooney's Bingham is superb at what he does. From his cleanly efficient airport behavior to his awe-inspiring firing routines, Bingham is a force of nature; Clooney captures his bravado perfectly.

The plot really opens when Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a young upstart, introduces a new system to Bingham's company; firing sessions will now take place through a Skype-like video conferencing system. An outraged Bingham has no choice but to take Natalie along with him for his next round of sessions, so that he can "show her the ropes." The plot lifts off at this point, with some turbulence and some twists along the way.

"Up in the Air" works primarily because of its performances and its script. Clooney sells Bingham unquestionably as a loner who loves to travel. Bingham seeks fulfillment through the collection of Frequent Flyer miles and premium membership cards, but his vision becomes cloudy when a love interest enters the picture. As Bingham's potential soul-mate, Alex, Vera Farmiga is bold, funny, and mysterious. She has a Lauren Bacall sensibility, along with a unique sort of beauty. Yet, the heart and soul of the film is Anna Kendrick. As the film's most dynamic character, Kendrick is totally convincing and compelling. For Bingham, she becomes a wrench in the works. She seems to know her character so well that she truly becomes her for 100 minutes.

For its first seventy minutes or so, "Up in the Air" is a charming romantic/career/teacher-student- comedy. It's hilarious and smart. The rest of the film is a bit darker; it forces characters to step out of the terminal and confront reality (that's as specific as I'll be). While there are still funny moments, the movie becomes more of a drama. Both the mostly-comedic and the mostly-dramatic segments work wonderfully, and the tonal shift feels wholly organic and inevitable.

"Up in the Air" is a great film, with great dialogue and great acting. It bodes well for Reitman and its three stars.

Youth in Revolt (2009)

Refreshing, if Not Revolutionary

[8/10 · 15 January 2010]

"Youth in Revolt" is original. It's not quite like any "teen movie" I've ever seen. Just as its source material offered a fresh twist to the dork-meets-girl scenario in ink, the film offers the twist on screen.

"Youth in Revolt" centers on unconventional teenage rebels; these aren't the hoodlums you'd expect to see smoking pot on street corners. In fact, these characters are essentially adults trapped in awkward teenage frames. They have sophisticated tastes and profound desires, but they also carry themselves clumsily and desperately try to shed their virginity. This mature immaturity makes both Nick (Cera) and Sheeni (Doubleday), along with a number of minor characters they meet throughout the film, compelling and unique human beings.

As Nick Twisp, Michael Cera carries the film. His awkwardly clever narration provides for fairly consistent laughter, and his quest for Sheeni's heart puts him through a dramatic ringer. As good as Cera is as lovable loser Nick, nothing can prepare the audience for his work as Twisp's alter-ego: Francois Dillinger. Dillinger is the anti-Nick, which also makes him the anti-Michael Cera, but Cera pulls off his boldness and iron will hilariously. Cera's dual performance keeps the film fresh when it begins to get a little dull.

As Sheeni, the primary love interest, Portia Doubleday concocts an unconventional leading lady. She seems to embody every characteristic of the female teenager at the same time, and it's not hard to see why Nick would idolize her.

The film focuses on Cera and Doubleday for the most part, and their relationship is strange, and therefore refreshing. Clichés are avoided, unexpected roadblocks pop up, and teenage love rears its ugly, fascinating face. The romance seems real, as well as funny.

When 'Youth in Revolt" turns its focus away from the youths, it's hit-or-miss. Jean Smart is fine as Cera's aloof mother, but the character itself is one-dimensional and strangely conventional for such a nonconformist movie. Steve Buscemi is fine as the father, but he's not given much to do. The standouts among the supporting players include Fred Willard as an immigrant-phile, Justin Long as Sheeni's stoner brother, Mary Kay Place as Sheeni's Bible-wielding mother, and the two unknowns who portray Nick's friends, Lefty and BJ.

Aside from a couple of intentionally quirky animated sequences and one or two clichéd stock characters, "Youth in Revolt" plays by its own rules, and it wins marvelously.

Avatar (2009)

You've Seen It All Before

[3/10 · 2 January 2010]

If you like heavy-handed metaphors, laughable dialogue, and predictable plots, you'll love "Avatar," auteur James Cameron's latest creation.

Technically, "Avatar" is a blend of Cameron's past efforts. Like "The Abyss," it taps into the supernatural qualities of nature. Like "T2," it captures humanoids visually using innovative special effects. Like "Titanic," it juxtaposes a Romeo/Juliet-type romance with chaos and destruction. Unfortunately, while those three films are great, "Avatar" is not.

James Cameron has never shied away from foreshadowing. Every one of his films builds suspense through eerie happenings, musical cues, and suspicious dialogue early on. "Avatar" takes foreshadowing to a new level. Early on, characters literally say what is going to happen for the rest of the film. You could easily outline the entire plot about twenty minutes into the movie. Obvious parallels are drawn early on between the Na'vi (the blue humanoids) and the Native Americans, with the greedy white invaders standing in for....well....greedy white invaders. Then you get the obligatory environmentalists, as well as the morally conflicted protagonist. The plot proceeds as you would imagine. I won't spoil it, but as I said, it basically spoils itself. In fact, it bears a lot in common with Disney's "Atlantis," a much better film.

Even with a hackneyed plot, one would expect that the great James Cameron could weave a great film through effects, actors, and plot tweaking. The plot rarely wavers from that which is expected. While plot twists are obnoxious in most cases nowadays, one or two would've been welcome here- so long as they weren't outlandish.

As for the acting, it's not bad. Sam Worthington's Australian accent seems out of place, but he puts in solid work as the subdued paraplegic protagonist. He struggles with the daily video diary entry scenes, but these are simply plot devices on Cameron's part to inject narration. Some of the supporting players are real stand-outs. Giovanni Ribisi provides comic relief as the mostly apathetic corporate representative on board. His character serves no purpose other than to provide laughs, but he manages to steal a few scenes with his dead-pan delivery. Sigourney Weaver is very good as the ship's leading scientist. She molds a complex-seeming character out of one that was surely flat on paper. The cast's best performance comes from Stephen Lang as the grisled colonel. The character is a cliché, but Lang allows the audience to relate to his perspective.

Visually, the film is very pretty. The world certainly looks real, the blue people move about smoothly, and the battle scenes look convincing. What's lacking is visual flourish. The Na'vi look off-putting and somewhat stupid, and their strange screaming does nothing to dispel this. The creatures on which they fly look like something straight out of "Star Wars Episode III," and the same could be said of the lush tree-centered environment. The choreography of the battle scenes is also mostly weak. It doesn't raise adrenaline so much as it numbs the viewer.

On the whole, "Avatar" is derivative plot-wise and lacking in style and novelty visually. However, some solid performances and a few visual master-strokes make it an average movie, rather than a bad one.

Angels & Demons (2009)

A Solid Thriller

[6/10 · 19 June 2009]

While "Angels & Demons" is by no means a great film, it at least manages to be consistently solid, which places it head and tails above its sorry predecessor.

From its mildly creepy opening to its mildly exciting finish, "Angels" is a fairly effective thriller. The plot bears quite a few similarities to that of "Da Vinci," especially concerning the supporting characters, but it does introduce a strong device not present in the first film. Each stop on Robert Langdon's journey through Rome works as an excellent set-piece. Director Howard seems with these scenes to have a good feel for eerie suspense and gruesome reveals. Furthermore, once these set-pieces are all over, the plot takes on a whole new heart-pounding direction that lasts until the fitting, if slightly underwhelming, climax.

Thusly, the plot proceeds from first frame to last, following for the most part the footsteps of Professor Langdon, played pretentiously yet again by Tom Hanks. It seems that to be a Harvard professor one must be bitterly sarcastic with everyone and deliver dragging monologues about history that long overstay their welcome. In fact, according to "Angels & Demons," the same can be said of Camerlengos. Ewan McGregor plays the film's Camerlengo all too convincingly, pouring out endless dull speeches about the nature of faith and of mankind. The fault in this case lies wholly in the hands of the screenplay. Strangely enough, however, this same screenplay gives very few words to Vittoria Vetra, the apparent female lead, who is played inoffensively by Ms. Zuret. Stellan Skarsgard and Armin Mueller-Stahl fortunately fare better in their roles.

Despite its shortcomings in some areas, the cast delivers on the whole, leading one to wonder why the film isn't better than it is. The real culprit here, in a twist worthy of a Dan Brown novel, is the screenplay. The movie drags on for an seat-squirming 138 minutes, matching each inspired thrill with a heavy-handed monologue or a piece of unnecessary historical jargon. Beautiful shots cannot beat bad pacing in this case. In fact, forty minutes of this film could be scraped away to great effect. Sadly, the said forty minutes were not cut, and this film is what it is. It's not bad, but it's no masterpiece.

Star Trek (2009)

Taking down the "Members Only" sign

[10/10 · 19 June 2009]

Like a group of elitist schoolboys, the makers of "Star Trek" have worked hard over the years to make the "Star Trek" Club as inaccessible and out of reach as possible for the everyday film-goer/television viewer. Luckily, thanks to JJ Abrams and his cast and crew on this film, the "Members Only" sign that so dauntingly covered the door of the franchise has been taken down, hopefully once and for all.

Taking a cue from the bigwigs of television, this film has put together a cast of likable and attractive young upstarts for a relatively tight, action-packed, and sequel-worthy plot line with a throbbing musical score and awe-inspiring visuals.

Chris Pine leads the cast in a star-making turn as Captain Kirk. He oozes charisma and doesn't fall into the trap of imitating Shatner. Similarly, Zachary Quinto creates a Spock for this generation, bringing nuances of youthful emotion to the unforgettable character. Great support comes from Zoe Seldana as a feistily intelligent Ahorra, Karl Urban as the spitting image of the original Bones McCoy, and Bruce Greenwood as the cool and collective current captain of the Enterprise. Only Eric Bana comes up short, sporting an uninspired makeup job and dishing out his lines in a questionable accent.

Of course, a cast is nothing without a screenplay and a plot. Fortunately, the plot here is sure to be loved by fans of the franchise and newcomers alike. The origin stories of Kirk and Spock play out beautifully. The opening scene, which centers around Kirk's father, is filled with emotional impact, starting the film- and Kirk for that matter- off with a bang. The remainder of the scenes leading up to the inevitable launch of the Enterprise sustain marvelously as well, blending funny lines and slapstick moments with more dramatic touches.

Once the crew finally gathers together for the mission that comprises the rest of the film, sparks are ready to fly and the adrenaline of the audience is already creeping up the scale.The film's final Act is a blast, full of exciting battles between spacecrafts and people alike. At the end of the film, emotional swelling is perfectly understandable. While the movie does have some great inside jokes for fans of the franchise, it can and should be experienced not just by the insiders, but by everyone.

Up (2009)

"It will lift you up where you belong."

[10/10 · 19 June 2009]

So here we are, 17 years after the release of "An Officer and a Gentleman," and it appears that the tagline for that "tropically sexy military drama" has found, in Pixar's "Up," a film that suits it all the better. Pixar films have always been noted for their deep themes and profound focuses, ranging in the past from creative passion to the curse of celebrity, but never before has a Pixar film had the guts to take on love in all its many forms.

"Up" opens with a scene of young Carl, our protagonist-to-be, dreaming of adventures to South America's Paradise Falls with renowned explorer Charles Muntz, who has lost his reputation in the eyes of the cruelly skeptical scientific community. Young Carl meets young Ellie, a fellow Muntz devotee, and the rest is history, illustrated through an emotional roller coaster of a montage stands as one of the most powerful ever committed to screen. It captures the spirit of marital love, illustrating that romantic love is more responsible for happiness than any material possession. As this montage ends, the film's main plot begins.

Fortunately, the rest of "Up" stays afloat even after beginning on such a high-flying note. The plot is unpredictable and has a number of shocking moments, so I'll say just this. Russell, Carl's incidental friend, forms a platonic relationship with Carl that is truly touching and illustrates a whole new type of love. Like the opening montage, the payoff of this relationship is emotionally powerful and real at the same time. While one or two of Russell's lines about his family ring false, these do very little to puncture the film. In fact, they are completely canceled out by the inclusion of some funny canine humor and by the introduction of who is one of Pixar's best and most complex villains yet. Mum's the word on this one.

All in all, as that very different 1982 film's tagline suggests, "Up" will lift you up where you belong with its poignant examination of love and its thrilling storyline.