Colin Fitz Lives!

OPENING: 08/13/2010

STUDIO: Baby Shark, Inc

RUN TIME:91 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
A comedy about love, death and rock ‘n roll.

Opening Statement
In July of 1996, Robert Bella decided he wanted to direct Tom Morrissey’s script, then called simply, Colin Fitz. For two weeks, he and his small cast and crew, working mostly on deferred salaries and in the rain, completed production on this, Bella’s directorial debut. The universe lined up many times for this film, from being able to grab a treasure trove of stars on the rise such as John C. McGinley, William H. Macy, Mary McCormack, and Matt McGrath, to being accepted into Sundance in 1997 – a high honor, indeed. There was much praise being heaped upon its head, from Roger Ebert to Harry Knowles. Everything seemed to be going very well for this independent feature but when time came to bring out the wallets to buy it, no one did. For 13 years, it sat in Robert Bella’s closet and for 13 years he tried desperately to sell it, if for nothing else to pay back all the investors he owed over $150,000 to. It finally made it to the big screen, but was it worth the wait?

Facts of the Case
Two security guards, Paul (Matt McGrath) and Grady (Andy Fowle), are hired to watch the grave of Colin Fitz on the anniversary of his death. He was a rocker who changed the world but died just before his second album came out (he ate bad clams). They are hired by Colin’s wife (played to sexy perfection by Julianne Phillips) because something tragic occurred at his grave the previous year. Through the night they meet fans of Colin’s, (Martha Plimpton, Will McCormick), wax philosophical about the mysteries of the universe and rock ‘n’ roll (what would the rock world be like if Buddy Holly had tried LSD?) and, as per usual in films of this nature, come out of the other side as better and more fulfilled people.

The Evidence
If you’ve seen Clerks, you’ve seen another, some would say a better, version of this same story. The director, in interviews and Q and As, alludes to Clerks being a big influence on him throughout the making of this film and it is very apparent. Since Clerks had come out only 2 years before this was made and since it was the Sundance darling, it feels apropos that Bella would copy that template to follow in Kevin Smith’s footsteps. The main purpose to see this film, however, is not for the story. The main reason is because it’s a time capsule, it’s the lost film that no one thought they’d ever see. This is John C. McGinley pre-Scrubs. Heck, this is William H. Macy pre-Fargo. Seeing both of them on screen in the tiny, slightly-more-then-just-cameo parts, was odd. I was really surprised that they accepted those roles….then I remembered when this was actually shot. The real story, the more compelling story is what happened behind the scenes, what happened between when the cameras stopped rolling and a distributor decided to give this little film a chance.

Closing Statement
Since finishing Colin Fitz, Robert Bella has been working as a post production supervisor, most recently with Wes Craven. He’s also kept in the industry as an actor (Magnolia, Spartan) and a writer/director/producer (Revengers Inc., Road Kill). Still the mounting debt that he had taken in making Colin Fitz loomed over him with the debt collectors calling. Not only did he owe his financiers the $150,000 he borrowed to shoot the film, but to get a print of the film in order to be able to play in Sundance (what Robert had was a digital copy, but Sundance at that time didn’t have the ability to play a digital print) he maxed out twenty of his credit cards putting him down an additional $100,000. Honestly, making back $250,000 in the late 1990s, the hay day of Independent film, was not a huge stretch of the imagination. People were making tentative deals with him (“If William Macy wins the Oscar for Fargo, we’ll buy the film.”) but nothing ever panned out. After a while he decided to move on, perhaps pay off his debt with his next movie but then film idea after film idea would fall out or go into pre-production hell, or lose funding and years went by. One day Robert was having lunch when he ran into Arianna Bocco of IFC films. They had known each other and therefore she knew the struggles that Robert had been going through with Colin Fitz. She asked him whatever happened to it, and he informed her it was in his closet. Then on a whim, he asked if she’d like to buy it, and to his amazement, she said, “Sure!” After all that time, it was a simple, off the cuff question that sold his film.

The Verdict

5/10

Lebanon

OPENING: 08/13/2010

STUDIO: Sony Pictures Classics

RUN TIME:93 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
A look at war from the inside of a tank

Opening Statement
“Man is steel. The tank is only iron.” On July 12, 2006, conflict began between Israel and Lebanon. It began when Hezbollah soldiers fired rockets into Israel and blew up two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border. Three soldiers died. Two other soldiers were taken by Hezbollah into Lebanon. Israel responded and for 34 days they carried out air strikes and rolled into Lebanon with tanks and foot soldiers. The writer/director of Lebanon, Samuel Maoz, was himself a gunner in one of those tanks, so this is a sort-of autobiography of his experiences. You can feel that placing this story on paper and on celluloid was a form therapy for Samuel. He places us, as the audience, in the dark, dank, cold, putrid, unwelcoming pit of a monster that he knows all too well. And because the camera never leaves the inside of that tank, save for two small book-ending scenes, he shows us what it felt like to be sequestered in those claustrophobic spaces only understanding the outside world what we see through the gunner’s scope.

Facts of the Case
A single tank is sent into a small town that has already been bombed by the Israeli Air Force. Inside the tank are four young men: Herzel (Oshri Cohen), the loader; Assi (Itay Tiran), the commander; Yigal (Michael Moshonov), the driver; and Shmuel (Yoav Donat), the gunner. For all of them, this is their first taste of war. The first day of fighting pushes all four of these men past anything they were trained for. For who can be trained to fire on unarmed civilians, to plow their way through streets that just hours before teemed with life, to see the blood and havoc that war creates and not let it change and effect their humanity.

The Evidence
The other film that is constantly being brought up when one speaks of Lebanon is Waltz with Bashir, the foreign picture Oscar contender of 2008. Both of them deal with the same war and the same psychological trauma it inflicted on its soldiers, but in wholly different ways. This film showed me an entirely new angle to war, one I had not seen in any war film. The closest comparison that comes to mind is the German film Das Boot but even in that film the sense of confinement doesn’t feel this suffocating. It is impressive that I felt the same heart-pounding, dizzying feeling I got from the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan from sections of this film and, as I’ve said, the camera never leaves the inside of the tank.

When the gunner is looking out his scope, we get to see some sunshine. We get to see a family torn apart. We get to see a soldier bleed out. We get to see inside a travel agency and have a weird feeling in the pits of our stomachs as the cross hairs of the cannon rests upon a picture of the Twin Towers. Most times with any slight movement the turret moans and creaks in protest, but as with any gimmick there are other times when this is cheated, when empathy is being attempted and the whirs and clanks would get in the way, so they are left out all together. Apart from this story necessary hitch, the rest of the sound design makes it feel like the world is about to come crushing down around us. The only real gripe I have is that the score is sometimes misaligned and did not add to what I was watching. However, that is a small quibble for a film I honestly and whole-heartedly respect.

Closing Statement
The first thing that struck me as I was watching this film was how confident the film-making felt. For only being the second film that Samuel Maoz has ever directed and first one written, you can feel how much he knew this story and exactly how best to portray it. He was able to take what could have been a gimmick and made it impressive. If I venture to read more into it than may be there, it showed how myopic the “war machine” is. The young men, specifically the gunner, can’t really see most of the destruction that their shells are creating. One of God’s little blessings. Just as the people who sit in plush chairs and push pens across paper to declare war cannot see the destruction they cause. Like I said, that may not be what Samuel was going for, but it feels apropos.

The Verdict

9/10

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

OPENING: 08/13/2010

STUDIO: Universal Pictures

RUN TIME: 112 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
An epic of epic epicness.

Opening Statement
Until now, Edgar Wright’s career has been almost exclusively dedicated to collaborations with his pals Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. After a string of successful efforts including Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, Wright is finally digging into new territory with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, a Pegg-n-Frost-free adaptation of Bryan Lee O’Malley’s delightful comic book series. While the film isn’t quite on the level of the books, it’s yet another entertaining outing from Wright that’s stuffed to the brim with nifty moments.

Facts of the Case
Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera, Superbad) is a 22-year-old slacker who lives in Toronto. He’s currently unemployed and spends most of his free time working on songs with his band (the amusingly named “Sex Bob-omb”). Scott just started dating a 17-year-old Chinese high schooler named Knives Chau (Ellen Wong, Runaway), but that relationship is quickly forgotten about after he meets the mysterious Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Live Free or Die Hard). Ramona fascinates Scott; he would do anything and everything to be with her. It seems he’ll have to do precisely that, as Ramona has seven evil exes that Scott must defeat in combat if he wants to keep the relationship alive. Will Scott survive the series of challenges ahead of him?

The Evidence
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World isn’t going to be a film for everyone. It’s gimmicky, videogame-themed structure is going to appeal to some and annoy others . I spoke to one man outside the theatre who called the trailer the dumbest-looking thing he’d ever seen. Still, for those who grew up playing the likes of Super Mario Brothers, Pac-Man and The Legend of Zelda – or for those who simply enjoy movies that aren’t afraid of breaking traditional narrative rules – the film holds a treasure chest of clever riches that the viewer can collect coin-by-coin along the way.

That’s precisely what Scott Pilgrim does over the course of the film: as he defeats each evil ex, the baddie evaporates into a shower of shiny coins for our hero to claim as his bounty. This is the sort of game-based logic that drives the film and provides many of its best gags. Despite the overload of quick verbal witticisms, sight gags and cutesy asides that threaten to overload the screen at times, Wright actually attempts to provide quite a few long-lined jokes over the course of the film. It’s fun when the Universal logo music is presented in a tremendously cheesy synthesized form at the beginning, but even funnier when the proper version of that theme is used later to underline another scene. Not all of the jokes stick (Wright demonstrates a curious fondness for the sort of cheesy one-liners he so amusingly parodied in Hot Fuzz – who knows, maybe he’s just being ironic), but enough of them do and they fly by at such speed that those who enjoy the film are bound to desire a repeat viewing at some point.

Though the very concept of a romantic comedy rooted in over-the-top fight scenes may seem a bit odd, Wright likens the battles to sudden bouts of singing in a musical: when the characters get particularly emotional, they express their emotions in fights. The scenes are well-staged and visually involving, as Wright uses a variety of appropriately cheesy CGI and Batman-style sound effect text to give the scenes a distinct flavor. The actors portraying the evil exes (including Chris Evans, Brandon Routh and Mae Whitman) seem to be having a good time, but Jason Schwartzman (The Darjeeling Limited) as the big bad final-round villain makes the strongest impression.

However, my biggest problem with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is that it’s all about the fights. Granted, these scenes play a major role in the books, but the graphic novels have the breathing room to provide complex character development for all of the major players. More importantly, the books are rooted in a sense of deep romantic longing; it’s easy to tell that O’Malley has poured his soul into them. That raw emotional core never quite digs into the film, which is sweet but not quite moving. The film version is a funhouse of action and comedy; the romance is merely there to drive these elements along. This wouldn’t even be a problem if Wright had found a way to keep the action fresh all the way through, but after a certain point the director starts to repeat himself a bit and we start to wish we were spending more time watching the characters interact in ways that don’t involve punching.

Michael Cera is an excellent choice to play Scott. He’s perhaps a bit more sedate than the book version of the character, but the wide-eyed fascination and shy clumsiness he brings to the role is spot-on. Cera has frequently been accused of playing the same sort of character over and over again. So what? Cera plays a certain type of role quite well; does Hollywood no longer have room for character actors known for playing a type? Many actors have been led astray out of desperation to be accepted as versatile. Cera’s in his comfort zone and he aces everything the script throws him. Winstead brings an enigmatic charm to Ramona, though she has a bit less to do than Cera due to the nature of her role. What makes the duo stand out a bit more than the average Cute Young Couple is the fact that both are genuinely flawed individuals- Scott has fidelity issues and Ramona has commitment issues, which doesn’t change the fact that they’re both likable people. They simply seem imperfect, which is a nice change-of-pace. The broad array of bit players are all quite solid, though Ellen Wong probably makes the strongest impression as the volatile Knives Chau. Wong hasn’t been in much to date; this film should put her on the map. Kieran Culkin (Igby Goes Down) also has fun as Scott’s carefree gay roommate Wallace Wells, while Alison Pill (Dan in Real Life) is amusingly acidic as Scott’s band mate Kim Pine.

Closing Statement
While Scott Pilgrim vs. the World isn’t the jaw-dropping delight it could have been, it’s a film with a very distinct flavor and a whole lot of fun to watch. I wish the film could have been more than what it is, but there’s no doubt that I’m looking forward to revisiting Scott Pilgrim’s world again soon.

The Verdict
8/10

The Other Guys

OPENING: 08/06/2010

STUDIO: Columbia Pictures

RUN TIME: 107 min

ACCOMPLICES:

Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
They’re not heroes — they’re The Other Guys.

Opening Statement
The buddy-cop subgenre is firmly in the sights of director Adam McKay and frequent collaborator Will Ferrell in their new movie, The Other Guys, and while it might not match the heights of absurdity achieved in Anchorman, the pair’s first and perhaps finest cinematic effort, it still stands tall as one of this summer’s funniest entertainments.

Facts of the Case
The two most respected and recognized detectives in New York City are P.K. Highsmith (Samuel L. Jackson) and Chris Danson (Dwayne Johnson); having earned their heroic reputations by kicking ass and taking names, destoying millions of dollars in property to nab their perps and getting their names in the press. These preening showhogs bask in the glory while their colleagues, such as forensic accountant Allen Gamble (Ferrell) and hot-headed Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg), are left with the reality of doing the paperwork. Meek Allen is happy to maintain this arrangement, but Terry, who has been stuck behind a desk since an infamous incident involving Derek Jeter, lusts to get back on the street, ready for action. After Detectives Highsmith and Danson are unexpectedly indisposed, Allen and Terry find their chance to fill the void when a seemingly innocuous lead from Allen’s file threatens to become the NYPD’s hottest case.

The Evidence
The highest compliment I can pay The Other Guys is that it’s funny, which is more than can be said for many of the so-called “comedies” released these days. The opening chase featuring Highsmith and Danson is outrageously over-the-top, and the contrast when we are introduced to the deskbound world of Allen and Terry perfectly establishes the tone of this parody: the juxtaposing and exploring the inherent absurdity of the buddy-cop movie through the lens of the mundane.

This tonal balance, which admittedly walks a thin line, is best maintained in the first act. The daily harassment of Allen by fellow officers Martin (The Daily Show’s Rob Riggle) and Fosse (Damon Wayans Jr.), the seething anger Terry holds against Allen for his unwillingness to go out on calls, Allen and Terry conducting police business while riding in a Prius — these elements, while greatly exaggerated, are built around grains of realism. These hints of truth enhance the humor by grounding the situations for the audience, allowing for greater shocks at the lengths to which these sketches extend for a laugh; when the rift between Allen and Terry explodes into an argument over combat strategies in the animal kingdom, it may well be one of the most riotous exchanges you’ll hear this year.

But after Highsmith and Danson are sidelined, things begin to falter a bit. The film becomes more focused with its ripped-from-the-headlines scandal plot involving a fraudulent investor (Steve Coogan of Tropic Thunder), which unfortunately adheres too rigidly to the formula it is parodying and is largely uninteresting. Events become predictable and expected, as do a fair number of the jokes. It is arguable that a stronger version of the film would have avoided getting its unsung heroes into the ridiculous predicaments this plot requires, instead focusing entirely on the trials and tribulations of everyday policework in the shadow of the larger-than-life heroes as the anti-buddy cop movie. But The Other Guys isn’t that film, and Ferrell and Wahlberg get into trouble with authority, play “good cop, bad cop,” and hide out from the bad guys to await the final confrontation. In particular, the scenes where an office they hope to investigate explodes and when the two attempt to talk a witness down from a high ledge stand out as two of the film’s low points.

What saves the film from failure is both Ferrell’s innate likability and the moments when it embraces the surreal: Allen’s dismissal of his curvaceous wife (Eva Mendes) as “plain,” the second job held by Michael Keaton’s police captain, a character’s dark collegiate history, and a description of what befalls the aforementioned Prius that is so foul that you will never again hear the phrase “soup kitchen” in quite the same way. These jewels are stark reminders of the hilarious and bizarre alternate universe that McKay and Ferrell created in 2004’s Anchorman, while also cutting through the detritus of the well-worn plot, recalling the freshness of the first act. They keep it afloat, carrying the film past its plodded mechanizations and over the finish line. If the entire film were infused with this boldness, it would flirt with greatness, but as is it provides merely an entertaining ride.

Closing Statement
Despite failing to overcome the formula of the buddy-cop movies it parodies, The Other Guys is bolstered by a fresh first act and enough moments of glittering comedic brilliance throughout to ensure that you will be entertained. Watch it, laugh, and hope that in the future its creators will be given enough free reign to once again give us something extraordinary.

The Verdict
7/10

Dinner for Schmucks

OPENING: 07/30/2010

STUDIO: Paramount Pictures

RUN TIME: 114 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Takes One to Know One.

Opening Statement
My reaction upon seeing the Dinner for Schmucks trailer was a blend of pain and pleasure. I like Steve Carell and Paul Rudd, but the premise seemed awfully flimsy. I also experienced a blend of pain and pleasure watching the film itself. To my surprise, the premise actually works, but other elements of the script do a lot of damage to a film boasting a wide variety of entertaining performances.

Facts of the Case
The oddball premise is this: every year, a group of businessmen get together and participate in a special dinner. Each businessman will bring the most idiotic person he can find along to the dinner. At the end of the meal, one of the guests will be awarded a trophy. Ordinarily, Tim (Paul Rudd, I Love You, Man) would be appalled at the concept of participating in such a dinner. However, he’s learned that his participation might just earn him a promotion at the office. Tim hesitates at first, but after he meets the peculiar Barry (Steve Carell, The Office) he cannot help but feel fate is shoving him in a very specific direction. Barry is one of the most spectacularly clueless and unusual men Tim has ever encountered. Barry is an IRS Agent who spends his free time making elaborate dioramas filled with stuffed mice. He has very little useful knowledge and provides those around him with a consistent stream of confidently-delivered misinformation. Tim invites Barry to the dinner, Barry accepts and the battle between Tim’s personal guilt and career ambitions begins.

The Evidence
There’s another battle taking place within the 110-minute running time of Dinner for Schmucks, too: the battle between the talented cast and the pedestrian script. For every funny moment delivered by the film (and there are certainly more than a few), there’s another groan-worthy sequence loaded with clichés and convention. Why, oh why must we endure yet another film in which a guy loses his girlfriend for the entire midsection of a movie due to some terrible misunderstanding that no one makes a real attempt at clearing up? This particular subplot does nothing but pad the film’s running time; had it been clipped the movie would have benefited immensely.

There are also plenty of moments when entertaining comedy will slip so far into broad farce that it stops being funny and starts becoming stupid. Please note the overlong sequence in which Tim’s ex-girlfriend Darla (Lucy Punch, Ella Enchanted) enters the fray, desperately attempting to engage in some over-the-top role play while Tim tries to speak to his girlfriend on the phone. I wanted to toss something at the screen. The same could be said of a scene in which Tim’s important business lunch is interrupted by the aforementioned Darla. You sense a theme, but I promise that Ms. Punch’s performance isn’t the problem; it’s just that she’s been given the worst scenes to work with.

Despite these problems, it’s easy to imagine many leaving Dinner for Schmucks with a smile on their face, as the film starts strong, ends well and contains a lot of delightful bits in-between. There’s some amusing corporate satire wiggling around in the background of the film, as Tim’s assorted superiors (including Ron Livingstone of the excellent corporate satire Office Space) are essentially depicted as a group of frat boys in suits, using their wealth and power to fund elaborate yet juvenile pranks. The group is led by Lance Fender, who is played by Bruce Greenwood (Star Trek). Greenwood is a reliable actor but deceptively versatile; he can play hollow corruption and warm sincerity with equal conviction. He’s called upon to do the former in this instance and does a fine job of it.

Paul Rudd and Steve Carell do an excellent job in the lead roles, even if we’ve seen shades of these performances elsewhere. Rudd’s turn is the same sort of exasperated everyman he’s patented at this point, though once again it’s refreshing to see that Rudd’s straight man portraits are just as funny as many of the “comic relief” characters that accompany him. Speaking of which, Carell may have a physical appearance and a general persona quite similar to Sandra Bullock’s spectacularly unsuccessful turn in last year’s All About Steve, but he makes it work. Unlike Bullock, Carell seems fully committed to his portrait of a loon, never second-guessing any of the wild antics he’s called upon to carry out. It’s essentially an exaggerated compilation of Michael Scott’s dumbest moments, but it works.

For me, the biggest laughs came from the supporting players. Zach Galifinakis (who has recently been cast in every single comedy being released over the course of the next two years) turns in good work as a co-worker of Barry’s who believes he is a hypnotist. Talented folks like Kristen Schaal (Flight of the Conchords), Larry Wilmore (The Daily Show), Chris O’Dowd (The I.T. Crowd) and others generate laughs in smaller parts. The best supporting player is Jermaine Clement (of Flight of the Conchords fame) whose portrait of a pretentious artist is a consistent source of off-the-wall delight. Clement has a way of stealing the show in everything he appears in; here’s hoping we continue to see a lot more of him in the years to come.

Closing Statement
There are certainly a lot of funny moments in Dinner for Schmucks, which is what one hopes a comedy will provide. Alas, there are also simply too many moments that misfire for me to really recommend the film without reservation. I laughed, I winced, I smiled and I sighed. Bearing that in mind, I can only advise you to attend this dinner at your own risk.

The Verdict
6/10

Salt

OPENING: 07/23/2010

STUDIO: Sony

RUN TIME: 100 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Who is Salt?

Opening Statement
I have to admit, the trailers for Salt didn’t exactly inspire much excitement in yours truly. It looked like a fairly typical action film rooted in a typical “innocent person wrongly accused” plot; a bit of generic noise to fill a gap in the summer movie season. I’m glad to have been proven wrong. Salt is one of the loopiest films of the summer, but also a tremendously well-crafted thriller and a grandly entertaining experience.

Facts of the Case
Angelina Jolie (Changeling) plays Evelyn Salt, a CIA Agent who’s been given the task of interrogating a Russian spy claiming a desire to defect to the US. During her interview, the Russian suggests that there is an assassination being plotted by a mole within the CIA. He claims that this mole’s name is Evelyn Salt. The interview grinds to a halt, and Salt’s superiors demand that she be put into custody until the matter can be examined further. Not willing to sit around and answer questions, Salt makes a run for it and attempts to escape the grasp of the CIA and FBI while simultaneously looking for a way to clear her name. So begins a tense, action-packed journey to a surprising finish line.

The Evidence
It becomes clear rather quickly that Salt is a film that has been dipped in a giant vat of crazy sauce. We realize this as soon as the Russian defector fills us in on a super-secret Russian program which brainwashes orphans and trains them to become sleeper agents in America. Apparently, the man we know as Lee Harvey Oswald was actually one of the first notable members of this particular program. This plunge into territory that even Oliver Stone might find over-the-top is only the beginning of the eyebrow-raising developments Salt has to offer of the course of its lean 99-minute running time. This much must be said: this movie is neither formulaic nor predictable.

The director is Phillip Noyce, a talented guy whose work includes serviceable Hollywood fare (Clear and Present Danger, Patriot Games, The Bone Collector) and ambitious dramas (Rabbit-Proof Fence, The Quiet American). While Salt isn’t on the level of the latter two films, it represents Noyce hitting an all-time high as an entertainer. The action scenes in the movie are crafted with remarkable skill and precision, steadily increasing the level of tension and excitement as the film proceeds. There’s a refreshing amount of professional nuts-and-bolts craftsmanship on display, as the scenes are largely staged without the aid of CGI or silly special effects. It’s such a nice change of pace to witness an action movie in which the presence of computers is almost entirely unfelt. Real stuntwork, real sets and practical effects are the name of the game in Salt, and these elements are being employed by a director who knows what he’s doing.

The film was originally intended as a vehicle for Tom Cruise, who would have been wise to stick with it. Salt proves considerably more enjoyable than Cruise’s limp summer action/comedy Knight and Day, though it’s doubtful that Cruise could have managed to be as enigmatically compelling in the lead role as Angelina Jolie. It’s a treat to witness the actress handle this material; she’s effortlessly confident and undeniably effective as an action star. Actors are traditionally called upon to show us what they’re feeling, but Jolie’s task in Salt is to make us question whether what’s she emoting is honest or an act. The film’s ad campaign has been built upon the question “Who is Salt?” That’s a question you’ll keep asking yourself for quite a long while.

The show belongs to Noyce and Jolie, but both receive crucial support from a host of talented supporting cast and crew members. Liev Schrieber (Defiance) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Children of Men) are both crisply professional in their roles as government agents attempting to capture Salt and get to the bottom of the mystery. Oscar-winning Cinematographer Robert Elswitt brings an exceptional level of visual flair and atmosphere to the sort of film that usually doesn’t receive such treatment. Composer James Newton Howard delivers an exceptionally exciting score which does a nice job of adding to the film’s sense of momentum.

Closing Statement
I can certainly see why someone might come out of Salt shaking their head at what they had just witnessed. The film is unapologetically mad, as Kurt Wimmer’s screenplay often feels like it was written by an insomniatic 15-year-old in 1985 (I mean that in the best possible way). Even so, I was thrilled to witness a film that managed to blend such fine technical merits with a delightfully unconventional plot. Most of the folks at my screening were chuckling happily at the film’s conclusion, which I believe is precisely the reaction the film is aiming for. So grab a bucket of popcorn and add some Salt. Odds are you’ll have a good time.

The Verdict
8/10

Countdown to Zero

OPENING: 06/23/2010

STUDIO: Magnolia Pictures

RUN TIME:91 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
No nukes is good nukes

Opening Statement
Atomic apocalypse may still be upon us. That is what the filmmakers behind Countdown to Zero want us to remember. As President Kennedy said, “Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness.” This quote is used as the thesis behind this film. They used this idea to scare the guano out of me. Seeing images of nuclear bombs going off while being told how your internal organs may explode if you’re close enough to the epicenter, really makes one ponder how to not have that happen. And that is exactly what they are going for. Getting that response is their way to get the audience to act and do what they want them to; whether that be writing their government, texting to a specific number, donating to a charity or reducing carbon emissions. It is emotional manipulation, and it works. However, the direction they are trying to get us to move in is not only naïve, it is futile.

Facts of the Case
In 1942, the Manhattan Project, led by the American physicist Robert Oppenheimer, came together to beat Germany in creating a fission-based weapon. Many of the world’s leading physicists were brought into this incredibly top-secret project. They decided to make two bombs and use uranium in one (Little Boy) and plutonium in the other (Fat Man). Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945 while the Manhattan Project had yet to finish a working weapon. After a test in New Mexico that showed that the plutonium Fat Man released around 19 kilotons of TNT upon detonation, President Truman decided to use them against Japan. Little Boy was released above Hiroshima; Fat Man, above Nagasaki. At least one hundred thousand people died, most of them civilians. Tens of thousands would later die from radiation sicknesses and cancers.

The Evidence
Since 1945, the world has gone from two nuclear weapons to over 23,000 nuclear warheads. We’ve come a long way, baby. It would take just one-megaton bomb exploding in the air to throw the earth into a nuclear winter. So we have enough going here on this little planet to really mess things up. To have any bombs active really feels, on all sides, irresponsible. Like children picking up loaded guns, I wonder if our world leaders really comprehend what they have in their hands? The film’s solution to all this madness is to disarm all the bombs. It’s great to aim high, but what are we truly trying to accomplish? In a way, the ancient demon we’re trying to destroy is the threat of great weapons in the wrong hands. It’s stopping outwardly antagonistic countries like North Korea and Iran from getting their hands on something that will kill us all. But then, is it right that we should have the bombs and they shouldn’t? As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is quoted in the film as saying, “If they are good, then why should we be deprived? If they are bad, then why do you have them?” Are we really more reliable, more responsible then they? We, America, are the only country who has ever used one. So really that ancient demon is us – all of us. Every single human on the planet is the reason why the dream of disarming all the nuclear weapons is never going to happen. We are not trusting, nor trustworthy enough to bring the count back down to zero.

Closing Statement
There are currently nine countries in the world with confirmed nuclear weapons. Even if by sheer will and luck we are able to get 7 of those countries to completely disarm, the two that are left will fall into a “No, you first” face off. There is just too much power in having something your enemy doesn’t, which won’t allow us to just let it go. We, as a people, do not trust enough to do that. We think, “If I disarm my bombs, and they SAY they’ve disarmed all their bombs, but they really have a secret stash, that will leave me open to attack. I need to have my own secret stash.” And we also think it’s safer for us to have an ace up our sleeve just in case something happens – and in that way we are not trustworthy either. This film is great in that it got me to ponder and talk about all these situations and scenarios. However, call me cynical, but the solution they offer is, I believe, a big pipe dream that will never be realized.

The Verdict

6/10

Winter’s Bone

OPENING: 07/11/2010

STUDIO: Anonymous Content

RUN TIME: 100 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Bred and buttered.

Opening Statement
Winter’s Bone is a chilling tale set in rural Missouri which couldn’t have been cast any better. Jennifer Lawrence brilliantly leads the ensemble as a seventeen year old looking for her miscreant father in a small community of people, many of which are blood related. With a budget of only $2 million dollars, director Debra Granik has assembled a film more powerful than anything I have seen this year.

Facts of the Case
Seventeen year old Ree Dolly cares for her little brother, sister and emotionally ill mother in their rural Missouri home. The sheriff comes by the house looking for the father, who is due in court within days, but has since disappeared from town. A bail bondsman comes by the house to let the family know that their deadbeat dad has put the house up as part of the bond and if he doesn’t show in court, they will be soon become homeless. Ree begins her search for her father in the obvious places, but soon realizes that to get the information she needs, she will need to talk to the shady people with whom he has had dealings. In this part of the Ozarks, almost everyone is related, but few are willing to help.

The Evidence
It is strange how the films that I look forward to the most often disappoint, like when Indiana Jones was running from the spaceship or when Batman had a case of laryngitis that wouldn’t go away. In both of these instances, I knew something was terribly wrong. In recent years, the films that leave the most lasting impressions are the ones out of left field. In 2007, it was No Country For Old Men and in 2008, it was Let The Right One In. In 2009, that film was Drag Me To Hell, and this year the film that has blown me away is Winter’s Bone. After a string of mediocre films, I am once again reminded of why I love going to the movies.

I know different types of films appeal to different types of people, but I seem to have an affinity for either cold, depressing dramas or psychological horror films. Winter’s Bone falls into the former category, but has several scenes that will get under your skin without question. In the same way as John Boorman’s Deliverance, we meet the type of mountain people that those who read online film reviews should never meet in a dark alley—or anywhere for that matter. Ree’s family is poor, squirrel-eatin’ poor to be exact, but Ree does her best to bring up her little brother and sister responsibly. She teaches them to cook for themselves and quizzes them on various math and spelling words. Ree has to fend for herself since her mother is depressed and hasn’t said a word in years. While Ree and her siblings are kind-hearted individuals, her kinfolk are indeed a scary bunch, the kind of people who keep several tireless cars on the lawn and a pet ferret in the corner of the living room. (No offense to our lesser distinguished readers of Cinema Verdict who might own a ferret or two. I hear those footlong rats taste wonderful.)

Jennifer Lawrence plays Ree, the teenager searching for her missing father who is also one of the many local manufacturers of crystal meth. To keep the house, Ree must track down her father and make sure he gets back to court in time. She starts by talking to her uncle Teardrop (John Hawkes), the first of many men with whom direct eye contact is not recommended. When we first meet Teardrop, he is nonchalantly loading his pistol at the kitchen table we can sense instantly that this is a tightly wound individual. Teardrop sports a small tattooed cross under his left eye and repeatedly pulls a bag of cocaine from his pocket for a quickie. John Hawkes is just one of the outstanding performers in the film, and Teardrop is the kind of guy who can become completely unhinged at any moment. Ree knows that too, probably from past experience, and Lawrence exhibits that fear to a T.

Aside from a “doobie for your walk home”, Ree gets little to no help from Teardrop. She then seeks help from Little Arthur, another crank dealer in the area. With no support from him, she moves on to Thump Milton, a distant relative who runs the town and won’t speak a word about the information he clearly knows. All of the people she deals with along the way feel unbelievably real, and moreso, look like true hill folk. Everyone in the film is dirty and has a dishevelled look about them. Merab, daughter of Thump, is played by Dale Dickey and looks every bit the part of a mountain woman who has felt the effects of a very hard life, possibly one with frequent meth use. Dickey is frightening and a pivotal scene involving Merab near the end of the film is bone chilling.

Winter’s Bone is a film about blood ties and how much those really mean. Will feuding families of the same bloodline willingly watch a seventeen year old and family lose the house because of the iniquities of her father? In the end, it is a question of which people are truly heartless and at what cost. Debra Granik has done a masterful job at exploring this subject in a rural part of Missouri most of us will thankfully never see. Granik’s effective use of gray and blue tones perfectly bring out the nature of both the bleak, winter setting, but also the coldness of the story’s characters. This is a film that you won’t forget for some time and although it won’t have the mass appeal of Inception, it has far more complex characters and believable situations…if you are into that sort of thing.

Closing Statement
Winter’s Bone is an unforgettable film and ranks up with Deliverance in the creepy-hillbilly genre. The gritty acting combined with great dialogue make for one of the most realistic dramas I have seen in years. We see characters in various levels of depravity and get a view of an inpoverished world completely foreign to most of us.

The Verdict
10/10

Inception

OPENING: 07/16/2010

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 148 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Your Mind is the Scene of the Crime

Opening Statement
After achieving remarkable success both critically and financially with The Dark Knight, Director Christopher Nolan has taken a break from Batman to pursue his own original idea: Inception, based on a script that Nolan developed for over a decade. The result is a film that sees Nolan reaching dizzying heights as an artist; an intelligent, original serving of thunderous elegance that towers over the rest of the summer movie crop like a giant in Lilluput.

Facts of the Case
In order to accept the film, you must accept its basic conceit: that advanced technology has been developed which allows people to share dream experiences together. Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio, The Departed) is a man who has used this technology for selfish means, as he’s a specialist in entering the dreams of others and extracting valuable secrets from them. This is a complex and challenging art that requires significant planning and assistance.

However, Dom’s newest client (Ken Watanabe, The Last Samurai) isn’t interested in the extraction of ideas. He wants to know if inception (the planting of an idea into another person’s mind through dreams) is possible. Dom insists that such a thing would be very difficult, but that it could be done. Without further ado, he hires a team of experts (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Dileep Rao and Tom Hardy) in various aspects of dream invasion to assist him in the mission. Their target is the son (Cillian Murphy, Batman Begins) of a dying CEO, and they must convince him to make a particular decision upon his father’s death.

The Evidence
There are a lot of additional nuances to that plot that I haven’t really gotten into, but that’s because it would take an inordinate amount of time to explain the many complications at work in the essentially simple framework of this story. In fact, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen another movie that had to devote the vast majority of its running time to explaining itself. Inception is not about what happens but how it happens, and Nolan essentially uses the film as a canvas for unraveling his meticulously constructed ideas. If that sounds dull, be assured that nothing could be further from the truth. Inception is thrilling both intellectually and otherwise, with layers of intelligent excitement poured on top of a moving emotional foundation.

Nolan is a filmmaker who pays close attention to detail and takes great care in the construction of his films. As such, his dreamscapes are not free-flowing fantasy worlds full of random whimsy but rather specifically-organized layouts with precise rules and regulations that govern them. There are some who might suggest that dreams deserve to be treated as something more unpredictable and unruly, but I found Nolan’s carefully organized menace nothing short of fascinating. By giving dreams a set of complex ground rules, Nolan creates a very stable foundation on which to build his wild architecture. To witness the unbending logic which is dictating the frenzied action as the film barrels into its third act is unbelievably satisfying and exciting.

Inception is bursting at the seams with ideas, one of which is that it is possible to have dreams within dreams… and dreams within dreams within dreams, too. However, there is a difference in the perception of time from level to level. When you’re dreaming, time moves slower than it would in real life. Time moves even slower in the level below that, and so on. So, what feels like 10 seconds on the first level of dreaming feels like an hour on the third level. This idea fuels a magnificent sequence in which various members of the team are carrying out different tasks on each of the levels, synchronizing their efforts through the use of an Edith Piaf song set to go off at a specific point. This could have been a mess, but Nolan and editor Lee Smith (this year’s Oscar winner, I think) present the whole affair with an almost musical pacing and unwavering clarity (the actual music helps too, as Hans Zimmer turns in an effectively stormy score).

The emotional core of the film is largely found in the performance of Leonardo DiCaprio, who turns in a performance eerily similar to his work in Shutter Island. Without wanting to spoil either film, let it be said that both films feature remarkable similarities both in terms of the subject matter and in the back stories of the lead characters. DiCaprio is every bit as good here as he was in Scorsese’s film, proving once again just how much he has grown as an actor. He’s ably supported by a game supporting cast, with Ellen Page standing out as a young woman who persists in attempting to understand what secrets Dom Cobb has buried away. Marion Cotillard (Public Enemies) also pulls off a tricky performance as Cobb’s wife, who quite literally haunts his dreams on a regular basis. Everyone does good work and most of the significant characters are given a chance to shine at some point (though Michael Caine has roughly two minutes of screen time), but most of the major requirements in terms of acting are on DiCaprio’s shoulders. Fortunately, he’s now fully capable of carrying that weight.

Closing Statement
If I have one concern/complaint with the film, it’s that Inception is so wrapped up in its ideas that it doesn’t really take enough time to ponder the ethics of those ideas. What Dom Cobb and his gang are engaged in is essentially a form of mental rape. This activity deserves some serious discussion and debate, but that’s brushed off pretty quickly (Nolan is more concerned about the effects these activities have on the perpetrators than the victims). Of course any half-perceptive viewer will recognize these things on their own, but I can’t help but wish a stronger opposing point-of-view had been represented in the film.

Even so, that’s a small complaint about a film that I could continue praising for quite some time. Instead, I’ll simply tell you that Inception is an absorbing ride from it’s unusual opening scene to its masterful closing shot (a final image rivaled only this year by the closing frames of The Ghost Writer), and that it’s one of the year’s best films. See it without hesitation.

The Verdict

10/10

Solitary Man

OPENING: 06/02/2010

STUDIO: Anchor Bay Films

RUN TIME: 90m

ACCOMPLICES:

Trailer, IMDb

The Charge
Ben Loves His Family Almost as Much as He Loves Himself

Opening Statement
Solitary Man is the story of Ben Kalman, a character that Michael Douglas plays almost by second nature. Douglas shines in the role and his performance makes the film worth seeing, even if it is stronger than the film itself.

Facts of the Case
After bad word from the doctor six years ago, Ben Kalman has since refused to come to terms with his age and place in life. Illegal business practices with his car dealership almost cost him jail time and he spends his remaining days making one poor decision after another. He chases after girls a fraction his age and is nothing but a strain on the genuine relationships he does have. Ben lives for himself, but now he must take his girlfriend’s daughter to a college interview, where his tainted reputation and selfish lifestyle get the better of him.

The Evidence
Michael Douglas hasn’t starred in a blockbuster for some time, so to the American public, he has somewhat fallen off the radar as a mainstream actor. With Solitary Man, not only do we find Douglas in a leading role once again, but we find him in a role tailor made for him, as he excels at playing egotistical pricks. While Gordo Gecko may have had a level of charisma that had us almost believing in such a corrupt individual, Ben Kalman is a cheater and a liar, leaving little to admire. The worst part is that he knows it. Ben prides himself as a “man who takes risks,” but often the risks are either illegal or lack any discretion whatsoever.

The film’s credits appropriately open with Johnny Cash’s Solitary Man as we find Ben Kalman wearing all black and walking around the streets of New York. This is more fitting than we even realize, because the more we learn about Ben, the more we can see that he is lonely, desparate, and completely unhappy with his own life. Aptly set in New York City, we find a man who is so self centered that the rest of the world is merely a blur. Ben was once highly successful and graced the cover of Forbes magazine before his shady dealings cost him virtually everything he had. Although he has paid his debt to society, his unscrupulous nature and detached personality is ever so present. This is a bitter disappointment to his grandson, but moreso to his daughter Susan (Jenna Fischer), who must repeatedly write his rent checks since Ben can’t get back on his own feet.

We spend a little time getting to know Ben, and learn that he hates it when his daughter calls him “dad” and especially loathes being called “grandpa”. Ben won’t accept that he is sixty years old and when the film takes us to the meat of the story, where he takes his girlfriend’s daughter Allyson (Imogen Poots) to a college interview, we already know that the college setting will be ripe with temptation. Since Ben himself is completely immature, he has no problem fitting in around campus and he quickly befriends a student named Daniel (Jesse Eisenberg), who reminds Ben of his younger self when he attended the same school. Ben tirelessly spouts advice to Daniel, who looks up to Ben, but the advice ultimately comes from a source with a crumbling foundation.

Douglas is utterly convincing as a man who struggles with great regret, but with too much pride to admit it. During one scene on campus, Ben stops briefly to sit on a park bench, a bench that clearly has many memories attached. Ben gets up and shrugs off the overwhelming feelings attached to that location as if he can’t face where he is at in life today. Only later in the film does Ben swallow his pride enough to ask for help from his old friend Jimmy (Danny DeVito), owner of a local food joint near the school. Jimmy is one of the many voices of reason in Ben’s life, but Ben can’t see past the lack of financial success in Jimmy’s life.

Solitary Man is a well constructed and well acted film, but isn’t as satisfying as I would have liked. There is nothing particularly engaging about the story and as great as Douglas’ performance was, the movie feels like a slow burning fuse on a stick of dynamite, without the bang. Not to any fault of Douglas, the main character lacked the arc needed to make the story worth telling. The character of Ben isn’t extremely likable, so as an audience member, it would have helped to have seen some sort of character progression (or regression). With Wall Street, which was far superior, the film climaxed with Gordon Gecko’s empire falling before his eyes. With Solitary Man, the Ben we see at the beginning of the film isn’t far from who we see at the end, and unfortunately he has hurt many others along the way.

Closing Statement
Solitary Man is a worthwhile watch simply for Michael Douglas’ performance, which is better than the film itself. I enjoyed watching Douglas act like a self-centered jerk, but only up to the point at which I realized the film wasn’t going to progress.

The Verdict

6/10