J. Edgar

OPENING: 11/09/2011

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

ACCOMPLICES: Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The most powerful man in the world. The most boring biopic in history.

Opening Statement
As a lifelong political junkie, dramatized biopics — from the ridiculous (JFK) to the sublime (Frost/Nixon) — play right into my wheelhouse. Talented filmmakers feast on the bones of these high profile figures and deconstruct their careers for enlightenment and entertainment. So how do you go about tactfully criticizing Clint Eastwood? The man is a bona fide Hollywood legend who has crafted some incredible films. Sadly, J. Edgar isn’t one of them.

Facts of the Case
A diligent young government agent, John Edgar Hoover, rises through the ranks of corruption and political turmoil to become the most powerful man in U.S. Government. Consumed by ambition and high ideals, his innovation and tenacity revolutionized crime fighting while opening the door to civil rights violations we continue to struggle with today. Hoover is the poster child for what can happen when unparalleled authority and a warped sense of right and wrong go unchecked. This is his story… or at least one version of it.

The Evidence
Dustin Lance Black’s screenplay uses the dictation of Hoover’s memoir in 1972 as the backbone for the film, allowing us to float in an out of key events in the man’s career. At times poignant and other times annoying, Eastwood attempts to leverage its non-linear style to build a slow boil which culminates in Hoover’s death. I say “attempts” because it’s difficult to invest yourself in the life of man who is both unlikable and unsympathetic. In fact, the only real emotion we feel is pity, for people like his longtime secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger) and lifelong partner Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer, The Social Network) who are sucked into Edgar’s raging whirlpool of ambition and never able to escape. It’s hard to imagine how this man engendered such loyalty when he treated everyone but his mother (Judi Dench, Quantum of Solace) with arrogant disdain.

The performances here seem to be the tipping point. DiCaprio has become a highly intense actor on the order of DeNiro, Pacino, and Sean Penn. But to craft a living breathing character, one has to go beyond the surface intensity and discover a light to balance the dark. And that’s where this performance and the film itself falters. Eastwood has made a career of finding humor in even the darkest of circumstances and there’s very little humor here, which makes everything seem so self-important. There are far too many moments that scream “Look at me, I’m acting!” which is the last thing you want an audience to think.

Subtle devious manipulations of Dame Judi Dench as Edgar’s mother and the simple detached reactions of Naomi Watts as Ms. Gandy are in stark contrast to DiCaprio and Hammer who force their interactions in all but the most quiet of moments. One scene in particular — which both men admit had very little rehearsal and very few takes — finds Tolson and Hoover’s relationship reach its boiling point. What should be a moment of profound realization is undermined by over-the-top bad acting choices. Armie was shooting for Liz Taylor in Who’s Afraid of Virigina Woolf? and wound up with Susan Lucci in All My Children. The same can be said for DiCaprio in Edgar’s inability to deal with his mother’s passing. The scene nods to Hoover’s rumored crossdressing, but screams of Norman Bates in Psycho.

For as much time as these two characters spend together on screen, you’d think our investment in their relationship would be significant. And yet once these characters reach their twilight years, you can’t help but feel we’re watching a college theatre production of Waiting for Godot with twenty-somethings in heavy elderly makeup “acting” like senior citizens.

Shot in only 39 days, J. Edgar is a period piece of the highest technical order, one which perhaps overwhelms its narrative. The hair, makeup, costuming, sets, and lighting are meticulous for the near 50 year span in which the story operates. And yet the post-production team seems to have taken it all a bit too far with a past history color correction scheme that leaches life from the frame, leaving us a whitewashed history that flies in the face of a tale that attempts to lay bare the history of a man who no one really knew beyond what he wanted them to. To make matters worse, Eastwood’s mastery of music and passion for quiet understated Jazz sabotages the film. The sleepy piano driven underscore only amplifies lifeless visuals to drag everything down.

Closing Statement
Like many of the industry people I viewed the film with, I have no doubt there will be some who will fall all over themselves praising the film. I just can’t share that enthusiasm. In fact, my disappointment with the experience seems to grow with time and distance. Save for Judi Dench, Naomi Watts, and an impressive production team, there’s just not much to relish about J. Edgar. Those expecting a late season Oscar juggernaut will be sorely disappointed.

The Verdict
Guilty of criminal ambivalence.

7/10

The Charge
This is what love feels like.

Opening Statement
Listeners of the F This Movie podcast may have heard my DVD Verdict colleagues’ defense of the ambitious failure. Those movies try to do something different because they come from an artistic vision rather than a marketing committee, and sometimes the results aren’t successful. I admire movies that are different too, which is why Beginners inspires mixed feelings for me. There are many endearingly unique touches but here’s a case where the sum of the parts don’t add up to a satisfying viewing experience.

Facts of the Case
Oliver (Ewan McGregor, The Ghost Writer) is clearing out the personal effects of his late father, Hal (Christopher Plummer, The Last Station). Through a series of flashbacks, Oliver recalls his father’s last four years as a just-out-of-the-closet gay widower who lived it up until succumbing to cancer. In the present, depressed Oliver meets a French actress named Anna (Mélanie Laurent, Inglourious Basterds) at a costume party. Can she snap him out of his emotional stupor?

The Evidence
Writer-director Mike Mills (Thumbsucker) shows that he has a handle on maintaining mood. The look and the sound of the movie reflect Oliver’s emotional numbness in the aftermath of his father’s death. The streets seem a little emptier and the world is much quieter than it has been before. It’s a daring move to keep up this down beat atmosphere for the entirety of the movie, especially for a romance. However, after spending about 20 minutes in Oliver’s world, it loses its appeal. His sadness isn’t oppressive enough to be interesting and there aren’t enough glimmers of hope to suggest this mood will improve. There isn’t a strong narrative drive to bring Oliver back to the world of the living, the movie just wallows in his sadness.

The movie rests heavily on Oliver’s emotional state, which is manifest in his work and his words. A cartoonist, presumably, he is drawing a series that details the history of sadness. It’s a high-concept work that he wants to sell to a band called The Sads for their CD release. We also hear Oliver chronicle his own history (and that of his parents) through a series of sequences edited in a collage manner — seemingly random images that share a connection — and almost clinically narrated. “This is 2003. This is what the sun looks like. This is what the sun looked like in 1955. That was the year my parents got married,” Oliver states in a cold monotone. These moments, with some lovely musical assistance, suggest something powerful and profound will be revealed in their starkness. These scenes are among the most effective in the movie and they work well in short bursts. There is some rough poetry being conjured in these moments and the rest of the movie can’t quite match it.

The always-reliable Ewan McGregor gives an interesting, if oddly distracting, performance here. Speaking in an American accent that is so forcefully neutral it sounds unnatural, McGregor’s Oliver invites so much pity that you may want to look away. Even in situations where he’s supposed to pretend to be cheerful, he can’t look anything but sad. “Why are you at a party if you’re so sad?” Anna asks at their precious initial encounter. Yet, she sees enough in him to offer a pity relationship.

There is one scene where Oliver and Anna act like a happy couple. That occurs at a roller rink where an employee tells them they can’t bring a dog into the building. What can they do then? Leave the premises still wearing their rental roller skates, of course. This moment when the pair refuses to comply with society’s rules is the one time that I thought they were having fun together and maybe were in love. The rest of their time together shows no emotional connection and no chemistry. There is a moment, borrowed from many better quirky romances, when they ponder their future together and accept that they don’t know what is next for them. It’s supposed to be a hopeful statement but Oliver and Anna don’t earn it. There is nothing to suggest they should be together except for the urging of the script.

Hal’s coming out is secondary to Oliver’s sadness. Whatever has changed about their relationship is very subtle and Oliver appears to have next to no reaction to his father being gay. Hal comes off as a cute cartoon of a gay man, his fashion sense stalled in the 1960s and his awareness of gay culture some years behind the curve. His lover is an angry gay man who takes every opportunity to remind us he’s entitled to the same treatment as everyone else even though no one in the movie is disrespecting him. The flashback chronicle of Hal’s final years provides a temporal framework for the movie but to what end? We always see Oliver observing his father and hardly ever engaged in his life. When all is revealed, really nothing has changed. Oliver does not have a revelation by remembering his father. In the end, he’s the same sad sack as at the movie’s start and he may want to be with Anna or maybe not.

The most intriguing character of the entire movie is Oliver’s mother, Georgia (Mary Page Keller, Gigantic), seen in flashbacks with her preteen son. In just a few scenes, she conveys dignity, complexity, loneliness, and love. You can see her frustration in her marriage but she has a lovely bond with Oliver. It is the movie’s big missed opportunity that Georgia isn’t given more attention and screen time.

Closing Statement
Beginners does a good job of portraying the state of sadness. The protagonist’s emotional withdrawal from the world and the conspicuously quiet nature of his world are well observed. However, the movie never moves past merely observing Oliver’s sadness. Consequently, I felt no connection to the character or any investment in his relationship with Anna. Director Mills puts in some nice offbeat touches like the collage-edited sequences I mentioned above. I didn’t care so much for the Jack Russell terrier that communicates through subtitles which seems like a deliberate effort to insert cuteness into a movie that’s already too self-conscious of its quirkiness. The movie falls short of delivering what’s promised by the poster’s tagline, “This is what love feels like,” and, after reading that, the little bit of throw-up in your mouth isn’t meant to be what love tastes like either.

The Verdict
5/10

The Oscar-Nominated Short Films 2011: Animation

OPENING: 02/11/2011

STUDIO: Shorts International and Magnolia Pictures

RUN TIME: 80 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Official Site

The Charge
Pixar versus the world.

Opening Statement
Among this year’s five Oscar-nominated animated short films, one has the distinct advantage of being the warm-up act for one of last year’s biggest box office hits. You’ve probably already checked off Day & Night in this category on your Oscar pool just because it’s the only one you’ve heard of. Don’t let that stop you from watching the other four worthy contenders.

Facts of the Case
Leading up to the Oscar telecast on February 27th, Shorts International and Magnolia Pictures are presenting three separate theatrical programs of the short films nominated for this year’s golden statuettes in the Animation, Live Action and Documentary categories. Audiences can see the animation nominees by attending one of the 150 select theaters across the U.S. and Canada or they can view them via Movies On Demand or through the iTunes Store after February 22nd.

The Evidence

Day & Night (6 min.) is undoubtedly the most widely seen short film among the nominees. Over the years, Pixar has led in to each of their feature films with a short crafted with as much attention and care as their main attractions. Typically, they have been cute vignettes that exploit a singular joke. Director Teddy Newton’s film takes the Pixar short to a new level.

Gorgeous CGI animation takes a back seat to the two hand-drawn ink and paint title characters. More accurately, the rich CGI becomes the details that make up the personalities of the simply drawn, polarized characters. Day and Night engage in a battle of one-upmanship to prove which side (read: lifestyle, opinion, value system?) is better. Superb sound editing, expert comic timing, excellent storytelling and great technical polish come together in a dazzling display of creativity. The film says so much though the characters say nothing at all. It’s clear to see why this is the front-runner in the category.

The Gruffalo (27 min.) is a UK-German production based on the children’s book by Julia Donaldson and Axel Scheffler. When a plucky mouse goes in search of acorns, he meets a fox, an owl and a snake, each with the intention of making the mouse their next meal. The mouse outsmarts each of them by inventing a fearsome creature called the Gruffalo who is imminently due at the mouse’s side. How long until the predators wise up to the mouse’s ruse?

Directors Jakob Schuh and Max Lang have crafted a film that feels like a classic fable. The CGI animation approximates the feel of Claymation with the simply designed woodland characters. Backgrounds are beautifully textured and the playful rhythm of the script will appeal to young viewers. The film’s relaxed pace might challenge the attention span of its target audience but it’s refreshing to see a kids’ film told with such graceful restraint.

Let’s Pollute (6 min.) captures the spirit of educational films of the 50s and 60s to satirize America’s heritage of waste and over-consumption. Director Geefwee Boedoe posits an alternate reality where polluting is the main goal of industry rather than the byproduct we try to ignore. However, the reverse psychology message speaks too broadly and hits too uncomfortable square on the nose to be effective satire. The faux educational film is the kind of gag we’d see briefly in the background of an episode of The Simpsons but in a longer form the joke wears itself out. Let’s Pollute is a film made for a hypothetical idiot culture. Boedoe’s mistake is that he hasn’t differentiated between his hypothetical viewers and the actual real world ones. Here’s a film that overstates its message in an inelegant way.

The Lost Thing (15 min.) may have resulted if E.T. crash-landed in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil. This quiet, thoughtful story from Australia follows a boy who befriends a strange creature on the beach that looks something like a Martian octopus driving a mechanized teapot. No one seems to want anything to do with the odd thing. Yet, the boy empathizes with the lost creature and tries to find it a place in this neatly ordered world.

If the CGI animation, directed by Shaun Tan and Andrew Ruhemann, seems a bit stiff and clunky, it’s for good reason. The boy’s world is made up of carefully groomed beaches and deliberately aligned streets and identical buildings. Its denizens, moving about in orderly lines, communicate resignation in their body language. The presence of the lost creature sharply contrasts this staid environment. When the animation is freed up, the payoff is a relief and a delight not unlike sunshine penetrating rain clouds after several days of gloom.

Madagascar, Carnet de Voyage (11 min.) brings scrapbook memories to brilliant life. A traveler gets a taste of contemporary Malagasy life when he’s invited to witness the Famadihani, a ceremony to mark “the turning of the dead.” Bustling city scenes, a lively cross-country journey and the energizing village ritual are fantastically rendered in impressionistic bursts using pencil drawings, watercolors, CGI assist, and any other tool at the disposal of French writer-director Bastien Dubois.

This is my personal favorite film of the nominees because its animation conveys a sense of sheer unbridled joy. The screen is practically hotwired into the protagonist’s brain as his excitement of discovery and his marveling at the vibrancy of life become our own. The wonderful music and sound, the mixture of techniques and the beautiful colors are a feast for the eyes and ears. It’s a personal travelogue that communicates a universal invitation to experience the world and embrace diversity.

Closing Statement
Instead of car commercials, soft drink ads and insultingly stupid movie trivia slides, wouldn’t it be grand if theaters preceded the main feature with a quality short film? I wish we could be exposed to these kinds of works all through the year in theaters but maybe it’s even better that some are made the main attractions in a compilation program rather than just the bonuses to another feature. Animated shorts represent a concentrated effort by veterans stretching their creative muscles and newcomers showing their mettle. There is great artistry displayed in these five films and seeing them all together in one sitting makes for a very satisfying program.

The Verdict
8/10

Nora’s Will

OPENING: 10/08/2010 (Selected cities)

STUDIO: Cacerola Films

RUN TIME: 92m

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Can’t we just get along?

Opening Statement
Originally titled 5 Days Without Nora, this Mexican sensation has received several awards in its own country, but has gone relatively unnoticed in the U.S. Nora’s Will is a bittersweet drama about a man forced to look at his own character and how he affects the people around him. The film is tender, touching, and has a good share of laughs to break up the dark tone.

Facts of the Case
Jose delivers groceries to the home of his ex-wife of twenty years Nora, only to learn that she has just committed suicide. Because of Jewish practices during the time of Passover, Nora must be buried that day or wait nearly five days until after Passover to do so. Since their son Ruben and his family is away, Jose chooses to wait and thus begins his babysitting of the body. Jose, aggravated by the religious practices of those around him, soon learns that the burial will not be a simple matter, since Jewish customs forbid suicide victims from being buried in a normal fashion. This is a major inconvenience to the mourning family, who want nothing more than to find a resting place for the body. Jose wants a quick and easy ceremony, but his apathetic beliefs conflict with those around him. Ironically, this is all part of Nora’s will, to bring the family together, even if in a time of sadness.

The Evidence
Although Nora’s Will is the debut film by Mexican filmmaker Mariana Chenillo, the film is far from dead and lifeless as the Facts of the Case might suggest. Chenillo takes the familiar premise of the troubled family and creates a warm and tender story, told with much emotion and never hurried. The film begins with Nora carefully setting up the table for what we can see will be an elaborate Passover meal. Every utensil is perfectly aligned and the china is the utmost quality, showing the meticulous nature of a character who will soon be absent from the rest of the picture. Shortly after the table is ready, Nora swallows several bottles of pills, thus ending her own life before the beginning of the Passover celebration. This is no coincidence, as Nora knew that her own death would force the family together. Well, for at least a little while. Within hours, Nora’s home is flooded with relatives, friends, and people from various walks of life there to assist Jose in what he believes should be an easy task. What becomes difficult is the juggling of beliefs and traditions between the numerous people under one roof.

Nora’s Will is a drama rich in depth and personality, but also has a fair amount of black comedy spread throughout. This comes from the wide array of characters present in the script. We have the nearly blind Aunt Leah; Jewish man Moises, who has been sent to pray over the body of Nora but is not quite ready for the irreverence of Jose; and Fabiana, the housekeeper, whose Catholic beliefs conflict with just about everyone else’s. In the middle of it all is Jose, an atheist, who in old age has become quite grumpy and has no problem going great lengths to offend others. When a local rabbi comes to the house with other Jewish followers to help with arrangements, Jose orders a pizza with extra ham, bacon, and sausage. This, of course, is more than insulting to the rabbi, who leaves upset, much to the amusement of Jose.

Jose’s actions aren’t without repercussions, as soon he finds himself an outsider in the family, since his actions are doing nothing to help an already painful situation. Jose insists that “everything she did was just to manipulate us” and hates to see Nora in any control of his surroundings, even after her death. The others, unconcerned with Jose’s selfish attitude, are looking for closure to the tragedy, a tragedy Jose is an unwilling participant in. Jose is ripe in age and believes what he believes, but he is finally beginning to recognize how his actions and words are causing pain to those around him. It took the death of someone important for Jose learn about some of the basics in life — respect, forgiveness, and compromise.

Nora’s Will is a pleasant film with wonderful characters and for a film that centers around a dead body, I found myself laughing a number of times. Nora’s Will could be loosely compared to Alfred Hitchcock’s classic The Trouble With Harry, another dark comedy centered around a dead body, but at no time did that film take itself seriously. Nora’s Will not only takes itself seriously, but brings up questions that many struggle with. How do we to get along with people of other worldviews? In what ways do our beliefs directly affect others around us? We can’t ignore that there are fundamental differences between us, but we still have to somehow live together. I won’t pretend that the film answers those questions or even pretends to, but what the film does accomplish is quite clear. It presents the story of a man, a flawed man, like you or me, and how he might deal with those same questions. How we answer those questions….well, that’s for you to figure out.

Closing Statement
The screenplay itself is rich with tangible characters and the story gets to the heart of issues that people will undoubtedly ask themselves at one time or another. If a dark, comedic drama is what you are yearning to see, Nora’s Will should serve you well. It isn’t a film I would see several times, but it was worth seeing once and I would recommend it to those looking for a uniquely warm and touching film experience.

The Verdict

7/10

How Do You Know

OPENING: 12/17/2010

STUDIO: Columbia Pictures

RUN TIME: 116m

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The bad days make the good ones better.

Opening Statement
Blah. Yes, blah. That single word best sums up my feelings after watching How Do You Know. The film itself wasn’t necessarily terrible, it was just extremely mediocre. It would be inaccurate to say that the film dragged, because doing so would imply that it was going somewhere. Even the brilliant mind of James L. Brooks combined with a stellar cast couldn’t keep How Do You Know from faltering under such an unnecessarily long running time.

Facts of the Case
Lisa was just cut from the Olympic softball team and playing ball was the only thing she knew. She tries to get a grasp on what her life now holds, but is having trouble finding secure footing. Her relationship with Major League boyfriend Matty isn’t a bed of roses, but she does have another man knocking at her door. That man is George, a successful executive who is dealing with his own monumental troubles.

The Evidence
With the pairing once again of Jack Nicholson and James L. Brooks, the comparison of Brooks’ How Do You Know to As Good As It Gets will inevitably happen. As Good As It Gets was chock full of earnest moments, huge laughs, and memorable lines, earning the film two Oscars and a whopping twenty-three other awards. How Do You Know, on the other hand, is lacking in sincerity or real laughs, cursing the film to the wretched depths of the Wal-Mart DVD bargain bin. Yes, there are moments in the film meant to be touching and heartfelt, but the scenes felt staged and predictable, which is a shame considering the undeniable caliber of actors in the film. Dozens of scenes are meant to stir up care for the characters, but the final product is a film that screams generic as it meanders along on its not-so-merry way.

The problem of How Do You Know boils down to the failure to create an engaging story and relatable characters. George (Paul Rudd) faces a possible federal indictment concerning stock fraud and wants nothing more than to escape the severity of the situation he is in. His father (Jack Nicholson), who started the company, wants to stay clear of any allegations and any concern for his son is superficial. In the middle of this, Lisa (Reese Witherspoon), who has been recently axed from her softball career, has lunch with George, who is a mental wreck having just been thrown into this legal nightmare. He undoubtedly likes her, but she doesn’t give him a second thought. The two part ways and Lisa soon begins dating Matty (Owen Wilson). Thus begins the love triangle of sorts with George in the far outfield. The story is in no way engaging because anyone who has seen anything will know what the outcome will be. That isn’t always a bad thing, as long as the getting to the outcome is an enjoyable experience. In this case, the characters have little to do except inch the screenplay along one page at a time. I wish I could spell out more plot points in the story, but there really aren’t any. What you see is what you get. There are no last minute pieces of evidence to bring the Facts of the Case (noted above) into a new light.

The average person, myself included, might have a hard time sympathizing with a person whose extensive history of success led them to a cushy life in a high rise. With As Good As It Gets, moviegoers could relate to Carol, the struggling single mother, or Melvin, the insecure, although obnoxiously proud, protagonist. Some people could have related to Simon, the persecuted homosexual who wanted nothing than to be accepted. Unlike those characters, the four characters in How Do You Know lead extremely successful lives and didn’t seem to have many hardships before the start of the movie. Even the first few minutes of the film focus on Lisa’s rise into fame as a star athlete. George is the CEO of a successful company whose father is living on the spoils of his successful enterprise. Matty is a famous pitcher who can’t go anywhere without having to sign autographs. Not all characters need to be relatable, but as an audience member, I do need one.

One admirable thing about Brooks’ is that his direction and cinematography are very unpretentious. At no point is he trying to stage artsy shots or wanting the direction to be noticed. Brooks is simply taking on the role of storyteller, but in this case, the story itself is lacking. How Do You Know is filled with extraneous scenes and characters, making the film plod along from scene to scene. An entire subplot surrounding George’s secretary did nothing for the film but add minutes to the running time. I would make the assumption that her character is meant to be a form of comic relief to George’s stressful life, except for that her character wasn’t funny. She simply appears in a few scenes with her irrelevant subplot of a pregnancy. One completely unnecessary scene, which occurred well into halfway into the film, involved Lisa and her psychiatrist His advice to her is to “figure out what you want to do and ask people for help.” Not only did Lisa not really figure out what she wanted, but she certainly didn’t ask anyone for help. Even in the end she is just along for the ride, not really sure of much at all.

Closing Statement
I have to remind myself that How Do You Know was supposed to be a comedy. I laughed maybe a handful of times, but most of what was written to be funny just passed by without getting so much as a smirk. It is a shame that this failed to deliver as I wanted it to, because James Brooks is a truly talented individual. In the end, How Do You Know contained too many scenes that should have been left on the cutting room floor, and the scenes that are necessary aren’t engaging. Even the best artists will occasionally create something that just doesn’t work and How Do You Know may be that film for James L. Brooks. We can hope that this strike is merely an off day in a long list of line drives and occasional home runs.

The Verdict

4/10

LENNONYC

OPENING: 2010

STUDIO: Two Lefts Don’t Make A Right Productions, Dakota Group

RUN TIME: 115m

The Charge
He was an artist. Why would you want to kill an artist?

Opening Statement
LENNONYC is a remarkably personal film, giving viewers a candid glimpse into Lennon’s life, from his struggle with drugs and alcohol to his adoration for Yoko and his son Sean. Fans of John Lennon will be very happy with the film’s portrayal of John as it paints him as a humorous and deeply passionate individual.

Facts of the Case
LENNONYC follows the life of legendary ex-Beatle John Lennon from his move to New York City until his untimely death in 1980. We are treated to large amounts of unseen films, photography and unheard audio recordings that have not been shown until this film. We also see numerous interviews with Yoko Ono and the countless musicians who spent time with Lennon during his last years. Lennon arrived in New York City in 1971 where he immediately began rallying for peace alongside the well known activists of the time. Lennon’s ability to engage the population against the government caught the nervous eye of the FBI, who spent a great deal of time trying to get Lennon deported. In 1976, Lennon was granted a green card on the same day Sean was born. Both of these occurrences brought him much joy, starting a new chapter of his life.

The Evidence
I was given the opportunity to view LENNONYC at the Santa Fe Film Festival and I am very pleased to have seen it. As a lifelong Beatles fan, I have always regarded John Lennon as an extremely clever person, with a sense of humor few possess. Not only do we see Lennon as the funny man he is, but this documentary shows us his dark side as well. Never before had I heard the story of John and Yoko’s separation, a time of deep despair for John in which his days were filled with drugs and alcohol until their reunion in New York over a year later. This separation began the night of the re-election of Richard Nixon in 1972, something which John took very personally after his endless work urging 18-year olds to vote. On the night of Nixon’s victory, John slept with another woman, thus humiliating Yoko and causing a break in their relationship. Upon their separation, John moved to Los Angeles, where his life seemed to be spiraling downward because of his unwanted time away from Yoko. I had never heard of this period of John’s life before this film and my admiration for John has grown because of it. The admiration stems not from his life of decadence, but from the remorse and healing that came afterwards. This healing stimulated change, a change which eventually took John to the place in life where he was the happiest.

It’s easy for people to revere the artists that we appreciate without a real clue of who the person really is, because we usually only know them by their art or what is presented by the media. Sure, a person’s art can be a reflection of who that person is, but merely on an impersonal level. Someone can write dark songs or sad poetry, but we can still look to that person as flawless because we so much love what they do. LENNONYC breaks down that wall of idolatry because while the music was an important part of the film, John Lennon the man was the focus. John struggled and this film lets us in on that struggle. Although LENNONYC touches on the albums produced during his time in NYC, they were only included because of how they played into his life at the time. John saw the injustices of the world and put it to music, often causing much controversy. In 1972, John Lennon wrote “Woman is the N*gg*r of the World”, a song speaking out against the inequality between men and women across all cultures. (For the record, I did censor the above word myself.) The controversy surrounding this song led to an appearance on the Dick Cavett show, where John and Yoko were given the opportunity to explain the context of the tune. This song speaks to the heart of John’s essence. He sees something wrong in the world and knows that change is possible in some form. Change may not have always occurred the way he wanted, but it never stopped him from doing his part. In fact, much of the film is devoted to John’s dedication to the beliefs he held and even though has last few years were in the role of a family man, he still cared deeply about the events in the world.

Closing Statement
LENNONYC is a must see for fans of John Lennon or anyone who wants a glimpse of the United States during a period of political unrest. This documentary presents Lennon not only as the rock star he was, but as a very personal human being who at times was very insecure and had intense struggles. Lennon loved people and wanted nothing more than to make people laugh and enjoy great music. In the end, he was loved by those close to him and adored by millions around the world.

The Verdict

8/10

Score: A Hockey Musical

OPENING: 10/22/2010 (Canada)

STUDIO: Mongrel Media

RUN TIME: 92 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Hockey is air. Hockey is water. Hockey is life.

Opening Statement
Canadians have few cultural sacred cows but one constant surely is ice hockey, the nation’s official winter sport. The fast and fierce pastime is gleefully repurposed for the teen romance and coming-of-age tale Score: A Hockey Musical. Is this unique take on the rough sport a breakaway hit or does it deserve to sit in the penalty box?

Facts of the Case
Though he’s never played on a hockey team in his life, 17-year-old Farley Gordon (Noah Reid) is a stick-handling phenom. His skills catch the attention of the eccentric owner of a junior league team who signs Farley to be his next star player. A home-schooled pacifist, thanks to his parents (Olivia Newton-John and Marc Jordan), Farley isn’t quite ready for the world of professional hockey and the expectation to engage in fisticuffs as a regular part of the game. To make matters worse, his best friend and girl next door, Eve (Allie MacDonald), is being romanced by a slick European pianist and Farley’s not happy about it. Torn between the values instilled in him by his parents and the pressure to fit in with his teammates, Farley confronts his identity crisis in song.

The Evidence
A musical set in the world of hockey: it’s the kind of high concept idea you find scrawled on the back of a damp beer coaster. Admirably, writer-director Michael McGowan (Saint Ralph) developed the gimmick into a full-fledged movie that’s good-natured and exuberant even if it never grows beyond its one-dimensional premise. It’s depiction of hockey is nowhere near the unbelievable antics of, say, Youngblood or the Mighty Ducks but what’s recreated on screen is still an unconvincing approximation of the sport. The officiating, for example, is completely absent in the game scenes. Sure, fighting is quietly condoned in the sport but referees break up brawls and hand out penalties. At one point, a battle royale ensues without anyone blowing a whistle. It’s fantasy, I know, but violence in the game is a key part of the story so this gross misrepresentation of how the game is played becomes a big distraction. Standing in for the missing referees, I will call the movie’s most brazen infractions.

On the teen romance element, icing is the call since there is no chemistry or emotion between Farley and Eve. He’s a dope because he doesn’t see how wonderful she is until it’s too late; she’s hopeless because she’s been crushing on a dweeb for so long. However, they are cute teenage neighbours so the script puts them through the usual romantic paces along with the standard rival for Eve’s affection. Whether or not the two kids get together in the end is a non-issue because there are no surprises.

High-sticking is called against the script which is peppered with so many precious cultural references that Juno scribe Diablo Cody would think she needs to make more time for TV viewing. The movie tries hard to establish its unique identity but at times it feels like you’re getting sprayed with Canadiana so the producers can claim their tax breaks. The dialogue (both spoken and sung) is too clever for its own good and sometimes comes across sounding unnatural as the actors struggle to fit the cumbersome words into a smooth rhythm. Some lyrics are plainly illogical, for instance when Farley’s mother sings, “Look at the temperature, it’s colder than Venus / You’ll get frostbite on your…” The setup for the suggestive rhyme is obvious but everyone knows that Venus is closer to the sun than earth and with surface temperatures of over 460 degrees Celsius (860 degrees Fahrenheit) it’s the wrong metaphor for wintry conditions.

The songs themselves beg to be penalized for roughing, as the central conceit of the project is unpleasant to the ear. McGowan also takes responsibility as the chief lyricist and songwriting is not his forte. Aside from the finale number, Score lacks anything that resembles fully realized songs. There are, however, sections of the script that are “sung” with musical accompaniment. Alas, there are no memorable melodies nor catchy refrains that will stay with you after you’ve left the theatre. A few of the musical moments feel incomplete as they simply end just when the momentum of the music should develop the scene further. Part of the appeal of this film genre is to hear entire songs so short sections of the script turned into little musical teases doesn’t satisfy.

Returning to the depiction of the game in this movie, the on-ice scenes blatantly commit slashing. Hockey looks like it’s a solo sport, as the hotshot Farley never seems to need his teammates. Only two things ever happen during a game: either Farley skates circles around the opposing team and he puts the puck in the goal, or two players are fighting. Apparently, that’s everything you need to know about hockey. Of course, there’s no time to stage any other action on the ice since no game lasts for more than 30 seconds.

Noah Reid deserves to be singled out as the first star of the game. He’s playing a type that has become all too familiar in contemporary comedies but he’s doing more than a Canadian take on the Michael Cera persona. Farley has an honest naivety about him that is believable even when the parts that describe his background — his parents were into vegetarianism and Yo-Yo Ma before they were fashionable — sound contrived. He really seems to be grappling with the dilemmas of wanting to establish his own identity from that of his parents and resolve his masculine image. McGowan has said that Reid was the first person to audition for the role of Farley and he thought he was perfect. Reid is certainly capable in the role and he is a very good singer.

Closing Statement
Score: A Hockey Musical is a forgettable musical and a limp hockey story but it has a light, goofy tone that some will find charming if they’re in the right mood. From the many famous Canadians making cameos in the movie you can tell there was a lot of good will behind it and that sort of enthusiasm can be infectious. Unable to make much out of its half-baked gimmick, the movie resorts to a self-conscious quirkiness and that too is a very Canadian thing.

The Verdict
5/10

Jackass 3D

OPENING: 10/14/2010

STUDIO: MTV Films

RUN TIME: 94m

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Schadenfreude – noun.
(pronounced [shahd-n-froi-duh],)
satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else’s misfortune.

Opening Statement
Johnny Knoxville and his band of heroes are back for the third big screen installment of the Jackass franchise. Those familiar with the series know exactly what to expect: a collection of bits including crude jokes, moronic stunts and plenty of potty humor. Jackass 3D takes the 3D experience to new heights, or should I say, new depths, showing us images few can stomach in 2D, and like earlier films as well as the television series, Jackass 3D is full of great bits and not-so-funny bits. That being said, if the previous adventures put you in stitches, this will very likely do the same.

The Evidence
Jackass debuted on MTV a whopping ten years ago and Johnny Knoxville is, by some strange act of fate, a household name. Thanks to the tomfoolery of the Jackass series, Knoxville’s charismatic presence landed him leading roles in The Dukes of Hazzard and The Ringer, neither of which are remotely entertaining, but I’m sure he received a respectable paycheck for each. Other members of the Jackass crew have had successful spin-offs of their own, including Viva La Bam and Wildboyz, both of which aired for at least two seasons on MTV. I have no trouble admitting my love for the Jackass series as I tuned in weekly to the MTV show and have somewhat followed the boys ever since. I even hunted down the Big Brother and CKY videos to get more footage of these knuckleheads before the creation of Jackass. My fascination with the series stems from the fact that many of us as kids did the same kinds of stunts as these guys, although maybe not quite to the same degree. Every male remembers building ramps that were sure to fail, tying firecrackers to every imaginable object, or playing endless pranks on our own friends. The difference is that Johnny Knoxville, Bam Margera and the others videotaped their acts of foolishness and proceeded to sell those tapes for millions of dollars. People can call these guys idiots, but at the same time, they are in a way geniuses.

Jackass 3D will be satisfying to those who have followed the show, because like it the film is filled with good skits, bad skits, and downright disgusting skits. Most of the latter I can do without, but I knew what I was getting into when I entered the theater. The allure of Jackass will boil down to whether or not you enjoy watching others hurt themselves. Schadenfreude is the term for that errr…condition, and Jackass plays into that mindset without fail. When we see Ryan Dunn revving the engine on a tiny motorcycle before a jump, we know that it can’t possibly end well. When we see Steve-O entering a pen with a full grown ram to see if a trumpet will “soothe the savage beast” through music, we know that also cannot end well. The question is whether this sounds hilarious or like a complete waste of twelve bucks. The answer really depends on what tickles your funny bone, and your response to those short descriptions will answer that question. More than likely, you are familiar with the show, but for those who aren’t, be warned, Jackass 3D is not a date movie. Bits like Lamborghini Tooth Pull and Poo Cocktail Supreme aren’t going to win over any hearts as they are nothing short of stomach churning.

Jackass 3D isn’t all about people getting hurt. In the film are some genuinely clever skits and Midget Bar Fight instantly comes to mind as one of the movie’s funniest skits. Wee Man takes his midget lady friend to a bar, only to be confronted by her midget boyfriend. From out of nowhere, several other midgets get involved and a fully staged public bar fight goes down. Other skits are flat out cruel and those who have followed the show are probably familiar with Bam Margera’s fear of snakes. In one scene, the boys trick Bam into falling into an eleven foot pit filled with rubber snakes, instantly sending Bam into panic mode. Within seconds, the pranksters begin pouring buckets of real snakes into the pit leaving Bam no way of getting out. Interestingly, this bit is very reflective of the late Jackass era skits as after the MTV show reached its full success, the anonymity of the boys quickly disappeared and rarely could they stage pranks in public without being recognized. Consequently, the humor turned toward the cast playing jokes on each other and thus losing some of the public Candid Camera-type charm of the previous seasons. Like a comedian who won’t curse, this early anonymity forced the boys to concoct bits that were genuinely clever, simply to have enough footage to fill an episode. However, when that was taken away, the films took a huge turn toward the pure disgusting, consisting of well…anything goes. Even during the filming of the first film, Jackass: The Movie (2002), the stars were relatively unknown enough to stage public stunts and some of those bits are the best in the film. Jackass: Number 2 and Jackass 3D both lack the innocence of the early series, partially because of super stardom of the cast, but also because of the unending inclusion of fecal matter. Still, Jackass 3D contains enough good bits to keep the fans laughing, if you are into that sort of thing.

Closing Statement
There isn’t really anything deep to discuss here as Jackass 3D is exactly what you would expect. If you have been pleased with the previous work of Johnny Knoxville and his crew, you will find much in this film to laugh at, but unlike the TV series, there is much reason to close your eyes as well.

The Verdict

7/10

Waiting for “Superman”

OPENING: 10/08/2010

STUDIO: Paramount Vantage

RUN TIME: 102 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
The fate of our country won’t be decided on a battlefield, it will be determined in a classroom.

Opening Statement
A child who doesn’t finish high school will earn less and be eight times more likely to go to prison. In this documentary, we meet five kids from across the United States hopeful for their future. They all want to do well in school and get into college. They are surrounded by adults who love and support them. However, their only chance of getting into a great school depends on whether their number is picked in a lottery.

Facts of the Case
Academy Award winning director Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth) turns his lens on the state of public education in America and what he sees is distressing. It’s a broken system where high schools are considered “failure factories” and teachers have no incentive to produce results. That’s indicative of a bigger systemic failure in a society where more money is spent to incarcerate an individual for four years than to send someone through 12 years of private school.

Among 30 developed countries, the United States ranks 25th in math and 21st in science. There is a steady decline in the number of students receiving a quality education from the American public school system. It’s a looming catastrophe when you consider that each future generation running the country will be dumber than the previous one. That’s a disaster from which no superhero can save us. Unless, however, we find that superhero in ourselves and those ordinary citizens around us.

There are alternatives to the broken system and Waiting for “Superman” shares the stories of some of the teachers that are making a difference and the education reformers trying to change things for the better. We also meet the kids who just want to do their best in school and their parents struggling to ensure they have a fair chance to succeed.

The Evidence
You’re wrong if you think the subject of this documentary doesn’t concern you just because you don’t have a child in the American public school system. Whether or not you’re in school, have kids or live in another country; you are affected by the quality of public education. The film reminds us that we all have a personal stake in it and Guggenheim even begins with his own disclosure: he sends his kids to a private school. After confessing the betrayal of his belief in the public school system, the director embarks on a sobering exploration of what is wrong with it. Interviews with schoolteachers and education administrators shed light on the mismanagement of the school system. Chronicling the lives of five kids hoping to win spots in better schools provides an effective dramatic arc to the film. The use of animation makes the cold, hard facts about the system’s failure easily comprehensible.

The film will certainly ruffle some feathers as it clearly points the finger at the biggest problem with the system. Bad teachers produce bad students, it’s as plain as that. One of the reformers interviewed is Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of D.C. Public Schools, whose attempts to improve teacher performance were met with controversy. Another featured interview subject is Geoffrey Canada, president and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone in Harlem, New York. His effort to target a specific neighborhood and improve the number of college-qualified students coming from there would demonstrate that kids from any socio-economic background can achieve success if given a proper chance.

The film considers charter schools as an alternative to the public system. Charter schools receive public funding but they operate outside of the rules that govern public schools and they are accountable for their results. They are the glimmer of hope for families that can’t afford a private school but there is high demand for the few spaces available in the charters. For Anthony in Washington, D.C., Daisy in L.A., Emily in Silicon Valley, Francisco in the Bronx, New York, and Bianca in Harlem, New York; getting a spot in one of these schools could be the difference between graduating from high school or eventually dropping out. The film reaches an excruciatingly tense climax as the kids wait to hear the results of a lottery that awards the limited spaces. After getting to know these kids and their parents, you understand that so much is on the line as those precious few spots are handed out. Sure, the lottery is the fairest way to select from the applicants yet it seems so patently unfair.

Guggenheim does a great job balancing the big picture problem of public education with the intimate personal stories of the families. The corruption of the institution is abstract and the consequences on a personal scale combine to expose a system that’s failing the public interest. Though the film shows plenty that’s wrong, it offers hope that the system can be fixed. Those individuals who are pushing to reform the system are lively and optimistic enough to convince you they will make a difference — but they can’t do it alone.

Closing Statement
Guggenheim is a skillful activist filmmaker who can turn a big issue into a call for your personal involvement. The film will make you angry and make you think. It will also make you want to thank that teacher who made a difference in your life so many years ago by simply doing a good, professional job.

The Verdict
8/10

The Social Network

OPENING: 10/01/2010

STUDIO: Columbia Pictures

RUN TIME: 121 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.

Opening Statement
I have to admit, I was skeptical when I first heard that David Fincher was making a movie about Facebook. Sure, David Fincher is one of my favorite living directors (I regard his Zodiac as one of the best films of the past decade), but a Facebook movie? The idea seemed like such a blatant attempt at being “trendy”; perhaps this year’s equivalent of something like The Net. However, once critics actually saw the film they proclaimed it one of the best of the year. Does The Social Network live up to the hype? In a word: Yes.

Facts of the Case
The film offers a partially fictionalized look at Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg, Zombieland). We first encounter Mark as a student at Harvard University, where he’s on a date with his girlfriend (Rooney Mara, A Nightmare on Elm Street). They’re engaged in a conversation he thinks is going quite well but which she finds obnoxious. She breaks up with him then and there. Frustrated and bitter, Mark storms up to his dorm room and lashes out at her on his blog. Perhaps feeling a misguided sense of animosity towards women in general, Mark then quickly proceeds to create a program that allows the male students to examine side-by-side photos of certain female students and then vote on which of the two is better-looking. The program is such an immediate success that Harvard’s entire system crashes due to the overload. This earns Mark six months of academic probation and the attention of quite a few people on campus.

Soon after, Mark is approached by three students who are in need of his assistance. They want to create a social networking website for Harvard. Mark is intrigued by the idea and sees potential in it. He agrees to their proposal, but rather than working on the site they’ve requested he begins building his own website with the assistance of his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus). As Mark’s website (initially called “the facebook”) starts to explode in popularity, the students who gave him the idea grow increasingly angry and begin to seek ways to take legal action. Mark’s life eventually enters a furious maelstrom of lawsuits, money, and betrayal, all underscored by the meteoric success of Facebook.

The Evidence
As I was browsing the reviews of The Social Network in the days before I saw the film, I noticed comparisons to Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane kept popping up. Generally, a favorable comparison is some sort of critical hyperbole indicating the film in question is one of the greatest ever made, but in this instance it’s entirely appropriate. Not because The Social Network is one of the greatest films of all time (it’s remarkably good, but anything beyond that shouldn’t be stated without a reasonable passage of time), but rather because it often plays like a modern-day remake of Welles’ great film; a character-driven tale with epic themes that finds its power in very intimate moments.

It’s somewhat astonishing to consider what the film achieves in its lightning-quick two-hour running time; there are more ideas and layers to consider than in any other film I’ve seen this year. The two men primarily responsible for its success are David Fincher and writer Aaron Sorkin, two consummate professionals whose many successes far outweigh their failures. The Social Network finds them both at the peak of their powers. Fincher once again demonstrates his superb dramatic instincts and tightly-controlled attention to detail, while Sorkin’s customary intelligence, wit, and passion are freed from the heavy-handed sermonizing that sometimes drags down his work. The film is absurdly tight on a technical level, from Jeff Cronenworth’s elegant cinematography and Kirk Baxter/Angus Wall’s crisp editing, to an atypical but effective score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross.

And yet, for all the film’s technical virtues (which pretty much guarantee it will earn a boatload of Oscar nominations), The Social Network‘s resonance largely lies in the intense emotional undercurrent beneath this breathlessly paced saga. Much has been made of the fact that the film’s portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg is not exactly flattering, but it should also be noted the portrayal is by no means unsympathetic. Some may regard him a spiteful creep, but I found a well-intentioned, intelligent, ambitious young man whose social inhibitions and relationship problems caused him to make a couple of crucial mistakes. Plenty of good people make the sort of mistakes Zuckerberg did; it’s just that his mistakes involved a lot more money and publicity.

Jesse Eisenberg is a terrific choice for the role of Mark, depicting him as a young man whose wheels are spinning so quickly he’s almost always many pages ahead of everyone else. He’s unstoppable when he puts his mind to solving a technical issue or developing an idea, but seems awkward and uncomfortable when confronted with anything that needs a more personal response. This particularly hurts Eduardo, a fundamentally nice person who knows that Mark is his friend but needs to feel it. Andrew Garfield is an actor who impresses me more and more each time I see him; his exposed-nerve performance as Eduardo plays beautifully against Eisenberg’s deeply introverted work. Justin Timberlake is also spot-on as former Napster head honcho Sean Parker, his rock star energy perfectly suited to the film’s most colorful role.

Closing Statement
I can’t recommend The Social Network highly enough. It’s an ambitious film that succeeds on every level, from its blazing opening act to that devastatingly perfect final scene. Go see it now.

The Verdict
10/10